Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women Subject: AA Implies Guilt--BS Message-ID: <362@spar.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:27:57 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.362 Posted: Wed Jun 26 05:27:57 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 08:07:36 EDT References: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <196@kontron.UUCP> <318@spar.UUCP> <947@mhuxt.UUCP> <342@spar.UUCP> <265@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 94 Xref: watmath net.politics:9600 net.women:6103 _ A major byproduct of debate ought to be understanding, if not agreement, between those with opposing positions. Unfortunately, some of the opponents of AA have single-mindedly insisted that "white male guilt" is an argument in the pro-AA camp. If we cannot agree on what our opponents' positions are, why the hell waste time debating? A recent example: >>>> But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? >>>> The opponents of Affirmative Action! >> >...(lots of quotations)... > >The above posting is a highly selective set of quotations; the reason that >many of us arguing against affirmative action have spent as much time as >we have arguing against collective guilt is because of postings that stated >that (and I'm paraphrasing a little) America is like a highway lined with >silver dollars, and the people that got there first (white males) got the >easy pickings, and there white males deserve less so that other groups can >have more. It is entirely possible that the editor of the above >items hasn't been following the debate long enough --- nonetheless, the >forces against affirmative action have been arguing *against* collective >guilt, with *some* pro-affirmative action people who have argued in *favor* >of collective guilt. -- Clayton Cramer Clayton, if you insist on perpetrating your misunderstanding in the face of major evidence, at least back up your claim. Otherwise, please retract your misstatement. Please note: 1. I have been part of the current net.women AA debate since it flared up around May 17. That's three days prior to our receipt your first entry -- a reply to Mr. Dietrick's "Why do *I* have to pay.." 2. That series of 13 quotes was my work. And they WERE typical of the AA articles in net.women that contained words like {punish,guilt}. I did not find one pro-AA article to the contrary, and we've already seen thirteen authors (many people posted several arguments repeating their position) as evidence against what you say. As to the "highway lined with silver dollars" article, here is the relevant excerpt to refresh your memory: >>.. If the objection to discrimination >>is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is >>inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on >>anyone else. [Clayton?] > >Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast. >Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of >the highway. Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get >the most money. Except that all black men, all women, and all >foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white >men from getting more than a mile down the road. So now, 200+ years >later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination. > >Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"? Do you mean we >should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road? Or do >you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth? They're >different goals. Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose >will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any >hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money. Those that have >gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much >of it. >-- Beth Christy (482@sphinx) Whether you agree with Beth's sentiment or not, I fail to see how she says "white men are guilty". Instead she's saying that they've inherited a an unfair advantage -- more like "lucky" than "guilty". =========================================================================== Why do the anti-AA forces insist that the bogus guilt-strawman is a pro-AA argument? Maybe rigid traditional attitudes and too many fairy tales have clouded their minds, such as: *Our system is already fair. *If we must make adjustments (as per AA) then somebody (those on top) must be guilty of a crime. *Those in power acquired their situation fairly, by hard work, competing on an equal basis with those who are now underprivileged. *Our wonderful system does not unjustly reward those who conform to the white male image, or else such conformism is healthy/natural/fitting for our society. I believe that the current AA debate will go nowhere until we all understand the enormous diversity of attitudes people have towards sentiments such as the above. -michael