Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and affirmative action
Message-ID: <196@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 20:52:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.196
Posted: Mon Jun  3 20:52:16 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 01:13:39 EDT
References: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 183
Xref: watmath net.politics:9240 net.women:5514

> 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. 
> 
In Thomas Sowell's book, _Markets_ _and_ _Minorities_, he points out
that blacks who have moved here from the West Indies have much *higher*
average incomes than American born blacks.  Perhaps the world is a
little more complicated place than Mr. Carnes realizes.  If racial
discrimination was the *primary* factor in discrepancies in income
broken down by race, why are West Indian blacks so much better off
than American blacks?  I suggest Mr. Carnes read Sowell's book for 
an interesting analysis of the demographics of American blacks; it
turns out that American blacks are on average several years younger
than American whites, and young people in general have lower incomes.
Comparing equally weighted samples of whites and blacks in this 
country, you find the differences in income (which are almost certainly
the result of racism) are quite small --- a few percent at most.

> > 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.
> 
If it has nothing to do with one's ancestors, affirmative action
wouldn't be based on race or ethnic origin.

> > 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.
> 
To claim that affirmative action "does not require an employer to
hire anyone who is not among the best qualified candidates for a
position..." is utterly false.  I used to work as an employment agent.
One of our clients was a big aerospace company.  One of the job orders
we received from them stated, "Because the position is currently held
by a minority female, the position must be filled with same."  The
manager wanted an experienced programmer knowledgeable with statistics.
He ended up hiring an Asian woman (through us) over a qualified white
male because he *had* *no* *choice*.  Perhaps affirmative action isn't
*supposed* to do this; to ignore that it does is rather like those
school districts that claimed that segregated school districts were
*supposed* to be equal in quality --- it just didn't quite work out
that way.

> > 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.
> 
Affirmative action promotes racist attitudes (thank goodness, it hasn't
promoted sexism yet).  Neo-Nazi groups in this country have been quite
successful in recruiting working class white males at least partly
because there is a perception that affirmative action is causing those
same white males to be passed over for jobs.  Now in fact, this is
probably not as widespread a reality as a perception --- no one wants
to admit they weren't qualified for a job.  But knowing that the
government *does* promote racism and sexism through affirmative action
generates resentment that doesn't need to be there --- if the government
would just obey the 14th Amendment.

> 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?

Equal employment opportunities are NOT the same as affirmative action.
Equal employment opportunities says that racism and sexism is illegal
in hiring.  It does NOT say, "You will have this many blacks, this
many women, this many Hispanics."  It says, "Hire based on qualifications,
ignoring race, sex, and national origin."  Because government is
intrinsically a monopoly, and most businesses that are heavily involved
with the government tend to become monopolistic (e.g. aerospace,
building construction into the 1960s, railroads), it is appropriate
for the government to require its contractors to hire regardless of
race or sex, both because it is immoral, and because it is *very*
expensive for a company to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria.
(I don't think the government has any right to involve itself with
other businesses unless the government has granted them monopoly
powers, or the business signs a contract with the government to
feed at the public trough.)

>        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?
> 
Overt discrimination still happens.  When I was an employment agent,
I saw overt discrimination occasionally.  One was a government 
contractor where the engineering manager told the personnel manager
(who was a woman), "don't bring me any blacks or Mexicans".  He also
told her, "There's only two things women are good for: filing and
sex."  She called in EEOC on this one, and I applauded her actions.
Because he was so bigoted, his company missed out on at least two
qualified candidates for the position he was trying to fill; I know
because he wouldn't take two of my candidates seriously.

Before anyone gets too self-righteous, that was the only "traditional"
overt racism I saw.  The other cases: a woman manager who told me,
"Don't send me any women.  They're all flakes."  Another was a company
that was largely run by women; in fact, I think every management position 
below president was a woman.  The personnel manager (a woman) told me
one day, off the record "We don't hire East Indians here."

What about subtle racism?  I only had one company where the reactions
of managers to candidates made me suspect racism or sexism.  The company
that didn't hire East Indians seldom, if ever hired men, and treated
them on interviews in a manner that was insulting and offensive.

> 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 suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you
claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on
membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there
have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have
less because of what white males have done in the past.

> 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

Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument?
They resort to ad hominem arguments, as you did in that last paragraph.