mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/11/86)
In <15613@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> lazarus@brahms.UUCP (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: > In article <20811@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >. . . > >I have no idea why there are no black Rockettes. Perhaps this is due > >to racial discrimination; more likely it is due to the fact that black > >applicants simply didn't apply because they perceived that they were > >unlikely to get hired. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Because of illegal discrimination. According to you, it is discrimination > (not that you seem bothered by that) when blacks apply and are turned away > but it's not once you have discriminated long enough that blacks stop > asking. So you have an *incentive* to continue to discriminate! No. If blacks *would* have been hired, but did not apply because of perceived discrimination, that's NOT discrimination. Of course I am "bothered" by racial discrimination. It is, to me, both morally wrong and economically stupid. I am just as bothered by wrong-headed remedies that include reverse discrimination that favor persons who have not individually been discriminated against (perhaps their parents or ancestors were, by different employers, somethime in the past, but that's not at issue) at the unfair expense of those who did not actually participate in discrimination. Looks kinda different in that light, doesn't it? > >Does this mean that the Rockettes are LEGALLY > >REQUIRED to go out and hire some black dancers? If so, this country > >is in pretty sorry shape. > > Gee, next they might be required to let them use the same toilets. Mr. Lazarus' attempt at sarcasm falls a bit flat. Neither equality of accomodations OR equality of opportunity are at issue here. The Rockettes should not be required (or encouraged, or blackmailed) to hire any particular individual for any reason other than their ability and contribution to the program, and CERTAINLY not based on their race. > >The problem with affirmative action "guidelines" is that employers are > >bullied into using them as quotas, since the alternative is to face > >expensive litigation. This leads inexorably to making hiring decisions > >based on ethnicity rather than quality, since the downside risk is so > >great. > > Hey -- all those discriminators made hiring decisions based on > ethnicity for years. And to think -- all you libertarians and > conservatives didn't care at all. That was until they started > making decisions that left you on the short end. Yup, they did, and they were wrong to have done so. It is no more right to force them to continue to do so now in the name of "equality". If making hiring decisions based on race is "wrong", why is it OK when practiced against the majority? Interesting what you mean about being left on the "short end"... My family and ancestors, being Jewish, have historically been discriminated against in education and hiring both in the US and elsewhere. My father was unable, despite his excellent academic record, to get into the graduate chemistry program of his choice because of anti-semitism. NEVERTHELESS, I WOULD NOT WANT OR ACCEPT ANY PREFERENCE IN HIRING BECAUSE OF THIS OR ANY OTHER DISCRIMINATION. The shoe is now on the other foot: I was denied admission to my first choice of law schools (a public institution) solely because of anti-white racial discrimination (minority students with substantially lower GPAs and LSAT scores were admitted). This was the year of the Bakke decision, when reverse discrimination was at its peak. I should add that this did not materially affect my ability to get a good job, as I was admitted at a school of equal or better quality, and have a perfectly good job which I enjoy greatly (NOT as a lawyer (;-). > > >[NOW, NAACP, liberal govt. says] "Quality, who cares?" > > You say "EQuality, who cares?" Nope. I'd just like to get race, religion and gender out of hiring and educational decisions. It never belonged there in the first place, as Mr. Lazarus admirably notes. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/11/86)
[lazarus@brahms.UUCP ] In article <20811@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >>[...] >>[NOW, NAACP, liberal govt. says] "Quality, who cares?" >You say "EQuality, who cares?" When quality is the only criterion, this is one kind of equality. Two boxers aren't equal - one of them wins. But they can be treated equally by the referee. Do we need any other kind of equality? There's no consensus on that, so leave that decision to individuals.
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/15/86)
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >1) There are *NO* quotas etched in stone that Company X needs to > hire y blacks and z women. What Affirmative Action means is > *guidelines* for evidence that a company or organization has > stopped practicing systematic discrimination. > For example, there were 0% of blacks in baseball before Jackie > Robinson. ... sevener uses professional baseball as an example of systematic discrimination > I think that is a *very* reasonable approach to ending discrimination. > Eventually it will not be necessary but it certainly is now. > Unless one wishes to allow racism and sexism to be perpetuated forever. > tim sevener whuxn!orb So Tim, how come affirmative action and quotas weren't necessary in order to integrate pro baseball? How come you liberals always want government to step in at the drop of a hat? If pro baseball could rectify its problems without government interference, how come liberals require something else be done in other situations? -- Tom Albrecht
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/19/86)
> > So Tim, how come affirmative action and quotas weren't necessary in > order to integrate pro baseball? How come you liberals always want > government to step in at the drop of a hat? If pro baseball could > rectify its problems without government interference, how come > liberals require something else be done in other situations? > > -- > Tom Albrecht If all organizations *did* integrate voluntarily then of course there would be no need for affirmative action. But they haven't and they didn't integrate even after baseball did. Many of the best musicians in the world were black 30 years ago. They played before white audiences at expensive clubs. And yet..... People like Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Cab Calloway could *play* at white-owned nightclubs, but couldn't *eat* there or come there except to entertain. They could not stay in white hotels, they could not even use white *bathrooms* in many places. This awful discrimination was ended by a *combination* of efforts: economic boycotts, sittins, demonstrations and finally, yes, the support of the federal government. This same absurdly and cruelly unjust situation regarding segregated facilities, even for blacks acknowledged as the top talents in their field, has been even more insidious for employment and jobs. Again, you seem to have your head in the sand or simply wish to ignore the *facts* about those cases that have involved affirmative action. We are not talking about organizations which have 8% blacks when they are actually 10% of the population, we are talking about organizations which have 0% blacks or 1 black in a thousand as a token. We are not talking about organizations which haven't hired blacks in the past 6 months we are talking about organizations which haven't hired blacks in *decades*. I don't believe that most of the Propertarians on the net are racists but I do think you fail to see things as they unfortunately are. Racism exists. It was an underlying factor behind Reagan's re-election (remember that Reagan was endorsed in both 1980 and 1984 by the Ku Klux Klan) and it is pernicious and enduring despite major strides we have made over the past 30 years. This was graphically pointed out by recent events in the Agriculture Dept. A black employee for the Soil and Water Conservation Service filed suit for individual discrimination against the Agriculture Dept. He won. Even before he won he received anonymous phone calls threatening him, warning him to stop his suit and so forth. After winning his suit and being promoted to a supervisory position he just had his house burned down. Should we take away this individual's right to sue? Should we allow racism to exist forever? Here is a case, *not* of an affirmative action class-action lawsuit but of an *individual* lawsuit of the sort which seems to be favored by Propertarians. And the person gets their house burned down. So just what do you propose *doing* about racism? If voluntary actions are proposed let me ask you this: just when is the last time *you* did any voluntary action to stop racism and discrimination? I expect the usual Propertarian excuse: "but we are *not* obligated to do anything! If somebody is bleeding on the street, we have the *right* to let them die! If some child is starving, we have the *right* to let them starve! If somebody cannot get a job or promotion and their hous is burned down for trying to do something as an individual about this injustice, we have the *right* to do *nothing*!" tim sevener whuxn!orb
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/22/86)
[elg@usl.UUCP ] A good article by Eric Green on educational discrimination - good because it deals with reality, not party shibboleths. >Let's face it, your typical inner city school has plaster falling off >the ceilings onto the students, the walls are crumbling showing wooden >laths, heat is by crude radiators, air conditioning is non-existent, >the course offerings consist of Woodworking and Home Economics, the >teachers are incompetent, apathetic and bored, and the kids carry >switchblades tucked into their socks. I know. I spent 7 months in >such a school district, after we were re-zoned. And my family quickly >moved to another school district, showing the lunacy of trying to >rezone whites into schools that are unfit for human occupation. Whites >generally can afford to move, while the blacks can't. In every city I >have ever been in, the inner city schools were dumps, while the >schools on the edge of the city where the affluent people live were >gleaming and shiny, the teachers were very competent, courses like >Calculus and Physics were taught, and things were in general much >better educationally. > And it's all possible because of your local school board. >[White flight, in response to busing, described] >And if anybody says "Well, it's not that they aren't getting the money >and talent into the inner city schools, not this, and not that", well, >I've only got one thing to say: you're disgusting. Because if it's not >the schools, it's the students, and I absolutely refuse to believe >that being poor and black makes you automatically stupid. That is the >path that led to the rise of Hitler, elitism, attempts to breed "the >superior race", etc. That's all true - but you oughtn't to attack an opinion purely on the grounds that it leads to undesirable consequences. The ra- cist explanation of success disparity is *untrue*. West Indian immigrants are as black as the American blacks, and, on arrival, even poorer. They do much better, though - because they aren't locked into a no-win way of life. >Actually, it makes sense. All the people with political pull live >in the suburbs. Naturally, they want their kids to go to a good >school. So where does the school board get the money from? >That's right, from the schools that DON'T have the kids of poli- >ticians in them... All right, you've got me listening. What solutions do you think are hopeful? Busing across the state? Allocating school budgets from Washington, DC? What do you think of Marva Collins? Of parochial schools? Of school vouchers? Of free enterprise zones? Jan Wasilewsky