Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists? Message-ID: <627@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 09:41:14 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxr.627 Posted: Fri Jul 11 09:41:14 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 02:08:10 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor Lines: 106 Xref: watmath net.women:11242 net.sci:1217 > Doug Gwyn: PLEASE NOTE: the examples I give below ARE NOT a personal attack on Doug, NOR do they imply that he sees the world in such terms. > (1) One has the right to dictate what ideas others are > permitted to act upon. > (2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the > results of people's wrong-thinking. > (3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would > be if there were no wrong-thinking. > > On (1): Human beings' survival depends, among other things, on > the quality of their mental processes.... > .... In order > to legitimately claim the right to make your OWN decisions, you > must permit others the FREEDOM to make theirs, whether you agree > with them or not. Only when actions directly affect the freedom <<-- NOTE > of others is there a need to consider rules of ethics and legal <<-- NOTE > protections. > > On (2): The way to counter bad ideas is with good ones. > .... If you really have good ideas, sell the ideas. If you > have to force people to go along with them, because they can't > be persuaded, then one possibility is that you haven't understood > them clearly enough yourself to make a convincing case for them. But the point of affirmative action is not to force ideas on people, but precisely to prevent people's ideas from affecting the choices of others. Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? The debate is over the implementation, i.e. action, policy. > The proper role of government in this is to protect the rights > of the individual. That includes the individuals that you think > are mistaken, so long as they're not threatening physical force. > Sure, you have the right to freely seek employment, but just as > surely a potential employer has the right to turn you down... OK, let's look at this. ALL employers have the right to not employ anyone named Doug Gwyn. Furthermore, that pattern of thinking is a normal, natural part of the culture. Angry? Now replace "named Doug Gwyn" with "not white, not male". Does that belief not limit the choices and freedom of those who do not belong to these categories? Further, is it not the proper role of a government pledged by its constitution to uphold the rights of all its constituents to take action to prevent the majority from so restricting the freedom of a minority, and to correct the economic and social effects of such restrictions? > If a professor implies that your sex should > not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in > attending that university (try complaining to the management, or > attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; > many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that > the professor was plain incompetent). Complain to a management or administration made up of the professor's bridge partners or drinking buddies? How far do you think a pipsqueak undergraduate is going to get? > owes you respect, and go out and EARN its respect. There are too > many examples of individuals who have overcome professional > obstacles for one to use the obstacles as an excuse for not achieving. How many such examples can you cite from the period the President refers to as "when this country did not know it had a race problem"? I believe that a very large majority of individuals who have overcome professional obstacles did so because a legal mechanism blocked the hostility of those they had to compete against from snuffing out their brilliance. > On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* > influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think > of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this > is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to > know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to > legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom > of choice. On the other hand, natural forces are very powerful, > so in the long run they will win out, if allowed to operate > freely. A natural balance can be forestalled indefinitely by > active manipulation by intelligent creatures, but if you're in > favor of a natural balance why would you do that? The folly of > trying to "help" nature has been shown in many examples.. Recall that toward the end of the 19th century, a number of "scientific" papers were published that used skull volume, size of eyebrow ridges, height, etc, to "prove" the superiority of the white male. Note that similar arguments surfaced in the 50s and 60s when black children were getting low scores on IQ tests tailored specifically for whites. What "natural factors"? What data exist that factor out the influence and effects of the environment? Using the "it is not proven" argument to promote passivity in the face of determined discrimination is governmental irresponsibility of the worst sort. > In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not > governmental action. "Protect us from our protectors." Nonsense. The economic data shows that people are having *real*, *long-term* limitations placed on their freedom and development because of discrimination. Government *cannot* reject its responsibility to these citizens and push the search for a solution onto philosophers. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "