ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/20/85)
>>>a great many of the people over {in net.women} have done *exactly* that, >>>saying that all white males should have less because of what white males >>> have done in the past. >> >> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? >> The opponents of Affirmative Action! > > Since this article was cross-posted to net.politics, and some of you >net.politics readers might not have been following the action in net.women >recently, I just thought I'd let you know that the last statement above ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ >is false. The person who thought that all white males should share in ^^ ^^^^^ >some collective blame for the actions of some white men *was* arguing in >favor of affirmative action. >> >> -michael > >--Jeff Sonntag Like who? Certainly not me. Those below have all consistently argued against AA, and have also stated that AA implies guilt or that it is a punishment/reward for past actions: Carl Dietrick David Canzi Frank Silberman David Rubin Clayton Cramer alice!jj Geoff Sherwood Robert Plamondon Those below have all consistently argued in favor of AA, and have also made the point that AA is neither punishment nor reward, or that it does not imply any `collective guilt' on the part of white men: Marie Desjardins Michael Ellis Beth Christy Richard Carnes Adrienne Regard Mr. Sonntag, first you misrepresent our arguments, and when I point out your error, you claim that my statement is false. I have searched our net.women archives for articles about AA/discrimination and included the references I could find to guilt/punishment/reward/etc. Everything I found supported my statement. Please comment or else retract your misstatement. ======================================================================== ANTI-AA ARGUMENTS ======================================================================== happening. So why do *I* have to pay? And don't give me any of these arguments based on the notion of 'original sin' -- I gave up Catholicism along with bubble gum and comic books. -- Carl Dietrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ acts committed by other white men. The only thing I can conclude, therefore, is that you hold him guilty for being a white man. You hold him guilty, not for what he has done, but for what he *is*. -- David Canzi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2) It fails to discriminate between those who caused the injury and those who merely resemble the guilty parties. -- Frank Silberman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It (AA) would have much merit if the winners were past victims and the losers past victimizers, but the winners and losers are instead generally those who have had little to do with the past discrimination, but happen to share some superficial attribute (e.g. skin color) of those who either discriminated or were discriminated against. -- D. Rubin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ and national origin? We are all individuals --- viewing everyone as a member of a race, ethnic group, or sexual class, and assigning collective guilt, responsibility, or economic oppression based on our membership in a category is identical to the approach of the KKK. --- I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have less because of what white males have done in the past. -- Clayton Cramer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The point is that AA is a violation of the premise "innocent until proven guilty" and that it presumes I'm guilty. (As does Mike Ellis, and someone else who calls me a Bozo, and so on.) --(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. -- Geoff Sherwood ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Southern whites are, as a class, and historically speaking, the most likely to engage in biased hiring practices against women and blacks. How about a "Grandfather law" levying extra taxes on southern white males? Or setting up governmental programs so that southern --Robert Plamondon ======================================================================== PRO-AA ARGUMENTS ======================================================================== The point is not that anybody should feel guilty for being male. Guilt has nothing to do with it. The point is that white males have an advantage in this society. They are often unwilling to --Marie Desjardins ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AA is not a punishment or a reward. Therefore your remarks about past victims and victimizers is innappropriate. --- Nobody's saying *you* should feel GUILTY about today's underprivileged. --Michael Ellis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The purpose of affirmative action is not to provide "justice for past wrongs". It is to prevent future wrongs of the same type. --Beth Christy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ blacks and others. Affirmative action does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on membership in a group -- as I wrote above, its ultimate purpose is to end the perception of these groups as being somehow "different," by equalizing their roles in society. ---Richard Carnes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ guilty of what? AA isn't on trial, and neither are you. If an employer ignores the guidelines determined by the govt., they may be found guilty, --Adrienne Regard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -michael
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/21/85)
AA implies guilt? Is this a new subject or what? The 'guilt' crap that we've been discussing, Micheal, was the idea that white men share a collective guilt for the actions of other white men now and in the past. This is illustrated by the quote below, which seems to have been what sparked this whole discussion: > >>>a great many of the people over {in net.women} have done *exactly* that, > >>>saying that all white males should have less because of what white males > >>> have done in the past. > >> > >> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > >> The opponents of Affirmative Action! > > > > Since this article was cross-posted to net.politics, and some of you > >net.politics readers might not have been following the action in net.women > >recently, I just thought I'd let you know that the last statement above > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ > >is false. The person who thought that all white males should share in > ^^ ^^^^^ > >some collective blame for the actions of some white men *was* arguing in > >favor of affirmative action. > >> > >> -michael > > > >--Jeff Sonntag > > Like who? Certainly not me. Looks to me as though this *might* all just be a misunderstanding. Perhaps you're referring to an entirely different kind of 'guilt' crapola, where an anti-AA type claimed that AA implies guilt. I (and the originator of this stuff, apparently) was talking about the brand of 'guilt' crapola from someone propounding the idea that white males share a collective guilt for the actions of other white males. I guess I'll just assume that it *was* just a misunderstanding unless I receive a mailbox full of flames from Micheal. Once more, for the record: I'm opposed to quotas, but as has been pointed out many times, AA is not about quotas. I'm *for* giving an edge to people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race. I'm not opposed to AA, since it is somewhat similar to what I'm *for*. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> >>>a great many of the people over {in net.women} have done *exactly* that, > >>>saying that all white males should have less because of what white males > >>> have done in the past. > >> > >> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > >> The opponents of Affirmative Action! > > > > Since this article was cross-posted to net.politics, and some of you > >net.politics readers might not have been following the action in net.women > >recently, I just thought I'd let you know that the last statement above > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ > >is false. The person who thought that all white males should share in > ^^ ^^^^^ > >some collective blame for the actions of some white men *was* arguing in > >favor of affirmative action. > >> > >> -michael > > > >--Jeff Sonntag > > Like who? Certainly not me. > > Those below have all consistently argued against AA, and have also > stated that AA implies guilt or that it is a punishment/reward for > past actions: > > Carl Dietrick David Canzi Frank Silberman > David Rubin Clayton Cramer alice!jj > Geoff Sherwood Robert Plamondon > > Those below have all consistently argued in favor of AA, and have also > made the point that AA is neither punishment nor reward, or that it > does not imply any `collective guilt' on the part of white men: > > Marie Desjardins Michael Ellis Beth Christy > Richard Carnes Adrienne Regard > > Mr. Sonntag, first you misrepresent our arguments, and when I > point out your error, you claim that my statement is false. > > I have searched our net.women archives for articles about > AA/discrimination and included the references I could find > to guilt/punishment/reward/etc. Everything I found supported > my statement. > > Please comment or else retract your misstatement. > > ======================================================================== > ANTI-AA ARGUMENTS > ======================================================================== > > happening. So why do *I* have to pay? And don't give me any of these > arguments based on the notion of 'original sin' -- I gave up Catholicism along > with bubble gum and comic books. > -- Carl Dietrick > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > acts committed by other white men. The only thing I can conclude, > therefore, is that you hold him guilty for being a white man. You hold > him guilty, not for what he has done, but for what he *is*. > -- David Canzi > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 2) It fails to discriminate between those who caused the injury > and those who merely resemble the guilty parties. > -- Frank Silberman > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > It (AA) would have much merit if the winners were past victims and the > losers past victimizers, but the winners and losers are instead generally > those who have had little to do with the past discrimination, but happen to > share some superficial attribute (e.g. skin color) of those who either > discriminated or were discriminated against. > -- D. Rubin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > and national origin? We are all individuals --- viewing everyone as > a member of a race, ethnic group, or sexual class, and assigning > collective guilt, responsibility, or economic oppression based on > our membership in a category is identical to the approach of the KKK. > --- > I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you > claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on > membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there > have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have > less because of what white males have done in the past. > -- Clayton Cramer > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The point is that AA is a violation of the premise > "innocent until proven guilty" and that it presumes > I'm guilty. (As does Mike Ellis, and someone else who > calls me a Bozo, and so on.) > --(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > -- Geoff Sherwood > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Southern whites are, as a class, and historically speaking, the most > likely to engage in biased hiring practices against women and blacks. > How about a "Grandfather law" levying extra taxes on southern > white males? Or setting up governmental programs so that southern > --Robert Plamondon > ======================================================================== > PRO-AA ARGUMENTS > ======================================================================== > The point is not that anybody should feel guilty for being male. > Guilt has nothing to do with it. The point is that white males > have an advantage in this society. They are often unwilling to > --Marie Desjardins > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 1. AA is not a punishment or a reward. Therefore your remarks > about past victims and victimizers is innappropriate. > --- > Nobody's saying *you* should feel GUILTY about today's underprivileged. > --Michael Ellis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The purpose of affirmative action is not to provide "justice for past > wrongs". It is to prevent future wrongs of the same type. > --Beth Christy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > blacks and others. Affirmative action does not attempt to assign > guilt or merit based on membership in a group -- as I wrote above, > its ultimate purpose is to end the perception of these groups as > being somehow "different," by equalizing their roles in society. > ---Richard Carnes > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > guilty of what? AA isn't on trial, and neither are you. If an employer > ignores the guidelines determined by the govt., they may be found guilty, > --Adrienne Regard > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -michael 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.