Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich
From: eich@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Reverse Discrimination - (nf)
Message-ID: <2792@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Sep-83 22:36:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2792
Posted: Sun Sep 11 22:36:28 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Sep-83 23:03:41 EDT
Lines: 20

#R:cca:-566000:uiuccsb:12700003:000:963
uiuccsb!eich    Sep 11 20:35:00 1983



To implement affirmative action quotas, the Law must distinguish among the
various parties and determine who shall benefit from preferential treatment
and of necessity who shall suffer it.  I.e. the Law must *discriminate*.

Because current statutes and policies have determined that formerly oppressed
(or otherwise agrieved) groups shall now benefit by a discrimination, this 
"affirmative action" has become known as "reverse" discrimination.

Was Charlie Kaufmann being ironic when he wielded Orwell's neologism "newspeak,"
or was he just mongering its currently debased form, a la the tendentious 
National Council of Teachers of English?  Smug declamations like Kaufmann's
coupled with abusages of Orwell serve only to instruct students of the new
newspeak, i.e. the practice of labeling "newspeak" any clear identification
("reverse discrimination") applied to modern statist euphemisms ("affirmative
action").  Orwell would have appreciated the irony.