Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

by Jack Gillis      http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~jfg0701/

Vergangenheitsbewaltigung

     Roughly translated, "conquest of the past," a phrase coined
by post-war German intellectuals to define for the world and the
nation its duty to come to terms with the horrific, overwhelming
truth of the Holocaust.  The task was--is, I should say, it
continues--excruciating, but Germany has performed it honorably
and well.  Perhaps the essential admission at the heart of
Vergangenheitsbewaltigung is this: "No German is innocent.  Not
army, not civilian, not country, not city, not Catholic, not
Protestant, not even Jew.  None of us is innocent."

     And it turns out this admission--no matter how false it may
be in any individual case--was absolutely necessary.  The
palpably guilty, those drenched in blood, were not the problem--
the Nazis were punished through the Nuremberg trials; the
palpably innocent, those spotless heroes who resisted, were not
the problem either--they were praised and honored.

     The problem was the vast majority of Germans who were
splattered, some a little, some a lot, by the blood of the dead
at the hands of others.  Everyone said that no one knew, but who
worked the fields bisected by the railroads that carried the Jews
to Auschwitz in open cars?  Were none curious about the mezuza in
the doorway of their newly-occupied houses?  Had the Holocaust
been kept secret from the citizens, or had they simply averted
their eyes?  It turned out, understandably, that virtually
everyone had a seemingly reasonable rationalization, a perfect
excuse not to face the facts, The Fact.

     The strangest thing is, those who had the most reason to
take offense at the notion of national guilt, took very little
offense.  This was not a case of individual guilt or innocence
but of national character, of national institutions built that
expressed that character so monstrously, and of a national
resolution to prevent such horror ever occurring again.  True,
individual citizens were innocent--true but irrelevant.  It was
those who were just a little bit guilty who protested most
vociferously.  True, they killed no one, or if they did they were
drafted, or they were themselves threatened with death.  All
true, all utterly irrelevant.

     To build a new Germany, a free and prosperous Germany once
again capable of greatness, required not denial of the national
truth but acknowledgment of it.  The task, in other words, was
to absorb the past into the present to define the future.  To be
a German patriot means in part to celebrate Germany and its great
men, Beethoven, Goethe, Thomas Mann, its ancient forests, the
finest beer in the world, and lederhosen.  But in a deeper sense,
patriotism means not just to love, but to understand--the
achievements and the beauty, of course, but the ugliness and
shame as well.

     And so for us, patriotism means more than just being
suitably outraged that Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refuses to stand during
the "Star Spangled Banner" at NBA games, it means to know
America.  Of the hundreds of essays and commentary I have
encountered about race in America no more than a half dozen or so
have had anything profound to contribute to an understanding of
the United States of America.  All but the tiniest minority of
serious students of America agree that our national shame is race
relations.  This is the past we must conquer, and it is the
responsibility we are abdicating.  For this I grieve.

     I grieve.  Does this mean that America is not a great
country?  That to sit by the spring melt in the Siskiyou
Mountains is not a thrill?  That to walk down Boylston Street
from the Prudential Center to Boston Common on a Friday night is
not the height of amusement?  That the crawfish etouffee at
Laura's is not one the best lunches in the world?  Or that our
soldiers have not been uncommonly brave, our communities
uncommonly generous, our institutions uncommonly effective, our
liberty uncommonly wide?  Of course not.  But all that is not
enough.

     I am saddened by Governor Mike Foster's criticism of
affirmative action and my colleague Allen Ulrich's
characterization of the march on Baton Rouge.  And the funny
thing is, I don't disagree with them.  Oh, sure, the arguments
against affirmative action can seem a bit patronizing when you
think about it--why in God's name should blacks who have suffered
discrimination every single day of their lives allow themselves
to be lectured to about "racial justice" from some white guy with
inherited wealth who supported segregation in his youth?  But the
philosophical foundation of the argument is perfectly sound.  We
should live in a color-blind society and people should advance on
their own merits and individual achievement.  True, yes it is,
true but totally irrelevant.

     By the same token, listening to the speakers at the State
Capitol rally was heartbreaking.  And I didn't disagree with
them, either, I couldn't.  How can generations of historical
injustice be denied?  Not just the degree of resentment, but more
importantly, its primacy among the emotions expressed was truly
heartbreaking.  Yes, it is true that oppression and
discrimination is at the core of black experience in America:
true but irrelevant.

     The possibility of reconciliation in our lifetimes is
becoming more and more remote as the debate about race relations
deteriorates into one group that would shamelessly wave away
history with a glib, legalistic mantra of a "color-blind society"
and another group angrily sputtering a melodramatic mantra of
"400 years of oppression."  One can't remember the past, one
can't forget it.

     If a nation is like a family, then sometimes we have to
behave like one.  Families must have rules, naturally, but
sometimes the health of the family requires ignoring them.
Families have histories too, and members may feel justifiably
hurt, but sometimes the health of the family requires that the
hurt be not forgotten but forgiven at least.  If you think I'm
recommending that all we need is for Cleo Fields and Mike Foster
to give each other a big old hug, you're wrong.  There are deep
deep emotions involved, the kind that don't just dissolve because
it makes us uncomfortable to confront them.  I haven't got a clue
as to what the proper path to racial reconciliation is, but I
know full well that it's bound to be a very hard walk, uphill and
muddy, and it will certainly require concessions from each of us,
and our children, and probably our grandchildren.

     Remember that word: Vergangenheitsbewaltigung.

    I feel it's well intended but hypocritical.  You can't favor one group
    without discriminating against all outside the group.  ALso, it plays
    on the idea that the ends justify the means, something a university
    ethics prof I had said is NEVER valid.
    
    My $0.02
    
    -dave

re Note 1226.2 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     I feel it's well intended but hypocritical.  You can't favor one group
>     without discriminating against all outside the group.  ALso, it plays
>     on the idea that the ends justify the means, something a university
>     ethics prof I had said is NEVER valid.

        Well, I don't see it as hypocritical -- it explicitly favors
        one group, and explicitly reduces what is an over-favoring of
        other groups.

        It would seem that there are three alternatives:  you either
        deny that some groups are over-favored (i.e., deny that
        discrimination exists);  you do something to reduce the
        over-favoring to what would exist in a perfect world;  or you
        admit that there is a problem but throw up your hands and do
        nothing (or hope some future generation will be
        discrimination-free).

        Of course, reducing over-favoring to neutrality is a tricky
        proposition:  you can just decree that over-favoring is
        wrong, and nothing else.  Or you can define what the result
        of neutrality in a perfect world would be, and then enact
        measures to encourage or require those results.

        The problem is that you cannot enforce neutrality, even if
        you decree it.  If one believes that society is far from
        neutrality (and after 400 years of racial discrimination
        often exceeding the worst of South African apartheid, it is
        disingenuous to suggest that we've reached neutrality in a
        few decades), then one must look for other solutions.

        As far as "ends justifying the means", perhaps you are
        misapplying this.  Perhaps the end isn't a society in which
        color is never a factor, but a more attainable goal of equal
        access to opportunity for all colors.  The latter is merely a
        numerical goal, and can be achieved by taking color into
        account in certain decisions.

        Is that reprehensible?  Perhaps it is to you, but to others
        it seems reprehensible to say that a color-blind society
        requires that nothing effective can be done to address the
        problems resulting from color-bias.

        Does "the ends cannot justify the means" imply that a truly
        free society cannot be achieved if one of the means used by
        that society involves deprivation of freedom, i.e., prison,
        or to say that peace can never be achieved through war. 
        (I've even heard a few people suggest that respect for life
        requires the death penalty;  while I would point out the
        irony of the means proposed to that end, I would never
        suggest that that itself is a compelling argument against
        capital punishment.)

        Bob

    Well, it uses discrimination in the effort to eliminate discrimination.
    I suppose some would say it's like fighting fire with fire, or as you
    said, fighting for peace.  Because it's discriminatory, it may even be
    unconstitutional (as the Supreme Court is working on this right now).

    Don't get me wrong.  I hate racism as much as the next guy.  And BTW,
    discrimination is more than just an issue of race.  I just find the
    morality of the method to be, well, less than ideal.

    One of the things I dislike about it most is that it plays right into
    the bad-ole notions that people should be treated differently because of
    the color of their skin, their gender, age, whatever.  It requires the
    practitioners of AA to segregate people on these bases when determining
    how to treat them.  In this sense, it's self defeating.  And in this
    sense it just adds fuel to the fire.

    At best, it's a poor solution to the problem.  You've got to weigh in
    the price of the downside of AA when you look at any benefits it might
    have created.  I'm sick of hearing stories from racists who point to AA
    as evidence that blacks "need" the extra help to get a job or get in
    school.  It's demeaning and many black leaders have spoken against AA
    for this reason.

    IMO, there are better ways to approach this.

    BTW, the ends "never" justify the means.

    Not sure why this topic is in Christian_Perspective.  But some christian
    groups point to the Bible to support racist views (e.g. David Duke).


    -dave

re Note 1226.4 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     IMO, there are better ways to approach this.

        Well, since you haven't suggested any, we'll just have to
        discuss AA.

>     One of the things I dislike about it most is that it plays right into
>     the bad-ole notions that people should be treated differently because of
>     the color of their skin, their gender, age, whatever.  It requires the
>     practitioners of AA to segregate people on these bases when determining
>     how to treat them.  In this sense, it's self defeating.  And in this
>     sense it just adds fuel to the fire.

        To say that "if you're a black you have 1 chance out of n for
        the position" and "if you're white you have 1 chance out of n
        [same n, by the way] for a position" would seem to be
        treating people the *same*, not differently.

        It is rather sloppy thinking to say this is the same as "if
        you're a black you have 0 chance out of n for the position"
        and "if you're white you have 1 chance out of n for a
        position".  Yet those who would wish to allow the practice of
        racial discrimination -- or wish to use race as a political
        wedge -- would want you to think they are the same.

        (I guess that I need to put in a disclaimer that I don't
        support all of what has been done in the name of Affirmative
        Action, some of it is quite silly and counter-productive. 
        And simple numerical standards, quotas if you will, have been
        denigrated even though they are the essence of fairness. 
        There is a difference between discrimination and racial
        awareness.  Discrimination is treating people of different
        characteristics (in this case race) differently.  On the other
        hand you need to be aware of the race of individuals even to
        know if discrimination exists.  And a suitable application of
        racial awareness can be used to to detect discrimination and
        ensure racial even-handedness -- to me that is the essence of
        AA.)


>     At best, it's a poor solution to the problem.  You've got to weigh in
>     the price of the downside of AA when you look at any benefits it might
>     have created.  I'm sick of hearing stories from racists who point to AA
>     as evidence that blacks "need" the extra help to get a job or get in
>     school.  It's demeaning and many black leaders have spoken against AA
>     for this reason.

        As I am sick of racists claiming that to ensure blacks have
        an equal chance at an opportunity is to somehow say that
        there is a defect in the blacks.  If anything, the defect
        being corrected is in *society*, not the individual;  but a
        demagogue will easily avoid that point.


>     Not sure why this topic is in Christian_Perspective.  But some christian
>     groups point to the Bible to support racist views (e.g. David Duke).
  
        For some of us it's a moral issue.

        Bob

    >        Well, since you haven't suggested any, we'll just have to
    >        discuss AA.
    
    I didn't want to ramble.  In a nutshell, education and integration in
    the schools are two wonderful methods.  Huge strides have already been 
    made due to efforts made in this area though we don;t care to recognize
    this.  And it's getting better all the time.  It takes  time and it
    takes patients.  And it will happen.  But in the meantime, you can't
    hold a double standard, telling all the children that color doesn't
    matter while the older sibling on one can't get into a college because
    of quotas and why the parent of another didn't get the job for the same
    reason.  It's jsut more hypocricy.
    
    >To say that "if you're a black you have 1 chance out of n for..
    
    The mandate is that at least x% of a company's workforce shold be 
    comprised of.... (minority list).  For any one company with 'N' employees, 
    that equates to numerical quotas.  If the quota for your race is full,
    you have 0 out of n chance of getting in.  Your qualifications for the
    position are moot because of the color of your skin.  That ain't right.
    And you're right, the unmuttered discrimination practiced by some
    employers isn't right either.  But, as they say, two wrongs don't make
    a right.  If you can prove that an employer is discriminating based on
    race, then you go after him with the law.  But if you can't you have to
    let him go.  Just like having a suspected murder in jail... if you
    can;t prove him guilty of the crime, you let him go.  I believe a lot of 
    the quota stuff in AA is being relaxed and changed due to action by the 
    supreme court.  
    
    The more I think about this the more I long for a world dreamed of by
    Martin Luther King Jr.  If he were alive today, I doubt he'd support
    anything like AA because it just adds to the tension of racism.
    
    -dave                                                       
    
    

re Note 1226.6 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

        > If the quota for your race is full, you have 0 out of n
        > chance of getting in.  

        Please re-read the above, contemplate on the denotations and
        connotations of the words.  Is there a race mentioned above? 
        The above standard is *objectively* color-neutral *IF* the
        quotas were set in a uniform way (e.g., equal percentage of
        available candidates).

        This is far more fair than our society has been most of its
        history, and far more fair than simply saying "don't
        discriminate, we really ask you not to discriminate, but if
        we don't catch you putting out a 'white's only' sign, there's
        nothing we can do if you do discriminate."

        Bob

    Hi Bob.
    
    I read your note.  I "contemplated the denotations and connotations".
    Doesn't change a thing.  There was no mention of race. So what?  It's 
    not a mater of having a chance at a position based on some statistical
    model of what "should" be, it's a matter of the best man/woman getting 
    the job based on the credentials.  If that means that everyone in the 
    company is orange, that's what it means.  If there's a high correlation 
    with the overall population figures, that's fine too.  If someone is 
    pushing the results one way or the other with discrimination, that's 
    illegal and they should be punished.  But you have to prove discrimination 
    first, and that takes more than circumstantial evidence.  
    
    It's not a perfect world, and as an EM prof in college once instructed 
    a fellow student, it's not a fair world either.  We do the best we can.
    
    
    
                                    

re Note 1226.8 by TEBIRD::DGAUTHIER:

>     model of what "should" be, it's a matter of the best man/woman getting 
>     the job based on the credentials.  

        And how do you know if a system that claims to be going by
        credentials is actually doing so without bias?  And how do
        you know that the credentials themselves are awarded without
        bias?

        If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a
        high probability that it's a duck.  If your workforce just
        happens to turn up orange (assuming there are lots of
        non-oranges in your available workforce), then it's a high
        probability that there is some bias.


>     If someone is 
>     pushing the results one way or the other with discrimination, that's 
>     illegal and they should be punished.  But you have to prove discrimination 
>     first, and that takes more than circumstantial evidence.  
>   
>     It's not a perfect world, and as an EM prof in college once instructed 
>     a fellow student, it's not a fair world either.  We do the best we can.

        Well, you're not doing "the best you can" by a long shot if
        you dismiss statistical evidence in a area where the crime is
        driven by attitudes and preferences.  The era of
        discrimination by "whites only" and "colored need not apply"
        signs is over.  That does not mean that the era of
        discrimination is over.

        Don't give racists a convenient place to hide by saying that
        as long as we can't quote them saying "we don't hire blacks",
        then what they actually do doesn't matter.

        And neither you nor anyone else, myself included, can excuse
        ourselves from being fair by simply saying "life's unfair" --
        we must nevertheless strive to be fair.

        Bob

    There are still people who believe that persons of x gender, race,
    religion, etc, will never have the wherewithal to do certain things, no
    matter how long that person has been doing it or how qualified they may
    be.  And that only people of x race, gender or religion could possibly
    do the job.  
    
    Much as I don't like certain side-effects of AA, until we get this sort
    of problem weeded out of our systems, I don't see a good solution to
    give all people the opportunity to succeed or fail in their chosen
    educational or occupational fields
    
    meg

    > And how do you know if a system that claims....
    
    You don't know. But at least now it's illegal to discriminate where in
    the not too distant past it wasn't (one of those huge strides in the
    right direction I mentioned earlier). If an employer is going to be a
    bigot, he'd better be smart about it or else he gets nailed.  If
    someone's going to be a theif, he'd better be smart about it or he's
    going to get nailed, Same for murderers, etc... .  Society used to say
    "it's OK to discriminate".  Then it said "you shouldn't discriminate".
    Now it's saying "it's illegal to discriminate". The pressure is
    increasing and in time it will prevail.  But man oh man, making 
    discrimination illegal with one breath while practicing it with the
    next just detracts from the credibility of the whole position.
    
    > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
    
    Blood on his glove, a panic ride in his bronco, motive, opportunity,
    etc... .  OJ "really" looked like a duck.  But he slipped through.  It
    takes "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict people of a crime in this
    country, a can of worms I won't open here.
    
    
    >Well, you're not doing "the best you can" by a long shot if
    >you dismiss statistical evidence in a area where the crime is...
    
    Beware of data mining.  There may be many reasons why there are
    discrepencies (e.g. most construction workers are men, most basketball
    players are black, most beauticians are women,  most executives are
    over 30, etc... ).  It's not a matter of dismissing evidence, it's a
    matter of understanding it before jumping to conclusions.  
    
    And life IS unfair.  We humans, try to make it fairer, but it's unfair
    by nature.  Just ask any 5 year old suffering from cyctic fibrosis.
    Some, especially those who read/write this conference, will see
    fair/unfair as something more in line with divine intervention.
    
    -dave
    

re Note 91.5492 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>      Z   I see no problem with the rest.  I see a bill that wishes to insure
>      Z   that "alternative" lifestyle choices are not the basis for special
>      Z   privileges (AA quotas, minority status, etc.).
>     
>     Well, that was my point as well.  Like I said, if the federal
>     government had not implemented policies which, for years, had violated
>     the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the suspicions, line between races, and yes
>     even bills like this would most likely not be happening.
  
        It all depends upon what problem you think is the most
        important one to be addressed of the problems that CAN be
        addressed.

        A law that simply outlaws "discrimination" is a fine
        sentiment and good policy, but is hardly able to end what
        must undoubtedly be the most widespread forms of
        discrimination, the ones practiced through the collective
        result of private tastes, fears, prejudices, etc.

        No doubt "discrimination", as we have known it through most
        of our nation's history, is bad, but why in particular is it
        bad?  It is not bad primarily because the mere thought that
        somebody is better than another is bad.  It is bad in
        particular because, as a net result of many such decisions,
        some group becomes less able (or in the extreme unable) to
        participate in some aspects of society (professions,
        political office, etc.).  And if some group becomes less able
        to participate, conversely some others are favored and become
        over-represented.

        I believe in my heart of hearts that government efforts to
        achieve a balance of participation in society by various
        groups are a good thing.  I believe that this is good because
        it is the *only* way to fight covert discrimination.  I
        believe that it must *not* be morally equated to the
        discrimination outlawed by such laws as the 1964 Civil Rights
        Act because it is not a discrimination which seeks to prevent
        certain parties from certain participation, but is exactly
        the opposite -- it accomplishes fairer participation, it
        effectively nullifies at least some forms of covert
        discrimination. 

        I believe that those who equate AA and quotas to classic
        discrimination are scoundrels and demagogues who would stir
        up class and racial hatreds for political gain, or are their
        unfortunate followers.

        Bob

        Z    I believe that those who equate AA and quotas to classic
        Z    discrimination are scoundrels and demagogues who would stir
        Z    up class and racial hatreds for political gain, or are their
        Z    unfortunate followers.
    
    Well Bob, your points are understood.  The intent is there...but we
    still come back to the intent of the law.  If the 1964 CRA outlaws
    quotas, then in the pure sense of the word, the good intentions through
    equity are still illegal.  And by the way, a majority of the populace 
    oppose Affirmative Action as it stands today, including those of
    African descent.
    
    The Federal Government simply did a very poor marketing job in the
    Nixon years...and the cynicism exists even today.  Seems to me like
    they either need to put a drop date on this policy.  Either that or
    rewrite the laws so they are unequivocal.
    
    -Jack

    Using the federal government to avert "covert" discrimination is a very
    bad idea on a number of levels.

re Note 1226.14 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     Using the federal government to avert "covert" discrimination is a very
>     bad idea on a number of levels.
  
        Judging by your past statements, it seems you think using the
        federal government is a bad idea for almost anything.

        There are quite a few of us who don't agree that the federal
        government is so evil that almost any evil is lesser than it.

        Bob

| <<< Note 1226.15 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 227-3978, TAY1)" >>>


| Judging by your past statements, it seems you think using the federal 
| government is a bad idea for almost anything.

	Bob, Steve thinks, based on his opinion, that the bill which is going
through now to make sure g/l/b's don't get any fed stuff married heterosexuals
get is a good idea. So I think it depends on what is being discussed as to
whether or not the fed gov is bad for Steve.


Glen

    No Glen, I think it actually has more to do with the federal government
    usurping power away from the individual states.
    
    It isn't so much the A2 issue in regard to equal rights.  It is using
    this as a precedent for the federal government to intervene in the
    sovereignty of state rights as protected under the tenth ammendment.
    
    You may find one day that this will come back to haunt you. However, I
    will say that Colorado, as typical with anything government does, used
    poor wording and judgement in how the bill was penned.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1226.17 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     You may find one day that this will come back to haunt you. However, I
>     will say that Colorado, as typical with anything government does, used
>     poor wording and judgement in how the bill was penned.  
  
        Since it is clear that what the sponsors of A2 wanted was to
        punish homosexuals for their immorality, but knowing that
        they could never get the voters to approve a simple outlawing
        of homosexual acts, instead hoped that homosexuals could be
        punished by *private* action, I wonder how they could have
        worded it any better?

        Bob

	Bob, at least they made it clear for anyone who read it that it was
wrong. That is, anyone who read it that wasn't brainwashed with lies
beforehand, or if they aren't homophobic to begin with.


Glen

      re: .15 (Bob)
    
>        Judging by your past statements, it seems you think using the
>        federal government is a bad idea for almost anything.

    For anything beyond its intended purpose, yes.  In case you haven't
    noticed, there is more than a little erosion of the BoR, and this is
    directly related to the mentality that the federal government is here
    to solve all our problems.
    
    For things like national defense, interstate disputes, foreign
    policy....I have no problems with it.  These are some of the reasons
    that it was formed.  To use it as a tool for social change (via force),
    no matter how well-intended you are, is a bad idea, and will cause more
    problems than it could possibly solve.
    
>        There are quite a few of us who don't agree that the federal
>        government is so evil that almost any evil is lesser than it.

    Then you need to take a long hard look at what the government does
    efficiently and effectively (nothing pops into my head, currently).  To 
    my eyes, just about every program it has enacted has created more problems 
    that it has solved.  Welfare?  A joke.  SS?  It's running out of money 
    (and the fedgov will do nothing to stop the bleeding).  Medicare?  It's 
    going broke soon (and the fedgov will do nothing to alter it so that it 
    does not go broke).  
    
    I use the above examples as wasteful programs that are out of hand. 
    I use them because they were created to HELP the people.  Rather ironic
    that those programs aimed to help people are the very ones that are
    driving us to bankruptcy.   
    
    The same thing can be said for AA type programs- these programs aimed
    to help fall short, and indeed cause problems.  Like the other 
    programs mentioned, AA and its kindred should be implemented at the state 
    level, if the people of a given state really want them.
    
    The federal government is a *necessary evil*.  It is a fearful servant
    and a terrifying master. 
    
    
    -steve                

    .16
    
    Can you at least stick to houding me in ONE topic, please?  Preferably
    the topic in which this issue is being discussed.  

    .18
    
    No such thing is "clear" at all regarding the sponsors of A2, though
    the gay lobby would have you believe this.

| <<< Note 1226.21 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| Can you at least stick to houding me in ONE topic, please?  Preferably
| the topic in which this issue is being discussed.

	It isn't that another topic is being discussed, it's how your skin
seems to change color when certain issues are being addressed by the gov.

| <<< Note 1226.22 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| No such thing is "clear" at all regarding the sponsors of A2, though
| the gay lobby would have you believe this.

	Add in one of the people who was spreading the lies to the public about
gays. He admitted it. 


Glen

        > For anything beyond its intended purpose, yes.

    > For things like national defense, interstate disputes, foreign   
    > policy....

         "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a
         more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
         Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
         general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
         ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
         this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Laws that prohibit social injustice, what you may call "social
    engineering," are most certainly the domain of the federal
    government. The federal government must protect the Jew as well as
    the Protestant, the Black as well as the White, and the Gay as
    well as the Straight from social injustice, domestic terrorism,
    and diminished liberty, as it pertains to their existence and
    involvement in society. 

    A state cannot make slave of Blacks, nor deny Jews property
    ownership, nor deny a Gay man the right to gainful employment. The
    federal, constitutional government guarantees this. Is the federal
    government perfect? Heck, no. But it is far from the boogeyman so
    many in the far right believe it to be.

    Eric

    Re .25  (Eric)
    
    The problem is that while AA works to reverse discriminatory practices,
    it discriminates against others.  It causes social injustice in an
    attempt to combat it.  E.g. Denying a student admission to a college on
    the  basis of race is wrong.  It was wrong in the Jim Crow south when
    practiced  by all-white schools and it's no less wrong today when
    schools are forced  to adhere to racial quotas.  Moreover, it
    aggravates racism and sexism etc... by placing people in specific
    groups and treating them differently based on the group they're in.
    This is OUR government catagorizing US into majority/minority groups so 
    that it knows how to enforce it's laws differentially on that basis. 
    
    Sometimes it appears that AA was born as an act of desperation.  In the
    frustration of not being able to realize total equality immediately, it
    appears that AA was legislated in an attempt to force the issue, almost
    irregardless of the moral and social consequences.  It serves to polarize 
    people who were in the long process of healing.
    
    Not sure how this string pertains to Christianity.
    
    -dave

re Note 1226.26 by SMART2::DGAUTHIER:

>     The problem is that while AA works to reverse discriminatory practices,
>     it discriminates against others.  

        True, but is discrimination per se the most important social
        injustice being addressed by AA?

>     It causes social injustice in an
>     attempt to combat it.  

        But does it cause social injustice?

        Is it social injustice to say that if you are white you have
        an n% chance of acceptance, and if you are black you have an
        n% chance of acceptance (same "n", please note)?

        If this is social injustice, then I'll take it any day over
        the "justice" you have to offer!

>     It was wrong in the Jim Crow south when
>     practiced  by all-white schools and it's no less wrong today when
>     schools are forced  to adhere to racial quotas.  

        How DARE you compare what I described above with the Jim Crow
        laws, in which the percentage for blacks was ZERO!  This is
        certainly a part of the BIG LIE.  The fact that one denies
        while the other equalizes is an enormous difference.

>     It serves to polarize 
>     people who were in the long process of healing.
  
        Only in the hands and mouths of demagogues.

>     Not sure how this string pertains to Christianity.
  
        Many of us think that social justice is one of the key themes
        of Scripture.

        Bob

    >        True, but is discrimination per se the most important social
    >        injustice being addressed by AA?
    
    I can guess what you're driving at, but please state specifically.  
    
    >        But does it cause social injustice?
    
    If someone is being discriminated against on the basis of the race,
    gender, age, whatever groupt they're in, then that's injust.  It's
    injust if it's practiced by a racist employer (and it's illegal),
    and it's injust if it's mandated by the federal government.  
    
    >Is it social injustice to say that if you are ...
    
    The injustice exists when your group quota is full while other group
    quotas are not and you're denied acceptance based on that fact.  That's
    injust.
    
    >...n% = n%...
    
    IOW equal chance.. or opportunity.  Absolutely.  But how does this 
    translate to population distributions in scenarios where there are many
    factors to consider?  If an employer has 100 positions open, should not
    that employer have the freedom to hire the 100 best qualified people for 
    those positions WITHOUT having to consider race/gender/age/etc?  
    There's a difference between having equal opportunity and having equal
    qualifications.  All individuals should have equal opportunity yet no
    two people have equal qualifications.  The problem lies in weeding out 
    decisions made on the basis of qualifications and those made on the 
    basis of race/ethnicity/etc. 
    
    >How DARE you compare what I described above with the Jim Crow...
    
    Cool your jets Bob.  Of course there are differences.  But there are 
    similarities too.  The similarities are worth noting despite the
    differences in intent.  I was definately not trying to demean your 
    position by comparing it to Jim Crow policies.  Sorry if you took it
    that way.
    
    >Only in the hands and mouths of demagogues.
    
    To demagogues, yes.  AA is the sort of thing they can use to fuel their
    arguments.  But AA is a legal statement, rammed down the throats of the
    entire population, that people should be treated differently based on
    the minority group they happen to be in.  It's a legal statement that
    places you in group 'A' and me in 'B' and the next person in 'C'.  It
    builds walls and that serves to polarize everyone involved, not just the 
    demagogues.  
    
    
    -dave

    .25
    
    The Constitution's preamble makes for a nice argument, yet it falls
    short when you realize that the black man was a slave under this very
    preamble.
    
    You are very good at generalizing, yet seem to not understand the clear
    distinctions between state and federal powers.  The Preamble is the
    statement of purpose for writing the Constitution.  However, you cannot
    use "general welfare" of the Preamble as a legal argument for
    entitlement programs....Article 1 section 8 clearly states what the
    FEDERAL government can tax for.  To discover WHAT is within the power
    of the federal government, you need to look to the specifics within
    this document.  The 10th Amendment states that all powers not
    *specifically* granted to the fedgov in the Constitution, is reserved
    for the States and the people.  This means that though the fed may not
    be able to tax for a certain purpose, there is nothing stopping the
    States from doing so.
    
    It was the 14th Amendment that provided equal protection under the law,
    as practiced today- not the Preamble.  And it does not specifically
    protect all lifestyle choices as being equal- only that individuals
    that are citizens of the US have equal protection under the law.  Some
    lifestyle choices regarded as critical to good government (and I've
    been over this argument previously in another topic), like religion,
    are protected.  This does not mean that all lifestyles should be
    protected specifically, in the name of some perceived "freedom" to do
    anything we wish.
    
    
    
    -steve 

re Note 1226.29 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     The 10th Amendment states that all powers not
>     *specifically* granted to the fedgov in the Constitution, is reserved
>     for the States and the people.  This means that though the fed may not
>     be able to tax for a certain purpose, there is nothing stopping the
>     States from doing so.
  
        So, by your own logic, there is also nothing preventing the
        people, through their representatives, from doing so.

        (You see, I believe that the governments, federal, state, and
        local, are the instruments of the people.  I know its a
        quaint notion, like "innocent until proven guilty", but
        Americans used to believe it.)

          
>     It was the 14th Amendment that provided equal protection under the law,
>     as practiced today- not the Preamble.  And it does not specifically
>     protect all lifestyle choices as being equal- only that individuals
>     that are citizens of the US have equal protection under the law.  Some
>     lifestyle choices regarded as critical to good government (and I've
>     been over this argument previously in another topic), like religion,
>     are protected.  This does not mean that all lifestyles should be
>     protected specifically, in the name of some perceived "freedom" to do
>     anything we wish.
  
        You may be close to the truth with this interpretation, but
        it does strike one as hypocritical to claim on the one hand
        that "citizens of the US have equal protection" but on the
        other hand claim that there are some citizens who are *not*
        protected (because of something else, unrelated to the thing
        being protected, that they do).

        Bob

    
    The preamble of the Constitution captures the spirit of the Law and the
    articles and amendments the letter. If I focus too mush on the spirit,
    then others perhaps focus to much on the letter.

    Of course this is not to say that every federal attempt to exercise the
    spirit of the law is done without error.

    Eric

        re: .30 by LGP30::FLEISCHER
  
>        So, by your own logic, there is also nothing preventing the
>        people, through their representatives, from doing so.

    Yes, there is.  The Constitution itself prevents this, at least on the
    federal level.  If their state constitution prevents a similar thing,
    then they may wish to rethink their program.  However, if the program
    was to give money to some cause, they are free to collect money from
    willing donors and give it to said cause (just because it cannot be
    made into a law does not mean that it cannot be accomplished in another
    manner...an idea seemingly forgotten these days).
    
>        (You see, I believe that the governments, federal, state, and
>        local, are the instruments of the people.  I know its a
>        quaint notion, like "innocent until proven guilty", but
>        Americans used to believe it.)

    Correct to a point.  If the people wish to grant the fedgov powers not
    granted to it originally, then they can AMEND the Constitution to give
    it such powers.  Until they do this, such powers cannot be used by the
    fedgov, as it has NO such power.
    
    The 16th Amendment comes to mind.  And boy, was THIS a mistake.  It
    should be repealed, as the people no longer have any control over the
    purse strings.  Worse still, we no longer have control over OUR money. 
          
>     It was the 14th Amendment that provided equal protection under the law,
>     as practiced today- not the Preamble.  And it does not specifically
>     protect all lifestyle choices as being equal- only that individuals
>     that are citizens of the US have equal protection under the law.  Some
>     lifestyle choices regarded as critical to good government (and I've
>     been over this argument previously in another topic), like religion,
>     are protected.  This does not mean that all lifestyles should be
>     protected specifically, in the name of some perceived "freedom" to do
>     anything we wish. 
  
|        You may be close to the truth with this interpretation, but
|        it does strike one as hypocritical to claim on the one hand
|        that "citizens of the US have equal protection" but on the
|        other hand claim that there are some citizens who are *not*
|        protected (because of something else, unrelated to the thing
|        being protected, that they do).

    I did not say this.  I said that some lifestyle choices were NOT
    specifically protected.  This has nothing to do with the individuals,
    themselves.  Murder is not protected behavior; bigamy, nor polygamy,
    are protected lifestyle choices- outlawing these things does not 
    contradict the 14th.   I thought my above statements  were pretty clear 
    on this issue.
    
    I think this is shades of the sin/sinner argument.  Lifestyle !=
    individual.  Society chooses to limit/condemn some lifestyles and behaviors,
    which is well within its right.          
    
    
    -steve

The reality behind the present perceptions:

o  People of color still earn a good deal less than whites; women still
earn a good deal less than men.  Affirmative Action has been only been in
place for 30 years and while it is often successful, hiring practices
are still embedded with a bias toward white men.

o  Affirmative Action, when implemented properly, provides for the professional
advancement of qualified candidates only.

o  Reverse discrimination was upheld in only a tiny fraction of court cases -
six out of 3,000 discrimination suits - between mid-1990 and mid-1994.
Affirmative Action does not accord special privileges to minorities, but
rather levels an historically biased playing field.  Moreover, Affirmative
Action has been of particular benefit to women, who are in fact not a
minority.