Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:52:36 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: AA

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>>        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.
>>
>>????
>>
>>The first two are bad EFFECTS. The last one is a policy, not an
>>effect.
>
>   Bad "effects"?  Effects of *what*?  It's government deciding it has the
>power to decide who can be a "citizen" and who can't, based on color.

Citizenship pertains only to the first of the effects.

Affirmative action has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship,
and it is just blowing smoke to pretend it does.

Slavery was the effect of many things, including market forces.

Segregation was the effect of many things, including market
forces.

Discrimination in hiring is the effect of many things, including
market forces.

>>How about this set:
>>     Government attempts to keep blacks enslaved........partial success
>>     Government attempts to segregate.................. great success
>>     Government attempts to end discrimination..........jury still out
>>
>>Shall we infer, on the basis of the historical record, that the
>>government is likely to be much more effective at achieving
>>the race-related goals it chooses than the market is?
>
>        No.  It failed by keeping slavery around for a few centuries (note
>we're talking about government in general, and not just the good 'ol USA).

Failed at what???
When it took slavery as a goal, it succeeded to a great extent.

The government seems to be very successful in achieving the goals
it takes for itself in the realm of race. The question seems to be,
which goals shall we give it?

>>>   "No organization, public, private or governmental has the power to se
>>>terms of or limits upon contractual agreements between consenting adults."
>>
>>Tried it. Didn't work.
>
>        When?

In the 19th century.

>  I konw very well what AA both is supposed to be and what it is in
>reality.

No, you don't. Or if you do, then you are deliberately misstating
it. If you state your belief explicitly, then we will know which
of the two is really going on.

>>>        Now, how many is enough?
>>
>>How many WHAT is enough?
>>After Peter's long, thorough explanation, Brett STILL insists on
>>pretending that Affirmative Action is identical to quota. There
>>isn't much point in explaining it again, I suppose.
>
>        There is no equivication, so no, there's isn't any point in pursuing
>that strawman.

Let's see. The executive order Brett produced says "affirmative action."
Brett interprets this to mean "quota." And yet, he thinks there is
no equivocation. Or at least he SAYS there is no equivocation. But
we know from Peter's posting that those two are NOT synonymous.
So, what Brett says is false.

>>Incredible!
>
>        Amazing!
>
>>Like Bush, Brett reads "quota" into a context in which it isn't really
>>there.
>
>        No, it is there.  We are told that AA must be used to employ and
>advance.  The only question we are left with is how much is enough.
>Determining how much does indeed leave you with a quota, whether express or
>implied.

That is simply nonsense.

A quota says that there is a pre-set amount that an employer must
employ (really, a pre-set number, not an amount, but never mind that).
Affirmative action implies no such thing.
In effect, Brett urges that we should replace "affirmative action,"
which does NOT have the implication he dislikes, with "quota,"
which DOES have the implication he dislikes. He then says that
he dislikes the result, and implicates the original.

>>Readers might speculate on whether they (Bush and Brett)
>>really don't even understand the difference, or whether they do
>>but prefer to pretend that the two are identical.
>>Jamie
>
>  Or whether certain people don't want to acknowledge that AA in its
>current form is a failure.

I personally do not wish to acknowledge anything that is false.

The (common) claim that Affirmative Action is a "failure" has
now been refuted on the list. Brett has offerred nothing in
reply to the refutation, except that AA has not achieved perfect,
unmitigated success. In its place, Brett would stick a policy
that achieved no success whatever in reducing racially discriminating
hiring practices. Great plan.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU