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!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <477@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 14:03:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.477
Posted: Wed Jun  5 14:03:11 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 08:22:22 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.women:5537 net.politics:9268

Jeff Sonntag asks:

>      I'll probably regret asking this, but just *how* does AA threaten
> the privileged position of powerful well-off white males?  I thought 
> the only people it *might* threaten were poor out-of-work white males.

I'm glad you asked that question. {:-}  While AA doesn't directly
threaten rich white males, the principles on which it is based would,
I think, threaten their dominant social position if generally
accepted.  AA is in part based on a rejection of the idea that
"equality" means "one rule for all" (as Blake wrote, "One law for the
Lion and the Ox is oppression").  The opponents of AA argue that the
law in its majestic equality should forbid both advantaged and
disadvantaged alike to beg in the streets, sleep under bridges, and
benefit from quotas.  The prevalence of this view, and of free-market
ideology as well, is one of the factors that keep the top dogs on top
of the underdogs in our society.  At least that's the way I look at
it.

R. Carnes