From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.212109.7405@colorado.edu>
fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.235738.2007@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>>>From lots of schools, diplomas are almost automatic.
>>>
>>> What planet are you from?
>>
>>Earth.  How many public high-school students who don't drop out are
>>denied diplomas?  There have been well-documented cases of high-school
>>graduates who are totally illiterate.
>
> I'm responding to this just to show how silly this is getting. You make
> a foolish claim and then are so desperate to back it up that you resort
> to this ridiculous example. Sigh.
>
> How many public high schools have selective admission policies (we were
> talking about schools where people are admitted remember)?

I can think of 4 in New York City, offhand.  So?

> How many
> people *dont* drop out after flunking year after year (remember your
> claim is after admission diplomas are automatic)?

You'd also be surprised at how hard it can be to flunk, if you just
show up.

> This obviously isn't going anywhere. Everytime I bring up ligitimate
> problems you toss out some stupid crap like 'yea, i *do* believe
> discrimination against but its against whites' just like this garbage
> about basketball. You have not once admitted that any problem exists
> and I have my own hunches as to why that is. So I'll say this and you
> can rage on all by yourself.

I agree that there is discrimination against various groups.  There
shouldn't be any.  You are saying that because one company
discriminated against blacks, another company (or even the same one)
should now discriminate against whites.  I say it shouldn't
discriminate racially at all.

The best way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.

> You keep saying AA forces companies to hire less qualified applicants.
> This is bull, since, as I have said from the start, there is probably
> rarely ever any applicant so much better qualified than all others
> that he/she is clearly superior.

"What planet are you from?"  Have you ever tried hiring anybody in the
real world?  (For a job more difficult than washing dishes, I mean.)
Some years ago, I founded a company and hired (among others) computer
programmers.  The difference in skill among the applicants was
tremendous (from people who couldn't spell the name of the language
they were supposed to be experienced in (APL) to two who were
competent in it).

> This attitude shows a racist underlying
> assumption that minorities are inferior.

Wrong.  If you force companies to give preference on any basis except
ability, you get people of lesser abilities.  If you force a company
to give preference to people whose Social Security Numbers end with 0,
then that company will get employees of lesser ability.  Will you now
claim that I believe that people whose SSNs end with 0 are inferior?

If I can pick the best candidate from all applicants, I get the best
candidate.  If I can only choose from a subset of applicants, I'll
only get the best if the best is in that subset (which means, only
sometimes).  Therefore, I'll be worse off (sometimes); if I hire many
people, I'll be worse off almost certainly.

> You seem the have made up your
> mind that the best available candidate is obviously not going to be a
> minority.

Wrong again.  In the case that the best candidate is a minority, I'd
hire him (or her); AA doesn't enter into it.

> It further shows ignorance of the fact that *minority* applicants
> who are more qualified are discriminated against and whites are hired and
> promoted over them.

I say that shouldn't be allowed.

> It is my opinion that in the majority of cases, if a company hires
> qualified candidates without regard to race, they aren't going to
> have any problems with anyone with regard to the percentages of minority
> workers because they will have all they need. The only people who need
> to complain about AA is those who dont want minorities 'forced on them'
> against there will, and for them, too bad!.

Your opinion may be wrong.  What happens when (for instance) the
number of black computer scientists is only 2% of the number of
computer scientists (it's probably lower than that, if you count
Ph.D.s).  Now a company that doesn't discriminate hires 2% blacks, and
gets in trouble for discriminating because it is in a city that's 15%
black.

> You just dont seem to grasp, cant grasp, or dont care to grasp the
> very simple fact that white men have an advantage that they wouldn't
> without racial discrimination,

In the absence of racial discrimination, precisely what advantage do
white men have?  Do you think they're better than others?

> You cry about how white men are being 'punished'
> and discriminated against by having to loss this advantage as if we
> all should feel sorry for you.

No, I say there should be no such advantage.  There should be no
racial discrimination at all.

> This is throughly sickening. Whites
> still constitute probably 90% of undergraduate and more than that
> in graduate schools (excluding foriegners), and you're whining about
> being discriminated against because its not 100%.

Where did you get that idea?  First, the racial group that is most
over-represented in college and graduate schools is probably
orientals.  Secondly, my complaint is that some schools are
discriminating on the basis of race, not ability.  If they
discriminated purely on the basis of ability, I think colleges and
graduate schools would be a lot less than 100% white.  What do you
think?

>>So what?  If a company failed to promote person X because of racial
>>discrimination, how is forcing them to fail to promote person Y (of a
>>different race) because of racial discrimination going to remedy
>>anything?

> I think the first line here sums up your attitude. So what if a company
> discriminates against someone because of his race. Unless of course they
> 'discriminate', as you say, in his favor and he is a minority.

No, my attitude is that if a company discriminated against one person,
they owe damages to precisely that person, not to his neighbor, his
cousin, someone with the same hair color, or anybody else, just to
him.  I believe in fairness to people, who are individuals.

If I punch you in the mouth, and then pay for the dental work needed
by someone else of your race, is that fair?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com