X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:15:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom from discrimination
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> > > From Robert
> > > Freedom from discrimination is not a right.
> >
> > That is one of the most pernicious, and plain _wrong_ statements one
> > can make.  The entire history of the United States says (though
> > often ironically) that this view is wrong.
> >
>     if freedom from discrimination is a right, how then do we make
> sure that people can exercise that right? let's look at what happens
> if we act on this statement.
>
>    it appears that discrimination can come from two sources; the law,
> and people. if you are speaking of discrimination based on inequality
> before the law, i would agree with you that this should be eliminated.
> but are would going to dig into people's minds to make sure that they
> don't discriminate? do we need thought police to stop racist/sexist/etc
> attitudes?

No, you look at what they did and stop racist/sexist/etc ACTIONS, not
attitudes.  Anti-discrimination law has absolutely nothing to do with
how people feel.  It has everything to do with how they BEHAVE.

If the actions are questionable, then you turn to the people involved
and ask for their justifications for those actions.  At that point it's
a matter of deciding whether those justifications are supported by the
available evidence.  This is exactly how we judge claims of homocide in
self-defense, and lots of other problems.

> > But I will give you this: at least you're up front about it.  Most of
> > the people who hold this view try to cover it up with a bunch of
> > outrageous lies about "special rights" and similar balderdash.  So
> > my hat's off to you for being honest enough to acknowledge that the
> > debate really _is_ about discrimination.
> >
>
>    "outrageous lies"? peter, if i and a black person apply for a job,
> and both of us are equally qualified, affirmative action dictates that
> the black person gets the job. even if the black person is somewhat
> less qualified, the black person still gets the job. would you please
> tell me how this is not a special right, denied to whites?

No, it doesn't.  That's one of the outrageous lies I referred to.  There
is no affirmative action law that dictates that lesser-qualified blacks
get jobs in preference to better-qualified whites. I invite you to post
the text of one to the list.  There may be some private set-aside
programs undertaken voluntarily by private employers, but those are
not mandated by Federal law.  And even those would be struck down if
they contained such a blanket provision as you outlined.

Perhaps "outrageous lies" was a little inflammatory (though I think it
fits in certain circumstances).  Think of them as urban legends instead.
The myth that minorities get some kind of preference by laws against
discrimination is not borne out by the evidence.  The laws do help them
get equal treatment (and loss of their own special priveleges is what
a lot of these opponents are screaming about), but it is the talents and
efforts of minorities and women that help them succeed afterwards.  And
that's as it is supposed to be.

Best,
Peter

> rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU