ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/26/85)
_ A major byproduct of debate ought to be understanding, if not agreement,
between those with opposing positions. Unfortunately, some of the
opponents of AA have single-mindedly insisted that "white male guilt" is
an argument in the pro-AA camp.
If we cannot agree on what our opponents' positions are, why the hell
waste time debating? A recent example:
>>>> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women?
>>>> The opponents of Affirmative Action!
>>
>...(lots of quotations)...
>
>The above posting is a highly selective set of quotations; the reason that
>many of us arguing against affirmative action have spent as much time as
>we have arguing against collective guilt is because of postings that stated
>that (and I'm paraphrasing a little) America is like a highway lined with
>silver dollars, and the people that got there first (white males) got the
>easy pickings, and there white males deserve less so that other groups can
>have more. It is entirely possible that the editor of the above
>items hasn't been following the debate long enough --- nonetheless, the
>forces against affirmative action have been arguing *against* collective
>guilt, with *some* pro-affirmative action people who have argued in *favor*
>of collective guilt. -- Clayton Cramer
Clayton, if you insist on perpetrating your misunderstanding in the face
of major evidence, at least back up your claim. Otherwise, please retract
your misstatement.
Please note:
1. I have been part of the current net.women AA debate since it flared up
around May 17. That's three days prior to our receipt your first
entry -- a reply to Mr. Dietrick's "Why do *I* have to pay.."
2. That series of 13 quotes was my work. And they WERE typical of
the AA articles in net.women that contained words like {punish,guilt}.
I did not find one pro-AA article to the contrary, and we've already
seen thirteen authors (many people posted several arguments repeating
their position) as evidence against what you say.
As to the "highway lined with silver dollars" article, here is the
relevant excerpt to refresh your memory:
>>.. If the objection to discrimination
>>is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is
>>inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on
>>anyone else. [Clayton?]
>
>Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast.
>Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of
>the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get
>the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all
>foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white
>men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years
>later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination.
>
>Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we
>should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do
>you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're
>different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose
>will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any
>hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have
>gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much
>of it.
>-- Beth Christy (482@sphinx)
Whether you agree with Beth's sentiment or not, I fail to see
how she says "white men are guilty". Instead she's saying that
they've inherited a an unfair advantage -- more like "lucky"
than "guilty".
===========================================================================
Why do the anti-AA forces insist that the bogus guilt-strawman is a
pro-AA argument? Maybe rigid traditional attitudes and too many fairy
tales have clouded their minds, such as:
*Our system is already fair.
*If we must make adjustments (as per AA) then somebody (those on top)
must be guilty of a crime.
*Those in power acquired their situation fairly, by hard work,
competing on an equal basis with those who are now underprivileged.
*Our wonderful system does not unjustly reward those who
conform to the white male image, or else such conformism is
healthy/natural/fitting for our society.
I believe that the current AA debate will go nowhere until we all
understand the enormous diversity of attitudes people have towards
sentiments such as the above.
-michaelcramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/01/85)
> _ A major byproduct of debate ought to be understanding, if not agreement, > between those with opposing positions. Unfortunately, some of the > opponents of AA have single-mindedly insisted that "white male guilt" is > an argument in the pro-AA camp. > > If we cannot agree on what our opponents' positions are, why the hell > waste time debating? A recent example: > > >>>> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > >>>> The opponents of Affirmative Action! > >> > >...(lots of quotations)... > > > >The above posting is a highly selective set of quotations; the reason that > >many of us arguing against affirmative action have spent as much time as > >we have arguing against collective guilt is because of postings that stated > >that (and I'm paraphrasing a little) America is like a highway lined with > >silver dollars, and the people that got there first (white males) got the > >easy pickings, and there white males deserve less so that other groups can > >have more. It is entirely possible that the editor of the above > >items hasn't been following the debate long enough --- nonetheless, the > >forces against affirmative action have been arguing *against* collective > >guilt, with *some* pro-affirmative action people who have argued in *favor* > >of collective guilt. -- Clayton Cramer > > Clayton, if you insist on perpetrating your misunderstanding in the face > of major evidence, at least back up your claim. Otherwise, please retract > your misstatement. > > Please note: > > 1. I have been part of the current net.women AA debate since it flared up > around May 17. That's three days prior to our receipt your first > entry -- a reply to Mr. Dietrick's "Why do *I* have to pay.." > 2. That series of 13 quotes was my work. And they WERE typical of > the AA articles in net.women that contained words like {punish,guilt}. > I did not find one pro-AA article to the contrary, and we've already > seen thirteen authors (many people posted several arguments repeating > their position) as evidence against what you say. > > As to the "highway lined with silver dollars" article, here is the > relevant excerpt to refresh your memory: > > >>.. If the objection to discrimination > >>is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is > >>inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on > >>anyone else. [Clayton?] > > > >Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. > >Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of > >the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get > >the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all > >foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white > >men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years > >later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. > > > >Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we > >should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do > >you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're > >different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose > >will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any > >hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have > >gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much > >of it. > >-- Beth Christy (482@sphinx) > > Whether you agree with Beth's sentiment or not, I fail to see > how she says "white men are guilty". Instead she's saying that > they've inherited a an unfair advantage -- more like "lucky" > than "guilty". > *Some* white men were lucky --- yet all white men are today punished by being discriminated against *at the insistence of the government* on account of their race and sex. Have you forgotten already the numerous sarcastic comments that started out, "Ah. How sad that white men are being made to pay for the past." Even if the words used weren't "guilt", the attitudes conveyed certainly were. > =========================================================================== > > Why do the anti-AA forces insist that the bogus guilt-strawman is a > pro-AA argument? Maybe rigid traditional attitudes and too many fairy > tales have clouded their minds, such as: > > *Our system is already fair. > > *If we must make adjustments (as per AA) then somebody (those on top) > must be guilty of a crime. > > *Those in power acquired their situation fairly, by hard work, > competing on an equal basis with those who are now underprivileged. > > *Our wonderful system does not unjustly reward those who > conform to the white male image, or else such conformism is > healthy/natural/fitting for our society. > > I believe that the current AA debate will go nowhere until we all > understand the enormous diversity of attitudes people have towards > sentiments such as the above. > > -michael The rest of the postings you have made to the net persuade me that you, unlike many of the other supporters of affirmative action, are a basically dishonest and malintentioned person. I have no intention of wasting time responding to the absurdities in the immediate several paragraphs.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weielr) (07/08/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <311@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >*Some* white men were lucky --- yet all white men are today punished by >being discriminated against *at the insistence of the government* on >account of their race and sex. I would be careful about applying absolutes to this debate. As a white male who has attended a state university ( in a southern state no less ), worked for several companies whose avowed policy is EEO, I have NEVER to my knowledge been denied a job, spot in school, etc in order to fill a quota. In fact, I have never failed to receive an offer for any job which I was genuinely interested in. So if I have been punished for being a white male, I am unaware of it. Please bear in mind that as a programmer my situation is not typical, just be careful not to speak for me in your blanket condemnation of AA. bob weiler.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/08/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords:
In article <177@pedsgd.UUCP> bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) writes:
my apologies for misspelling (sp?) my own name. it really is time
for a vacation, july 4th weekend wasnt enough. sometimes the old
nerve impulses just dont seem to travel in a rational fashion.
bob weiler. (sp?)