carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/11/85)
Geoff Sherwood writes: > If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism. So what? This is what I have repeatedly asked without getting a straight answer. Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that prove that AA is wrong? (When the US fought Nazi violence in WW2 with violence, it was still violence. Was the US morally wrong to do so? Did we believe that "the end justifies the means"?) But to look for a rational argument here is to miss the point. The only reasons I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) to annoy liberals. To quote Ayn Rand out of context: "Philosophy: who needs it?" > 'The ends justifies > the means' is the argument that such things are justified, and has > justified some of the most atrocious things. Another instance of being attacked for something one did not say. Careful readers will have noted that I never claimed that the intention of eliminating racism is sufficient to justify any and all actions taken with that end in view. Nor do I know of anyone who believes this. Richard Carnes
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/12/85)
> Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" > according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that > prove that AA is wrong? Because a lot of people on the net think that racism is always wrong. > (When the US fought Nazi violence in WW2 > with violence, it was still violence. Was the US morally wrong to do > so? No, because most people think that violence is justified in some circumstances. > The only reasons > I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: > (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) > to annoy liberals. You've said this before, Rich. Could you please post your definitions of 'racism' and 'AA' so that we can see how they differ from normal usage in order to clear up this disagreement? > Richard Carnes -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/13/85)
In article <483@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Geoff Sherwood writes: > >> If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism. > >So what? This is what I have repeatedly asked without getting a >straight answer. Some of us do not believe that racism is morally defensible. You obviously do if it supports a cause you believe in. Racism is a very loaded word, and has all sorts of negative connotations. AA is a more 'acceptable' term. I consider them two faces of the same thing. Since I do, I feel that if one is wrong, so is the other. You draw a distinction between them that I feel is non-existant, and can therefore say one is good (i.e., you agree with it) and one is bad (i.e., you don't agree with it). >Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" >according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that >prove that AA is wrong? It doesn't, of course. It shows the parallel between them. You cannot 'prove' anything is 'right' or 'wrong' unless you agree on the postulates. The universe is neither good nor bad -- it just IS. You consider discrimination based on sex/race/etc to be acceptable if it supports a cause you believe in. I am afraid my views are not so flexible. And I very strongly oppose government-mandated discrimination because that institutionalizes (with my money) something I feel is wrong. Also, if you don't like a company, you can always leave. There are a lot (millions) of companies out there and one may be to your liking. The choices available if you don't like what the government does are much more restricted. >(When the US fought Nazi violence in WW2 >with violence, it was still violence. Was the US morally wrong to do >so? Did we believe that "the end justifies the means"?) Yes, we did. I still think so. When the ends are sufficiently bad, they do justify the means. Judging where this point is is easy, of course (just beyond wherever (generic you) want it to be). And that is why the argument is dangerous, because it can so easily give a rationalization to do just about anything -- because YOU (generic) decide the ends are worth the means (regardless of what those directly affected have to say). In this case, you (Richard) say that discrimating against people because they are white males is justified because of discrimination which OTHER white males inflicted on minorities. Unfortunately, this punishes the innocent on the basis of his color. I do not consider that the ends justifies the means in this case. >But to look >for a rational argument here is to miss the point. The only reasons >I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: >(1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) >to annoy liberals. To quote Ayn Rand out of context: "Philosophy: >who needs it?" To look for a rational argument here is the point of this whole thing, isn't it? You may or may not agree with me, but that does not make my argument more or less rational. > >> 'The ends justifies >> the means' is the argument that such things are justified, and has >> justified some of the most atrocious things. > >Another instance of being attacked for something one did not say. >Careful readers will have noted that I never claimed that the >intention of eliminating racism is sufficient to justify any and all >actions taken with that end in view. Nor do I know of anyone who >believes this. > >Richard Carnes Disagreement is not an 'attack'. As discussed above, any time you wish to take actions which are harmful to someone, there has to be a judgement as to whether the ends you expect to gain justify the harm. While I agree with your ends (to a certain extent -- I oppose discrimination) I do not feel they justify the discrimination against innocent (at least of discrimination in the marketplace) men. geoff sherwood
robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/13/85)
> Geoff Sherwood: > > > If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism. > Richard Carnes: > So what? This is what I have repeatedly asked without getting a > straight answer. Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" > according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that > prove that AA is wrong? Me: Many people believe that using immoral means in a good cause is immoral. Or, in more childish terms, "two wrongs don't make a right." Richard Carnes: > But to look > for a rational argument here is to miss the point. The only reasons > I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: > (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) > to annoy liberals. To quote Ayn Rand out of context: "Philosophy: > who needs it?" > Me: Cute. But the whole concept of affirmative action is based around fallacies. One is that passing laws is going to eliminate racism. I suspect that laws to eliminate racism will be just as effective as Prohibition was at eliminating drinking, or the immigration laws at stopping illegal immigration. Another is that having the government separate the population into classes and treating them differently will have the effect of having each individual treated according to his personal merits. (I'm not sure that is the assumption; it may be that Mr. Carnes considers personal merit and individualism to be inconsequential.) A final one is the assumption that it's horribly difficult for a woman to get a good job. My wife actually had very little difficulty landing her job as an R&D Physicist at a start-up company in Santa Clara. Certainly the company she works for has a high enough "minority" population to not be affected by AA guidelines. I know a number of other women in professional positions here; none seemed to have more trouble finding jobs than men did. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/14/85)
(Me) > Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" > according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that > prove that AA is wrong? (Jeff Sonntag) > Because a lot of people on the net think that racism is always wrong. No matter how it's defined? You miss the point of my question. Let me put it this way: Various people have stated, as an argument against affirmative action, that it constitutes racism (and by implication sexism). Now either I don't understand this argument or it is completely bogus. In order to clarify, please restate this argument without using the terms "racism" or "racist." Just substitute the definitions of those terms for the words themselves, and let's see what the argument looks like. But I suspect that the word "racism" has been brought in purely for its name-calling value, just as an opponent of surgery might say that "surgery is violence" or a cop-hater might say that "cops are killers" (they do kill people). (Me) > The only reasons > I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: > (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) > to annoy liberals. (Sonntag) > You've said this before, Rich. Could you please post your definitions > of 'racism' and 'AA' so that we can see how they differ from normal usage > in order to clear up this disagreement? OK. From the article on "Racism" in the *Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (an interesting article, BTW -- I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject): RACISM is the doctrine that one group of men is morally or mentally superior to another and that this superiority arises out of inherited biological differences. From *A Dictionary of the Social Sciences*, ed. J. Gould & W.L. Kolb, p. 571: Racism is the doctrine that there is a connection between racial and cultural traits, and that some races are inherently superior to others.... The disagreement among scholars as to the word "race" does not extend to its derivative "racism"; there is virtual agreement that it refers to a doctrine of racial supremacy. [Ruth] Benedict has defined "racism" as "the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by Nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority" (*Race, Science and Politics*). Racism is more than race prejudice. It is a formal doctrine whose contemporary intellectual notions are derived from A. de Gobineau's *Essai sur l'inegalite' des races humaines*, published in 1853.... Racism fuses national, ethnic, religious, and racial groups into an amalgam, the alleged inferiorities of which are spuriously attributed to race alone. J. Comas writes, "Racism is quite different from a mere acceptance or scientific and objective study of the fact of race and the fact of the present inequality of human groups. Racism involves the assertion that inequality is absolute and unconditional, i.e., that a race is inherently and by its very nature superior or inferior to others quite independently of the physical conditions of its habitat and of social factors" ("Racial Myths," in *The Race Question in Modern Science*). From *Webster's 3rd International Dictionary*: Racism: 1. The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others. 2a. A doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles. 2b. A political or social system founded on racism. From the *Concise Oxford Dict.*: Racialism: belief in superiority of a particular race; antagonism between different races. Racism: 1. = racialism. 2. theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race. From the *American Heritage Dict.*: Racism: 1. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism. From *The Encyclopaedia Britannica*, 15th ed.: Racism: the belief that some races are inherently superior to or different from others, based on the idea that inherited physical traits are accompanied by certain traits of personality, intellect, or culture. (The word is too recent a coinage to appear in the OED.) I'm not going to risk a definition of affirmative action, but nothing that I understand by the term satisfies a single one of the definitions listed above. So could we please stop saying that AA is racism, and leave this kind of rhetoric to *National Review* and the like. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestare, sed intellegere. I have striven, not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them. --Spinoza, *Tractatus*
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/14/85)
> > The only reasons > > I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: > > (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) > > to annoy liberals. > > (Sonntag) > > You've said this before, Rich. Could you please post your definitions > > of 'racism' and 'AA' so that we can see how they differ from normal usage > > in order to clear up this disagreement? > > OK. From the article on "Racism" in the *Encyclopedia of Philosophy* > (an interesting article, BTW -- I recommend it to anyone with an > interest in the subject): > > RACISM is the doctrine that one group of men is morally or > mentally superior to another and that this superiority arises > out of inherited biological differences. I've deleted a long list of other definitions Richard was kind enough to include, all of which seem pretty similar to this one. O.K., Richard, I'll have to admit I was wrong. I thought that one of the definitions of 'racist' would be something like: 'discrimination on the basis of race', but I was wrong. But AA programs which provide *more* than a fair shot (ie: quotas) do force employers to discriminate on the basis of race, which, in my book, is wrong. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/17/85)
[] > From: robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) > But the whole concept of affirmative action is based around > fallacies. One is that passing laws is going to eliminate racism. Very few people are naive enough to believe that passing laws will eliminate racism. Those of us who want to see some protective legislation believe that there should be laws prohibiting *acts* of racism, sexism, and so on. You can't legislate what people believe, nor should you try. > A final one is the assumption that it's horribly difficult for a woman to > get a good job. I've never had trouble getting a job, either (although I know women who had good reason to believe that they didn't get jobs on the basis of gender -- usually in a corporate environment). I have, however, had the experience of being treated differently on the job, once I had it. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position now where I feel I'm being treated fairly indeed by my employer, but I find that users seem to prefer talking to male staff. Discrimination is *real*, Mr. Plamandon. What do you suggest we do about it -- have bigots read books explaining why racism/sexism isn't nice? -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet
robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/18/85)
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: > [] > > From: robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) > > But the whole concept of affirmative action is based around > > fallacies. One is that passing laws is going to eliminate racism. > > Very few people are naive enough to believe that passing laws will > eliminate racism. Those of us who want to see some protective > legislation believe that there should be laws prohibiting *acts* of > racism, sexism, and so on. You can't legislate what people believe, > nor should you try. But clamping down on an employer because the ethnic makeup of his employees doen't match the "approved" profile has only a vague relation to actual acts of racism. AA only effects members of governmentally-approved minorities, anyway. An employer with a violent hatred of redheads, Californians, or bachelors will probably be able to indulge his bigotries with the government's blessing, as will women who despise men. The other level is for victims to sue the people who discriminated against them. This isn't as popular as it might be, since you have to have to be able to actually PROVE discrimination. It's so much easier to hang the innocent along with the guilty. >> A final one is the assumption that it's horribly difficult for a woman to >> get a good job. > I've never had trouble getting a job, either (although I know women > who had good reason to believe that they didn't get jobs on the basis > of gender -- usually in a corporate environment). I have, however, > had the experience of being treated differently on the job, once I > had it. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position now where I feel > I'm being treated fairly indeed by my employer, but I find that users > seem to prefer talking to male staff. Discrimination is *real*, Mr. > Plamondon. What do you suggest we do about it -- have bigots read > books explaining why racism/sexism isn't nice? > -- Melinda Shore I suggest the government do NOTHING about it, since its competence, sincerity, and immunity to the influence of the people it "regulates" are all suspect. I suggest that individuals can have a strong effect without invoking the government -- refuse to work for bigots. Refuse to buy from bigots. Don't associate with them. If you can't seem to find any non-bigots, you're probably living in the wrong place. Pull up stakes and move to a more enlightened neigborhood. Every time a talented individual refuses to work for a bigoted employer, the employer's business suffers. Ditto for when customers stop buying from him. Most industries are competitive enought that it doesn't take a whole lot to tip the bozos into oblivion. Don't wait for the government to come up with a magic wand to make everything better. They'll never find one. All they have is bureaucracy and taxpayers' money. People have to live their own lives as best they can, in a world that will always be screwed up, one way or another. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/21/85)
The discussion on affirmative action tends to get lost in a tangle of abstractions. Diego Gonzalez makes a valuable contribution by writing of his experiences as a black with a Hispanic name. If you missed his article, please read it. As for those who complain that AA oppresses white males, it's difficult for me to understand why anyone would seriously make this argument, but then there are a lot of things about American politics that I have a hard time understanding. As Tony Wuersch wrote, we seem to be living on different planets. I'm not sure that an intelligent dialogue is possible on the net between these two camps, but I'll try. Barry Fagin writes to the effect that it is ludicrous to suppose that anyone has a right to compel an employer to change his hiring practices. But it is ludicrous only on the assumption that the Non-Coercion Principle on which Barry's objection is apparently based is self-evidently true. The confidence of libertarians in the NCP is matched only by their inability to convince anyone else of it. To me it is ludicrous to suppose that employers have the right to discriminate against minorities and women because of their irrational prejudice against them, and AT THE SAME TIME no one has the right to make them stop it. SJ Berry writes: > AA is fully implemented, and we can't buy the home of our choice or > send our kids to a good school, etc. all because *I*, a WHITE MALE, > though completely qualified, can't get a job. They give them all to > equally qualified "minorities". I thought of writing a satirical response to this and similar postings, but the above already sounds like satire to me, and I would need the talents of a Mark Twain to do an adequate job. I was going to say that I was founding the NAAWM and requesting all WM's to send me their tax-deductible contributions so that we could fight for the rights of this oppressed minority, but lots of you would have taken me seriously and sent me your checks -- come to think of it, it might be worth a try sometime. Wake up, fellow white males! They're trying to take away our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap! Let's organize, march, demonstrate.... Suppose we abandon AA, or suppose it was never applied. Then we're back to the good old days when many blacks and women, though completely qualified, couldn't get a good job or a promotion or a good education. Do you think that the comfortable white males who are now howling their outrage about the "discrimination" AA inflicts on them were howling as loudly in the good old days about the discrimination and oppression inflicted on minorities and women, an oppression incomparably more severe than any that white males will ever experience? Take a guess. --Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes I have striven, not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them. --Spinoza
jj@alice.UUCP (06/21/85)
Damnit, Carnes, you can argue with me, but when you start implying that I'm a liar you've gone too far. Your offensive, totally off-the-wall presumption about "comfortable white males" screaming their heads off is RACIST, Carnes. RACIST! Look, damnit, I AM more or less comfortable nowdays, no thanks to either society, AA, racism (including that of national origin), or much of anything else but my own fighting for myself, my ulcers, and my blood pressure. People with your attitude have shortened my life, sir, by making their racist presuptions about "white males". Now, then, you say "<various people> would have us go back to the old days." No, Richard, that's NOT what most of the people whose articles I read would have us do. So, then, why do you suggest it, unless you're trying to malign a class of people? Consider the points about education that many have made. Are those points racist? <actually, in some cases, yes, but...> It seems you have a blindess to the fact that not all white males were comfortable before AA started. I wasn't. I am now comfortable IN SPITE of AA policies that cost me money, time, jobs, food, support, etc, and I don't think I should have to hear myself maligned again and again because of that. I refuse to feel guilty, I refuse to let you call me a cheating, racist <deleted>. If you are going to continue writing on AA matters, Richard, PLEASE be careful, and think more about whom you're talking about. I may be a bit sensitive right now, yes, after all, I just got back from spending a week in the hospital for something that was directly tracable to not having been able to afford proper medical care when I was in my early teens that was furthermore life threatening and VERY uncomfortable. I suppose that's evidence of my "comfortable white male" status to you, also? Perhaps since AA was in a sense responsible for that, and you support AA, I should charge you with assault? (Certainly that's legally and logically absurd, so I won't do it; the argument is no less farfetched than your own, sir.) Do I know that discrimination exists? Of course, I know it. I was born on the side of the tracks with the rest of the irish, black, and hispanic sorts. I knew all the other kids from that side of the tracks, and I have (not very fond) memories of sharing the battles with various school and business officials with them. It would be REAL hard not to know how discrimination works under those circumstances would it not? Well, why, then, does JJ NOT support AA? Well, he saw just what AA did when it hired. The people hired because of AA were TOLD that that was why they were hired. Most of them were also told to stay out of the road, and let the white men do the hard stuff. The title and salary of foreman, for example, doesn't mean much if you still sweep, and the union steward on your shift gives all the orders, does it now? In fact, it only shows up your helplessness even more thoroughly. There's a cute little book called "Hopelessness" by Seligman, perhaps you should read it. The problem, Richard, is that AA doesn't solve the problem. It only creates problems in practice. (Now, then I can imagine things that will HELP. I've listed some, and gotten exactly ZERO response from you, sir.) What MUST happen is that the racists must be forced to re-evaluate what's INSIDE THEIR HEADS, and realize that it's both advantageous and easier to realign their opinions and help. (Granted that some must be whacked upside the head...) The business of forcing quotas and the like only enforces racist policies, increases hatred, and causes more trouble. That's what happened, that's what is still happening some places, and that stinks. Until the discriminated against are EDUCATED, both in the scholastic sense and the psychological sense to be able to produce (and to simply NOT allow themselves to be stepped on) and the discriminating individuals are shown that it is NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS TO DISCRIMINATE, discrimination will exist, and likely flourish, AA completely aside. Please, Richard, I don't like racism any more than you do. Please be careful, and when you refer to "comfortable white males" remember that what you're doing is exactly what some people do to/for black people/women/hispanics/etc. I find myself uncomfortable in a roll that casts me as "anti anti-discrimination" in some people's eyes. I sincerely wish that such people would examine their own beliefs more carefully. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "Let us remember my cat, Geoffrey, ..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/23/85)
(just kidding) In article <> jj@alice.UUCP writes: > >Damnit, Carnes, you can argue with me, but when you start implying that I'm >a liar you've gone too far. Your offensive, totally >off-the-wall presumption about "comfortable white males" screaming their >heads off is RACIST, Carnes. [etc.] I'm sorry if my point was not sufficiently clear. I did not mean to imply that all opponents of AA are comfortable white bigots pining for the good old days when blacks and women knew their place. And jj@alice seems to have a social conscience in good working order. I was trying to express my bafflement at those who seem to say that white males are now an oppressed group because of AA, in the same sense that blacks and women historically have been oppressed. How can anyone suggest that the hardships, such as they are, that AA inflicts on white males are comparable to those endured by blacks and women for centuries and even today? I genuinely don't understand. I would be the last person to say that no white males in the US are oppressed and/or exploited; hell, I'm probably one of them. But I attribute this to capitalism, not to affirmative action. >The business of forcing quotas and the like only enforces racist >policies, increases hatred, and causes more trouble. Tell that to the great majority of state and local governments and businesses who are ignoring the Reagan Admin.'s call to undo AA plans. Here in Chicago the proportion of blacks, Hispanics, and women on the police and firefighting forces has increased significantly because of AA, and most people think that's terrific. AA has in general been a big success, and an example of how positive government can improve the quality of life and promote the general welfare. Richard Carnes
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> Barry Fagin writes to the effect that it is ludicrous to suppose that > anyone has a right to compel an employer to change his hiring > practices. But it is ludicrous only on the assumption that the > Non-Coercion Principle on which Barry's objection is apparently > based is self-evidently true. The confidence of libertarians in the > NCP is matched only by their inability to convince anyone else of it. > To me it is ludicrous to suppose that employers have the right to > discriminate against minorities and women because of their irrational > prejudice against them, and AT THE SAME TIME no one has the right to > make them stop it. > Tell me, Mr. Carnes, if you don't believe in the non-coercion principle, what is the basis for your objection to rape? murder? robbery? If the objection is based on law, then a government that repeals those laws has taken away your objections. > SJ Berry writes: > > > AA is fully implemented, and we can't buy the home of our choice or > > send our kids to a good school, etc. all because *I*, a WHITE MALE, > > though completely qualified, can't get a job. They give them all to > > equally qualified "minorities". > > I thought of writing a satirical response to this and similar > postings, but the above already sounds like satire to me, and I would > need the talents of a Mark Twain to do an adequate job. I was going > to say that I was founding the NAAWM and requesting all WM's to send > me their tax-deductible contributions so that we could fight for the > rights of this oppressed minority, but lots of you would have taken > me seriously and sent me your checks -- come to think of it, it might > be worth a try sometime. Wake up, fellow white males! They're > trying to take away our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap! > Let's organize, march, demonstrate.... > Not "our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap!" The right of every individual to be treated as an individual. Your comments suggest that you either aren't reading what people are saying, or you are purposely and knowingly distorting and twisting the objections to affirmative action. > Suppose we abandon AA, or suppose it was never applied. Then we're > back to the good old days when many blacks and women, though > completely qualified, couldn't get a good job or a promotion or a > good education. Do you think that the comfortable white males who > are now howling their outrage about the "discrimination" AA inflicts > on them were howling as loudly in the good old days about the > discrimination and oppression inflicted on minorities and women, an > oppression incomparably more severe than any that white males will > ever experience? Take a guess. > The bad old days of discrimination came to an end because a great many white males were disturbed by it --- EEO came into place from a Congress dominated by white males. (You don't really think blacks had enough political pull to do it by themselves, do you?) As long as I have held political opinions, I have been loudly opposed to racism of any form. I resent your belief that opposition to affirmative action is racism. > --Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > I have striven, not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, > nor to hate them, but to understand them. --Spinoza Spinoza tried to understand, Mr. Carnes --- you don't.
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (06/25/85)
And now for the non-squitur award for the year: ...The envelope, please... (A flourish of line feeds) >> Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" >> according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that >> prove that AA is wrong? > Because a lot of people on the net think that racism is always wrong. The awesome power of the NET! -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/26/85)
> >But we aren't talking about why people are getting arrested for this. What >we're talking about is why these guidelines are around in the first place. >These guidelines are meant to be a "fair" way of stopping discrimination, >but are they really? That is the question. Are we right in saying. . . >My answer to all the above: no. But Adrienne, you don't seem to want to >talk about the validity of the law, just the existence and the unavoid- >ability of it. > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } Colin, I think you got a problem here. First off, my response to alice!jj has been interpreted by you as "we aren't talking. . .". Frankly, I didn't know you spoke for alice!jj. Granted that "we" post to the net so that other's might read our opinions, don't you feel you are taking it a little far interpreting what jj meant? Not that I should be surprised, since you evidently feel qualified to further determine what I mean to talk about (in your last line above). I've been very busy lately, true, and haven't been caught up on reading, let alone posting, but please grant me the right to speak for myself. You really don't need to waste your time trying to do it for me. Thirdly, I'm not sure that your definition of AA is correct. It is seen as a means of stopping discrimination. Whether or not anyone considers AA "fair" probably requires some kind of poll. Is a flat tax rate more "fair" than a graduated rate? Govt. isn't interested in "fair" so much as in "effective" (which, in the case of AA is also arguable). What AA _has_ done is offer grounds for suit, and lawsuits have done a good deal toward evening things up -- and they certainly are not "fair". I do have a certain sense of the inevitability of equality (don't you???) simply because the marketplace has changed so drastically. The economy won't be able to support such disparities in incomes given our tax methods and transfer payments. However, that doesn't mean I'm complacent -- after all, I work _right now_. I'd be a lot happier if the distinction between classes and sexes ceased to exist simply because it would make things easier. I consider AA worthy of support because it is accomplishing some of these goals and is better than nothing. So far, "nothing" is what has been suggested by the opponents of AA. I'd be happy to entertain other ideas, if they were presented. Adrienne Regard
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/26/85)
In article <> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Tell me, Mr. Carnes, if you don't believe in the non-coercion principle, >what is the basis for your objection to rape? murder? robbery? If the >objection is based on law, then a government that repeals those laws >has taken away your objections. Mr. Cramer now feigns total ignorance of all non-libertarian moral philosophy. Flame away -- why don't you tell them I support rape and murder -- I won't respond, since we seem to mean two completely different things by "intelligent discussion." When will I learn that it's pointless to argue with right-wing ideologues. --Slow Learner in Chicago
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/27/85)
> Robert Plamondon >> Richard Carnes >>> Geoff Sherwood >>> If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism. >> >> So what? This is what I have repeatedly asked without getting a >> straight answer. Supposing that affirmative action is "racism" >> according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that >> prove that AA is wrong? > >Many people believe that using immoral means in a good cause is immoral. >Or, in more childish terms, "two wrongs don't make a right." We, using our government, `take' things from many groups of people and `give' them to others, using methods as diverse as social security, special services for the handicapped, free school lunch programs, subsidies to farmers for NOT growing crops, welfare, and so on. Are these methods truly `immoral'? And what is `immoral'? When FDR first tried to implement graduated income tax, it was viewed as `immoral', or at least illegal, society's equivalent to `immoral'. Going back further, so was the organization of workers into unions for purposes of withholding labor from their employers. The first strong forms of AA were, by definition, `immoral', ie. unconstitutional, I suppose, as a result of the Bakke ruling. Our society was doing something new here, and no doubt there will be many who will see things both ways for some time to come. I, for one, believe the necessary legal and social framework can and will be created in the interest of a higher social justice. Then strong forms of AA will be `moral' again. No doubt, those who are rigidly `rule oriented' are certainly appalled by such thinking. So be it. Perhaps your viewpoint will win out in the end. But our government forces me to do many things I consider immoral, like paying taxes to an evil war machine. Yet by definition, being government sanctified, my forced contribution to such an evil cause is not `immoral'. Now you claim that the present castrated form of AA is `immoral'. Which do you mean? 1) AA violates your personal moral code 2) AA violates society's moral code, established by consensus, called law If (1), then our personal codes differ, and we will argue forever. If (2), you are wrong, because the current weak form of AA IS law. Period. >> But to look >> for a rational argument here is to miss the point. The only reasons >> I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are: >> (1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2) >> to annoy liberals. To quote Ayn Rand out of context: "Philosophy: >> who needs it?" >> >Cute. But the whole concept of affirmative action is based around >fallacies. One is that passing laws is going to eliminate racism. I >suspect that laws to eliminate racism will be just as effective as >Prohibition was at eliminating drinking, or the immigration laws at stopping >illegal immigration. Any advocate of AA who believes that the program will cure existing bigots of racism/sexism surely has rocks in their head. And opponents who claim this is the goal of AA are simply demolishing their own silly argument. The goal of AA is to compensate for the EFFECTS of racism/sexism. -michael
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/28/85)
> The other level is for victims to sue the people who discriminated > against them. This isn't as popular as it might be, since you have > to have to be able to actually PROVE discrimination. It's so much easier > to hang the innocent along with the guilty. > WHatever that statement wishes to imply, it also points out the usefulness of an AA system under which the employer strives toward certain goals and must report on failure to meet them. Note that no employer can be blamed for failure to meet goals if it can show that good faith efforts to identify qualified candidates for hiring and promotion failed. > I suggest the government do NOTHING about it, since its competence, > sincerity, and immunity to the influence of the people it "regulates" > are all suspect. > Under your system, women would not have the right to vote, and we would still be under segragated public transportation, schools, etc. > I suggest that individuals can have a strong effect without invoking > the government -- refuse to work for bigots. Refuse to buy from > bigots. Don't associate with them. > If bigots are favored by the system, and government should do nothing about the system, you are giving bigots quite an advantage in the competition for jobs, advancement and power. Suggesting that those who are discriminated against or those who disapprove of discrimination should go away and leave the field to bigots strikes me as curious. > If you can't seem to find any non-bigots, you're probably living in > the wrong place. Pull up stakes and move to a more enlightened > neigborhood. WHat if the "neighborhood" is the entire country? WHere should we move to? And why should people be forced to leave the location they choose to live in just because some bigot also decides to live there? > Every time a talented individual refuses to work for a bigoted > employer, the employer's business suffers. Ditto for when customers > stop buying from him. Most industries are competitive enought that > it doesn't take a whole lot to tip the bozos into oblivion. > If that were true, how come discrimination is so ingrained in our society? If discrimination is present in EVERY competitor in a given market, where do you suggest individuals go? > Don't wait for the government to come up with a magic wand to make > everything better. They'll never find one. All they have is > bureaucracy and taxpayers' money. People have to live their own > lives as best they can, in a world that will always be screwed up, > one way or another. > -- Robert Plamondon If I understand you correctly, the world is discriminatory, and the bigots are in power, and the rest of us should suffer in silence, because "that's the way it is" I will not comment on it, because I fear I would lapse into incoherent anger. If I misunderstood you, please clarify. Marcel Simon
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/01/85)
>Until quite recently (sometime in the 1970s) most men's jobs in this >country were blue collar jobs involving dirt and risk. My father used >to work on high steel, and the tales he told of industrial injuries >are pretty stomach turning. I can see why few women would have gone into >his line of work (although I'm sure the macho bias of my father's >co-workers would have prevented it anyway). I suspect that the move >away from blue collar jobs in America is part of the reason that women >are getting a fairer shake in the workplace. >Clayton Cramer Go back a little earlier, Clayton. When the men were still underground mining coal (a dirty dangerous job) it was women and children who ran the factories (another dirty, dangerous job) for far longer hours than the men who made steel. And the tales of industrial injuries were so horrible that safety regulations had to be changed -- by law -- and enforced. By the time your dad was working, conditions had altered remarkably for the better, and still weren't as safe as you or I would expect. Depending on how far we want to look into history, we discover that men haven't any special claim to the dirty and the dangerous. Depending on which countries one wants to investigate, we discover differing levels of male dominance. Historical anecdotes are interesting, and sometimes illustrative, but one finds it easy to get off the track when relating a policy, or a hypothesis, to personal experiences.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/01/85)
> > Robert Plamondon >> Richard Carnes >>> Geoff Sherwood > > >Many people believe that using immoral means in a good cause is immoral. > >Or, in more childish terms, "two wrongs don't make a right." > > We, using our government, `take' things from many groups of people > and `give' them to others, using methods as diverse as social > security, special services for the handicapped, free school lunch > programs, subsidies to farmers for NOT growing crops, welfare, > and so on. > > Are these methods truly `immoral'? And what is `immoral'? When > FDR first tried to implement graduated income tax, it was viewed > as `immoral', or at least illegal, society's equivalent to `immoral'. > Going back further, so was the organization of workers into unions > for purposes of withholding labor from their employers. > You equate "illegal" with "immoral", rather the way Moral Majority believes that anything "immoral" should be "illegal". The law is powerful force for good and evil (but mostly evil). I would think it wise to avoid trying to make everything illegal on the spur of the moment. > The first strong forms of AA were, by definition, `immoral', ie. > unconstitutional, I suppose, as a result of the Bakke ruling. > > Our society was doing something new here, and no doubt there will be > many who will see things both ways for some time to come. I, for one, > believe the necessary legal and social framework can and will be created > in the interest of a higher social justice. Then strong forms of AA > will be `moral' again. > > No doubt, those who are rigidly `rule oriented' are certainly appalled > by such thinking. So be it. Perhaps your viewpoint will win out in the > end. But our government forces me to do many things I consider immoral, > like paying taxes to an evil war machine. > Is your argument: "I can't stop paying taxes to support an immoral war machine, so I'm going to use the coercive instrument to make even more people have to do something immoral." Wouldn't it make more sense to stop *forcing* everyone to pay for the government, and allow it to be funded voluntarily? Why not extend this idea of voluntarism and peace to allow voluntary peaceful action concerning discrmination, and keep the government and its coercion out of it? > Yet by definition, being government sanctified, my forced contribution to > such an evil cause is not `immoral'. > If the government started to round up innocent people and kill them, would government sanctification make it "moral". Hitler's actions were completely legal (at least, within Germany and Austria). They sure weren't moral. > Now you claim that the present castrated form of AA is `immoral'. Which > do you mean? > > 1) AA violates your personal moral code > 2) AA violates society's moral code, established by consensus, called law > > If (1), then our personal codes differ, and we will argue forever. And you wish to impose your moral code on others by forcing non-aggressive people to do what you want. > If (2), you are wrong, because the current weak form of AA IS law. Period. > The current form of affirmative action isn't law; it is administrative decisions that in some respects seem contrary to the laws passed by Congress. Nonetheless, if you really want to argue that "law" is all that matters, remember Hitler. > Any advocate of AA who believes that the program will cure existing > bigots of racism/sexism surely has rocks in their head. And opponents > who claim this is the goal of AA are simply demolishing their own silly > argument. > > The goal of AA is to compensate for the EFFECTS of racism/sexism. > > -michael If it won't cure existing bigots, then it can only be compensation. Who does it compensate? Real victims, or only people with the same sex or race as real victims?
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/02/85)
Preface: This is a long set of excerpts from my original posting and Marcel Simon's responses to it. I've added my own counter-arguments below, but there are a couple of points that should be made first: 1. It looks to me like Marcel believes that the only solution to the problem of discriminatory hiring against women is a bureaucratic one. I believe that an Affirmative Action bureaucracy isn't going to be effective, for the following reasons: a) Employers can be divided into three categories: Those who aren't bigots, those who strongly biased, and those who are weakly biased. Only those in the last category are going to change their hiring practices due to AA buraucracy -- those who aren't biased don't need the incentive, and those who are strongly biased will fight, weasel, and cheat. b) Bureaucratic solutions devolve into schemes that are easy to gather statistics on. In hiring practices, this usually means that, regardless of the intentions of the people who supported and drafted the legislation, it all comes down to tokenism in the end. c) Regulatory agencies seem to be drawn inevitably into the camp of those they regulate. After all, they have money, experience, and more money. d) Don't forget that the government itself was the cause of much of the trouble: racist and sexist legislation, bullshit paternalistic laws, ad nauseam. 2. Marcel seems to believe that bigots make up such an overwhelming majority of the employers that no one has any hope without a bureaucratic rescue. I believe that this is wildly wrong. If it were true, I wouldn't hold out much hope, since the government itself would ALSO be overwhelmingly stocked with bigots, giving fair enforcement no chance at all. 3. Marcel fails to draw the distinction between equal rights legislation (which make the legal rights of all individuals the same), and bureaucratic solutions (which involve lots of regulators running around telling people what they can and cannot do). I support equal rights for everybody. 4. Marcel trusts our government. You know -- Viet Nam, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, Prohibition, McCarthy's witch hunts -- *THAT* government. I think that the issues of minority hiring and the earnings gap are too complex for the government to handle well. On to the debate: Robert: > > I suggest the government do NOTHING about it, since its competence, > > sincerity, and immunity to the influence of the people it "regulates" > > are all suspect. Marcel Simon: > Under your system, women would not have the right to vote, and we would > still be under segragated public transportation, schools, etc. Robert again: Not at all! I support equal rights through equal rights legislation and court actions, but I oppose *BUREAUCRACIES* that try to regulate employment practices and attitudes. and again: > > I suggest that individuals can have a strong effect without invoking > > the government -- refuse to work for bigots. Refuse to buy from > > bigots. Don't associate with them. Marcel Simon: > If bigots are favored by the system, and government should do nothing about > the system, you are giving bigots quite an advantage in the competition for > jobs, advancement and power. Suggesting that those who are discriminated > against or those who disapprove of discrimination should go away > and leave the field to bigots strikes me as curious. Me again: The government is the tool of the status quo. Even if legislation is passed to change the status quo, the bureaucracy usually ends up in the pocket of the people it's supposed to be regulating. and again: > > If you can't seem to find any non-bigots, you're probably living in > > the wrong place. Pull up stakes and move to a more enlightened > > neigborhood. Marcel: > WHat if the "neighborhood" is the entire country? WHere should we move to? > And why should people be forced to leave the location they choose to live > in just because some bigot also decides to live there? Robert: But it ISN'T the whole country, or the fight for equal rights would be hopeless! > > Don't wait for the government to come up with a magic wand to make > > everything better. They'll never find one. All they have is > > bureaucracy and taxpayers' money. People have to live their own > > lives as best they can, in a world that will always be screwed up, > > one way or another. > > -- Robert Plamondon Marcel: > If I understand you correctly, the world is discriminatory, and the bigots > are in power, and the rest of us should suffer in silence, because > "that's the way it is" I will not comment on it, because I fear I would lapse > into incoherent anger. If I misunderstood you, please clarify. > > Marcel Simon And, of course, I'll give myself the last word: The world is screwed up. It always has been. *BUT*, that doesn't mean that you should either: a) hang yourself from the nearest tree, or b) become totally cynical, or c) pin all your hopes on a white knight that will come to the rescue. Even if everything goes perfectly, the problems we're talking about in net.women won't disappear entirely, since bigotry and ignorance are very, very stubborn. And we all know that things aren't going to go perfectly. So, what do we do in this interval between Chaos and Utopia? We do what we can to make things better, and live our lives as best we can. It's not a flashy attitude, and doing little things to make life better for ourselves and those around us doesn't have the macho appeal of laws and courts and guns. But people who just sit around waiting for the revolution to come aren't doing anyone any good, least of all themselves. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/05/85)
> >Until quite recently (sometime in the 1970s) most men's jobs in this > >country were blue collar jobs involving dirt and risk. My father used > >to work on high steel, and the tales he told of industrial injuries > >are pretty stomach turning. I can see why few women would have gone into > >his line of work (although I'm sure the macho bias of my father's > >co-workers would have prevented it anyway). I suspect that the move > >away from blue collar jobs in America is part of the reason that women > >are getting a fairer shake in the workplace. > >Clayton Cramer > > Go back a little earlier, Clayton. When the men were still underground > mining coal (a dirty dangerous job) it was women and children who ran the > factories (another dirty, dangerous job) for far longer hours than the men > who made steel. And the tales of industrial injuries were so horrible that > safety regulations had to be changed -- by law -- and enforced. By the > time your dad was working, conditions had altered remarkably for the > better, and still weren't as safe as you or I would expect. > I wouldn't argue that women and children's jobs weren't at one time very dangerous and very dirty; I might argue that men's jobs were riskier, but I'm not sure that it is easy to measure. Certainly in recent history, women's jobs have been, overall, less dangerous. (Note, my original comments were observing *why* the notion of "men's work" and "women's work" came about, without any notion of "right" or "wrong" being associated.) > Depending on how far we want to look into history, we discover that men > haven't any special claim to the dirty and the dangerous. Depending on > which countries one wants to investigate, we discover differing levels of > male dominance. Historical anecdotes are interesting, and sometimes > illustrative, but one finds it easy to get off the track when relating > a policy, or a hypothesis, to personal experiences. Men have no special claim to dirty and dangerous work *until the middle of this century* at least in America. I think this issue is worth considering; I don't claim that no discrimination based on sex has ever existed, and I don't claim that it doesn't exist now. I think a little more thought about the origins of the 59 cent figure are useful. Re: "getting off the track when relating a policy, or a hypothesis, to personal experiences." Heck, that's easily half of the postings to this newsgroup! Would you have told the guy who posted his experiences as a Spanish-surnamed black that he was getting off the track? What about the various women who have told of the trauma they experienced because of rape? What about the woman who had the humiliating experience with the twerp who made sexual advances towards her when she was driving home? Are you planning to tell them they were "getting off the track", or is it OK because they come to the same conclusions?
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/05/85)
> > I suggest the government do NOTHING about it, since its competence, > > sincerity, and immunity to the influence of the people it "regulates" > > are all suspect. > > > Under your system, women would not have the right to vote, and we would > still be under segragated public transportation, schools, etc. > I think the original remark referred to affirmative action, as opposed to equal employment opportunities. Segregated public transportation, in much of the South was because of governmental policies which *required* segregation. Public schooling, ditto. Women's suffrage is an unrelated issue. You are confusing affirmative action, where the government actively takes steps, with eliminating discriminatory practices by the government. > > I suggest that individuals can have a strong effect without invoking > > the government -- refuse to work for bigots. Refuse to buy from > > bigots. Don't associate with them. > > If bigots are favored by the system, and government should do nothing about > the system, you are giving bigots quite an advantage in the competition for > jobs, advancement and power. Suggesting that those who are discriminated > against or those who disapprove of discrimination should go away > and leave the field to bigots strikes me as curious. > Bigots are not favored by the system; read Thomas Sowell's _Markets_ _And_ _Minorities_ for an analysis of the effects of free markets on bigots. Some of the interference with the free market in this country has been done *for the purpose of protecting bigots*. > > If you can't seem to find any non-bigots, you're probably living in > > the wrong place. Pull up stakes and move to a more enlightened > > neigborhood. > > WHat if the "neighborhood" is the entire country? WHere should we move to? > And why should people be forced to leave the location they choose to live > in just because some bigot also decides to live there? > If the entire country is bigoted, and yet you want the country to stop bigotry, then you obviously are opposed to democracy. That's OK, libertarians are opposed to democracy as well, for precisely this reason. If the whole population is bigoted, only a dictatorship will eliminate bigotry by law. (It is interesting to note that during the medieval period, the only protection Jews usually had from the people was the nobility. I hasten to add, this protection usually wasn't because of noble-mindedness by the king, but economic necessity.) > > Every time a talented individual refuses to work for a bigoted > > employer, the employer's business suffers. Ditto for when customers > > stop buying from him. Most industries are competitive enought that > > it doesn't take a whole lot to tip the bozos into oblivion. > > > If that were true, how come discrimination is so ingrained in our > society? If discrimination is present in EVERY competitor in a > given market, where do you suggest individuals go? > Because free markets are an abstraction in this country, for the most part. Some parts of the economy are fairly free, but most of the economy is regulated --- some to protect established companies, some to protect consumers, and some just because regulations, once put into effect, don't go away, even when the need is gone. > > Don't wait for the government to come up with a magic wand to make > > everything better. They'll never find one. All they have is > > bureaucracy and taxpayers' money. People have to live their own > > lives as best they can, in a world that will always be screwed up, > > one way or another. > > -- Robert Plamondon > > If I understand you correctly, the world is discriminatory, and the bigots > are in power, and the rest of us should suffer in silence, because > "that's the way it is" I will not comment on it, because I fear I would lapse > into incoherent anger. If I misunderstood you, please clarify. > > Marcel Simon You don't understand correctly. Mr. Plamondon is saying that if the bigots are in the minority, you can achieve a discrimination-free society by private action. If the bigots are in the majority, you need a dictatorship to achieve your goals.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (07/10/85)
> You are confusing affirmative action, where the government > actively takes steps, with eliminating discriminatory practices by the > government. It is the responsibility of democratic government to take action to uphold the law. Equal Opportunity is the law. Employers have demnstrated that they will not (in general) abide by the law. Government has no choice than to take steps to get the law enforced. > Bigots are not favored by the system... > Some of the interference with the free market in this country has been > done *for the purpose of protecting bigots*. > These two sentences contradict each other. Please elaborate. > If the entire country is bigoted, and yet you want the country to stop > bigotry, then you obviously are opposed to democracy. In a democracy, every group has a share of political power. Bigots would have it that certain groups have no political power, or limited political power. That is the true oposition to democracy. > > Mr. Plamondon is saying that if the > bigots are in the minority, you can achieve a discrimination-free society > by private action. If the bigots are in the majority, you need a > dictatorship to achieve your goals. And I argue that where bigots are favored, private action will not work. You and Robert Plamondon seem to assume equal shares of power between the bigoted priviledged and the discriminated agains others. That is incorrect by any measure. Government, which exists in this country to ensure that eall citizens receive eual protection under the law, MUST be an equalizing presence. Marcel Simomn