Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <1167@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 16:39:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1167
Posted: Wed Jul 17 16:39:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 02:14:31 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 44
Summary: 

>>> : (peterr@utcsri)
>>  : Jim Robinson (robinson@ubc-cs)
>   : (Peter Rowley again)
>
>>>I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation.  Does it mean that
>>>if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles
>>>that everyone else does?  Or does it also mean that I should have the
>>>same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something?
>>
>>I tend to think of the first part of the above when I think of "equality
>>of opportunity". If that is fulfilled then it is just a matter of 
>>time before  the second part will be fulfilled as well.
>
>If it were Jim Robinson that were disadvantaged for "just a matter of time"
>(which may well be decades if not generation), then he might see the
>situation as somewhat more urgent.

I wrote that I consider "equality of opportunity" to mean that "if I 
decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles
that everyone else does." I also said that once this is achieved
it will be just a matter of time before I (or whoever) actually *believes*
this.

Assuming my version of "equality of opportunity" is achieved I see no
reason to believe that it will take "decades" for this fact to be
discovered. The gov't has the best propaganda machine in the country
and we all know that they don't mind blowing their own horn.

Also, I am extremely hard pressed to define disadvantaged as: "someone
who lives in a *truly* non-discriminatory society yet, for some reason,
does not believe it". [Given the context in which he is using the term it
would appear that that is the meaning that Peter Rowley is assigning 
to the  word.] Sorry, as far as I am concerned, if nobody is discriminating
against you then you are *not* "disadvantaged". 

In conclusion, if we are going to use Mr. Rowley's rather creative
version of "disadvantaged" then he is very wrong. I would not see the
situation as "somewhat more urgent" even if the so-called "disadvantaged"
person did happen to be me. Attitude problems of people who
*incorrectly* believe they are being discriminated against should
not be the concern of the government. 

Jim Robinson