Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Message-ID: <434@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 02:18:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.434
Posted: Tue May 14 02:18:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:16:25 EDT
References: <482@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 46

> 
> Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"?  Do you mean we
> should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road?  Or do
> you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth?  They're
> different goals.  Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose
> will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any
> hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money.  Those that have
> gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much
> of it.

Sorry, but this sort of argument just doesn't hold water for many of
us.  By the time my mother and father arrived here, a lot of those
silver dollars were gone-- besides, my father was too busy working
on his English so he could get a job and support himself.  You also
assume that when someone dies, all of their silver dollars pass to
their children, which is not always true.  But to really get at the
point, what is unjust about this scenario?  Is it that some groups
were unfairly held up, or is it just that the wrong group(s)
was/were held up?  If it is that some groups were held up, which is
unfair, how does changing which groups are held up lead to a more
just situation?
> 
> I think that discrimination will be with us until everyone has propor-
> tionately equal access to all of the wealths (*and* all of the respon-
> sibilities).  And that means holding back the leaders (who do in fact
> have an "ill-gotten" advantage) for a little while, and encouraging
> those that have been discriminated against in the past to catch up.
> If preventing discrimination does mean allowing proportionately equal
> access, then I bet those scholarships you mentioned weren't discrimi-
> nating, because they were encouraging other, unfairly disadvantaged
> groups to catch up.
> 
If I know people, it won't be a "little while".  People who find a
good doge milk it for all it's worth.  You also should be more
careful about "proportionately equal access to all of the wealths".
What exactly do you mean?  Does everyone get the same regardless?  Is
the government going to go around "equalising" things?  What do you
really mean by equal?  I think everyone should have as equal as
possible opportunities (a laudable but almost certainly ridiculously
unrealistic goal-- about as close as you can get would be in terms
of a fairly standardised education), but what you do with those opportunities is up to
you.  To me, the ideal, non-discriminatory state would be at least
color and sex blind. (no distinctions whatsoever)

Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom