From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.202250 Mike Brokowski writes:
> 
>
> According to Sheheryar Hasnain:
MB: [...some crap elided...]

SH: I dont understand which part you found crappy. Tell me and maybe
we can discuss it.
 
   .....However, if a verbal-type KKK member works with me, I DO 
> > NOT have a "choice" of having to deal with him or not.  I need 
> > that "choice."
> 
>MB: I think there is some confusion here about what having a choice 
> means. Are you forced to work there? No. You *do* have a choice. 
> Choice does not necessarily imply desired option (or even 
> desirable option). Much of the time, free individuals make 
> decisions among options that they like very little. Those 
> decisions are still choices, even if they aren't preferred. A 
> choice is still a choice even if you may "need" it.

SH:  So I see that we're working for the system, eh? And not vice versa. 
Yes, I also have the choice to make my family starve, right Mike?  Your 
statements implications are pretty scary, Mike:  Sexually Harrassed women
should leave if they feel harrassed right?  Hell if we want to get rid of 
someone in school or work because they're of color or of a different
sexual orientation, lets harrass the hell out of them  WITH IMPUNITY!!
Wow what a great thing freedom is, right,Mike?  Remember that a lot of
people dont have the choice to leave with having to support a family.
And I don't know about you but, if you look at the economy, does someone
actually have that choice.  In all seriousness?  If you are Jewish and 
someone constantly attacks and insults you on the basis of your religion,
given you are religious, would you feel justice has been done if you 
end up leaving?   

> > ...I believe that I have a right to a "hostility free" workplace 
> > BEFORE he has the right to his freedom of speech.  If he makes 
> > the environment hostile, he should be fired.
> 
MB:  This depends on your definition of "hostility free." If this means 
> that this person shouldn't be able to beat you up, throw you in 
> jail, or make you "illegal" in some way because he disagrees with 
> your opinions, then you are correct: you *do* have a right to a 
> "hostility free" workplace. But so does he. You can't throw him in 
> jail or make him illegal for expressing his ignoramus views 
> either.

SH: Beating up is assault.  I don't think thats what hostile environment
constitutes by law (but I'm no lawyer so...).  I know that in sexual
harrassment cases, the hostile environment case is pretty commonly 
used : the defense is something to the effect that the "environment" makes 
the woman uncomfortable.  A number of good cases have been won on that 
account (if you want references, I can give them since I did a whole series
of papers on sexual harrassment about a year ago -- somehow I don't think
you'll be interested!)

> MB:  OTOH, if you mean that no one should be able to express opinions 
> that offend you, then you have no such right. You never have. 
> Check you copy of the constitution: free speech? yes, pleasant 
> work environment? not there.

SH: Think, Mike.  Read, yes, but then think!  As far as I'm concerned
the constitution of the US of A is another well written piece of paper.
I've read a tremendous amount of maticulously written books that have
been crap (in my opinion of course)  
But thats not what I'm arguing here.The constitution also
states that all "men are created equal."  Now how can I take, seriously,
a document that conveniently ignores half the population?  Again, your
statements have pretty scary implications.  
> 
Take a chill pill, Mike
Sheheryar
> 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct