Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <1104@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 20:52:16 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1104 Posted: Thu Jun 27 20:52:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 22:24:51 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP><449@unc.UUCP> <2973@cca.UUCP> <1059@mnetor.UUCP> <366@spar.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 31 Xref: utcs net.politics:9414 net.social:707 net.women:6151 net.flame:10545 Summary: In article <366@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >In article <1059@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >>Given that AA is not strictly fair in the short term, I personally >>believe that in the short-term AA will not only be unfair, but in fact >>generate MORE discrimination. > > But it is not unfair, because white males already have an advantage, > at least in America. If you read the article to which I followed up to it indicated that even the legislators who enacted AA knew that it was unfair - to an individual. Judging someone on social group rather than merit because in the past his/her group had an advantage is unfair. I thought that this society had gotten out of the "Sins of the fathers [parents] are visited upon the sons [offspring]" syndrome. It's pretty poor consolation to the person unable to find a job because AA has already filled his/her group's quota. He's got just as much right to a job as anybody else. Especially, since AA also discriminates against non-white-males too - AA means that we have to have 49% male nurses, and 89% basketball players doesn't it? -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321