beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/13/85)
>[From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer), Message-ID: <161@kontron.UUCP>]: >>[From Ed Hall]: >> And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on >> words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >> dangerous claims that: >> 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at >> least as much attention as discrimination against women. > >I have seen explicit, blatant, and intentional discrimination against >people based on their being male. You may wish to argue that this is >rare --- I have seen it. In fact, when I was in high school, attempting >to find a way to afford to go to college, there were scholarships >administered by a public high school that explicitly stated that race, >ethnic origin, and sex were relevant criteria. > >If the government is going to prohibit discrimination based on race, >sex, creed, and half a dozen other bases, it should be consistent and >prohibit it against white males as well. If the objection to discrimination >is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is >inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on >anyone else. Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much of it. I think that discrimination will be with us until everyone has propor- tionately equal access to all of the wealths (*and* all of the respon- sibilities). And that means holding back the leaders (who do in fact have an "ill-gotten" advantage) for a little while, and encouraging those that have been discriminated against in the past to catch up. If preventing discrimination does mean allowing proportionately equal access, then I bet those scholarships you mentioned weren't discrimi- nating, because they were encouraging other, unfairly disadvantaged groups to catch up. >> 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome >> discrimination. > >No argument from me. Well, they've got one heckuvan argument from me. Every blow to dis- crimination is cause for celebration. It frees us all. We should all pride ourselves on overcoming it. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
cbd@iham1.UUCP (deitrick) (05/13/85)
> Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. > Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of > the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get > the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all > foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white > men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years > later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. > > Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we > should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do > you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're > different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose > will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any > hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have > gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much > of it. > > --JB "The giant is awake." I'm going to get toasted to a fine turn for this, but it has to be said. Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago? My ancestors came to this country 130 years ago from Germany and started farming in Pennsylvania. Anyone who has done it can tell you that farming is NOT the same as picking up stray silver dollars from the highway. I am only one generation removed from that farm, am the *first* person of the entire clan to graduate from college, and, while life is modestly comfortable, am not what one could call privileged or powerful. So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't hold any slaves, *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, *I* didn't lynch any black people in the South, *I* didn't put the phrase "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, *I* didn't block any women from the workplace, *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions, *I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse discrimination. I hadn't even been born when most of these things were 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. I think that the only legitimate criterion for choosing a person to receive something (job, scholarship, promotion, access to certain schools, whatever) is merit. Legalistic gyrations aside, *ANY*, and I do mean *ANY*, such decision made on the basis of any other criteria such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is discrimination. Period. Carl Deitrick iham1!cbd ************ The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and in no way reflect the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories. ************
wh@homxb.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER) (05/13/85)
From Beth Christy (ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth): > Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. > Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of > the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get > the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all > foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white > men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years > later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. Beth goes on to propose that it might be acceptable to hold back some with more advantages (achieved because of past discrimination) to allow other to catch up. This would be a great idea, EXCEPT that she assumes that all white males are part of the "advantaged" class. There are whites in Appalachia and large cities that are just as disadvantaged as anyone else, and just as deserving. There were also whites that came to this country 200+ years ago as indentured servants or convicts (effectively "slaves"). To define "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" solely on the basis of race and sex does everyone a disservice, and I would hope that laws and policies to prevent discrimination would serve everyone equally. Let's stop making assumptions based on race and sex (or anything else that isn't really relevant) because that's what discrimination is! Wayne Heinmiller Bell Communications Research houxm!homxb!wh Freehold, NJ
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (05/14/85)
>[From Ed Hall]: >> And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on >> words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >> dangerous claims that: >> 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at >> least as much attention as discrimination against women. > >I have seen explicit, blatant, and intentional discrimination against >people based on their being male. You may wish to argue that this is >rare --- I have seen it. In fact, when I was in high school, attempting >to find a way to afford to go to college, there were scholarships >administered by a public high school that explicitly stated that race, >ethnic origin, and sex were relevant criteria. > It is a shame that you did not have more with-it guidance counselors. There are all-male clubs/organizations which offer scholarships to boys only. Moreover, the US Armed Services have one of the most comprehensive college-tuition aid programs around. It is much easier for males to get accepted into the Armed Services than females. You might also have found that those scholarships which didn't specify that the beneficiaries were to be of a certain sex/race/whatever tended to favor white males. Many scholarship programs (when the scholarships are offered by private clubs/organizations) require that the applicants be interviewed to make sure that they fit the club members' ideas of what an ideal scholarship student should be like. Often the scholarship committee's ideas are something in white...& male, please. Moreover, male athletic programs are STILL funded much more than female programs (at both the high school and college level). Therefore, your chances of getting an athletic scholarship are far greater if you're male. The college admissions process also has a certain white bias. Alumni children are given preferential treatment at most colleges. People in my generation (currently in our 20s) have parents who went to college when Jim Crow laws were still in effect. My parents both went to college in Georgia. My black contemporaries' parents were barred from those colleges & therefore my brothers & I had an advantage in getting in that my black contemporaries didn't have. You can't just outlaw discrimination & have every vestige disappear. When you get out into the "real" world, you will discover that however much the government requires corporations to hire/promote people other than white males, incompetence, mediocrity & stupidity are much more likely to be tolerated or even rewarded in white males. >If the government is going to prohibit discrimination based on race, >sex, creed, and half a dozen other bases, it should be consistent and >prohibit it against white males as well. If the objection to discrimination >is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is >inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on >anyone else. White males were & are the richest, most powerful group in this country. In the past, some number could be said to share their wealth with women (when they were married to them) even though the men had *control* over the money. Today, with the rising divorce rate & rising rate of unwillingness to meet the legal obligation of alimony/child support payments, the disposable of income of white males is quite large. If white males are being discriminated against, it doesn't seem to have affected their well-being as a group. Individual cases of *genuine* discrim- ination are quite sad & I empathize with those men who now have to know what it feels like (welcome to the majority), but there are far more individual cases for women, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans gays and Jews. C. E. Jackson ihnp4!lznv!cja
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/14/85)
> > Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we > should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do > you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're > different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose > will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any > hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have > gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much > of it. Sorry, but this sort of argument just doesn't hold water for many of us. By the time my mother and father arrived here, a lot of those silver dollars were gone-- besides, my father was too busy working on his English so he could get a job and support himself. You also assume that when someone dies, all of their silver dollars pass to their children, which is not always true. But to really get at the point, what is unjust about this scenario? Is it that some groups were unfairly held up, or is it just that the wrong group(s) was/were held up? If it is that some groups were held up, which is unfair, how does changing which groups are held up lead to a more just situation? > > I think that discrimination will be with us until everyone has propor- > tionately equal access to all of the wealths (*and* all of the respon- > sibilities). And that means holding back the leaders (who do in fact > have an "ill-gotten" advantage) for a little while, and encouraging > those that have been discriminated against in the past to catch up. > If preventing discrimination does mean allowing proportionately equal > access, then I bet those scholarships you mentioned weren't discrimi- > nating, because they were encouraging other, unfairly disadvantaged > groups to catch up. > If I know people, it won't be a "little while". People who find a good doge milk it for all it's worth. You also should be more careful about "proportionately equal access to all of the wealths". What exactly do you mean? Does everyone get the same regardless? Is the government going to go around "equalising" things? What do you really mean by equal? I think everyone should have as equal as possible opportunities (a laudable but almost certainly ridiculously unrealistic goal-- about as close as you can get would be in terms of a fairly standardised education), but what you do with those opportunities is up to you. To me, the ideal, non-discriminatory state would be at least color and sex blind. (no distinctions whatsoever) Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (05/14/85)
[] > From: cbd@iham1.UUCP (deitrick) > Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay > for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago? I don't think anyone's asking you to make retribution for something in which you weren't directly involved. What's being asked is that you, as a white, educated, middle-class male, have a few privileges and advantages that a lot of other people don't have. You're more likely to be hired for a job, and likely to be paid more than a woman or black doing the same work. You'll be treated more fairly by the legal system, and so on and so forth. So, things like EEO are not intended to penalize you in particular, they're intended to ensure that other groups get a fair crack at the things that have come so easily to white males for the last n (n being large) years. Yes, it might seem like white males will be getting a smaller piece of the pie. Just remember that this is only relative to what you've had in the past. [Note: no defense of EEO intended here -- I think it's a pretty abysmal implementation, too ... ] -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Mailnet: Staff.Melinda@UChicago.Mailnet Bitnet: shor%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet ARPA: Staff.Melinda%UChicago.Mailnet@Mit-Multics.ARPA
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (05/15/85)
> White males were & are the richest, most powerful group in this country. ... > If white males are being discriminated against, it doesn't seem to have > affected their well-being as a group. Individual cases of *genuine* discrim- > ination are quite sad & I empathize with those men who now have to know what > it feels like (welcome to the majority), but there are far more individual > cases for women, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans gays > and Jews. > > C. E. Jackson > ihnp4!lznv!cja It's not the generic white male that hold the power in American society. It's the group known as WASP-M...White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and Male. It's not necessarily the individual man that oppresses women; it's the patriarchal status quo we have to push against. And that status quo *can be* detrimental to an individual man; it *is* detrimental to all women, to Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, to gays, and others. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (05/15/85)
-- > I think that the only legitimate criterion for choosing a > person to receive something (job, scholarship, promotion, access > to certain schools, whatever) is merit. Legalistic gyrations aside, > *ANY*, and I do mean *ANY*, such decision made on the basis of any > other criteria such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin > is discrimination. Period. > > Carl Deitrick You're making two assumtions (possibly justifiable). For one, you assume that "merit" is not quantized. For another, you assume that the organization doing the choosing has no larger, social purpose. At some point it will be meaningless to say one person is "more qualified" than another; both must be considered "qualified". Then how do you choose? This may relate to the chooser's basic purpose. Most businesses strive to maximize their profits, but some have decided that without a deeper reason for existence (like trying to make the world a better place) it's hardly worth the bother. I find it much more enjoyable to work for companies with such an outlook. Although their affirmative action policies do not maximize my own material white male position, they create an environment that's fun to be in. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 15 May 85 [26 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (05/15/85)
> So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't >hold any slaves, *I* didn't force Because it is in your (and my) best interests to live in a country (and world) where everyone is "equal" (at least a world where there is not discrimination). Because at the present time in this country there is still rampant discrimination, both the overt discrimination of "Irish need not apply" and the insidious discrimination of a girl's father influencing her away from the career she may be best suited for and towards a less ideal, but stereotypical career. These are just examples, there are many more, in fact everyone of us are where we are based, in part, on others expectations. I would like those expectations to be based on who I am, and what I do best, not on my genes. I do not feel that this is a realistic hope as long as ghettos are predominatly black, or as long as it is considered revolutionary to have a woman president. I also am not willing to wait until the current crisis just disappears, you see, I don't think it will. I believe that prejudice breeds prejudice. Therefore what we need to do is eliminate prejudice by eliminating the cause of it and the outward signs of it. "Reverse discrimination" is attempting to do just that. I agree that it doesn't always look like it works, and that it can even be counterproductive. Do you have a better idea? Sincerely, Peter B
crs@lanl.ARPA (05/16/85)
> > >> 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > >> discrimination. > > > >No argument from me. > > Well, they've got one heckuvan argument from me. Every blow to dis- > crimination is cause for celebration. It frees us all. We should all > pride ourselves on overcoming it. > This seems, to me, to have been taken *WAY* out of context. How about re-reading the original articles. Regards, Charlie
crs@lanl.ARPA (05/16/85)
> > I'm going to get toasted to a fine turn for this, but it has to be said. > Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay > for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago? My ancestors came to this > country 130 years ago from Germany and started farming in Pennsylvania. Anyone > who has done it can tell you that farming is NOT the same as picking up stray > silver dollars from the highway. I am only one generation removed from that > farm, am the *first* person of the entire clan to graduate from college, and, > while life is modestly comfortable, am not what one could call privileged or > powerful. > So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't > hold any slaves, *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, > *I* didn't lynch any black people in the South, *I* didn't put the phrase > "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, *I* didn't block any women from the > workplace, *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions, > *I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse > discrimination. I hadn't even been born when most of these things were > 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. > I think that the only legitimate criterion for choosing a person to > receive something (job, scholarship, promotion, access to certain schools, > whatever) is merit. Legalistic gyrations aside, *ANY*, and I do mean *ANY*, > such decision made on the basis of any other criteria such as race, color, > religion, sex, or national origin is discrimination. Period. > > Carl Deitrick > iham1!cbd I couldn't agree more. > > ************ > The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and in no way > reflect the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories. > ************ Ditto my employer.
crs@lanl.ARPA (05/16/85)
Oops!
I let that one get away before I signed it. Sorry.
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpacramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/17/85)
> > Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. > > Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of > > the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get > > the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all > > foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white > > men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years > > later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. > > > > Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we > > should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do > > you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're > > different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose > > will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any > > hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have > > gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much > > of it. > > > > --JB "The giant is awake." > > I'm going to get toasted to a fine turn for this, but it has to be said. > Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay > for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago? My ancestors came to this > country 130 years ago from Germany and started farming in Pennsylvania. Anyone > who has done it can tell you that farming is NOT the same as picking up stray > silver dollars from the highway. I am only one generation removed from that > farm, am the *first* person of the entire clan to graduate from college, and, > while life is modestly comfortable, am not what one could call privileged or > powerful. > So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't > hold any slaves, *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, > *I* didn't lynch any black people in the South, *I* didn't put the phrase > "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, *I* didn't block any women from the > workplace, *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions, > *I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse > discrimination. I hadn't even been born when most of these things were > 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. > I think that the only legitimate criterion for choosing a person to > receive something (job, scholarship, promotion, access to certain schools, > whatever) is merit. Legalistic gyrations aside, *ANY*, and I do mean *ANY*, > such decision made on the basis of any other criteria such as race, color, > religion, sex, or national origin is discrimination. Period. > > Carl Deitrick > iham1!cbd > > ************ > The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and in no way > reflect the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories. > ************ You left out one issue that is worth considering when this notion that white males of today somehow are responsible for the injustices committed in previous years --- my ancestors, and those of a lot of other people in this country, gave lives in the Civil War to end slavery. If anyone seriously thinks that "equity" requires some accounting for the effects of past injustice, it would be wise to consider adding in the costs that were born to end some of those injustices.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/18/85)
Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay
for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago?... My ancestors came to
this country 130 years ago from Germany and started farming...(*I*) am the
*first* person of the entire clan to graduate from college, and, while life
is modestly comfortable, am not what one could call privileged or powerful.
So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't hold any
slaves, *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, *I*
didn't lynch any black people in the South, *I* didn't put the phrase "No
Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, *I* didn't block any women from the
workplace, *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions,
*I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse
discrimination. I hadn't even been born when most of these things were
happening. So why do *I* have to pay? -- Carl Deitrick
*YOU* make me throw up.
*Your* white ancestors intelligently came to this `land of opportunity'
where `ALL WHITE MALES ARE CREATED SUPERIOR', lived decent, hard working
lives, and now, *YOU*, the fruit of their expectations, have fulfilled
their hopes by attaining a what probably seemed but a dream a short
130 years ago.
But one reason why their dream was realized--and a large part at that--
was due to a system skewed heavily in favor of white boys like *YOU*.
That meant many people's dreams went unfulfilled since the results of
their labor were usurped by a system that favored *YOUR* FAMILY.
That also means their offspring were less likely to go to college than
*you*. Or have a good paying enginerd job and display their selfishness
to the world here on the DrivelNet.
So now *YOU* are complaining!! What's wrong? Do *you* want more??
We all have complaints. And if *you* listened more to those coming
from the most brutally disadvantaged families, maybe *you'd* shut up.
Nobody's saying *you* should feel GUILTY about today's underprivileged.
Even though our society unfairly made *you* and *your* parents the
beneficiaries of wealth that could have gone towards better housing,
health, and education for the deprived.
After all, *you* are INNOCENTLY in the possession of their STOLEN
INHERITANCE.
I'd have hoped that those who have enjoyed the benefits of being white
might also have the generosity and good will to share a bit of their
unearned wealth.
*You* oughta be grateful for what *you* have received and stop
complaining. Perhaps it's true that material well being does breed
GREED. Pity.
-michaelchabot@miles.DEC (Bits is bits) (05/18/85)
Carl Deitrick > So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't > hold any slaves, *I* didn't lynch any black people in the South, No, but your family 130 years ago probably wore some cotton clothing. > *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, *I* didn't put > the phrase "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, No, but we all profitted from the cheap labor used to build the transcontinental railroad, and who would choose such dangerous and difficult work but that they could find no other. > *I* didn't block any women from the workplace, No, but artificially low wages for women in factories and service jobs and other jobs "suitable" for women keep costs down for you. > *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions, No, but you buy food and products now that are cheap because of these still extant unsafe working conditions. > *I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse > discrimination. You can only say this out of your ignorance. (see above) You benefit from their effects. > I hadn't even been born when most of these things were happening. So why do > *I* have to pay? Why don't you grow up and look outside the world contained in your skin. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (05/20/85)
[] > From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) >> Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay >> for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago?... > > *You* oughta be grateful for what *you* have received and stop > complaining. Perhaps it's true that material well being does breed > GREED. Pity. Amen to that. One of life's little ironies is that the bozos who oppose affirmative action on the grounds that it's rewarding {race, gender} rather than skill happen to be same same bozos unwilling to surrender their white male privilege. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Mailnet: Staff.Melinda@UChicago.Mailnet Bitnet: shor%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet ARPA: Staff.Melinda%UChicago.Mailnet@Mit-Multics.ARPA
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/20/85)
In article <250@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't hold any >slaves, *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, *I* >didn't lynch any black people in the South, ... > ... I hadn't even been born when most of these things were >happening. So why do *I* have to pay? -- Carl Deitrick > > *Your* white ancestors intelligently came to this `land of opportunity' > where `ALL WHITE MALES ARE CREATED SUPERIOR', lived decent, hard working > lives, and now, *YOU*, the fruit of their expectations, have fulfilled > their hopes by attaining a what probably seemed but a dream a short > 130 years ago. > > But one reason why their dream was realized--and a large part at that-- > was due to a system skewed heavily in favor of white boys like *YOU*. > That meant many people's dreams went unfulfilled since the results of > their labor were usurped by a system that favored *YOUR* FAMILY. It's hard for me to imagine the above two paragraphs serving any purpose other than to try to make Mr. Deitrick feel guilty. You would not be trying to make him feel guilty if he wasn't white and male, and you are well aware that he had nothing to do with the assorted nasty 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*. Something in our upbringing encourages us to feel guilty for the acts of other people, acts we have no control over, for no reason other than some accidental resemblance, such as being of the same race or sex. People should recognize this and resist it. It makes no sense for so many people to go around feeling guilty for the way they are born. And that includes *you*, Mr. Ellis. -- David Canzi "The Indians got revenge on the white man. They gave him tobacco."
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/22/85)
> > It's hard for me to imagine the above two paragraphs serving any > purpose other than to try to make Mr. Deitrick feel guilty. You would > not be trying to make him feel guilty if he wasn't white and male, and > you are well aware that he had nothing to do with the assorted nasty > 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*. > 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 grant more privileges to females (blacks, Jews, etc.) because it means giving up their privileges. Of course they don't often phrase it in these terms, but it is a fact. For a course I am taking in women's studies, we had to read a book called "A Dialogue on Comparable Worth" (by Michael Gold; by the way, I recommend this book for anyone who's interested in the debate on comparable worth). The book took the format of a debate, in which an advocate and a critic advanced their arguments for/against comparable worth (these arguments were gathered from outside references, as well as representing his own arguments). One of the arguments made by the critic was "But if you raise wages of women, then everyone else [i.e. men] will suffer." This is not an isolated case. Many men are very afraid that by giving women more rights, they will lose some of their rights. Ross presented an argument that I've seen a lot: But it's not MY fault, so why should I give anything up? The reason is that in order to make things equal, he will HAVE to give something up. Fortunately, that "something" is simply the male privilege, which (he admits) he didn't earn anyway. Whether or not we should use "reverse discrimination" to make things equal is an open question. Personally, I think it's the only way to gain equality, because if you leave it up to the public, they will almost certainly never even things out. It's too easy not to. marie desjardins
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (05/24/85)
> > *You* oughta be grateful for what *you* have received and stop > complaining. Perhaps it's true that material well being does breed > GREED. Pity. > Perhaps it's true that lack of material well being also breeds GREED. Pity.
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/26/85)
<This line has no idea what's going on>
Affirmative Action has taken a lot of flak on this newsgroup lately.
Clearly, the hiring and firing of people because they are non-white
is morally not far removed from doing the same because the people
are white. When taken out of context.
Color of skin is color of skin, but there is one mitigating factor:
most of the money in this country is held by whites. But there are
wealthy minority members.
Try this on for size: no-one wants to actively oppress minorities.
So how best to provide opportunities for the underpriveledged without
opressing the underpriveledged members of the majority? It isn't easy.
Twenty years ago, when the Affirmative Action drive became more or less
official, the VAST majority of blacks were poor. It seemed so easy
to assume that *any* black was underpriveledged. But before the quota
system was instituted, other methods were tried. In 1968 or '9, I
forget which, the EEOC asked for quotas, in desperation. In a way, the
victims of quotas are victims of the prejudice of American Business,
which refused to go along with the reforms while the government was
still trying to play Mr. Nice Guy about instituting them. In a way.
Happily, there are now many more middle-class and upper-class minorities
than 20 years ago. But it isn't over. Now, however, the down-side
of quotas are making themselves felt. So perhaps it's time to
switch completely over to needs tests. What was really desired all along
was to help the minorities because they were all so poor. So it makes
sense on the surface to help all the poor, in addition to the poor
minorities. Assistance based on real need has its points.
Side note: why is the progressive federal income tax seen as a good
thing? (Yes, we all know that it's not really progressive.)
Because, when added to the programs of H&HS, it tries to make the
rich buy necessities for the poor. That it doesn't work out that
way is a sign that there's room for (a lot of) improvement.
After all, the Great Society was for everyone, and still can be,
regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability,
sexual preference, political orientation, accent, stature, etc, etc....
You just have to keep it up with the times.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
"Scrabble is Peace; Link-Sausage is Slavery; UNIX is Strength."barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (05/28/85)
Most societies discriminate in favor of the rich. It has its advantages. Most people are from the same subculture, with the same unspoken assumptions. Rulers all tend to be well educated (though they may lack any comprehension of the problems of the lower groups). We've tried discriminating in favor of the poor or supposedly poor (affirma- tive action). It has advantages too, but not the same ones. Here's a new idea: discriminate in favor of the upwardly mobile. What counts isn't your amount of schooling/money but how much MORE schooling/money (adjusted for degree,$ inflation) you have than your parents. It should be just as workable as the other two. And might have its own peculiar advantages. --Lee Gold
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (05/28/85)
> have an advantage in this society. They are often unwilling to > grant more privileges to females (blacks, Jews, etc.) because it > means giving up their privileges. Of course they don't often > phrase it in these terms, but it is a fact. > > critic was "But if you raise wages of women, then everyone else [i.e. > men] will suffer." This is not an isolated case. Many men are very > afraid that by giving women more rights, they will lose some of their > rights. > > marie desjardins *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** WHY - (am I naive or something?) - does anyone have to give up something ,or anything for that matter, to allow equality to a minority be it women blacks, jews, all of the above or other than the above? Equality - to me - seems like it should be just that and comprable worth has nothing to do with it. Perhaps the correct expression should be that the "MALE PRIVILEGE" etc. would have to be shared and so make it not a privilege or perhaps more of a privilege (defined as something special which must be earned as opposed to a right which generally does not have to be earned **historical exceptions noted - this is a gereralization after all** ) This view brings discrimination down to a simpler descriptive SELFISHNESS This is a trait best observed in children. I wonder - If the human race ever grows out of its childhood phase if this type of behavior will be either eliminated or controlled by a deliberate act of will? jeanette zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/28/85)
> Carl Deitrick > > So, why do *I* have to pay for something *I* didn't do? *I* didn't > > hold any slaves, *I* didn't lynch any black people in the South, > > No, but your family 130 years ago probably wore some cotton clothing. > > > *I* didn't force any Orientals into ghettos in San Francisco, *I* didn't put > > the phrase "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads, > > No, but we all profitted from the cheap labor used to build the > transcontinental railroad, and who would choose such dangerous and difficult > work but that they could find no other. > > > *I* didn't block any women from the workplace, > > No, but artificially low wages for women in factories and service jobs and other > jobs "suitable" for women keep costs down for you. > > > *I* didn't sweat any illegal aliens in unsafe working conditions, > > No, but you buy food and products now that are cheap because of these still > extant unsafe working conditions. > > > *I* didn't do any of the things people cite as the reasons for this reverse > > discrimination. > > You can only say this out of your ignorance. (see above) You benefit from > their effects. > > > I hadn't even been born when most of these things were happening. So why do > > *I* have to pay? > > Why don't you grow up and look outside the world contained in your skin. > > L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa All of L S Chabot's remarks about how Carl Deitrick benefitted apply to *everyone* in America today --- food and products are cheap for everyone, not just white males. The benefits of the railroads accrue to us today regardless of race and sex. Why then, are white males subject to special discrimination?
butch@drutx.UUCP (FreemanS) (05/29/85)
After hearing some of the idiotic replies on this topic I felt that I had to add my two cents. I've been hearing people say that they shouldn't be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. I get the feeling that most of the ones saying this are in fact white males who have probably felt no discrimination. When slavery ended in 1865, blacks and women still did not have many rights for years. Black's didn't really have a chance at many high paying jobs that white males had until the 1970's. Before the civil rights bill of 1965, many of the Jim Crow law's were in affect in many states. One cannot right all the affects of injustice, oppression, poverty, and second class citizenship with the stroke of a pen in 1965. What affirmative action does is right some of the wrongs of the past by giving people a chance to pull themselves up. What this program does is allows the oppressed group the ablility to catch up so that all people regardless of race or gender will all have a equal shot at realizing all their dreams. Some of the people on the net cannot fathom why they should have to pay for something that happened long ago. Maybe it is ignorance that they can't understand why the effects of 200 years of slavery and a 100 years of oppression weren't remedied 20 years ago in 1965. Wake up people, the effects of such injustice will linger far longer than just a few short years. I just don't understand why people are against something that is helping others out. Why is it so bad to do everything we can to right terrible wrongs. Some individuals think that just because they are so fortunate that somehow if you aren't then it's your fault. Why is it that if a woman or minority gets a promotion, it somehow is not based upon their qualifications. Let's try to be a little bit more open-minded and understanding toward other people.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/29/85)
From: zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck), Message-ID: <260@ihlpa.UUCP>: >> have an advantage in this society. They are often unwilling to >> grant more privileges to females (blacks, Jews, etc.) because it >> means giving up their privileges. Of course they don't often >> phrase it in these terms, but it is a fact. >> >> critic was "But if you raise wages of women, then everyone else [i.e. >> men] will suffer." This is not an isolated case. Many men are very >> afraid that by giving women more rights, they will lose some of their >> rights. >> >> marie desjardins > >WHY - (am I naive or something?) - does anyone have to give up something >,or anything for that matter, to allow equality to a minority be it women >blacks, jews, all of the above or other than the above? We live in an economy with a(n essentially) fixed number of jobs relative to the population (i.e., the unemployment rate typically does not fluc- tuate widely *over the long run*). Currently there is a group A that holds proportionately more of the (fixed number of) jobs compared to all other groups. Furthermore, there is an overwhelming domination of group A in the higher paying jobs. If other groups are going to increase their representation in all levels of the job market (to the point of propor- tionate equality) then, since the number of jobs is (essentially) fixed, group A will in fact hold fewer of the total jobs, and will hold signi- ficantly fewer of the higher paying jobs. (Note that "proportionate equality" means that group A will now hold their *fair share* of the jobs.) >This view brings discrimination down to a simpler descriptive > > SELFISHNESS I think selfishness is a part of it, but I think there's more to discri- mination. I think there's also a large dose of ignorance (of the true nature/potential of the other individual), along with a fair amount of the fear and distrust (of the other's motives) which often accompanies ignorance. Note that the more one discriminates, the more justified the fear and distrust become ('cause the other folks are getting pretty d*mn irate by now). This gives discrimination some of the characterisitics of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which makes it pretty tough to eradicate, 'cause by the time you get around to ending it, parts of it may well have validated themselves. (NOTE: I nevertheless believe it *must* be ended!!!) >This is a trait best observed in children. > >I wonder - If the human race ever grows out of its childhood phase if >this type of behavior will be either eliminated or controlled by a >deliberate act of will? I sure hope so. I think we all hope so. I think that's why we're discussing it here - to try to combine our wills to make a difference. >jeanette zobjeck -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/29/85)
> We live in an economy with a(n essentially) fixed number of jobs relative > to the population (i.e., the unemployment rate typically does not fluc- > tuate widely *over the long run*). Currently there is a group A that > holds proportionately more of the (fixed number of) jobs compared to all > other groups. Furthermore, there is an overwhelming domination of group > A in the higher paying jobs. For whatever reason, (discriminaton surely plays a big role), women are latecomers to the job market (at least in the numbers they are today). Do you really expect them to have suddenly made their way to the top of the ladder? After all, a lot of men who have been working for many decades are no where near the top of the ladder. > If other groups are going to increase their > representation in all levels of the job market (to the point of propor- > tionate equality) then, since the number of jobs is (essentially) fixed, > group A will in fact hold fewer of the total jobs, and will hold signi- > ficantly fewer of the higher paying jobs. (Note that "proportionate > equality" means that group A will now hold their *fair share* of the jobs.) Sounds fine to me. I expect it will happen (and it IS happening). I just object to people trying to help it along by discriminating. I am not sure of the source (I read them in a newspaper or magazine) which said that women now earn approximately one-third of the gross national product. Pretty impressive for an underprivilaged class. I also seem to recall that women now make up just over half of the work force. Also impressive. I can see the flames now -- half the workers make only one-third the income. True. It does fit with my earlier point though, that women are latecomers and are just beginning to work their way up. > > >This view brings discrimination down to a simpler descriptive > > > > SELFISHNESS > > I think selfishness is a part of it, but I think there's more to discri- > mination. I think there's also a large dose of ignorance (of the true > nature/potential of the other individual), along with a fair amount of > the fear and distrust (of the other's motives) which often accompanies > ignorance. Note that the more one discriminates, the more justified the > fear and distrust become ('cause the other folks are getting pretty d*mn > irate by now). This gives discrimination some of the characterisitics of > a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which makes it pretty tough to eradicate, > 'cause by the time you get around to ending it, parts of it may well have > validated themselves. (NOTE: I nevertheless believe it *must* be ended!!!) We are ALL selfish. After all, why should you be concerned if someone is selfish except that that leaves less for YOU? > > >This is a trait best observed in children. Not really. Look around you. > > > >I wonder - If the human race ever grows out of its childhood phase if > >this type of behavior will be either eliminated or controlled by a > >deliberate act of will? > > I sure hope so. I think we all hope so. I think that's why we're > discussing it here - to try to combine our wills to make a difference. Ok, you claim the human race is in a 'childhood phase' of development which it can 'grow out of'. First I disagree with your terms. After all, accepting the 'childhood' terminology implies that there is an 'adult' phase. I don't think the human race has changed markedly in its attitudes in the last millenia. We are more sophisticated now, we live in a different culture (made possible in a large part by the technology we now possess), and so on, but I think this is a patina and not a substantial change. Does 'childhood' not imply growth and development? Apologies if I am reading too much into your choice of words. I am not particularly thrilled with the way the human race acts; neither, obviously, are you. I wonder if we have the same idea, however, as to how it SHOULD act? What would be the adult phase? As defined by whom? We all do the things that we believe are good for us. Your argument presupposes (this is supposition that we are in a 'childhood' phase, which is not the way that we 'should' act) that other people are WRONG because they don't agree with YOU (your definition of an 'adult' phase). The same argument can be applied in reverse, of course. I do what I do and say what I say because I think they are right -- according to what I believe and the experiences I have had. I also realize that everyone else out there does the same thing -- based upon their experiences. So we all think we are right. If there is some 'correct' attitude then obviously some or all of us are wrong. (Yeah, I know -- it's me :-)) Most of this was directed at the first article (obviously) but in response to JB's, (partly because of the forgoing) I don't think we are going to combine our wills (because we all have a different idea of what SHOULD be) and I don't think we are going to make a difference (because the world, basically, doesn't give a damn {I especially like the fortune 'no matter how great your achievements nor how tragic your defeats, approximately 1 billion Chinese could care less' -- or something like that}). A defeatist philosophy? I certainly don't see it that way. Rather than try to change the world, which doesn't work very well because the world doesn't want to change, work on changing the things you CAN change. I find it more rewarding (and successful). >>jeanette zobjeck > > -- > > --JB Life is just a bowl. geoff sherwood (and every once in a while somebody flushes it) I believe I've passed the age Of conciousness and righteous rage {ain't cynicism grate?} I found that just surviving was a noble fight. I once believed in causes, too I had my pointless point of view -- And the world went on no matter who was wrong or right. Billy Joel, 'Angry Young Man'
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/29/85)
In article <2028@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes: > Here's a new idea: discriminate in favor of the upwardly mobile. What > counts isn't your amount of schooling/money but how much MORE > schooling/money (adjusted for degree,$ inflation) you have than your > parents. > It should be just as workable as the other two. And might > have its own peculiar advantages. > --Lee Gold Why discriminate at all? I realize that thinking of people as individuals and the concept of individual rights are not popular in net.women, but all the bigotry, counter-bigotry, and counter-counter-bigotry in net.women is getting tiresome.
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/29/85)
> for something that happened long ago. Maybe it is ignorance that > they can't understand why the effects of 200 years of slavery and > a 100 years of oppression weren't remedied 20 years ago in > 1965. Wake up people, the effects of such injustice will linger far > longer than just a few short years. > > I just don't understand why people are against something that is > helping others out. Why is it so bad to do everything we can to > right terrible wrongs. Some individuals think that just because > they are so fortunate that somehow if you aren't then it's your > fault. Why is it that if a woman or minority gets a promotion, > it somehow is not based upon their qualifications. Let's try to be > a little bit more open-minded and understanding toward other people. Maybe I am missing something, but I think your second to last sentence completely contradicts the rest of your article. After all, you are saying that the minorities need this help (discrimination in their favor) because of past wrongs. Ok, that is one point of view. I don't subscribe to it, but it is valid. But then you wonder why, if this is going on, somehow people don't think minorities are being promoted on the basis of their qualifications. Either they don't need the help and should be in the pack with the rest of us, or they do need extra help because they cannot otherwise compete. I don't think you can have it both ways. And, obviously, I feel they are qualified to compete and SHOULD. geoff sherwood
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/30/85)
In article <2896@drutx.UUCP>, butch@drutx.UUCP (FreemanS) writes: > After hearing some of the idiotic replies on this topic I felt that > I had to add my two cents. I've been hearing people say that they > shouldn't be held responsible for something that happened 200 years > ago. Two can play at this game. Of course, I am at a disadvantage because I don't belong to any of the fashionable minorities. Still, how much patronage will you give me for my female ancestors? I can prove that exactly half of my ancestors were women, who are by your definition members of an oppressed group. How about my French peasant ancestors? Boy, were THEY oppressed! Or my Scots and Irish ancestors -- the English oppressed them, then the Irish came over to America, where the Americans oppressed them. I should find the American descendants of Norman/English nobles and rob them. Or maybe keep their kids from getting jobs. Social justice and affirmative action! -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (05/31/85)
>> I just don't understand why people are against something that is >> helping others out. Why is it so bad to do everything we can to >> right terrible wrongs. Some individuals think that just because >> they are so fortunate that somehow if you aren't then it's your >> fault. Why is it that if a woman or minority gets a promotion, >> it somehow is not based upon their qualifications. Let's try to be >> a little bit more open-minded and understanding toward other people. >Maybe I am missing something, but I think your second to last sentence >completely contradicts the rest of your article. After all, you are >saying that the minorities need this help (discrimination in their >favor) because of past wrongs. Ok, that is one point of view. I don't >subscribe to it, but it is valid. But then you wonder why, if this >is going on, somehow people don't think minorities are being promoted >on the basis of their qualifications. Either they don't need the help >and should be in the pack with the rest of us, or they do need extra >help because they cannot otherwise compete. I don't think you can have >it both ways. And, obviously, I feel they are qualified to compete >and SHOULD. >geoff sherwood Given the case where a white male and a woman are equally qualified for a job, who should get the job? Should we flip a coin? No, I don't think so. Women and minorities have been passed over in promotions for years. What's wrong with tipping the scales in their favor a little? Considering the number of women and minorities in the workforce, that should still leave lots of promotions for white men. Should women and minorities being promoted over white males that are more qualified? Ideally, no. But since when do promotions always go to the most qualified person? Like it or not, there are a lot of politics involved with promotions. People get promoted be- cause they kiss up to the boss, or have the same philosophy as the boss. They may not be qualified for the job, but politically they are the right person for the job. So now the politics have changed a little. It is politically correct to promote more women and minorities. Some of them will be incompetent. But they've been promoting incompetent white men for years now. Are we going to attack all the political reasons for promoting people? You have your work cut out for you, particularly since a lot of the reasons are unspoken(and most discriminate against women and minorities, I would guess). Life is not ideal. If you want to stop promoting incompetent women and minorities, over white men then you'd better stop promoting incompetent white men, just to be fair. I think that the argument that incompetent people are being promoted is tossed about to cover up what really is going on. Men don't like playing second fiddle to women and minorities. Everyone wants you to believe that lots of incompetent people are being promoted because it adds fuel to their argument. Not only are we practicing discrimination, but we're getting boobs to do the jobs also! How can we stand this! I doubt it's the problem some people seem to make it (don't try telling me I'm making this up. I have lots of friends who tell me all about the incompetent women bosses they have, or how this black person is incompetent but got in the program because the person is black). So back to my original question - should equally qualified people be promoted on the toss of the coin or on sex? I doubt that equally qualified people were chosen on the toss of the coin before. So what criteria would you use to discriminate between two equally qualified people? Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
jj@alice.UUCP (05/31/85)
Awright, Mr. Ellis, listen up! I'm a white male (last time I looked), and the one notable thing about my early education (both home, in a lesser way, and school, in a major way) was that I was urged to follow my father into the steel mills, since THAT WAS MY PLACE IN LIFE. Gee, doesn't that sound like discrimination? (I MUST have done something funny on those college boards, I was told. Why? Because such scores weren't expected of me. Of course, everyone <including the good teachers who weren't asked for THEIR opinion> didn't believe that, but I was expected to believe that all the tests were freaks, and that I shouldn't go to a "good, competitive, school". <I seem to, ahem, have survived, grumble, snarl, expletive> Gee, why should I take college bound courses, after all, "You'll just go work in the <now closed> mill", and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.) OK, given that I (and, I'm sure, many other white males) have been just as discriminated against (national origin counts as much as race in some places, Michael) why do I have to be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST by AA agenda. Why do I get put into last place on all sorts of lists just because I'm white and male? (I seem to have learned how to deal with that, but I shouldn't HAVE to deal with it at all, damnit!) Does your idea of vengence include making enemies out of those who KNOW what it's like, and who do their best to keep it from happening to ANYONE? Is that what you'd like? Did it ever occur to you that some of us see how to make life BETTER for everyone, INSTEAD of dragging everyone DOWN TO THE LOWEST? Come on, BUILD, damnit, that's how to make everyone more happy. Build, and if someone tries to take what you've built, simply don't let them. Oh, Michael, (and others) why don't you consider what some of the people on the "other side" think? -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "What's the use of bearing bracers, hats or spats or shoes with laces, or the things they buy in places down on Brompton Row? (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
jcp@brl-sem.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (05/31/85)
In article <783@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: > Given the case where a white male and a woman are equally >qualified for a job, who should get the job? Should we flip a coin? why not? Actually, the method used should be identical to what would happen if the two possibilities were identical sexes, etc. >No, I don't think so. Women and minorities have been passed over in >promotions for years. What's wrong with tipping the scales in their >favor a little? Lots. Remember, to solve the problem in the long term (more than 25 years), you want people to STOP using color/gender/origin distinctions. So eliminate them whereever possible, as quickly as possible, and allow society to 'get comfortable with this'. It might not solve the problem now, but our children will live in a society without racial/gender tensions, and things will even themselves out naturally. > Should women and minorities being promoted over white males >that are more qualified? Ideally, no. But since when do promotions >always go to the most qualified person? Like it or not, there are a >lot of politics involved with promotions. People get promoted be- >cause they kiss up to the boss, or have the same philosophy as the >boss. They may not be qualified for the job, but politically they >are the right person for the job. So now the politics have changed >a little. Wrong! The 'politics' you referred to above were those of the superviser, or occasionally, the company. Now you've imposed something externally. The major effect of this is to cause resentment among everyone along the line. (particularly those discriminated against). AND THIS IS PERFECTLY NATURAL and to be expected. After all, blacks and women resented being discriminated against before, so why SHOULDN'T the 'new victims' resent it. I certainly would if it happened to me. >Life is not ideal. Well said! However, thats not an excuse for screwing them up even more. >If you want to stop promoting incompetent women and minorities, over >white men then you'd better stop promoting incompetent white men, just >to be fair. Suggest that to your managment please. > I think that the argument that incompetent people are being >promoted is tossed about to cover up what really is going on. Men >don't like playing second fiddle to women and minorities. Everyone >wants you to believe that lots of incompetent people are being promoted >because it adds fuel to their argument. >(don't try telling me I'm making this up. I have lots of friends who >tell me all about the incompetent women bosses they have, or how >this black person is incompetent but got in the program because the >person is black). Sure, I'm sure there are people like that. On the other hand, I have personally experienced incompetence that could not be remedied due to the possibility of a discrimination claim. This is absurd. If I were running a company, I want people who can do the job. If there aren't enough women to balance the workforce (or blacks, or whatever) according to some bureaucrats quota target, too bad. My performance is rated according to how well I get the job done. I WILL RESENT (and attempt to undermine), ANY OTHER externally imposed factor. This goes as much for promoting the boss's incompetant son as it does for minority quotas. Further, expecting me to do otherwise is to expect me to sacrifice my own [performance rating, reputation, possibly job] in order to promote an ethereal concept of 'equality', (which doesn't sound like any definition of equality I ever heard in math class...), and I WILL REFUSE TO DO THAT EVERY TIME! If you want to solve problems of inequality, then simply remove consideration of extraneous characteristics from society whenever possible, and society will grow into equality all by itself... (given sufficient time, which I think means at least 50 years). -JCP-
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/02/85)
> So back to my original question - should equally qualified people > be promoted on the toss of the coin or on sex? I doubt that equally > qualified people were chosen on the toss of the coin before. So what > criteria would you use to discriminate between two equally qualified > people? > > Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Given the necessity to distinguish for promotion between two equally qualified candidates one male and the other female I would have to suggest studying the work record of each with an eye out for any factors which could sway the balance. If no imbalance results from such a study then perhap a parallel trial situation could be arranged in which each candidate would be competeing against a deadline and the other each with full knowledge of the whole situation. Considering the stress of such a setup the best person for the promotion would be the individual who : a) succesfully completes the assignment b) copes with the additional stressses involved by not allowing them to visibly effect work or performance. This ** trial by fire ** concept might not make friends and influence people but it certainly would produce workers capable of working under stress. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/03/85)
> Given the case where a white male and a woman are equally > qualified for a job, who should get the job? Should we flip a coin? > No, I don't think so. Women and minorities have been passed over in > promotions for years. What's wrong with tipping the scales in their > favor a little? Considering the number of women and minorities in the > workforce, that should still leave lots of promotions for white men. If two candidates are equally qualified for a job, it doesn't bother me to give the job to a candidate because they are from a group that has been discriminated against in the past. Note: *equally qualified*. When I worked as a employment agent, I saw a bit of how affirmative action is actually done. I remember one job requisition from one of the big aerospace companies out here that said, "Because this position is currently filled by a minority female, it must be filled with same." As it happened, we had two candidates to show them, one an Asian female, fresh out of school, with little applicable experience, and the other a white male who had *exactly* the experience they wanted. They reminded us that white males need not apply, and hired a candidate who the company acknowledged was *much* less qualified than the white male. > Should women and minorities being promoted over white males > that are more qualified? Ideally, no. But since when do promotions > always go to the most qualified person? Like it or not, there are a > lot of politics involved with promotions. People get promoted be- > cause they kiss up to the boss, or have the same philosophy as the > boss. They may not be qualified for the job, but politically they > are the right person for the job. So now the politics have changed > a little. It is politically correct to promote more women and minorities. > Some of them will be incompetent. But they've been promoting incompetent > white men for years now. Are we going to attack all the political > reasons for promoting people? You have your work cut out for you, > particularly since a lot of the reasons are unspoken(and most discriminate > against women and minorities, I would guess). Life is not ideal. > If you want to stop promoting incompetent women and minorities, over > white men then you'd better stop promoting incompetent white men, just > to be fair. This argument seems to be in essence, "Things have been done very badly in the past --- let's keep doing things badly in the future." > I think that the argument that incompetent people are being > promoted is tossed about to cover up what really is going on. Men > don't like playing second fiddle to women and minorities. Everyone > wants you to believe that lots of incompetent people are being promoted > because it adds fuel to their argument. Not only are we practicing > discrimination, but we're getting boobs to do the jobs also! How can > we stand this! I doubt it's the problem some people seem to make it > (don't try telling me I'm making this up. I have lots of friends who > tell me all about the incompetent women bosses they have, or how > this black person is incompetent but got in the program because the > person is black). It doesn't bother me when someone who is a minority gets a better job than me. I bothers me when an incompetent gets a job over me. It bothers me *a lot* when an incompetent gets a job over me because the government *insists on racism and sexism*. > So back to my original question - should equally qualified people > be promoted on the toss of the coin or on sex? I doubt that equally > qualified people were chosen on the toss of the coin before. So what > criteria would you use to discriminate between two equally qualified > people? > > Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/03/85)
> If I were > running a company, I want people who can do the job. If there aren't > enough women to balance the workforce (or blacks, or whatever) according > to some bureaucrats quota target, too bad. My performance is rated > according to how well I get the job done. I WILL RESENT (and attempt to > undermine), ANY OTHER externally imposed factor. This goes as much for > promoting the boss's incompetant son as it does for minority quotas. Well, you'd probably be better off running your own company because you'll never get anywhere in a big company with an attitude like yours. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (06/04/85)
i am a minority in more than one way and i work for a large company. while i am strictly against discrimination, i'd rather be upset if i knew i was being promoted over some one more qualified because of my minority status. it would just go against my sense of fair play. i mean, so what if in the past people like me have been discriminated against, why should i get an unfair adventage because of their misfortune? as long as they treat me like everyone else, that's all i want. bing -- ---------- "Is anything really real?" ...akgua!galbp!bing
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/04/85)
> I'm a white male (last time I looked), and the one notable thing > about my early education (both home, in a lesser way, and school, > in a major way) was that I was urged to follow my father into the > steel mills, since THAT WAS MY PLACE IN LIFE. Gee, doesn't that > sound like discrimination? > > OK, given that I (and, I'm sure, many other white males) have > been just as discriminated against (national origin counts > as much as race in some places, Michael) why do I have to > be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST by AA agenda. > Why do I get put into last place on all sorts of lists just > because I'm white and male? (I seem to have learned how to > deal with that, but I shouldn't HAVE to deal with it at all, damnit!) You were discriminated against, but not because you are a white male. It was because you were the son of a steelworker, and some people think that no one who comes from your background has any brains. I wouldn't be opposed to AA in favor of people who were discriminated against in this way. Now, you may say that you overcame this discrimination without AA, and so others should be able to, also. I say that you sound like an exception, just as blacks and women who were able to overcome discrimination before the AA laws and other anti-discrimination laws were exceptions. > "What's the use of bearing bracers, hats or spats or shoes > with laces, or the things they buy in places down on Brompton Row? Hmm. Are you an Oak, Ash & Thorn Fan? > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
chabot@miles.DEC (High Anxiety Workstations) (06/05/85)
Well, jj, that was high school--how much of that kind of discrimination do you get lately? Like, when a meeting is held do you get asked to build the table? Or when you came home from college on vacation did relatives say how great it was you were getting an education because you could get a superior wife and raise intelligent children, or that with your newly-learned skills you might get a job as clerk at the mills? :-) Well, I'm poking a little fun, because I imagine that your home town doesn't show much on you anymore. In other words, those who would be crass enough to think you not suited to your current job because of a blue-collar home can't tell now. But, on the other hand, only the weird can fail to determine that I'm female (at least, in person). I've been denied a job because I was a girl (at the time, I was 8)(I'm happy to report that my sister got and held such a job, more recently). In my adult experience, I've been singled out to be asked to take notes because I was the only woman present. My uncle told me that a degree from MIT would enable me to get a *good* job as a technical secretary. (Probably why I dawdled at it.:-) ) My landlord won't let women sign the lease (I compromise my ethics because of the company and the low price) (but not much longer). I know men who expect the women in the office to make the coffee, (Not here, thank heavens) and even if one is a secretary, I don't think that business school teaches you how to make coffee any more than graduate school (probably less!). Coffee is perhaps a trivial example, but a rankling one! and it demonstrates a bias that some have that women are better than men at cooking or at least at being handy and helpful at such things. Has anybody here had direct experience with not getting a job because of Affirmative Action? [General call, I'm curious (no venom).] I had a summer job under a program that recruited heavily from young chicano and black men and women, but I got a job, and so did many young white men. So my experience is that when I needed a job, I was able to get one. I've been lucky. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/06/85)
In article <783@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: > Should women and minorities being promoted over white males >that are more qualified? Ideally, no. But since when do promotions >always go to the most qualified person? Like it or not, there are a >lot of politics involved with promotions. People get promoted be- >cause they kiss up to the boss, or have the same philosophy as the >boss. They may not be qualified for the job, but politically they >are the right person for the job. So now the politics have changed >a little. It is politically correct to promote more women and minorities. >Some of them will be incompetent. But they've been promoting incompetent >white men for years now. Are we going to attack all the political >reasons for promoting people? You have your work cut out for you, >particularly since a lot of the reasons are unspoken(and most discriminate >against women and minorities, I would guess). Life is not ideal. >If you want to stop promoting incompetent women and minorities, over >white men then you'd better stop promoting incompetent white men, just >to be fair. I think this is two separate issues. Firstly, whether competant or incompetant people are being promoted, and secondly, whether women and minorities should be given preference. Promoting is (to say the least) an inexact science. I bet most managers out there would *love* some fool-proof method of determining the most qualified candidate. In the main, they do the best job they can (they are probably not the best qualified people to do the choosing, anyway). Some also promote yes-men who are no where near the best qualified. No argument. I don't really see a solution, though. It is their *job* to promote someone. They have more facts than anyone else. They have to live with the results. And the person(s) who own the company WANT that person doing that job (or she wouldn't be there). Incompetant people will slip through the cracks and get promoted anyway. I do not consider this justification for promoting women/minorities who are incompetent, or just less competent than their white male peers (obviously, I don't feel that it is justification for promoting while males who are incompetent, or just less compentent than their women/minority peers). The second issue is one I have pondered over. I don't think it happens very often (there is always *something* different between the candidates) and so I don't think the outcome is that important. I would probably hire the woman/minority candidate for all the reasons I usually oppose (i.e., affirmative action) because here I am *looking* for some way to discriminate between the two, and that seems as good a razor as flipping a coin. > So back to my original question - should equally qualified people >be promoted on the toss of the coin or on sex? I doubt that equally >qualified people were chosen on the toss of the coin before. So what >criteria would you use to discriminate between two equally qualified >people? > >Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb I hate to waffle out of your last question, but it would depend on the situation. There could be so many different factors I could not begin to go into them (sorry). Some would make sense in one situation, and yet be ludicrous in another. geoff sherwood
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/06/85)
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The Affirmative Action Quota
System was implemented by the EEOC when it was found that previous methods
were not working. This meant that there was ACTIVE RESISTANCE among the
business community to hiring ethnic minorities solely on their merit.
Put yourself in the position of the EEOC, an appointed body, and imagine
trying to fulfill a Congressional Mandate that industry simply refuses to
follow. What would you do? To prosecute, you have to PROVE discrimination.
There is a lot to say against quotas. The reason quotas came into being
was that they were TESTABLE. The numbers of minorities determined the
case. The linking to the local population was based on the assumption
of a blue-collar industry, where employees are generally hired from around
the area. But let us not forget that the quotas were an extreme solution,
implemented in a moment of desperation by an angry board that was trying
to combat a recalcitrant and perhaps belligerent industry.
So what now? Change the method, obviously, but to what? Remember, it is
not acceptable to propose a solution for the next generation. That leaves
no hope for those currently alive.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
"Brevity is Wit; Politics is Obscenity; Relativity is Maddening."jj@alice.UUCP (06/07/85)
Well, Lisa, you're partially right. When I go home, my relatives ask me "Why don't you move back here and get a real job. Work with your hands for once, and make some honest money." Needless to say, I don't talk very much to those relatives any more. At work, I still do see evidence of being from the wrong side of the tracks, when people ask where I got my degree from. (Frankly, my school isn't bad, but we're taking acoustics <they didn't even WORK on acoustics> and digital signal processing <ditto, at least when I was there> in which they aren't reknowned.) ( I don't want to name the school, it's certainly on the net, and I can't blame them.) As to still carrying around effects, yeah, I still do. I tend to be very conservative with $$, I'm still sensitive when people make assumptions without getting the facts first, etc. Given that people tend to make assumptions from things like school, degree, part of the country, etc, that still is a handicap, but it's also an essential defense mechanism. It's also the source of my firm belief in personal responsibility for one's own actions. Yes, it's probably clearer that you are female on sight than it is that I came from a dirty blue collar background. That is indeed true, and it does mean that people who don't know ANYTHING will treat you differently. In my case, it means that people who've read things like employment records (Started as casual labor, went to Tech Aid, then to Associate member of staff, then to Member of staff) make some very insulting assumptions <i.e., I am an ignorant person who just got lucky, might be smart, but must absolutely be ignorant>(certainly any racial minority who took the same path would face the same.) Frankly, I leave tracks on patronizing types who can't see when they're being patronizing, and that in itself might be a handicap, I suppose. About people being hurt by AA--- Does loosing financial aid to two minority students in grad school count? (It was a deal where the department could get matching funds, but only for minorities. Being from the wrong side of town didn't count.) That DID have a significant effect on my life. (There is more to it, but I've distilled things pretty much fairly. I can't necessarily say that the events were wrong, since the school could support more students. I just do know the effect it had on me.) Curiously, one of the things I learned in blue collar society (this is clearly not the case everywhere) is that we're all in it together, and fighting each other because of race or national origin is just plain stupid. <Sex wasn't an issue. I fear for the kind of work it was, it still wouldn't be much of an issue, since brute strength and patience for repetitive work were the main desirable qualities. I don't think I could do the work at 6'0", 180 lbs and not fat, and I don't think most females could manage, either.> Have a nice day, Lisa. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "Let us remember my cat, Geoffrey, ..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/07/85)
> So back to my original question - should equally qualified people > be promoted on the toss of the coin or on sex? I doubt that equally > qualified people were chosen on the toss of the coin before. So what > criteria would you use to discriminate between two equally qualified > people? > > Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb A duel to the death! -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
jj@alice.UUCP (06/10/85)
I didn't say that because I escaped the steel mill, other people should also be able to. I also don't with that fate on people, one set of scars on one person is bloody well enough. 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.) This is too much said. Entirely too much. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "Let us remember my cat, Geoffrey, ..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> > I'm a white male (last time I looked), and the one notable thing > > about my early education (both home, in a lesser way, and school, > > in a major way) was that I was urged to follow my father into the > > steel mills, since THAT WAS MY PLACE IN LIFE. Gee, doesn't that > > sound like discrimination? > > > > OK, given that I (and, I'm sure, many other white males) have > > been just as discriminated against (national origin counts > > as much as race in some places, Michael) why do I have to > > be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST by AA agenda. > > Why do I get put into last place on all sorts of lists just > > because I'm white and male? (I seem to have learned how to > > deal with that, but I shouldn't HAVE to deal with it at all, damnit!) > > You were discriminated against, but not because you are a white male. > It was because you were the son of a steelworker, and some people think > that no one who comes from your background has any brains. I wouldn't > be opposed to AA in favor of people who were discriminated against in > this way. Now, you may say that you overcame this discrimination without > AA, and so others should be able to, also. I say that you sound like > an exception, just as blacks and women who were able to overcome discrimination > before the AA laws and other anti-discrimination laws were exceptions. > I don't think this is so exceptional, going from being a steelworker's son to a professional career; *my* father worked in construction as a welder. I would suggest that a lot of people have managed to overcome prejudice. > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > aka Swazoo Koolak > > {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff If affirmative action were operated based on socioeconomic status, it would be hard for me to get terribly angry at it --- unfortunately, affirmative action is based on race, sex, and national origins, and assuming that *all* blacks, women, and Hispanics (among others) have been culturally and economically disadvantaged, and this is simply not so. You may recall what motivated the Bakke suit against the University of California was that a number of positions in the medical school had been reserved for people based on race, even though this was supposed to be in recognition of socioeconomic disadvantage.
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/10/85)
In article <5872@ucla-cs.ARPA>, mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: > > Put yourself in the position of the EEOC, an appointed body, and imagine > trying to fulfill a Congressional Mandate that industry simply refuses to > follow. What would you do? To prosecute, you have to PROVE discrimination. > > There is a lot to say against quotas. The reason quotas came into being > was that they were TESTABLE. Well, they could ask to have their Commission dissolved, since it wasn't working, but that would cause them to lose their salaries. Traditionally, the legal maxims that "There is no crime without criminal intent," and "There is no crime without a victim" have proven very effective in keeping the innocent from being convicted, but have also kept some of the GUILTY safe, too. The typical bureaucratic solution is to make regulations that discount criminal intent and don't require that a genuine victim be found. That way, you can round up the innocent and the guilty and hang them all together. (You can always get a higher conviction rate if you convict the innocent, too.) So with quotas, you can fine or prosecute a company successfully EVEN IF EVERYONE WAS HIRED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL MERIT. In other words, ethical hiring practices don't guarantee immunity from prosecution, but tokenism does. This is typical of government intervention. The government sets up a bunch of button-counters, and people who produce the right number of buttons succeed. The intent of the law, the good intentions of Congress, and the ethics of the people involved all get ground down by the immobility of the bureaucratic process. It's like expecting a doctor to do surgery with an axe. The instrument is simply not capable of doing the job without massive side effects. -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/11/85)
>{jj@alice} >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.) AA is neither a reward nor a punishment. It is an attempt to correct the disparity inherent in our conformist society. However, if you MUST feel guilty in order to help someone in need, let me remind you that because of our society's bias towards white males, your struggle to attain your present situation was eased due to the lessened competition. Furthermore, many goods and services that you make use of are cheaper to you because they are provided by relatively underpaid minorities. Meanwhile, the children of those underpaid workers are hungrier and sicker than their overprivileged white counterparts. I doubt that you care.. >TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! Poor boy! My heart bleeds for you.. -michael