nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/01/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes / 10:12 pm May 26, 1985 ****/ >Frank Silbermann writes: > >> The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved >> bonus [from affirmative action]. > >He also receives an undeserved handicap: blacks are discriminated >against in the US. The point of affirmative action is to >counterbalance this handicap. The plain fact is that blacks and >women are discriminated against in the job market. If by some >miracle all discriminatory attitudes disappeared tomorrow, so that >employers were indifferent to a person's race or sex, then the >percentage of blacks and women in certain desirable positions would >rise, even without affirmative action, would it not? An interesting question, one which I invite you to answer, with appropriate figures regarding the years of experience of the blacks and women in the workforce versus their white male counterparts. Answering a question like this by mere handwaving is most dangerous. It would be like writing a program and not debugging it at all once it got through the compiler. For an attempt to answer this sort of question, I suggest "Losing Ground" by Charles Murray. Just for one example of where your assumptions may be wrong: the wage differential between men and women dropped somewhat in the '50s. >Which is >precisely what affirmative action mandates. "Affirmative action" has had several incarnations. It seems to me that we're talking about the one in which quotas are enforced (this is made clearer in remarks of yours, below). >So I have to conclude >that objections to affirmative action are really defenses of the >right of employers to discriminate against these groups. I know that you don't LIKE the idea of people being allowed to make mistakes, Richard, especially mistakes you see as harmful to others, but discrimination is a MISTAKE. It carries with it its own penalties. The way to correct a mistake is (ordinarily) to show up the error for what it is. When a child makes a mistake in arithmetic, one demonstrates the correct method, one doesn't hit the child. The nastiest thing you could do to those who would hire by race or sex is to prove them wrong in the market place, by hiring the undervalued "minority members" away from them. If you can't do this, then encourage some of oppressed to form firms of their own. The solution you advocate, however, is not a simple correction, not even the brutal use of the market to destroy those who foolishly undervalue human beings because of irrelevant criteria, but an intrusion of the state upon private business. "Well, Tough!", I hear you cry. "Those guys have had it their own way too long, and we have to make people equal". That's nice. Is there some reason your logic doesn't extend to censoring books that encourage racist behavior? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and all that. >> Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and >> rewards people for their ancestors' experiences. > >AA has nothing whatever to do with anyone's ancestors. It is >intended to rectify a current situation, not a past one. Hmmmm..... This sounds a little suspect to me. My understanding was that the rhetoric behind AA was based pretty solidly on the idea that certain groups had had a bad time of it, and so were under-represented at the top. > >> Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of self-confidence and self-esteem [from >> quotas], always doubting their true ability. > >And I suppose their confidence and self-esteem will be restored if >they continue to be discriminated against and constantly told by the >white world that they are not as good and belong in an inferior place >in society. There's a difference between what one earns and what one is given. If a person knows he is being GIVEN certain opportunities, not because of what he (and this could be a woman) has earned, but because of a genetic accident irrelevant to his ability to do a job, then his self-esteem will not be as great from getting a given job. After a time, he may come to doubt that he could actually hold the job were it not for his employer's AA quotas. >What rubbish. Affirmative action does not require an >employer to hire anyone who is not among the best qualified >candidates for a position, and blacks (and women) know this. No, indeed. But should the very best candidates just HAPPEN to all be white males..... >I am at >a loss to understand why being given a fair chance to be hired will >decrease anyone's self-confidence, and I conclude that this argument >is really a defense of discrimination. Ha! Sleazy rhetoric and fuzzy thinking. Preferential is not the same as "fair", got that? Racially-motivated choices are discrimination. Therefore YOUR argument for AA is really a defense of discrimination. >> The American blacks' dilemma goes deeper than poverty. As a group, >> they suffer from lack of self-confidense -- a feeling that they >> do not control their own destiny. > >The dilemma of American blacks, like that of women, is that they are >regarded and treated as an inferior caste. The point of affirmative >action is to help bring to an end the perception of blacks and women >as inferior and different. I see..... Treating them preferentially, slanting the game their way, is NOT treating them differently? Treating them as a class that must be specially nurtured is not treating them as inferiors? SUUUURE it isn't. >If blacks suffer from a feeling that they >do not control their own destiny, it is because their destiny is to a >large extent controlled by the racist attitudes and practices of the >white majority. It's worth pointing out that the more political a society, the larger the "will of the majority" looms in the lives of its individuals. By extending the arena of government action to regulate or influence hiring, you pave the way for some FUTURE majority to do something you DON'T approve of. Or didn't you think of that? P.S. Here's where you spoke of the quota aspect of AA. (I include it because many AA proponents are a little elusive about whether quotas are part of AA or not). >Affirmative action is not government-promoted racial and sexual >discrimination, reverse or otherwise. That is the argument of people >who believe that since affirmative action mandates quotas, the >employer who hires a black instead of a white in order to meet a >quota is discriminating against whites, an action which is just as >bad as an employer's refusing to hire blacks because he hates blacks. >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? And what way is there to ensure that this is accomplished >other than some percentage standard, short of preventing the employer >from knowing the race or sex of the applicant, and short of that day >when racist and sexist attitudes will be rare? I include here a quote, from memory, of the supreme court decision that struck down the "pocket veto". "The convenience of lawmakers is not a hallmark, nor a necessarily desired characteristic of a democracy." In other words, Richard, there are some things that might in some way make it easier for the government to promote fairness or justice that we do not and should not do. For example, it would sure be handy if we could simply assign everyone jobs, wouldn't it? It would sure be handy if the police didn't need to fool around with all that paperwork to get muggers off the streets, wouldn't it? Of course, we eschew these methods, because of concern for our greater good. Similarly, I argue that all that is needed to give Blacks, Women, and all other "oppressed groups" a fair shake is to give them..... FAIRNESS. Since market forces tend to conspire against those who do anything but hire the very best person they can get for the job (see "The State Against Blacks" by Walter Williams for a well-argued case) they tend to continually punish those who discriminate, PROVIDED the discriminators may not use the state to prevent their competition from taking advantage of the discriminator's error. >Why indeed is it >wrong, unless on the grounds that racist and sexist attitudes, and >the resulting imbalance in hiring, are just fine? Why should freedom of speech include even American Nazis, unless on the grounds that the Nazis are somehow correct? Get the picture? Freedom includes the nasty freedom to "cut off your nose to spite your face", that is, to make mistakes which may hurt other people, but hurt yourself too. You don't think that discrimination hurts the individuals who practice it? You must not believe that many black people are worth having as friends and employees! > >Saying that the approach of affirmative action and equal opportunity >laws is identical with that of the KKK is just beneath contempt. Who said that? >.... >I am deeply moved by the plight of these white males who complain >about being discriminated against -- they show that they have not the >slightest understanding of the nature of discrimination and prejudice >in our society. One wouldn't have thought that such transparent >arguments in favor of racial and sexual inequality would be put forth >by college-educated adults; that is, before one became familiar with >the troglodyte preserve known as the Netnews and its large population >of Missing Links. As so often in the past, Richard, your sober, balanced, thoughtful, and above all, MANNERLY attitude towards those who disagree with you is an inspiration to Us Trogs. See you 'round the lower caverns, folks..... > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >/* ---------- */ > - Nat Howard