gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/03/85)
This is actually in response to an article in net.flame about
a Young White Male feeling oppressed due to preferential
discrimination ("affirmative action").
I thought I'd present some facts about this form of discrimination
which violate the established view of its benefits:
From "The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell, p200-201:
(note: *text* = italic "text")
"[Affirmative action] evolved into 'numerical goals and timetables'
(job quotas) in federal guidelines issued in December 1971. Two
years before that date Puerto Rican family income was 63% of the
national average, and 5 years afterwards it was *down* to 50%.
Black family income followed a fluctuating path and Mexican
American family income declined slightly as a percentage of the
national average. Whatever the complex of factors behind these
numbers, at the very least, they offer no positive evidence of
benefits from affirmative action.
"While 'affirmative action' results were unimpressive in gross terms,
a finer breakdown shows disturbing counterproductive trends. The
least fortunate blacks, for example, grew worse off economically,
while those already more fortunate rose rapidly. Black males
with 8 to 11 years of schooling, and less than 6 years of work
experience earned 79% of the income of while males of the
same description in 1967 (before quotas) and this *fell* to
69% by 1978 (after quotas). During the very same span, black
males who had completed college and had more than 6 years of
work experience rose from 75% of the income of their white
counterparts to 98%. By 1980, college-educated black
couples were earning more than college-educated white couples.
"... the tendancy [among employers] was to increase the demand
for 'safe' employees from the government-designated groups
-- individuals with a college education or substantial work
experience -- and to *reduce* the demand for those lacking such
education and experience. ....[T]he proportion of all black
income going to the top fifth of blacks increased, while that
going to each of the bottom three fifths all declined.
"This was only one of many social programs which, in the *name*
of the poor and the disadvantaged, those who were already well off were
made still better off -- while the ostensible beneficiaries
were either neglected or made worse off."
(Thomas Sowell holds a PhD in Economics and is a Senior Fellow
at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University).
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam