From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: The perception of reverse racism (Re: Why do Americans 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:46:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.172704.17178@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.142423.17645@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>Let me assure that racism against majorities does exist.
>(reverse racism is too PC for me -- besides that it is meaningless, 
>racism means discrimination on the basis of race -- its opposite is 
>equal treatment of races, not discrimination against a majority.)
>
>I worked in the mailroom of the Great Western Bank operations 
>center in Phoenix while in college.  We had a black person who
>knew he was part of the "qouta" and couldn't be fired.  This person
>was arrogant, rude, lazy, and worse than useless (ie: he not only
>did little if any work, he intefered with the work of others).
>
Ah yes, the perceptions of a mailroom clerk "prove" the existence of
reverse racism.  Andrew, you need to at least entertain the notion that
the person's behavior was formed, and malformed, by having to live and
work in Arizona, where postmodern racism flourishes (see the reaction to
MLK day as an example.)  I feel sorry for any black person, or any
liberal white, who has to live in Arizona (in spite of my massive
respect for Barry Goldwater.)

Your story is shown to be malarkey by its close resemblance to what my
fourth grade teacher told a classroom of innocent children in
1959...years before Affirmative Action, years before the Civil Rights
Act.  This teacher (who was in all respects incompetent and abusive)
told us that "her friend" had been held back in city government because
of dem uppity black folks, who had reserved the top jobs for themselves.
In 1959!!  In other words, your story is just the fantasy of the favored
group that if it's placed on a par with the historically disfavored
group, it will automatically be "discriminated against."  It is NOT a
serious critique of Affirmative Action, for as you see my fourth grade
teacher's comments predated Affirmative Action.

>The bank had to downsize due to a lack of profits: a white person
>who had been there longer, was more cooperative, and actually did
>work was laid of and the black guy was retained.  The above opinion
>of this particular black person is not mine alone: nobody at the 
>office disagreed with my opinion.  Even the supervisor told us
>(off the record) that he was kept because of quotas.

You need to at least entertain the notion that the supervisor told you
this in order to deflect anger (and resultant lawsuits) away from
incompetent bank managements (who, after all, gave us the savings and
loan and banking scandals of the '80s) towards affirmative action.

Also, in white-collar environments, it is relatively easy to confuse the
appearance of work and productivity with its reality.  In banks,
especially (speaking from experience at a much higher level than yours),
perception is reality to such an extent that you may very well have
perceived the white individual to be more productive because he did
not rock the boat, was highly punctual and well-dressed according to
your standards, and so forth.  Whereas the black guy may have perceived
himself as performing more onerous tasks.  In other words, in a banking
environment (with its premium on being "cooperative" and well-groomed,
perceptions that are closely linked to historically "white"
perceptions), the black guy started out with a serious handicap whereas
the white guy, by virtue of his skin alone, started with extra points.

>fit this description as there are blacks -- the difference is that
>the whites are unemployed more often and for longer periods.

This is an out and out falsehood, for by any measure, black unemployment
exceeds white unemployment.  White unemployment is on the increase
because corporations don't care; they'll use technology to ship the jobs
where the wages are lowest.  But black unemployment is ratcheting
upward as well.  I suggest that certain parties, from incompetent
banking managements to Meestar Bush himself, would prefer us to fight
each other instead of asking for (1) more jobs, or (2) more unemployment
assistance and retraining, or (3) more jobs at lower pay, with lower
prices.  Or better, just not draining ourselves and (in T. S. Eliot's
words) "mocking ourselves with falsehood" about Affirmative Action, and
instead engaging in constructive projects to improve our lives.

>This situtation does seem to be correcting itself -- at least from
>my perspective.]

Well, we've heard from the guys in the mailroom.  Thanks.


Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc