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