From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:21:09 GMT

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)? How many
 people *dont* drop out after flunking year after year (remember your
 claim is after admission diplomas are automatic)? Gee if we illiminate
 everyone who drops out of college then colleges have a 100% graduation
 rate, right!? Continuing this line of reasoning then, a diploma is
 automatic for everyone who doesnt drop out! Yea that's the ticket.

>> Seth are you totally ignorant!? Do you have absolutely *no* clue as to
>> the difficulty black atheletes had getting an opportunity to play
>> professional and collegiate sports? Have you *no* idea as to the role
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the government played in making these opportunities come about? What
>> is this if not AA?
>

>I wonder if I could claim that professional basketball discriminates
>against whites.  Statistically, it ought to be easy to prove.  Maybe I
>could collect damages....

 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.

 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. This attitude shows a racist underlying
 assumption that minorities are inferior. You seem the have made up your
 mind that the best available candidate is obviously not going to be a
 minority. 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.

 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!.

 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, and you are fighting tooth and nail
 to keep that advantage by crying foul when that advantage is neutralized
 to a small extent. 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. 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%.

>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.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights