Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <2229@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:27:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2229
Posted: Thu Jun  6 21:27:35 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:46:51 EDT
References: <477@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.women:5629 net.politics:9319


 (Richard Carnes) writes:

>...  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. ...
>  The prevalence... 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

It seems to me that AA would threaten white males who AREN'T racists,
but that white males who ARE racist would believe that, being superior,
they would come out on top in a strictly fair competition;  indeed, this
would hold for anybody who, believing that blacks/women were really
inferior, thought they must be helped to come out even, that the
competition had better not really be fair or they would lose.

I believe in fairness before equality; I know of some people who 
believe in equality before fairness, and who have *specifically
stated* that women (I'm thinking about a particular conversation)
would not come out even in a strictly even competition, and must 
therefore be "helped".  This is in fact a logically consistent
argument for AA, but I reject it.

--JoSH