orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/31/85)
> >/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 10:12 pm May 26, 1985 */ > > >But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair > >chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist > >attitudes? > from Michael Sykora: > Because such measures interfere with the employer's property rights, > and, perhaps, the employer's right to hold racist and sexist opinions. > > Mike Sykora Under this argument we might as well go back to separate facilities for blacks and whites. We may as well return to the days when bus companies (often publicly owned and operated) decided that one of their "rights" was to make black people ride in the back of the bus for no other reason than being a different color. We might as well return to the days when people had to pay to vote - after all their voting may interfere with "employer's property rights". This same argument could be used to justify wholesale firing of Jews: after all, employers can do anything they want, including discriminate against a whole group of people. Employers have every right to hold racist and sexist attitudes. That does *not* give them the right to blatantly discriminate against people because they don't like the color of their skin. The rule of law in a democracy calls for *equal treatment under the law*. Again, I will point out that the point of affirmative action programs is *not* to promote unequal treatment - it is to promote equal treatment for women and minorities who have been and are currently being discriminated against. When the exact same resume yields the male name an interview and not the female name, then this seems to me to be strong evidence of unconscious prejudice on the part of employers. It is this prejudice that affirmative action programs are designed to compensate for. I am appalled at the acceptance of rascism implied by Mr. Sykora's argument. I hope that he will retract it. tim sevener whuxl!orb
jj@alice.UUCP (06/01/85)
Tim, when will you stop using your own version of what people say instead of what they really say and mean. You castigate Sykora, in the article 641.whuxl, for accepting rascism, without admiting that YOU conclude he's acepting racism, regardless of what he says and does. You're welcome to say that Sykora's policies could lead to situations where racism is accepted, but it's just NOT OK to say to that Sykora supports rascism because of that, unless you have some proof that Sykora is suggesting policies to support racism ON PURPOSE. Readers, please note: I'm not evaluating Sykora's policies at all, I'm offended by Sevener's presumptions and emotionally misleading and manipulative ways of arguing. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "What's the use of bearing bracers, hats or spats or shoes with laces, or the things they buy in places down on Brompton Row? (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/01/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:32 am May 31, 1985 */ >> >But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair >> >chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist >> >attitudes? >> Because such measures interfere with the employer's property rights, >> and, perhaps, the employer's right to hold racist and sexist opinions. >Under this argument we might as well go back to separate facilities for >blacks and whites. We may as well return to the days when bus companies >(often publicly owned and operated) decided that one of their "rights" >was to make black people ride in the back of the bus for no other reason >than being a different color. We might as well return to the days >when people had to pay to vote - after all their voting may interfere >with "employer's property rights". Why do you say "we might as well . . ." ? Are you implying that that is what I meant? Clearly, I said no such thing. The anology between the bus companies and voting is absurd! Voting has nothing to do with property rights. >This same argument could be used to justify wholesale firing of Jews: >after all, employers can do anything they want, including discriminate >against a whole group of people. If they so wish. >Employers have every right to hold racist and sexist attitudes. >That does *not* give them the right to blatantly discriminate against >people because they don't like the color of their skin. >The rule of law in a democracy calls for *equal treatment under the law*. If this means violating property rights then the law should be changed. A free society demands that rights always be respected. >When the exact same resume yields the male name an interview and not >the female name, then this seems to me to be strong evidence of >unconscious prejudice on the part of employers. It is this prejudice >that affirmative action programs are designed to compensate for. If woman X is dicriminated against because of her sex, Male Y gets the job, and the gov't. then steps in and urges employers to hire woman Z, how is woman X being compensated? >I am appalled at the acceptance of rascism implied by Mr. Sykora's >argument. What exactly do you mean by acceptance? > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/03/85)
> From jj: > Tim, when will you stop using your own version of what > people say instead of what they really say and mean. > > You castigate Sykora, in the article 641.whuxl, for > accepting rascism, without admiting that YOU conclude > he's acepting racism, regardless of what he says > and does. > > You're welcome to say that Sykora's policies could > lead to situations where racism is accepted, but > it's just NOT OK to say to that Sykora supports > rascism because of that, unless you have some > proof that Sykora is suggesting policies > to support racism ON PURPOSE. > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj You are right to make the distinction between support of policies *because* they are rascist and support of policies *regardless of* the fact they are rascist. Mr. Sykora's argument in support of "employers rights" is definitely the latter. But the exact same argument was indeed used against the whole Civil Rights Movement and in arguments that people had every right to force blacks to stay at the back of the bus, not to let prominent black musicians eat in the very places they were performing,etc. I find support for such discrimination a tacit support for rascism. It is yet another example which demonstrates that Libertarian ideology or ideologues have no concern for the actual outcomes or fairness of the policies they espouse. If rascism results, so be it according to Mr. Sykora. I still find this view abhorrent. Such acceptance of rascism and elitism is one of the things I find very distasteful about certain Libertarian ideologues. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/04/85)
>/* ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) / 1:21 pm May 31, 1985 */ >A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical >fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* >than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech >world is worse. A conclusion as to whether or not there is more discrimination in the high-tech world than in other fields, or, for that matter, whether or not there is a significant amount of discrimination in the high-tech world at all, cannot be determined merely from the evidence cited above. > . . . If we stop actively striving for >equality, then we'll surely degenerate back to where we were - maybe >as far back as the early 19th century and beyond. Remember those times >from your history lessons (you *did* study basic history in school, >didn't you) when people were actually *bought and sold*? I sure don't >want to go back there, nor, I suspect, do you. Perhaps you can explain to those of us who slept thru history class how an employers' using factors other than employees' performance, ability, etc. (e.g., race, religion, sex, shoe size, etc.) will lead to slavery. >Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/06/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:23 am Jun 3, 1985 */ >You are right to make the distinction between support of policies >*because* they are rascist and support of policies *regardless of* the >fact they are rascist. Mr. Sykora's argument in support of >"employers rights" is definitely the latter. This would be true if I advocated honoring the rights of rascist employers and not honoring the rights of some other group of employers. However, I never said that. It is the employer not the policy in question that is rascist. >But the exact same argument >was indeed used against the whole Civil Rights Movement and in arguments >that people had every right to force blacks to stay at the back of the bus, >not to let prominent black musicians eat in the very places they were >performing,etc. I find support for such discrimination a tacit support for >rascism. I never said I support such things. I merely said that people who own the buses, nightclubs, etc. should be the ones to make all decisions regarding the use of these resources. There is nothing rascist about that. > It is yet another example which demonstrates that Libertarian ideology >or ideologues have no concern for the actual outcomes or fairness of >the policies they espouse. If rascism results, so be it according to >Mr. Sykora. I still find this view abhorrent. You are playing word games. In this matter, I am not proposing any policy at all. What I am proposing is that such decisions should not be made by policy, but should be decided by the owner. "If rascism results" ? How does it result? The employers who are rascist hold these feelings regardless of policy. I don't choose to force other people to do what I want with their property, and I don't want others forcing me to do what they want with mine. >Such acceptance of rascism and elitism is one of the things I find very >distasteful about certain Libertarian ideologues. > tim sevener whuxl!orb What do you mean by "acceptance" of rascism and elitism? Are you implying saying that I have advocated rascism (I don't know what elitism is) ? If so, when? Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/06/85)
> > >/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 10:12 pm May 26, 1985 */ > > > > >But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair > > >chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist > > >attitudes? > > > from Michael Sykora: > > Because such measures interfere with the employer's property rights, > > and, perhaps, the employer's right to hold racist and sexist opinions. > > > > Mike Sykora > > Under this argument we might as well go back to separate facilities for > blacks and whites. We may as well return to the days when bus companies > (often publicly owned and operated) decided that one of their "rights" > was to make black people ride in the back of the bus for no other reason > than being a different color. We might as well return to the days > when people had to pay to vote - after all their voting may interfere > with "employer's property rights". > Government, and its publicly owned subsidiaries, because they are intrinsically monopolies, have no right to discriminate, since everyone ends up paying taxes, in one form or another, to support the government. In addition, the monopoly nature of government means that if they are discriminating foolishly, there is no alternate business to patronize and make rich. Private companies that discriminate (unless a *substantial* part of the population agrees with them) with be uncompetitive with non-discriminatory companies; this is why governments around the world have usually *required* discrimination of private employers --- South Africa being a good example. If an employer doesn't have the right to make decisions as to who will be hired, why do you have to right to discriminate in who you have sex with? Isn't it "unfair" that you aren't an equal opportunity sexual partner? Why should homosexuals (especially S&M types) be treated so badly by you? What makes sexual relations any more private than business relations? In both cases, you are deciding who you are going to associate with in a transaction that involves both of you. If you want to argue that business transactions affect our whole society: congratulations, that's what people who support anti-homosexuality laws argue. They claim the effects of what consenting adults do in private (which is what employment is) lower the moral tone and character of the society as a whole. Why don't you accept that there are some things that the government has no right to interfere with? If you don't, you are making it easier for the people that would put a camera in every bedroom. > tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/06/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 6:21 pm Jun 4, 1985 */ > . . . and nothing mobilizes stronger >ideological opposition than an idea that threatens the privileged >position of the powerful, such as the well-off white males whose >interests the Reagan Administration looks after. Do you really think it is "well off" white males who fear minority advancement? On the contrary, it is poor white males who fear this. >You're right that my rhetoric was getting out of hand in that >article; but let me point out that you and others have referred to >affirmative action as "government-promoted racism." It's both absurd >and insulting to its supporters to call a program "racist" whose >whole purpose is to attack racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice and >their effects. Perhaps you are using "rascism" to mean something different than Clayton is. The point is not that AA is "rascist," but that it is wrong for the government to promote the interests of a particular racial group (whether or not you choose to call such promotion "rascism"). >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Mike Sykora