Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and affirmative action
Message-ID: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-May-85 22:12:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.468
Posted: Sun May 26 22:12:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 01:16:31 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 92
Xref: watmath net.politics:9101 net.women:5295

Frank Silbermann writes:

> The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved
> bonus [from affirmative action].

He also receives an undeserved handicap:  blacks are discriminated
against in the US.  The point of affirmative action is to
counterbalance this handicap.  The plain fact is that blacks and
women are discriminated against in the job market.  If by some
miracle all discriminatory attitudes disappeared tomorrow, so that
employers were indifferent to a person's race or sex, then the
percentage of blacks and women in certain desirable positions would
rise, even without affirmative action, would it not?  Which is
precisely what affirmative action mandates.  So I have to conclude
that objections to affirmative action are really defenses of the
right of employers to discriminate against these groups. 

> Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and 
> rewards people for their ancestors' experiences.  

AA has nothing whatever to do with anyone's ancestors.  It is
intended to rectify a current situation, not a past one.

> Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of self-confidence and self-esteem [from
> quotas], always doubting their true ability.

And I suppose their confidence and self-esteem will be restored if
they continue to be discriminated against and constantly told by the
white world that they are not as good and belong in an inferior place
in society.  What rubbish.  Affirmative action does not require an
employer to hire anyone who is not among the best qualified
candidates for a position, and blacks (and women) know this.  I am at
a loss to understand why being given a fair chance to be hired will
decrease anyone's self-confidence, and I conclude that this argument
is really a defense of discrimination.

> 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.  

The dilemma of American blacks, like that of women, is that they are
regarded and treated as an inferior caste.  The point of affirmative
action is to help bring to an end the perception of blacks and women
as inferior and different.  If blacks suffer from a feeling that they
do not control their own destiny, it is because their destiny is to a
large extent controlled by the racist attitudes and practices of the
white majority.  I don't believe that affirmative action will, by
itself, eliminate racist and sexist attitudes.  But it's a start.

Clayton Cramer writes:
> 
> When are the people who believe in government promoted
> racial and sexual discrimination going to WAKE UP to the fact that
> economics hasn't worked along these neat boundary lines of race, sex,
> and national origin?  We are all individuals --- viewing everyone as
> a member of a race, ethnic group, or sexual class, and assigning
> collective guilt, responsibility, or economic oppression based on
> our membership in a category is identical to the approach of the KKK.

Affirmative action is not government-promoted racial and sexual
discrimination, reverse or otherwise.  That is the argument of people
who believe that since affirmative action mandates quotas, the
employer who hires a black instead of a white in order to meet a
quota is discriminating against whites, an action which is just as
bad as an employer's refusing to hire blacks because he hates blacks.
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?  And what way is there to ensure that this is accomplished
other than some percentage standard, short of preventing the employer
from knowing the race or sex of the applicant, and short of that day
when racist and sexist attitudes will be rare?  Why indeed is it
wrong, unless on the grounds that racist and sexist attitudes, and
the resulting imbalance in hiring, are just fine?

Saying that the approach of affirmative action and equal opportunity
laws is identical with that of the KKK is just beneath contempt.  The
Klan is a racist group devoted to "racial purity" and persecution of
blacks and others.  Affirmative action does not attempt to assign
guilt or merit based on membership in a group -- as I wrote above,
its ultimate purpose is to end the perception of these groups as
being somehow "different," by equalizing their roles in society.

I am deeply moved by the plight of these white males who complain
about being discriminated against -- they show that they have not the
slightest understanding of the nature of discrimination and prejudice
in our society.  One wouldn't have thought that such transparent
arguments in favor of racial and sexual inequality would be put forth
by college-educated adults; that is, before one became familiar with
the troglodyte preserve known as the Netnews and its large population
of Missing Links.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes