X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:47:52 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: AA
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         "Better than what we had before" is both subjective and relatively
 eas
>> to obtain.  Separate but equal is "better" than slavery.  Some jobs are
>> better than none.
>
>True enough.  So what's your point?  That we should have kept slavery
>until we were ready to institute complete equality overnight?

        What                    Enforced via
        ===================     ==================
        Slavery                 Government
        Separate but equal      Government
        Sub-optimal CR laws     Government

        Conclusion: quit relying on government.  Don't cede power to the
government on this issue in the first place.

>>         But to say that since the laws have worked somewhat, that we
 shouldn't
>> try something new is a bit short sighted.
>
>We are all on the edges of our seats waiting to hear the details of your
>plan.  You've been asked at least five times already.  If you have
>something so much better, how can you justify keeping it to yourself?
>:-)

        It will be released right after I'm deluged with economic plans for
eliminating the over-spending by government, a deficit elimination plan, a
balanced budget plan, a Social Security phase-out plan....
:)

        How about this:

        "No organization, public, private or governmental has the power to set
terms of or limits upon contractual agreements between consenting adults."

        This amendment to be in power upon approval of 3/4 of the several
states.

>>         Why lock into results that have not reached equality?
>
>You will search in vain for that statement in anybody's posts except
>yours.

        You will search in vain for a statement that implies it occurs
elsewhere.

>>         The GM job process is well known to all.  But, like white males
>> everywhere realize, proving reverse discrimination is almost impossible
 withou
>> written proof, and the GM process will not be found in any memo.
>
>I am interested in two questions: is it permitted by the law, and is it
>an inevitable consequence of competently obeying the law?  In both cases
>the answer is no.
>Best,
>Peter

        So why does it happen?  Aren't the laws supposed to prevent this kind
of thing?  Aren't some of us denying that this kind of thing occurs?

(Tangential thought begins here:)

        "Executive order 11246, as amended, prohibits job discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires
affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of
employment."

        Note the "...requires affirmative action...".  It already said that you
can't discriminate, now it goes on to *require* AA.  The implication is clear.
AA must be used to give preferential treatment *after hiring* such as when
handing out promotions.
        Now, how many is enough?

        But wait, there's more:

        "Section 503 of the Rehabilitiation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits
job discrimination because of handicap and requires afffirmative action to
employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with handicaps who, with
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential function of a job."

        Even more explicit this time: "...to employ and advance..."

        Same wording for Vietnam vets.

        So we're left with the "quota" issue.  How much is enough?  And, upon
deciding "how much", does it become a limit instead of a baseline?

Brett'