Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Affirmative action
Message-ID: <1013@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 04:31:51 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1013
Posted: Sat Feb 23 04:31:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 08:12:06 EST
References: <343@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <360@sftri.UUCP> <257@mhuxr.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article <257@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes:
>                        However, none of the foes of affirmative action
>has proposed anything concrete to undo the pervasive effects of
>discrimination in american society. SImply passing laws that state
>"henceforth there will be no discrimination" is good and necessary.

It is sufficient.  See below.

>But if we do nothing else it will take an approximately equal number
>of centuries to undo that discrimination. I argue that the pump MUST
>be primed. Affirmative action is an attempt to prime that pump.

The centuries of discrimination *do* *not* accumulate.  The people who
were wronged long ago, and those who wronged them, are dead.  The length
of time it would take today's disadvantaged groups to "catch up", given
equal treatment, is much shorter than that.  Equal treatment would take
the form of equally good education, and equal job opportunities for those
with equal qualifications.  Equal treatment beginning now would allow the
young members of disadvantaged groups to catch up within a year or two of
graduating from school.  Older people would have a harder time; it may
make sense to provide them with opportunities for remedial education.

On the other hand, reverse discrimination would provide members of
disadvantaged groups with secure jobs that they need do nothing to keep.
Under such conditions, reality would end up justifying the "lazy nigger"
stereotype.

>                        These blankets statements ("Affirmative action
>means that the company hires those with inferior qualifications
>on the basis of sex or race") are silly. Obviously some qualified
>minorities and women were found, from ELizabeth Dole and Jeane
>Kirkpatrick down to Jane Doe down the hall from my office.

If there are enough qualified women to meet the percentage quotas, then
no "reverse discrimination" is implied by meeting the quotas, no quotas are
needed, and "fairness in hiring" laws would be sufficient.  If there are not
enough qualified women to meet the quota, then employers must hire more women
than the number of women who are qualified.  Do I have to show you a
mathematical proof?  That "silly" "blanket statement" you ridicule happens
to be the truth.

>                                                           ANd if
>you don't think these people are the result of affirmative action,
>ask yourself: would these people have been where they are 20-30
>years ago?

Affirmative action is not the only thing that has happened in the last
20-30 years.  Women's attitudes toward themselves have changed, and that
probably has more to do with the productive women you see on the job
than affirmative action does.
-- 
	David Canzi