From: v140pxgt@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Af18gVe00WAvEobUYJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes...
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 13-Nov-92 Re: Anita Hill to
>Head EEOC Daniel B Case@ubvmsb.cc. (3673)
> 
>> In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas > 
>> >Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those whose
>> >children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make alumni
>> >donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>> >discrimination.
>> >
> 
>> Oh god! I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in all my life
>> If you give preference to those whose parents went there (and give a lot of 
>> money, to be honest) over equally well qualified candidates, that is 
>> discrimination in the most objective sense of the word. By your logic, the 
>> affirmative action you so despise would be "good business" too-the college
>> practicing it would gain a reputation for giving minorities a break, so they 
>> would be in a position to receive more applications-and tuition checks-from 
>> minorities.
> 
>This logic only holds true if the minority communities would equal the
>donations that will be lost from denying legacy admissions.  The reason
>a college gives a legacy is simple.  If they blindly admit a qualified
>student, they get a tuition check.  If they let in a legacy, they get a
>tuition check and a gift towards their new building.  The university
>gains more economically by letting legacies in.  Sometimes, its the only
>way they can afford to give scholarships so they can try and achieve
>diversity.  Colleges need money to survive.  If they blindly pursue
>diversity without respect to fiscal responsibilities, there soon won't
>> be a college.

But by this logic you would continually be excluding poor members of minorty 
groups which have historically not been going to college as long. You have to
break the cycle somehow.

> 
>> >This is the whole point of Enterprise zones, as put forward by Jack kemp
>> >and rejected by the Democratic Congress.  The government should focus
>> >its efforts on bringing jobs to poor areas.  However, if it ever
>> >actually did it, significant parts of the local population wouldn't have
>> >to depend on the government for a handout, and democrats would lose
>> >their seats.  So they stonewall all real efforts in this area and then
>> >call the Republicans cold hearted for wanting to make people get off the
>> >dole and into a job.
> 
>> There was an intersting article in the New Republic a while ago about an 
>> enterprise zone created in Baltimore several years ago. Aside from one big
>> company that employs few local residents, there is no noticeable improvement
>> (a few businesses have moved in, but there are still many vacant storefronts,
>> and crime remains rampant). To be fair, Kemp wrote in and criticized it, 
>> pointing out that that one had been created by the state of Maryland,
>> and for it
>> to work, federal tax breaks are needed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
>> Fair enough.
> 
>> But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>> is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>> where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! And I
>> thought that
>> they were against that. And what do you do about an established businessman who
>> just happens to be just outside the zone? Isn't he being hurt by his tax-free
>> competition? Does that create an unfair advantage? Can he sue under the Supreme
>> Court's Lucas decision (I would)?
> 
>The reason enterprise zones are popular with conservatives is that they
>are a better alternative than the current system of welfare.  If we're
>going to spend large amounts of money on social engineering, lets at
>least do it in a manner that raises people up instead of trapping them
>> in poverty.

But does it really riase people up? Will the compnay stay in the zone after the
tax relief ends? It seems sometimes to be a corporate tax break disguised as a
way to help the poor. And will a market exist for them? If you build a strip 
mall in a former ghetto that has been so zoned, will the affluent people who 
make up its necessary market come? Or will they just stay out in the suburbs 
from fear of crime (even if there is a sales tax break)? In short, you can put 
the water there, but will the horse necessarily decide to drink it?
> 
>> > 
>> >The 68 cent figure is one of the most biased figures ever generated.  It
>> >does not count in the fact that many women choose to work part time (so
>> >they can raise families) or that women may have to take extended time
>> >off from a job for child bearing.  When men and women work the same job,
>> >with the same experience and qualifications for the same length of time,
>> >they are paid the same.  many studies have shown this to be the case. 
>> >And where it is not the case the is legal recourse.
>> > 
> 
>> "Many women choose to work part-time, so they can raise families". Oh God! 
>> That's rich!!! Only someone with no idea what it's like in the current minimum-
>> wage service sector slave pits would talk like that. 
> 
>> Maybe lawyers can *choose* to work part-time, but at the lower end of the wage
>> scale, choice is a moot point. Hell, if these women had any choice, they
>> wouldn't
>> be working at all in the first place!! They work because there's no such
>> thing as
>> family leave, because they have no other way to feed their children.
> 
>Look, I've worked in quite a few places, and in every one of significant
>size I've encountered women with young children who worked part time so
>they could devote time to their children.  They did this because there
>was a spouse around to support them.  In most cases they were working
>for some extra money or benefits to help their child.  I'm not talking
>about the single mothers who have to work full time to make ends meet. 
>I'm talking about the millions of married mothers who choose to work
>part time so they can devote more time to their children.  And I'll tell
>you something else, I encountered a lot of women who did this, but
>almost no men who did.  And in this case, that will pull womens average
>> earnings down for the $.68 figure.
> 

OK, I knw what you're talking about, but this burden has been always falling 
unfairly on women. Why don't men try to do the same thing? Nothing's stopping
them. And this is also used to hold back women who have no plans to do so.

> 
>You may not like it, but the fact is that there are a number of women
>who choose to work part time and live on their spouses income.  And a
>lot of women lose time from their careers bearing children which further
>skews the numbers.  This is not ill informed argument, it is what I have
>directly experienced in a working enviroment.
> 
>					Tom the non hacker
>					Kemp in 96!
>					"If patriotism is the last refuge
>					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
>					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
>					Bob Jackson

I believe you-you sound better now that you've qulaified your arguments a bit.

					Dan Case
					V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

	"America is one of the few places in the world where failure to
	promote oneself is widely regarded as being arrogant"-Garry Trudeau.