Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women Subject: Re: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <191@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 13:27:42 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.191 Posted: Wed Jun 5 13:27:42 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:57:06 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <478@hou2g.UUCP> <174@luke.UUCP> Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Lines: 123 Xref: watmath net.politics:9349 net.women:5668 Summary: I have never understood this debate In article <174@luke.UUCP>, sml@luke.UUCP (Steven List @ Uncle Bene's Farm) writes: > Is AA truly an attempt to enforce equity, or is it a drawn-out guilt > trip? Why shouldn't employers/recruiters be free to hire on the basis > of qualifications? > > Maybe I'm naive in this, but it seems to me that while the population > may be 51% female, the working population is not. I live in a nice > suburban area (called Silicon Valley :-)) and find that there are many > women who not only are not part of the working population, but do not > wish to be. How does that fit in? In general, I resent any RULE which > restricts my freedom to hire. Is it rational to be able to discriminate > on the basis of tobacco smoking but not on criminal record or sexual > preference? Don't misunderstand - I am opposed to discrimination on the > basis of anything other than qualifications. But either the whole thing > has to hold together or it should be canned. I don't mean especially to pick this entry out -- it's typical of many. I just have to confess that I have never understood the affirmative action debate when it was posed on (pseudo-)moral grounds. (The following really isn't in order ...) First, I have never understood why attempts to raise the probability of social peace and help the advancement of some need to be justified as "attempts to enforce equity". The only reason I can see for the debate to be posed on a moral plane of "justice" is because historically in the US struggles for civil rights have mostly been fought in the courts. There's something implicit in this moral debate that if AA isn't a means of "enforcing equity", whatever that means, then it shouldn't be pursued as policy. Rhetoric aside, the work that needs to be done to assuage (note, I don't say "rectify") a historical crime (cultural-institutional racism backed by law and custom) has no NECESSARY relationship to equity at all. The only reason equity is in the debate is that lawyers have to mangle issues in order to collect fees for disentangling issues, that lawyers get far too much respect in the US, and because civil rights had to be defended in the legal arena because they couldn't be defended anywhere else -- a sad comment on the US. And there equity was a useful buzzword. And recently, equity's in the debate because a new legal principle has arisen -- that any policy not backed by the full weight of American moral and political theology is a bad policy. That the weight of this theology was designed by the Founding Fathers to be obstructionist to the oppressed and expeditious to the "worthy" makes me question both the new "principle" and its politics. Another thing that amazes me about this debate is the lack of challenge that the US system gives to the Orwellian rights of "freedom to work" (remember "arbeit macht frei"?), "freedom to hire", and "freedom to promote". Why should any society give EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYERS ALONE the right to set up a social dictatorship answerable to none? Isn't that what all of these "freedoms" mean? Isn't that Orwell? People take their Orwellian rights seriously, by the evidence of this debate. Arguments like "I resent any RULE that restricts my freedom to hire" are believed by many in here to be a positive argument against affirmative action. Incredible. So you resent it. So what. The only reason anyone should empathize is because they too dream of being an employer someday and want just the same freedom -- the freedom to be a little Big Brother. Or a little sexist. Or a little racist. It freaks me out. The last argument made in the AA debate that I will never understand is that "either the whole thing has to hold together or it should be canned." Why? If it's not perfect, piss on it? Why? I read this AA debate (intermittently), and I think I must come from another planet. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "Wakeup" -- by Run-DMC wakeup ... getup ... wakeup ... When I woke up this morning and got out of bed I had some really fresh thoughts going through my head They were the thoughts that came from a wonderful dream It was a vision of the world working as a team It was a dream ... wakeup ... Just a .. wakeup ... getup There was no guns, there were no tanks, there weren't atomic bombs And to be frank -- oh boy -- there were no arms Just people, working, hand in hand There was a feeling of peace all across the land It was a dream ... wakeup ... Just a ... getup wakeup ... wakeup Between all countries there were good relations There finally was a meaning to "United Nations" And everybody had an occupation Cause we all worked together to fight starvation It was a dream! Just a dream ... getup Everyone was treated on a equal basis No matter what colors, religions or races We weren't afraid to show our faces It was cool to be seen in foreign places It was a dream! .... wakeup Just a dream! getup ... wakeup ... getup ... wakeup ... wakeup ... getup ... wakeup All cities of the world were renovated And the people all cheered and celebrated They were all so happy and elated To live in the world that they created It was a dream. .... wakeup Just a dream. getup ... wakeup ... getup There were no street people -- we lived rent-free And every single person had a place to be A job, a home, and the perfect mate And the world was free of greed and hate It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. getup ... wakeup ... wakeup Unemployment was at a record low And the President was jammin' at our show Listening to the things we had to say And tryin' to create a new and brighter day It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup getup .... wakeup ..... wakeup .... getup wakeup .... wakeup .... getup .... wakeup wakeup .... getup .... wakeup .... getup