Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:56:34 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: AA

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>        What                    Enforced via
>        ===================     ==================
>        Slavery                 Government
>        Separate but equal      Government
>        Sub-optimal CR laws     Government
>
>        Conclusion: quit relying on government.  Don't cede power to the
>government on this issue in the first place.

????

The first two are bad EFFECTS. The last one is a policy, not an
effect.

How about this set:
     Government attempts to keep blacks enslaved........partial success
     Government attempts to segregate.................. great success
     Government attempts to end discrimination..........jury still out

Shall we infer, on the basis of the historical record, that the
government is likely to be much more effective at achieving
the race-related goals it chooses than the market is?

>        How about this:
>
>        "No organization, public, private or governmental has the power to set
>terms of or limits upon contractual agreements between consenting adults."

Tried it. Didn't work.

>        So why does it happen?  Aren't the laws supposed to prevent this kind
>of thing?  Aren't some of us denying that this kind of thing occurs?

("It" refers to preferential hiring practices.)

No, the law is NOT supposed to prevent it.
No, no one is denying that it occurs.

Next question?

>  "Executive order 11246, as amended, prohibits job discrimination on the
>basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires
>affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of
>employment."
>
>   Note the "...requires affirmative action...".  It already said that you
>can't discriminate, now it goes on to *require* AA.  The implication is clear.
>AA must be used to give preferential treatment *after hiring* such as when
>handing out promotions.

Wrong.

What it shows is that Brett STILL does not understand what Affirmative
Action is. AA is consistent with what the Executive Order bans.

>        Now, how many is enough?

How many WHAT is enough?
After Peter's long, thorough explanation, Brett STILL insists on
pretending that Affirmative Action is identical to quota. There
isn't much point in explaining it again, I suppose.

>        But wait, there's more:
>
>        "Section 503 of the Rehabilitiation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits
>job discrimination because of handicap and requires afffirmative action to
>employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with handicaps who, with
>reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential function of a job."
>
>        Even more explicit this time: "...to employ and advance..."
>
>        Same wording for Vietnam vets.
>
>        So we're left with the "quota" issue.  How much is enough?  And, upon
>deciding "how much", does it become a limit instead of a baseline?

Incredible!

Like Bush, Brett reads "quota" into a context in which it isn't really
there. Readers might speculate on whether they (Bush and Brett)
really don't even understand the difference, or whether they do
but prefer to pretend that the two are identical.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU