Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!inmet!Anonymous From: Anonymous@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: racism Message-ID: <1973@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 01:05:35 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1973 Posted: Mon Feb 18 01:05:35 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 20:16:10 EST Lines: 69 Nf-ID: #R:amdahl:-113900:inmet:3900169:000:3328 Nf-From: inmet!Anonymous Feb 16 10:52:00 1985 ***** inmet:net.flame / amdahl!gam / 9:38 am Feb 15, 1985 amdahl!gam == > < L S Chabot == > > < You know, there are a lot more Asians in the "hard sciences" that either > < Whites or other minorities. I think we should make laws to prefer non-Asians > < to Asians in mathematics, genetics, and computer science jobs. Until the > < non-Asians are up with the Asians. And then we can call it "Affirmative > < Action" so that it sounds like a good thing to do. > < > < But did you know that Affirmative Action doesn't help poor Blacks? It helps > < middle- and upper-class Blacks, but not the poor. Yet another well-intended > < government program goes awry. > > Oh, yes, let's define a program as a failure because it doesn't help everybody. > Yes, let's. Okay, "Affirmative Action doesn't help poor Blacks". Nice > indefensible statement: obviously any blacks who were poor and are now > benefitted, why they've got jobs, middle-class jobs, so they're no longer poor! Well, not quite: "Black males with 8 to 11 years of schooling, and with less than 6 years of work experience earned 79% the income of white males of the same description in 1967 (before quotas) and this *fell* to 69% by 1978 (after quotas)." > Besides, it's even easier to just condemn a program because it doesn't help > anyway. Good grief, religions help some, but not everyone, so let's condemn > them too. As I've shown, it not only doesn't help, it makes things worse. Examined more closely, preferrential discrimination hurts the very people it claims to help: by forcing employers to hire: "While government pressures to hire from designated groups created an incentive for employers to include representatives of such groups among their employees, continuing government scrutiny of their sub- sequent pay, promotion, and discharge patterns made it especially risky to have employees from these groups who did not work out so well. In short, the tendency was to increase the demand for 'safe' employees from the government-designated groups -- individuals with a college education or substantial work experience -- and to *reduce* the demand for those lacking such education and experience." > The argument about asians vs non-asians neatly ignores the problem of slavery > and discrimination in the US. Pretty tidy, eh? Why, we can just ignore > Selma! Besides, the asian railroad workers can be brought up, and internment > camps. Who really cares that it's not comparable to centuries of slavery, or > that non- asians were never slaves of asians here, or vice-versa. I'm not defending racism at all. I am pointing out that well- intentioned programs don't always work out as the designers hoped. I am also pointing out that being an "oppressed minority" does not imply poverty or lack of success, and that some minorities are actually better off (financially) than the "white majority." > But while we're at it, let's cut down on the inordinate number of > male flamers in net.flame. Yes, why *are* there more male flamers, anyway .... ? [ All quoted " " material above is from "The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell ]. Yea, maybe this should go in net.politics but I can't tell the difference between that and net.flame anyway. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam ----------