NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/discrimi/5477

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5477 alt.politics.correct:6057 alt.president.clinton:1304 talk.politics.misc:65779
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
From: [e-mail] (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Affirmative action is dead
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:19:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Oracle News Poster)
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
Lines: 51
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 29 Dec 92 17:33:15 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: fish.us.oracle.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Polen) writes:
> gordon prioreschi) writes:
>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>|> >Actually, South Africa is a precedent for a society which bases everything
>|> >on protecting the power of a racial minority.  AA will be needed to protect
>|> >whites by the year 2010.
>|> The underlying assumption here is, of course, that AA is
>|> "automatically" needed to protect every minority group.
>|> Not to mention that I will bet you dollars to donuts that the moment
>|> somebody advocates affirmative action to protect _whites_ is the
>|> moment we hear the first anti-AA sentiments from certain segments of
>|> the liberal camp.
>Who the hell do you think is in the "liberal camp?"  The first time I
>heard the statement about whites needing AA, was in a speech by the
>head of the Houston chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.

My knowledge of the ADL's politics is limited to awareness of their
pro-Israel stance, which has caused them conflict with anti-Israel
elements on _both_ sides of the political fence. Thus, I am at a loss
to determine from context whether you mean "You're full of shit,
that's a liberal group pushing AA for whites" or "You're full of shit,
that's a conservative group pushing AA in general". Unless your
statement was an expression of violent agreement with something I
said, but I can't think of anything I said about which that would make
sense.

If you meant the former (which seems the more likely), I would draw
your attention to the words "certain segments". I see affirmative
action favoring whites as a very divisive issue for the left. One one
hand is the "government regulation is the One True Road to Happiness"
side, who at least is trying to be colorblind, in a slightly strange
"separate-but-equal" sort of sense; on the other is the "white
capitalist Eurocentric patriarchal oppressors still dominate the
world, and it's racist of you to guarantee quotas to them" team. It's
already quite entertaining watching the cards fall; for example, U.C.
Berkeley (well known for its level-headed political thought) is
currently tapdancing feverishly trying to deal with a large department
(electrical engineering, I believe) that's dominated by a _non-white_
ethnic group.

If you meant the latter, it sure ain't _my_ brand of conservatism, nor
any I have heard of.


One might well speculate briefly that such a stance furthers the ADL's
own political ends, but one might also consider that another rather
messy can of worms.

                               Cordially,

                                    -g