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!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women Subject: Re: Discrimination and affirmative action Message-ID: <252@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 16:06:53 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.252 Posted: Mon Jun 17 16:06:53 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 04:22:09 EDT References: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <196@kontron.UUCP> <318@spar.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 78 Xref: watmath net.politics:9463 net.women:5920 > >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. > > What do you consider a `few percent' to be? > > Twenty percent maybe? > Perhaps thirty percent? > > Last time I checked, the (probably unweighted) difference was a whopping > fourty five percent. > > And that was DOWN ten percent from the days of Johnson's `Great Society'.. > You are right that the unweighted difference is dramatic. A weighted comparision is much less dramatic. On the 20th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech Newsweek carried a series of articles about discrimination. They quoted one of the directors of NAACP as saying that black salaries were 99% of white salaries *for those blacks that were working* (emphasis added). He went on to say that this was because of union efforts to abolish inequality. (This may be part of it, although I doubt it is all.) A great many blacks have received inadequate educations, both in the number of years, and in the quality of those years. In addition, blacks are on average *younger* than whites; young people don't make the money that older people do. Again, compare weighted averages; there is still evidence of racism, but the difference (depending on how you evaluate the weightings) is a few percent. > >Affirmative action promotes racist attitudes > > This limp-wristed argument is just what the NeoNazis want us to say. > > So let's give in to the NeoNazis by doing nothing, right? > I'm a firm believer in cutting the rug out from under the neo-Nazis; the neo-Nazis do want something done --- the exact reverse of affirmative action, with jobs guaranteed for whites. > >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. > > But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > > The opponents of Affirmative Action! > The "guilt" has been assigned by the proponents of Affirmative Action in net.women. Read it before you assume. > >Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? > > Keep saying that to yourself. Maybe you'll believe it.. > > You speak of AA as discrimination. So is ANY program aimed at > helping the disadvantaged minorities in this country. I assume > you are against all such programs, yes? > > Furthermore, without government coercion, the most qualified person to > work in an organization consisting of racist male pigs is yet another > racist male pig. As a matter of pure economics, selecting people > who conform to the existing stereotype makes good business sense. > > The status quo is also discrimination, too. And it favors those > who are OVERPRIVILEGED. > > -michael If every company in America consisted of "racist male pigs", you might be right. In my experience, those sorts control very few companies, and mostly companies going down the tubes because their racism and sexism prevents them from hiring competent employees at a market salary. Could you define "overprivileged"? Don't you just mean, someone who has more than I think they should have?