Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!sdcc6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <857@loral.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-May-85 01:39:50 EDT Article-I.D.: loral.857 Posted: Thu May 30 01:39:50 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 14:46:32 EDT References: <354@iham1.UUCP> <250@spar.UUCP> <266@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 66 >In article shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: >>[] >>> *You* oughta be grateful for what *you* have received and stop >>> complaining. Perhaps it's true that material well being does breed >>> GREED. Pity. >> >>Amen to that. >> >>One of life's little ironies is that the bozos who oppose affirmative action >>on the grounds that it's rewarding {race, gender} rather than skill happen >>to be same same bozos unwilling to surrender their white male privilege. >> >>-- >>Melinda Shore Melinda, I'm sure that this entirely unsupportable conclusion works well to inspire emotional militancy among the liberal sectors. It is both sophistic and highly unfair to brand anyone who opposes affirmative action as a white male supremacist, as you have above. It is just as incorrect to claim "all persons holding this position on the issue" are racist/sexist as it is to say that "all women (blacks, hispanics, Irish, left-handed, whatever)" are inherently inferior in some way. In both cases, large aggregates of human beings are summarily lumped together and blamed with something that varies from individual to individual. Extreme positions such as yours unfortunately serve best those on the other side of your argument, by undermining the more sober, realistic and logical arguments those on your side might make. Any way you slice it, to allow a person's sex, race, religion, etc. to enter into the decision to hire, grant credit, or any other opportunity is de facto discrimination, and is unfair to those who lose out as a result. It makes no difference whether the favored criterion supports or opposes historical modes of prejudice. When those who compete for employment or other considerations are considered *entirely as if* the person making the ultimate decision in each case were totally unaware of the applican't sex, race, or any other characteristic unrelated to the nature of the consideration, then and only then will the vestiges of old prejudices die out. I hope I see the day, but your position, Melinda, unfortunately is doing nothing to speed its arrival - perhaps quite the opposite. The following posting (which I have trimmed) speaks very well on the matter: In article <266@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >The attempt to justify affirmative action as justice for past wrongs >fails on two accounts: > > 1) It fails to compensate those who were most injured, > compensating instead those who merely look like > the injured parties. > > 2) It fails to discriminate between those who caused the injury > and those who merely resemble the guilty parties. >... >Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment >via economic growth from within their own community. >What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. >True black power will be created with the rise of black >storekeepers and merchants.> > >