Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Discrimination Message-ID: <5691@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Sun, 26-May-85 03:57:38 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5691 Posted: Sun May 26 03:57:38 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 03:27:41 EDT References: <482@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <436@sftri.UUCP> <1500@orca.UUCP> <177@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 49 Keywords: race, needs tests Summary: Affirmative Action has taken a lot of flak on this newsgroup lately. Clearly, the hiring and firing of people because they are non-white is morally not far removed from doing the same because the people are white. When taken out of context. Color of skin is color of skin, but there is one mitigating factor: most of the money in this country is held by whites. But there are wealthy minority members. Try this on for size: no-one wants to actively oppress minorities. So how best to provide opportunities for the underpriveledged without opressing the underpriveledged members of the majority? It isn't easy. Twenty years ago, when the Affirmative Action drive became more or less official, the VAST majority of blacks were poor. It seemed so easy to assume that *any* black was underpriveledged. But before the quota system was instituted, other methods were tried. In 1968 or '9, I forget which, the EEOC asked for quotas, in desperation. In a way, the victims of quotas are victims of the prejudice of American Business, which refused to go along with the reforms while the government was still trying to play Mr. Nice Guy about instituting them. In a way. Happily, there are now many more middle-class and upper-class minorities than 20 years ago. But it isn't over. Now, however, the down-side of quotas are making themselves felt. So perhaps it's time to switch completely over to needs tests. What was really desired all along was to help the minorities because they were all so poor. So it makes sense on the surface to help all the poor, in addition to the poor minorities. Assistance based on real need has its points. Side note: why is the progressive federal income tax seen as a good thing? (Yes, we all know that it's not really progressive.) Because, when added to the programs of H&HS, it tries to make the rich buy necessities for the poor. That it doesn't work out that way is a sign that there's room for (a lot of) improvement. After all, the Great Society was for everyone, and still can be, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual preference, political orientation, accent, stature, etc, etc.... You just have to keep it up with the times. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU "Scrabble is Peace; Link-Sausage is Slavery; UNIX is Strength."