Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists?
Message-ID: <629@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 21:56:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.629
Posted: Mon Jul 14 21:56:33 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jul-86 19:53:44 EDT
References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <627@mhuxr.UUCP> <2165@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor
Lines: 64
Xref: lsuc net.women:5315 net.sci:981 net.politics:6761

>(1) Doug Gwyn in <2615@brl-smoke.ARPA>
>(2) Doug Gwyn in <2159@brl-smoke.ARPA>
> > Me
> >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is 
> >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it?
> 
>(1) In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of
>(1) the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical
>(1) fallacy that disturbs me.

>(2)	"If A were true, then B would occur."
>(2)	"A is desirable."
>(2)	"Therefore, B is desirable."
>(2)
>(2)WRONG.  No sane scheme of logic allows this reasoning.

>(2)To relate this to the original discussion, let A be
>(2)	"Women should be treated fairly as individuals."
>(2)and B be
>(2)	"There would be a more balanced distribution of
>(2)	the sexes among the professions."

Well, fine, but proponents of AA like myself do not view "Women should be
treated fairly as individuals" as the basis for Affirmative Action, which
kills your fallacy argument. I made the point in my article that ideas
are one thing, social policy is another. That women should be treated
fairly is an idea, which is realized (or not) in millions of individual cases,
but cannot be legislated. That women's achievements are limited by a pattern
of discrimination ingrained in the social fabric is fact. AA does *not*
address sexism and racism, but their discriminatory *effects*.  The Civil
Rights Act does not decree that *racism* is illegal, but that one cannot
*discriminate* on the basis of race, sex, etc. The difference is crucial,
even if opponents of AA gloss over it.

AA places the burden of proof on employers, schools, etc. Why?  The Fourteenth
Amendment gave all citizens equal protection under the law but it took nearly
a century for the Supreme Court (in the 1954 Brown decision) to agree that
racial discrimination violates that constitutional protection. Moreover,
it took more than ten years before the thick fabric of discrimination was
outlawed in its entirety. Yet it exists even today. Time magazine recently
ran an article detailing discriminatory practices in housing that are alive
and well, even (especially?) in cities, such as Atlanta, where blacks have
gained a significant political presence. Do you now understand how wary we
are when we hear "well, you are now equal. Go on, succeed"?

AA, then, turns the situation around. It tells an employer with a past history
of discrimination (that's virtually everyone) that *he* must prove that
the history is indeed past. One hopes that in the process, some of the
racist and sexist thinking that leads to the discrimination will disappear,
but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class
of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing
the barriers that have been built all around them.

I don't claim that AA is perfect. I note, however, that the opponents of AA
never propose anything to replace it. There is a massive and diverse body
of literature that shows that the necessity of some legal mechanism as deterrent
to the multitude of faces discrimination adopts. AA is such a mechanism.
We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who
disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement.
-- 
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 "