regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/28/85)
>Clayton Cramer: >Things *have* dramatically improved, mostly since the 1950s, and because >the attitudes of many people in our society changed --- not because the >government started trying to force a change in the late 1960s and early >1970s. I can see a dramatic reduction in racism just since 1962, when my >earliest memories of racism start. I suspect that the belief that government >must intervene are reflective of your faith in government's power, rather >than a rational evaluation of recent social history in this country. I'm sorry, but this is so whacko, I can't stand it. Blacks were freed 100 years ago, and women have had the vote for 70 or so, and this person is satisfied with change showing up 40 to 80 years later??!!??!! Prof. B. Bielby of UCSB has done extensive research on women in the workforce (his specialty was _not_ all minorities, unfortunate for the breadth of this discussion), and he points out that EVEN given the move of women into the work force during the industrial revolution, EVEN given the women who moved into the work force during the war years, that there was no significant rise in the wages and movement into management for women until approx. 1968-71 when women began to sue. Until LAWS were put into place for women to sue on the basis of violation, there was no significant level of improvement. None of this stuff is con- clusive, of course -- he hasn't interviewed every single woman and employer out there to discover motivations for the sudden change, and there is an outside chance that it all correlates to sunspots. Clayton, I can't _PROVE_ anything, but for some reason, I've got very little faith in your "rational evaluation of recent social history" in which apparently so many people did an about-face with no real urging beyond the goodness of their hearts. Given the "self-interest" motivation (the latest fad in managerial study), the reason that businesses would change their hiring practices would be because there was something in it for them -- positive publicity maybe, and expanded workforce maybe, increased government hassel maybe, a higher rate of lawsuits maybe. Up until the latter two forces went to work, it appears clear to me that the former two forces were not strong enough to override the perceived benefits of a homogenized workplace, and the comfort of working amongst "your own kind", supporting (by hiring) the good of your "community". Then, of course, your follow up comment: >At least in California, they would have had only slightly harder of a time >than I had --- perhaps back East, where the governments are further left, Define "slightly" and define the time-frame. Starting in the 50's, I doubt there was any significant difference between California and other states in the Union, they were all pretty lousy. And "slightly", when one is hanging on by one's fingernails, as, fer instance, I've had to do for years at a stretch, is a matter of perspective, which I'd be damned reluctant to let you determine for me (or use as a basis for policy). Re your responses on the "guilt" issue of AA: >(a six-screen rebuttal quoted in full, as if we hadn't all read it before) >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. Yeh, even at 6 screens, it was selective. More so than yours. So he gives you a whole raft of instances where people specifically decline to place collective guilt, and you come back with "somebody out there said somethin"!! Now _that's_ news. Let's talk about collective guilt again, o.k.? And who is placing what on whom. Adrienne Regard
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/03/85)
> > >Clayton Cramer: > >Things *have* dramatically improved, mostly since the 1950s, and because > >the attitudes of many people in our society changed --- not because the > >government started trying to force a change in the late 1960s and early > >1970s. I can see a dramatic reduction in racism just since 1962, when my > >earliest memories of racism start. I suspect that the belief that government > >must intervene are reflective of your faith in government's power, rather > >than a rational evaluation of recent social history in this country. > > I'm sorry, but this is so whacko, I can't stand it. Blacks were freed > 100 years ago, and women have had the vote for 70 or so, and this person > is satisfied with change showing up 40 to 80 years later??!!??!! Prof. > B. Bielby of UCSB has done extensive research on women in the workforce > (his specialty was _not_ all minorities, unfortunate for the breadth of > this discussion), and he points out that EVEN given the move of women into > the work force during the industrial revolution, EVEN given the women who > moved into the work force during the war years, that there was no significant > rise in the wages and movement into management for women until approx. > 1968-71 when women began to sue. > That was also a time when the *attitudes* of our society in general changed, and not just about women. Attempting to factor out what part is because of lawsuits, and what part is because of changing attitudes in the society, which the lawsuits are symptomatic of, is a difficult problem, to say the least. I can suggest one other significant factor in those years which has historical precedent: a lot of young men were suddenly pulled out of the workforce to go fight in Vietnam during the mid-1960s. This both reduced the number of men available for jobs, perhaps encouraging employers to be more open-minded about hiring, and also increased the number of women who needed to work because their husbands were getting soldier pay, instead of a living wage. Has anyone done a study of the wage disparity during, before, and after World War II? I would be a little suprised if the disparity didn't drastically reduce because of the war, and increase after the war. Note: no assumptions of discrimination are necessary to explain what happened, other than the obvious discrimination of the armed forced in favor of (or is it against?) men. > Until LAWS were put into place for women to sue on the basis of violation, > there was no significant level of improvement. None of this stuff is con- > clusive, of course -- he hasn't interviewed every single woman and employer > out there to discover motivations for the sudden change, and there is an > outside chance that it all correlates to sunspots. Clayton, I can't > _PROVE_ anything, but for some reason, I've got very little faith in your > "rational evaluation of recent social history" in which apparently so many > people did an about-face with no real urging beyond the goodness of their > hearts. > Isn't it true that the disparity between the wages of men and women have *increased* since the 1950s? I've read that women made 73% of men's wages in the late 1950s --- now it's about 60%. > Given the "self-interest" motivation (the latest fad in managerial study), > the reason that businesses would change their hiring practices would be > because there was something in it for them -- positive publicity maybe, > and expanded workforce maybe, increased government hassel maybe, a higher > rate of lawsuits maybe. Up until the latter two forces went to work, it > appears clear to me that the former two forces were not strong enough to > override the perceived benefits of a homogenized workplace, and the comfort > of working amongst "your own kind", supporting (by hiring) the good of your > "community". > The laws passed reflect attitudinal changes in the population. How can you easily separate them? > Then, of course, your follow up comment: > > >At least in California, they would have had only slightly harder of a time > >than I had --- perhaps back East, where the governments are further left, > > Define "slightly" and define the time-frame. Starting in the 50's, I doubt > there was any significant difference between California and other states in > the Union, they were all pretty lousy. And "slightly", when one is hanging > on by one's fingernails, as, fer instance, I've had to do for years at a > stretch, is a matter of perspective, which I'd be damned reluctant to let > you determine for me (or use as a basis for policy). > "Slightly": 5%? I can't tell you for sure. I do know that my experiences as engineer and employment agent give me no reason to assume widespread discrimination against women or blacks. (That's not to say there is none --- I would occasionally run into questionable situations, and (rarely) real blatant discrimination.) Time frame: I started working as an engineer in 1975 (for those that are curious, I was 18 at the time). I don't dispute that 10 years earlier, there was likely widespread discrimination based on sex and race. (I say "likely" because I've read about it, it doesn't seem implausible, but I *personally* didn't see it.) > Re your responses on the "guilt" issue of AA: > > >(a six-screen rebuttal quoted in full, as if we hadn't all read it before) > > >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. > > Yeh, even at 6 screens, it was selective. More so than yours. So he gives > you a whole raft of instances where people specifically decline to place > collective guilt, and you come back with "somebody out there said somethin"!! > Now _that's_ news. > There were people who specifically discounted the "guilt" argument. There were plenty of people whose comments on collective vs. individual suggested that they didn't have any big problem with it. How do I *know* that this is what they were arguing? I don't --- anymore that a black man who interviews for a job knows that he has been discriminated against. It's a feeling you get from the choice of words and the tone of comments. > Let's talk about collective guilt again, o.k.? And who is placing what > on whom. > > Adrienne Regard No one arguing against affirmative action is arguing for collective guilt. We have been arguing against notion of reparations, "justice", or anything else, that starts out with the idea that a *race*, or a *sex* has some sort of claim on another. Individuals who have been discriminated against have a legitimate claim against any governmental agency, governmentally-imposed or protected monopoly, or government contractor; someone who is black, or female, or <ethnic>, has no claim for something that happened to someone else.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (07/05/85)
> That was also a time when the *attitudes* of our society in general changed, > and not just about women. Attempting to factor out what part is because > of lawsuits, and what part is because of changing attitudes in the society, > which the lawsuits are symptomatic of, is a difficult problem Note that the attitudes of society did not change significantly until the early 1960s, with the March on Washington AND with explicit support from the Kennedy Administration, which was followed by explicit legislative action by the Johnson Administration, BOTH of which were strongly resisted by significant minorities in Congress and the country as a whole. This marks a clear case where the attitudes of the country were shaped by progressive governmental action. History does not support your claim that society changed all by itself, creating a framework for legal action. In fact, throughout American history, the pattern for social change has been activism by a minority, met by indifference from anyone else, until the minority meets a sympathetic ear in government. Leagl action is proposed, passes despite vigorous opposition by the proponents of the status quo, who then go on to sound dire warnings about how the country will be destroyed by whatever the legislation mandates. Then the legislation succeeds in that it mandates changes that force the country to re-examine its assumptions and finding them unsupportable. > least. I can suggest one other significant factor in those years which > has historical precedent: a lot of young men were suddenly pulled out of > the workforce to go fight in Vietnam during the mid-1960s. This both > reduced the number of men available for jobs, perhaps encouraging employers > to be more open-minded about hiring, and also increased the number of > women who needed to work because their husbands were getting soldier pay, > instead of a living wage. Has anyone done a study of the wage disparity > during, before, and after World War II? I would be a little suprised if > the disparity didn't drastically reduce because of the war, and increase > after the war. Note: no assumptions of discrimination are necessary to > explain what happened, other than the obvious discrimination of the > armed forced in favor of (or is it against?) men. > Wrong. Discrimination has EVERYTHING to do with it, as many women who entered the work force during WW 2 found out in 1946, when they were bluntly told to go home and have babies. And no, the WAGE disparity was not drastically reduced in WW 2. Women were paid less than the few men available for the same jobs. it's just that out of necessity, there were lots of women in the work force during WW 2. > Isn't it true that the disparity between the wages of men and women have > *increased* since the 1950s? I've read that women made 73% of men's wages > in the late 1950s --- now it's about 60%. > Which clearly shows that laws by themselves are not sufficient, but continued governmental action is necessary. > "Slightly": 5%? I can't tell you for sure. I do know that my experiences > as engineer and employment agent give me no reason to assume widespread > discrimination against women or blacks. (That's not to say there is none --- > I would occasionally run into questionable situations, and (rarely) real > blatant discrimination.) > What is "blatant" by your standards? Maybe you just don't see it because it is not directed at you. I work for AT&T, which is an extremely progressive company. Yet I have witnessed several actions that I can only ascribe to discrimination. This is in a company that makes extraordinary efforts at fair and activist personel policies. Imagine the situation when employers actively try to subvert EEO laws and AA policies, examples of which you yourself have talked about! > No one arguing against affirmative action is arguing for collective guilt. > We have been arguing against notion of reparations, "justice", or anything > else, that starts out with the idea that a *race*, or a *sex* has some sort > of claim on another. Individuals who have been discriminated against have > a legitimate claim against any governmental agency, governmentally-imposed > or protected monopoly, or government contractor; someone who is black, or > female, or <ethnic>, has no claim for something that happened to someone > else. As Michael Ellis has exhaustively pointed out, the SYSTEM is biased in favor of white males, who receive advantages that go from active discrimination in their favor to increased chances of success from diminished competition due to fewer applicants for a job, a promotion or whatever. He and others have also shown that since the system itself in unbalanced, specific, activist deeds are necessary to achive the constitutional promise of equal opportunity. Neither you nor any of the other anti-AA usenetters have provided any solid rebuttals to this central point, preferring to go off on tangents ("here are N cases where a racist/sexist employer gave a job to someone who did not deserve it", "don't make ME feel guilty", etc) If you feel that there is no discrimination in this country, you are either naive or you willfully ignore reality. If you disagree with the specifics of AA, you are free to offer your own solutions. I don't think anyone feels AA is a perfect solution, just the best one we've got. The business of *individuals* who have been discriminated against being the only ones with justified AA claim is meaningless. You yourself have said how difficult it is to prove discrimination. With the hads-off governmental attitude you advocate, there would be fewer legal recourse still. No, that is non-solution. You'll have to do better. Marcel Simon