djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (07/07/89)
In article <8906292203.AA17632@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: And all that... >2) If you push AA for women, but not to the Vietnamese refugee's kids, > you *discriminate* against them. >3) If you will explain how AA for women is not a discrimination against > the Vietnamese kids I'll appologize, if not then not. Who said I wouldn't push for the VNese kids? I'd support AA for any group that's been discriminated against. I haven't tried to limit the issue to women. I'm not offended for the reason you think I'm offended: I was offended because you assumed that I wouldn't extend the same benefits to the VNese kids (or any other discriminated-against group) that I would extend to women. In other words, you're assuming I'm bigoted. >This sounds to me like a system goes crazy. >If California wants to increase the number of Black student than the >obvious way is to improve the schools in Black areas. They don't do >it because: >1) They don't want to give Black students a fair chance and/or >2) They too dumb to think on the obvious action and/or >3) It will be too expensive. The answer: some of (1) and some of (3). I suppose there *may* be legislators who are (2), but generally they don't last long, even in politics. As a rule, those who feel (1) emphasize (3) until those who *want* to give inner city kids (not just blacks, btw, but hispanic kids and, yes, even some white kids) a fair shake are pressured into backing down for purely economic reasons. After all, there's always lots of other things to spend the state's money on... >If you support affirmative action, insist that the exact procedure of >acceptance be in "public domain". Complete agreement. >...you still have to explain why this practice is not discriminations against >the Asians... No, I don't; I'm not defending Berkeley's policy; I'm defending the concept of AA. Attacking individual cases is like saying "America has elected bad and even criminal presidents, therefore democracy is a bad idea." >And you decided that AA for women and minorities will solve their >problems (and your guilt feeling)... No. I decided that until something better comes along, AA is the best way to redress some of the balance. I made this decision very much against my will, because AA *is* inherently discriminatory. However: consider the structure of society as a network of interacting forces. The network is currently biased in favor of some groups and against others. For the purpose of this analogy, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH GROUPS ARE WHICH. If you want fairness to each group, you can *only* do this by setting up counterforces to balance the forces biasing the network. If you leave things alone, they'll simply get more biased; this is a feedback system, and those who are favored gain the power to bias the network even more. Such a counterforce selects one group over another; it "discriminates." AA is intended to be such a counterforce. >Till then Liberalism will have such a bad name that a real strong >reactionary movement (can you say Reagan && Bush?) will send us all 50 >years back. Doing the right thing is more important than being popular. "Blessed are you," said one who I imagine you regard as at least a wise man, "when people revile you for my sake." I'm not particularly into martyrdom, but I'll be *damned* if I'll back down on my principles because they "give me a bad name." >>Care to suggest an implementation plan for *that* that would cost less >>than AA? Or even within an order of magnitude? > >Yes. A real EEO with stiff fines to the managers who don't >hire/promote the best candidates. A $10,000 fine will hurt these >managers more than $1,000,000 fine to the company. A plan like this >may "kill" the "glass ceiling", and I may benefit from it too. Uh... I believe that "*that*" referred to fair educational practice at the primary and high school levels. This is an interesting possibility, but it doesn't address the question. It's a bit unrealistic, too. Who gets to decide what the standards are for "best candidate?" Is some board somewhere going to set standards for *every* *job* *in* *the* *country*? >But somehow I don't think that you and the rest of the Old-Boy-Network >are going to like it... Where *do* you get off makeing these assumptions about me? I ain't no old boy nohow. I'm a middleclass white male, yes, but I'm at the lowest level of management in a company where the only distinction between firstline management and labor ("craft") is that labor has unions to protect them and make sure they get paid when they work obnoxious amounts of overtime. Old boy network, my left kneecap... >If you'll force a company to hire whites, you'll get lazy whites. >If you'll force a company to hire Blacks, you'll get lazy Blacks. >If you'll force a company to hire women, you'll get lazy women. > >The point is that people who know that they are "safe" will not try harder. They aren't safe. There are lots of unemployed whites, blacks (why do you capitalize one but not the other?) and women on the job market to take the place of one who goofs off. Requiring a company to have X% of its force members of group Y does *not* protect individual members of group Y except in the minds of people easily intimidated by shouts of "You're abusing me because I'm a Y!" If a black woman is goofing off, fire her; if it drops you below quota, there are plenty of other black women who need jobs. >Do you try to say that you support *me*? >Answer Yes or no please. I support your rights, including your right to your opinion. Under no circumstances would I try to silence you or *force* you to change your opinions. I support your right to be heard in open debate. >That's all you can find? Try to list the female leaders of the >ERA movement, maybe you'll find more... Want me to name about eighty more? I'd have to bring the list in from home, but I have an article about a group of men arrested for demonstrating in front of the Indiana (I think) state legislature building the day they were to vote on ERA... The Nearly Nefarious Net.Roach
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (07/08/89)
In article <1479@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >In article <8906292203.AA17632@cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >Who said I wouldn't push for the VNese kids? I'd support AA for any >group that's been discriminated against. I haven't tried to limit the >issue to women. Even if it means that you'll have too many Asians in an engineering school? Do you want a different AA quota for every race, or do you want one quota to everyone in the "right" groups? >I'm not offended for the reason you think I'm offended: I was offended >because you assumed that I wouldn't extend the same benefits to the >VNese kids (or any other discriminated-against group) that I would >extend to women. What should a person/group do to get your support? Should they stand like beggers and "prove" that they had it hard? Is this the kind of society you want me (and you) to live in? >In other words, you're assuming I'm bigoted. Wrong. I have assumed that you're naive. >>If you support affirmative action, insist that the exact procedure of >>acceptance be in "public domain". >Complete agreement. Do you have any idea why the AA supporters don't demand it? >No, I don't; I'm not defending Berkeley's policy; I'm defending the >concept of AA. Attacking individual cases is like saying "America has >elected bad and even criminal presidents, therefore democracy is a bad >idea." If we know that a president is criminal, and we don't do anything about it, *then* democracy is a bad idea. People who supported democracy kicked out Nixon. People who support AA ignore cases of abuse. Can you see the difference? >>And you decided that AA for women and minorities will solve their >>problems (and your guilt feeling)... >No. I decided that until something better comes along, AA is the best >way to redress some of the balance. You ignore the fact that the number of women in engineering goes *down*, or maybe you have another definition to "redress the balance"... >However: consider the structure of society as a network of interacting >forces. The network is currently biased in favor of some groups and >against others. For the purpose of this analogy, IT DOESN'T MATTER >WHICH GROUPS ARE WHICH. If you push really hard, and things move in random direction, then maybe you don't apply an opposite force... >If you want fairness to each group, you can *only* do this by setting >up counterforces to balance the forces biasing the network. If you >leave things alone, they'll simply get more biased; There are some states between "leave alone" and AA, EEO for example. Sometimes shortcuts just make long delays... >this is a feedback >system, and those who are favored gain the power to bias the network >even more. So the problem is people on the top who abuse power. Why would not you try a solution that will hit *them*? >AA is intended to be such a counterforce. "The road to Hell paved with good intentions."... >Doing the right thing is more important than being popular. "Blessed >are you," said one who I imagine you regard as at least a wise man, >"when people revile you for my sake." I'm not particularly into >martyrdom, but I'll be *damned* if I'll back down on my principles >because they "give me a bad name." In life you have to have a compromise. You have to decide about a priority list and give up thing which are not very important. D. Duke was elected on (among other things) anti-AA agenda. Bush was elected on anti-liberal agenda. The supreme court (after 8 years of Reagan) struck down some AA laws and held some anti-abortion laws. The liberals decide that AA is so important that even though it angers quite a few people, and help (among other things) to people like Bush to be elected, it is worth all the risks to other positive (IMO) parts of the liberal agenda like pro-choice. I hope you enjoy the results... >>Yes. A real EEO with stiff fines to the managers who don't >>hire/promote the best candidates. A $10,000 fine will hurt these >>managers more than $1,000,000 fine to the company. A plan like this >>may "kill" the "glass ceiling", and I may benefit from it too. >Uh... I believe that "*that*" referred to fair educational practice at >the primary and high school levels. This is an interesting >possibility, but it doesn't address the question. But AA does not help to the education system, and I suggested a replacement to AA, not a solution to all the world's problems... >It's a bit unrealistic, too. Who gets to decide what the standards >are for "best candidate?" Is some board somewhere going to set >standards for *every* *job* *in* *the* *country*? You can see when the qualification of one candidate are better than the other. That's why EEO works (ask women who were in the job market before 1964 how bad it was). Anyway, I think that my solution will be less work than AA because for AA you have to decide about standards *and* maintain all the needed information about race/sex. >>But somehow I don't think that you and the rest of the Old-Boy-Network >>are going to like it... >Where *do* you get off makeing these assumptions about me? I ain't no >old boy nohow. I'm a middleclass white male, yes, but I'm at the I did not try to say that you are a part of the OBN, I tried to say that you and them like AA. IMO you like AA because it looks good and they like it because they still hold the power... >>The point is that people who know that they are "safe" will not try harder. >They aren't safe. There are lots of unemployed whites, blacks (why do >you capitalize one but not the other?) and women on the job market to >take the place of one who goofs off. Requiring a company to have X% >of its force members of group Y does *not* protect individual members >of group Y except in the minds of people easily intimidated by shouts >of "You're abusing me because I'm a Y!" If a black woman is goofing >off, fire her; if it drops you below quota, there are plenty of other >black women who need jobs. What you said is true in Durham, but not in L.A. :-( (These are the two places I have first hand experience with.) >>That's all you can find? Try to list the female leaders of the >>ERA movement, maybe you'll find more... >Want me to name about eighty more? I'd have to bring the list in from >home, but I have an article about a group of men arrested for >demonstrating in front of the Indiana (I think) state legislature >building the day they were to vote on ERA... But who led the movement, and who felt "left behind", and why? Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Even if one cares passionately and believes in the validity of some Movement, one can be, at best, only a fellow traveler; and that smacks of sycophancy." -- Harlan Ellison