Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-May-85 22:06:16 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.566 Posted: Sat May 25 22:06:16 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 06:03:05 EDT Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 110 Xref: linus net.politics:8481 net.social:528 net.women:4839 net.flame:9275 From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann), Message-ID: <266@unc.UUCP>: >Fair-minded administrators may go out of their way to seek >black candidates (students, employees) as a way to balance >the subconsious racism caused by their own hidden predjudices. >This is perhaps the only valid rational for affirmative action. > >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. The purpose of affirmative action is not to provide "justice for past wrongs". It is to prevent future wrongs of the same type. Hiring inequities are a result of the personal prejudices of individual hiring authorities. The only truly effective way to eliminate the inequities is to step into the minds of everyone who hires people and eliminate the prejudices. That's obviously a pretty tough task, and even if the government *could* do it, I doubt anyone would *want* them to regulate people's opinions. But we *do* want the inequities to go away. So what else can we do but require people to ignore whatever prejudice they have and hire a black/woman/hispanic/handicapped_individual? And then hope they recognize that the above-mentioned individual *is* performing well. >Thus, the ethnic white (Italian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, Poor) or Asian >who suffered similar (if less intense) discrimination suffers further. >The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved bonus. >Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and rewards >people for their ancestors' experiences. Thus, ethnic or racial quotas >actually increase the net injustice. It is unfortunately true that the people who have been disadvantaged in the past are *not* the ones getting the jobs - the jobs are going to the folks who benifitted from affirmative action in colleges, not the folks who have been denied a job a hundred times over. I'm not sure I agree that the net injustice is increased significantly. But again, the point of this is to prevent future injustice. >Furthermore, when affirmative action programs are too blatent, >as in the case of racial quotas, disadvantaged poor whites are >justifiably outraged, thus becoming a rich recruiting ground for >right-wing extremist groups. Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of >self-confidence and self-esteem, always doubting their true ability. Yes, disadvantaged poor whites may be outraged. But while I understand the reaction completely, I'm not sure I agree it's "justified". It's true that they have less opportunity than they did before. They now have their *fair share* of opportunity. The poor disadvantaged blacks are no less disadvantaged than the whites (in fact, they're signifi- cantly *more* disadvantaged), and if whites are outraged because blacks are now getting a fair shot, that's not particularly justifiable in my book. Understandable, since it's worse than the whites are used to. But not justifiable. >The American blacks' dilemma goes deeper than poverty. As a group, >they suffer from lack of self-confidense -- a feeling that they >do not control their own destiny. Programs such as affirmative >action not only devisively create resentment; they fail to solve >this core problem. I'm not sure why you feel blacks as a group are significantly less confident than whites. The blacks I know seem just about the same as the whites I know. But even if your statement's true, I don't see why giving them as good a shot at being a corporate executive as they've got at being busboys (bussers? :-) would *reduce* their confidence. One doesn't gain confidence and self-respect from *getting* a job - one gets it from *doing* a job. And giving them a fair shot at doing a job should indeed solve that problem (if it is in fact a problem). And I really don't think it's fair to say the *core* problem lies with blacks. I think it's pretty clear that the *core* problem is in the minds of whites. >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. By starting their own businesses, >blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of depending >on some white "big daddy" to take care of them. Oh, get real, wouldja? How the h*ll do you expect blacks to build a new black entreprenurial class by starting their own businesses? Can you really see a poor, disadvantaged black woman walking into a bank and asking for a loan to start her own business? Shit, nobody'll give her money to do work for them. Who's gonna give her money for her signature? Get real. And why do we want a *black* entreprenurial class? This whole mess started because we have a *white* class. We're trying to get *rid* of segregation here, not promote it. And if this is interpreted as a handout from "white big daddy", we've got trouble. This is an attempt to get all of us working together to make things better for everyone. *Everyone* benefits when we can overcome discrimination and prejudice. The former "have-nots" get a chance to feed their families, and the former "have's" have a new pool of talent from which to draw. And people just get along better with each other. >Frank Silbermann -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?