From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Jack's Racist Nonsense (was Re: Social Democracy)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:28:20 GMT


In article <19921103020840ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:

>In article <1992Oct29.132644.12933@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>We don't have (official) Jim Crow laws now.  We do have
>>massive racial injustice.

>Inequality of condition or even of opportunity does not
>imply that there is massive racial injustice.

Another of your pseudo-logical canards.  That there is no _a
priori_ necessary connection between racial injustice and
inequality of condition or opportunity does not address the
fact that racial injustice exists on a massive scale and
that among its manifestations is widespread inequality of
opportunity and condition.

You are sounding more and more like an apologist for racism,
Jack.

>What's operating here is your sense of liberal guilt that
>you don't suffer to the same degree as others.

You may claim what you like, but you have shown nothing.

>In any event, I deny that there is any massive racial
>injustice in the United States today, except possibly for
>the reverse discrimination inherent in the affirmative
>action, minority set-asides, targets, quotas and other
>perversion of the concept of equal protection of the laws
>under the 14th Amendment.

Assuming that you are not merely making a perverse gloss on
the word "massive," what do you call it, if not racial
injustice, that the present conditions obtain for people of
color in this country?  Tens of millions of them, don't
forget.

>If you disagree, please point out a specific example rather
>than simply claiming a proof by assertion that it exists,
>and we can discuss it.

You want names and addresses, I suppose.  Don't try to
suggest that you need such specificities to get a grip on
the issues; that just exposes you as a mountebank.

>>You didn't think the civil rights
>>legislation of 1964 and 1965 was necessary or good?  You
>>endorse its progressive demolishion by the Reagan/Bush,
>>neo-conservative coalition?

>The 1964 civil rights legislation, which mandated
>restrictions on the right of individual business people to
>discriminate in the area of public accomodations, housing,
>and employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion,
>was neither necessary nor good, and represented a loss of
>individual rights through governmental intrusion into the
>private affairs.

So all those people who were enthusiatic about this legislation
and who lament the extent to which the socially progressive
trends of the 60s have since been offset by the likes of
Reagan/Bush were what, in your book?  Just misguided
fools?  Opportunists?  Reverse-discriminators?  

That legislation, whatever its defects may have been, had a
very powerful idea -- for good -- on its side, and you are
exactly correct about what it was: it "mandated restrictions
on the right of individual business people to discriminate
in the area of public accomodations, housing, and employment
on the basis of race, gender, or religion."

That was necessary.  It was a good thing.  It would still be
a good thing, had not so much concerted effort been expended
to undermine and short-circuit its provisions.

>The 1965 civil rights act, which allowed for federal
>intervention in the voting registration process in most of
>the Southern states, was a legitimate exercise of federal
>authority because of the equal protection clause of the 14th
>Amendment.  Without question, some of its provisions removed
>roadblocks which some states had set up to prevent blacks
>from voting.

As indeed the 1964 Civil Rights Act also did: removed
barriers to employment and job security based on race, etc.

>The very fact that affirmative action programs arose at all
>constitutes some evidence for my original claim that private
>anti-discrimination laws do not really work.

But they *do* work.  The canard that they don't is currently
very popular, a narrative that rests fundamentally on racist
attitudes toward the poor.  We need more, not less,
affirmative action.  And we don't need more of the Clarence
Thomas kind either: get ahead himself by virtue of AA, then
become the stooge of the Reagan/Bush handlers.

>What principle of justice is there that requires some people
>to work for and become de facto slaves for the benefit of
>others?

Quite so.  I'm surprised you ask.

>What exactly do you mean by social equity?

I'm not surprised you ask that.  But you're being completely
disingenuous, which is enormously insulting.  Social
inequity is all around us.  Don't try to pretend you don't
see it, and ...

>Because I have two eyes, does your principle of social
>equity require me to give up one of them so that somebody
>who is totally sightless has an equal opportunity to see?
>Should Michael Jordan be required to play basketball with an
>iron shackle around his leg so that there is a "level
>playing field" which might allow me to compete for his job?

...don't trivialize the plight of people less fortunate that
you in terms of the number of their eyes or other abilities
or conditions.  That's really obscene and loathesome.

>>>The fact is that government imposed non-discrimination
>>>policies result in only marginally less de facto
>>>discrimination -- at least as far as we can tell.

>>Who's this "we," Batman?  I don't see African Americans in
>>any great numbers lining up to say "Go ahead and gut
>>(further) the gains of the 60s."

>Try reading Thomas Sowell's _Markets and Minorities_ for an
>objective evaluation of non-discrimination and affirmative
>action laws.  That's one black man who's an economist for
>starters.

Have you read Sowell's book yourself?

"Objective" in this context means only that you agree with
him.  Tell us, while you're at it, what your point was when
you mentioned that he is an African American.

>>You're right about one
>>thing: not enough has been or is being done to reduce or
>>eliminate discrimination.  Now what's your program for doing
>>that?

>How about moral persuation and organizing boycotts against
>companies which discriminate on inappropriate grounds?

Fine with me, although I'm sure we will differ over what
constitutes "appropriate" grounds.  I also happen to think
that moral persuasion, not having worked lo these 450-some
years, is not suddenly going to start working.

Do we have to have a boycott every time someone is tossed
out of their job or not hired in the first place or evicted
from their living place, by the way?  Why not just have a
law to protect people from racists, sexists, and homophobes
(plus such other categories as seem necessary (in Madison we
have 22 of them)).

>>>And it's quite possible that even more discrimination in the
>>>case of GLBs would result if it lulls people who are
>>>closeted at work into a false sense of security in coming
>>>out under the illusion that they really are protected.

>>Huh?  How is that *more* discrimination?  Are you saying
>>some is OK (sure sounds like it)?

>If I am right that anti-discrimination laws against gays and
>lesbians in the private sector are bound to be ineffective,
>if a gay happens to be working for a homophobic employer and
>comes out under the belief that he is protected, he puts
>himself at greater risk of losing his job.

With suitable laws he (or she) has a remedy.  That remedy is
a form of protection against the discrimination in the first
place.

>Your question about if it is OK is ambiguous.

>If you're talking about rights, a private person has the
>right to discriminate against anyone at any time for any
>reason.

Apart from the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, there
are (almost) no other rights to discriminate, certainly no
blanket or wholesale rights of the type you claim.  Sorry,
try again.  Owner-occupied housing and a few other cases are
the only exceptions.

>If you're asking as to whether in my own personal system of
>ethic it is OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual
>orientation, in most cases I would say no; in some cases it
>would depend upon the specific job.

Well now, that's interesting.  What specific jobs are you
thinking of?

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>
Newsgroups: soc.motss