From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Political Power--Why the quotas?
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.010545.7736@u.washington.edu> gwangung@carson.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.110841.28798@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.162559.5808@u.washington.edu> gwangung@carson.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>>
>>My feelings on the "glass ceiling": there are already laws against it
>>in place, and so to the extent that these are effective, there is
>>recourse.  Beyond that, there is nothing the government can do.
>
>	Why not?  If it's out there, why does the government have to
>accept it?  This in effect sanctions that type of behavior by the
>government.

By what means would you have the gov't. combat the problem?


>  The
>>problem results from a tiny portion of the population; until they die
>>or change their minds, we'll have to wait.
>
>	I think that this behavior comes from SUBSTANTIALLY more than a
>tiny fraction of the population (see, for example, the data on mortgage
>lending, matched employment pairs, etc. The studies have flaws, but they
>suggest that there are things going on out there that many people
>are not comfortable with).

I thought you might take issue with this. <grin> No matter how
widespread the phenomenon is, I don't see an effective solution.
Enacting quotas that demand a certain percentage be doled to the
various minority groups cannot be done without consequences.  Would
you have it that, since AAs represent 3% of population, 3% of mortages
must be reserved for AAs?  Then 12% for blacks, 6% for Hispanics, etc.
Consider, for example, if there weren't enough blacks who wanted to get a
mortagage.  If, an Asian guy who did want a mortgage had the money to
do so, but all the spaces for Asians were taken, then he would be
denied the transaction based on the quota. Do you see what I'm getting
at?  It's very hard by institutional means to guard against
discrimination, simply because if those forced to act under the
regulations are racist, they'll disregard them anyway.  

Do you remember the famous Supreme Court decision where the court ruled
against a federal policy of denying some Indian (or Native American)
tribes their land?  The president at the time responded to the effect
of: "They made their decision, now let them enforce it." The same
principle, I think, applies to this situation.  Show me how you would
ensure that racists would be unable to continue their discriminatory practices.


>	And, again, this does NOT solve the problem of past discrimination,
>which does persist and have ramifications on the present. Nobody doubts
>that there was widespread discrimination in the past; yet, if that
>discrimination distorts your candidate school, I would hardly call it a
>meritocracy if you do not take that into account.

How does one make amends for past events?  The heretofore widespread
racism has been made illegal.  Those who practiced it are not around
today.  To attempt a restitution policy would punish those entirely
unrelated and unaccountable for the prior injustices.  How would you
promote less racism by denying these innocent people their equally
legitimate claims to employment, mortgages, etc.?  The only method of
being entirely fair to everyone is to hire on merit, not on whatever
happened when we weren't alive.  This is not to ignore the existence
of discrimination today, but I urge you to present your solutions
which are more equitable than the basis of merit.



>>Meanwhile, many people do prescribe to a meritocracy, so find them and
>>be the best.
>
>	May people THINK we operate under a meritocracy. However, the
>problem is that there are flaws in the process.

 I do not profess that everyone conducts their dealings under a
meritocracy, but the situation is not one of everyone behaving
equally.  There is no one way of doing things which everyone
prescribes to.  Yes, Roger, there are racists.  No, they are not
predominant.  Even if they were, there are many whose sole criterion
is merit.  Quotas undermine the equality we seek because they
emphasize race, assuming people of one race to be more like each other
(in a substantive, relevant way) than like people of other races.  

If you wish, I can cite to you many instances where these quotas have in
fact done great harm to Asians simply because Asians tend to do better
on average than the other classically defined minorities.  In fact,
because Asians tend to do better on average than any racial group (I'm
including whites,) a meritocracy is of great benefit to them.

To wit, if you don't believe merit to be a truly equitable or
realistic method, please propose what you would have in its stead.
Now that I have been on the defensive for the past few posts, I think
it reasonable to expect your vision of the answer. <my turn!>

Regards,






David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.african.american,alt.politics.clinton