Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action: Reply to Sykora
Message-ID: <1340135@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 10:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340135
Posted: Sat Jun  1 10:51:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 07:48:19 EDT
References: <641@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 53

>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) /  9:32 am  May 31, 1985 */

>> >But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair
>> >chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist
>> >attitudes?

>> Because such measures interfere with the employer's property rights,
>> and, perhaps, the employer's right to hold racist and sexist opinions.

>Under this argument we might as well go back to separate facilities for
>blacks and whites.  We may as well return to the days when bus companies
>(often publicly owned and operated) decided that one of their "rights"
>was to make black people ride in the back of the bus for no other reason
>than being a different color.  We might as well return to the days
>when people had to pay to vote - after all their voting may interfere
>with "employer's property rights".

Why do you say "we might as well . . ." ?  Are you implying that that is
what I meant?  Clearly, I said no such thing.
The anology between the bus companies and voting is absurd!
Voting has nothing to do with property rights.
 
>This same argument could be used to justify wholesale firing of Jews:
>after all, employers can do anything they want, including discriminate
>against a whole group of people.

If they so wish.
 
>Employers have every right to hold racist and sexist attitudes.
>That does *not* give them the right to blatantly discriminate against
>people because they don't like the color of their skin.
>The rule of law in a democracy calls for *equal treatment under the law*.

If this means violating property rights then the law should be changed.
A free society demands that rights always be respected.
 
>When the exact same resume yields the male name an interview and not
>the female name, then this seems to me to be strong evidence of
>unconscious prejudice on the part of employers.  It is this prejudice
>that affirmative action programs are designed to compensate for.

If woman X is dicriminated against because of her sex, Male Y gets the
job, and the gov't. then steps in and urges employers to hire
woman Z, how is woman X being compensated?
 
>I am appalled at the acceptance of rascism implied by Mr. Sykora's
>argument.

What exactly do you mean by acceptance?

>                tim sevener   whuxl!orb

							Mike Sykora