So I think these guys at MIT may have something worthwhile to contribute though I would not agree at this moment that the ADA has caused more unemployment, the unemployment rate has been virtually the same pre and post ADA with a very minor (.03 percent up or down depending on what survey one is using).
Marta Russell
---------
Work was dead, so I came home early.
The main thrust of what I posted in a hurry this morning, was that if you claim to do social 'science' then under that model, you have to demonstrate a positive definite statistical change--up, down or sideways.
First, you can not prove a negative empirical result (theoretical negative), because a priori, it doesn't exist--hence the positive definite requirement. Second, you can take a derivative of a curve and say the slope is increasing, flat or decreasing, but that is all you can do. A decrease in itself still isn't sufficient, even if is necessary, since you must also either demonstrate or argue, there were no other equally significant causal factors--hence the necessary and sufficient requirement. In fact, you should show that all other arguably significant factors remained either constant, or counter-productive of the result, or were non-contributory--the holding all else constant requirement. Then and only then, will a change in slope, ie. change in numbers downward, demonstrate a meaningful decrease, and always theoretically correlated to ADA (the main assumption--that it counted at all, was in fact a causal factor either way).
If it is shown that the number changes were minor or insignificant, then the MIT arguement is even weaker, since such a flat curve means, ADA was irrelevant. That is, ADA had no significant causal effect either way on employment. Sad as that might be, it is still a better result than what MIT proposes.
I am very suspicious of work that sets out to find if affirmative action, anti-discrimination, and other modest legal civil rights measures are effective. I immediately assume this sort of work was funded by some whitewing death camp foundation, looking to undermine what tiny gains that have been made. I will bet (maybe even real money) that if somebody pokes around in the funding sources or PI's, they will find some slime money, some privatizatized cointelpro funds in there--Olin, Cato, Hoover, or some more neutral sounding but scum nevertheless business institute or other.
When the Fukayama End of History essay blew through the intelligencia I read it and wondered where does this shit come from? Then poking around and reading more it turned out that F was a former state department official and that his essay was part of some humanities grant--funded by Olin. The only thing I knew then about Olin was the name on .22 shell boxes and concrete nail guns--so they were a munitions manufacturer. Well, okay, rightwing gun lobby, I thought. Why do they care about the End of History? Later, I found Olin was a vast, giant scaled military contractor going back to the ICBM days and were big in solid rocket fuels, MERV's, and fully integrated weapons systems--you know weapons of mass destruction. Jesus, not just your little pop gun cartridge maker. Hell not wonder they were interested in the End of History--that was their main product line--ending history as we know it!
Okay, dot, dot, dot, I subscribed to an e-mail debate put on by Harper Collins over the Bernal v Lefkowitz debate about 'Out of Africa' and 'Not out of Africa' (search 'Black Athena' for details). I can't remember exactly how, maybe looking at the back of Mary L's NOA book, maybe something somebody posted, I discovered that it was funded by Olin! So, there it was--the all white, Greek only origin of western civilization was proved by money coming from the same boys who brought us the fully integrated (land,sea,air) weapons of mass destruction arsenal for the USA Imperium.
Wow! Yes boys and girls, we are in a culture and propaganda war (die neue kulturmacht) and all of this crap that passes for positivist knowledge and proof that mild reform measures don't work, is profoundly suspect. Just follow the money at MIT. There is something rotten in there somewhere--almost a guaranty.
I would also be careful about using any of these sorts of results, by trying to turn them to a potentially progressive advantage or view. I think it is much better to defeat the work directly with numbers--that way it stands refuted. If you can refute it, or demonstrate it to be non-productive of any result, then it dies as establishment social science wisdom. Of course it will live on forever as propaganda--but at least it can then be recognized as pulp--sort of like tobacco industry proofs that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Also, some exposure of the funding sources is always helpful. I've decided that ideas are nothing more than commodities that are bought, sold, and distributed like everything else, so it always good policy to know who is behind the scenes paying for this intellectual production.
Then finally, I know and knew a lot of people who worked for at least a decade to get ADA written and passed. I hate the idea all that meant nothing. Of course it could have been for nothing. But I still don't believe it. For one thing, ADA moved or extended civil rights protections into the work place and beyond the public funding protections in government, schools, and other public institutions. So it remains significant civil rights legislation, even if the demonstrable and concrete employment and other economic gains are negligible. And obviously, the rationale behind the MIT article has to be, that civil rights are find and dandy, as long as they don't cost money.
Sorry to go off.
Chuck Grimes