Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Responses to Cramer, AA and Discirmination
Message-ID: <368@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 09:24:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.368
Posted: Fri Jul  5 09:24:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 10:06:29 EDT
References: <510@ttidcc.UUCP> <323@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 95
Xref: watmath net.women:6271 net.politics:9782

> That was also a time when the *attitudes* of our society in general changed,
> and not just about women.  Attempting to factor out what part is because
> of lawsuits, and what part is because of changing attitudes in the society,
> which the lawsuits are symptomatic of, is a difficult problem

Note that the attitudes of society did not change significantly until
the early 1960s, with the March on Washington AND with explicit support
from the Kennedy Administration, which was followed by explicit legislative
action by the Johnson Administration, BOTH of which were strongly
resisted by significant minorities in Congress and the country as a whole.
This marks a clear case where the attitudes of the country were shaped by
progressive governmental action. History does not support your claim that
society changed all by itself, creating a framework for legal action.

In fact, throughout American history, the pattern for social change has been
activism by a minority, met by indifference from anyone else, until
the minority meets a sympathetic ear in government. Leagl action is
proposed, passes despite vigorous opposition by the proponents of the
status quo, who then go on to sound dire warnings about how the country
will be destroyed by whatever the legislation mandates. Then the legislation
succeeds in that it mandates changes that force the country to re-examine
its assumptions and finding them unsupportable.

> least.  I can suggest one other significant factor in those years which
> has historical precedent: a lot of young men were suddenly pulled out of
> the workforce to go fight in Vietnam during the mid-1960s.  This both
> reduced the number of men available for jobs, perhaps encouraging employers
> to be more open-minded about hiring, and also increased the number of
> women who needed to work because their husbands were getting soldier pay,
> instead of a living wage.  Has anyone done a study of the wage disparity
> during, before, and after World War II?  I would be a little suprised if
> the disparity didn't drastically reduce because of the war, and increase
> after the war.  Note: no assumptions of discrimination are necessary to
> explain what happened, other than the obvious discrimination of the
> armed forced in favor of (or is it against?) men.
> 
Wrong. Discrimination has EVERYTHING to do with it, as many women who
entered the work force during WW 2 found out in 1946, when they were
bluntly told to go home and have babies. And no, the WAGE disparity
was not drastically reduced in WW 2. Women were paid less than the
few men available for the same jobs. it's just that out of necessity,
there were lots of women in the work force during WW 2.

> Isn't it true that the disparity between the wages of men and women have
> *increased* since the 1950s?  I've read that women made 73% of men's wages
> in the late 1950s --- now it's about 60%.
> 
Which clearly shows that laws by themselves are not sufficient, but continued
governmental action is necessary.

> "Slightly": 5%?  I can't tell you for sure.  I do know that my experiences
> as engineer and employment agent give me no reason to assume widespread
> discrimination against women or blacks.  (That's not to say there is none ---
> I would occasionally run into questionable situations, and (rarely) real
> blatant discrimination.)
> 
What is "blatant" by your standards? Maybe you just don't see it because it is
not directed at you. I work for AT&T, which is an extremely progressive company.
Yet I have witnessed several actions that I can only ascribe to discrimination.
This is in a company that makes extraordinary efforts at fair and activist
personel policies. Imagine the situation when employers actively try to subvert
EEO laws and AA policies, examples of which you yourself have talked about!

> No one arguing against affirmative action is arguing for collective guilt.
> We have been arguing against notion of reparations, "justice", or anything
> else, that starts out with the idea that a *race*, or a *sex* has some sort
> of claim on another.  Individuals who have been discriminated against have 
> a legitimate claim against any governmental agency, governmentally-imposed
> or protected monopoly, or government contractor; someone who is black, or
> female, or , has no claim for something that happened to someone
> else.

As Michael Ellis has exhaustively pointed out, the SYSTEM is biased in
favor of white males, who receive advantages that go from active
discrimination in their favor to increased chances of success from
diminished competition due to fewer applicants for a job, a promotion or
whatever. He and others have also shown that since the system itself
in unbalanced, specific, activist deeds are necessary to achive the
constitutional promise of equal opportunity. Neither you nor any
of the other anti-AA usenetters have provided any solid rebuttals to this
central point, preferring to go off on tangents ("here are N cases where
a racist/sexist employer gave a job to someone who did not deserve it",
"don't make ME feel guilty", etc) If you feel that there is no
discrimination in this country, you are either naive or you willfully
ignore reality. If you disagree with the specifics of AA, you are free
to offer your own solutions. I don't think anyone feels AA is a perfect
solution, just the best one we've got.

The business of *individuals* who have been discriminated against being
the only ones with justified AA claim is meaningless. You yourself have
said how difficult it is to prove discrimination. With the hads-off
governmental attitude you advocate, there would be fewer legal recourse
still. No, that is non-solution. You'll have to do better.

Marcel Simon