Affirmative Action:Your Opinion

[Super Samurai]

How do you feel about AA? Is it good or bad? Morally correct?

[BlairH]

I'm very much on the "anti side"

1) It goes against the principles of meritocracy.
2) It's patronising, and assumes minorities "need" a helping hand.
3) It's based purely on colour. Not socio-economic background
4) "Why should a rich black lawyer's son have a place reserved for him at University, when the son of a poor white factory worker does not?"
5) It promotes a culture of "tokenism"
6) Discrimination is NOT a good way of fighting discrimination.

[west3man]

I think it's often misunderstood and that many, but not all, of the people who oppose it would do the same thing if slavery ended yesterday.

[Valmore]

It's a bad means to a noble cause. In its inception, affirmative action was meant to fight racism by making certain that qualified black candidates were afforded every opportunity to get jobs that they might not have access to because the people in charge were bigots against blacks.

However, I'm a firm believer in also making sure the best get in, regardless of race. I don't care if the fireman rescuing me is white, black, Latino, male, female, etc. as long as he or she is the best available. Which is why universal standards in many cases should be held.

[BlairH]

I think it's often misunderstood and that many, but not all, of the people who oppose it would do the same thing if slavery ended yesterday.

I think affermative action -as a method for righting past wrongs- should have been a temporary solution at best. Just to give things a little "jump start".

[Night]

Fighting discrimination with discrimination. Worse yet, it teaches new people, who are neither black, nor white, that there's a difference.

[cactusmaac]

It exacerbates animosity amongst ethnic groups, raises doubts about the ability and competence of those who may have benefitted from it and doesn't solve the problems it was created to tackle,

[Samurai]

It is destructive racism. I agree with what Blair said, so I'm not going to repeat it all again.

[west3man]

Fighting discrimination with discrimination. So you don't believe in "Fight fire with fire!"?

To be fair, though, I prefer fighting fire with water, but I think there's room for both, depending.

Worse yet, it teaches new people, who are neither black, nor white, that there's a difference.
I doubt sighted "new people" would need the help.

[west3man]

I think affermative action -as a method for righting past wrongs- should have been a temporary solution at best. Just to give things a little "jump start".
Since many of the same arguments have been used against anything to help Blacks, from our earliest days in the U.S., they're sounding pretty hollow.

[ghostrider666]

It exacerbates animosity amongst ethnic groups, raises doubts about the ability and competence of those who may have benefitted from it and doesn't solve the problems it was created to tackle,

I agree 100%.

[BlairH]

Since many of the same arguments have been used against anything to help Blacks, from our earliest days in the U.S., they're sounding pretty hollow.

The calls for increased affermative action -to me at least- sound quite hollow. Why is there a place for such an unconstitutional, discrimanatory practice in a society that is supposed to grant equality of oppourtunity?

Why is there one -more preferred- class of citizen and another -less preferred- class? Why should this distinction be based on such a base factor as skin pigmentation? Why is it justified that the best candidate for a job or educational position be turned down for a less qualified person simply on the basis of his/her skin colour?

[Night]

I doubt sighted "new people" would need the help. I meant a class diffence between races, they never studied it. And many didn't see the difference as mattering, until they had to fill out AA forms for contract employees.... had to give price preference to one over another. They saw skin color, but knew not that it meant anything in America... which it shouldn't mean anything in America.

[Paul McEnery]

I think affermative action -as a method for righting past wrongs- should have been a temporary solution at best. Just to give things a little "jump start".
When the past wrongs stop being present wrongs, then we'll be ready to stop with would should indeed be a temporary solution.

What's important to realize is that the meritocracy that has worked to a large extent in England isn't working in the States. If Hurricane Katrina hasn't made that clear yet, I'm not sure what will.

We still have massive amounts of damage to the black community in my neighbourhood which came from the Mayor in the 60's deliberately smashing a viable black community, and then herding the people into projects that couldn't have been better designed to create a ghetto attitude.

It wasn't just the housing, it was the businesses, the culture, the shredding of the ties of family and friendship -- all in all a grim business. The projects are gone now, replaced with decent housing. But the community will take a much longer time to mend, as will the businesses. The culture -- well, that's just completely gone. All attempts to build a "jazz zone" or cinemas or whatever else in the old neighbourhood have failed -- there's no real culture for it to connect to, now. And no real money that wants to invest, either. Meanwhile, the neighbourhood has been gentrified, and rents have skyrocketed, so there's no hope for anything to get off the ground, really.

And this is in liberal San Francisco. God help the black communities in, say, East St. Louis.

So yeah, it's going to take more than a jump start to get the car off the blocks, if you'll stand for me to extend the metaphor.

[west3man]

The calls for increased affermative action -to me at least- sound quite hollow. Why is there a place for such an unconstitutional, discrimanatory practice in a society that is supposed to grant equality of oppourtunity?

Why is there one -more preferred- class of citizen and another -less preferred- class? Why should this distinction be based on such a base factor as skin pigmentation? Why is it justified that the best candidate for a job or educational position be turned down for a less qualified person simply on the basis of his/her skin colour?
This was covered in the other thread. The one you started. I thought you were pretty active in it, so I'm surprised you're asking this. Not that you have to agree with those answers, but I'm surprised you missed it. The thread was littered with'em.

[BlairH]

When the past wrongs stop being present wrongs, then we'll be ready to stop with would should indeed be a temporary solution.

What's important to realize is that the meritocracy that has worked to a large extent in England isn't working in the States. If Hurricane Katrina hasn't made that clear yet, I'm not sure what will.

We still have massive amounts of damage to the black community in my neighbourhood which came from the Mayor in the 60's deliberately smashing a viable black community, and then herding the people into projects that couldn't have been better designed to create a ghetto attitude.

It wasn't just the housing, it was the businesses, the culture, the shredding of the ties of family and friendship -- all in all a grim business. The projects are gone now, replaced with decent housing. But the community will take a much longer time to mend, as will the businesses. The culture -- well, that's just completely gone. All attempts to build a "jazz zone" or cinemas or whatever else in the old neighbourhood have failed -- there's no real culture for it to connect to, now. And no real money that wants to invest, either. Meanwhile, the neighbourhood has been gentrified, and rents have skyrocketed, so there's no hope for anything to get off the ground, really.

Well, this has more to do with racist practicies than Affermative Action. If things are as bad as you say, then what then? Affermative action promotes tokenism, which means that only "token" minorities are taken on to meet AA quotas. The poor -as you've described- are left behind. How does AA benefit these communities?


And this is in liberal San Francisco. God help the black communities in, say, East St. Louis.

Automatically assuming "liberal"="better for black communities"? ;)


So yeah, it's going to take more than a jump start to get the car off the blocks, if you'll stand for me to extend the metaphor.
So when does it all stop? Do the powers that be just give minorities an advantage...forever?

[Dennis K]

I don't know enough about AA to take a stand on the issue one way or another, but I do have a question. It is my perception that AA is/was created to benefit African Americans. What happens now when the largest growing minority population is Hispanic?

[BlairH]

This was covered in the other thread. The one you started. I thought you were pretty active in it, so I'm surprised you're asking this. Not that you have to agree with those answers, but I'm surprised you missed it. The thread was littered with'em.

That thread? Nooooo. as soon as my primary question was answered I couldn't be bothered to keep track of that monster. I chimed in occasionally though.

[Johnny_Storm]

I think affirmative action will continue until their is suffecient data to prove that it is not needed. I would like to see a study conducted on racism in education or employment. I know in the criminal justice systme a disparity exist but the racism isn't institutional, like say there's a law to specifically raise the sentece on minority defendants.

[BlairH]

I don't know enough about AA to take a stand on the issue one way or another, but I do have a question. It is my perception that AA is/was created to benefit African Americans. What happens now when the largest growing minority population is Hispanic?

That's a very interesting question.
However, it could be argued that hispanics haven't endured the same amount of racial prejudice. AA wasn't implimented to benefit minorities. It was implimented to right past wrongs.

[west3man]

That's a very interesting question.
However, it could be argued that hispanics haven't endured the same amount of racial prejudice. AA wasn't implimented to benefit minorities. It was implimented to right past wrongs.That's an interesting position.
Assuming this is true, I don't understand YOUR question.

[Samurai]

I don't know enough about AA to take a stand on the issue one way or another, but I do have a question. It is my perception that AA is/was created to benefit African Americans. What happens now when the largest growing minority population is Hispanic?
In general, they don't qualify for AA... neither do Asians, which were heavily discriminated against in some western states. Nope, only blacks and women generally benefit from AA, though there are some exceptions.

[west3man]

Interesting phrasing.

Blacks and white women, I think he meant.


Interesting how "women" means "white women."

[BlairH]

That's an interesting position.
Assuming this is true, I don't understand YOUR question.

Ah well it's true. Hispanics haven't been discriminated to the same degree as African Americans. I don't deny that they experience some discrimination, but it's not nearly as entrenched as racism against blacks.

That said, I still don't think AA is neccesarry.

[BlairH]

Interesting phrasing.

Blacks and white women, I think he meant.


Interesting how "women" means "white women."
How so?
Isn't that just like:
words -> mouth?

[west3man]

How so? Right now I'm having a hard time forming the words - mostly because I'm so surprised by the fact that I even have to explain.

Still, it's highly illustrative, imo.
Isn't that just like:
words -> mouth?
Please elaborate.

[Tages]

Freedom. Of. Association.

The state ought not to have the power to force people to associate with one another, any more than it ought to have the power to keep people from doing so.

[Tages]

I think it's often misunderstood and that many, but not all, of the people who oppose it would do the same thing if slavery ended yesterday.
And I think that many, but not all, of the people who support it will continue to do so the day that the last Civil Rights Era survivor breathes his or her last breath.

[BlairH]

Right now I'm having a hard time forming the words - mostly because I'm so surprised by the fact that I even have to explain.

Fair enough. Misunderstanding is all it is (I think)


Please elaborate.
ok. Samurai did not say "white women". He merely said "women". You assumed he meant "white women".

[west3man]

And I think that many, but not all, of the people who support it will continue to do so the day that the last Civil Rights Era survivor breathes his or her last breath.
Since it's purpose isn't directly and solely dependent upon the existence of Civil Rights Era survivors, I think there's a big difference between the two.

EDITED: ...to make "is" into "isn't."

[west3man]

Fair enough. Misunderstanding is all it is (I think)


ok. Samurai did not say "white women". He merely said "women". You assumed he meant "white women".
White women, specifically, have benefitted greatly from Affirmative Action - particularly in the early days, from what I understand.

Mostly, I assumed Samurai was aware of this fact. But all he has to do is correct me.

[Tadhg Adams]

White women, specifically, have benefitted greatly from Affirmative Action

So have Latino, Asian, Native American, and Inuit women. I think he said "women" because AA applies to women of all races.

[west3man]

So have Latino, Asian, Native American, and Inuit women. I think he said "women" because AA applies to women of all races.There's my correction.

I was over-zealous and misunderstood, but, more importantly, I was wrong. Thanks, Tadhg.


My apologies to Samurai.

[Tadhg Adams]

Personally, I do not like the idea of affirmative action, for the reasons that others have said. However, I think it's still a necessary evil because we as a country have completely and utterly failed to correct the underlying issues of our society especially in regards to a quality education for all our children. The fact that we have such a socio-economic disparity in our country is shameful, and the fact that the gap is widening instead of narrowing is a travesty.

[Nitmo]

In my opinion, AA is communism. It creates "equal outcome" but it fails to factor in all the details.

[Valmore]

Affirmative Action with good application goes something like this: one position is open at a company. The top two candidates are a black guy and a white guy, and the black guy is a slightly better pick for the job. But, the person doing the hiring is a racist bigot and would hire the white guy just because he's white. Affirmative Action steps in and makes the hiring person and company take the more qualified black applicant.

One could argue that it violates a company's right to select who it wants to work. However, logic SHOULD dictate that a company would want the best candidate for the job, regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Thus, the hiring of a less-qualified white guy over a more-qualified black guy is stupid in a business sense. However, until we reach a completely color-blind state, affirmative action is needed in that sense.

[Gilda Dent]

Affirmative Action, IMHO, still serves an important function, and has benefits to our society as a whole, not just to the individuals who may benefit as a result of individual decisions.

The basic idea is to find qualified individuals from underrepresented groups and give them a preference over other qualified individuals from overrepresented groups. This is done to attempt to fix a system in which the people making the decisions, over long periods of time, tended to be white males, and tended, on average, to give preferences to white males (in certain jobs) and whites in general (in education). This becomes a feedback loop; the white kids are more likely to go to the best schools, get the best educations, get the better jobs, and when they have kids, their kids have an advantage, a leg up against certain minorities, chiefly blacks and hispanics.

Once a system is in place that is a true meritocracy, change is inevitable, but will happen slowly, because those with the best jobs and best educations get the best schools, and thus the best jobs, and are more likely to be promoted, while those who started behind tend to stay behind, handicapping their children, etc. This is institutionalized racism; not racist attitudes among individuals, and not even racist policies, but the effect of past racism having a significant effect on the present.

The idea of Affirmative Action is to find those individuals who do qualify, maybe not as highly, and give them a chance to prove themselves. Some will succeed, some will fail. Those who succeed now have the opportunity to pass on their success to their children, to givent their children and even start. Change is thus accelerated.

At some point, it theoretically becomes unnecessary; enough people have had the opportunity and succeeded that their children and grand chldren have, on average, the same opportunities as the majority.

Defacto segregation decreases. White kids grow up next to black kids and Hispanic kids, learning that we're more alike than different. There's more tolerance, less of a temptation to separate groups into us and them. We get closer to being a pluralistic society and farther from a majority/minority one.

We're a long, long way away from there right now. Affirmative action, done right (finding qualified cantidates from underrepresented groups), helps to accelerate that change.

I think that's a good thing.

Gilda

[Sanagi]

Although the idea seems rather absurd, as a kludge on an imperfect society, it's pretty acceptable.

[Dan Apodaca]

So you don't believe in "Fight fire with fire!"?

Are you Professor X or Magneto?

The Prof.'s plan never works, and Mags' is too drastic.

[cactusmaac]

The basic idea is to find qualified individuals from underrepresented groups and give them a preference over other qualified individuals from overrepresented groups. This is done to attempt to fix a system in which the people making the decisions, over long periods of time, tended to be white males, and tended, on average, to give preferences to white males (in certain jobs) and whites in general (in education).

Well, by those criteria shouldn't AA also be applied to areas of human activity where blacks predominate such as team sports and hip-hop?


Once a system is in place that is a true meritocracy, change is inevitable, but will happen slowly, because those with the best jobs and best educations get the best schools, and thus the best jobs, and are more likely to be promoted, while those who started behind tend to stay behind, handicapping their children, etc. This is institutionalized racism; not racist attitudes among individuals, and not even racist policies, but the effect of past racism having a significant effect on the present.

Racism strangely enough, hasn't prevented East Asians, Jews and Indians doing quite well in the US.

[heretic]

The calls for increased affermative action -to me at least- sound quite hollow. Why is there a place for such an unconstitutional, discrimanatory practice in a society that is supposed to grant equality of oppourtunity?

Why is there one -more preferred- class of citizen and another -less preferred- class? Why should this distinction be based on such a base factor as skin pigmentation? Why is it justified that the best candidate for a job or educational position be turned down for a less qualified person simply on the basis of his/her skin colour?
You speak as if this is an innovation that interfered with the color-blind meritocracy that was before. Trust me, that is not the case.

I am especially angered by those who remove Minority Scholarships based on the anti-Affirmative-Action arguments... without replacing them with need-based programs that would reach the dirt-poor appalachian sod that is held up as an example of the presumed injustice.

That being said, I am of somewhat mixed feelings about any sort of outright Quota systems. If it were replaced by active and honest recruiting of minorities I would be far happier.

[heretic]

And this is in liberal San Francisco. God help the black communities in, say, East St. Louis.
Automatically assuming "liberal"="better for black communities"? ;)
Take a good hard look at social and economic Conservatism, especially in the U.S. (although from what I understand efforts to preserve/restore the Old Social Order in the U.K. are less than lovely if you were on the bottom of same), before asking this.

HTG

[heretic]

Freedom. Of. Association.

The state ought not to have the power to force people to associate with one another, any more than it ought to have the power to keep people from doing so.
So it is just to permit private citizens to beat and kill those who attempt to associate with the wrong sorts?

Like it or not, your argument is exactly what the KKK uses to this day.

HTG

[Gilda Dent]

Well, by those criteria shouldn't AA also be applied to areas of human activity where blacks predominate such as team sports and hip-hop?

Sports: I hadn't thought of that, but AA would be a good idea there. Blacks are vastly underrepresented in coaching, management, and ownership in professional sports, especially the big three.

Oh, you probably meant the players.

Notice that there were two parts to my reasoning: A: Underrepresentatiion resulting from B: institutionalized racism, either overt or as a lingering effect of past overt racism. Your examples meet criterion A, but not B. Blacks dominate some professional sports (though curiously, not those that require the biggest personal investment of money, such as swimming, figure skating, skiing, and gymnastics), but their success comes despite historical discrimination against them, and a management consisting chiefly of whites, not because of it.

I don't know enough about the music industry to comment on that.

Racism strangely enough, hasn't prevented East Asians, Jews and Indians doing quite well in the US.

That's true. I'm an Asian American with a PhD. As the daughter of an engineer, though, I had a leg up on even most whites in the education department. And that's part of my point. One of the purposes of Affirmative Action is to seed traditionally disadvantaged groups with high status professionals. One study I've read says that when the saturation point reaches about 5 percent, all kinds of social problems go way, way down, and social advancement is much less likely to be hindered from the outset.

Maybe we should look at how those groups differ from blacks and Hispanics, see if there might be some factor other than race involved here. And lo and behold, we find that those groups all have a relatively high concentration of their populations that come from recent immigrants, recent here being in terms of generations, mostly coming since the end of slavery in 1865.

Blacks are chiefly descended from slaves captured two to five centuries ago, kept in bondage for four centuries, and victimized by punitive laws designed to keep them from achieving equality for a century afterwards, up to about two generations ago. Great strides have been made towards equality since then, but we're still a ways from where we need to be. Hispanics and Native Americans had their lands conquered and taken from them by whites, and were systematically discriminated against by those conquerors. Add to that the language barrier, and you have another instance of the deck being stacked against them.

Let me make it clear that I think unqualified candidates shouldn't be taking the place of qualified candidates. However, finding qualified candidates to fill a small number of spots for the purpose of balancing the playing field and making up for past injustices seems reasonable to me.

One example: My dad wasn't able to get into MIT, despite being highly qualified, because Asian males were overrepresented (as they are at all technical schools, and most prestigious schools in the sciences), so he had to "settle" for Cal Tech. Those highly qualified candidates that don't get to go to Harvard because Harvard wants to shape its student population to better look like America aren't exactly ending up at Podunk U. They're going to North Carolina or UC Berkley or Stanford, or the greatest University on the planet, USC. The benefits, IMHO, greatly outweight the costs.

Gilda

[cactusmaac]

Notice that there were two parts to my reasoning: A: Underrepresentatiion resulting from B: institutionalized racism, either overt or as a lingering effect of past overt racism. Your examples meet criterion A, but not B. Blacks dominate some professional sports (though curiously, not those that require the biggest personal investment of money, such as swimming, figure skating, skiing, and gymnastics), but their success comes despite historical discrimination against them, and a management consisting chiefly of whites, not because of it.

Not everything is simply down to lack of money and racism. Long distance running is dominated by East Africans. Samoans are a lot more likely to get into the NFL than Indians. The Chinese do very well in gymnastics and badminton. Sprinting is dominated by runners of West African descent whatever their nationality.

Meanwhile there are very few top-class black swimmers, skiing, hockey players and power-lifters because those sports demand lots of upper body strength.

And I'm really uncomfortable with the implication that whites are prone to racism.



That's true. I'm an Asian American with a PhD. As the daughter of an engineer, though, I had a leg up on even most whites in the education department. And that's part of my point. One of the purposes of Affirmative Action is to seed traditionally disadvantaged groups with high status professionals. One study I've read says that when the saturation point reaches about 5 percent, all kinds of social problems go way, way down, and social advancement is much less likely to be hindered from the outset.

Maybe we should look at how those groups differ from blacks and Hispanics, see if there might be some factor other than race involved here.

Comig from an immigrant family I'd say the other factors would include a very high focus on education, little tolerance of bad influences and a pretty demanding work ethic.


One example: My dad wasn't able to get into MIT, despite being highly qualified, because Asian males were overrepresented (as they are at all technical schools, and most prestigious schools in the sciences), so he had to "settle" for Cal Tech.

Gilda

Well, I think that's a damned shame. The problem with AA is that it addresses the problem of minority underachievement far too late. The proper solution is having schools train minority students far better than they're currently doing.

[west3man]

And I'm really uncomfortable with the implication that whites are prone to racism.
I think that being the majority and by such a large margin increases the chances of such a person existing AND for their prejudices to affect large numbers of people.

I think the broader implication's a bit deeper than in the above quote.

[Gilda Dent]

And I'm really uncomfortable with the implication that whites are prone to racism.

It's a good thing I didn't imply that, then. I very carefully defined what I meant by "institutionalized racism" in my first post. A system need not be run by racists or have overtly racist policies to produce the effect of racial discrimination. "Legacies" at select, highly selective universities were in their original intent racist, a way to give preference to the children of the white graduates who made up the entire student body prior to integration. That purpose may have since passed, but the effect still lingers.

Comig from an immigrant family I'd say the other factors would include a very high focus on education, little tolerance of bad influences and a pretty demanding work ethic.

Factors all very commonly present in recent immigrants and their offspring, and likely to persist for a generation or two.

Well, I think that's a damned shame.

You and my dad are probably the only two people on the planet who would describe going to Cal Tech as a shame. I think you missed my point there entirely.

The problem with AA is that it addresses the problem of minority underachievement far too late. The proper solution is having schools train minority students far better than they're currently doing.

It isn't an either/or situation. We can work on the problem from both ends at the same time.

Gilda

[cactusmaac]

You and my dad are probably the only two people on the planet who would describe going to Cal Tech as a shame. I think you missed my point there entirely.


I got your point, I just didn't agree with it.

If I'm applying for a job or entry to some institution, I don't want to be denied entry because of post-hoc social engineering.

And like it or not, there is quite a degree of perceived difference between MIT and other technical colleges.

As for institutionalised racism, I don't believe it exists in the sense that you've framed it.

[Slappy san]

Thanks Gilda Dent. Your posts have made me glad I forced my self to read this thread.

[Tages]

So it is just to permit private citizens to beat and kill those who attempt to associate with the wrong sorts?
Where the hell did I say that, and what does it have to do with affirmative action? Of course beating and killing for any reason but self-defense cannot be tolerated by the law. Those are coercive, violent acts. Choosing to hire or not to hire someone, for any reason, is not, because it's your company and it ought to be your choice. Affirmative action is coercion by the state so I cannot support it.

Like it or not, your argument is exactly what the KKK uses to this day.
And Hitler was an animal rights and environmental enthusiast, too. I'll remember this argument the next time someone argues for vegetarianism or the Kyoto Protocol.

Please. The "X disreputable party agrees with you, so you must be wrong" line is completely worthless. I'm sure the Klan and I also agree that communism is bad, the sky is blue and fire is hot (the Klan also claim to be Christians, so are you going to listen to the next person who says "I believe in God" and respond "So does the KKK?"). That's completely meaningless, what matters is why we believe those things. I believe that coercion is wrong and that the state is not exempt from this, which is why I oppose affirmative action, and the Klan demonstrably do not believe this since they've advocated things like quarantining people who are HIV+ for life and using government funds to "encourage" black Americans to move to Africa. There's also the beating and killing you mentioned. They just oppose this particular bit of government coercion because they think it's bad for white, heterosexual, Protestant men and those are the only people they care about; that same coercive power is fine as long as it's used against blacks, hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics, gays and whoever else is not white, male, heterosexual and Protestant. For you to lump me in with a pack of thuggish trogladytes is blatant sophistry.

[Tages]

I think that being the majority and by such a large margin increases the chances of such a person existing AND for their prejudices to affect large numbers of people.

I think the broader implication's a bit deeper than in the above quote.
Uh huh. So, tell me, does this by chance make racial minorities less prone to racism than whites?

[K'Nort]

Well, by those criteria shouldn't AA also be applied to areas of human activity where blacks predominate such as team sports and hip-hop?



Racism strangely enough, hasn't prevented East Asians, Jews and Indians doing quite well in the US.

For the East Asians and India Indians, I always figured that it's because they're too new to this country in any significant number for any bias against them to be institutionalized. Or ingrained into their own psyches. And I really don't think the US has ever really counted Jews as a race, legally or culturally.

I'd like Blair to clarify what he means by token and why it's not helpful.

There are several forms of Affirmative Action out there and each have their own issues. For example, there's the higher education kind, the individual hiring kind, and the contracting with minority-owned firms kind.

And in terms of black dominance of sports and music -- take out the massive amount of money involved, and you have black people performing for the entertainment of -- and at the direction of -- rich white folks, and otherwise assumed to be decadent, frequently criminal, and incapable of making any other contribution to society. Oh, and the glamorization of those two occupations by the media keeps the next generation from having any interest in academic achievement. Is anyone else really going to want to get in on that?

[Tages]

For the East Asians and India Indians, I always figured that it's because they're too new to this country in any significant number for any bias against them to be institutionalized. Or ingrained into their own psyches. And I really don't think the US has ever really counted Jews as a race, legally or culturally.
East Asians haven't been here long? Then who built the railroads?

[K'Nort]

East Asians haven't been here long? Then who built the railroads?

My understanding is that East Asian does not include Chinese.

[Tages]

My understanding is that East Asian does not include Chinese.
................why?

[BlairH]

I'd like Blair to clarify what he means by token and why it's not helpful.

Glad to oblige.
It ensures that the Universities will practice "creaming". Ie selecting only the best minority candidates to just to fill their quotas. These candidates are usually so well qualified that they don't NEED affremative action.
Hence, they are seen as being token.

[BlairH]

................why?

I'm guessing it's because China is just...China.
Being one of the biggest countries in the world, even saying "China" as a location is perhaps too vague.
Just guessing.

[Johnny_Storm]

My understanding is that East Asian does not include Chinese.

I think he was going on the basis that there is west asia, aka the middile east, and east asia, China, Japan, Phillipines each region is so broad though that such a classification can cause confusion depending on the topic.

[west3man]

Uh huh. So you agree that your comparison was flawed?

So, tell me, does this by chance make racial minorities less prone to racism than whites?
Does what? And what do you mean by "less prone?"

The magnitude of the effects makes the difference. People would be less interested in banning mobile phone usage, while driving, if they didn't have the impression that the behavior (perhaps *technically* against the shallow interpretation of our values) leads to high magnitudes of harm.

Otherwise, it's still potentially harmful, but it'd hardly be worth legislating. This doesn't change the fact that this impression or perception may be inaccurate, but the point remains that two situations which present a threat don't necessarily BOTH require the same actions to be taken. Magnitude.


The implication I was attempting to clarify is that the combination of power, numbers, and opportunity makes positive or negative actions by the majority more dangerous/potentially harmful than such actions from the minority.

[west3man]

There's my correction.

I was over-zealous and misunderstood, but, more importantly, I was wrong. Thanks, Tadhg.


My apologies to Samurai.
I also should've thanked or at least acknowledged BlairH for pointing out the flaw in my conclusion. *nods*

Sorry about that.

[BlairH]

I also should've thanked or at least acknowledged BlairH for pointing out the flaw in my conclusion. *nods*

Sorry about that.
no problemo :)
It wasn't that flawed per say. 'twas only just erring a wee bit on the side of assumption.

[K'Nort]

................why?

Because they're Central Asia. Along with the relevant former Soviet republics. Not only geographically, but socioeconomically. It doesn't make any sense to lump them in with societies/markets like Japan/South Korea/Vietnam/Singapore/etc just because their people look similar.

[Nightcrawler]

6) Discrimination is NOT a good way of fighting discrimination.

I agree. They're taking steps in the wrong direction.

[BlairH]

I agree. They're taking steps in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, the whole system can be seen as a pendalum. As if in some Grandfather clock:

When the pendalum swings to the "slavery" side all those years ago, it starts to swing back. It reaches the middle position (the civil rights movement and all the rights that brings), but it goes further in that direction with the introduction of affermative action. One of the possibilities is that this will contribute more to ethnic tensions and cause a backlash against minorities (more riots like the LA race riots?).

I know this system sort of bastardises the history into a metaphorical form that may or may not be 100% accurate, but still...

[K'Nort]

Furthermore, the whole system can be seen as a pendalum. As if in some Grandfather clock:

When the pendalum swings to the "slavery" side all those years ago, it starts to swing back. It reaches the middle position (the civil rights movement and all the rights that brings), but it goes further in that direction with the introduction of affermative action. One of the possibilities is that this will contribute more to ethnic tensions and cause a backlash against minorities (more riots like the LA race riots?).

Short answer: no. I'm sure some people made that argument when affirmative action was introduced, but it's become less controversial over time, not more. Not least because it's getting used less. It comes up in the press when there's a new court case involved, but it's not one of our hot-button social issues. And I'm having trouble seeing how your LA riots analogy fits any of that.

[BlairH]

Short answer: no. I'm sure some people made that argument when affirmative action was introduced, but it's become less controversial over time, not more. Not least because it's getting used less. It comes up in the press when there's a new court case involved, but it's not one of our hot-button social issues.
It is indeed being used less. Perhaps because the powers that be realise that it's not a particularly grand idea for a permanant solution.

And I'm having trouble seeing how your LA riots analogy fits any of that.
That's why I put the disclaimer in. I wasn't too sure if it's an accurate statement.

[Mike Smith]

Affirmative Action was a good program for a specific era of US history. I believe officials realized changing laws do not change people's practices, beliefs, or tendency of working around laws overnight (Jim Crow?). That is a fair assumption. I think whatever tendecies US society had at the time of Affirmative Actions induction are waning, with each subsequent generation, and therefore we are seeing a push for the ideal of reverse discrimination. Why?

People are growing comfortable with the idea of minority groups, be it women or race, being able to perform equal or superior work to majority groups. I think fear is a factor for people still supporting affirmative actinon...all of the what if scenarios...and these feeling may be well warranted. If we want to know the true condition of our society, however, we are going to have to eventually drop it. By nature affirmative action serves as a mandatory advantage for minorities, which in part can discriminate majority groups.

I do believe this issue will not naturally resolve by law until our societies minority groups, in an overwhelming majority, feel little to no threat in discrimination in every day life. At the rate I've seen and kind of sensed racial tensions decrease with generations, IMO we are 2-3, perhaps 4 generations away from affirmative action being considered nonessential.

[Tages]

So you agree that your comparison was flawed?
What are you talking about? I wasn't even responding to that.

[Tages]

Because they're Central Asia. Along with the relevant former Soviet republics. Not only geographically, but socioeconomically. It doesn't make any sense to lump them in with societies/markets like Japan/South Korea/Vietnam/Singapore/etc just because their people look similar.
...no, China is not Central Asia. Central Asia is Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc. China has historically been so intricately tied to all of the countries listed above (Chinese was the lingua franca of the region for centuries) that it makes no sense to separate them. Vietnam used to be a part of China, for Pete's sake.

[K'Nort]

...no, China is not Central Asia. Central Asia is Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc. China has historically been so intricately tied to all of the countries listed above (Chinese was the lingua franca of the region for centuries) that it makes no sense to separate them. Vietnam used to be a part of China, for Pete's sake.

On a post-WWII level, it makes all the sense in the world. Their operation, and the West's relation to them, is totally different. Second World vs First. We're not talking historically. We are, however, getting totally off-topic.

You accused me of forgetting the history of Chinese in the US. I explained that I don't consider them part of East Asia. Whether you agree with my definition of East Asian is beside the point, really.

And do the Chinese feel they require Affirmative Action? Are they included in the stats and the quotas to the same level of blacks and Hispanics? Is the fact that they self-segregate more than the other two groups a factor?

[cactusmaac]

Because they're Central Asia. Along with the relevant former Soviet republics. Not only geographically, but socioeconomically. It doesn't make any sense to lump them in with societies/markets like Japan/South Korea/Vietnam/Singapore/etc just because their people look similar.

Judging from my own experience at college, I wouldn't say there's a huge amount of difference between Chinese from the mainland and those from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

And I really don't think the US has ever really counted Jews as a race, legally or culturally.

Didn't stop them being discriminated against.

[cactusmaac]

The magnitude of the effects makes a difference. People would be less interested in banning mobile phone usage, while driving, if they didn't have the impression that the behavior (perhaps *technically* against the shallow interpretation of our values) leads to high magnitudes of harm.

The implication I was attempting to clarify is the combination of power, numbers, and opportunity that makes positive or negative actions by the majority more dangerous/potentially harmful than such actions from the minority.

Are you saying white racism is more of a concern because whites have more power than minorities?

[west3man]

Are you saying white racism is more of a concern because whites have more power than minorities?
More potentially damaging? Yes.

Just like how some racist Korean guy in a neighborhood full of hostile, racist Black people, let's say, is less of a threat to them than they are to him.


*goes back to clarify post, anyway*

[heretic]

Where the hell did I say that, and what does it have to do with affirmative action? Of course beating and killing for any reason but self-defense cannot be tolerated by the law. Those are coercive, violent acts. Choosing to hire or not to hire someone, for any reason, is not, because it's your company and it ought to be your choice. Affirmative action is coercion by the state so I cannot support it.So coersion by informal organisations of private individuals is perfectly okay with you? What else would you describe systematic efforts to prevent non-whites of any degree qualification from getting positions in jobs or education?


Please. The "X disreputable party agrees with you, so you must be wrong" line is completely worthless.When it is a, if not the, core argument then you really should be prepared to explain your terms. I'm sure the Klan and I also agree that communism is bad, the sky is blue and fire is hot (the Klan also claim to be Christians, so are you going to listen to the next person who says "I believe in God" and respond "So does the KKK?"). That's completely meaningless, what matters is why we believe those things. I believe that coercion is wrong and that the state is not exempt from this,Understood, but I think a state beholden to maintain the rights and freedoms of the populace at large should have rights to exert pressure on private individuals who oppress thier fellow citizens. which is why I oppose affirmative action, and the Klan demonstrably do not believe this since they've advocated things like quarantining people who are HIV+ for life and using government funds to "encourage" black Americans to move to Africa. There's also the beating and killing you mentioned. They just oppose this particular bit of government coercion because they think it's bad for white, heterosexual, Protestant men and those are the only people they care about; that same coercive power is fine as long as it's used against blacks, hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics, gays and whoever else is not white, male, heterosexual and Protestant. For you to lump me in with a pack of thuggish trogladytes is blatant sophistry.
Or perhaps it is a warning on the dangers of minarchism and local governance being an end unto itself.

HTG

[Ray R.]

Didn't we cover this pretty thoroughly over in another thread.

Put it simply, in a perfect world, we don't need affirmative action. But we don't live in a perfect world.

My support for affirmative action comes down to the basic premise that there is not an even playing field for minorities and women to achieve higher education or graduate opportunities. There is empirical evidence that reinforces this fact. There are not equal opportunities for advancement in urban environs, Native-American reservations, or Hispanic barrios, as there is in suburban school systems that are funded by high property taxes, supported by high property values. Is this fact not indisputable? Can one really take the position that every individual in America has the same opportunity to succeed, and all they need to do is "study hard and obey the golden rule" and they'll achieve the American dream? It takes willful denial and/or ignorance of the educational disparities caused by socieoeconomic and sociological differentiation.

And how do the graduate schools and colleges justify affirmative action -- it's called diversity. No law school, medical school, technical school or college guarantees admission because you have the highest score, or because you have a lower score. The Supreme Court, in the 2003 decision, opinion by Justice O'Connor, Gruttinger v. Bollinger, reaffirmed affirmative action, because they admitted that the Court must defer to an admissions policy that seeks to even the playing field.

In Gruttinger: The [University of Michigan's] Law School's educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer. The Law School's assessment that diversity will, in fact, yield educational benefits is substantiated... As part of its goal of "assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse," the Law School seeks to "enroll a 'critical mass' of minority students." ... The Law School's interest is not simply "to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin."

The Law School's claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and "better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals." ... See, e.g., W. Bowen & D. Bok, The Shape of the River (1998); Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (G. Orfield & M. Kurlaender eds. 2001); Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities (M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta eds. 2003).

These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.

In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools "cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts." ... Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.

And race is but one criteria. Geography plays a part too. The easiest way for me to get in the University of Virginia Law School was not to be a minority or a woman, but to move out of Northern Virginia and move way down to Roanoke or Norfolk, where, in in the interests of geographical diversity, UVa would be more inclined to judge me separately from the 5,000 other applicants applying from rich, highly educated Northern Virginia. If I lived in the Appalachians, and was dirt-poor, that matters a great deal as well in terms of promoting diversity.

Affirmative action is seen as a threat, and an unfair giveback. Bullshit. In this great capitalistic society we live in, there are always opportunities for qualified applicants to find a place where there skills will be rewarded. Right now, in the area I work in, law, partners (who constitute the owners and highest professional class in law) are 80-85% white male, with significant growth in female partners, but still a distinct minority - black partners, a rarity, black women partners, even rarer. The unreasonable fear of unqualified applicants getting unfair selection and promotion is just hyperbole, because the facts speak for themselves. Women still make 60 cents on the dollar as compared to men's pay. Blacks, Hispanics and Native-Americans are still highly underrepresented in government, medicine, law, higher education, as related to their proportionality as part of the population. You want to say it's because they "don't work hard enough," that's garbage. That only applies with all things being equal, and again, the playing field has been tilted, whether you, as a white male, had anything whatsoever to do with it.

Bummer, you go to Williams instead of Amherst, Cornell instead of Columbia. BFD. It's all relative.....and again, you can have perfect SAT scores, and a 4.0 average, and no university HAS TO ADMIT you. Their admissions committee probably will, but there is no mandate. If there is no requirement that you have to admit the highest applicant, why does there need to be a requirement not to allow someone who is NOT among the highest applicants, because someone else might look better on paper. It's specious.

If you've truly been disadvantaged by affirmative action policies, you have my sympathies. But I'm betting that societally, we're all better off with those policies in place.

[BlairH]

You can only positively discriminate
if you negatively discriminate against another

[west3man]

You can only positively discriminate
if you negatively discriminate against another
I think that's catchy, but over-stated.

I could positively discriminate between multiple qualified job applicants, choosing one, and rejecting the others. I wouldn't call that rejection "negative" discrimination, though.

Do you disagree?

[BlairH]

I think that's catchy, but over-stated.

I could positively discriminate between multiple qualified job applicants, choosing one, and rejecting the others. I wouldn't call that rejection "negative" discrimination, though.

Do you disagree?
I agree, but that discrimination would be based upon legitimate grounds such as merit/qualifications as opposed to irrelevant factors such as race/ethnicity.

[west3man]

I agree, but that discrimination would be based upon legitimate grounds such as merit/qualifications as opposed to irrelevant factors such as race/ethnicity.
I'm glad you agree, but I was hoping you wouldn't go there. From what I think you *may* be implying, I'm tempted to say something that (while not actually insulting) gets me in "trouble."

If BEHAVIOR X is going on and you want to come up with a rule or statement that characterizes it, if I find a flaw in the statement, that has nothing to do with BEHAVIOR X.



Regarding "irrelevant" factors, those factors became relevant the instant America and Americans MADE them relevant.

[HomerJay]

Regarding "irrelevant" factors, those factors became relevant the instant America and Americans MADE them relevant.

I think by "irrelevant", he meant irrelevant in how well a job is performed, not in the broader societal sense that you're referring to.

[phoenixrising]

Sorry I may have skipped some posts since I was gone all weekend, but.....

Do I think Affirmative Action is a good idea and morally right? Yes. Do I think it is done in a correct manner? No.

Maybe at one time, it worked to look at "evening the playing field" as a purely racial matter, but it simply doesn't work anymore. Today's AA system doesn't have a formula that helps those who need it most: The poor.

In today's America, simply being of a minority group doesn't necessarily put one at a disadvantage in education/job skills. Even if an African-American kid is wealthy, went to the best private schools and had great SAT scores, he can be admitted to school and have it paid for under certain AA policies, taking a spot that should have gone to someone who needed that leg up.

Affirmative Action today should be set up to be administered by economic standards instead of racial standards to even the playing field between the "haves and have-nots". Being from a poor background, be it rural or urban and be you white or of a minority, puts people at a great disadvantage in education and later in the workforce. These are the people who don't have access to good education, who don't have any idea (or sometimes even any guidance) to attain a higher education or further their goals and, in many cases, bettering onself isn't ever possible because there is simply nothing set up on a governmental policy level to help the poor at large.

If college admisison/scholarship standards were shifted to reflect this, it would help minorities, certainly...and it would also help poor white kids who asofar have nothing out there helping them.

[Ray R.]

I agree, but that discrimination would be based upon legitimate grounds such as merit/qualifications as opposed to irrelevant factors such as race/ethnicity.

How do you judge merit, Blair? How do you judge qualifications, Blair?

Should every human being take a standardized test in order to judge relative worth?

Have you ever hired anyone? Seriously, "you can only positively discriminate if you negatively discriminate against another?" So discrimination now has positive and negative connotations? Really?

There are tons of qualitative as well as quantitative aspects for hiring as well as admitting someone. Their score on a test is one aspect, race/ethnicity is another, socioeconomic background is another, personality is a big one, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with merit/qualifications.

I'll take a kid from Florida State over Harvard if he has a positive work ethic, enthusiasm, and adds something positive to the office, relative to the Harvard grad. I guess I should take the less personable and worse interviewing person because of his degree over the person I think would be better for the job, or add to the diversity of the workforce, add to our cultural foundations that we share with our clients, etc.

What other qualifications do you deem relevant? Let me know so I can streamline my interviewing and screening processes......

[cactusmaac]

Sorry I may have skipped some posts since I was gone all weekend, but.....

Do I think Affirmative Action is a good idea and morally right? Yes. Do I think it is done in a correct manner? No.

Maybe at one time, it worked to look at "evening the playing field" as a purely racial matter, but it simply doesn't work anymore. Today's AA system doesn't have a formula that helps those who need it most: The poor.

In today's America, simply being of a minority group doesn't necessarily put one at a disadvantage in education/job skills. Even if an African-American kid is wealthy, went to the best private schools and had great SAT scores, he can be admitted to school and have it paid for under certain AA policies, taking a spot that should have gone to someone who needed that leg up.

Affirmative Action today should be set up to be administered by economic standards instead of racial standards to even the playing field between the "haves and have-nots". Being from a poor background, be it rural or urban and be you white or of a minority, puts people at a great disadvantage in education and later in the workforce. These are the people who don't have access to good education, who don't have any idea (or sometimes even any guidance) to attain a higher education or further their goals and, in many cases, bettering onself isn't ever possible because there is simply nothing set up on a governmental policy level to help the poor at large.

If college admisison/scholarship standards were shifted to reflect this, it would help minorities, certainly...and it would also help poor white kids who asofar have nothing out there helping them.


That's a good point.

I'd say class is becoming a bigger factor in social immobility than just race.

[BlairH]

How do you judge merit, Blair? How do you judge qualifications, Blair?
Certianly not by the colour of one's skin!

Should every human being take a standardized test in order to judge relative worth?
In an employment selection/Education selection? Perhaps. It depends on the job placement/education placement.


Have you ever hired anyone? Seriously, "you can only positively discriminate if you negatively discriminate against another?" So discrimination now has positive and negative connotations? Really?

I chose this year's Christmas temps. I have no idea how they'll perform as of yet though so we'll see if I made a sound descision :o


There are tons of qualitative as well as quantitative aspects for hiring as well as admitting someone. Their score on a test is one aspect, race/ethnicity is another, socioeconomic background is another, personality is a big one, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with merit/qualifications.

Why should race be a relevant aspeact? Personality is related to merit, for example, in retail those of greater merit have a good personality. It makes sense from a business perspective.

What other qualifications do you deem relevant? Let me know so I can streamline my interviewing and screening processes......

I certianly wouldn't class gender or race as grounds for hiring someone. Everything else goes (except perhaps age)

[Gilda Dent]

That's a good point.

I'd say class is becoming a bigger factor in social immobility than just race.

That may be true, and that's a good reason to take social class into account along with a variety of other factors when determining what makes one person the best qualified candidate. It doesn't mean we should substitute one factor for the other.

Gilda

[west3man]

[snip] there is simply nothing set up on a governmental policy level to help the poor at large.
Why don't need-based grants, scholarships and loans count?

Doesn't need-based assistance address economic factors whereas AA addresses others?

If it's a two-fold problem, what's wrong with a two-fold solution?

[Winslow]

I support affirmative action for many of the reasons Ray mentioned.

I don't believe it to be a moral issue, but a "disputable matter" regarding administration of justice/governance.

I opposed it for a long time on the grounds of fairness/justice, but when my neighborhood transitioned into a "black" neighborhood - I suddenly saw the world through a different set of eyes.

[phoenixrising]

Why don't need-based grants, scholarships and loans count?

Doesn't need-based assistance address economic factors whereas AA addresses others?

If it's a two-fold problem, what's wrong with a two-fold solution?

Because it isn't the same kind of solution at all. Need-based grants are such a drop in the bucket compared to full-scale AA policies at universities for one. Not to mention that need-based grants lack any sort of policy besides "look and see how much money this kid's parents make". It goes far beyond just how much money someone has, it also has to do with where they're from and what sort of educational background they may have had. And that those same need-based grants/scholarships still are given according to race in many circumstances, still putting poor non-minorities at a distinct disadvantage.

Secondly, I think it's a testament to how far our nation has come that we can base disadvatage somewhere besides race. True diversity on campuses and in workplaces derives not from hiring different races, but from different life backgrounds. An uppe rmiddle class black woman and upper-middle class white woman could have had the same exact sort of background....but is hiring the black woman truly achieving diversity and fairness?

So, why should we hang on to race-based AA? If we can help the truly disadvantaged by addressing economic class, why keep it to help those who don't need it? Is it so eagerly defended mrely because of tradition? Or is it that some of those defending it like that it creates its own brand of discrimination against poor whites?

[west3man]

Because it isn't the same kind of solution at all. Need-based grants are such a drop in the bucket compared to full-scale AA policies at universities for one. Not to mention that need-based grants lack any sort of policy besides "look and see how much money this kid's parents make". It goes far beyond just how much money someone has, it also has to do with where they're from and what sort of educational background they may have had. And that those same need-based grants/scholarships still are given according to race in many circumstances, still putting poor non-minorities at a distinct disadvantage.
Right now, it looks like the goal-posts just moved.

When I'm not juggling so much, I'll take another look. If there's something I'm missing here (which is entirely possible), I really want to give it my full attention.

[Tages]

So coersion by informal organisations of private individuals is perfectly okay with you? What else would you describe systematic efforts to prevent non-whites of any degree qualification from getting positions in jobs or education?
Choosing not to hire someone isn't coercion, it's choosing to not associate with them and not give them what was never theirs in the first place, which is a perfectly voluntary act.

When it is a, if not the, core argument then you really should be prepared to explain your terms.
I thought it was tacitly understood that I'm not a militant racist.

Understood, but I think a state beholden to maintain the rights and freedoms of the populace at large should have rights to exert pressure on private individuals who oppress thier fellow citizens.
Wait, so what sort of rights are we talking about? The right to a job, the right to other peoples' property? And to protect these supposed rights it's OK for the state to infringe on peoples' freedom of association and property rights?

People deciding to not hire people for any reason isn't oppression. Oppression means legal barriers backed by the threat of force, which aren't there anymore. AA, in contrast, is backed by the threat of force, which is what makes it coercion, while the hiring policies, as tasteful or distasteful as they may be, are not.

Or perhaps it is a warning on the dangers of minarchism and local governance being an end unto itself.

HTG
Oh, I'm an anarchist. If I could I'd do away with the whole system lock, stock and barrel. But I don't see how this is in any way a warning against anything.

[Hoss]

It seems to me that in general black Americans are alot more supportive of AA than white Americans. That includes black conservatives. Both Dr. Rice and Collin Powell have backed some form of AA. Dr. Rice does not like quotas but believes that race can and should be a factor in things like college admissions.

As far as AA "not working." Seems like an easy thing to say but a very hard thing to prove. It takes a very polar approach towards judging the efficacy of a very complex issue.

[phoenixrising]

As far as AA "not working." Seems like an easy thing to say but a very hard thing to prove. It takes a very polar approach towards judging the efficacy of a very complex issue.

So.. should we keep letting it go and not discuss ways to change it? A lot of pro-AA people refuse to even entertain the idea of changing it to benefit more people.

I don't doubt that it works on some level for some individuals.....I simply doubt that it is really leveling the playing field for the truly disadvantaged.

[K'Nort]

I'm with AG and others on the fact that a lot of the problem is hugely unequal educational systems. But I also think that a lot more would be accomplished in a shorter period of time if we could focus on improving the K-12 part instead. Then the rest would take care of itself. But it's pretty apples and oranges in terms of resources, unfortunately. It's a much easier sell, however. Businesses aren't getting coerced. Rather than admitting kids to colleges despite questionable qualifications (which frequently dooms them to failure, not least because there are no resources to help them once they're admitted, which doesn't really set them on a useful adulthood path), the focus is on getting them qualified in the first place. And the trouble with helping random individuals get opportunities to move up is that they move both up and out. They go join the middle class and the rest of their neighborhood remains in the same leaking boat. But improve the educational system, you boost the entire area. Much more productive.


I also tend to agree with the whole 'it should be class-based rather than race-based' argument but still with some unsolvable caveats. Certainly the poor could use the boost and the rich don't need it, regardless of race. But it's not like kids from poor families are automatically going to underperform. And I certainly don't want people agreeing that someone they can't function without outside assistance. That's a pretty harmful stigma. This is personal, of course. Always is. We were on food stamps and such on and off. But that never interfered with my parents making sure I did my homework and brought home A's. It did interfere with my being able to do anything extra-curricular, which does unfairly hurt students' chances of getting accepted to a lot of schools and of getting scholarships, so that's something that can be looked at. But you can be poor and be a damned good student all on your own.

[Hoss]

So.. should we keep letting it go and not discuss ways to change it? A lot of pro-AA people refuse to even entertain the idea of changing it to benefit more people.

I don't doubt that it works on some level for some individuals.....I simply doubt that it is really leveling the playing field for the truly disadvantaged.

Ease up, Killer. My point is that you take a very broad thing "AA" and you start equating it with the policies that bear its name then you have a problem.

AA means "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment."

If you hadn't noticed, language means a great deal to me. Events are very easily shaped by folks willing to shift the language around. So, it concerns me when someone takes the concept of addressing discrimination by seeking to ensure equal opportunity and turns it into the same thing as the policies used to ensure that opportunity.

The concept of AA is solid. And I won't budge an inch on that. What I do believe can be discussed is how you go about enacting AA. However, if you allow the language to shift so that the term AA is seen as negative then you are forfeiting the paradigm that states, "We should address past discrimination by seeking to ensure equal opportunity in the present and future."

[phoenixrising]

I'm with AG and others on the fact that a lot of the problem is hugely unequal educational systems. <snip>

I also tend to agree with the whole 'it should be class-based rather than race-based' argument but still with some unsolvable caveats. Certainly the poor could use the boost and the rich don't need it, regardless of race. But it's not like kids from poor families are automatically going to underperform.

Yes, but contrary to what seems to be a big belief in this argument, its not only minorities that are affected by unequal educational systems.

If we're gonna tell our stories: I grew up poor and went to a backwoods rural HS. I brought home straight As, then I went to college and found out that getting As at my school meant nothing because we weren't learning as much or the same sort of subject matter as everyone else. Essentially, I thought I was smart, but compared to the kids from rich suburban public schools, I was an idiot. I nearly didn't make it through my first year of college...(which, coincidentally is the same problem many poor, urban minority college students have).

[Hoss]

Yes, but contrary to what seems to be a big belief in this argument, its not only minorities that are affected by unequal educational systems.



You do realize that the two aren't mutually exclusive, right? I believe the problem might be that A) we have an unequal education system and B) we have the effects of poor education on a group that was systematically disenfranchized for 4 centuries. We can handle both but it is a matter of priorities.

Heck, I'm cynical enough to say that the elitist bad guys have won when you have the poor whites arguing against AA because the schools in poor white neighborhoods are atrocious. You kind of have the starving fighting over the left over bones.

[phoenixrising]

You do realize that the two aren't mutually exclusive, right? I believe the problem might be that A) we have an unequal education system and B) we have the effects of poor education on a group that was systematically disenfranchized for 4 centuries. We can handle both but it is a matter of priorities.

Heck, I'm cynical enough to say that the elitist bad guys have won when you have the poor whites arguing against AA because the schools in poor white neighborhoods are atrocious. You kind of have the starving fighting over the left over bones.

I realize they don't have to be mutally exclusive, but why is that argument the only one ever used to justify race-based AA? I want someone to give me an answer as to why race-based AA is needed if we can level the playing field for EVERYONE another way.

Maybe its an overly critical assessment of our government, but I assume that as long as race-based AA is in place, it will serve as the catch-all government band-aid that allows a total ignorance of the problems addressing all poor students. They can say, "Look, we're helping them!' when in fact, they are only helping a small amount of those who actually need it.

[K'Nort]

Probably part of the problem is you have AA proponents who think that whites have such a huge advantage that even the poor ones are miles ahead of any minority and thus don't deserve the help. So there's no united front on that change.

Any time there's a limited pie for helping people, they turn on each other.

[phoenixrising]

Any time there's a limited pie for helping people, they turn on each other.

It goes beyond that (at least for me). I think there is a fundamental problem with addressing inequality. I know I'll get jumped all over for saying it, but the most disenfranchised people in this country are not of any particular race. The biggest discrepancy in quality of life is not between blacks and whites anymore, but the haves and have-nots. By continually saying race is the problem, it ignores the fact that has changed in the last generation. One can argue that minorities have it the hardest in getting ahead and they'd be right, but I honestly don't think it is because they are minorities per se, I think it is because they are poor.

I know it seems to completely discredit the struggles of upper middle class suburban minorities that likely exist and I don't know of them...but I strongly doubt those kids don't have trouble getting into or paying for good colleges and or getting a job as anyone that is poor.

[K'Nort]

It goes beyond that (at least for me). I think there is a fundamental problem with addressing inequality. I know I'll get jumped all over for saying it, but the most disenfranchised people in this country are not of any particular race. The biggest discrepancy in quality of life is not between blacks and whites anymore, but the haves and have-nots. By continually saying race is the problem, it ignores the fact that has changed in the last generation. One can argue that minorities have it the hardest in getting ahead and they'd be right, but I honestly don't think it is because they are minorities per se, I think it is because they are poor.

I understood that's what you meant. And I'm saying that the minorities have no interest in sharing what few benefits they can get with white people, no matter how poor. And they've got the lobbies.

[Hoss]

I realize they don't have to be mutally exclusive, but why is that argument the only one ever used to justify race-based AA? I want someone to give me an answer as to why race-based AA is needed if we can level the playing field for EVERYONE another way.


Well part of the issue here is that many leaders in the black community - much like in the latino community - have decades and centuries worth of inertia in fighting for their own people. That's how they see these struggles. They've been messed over by the powers that be for a long time and calling it "classism" comes off as another way to minimalize their own problems. And there is some truth in that way of thinking.

And honestly, elitist thinking has many excuses for marginalizing people. They can disdain you for being poor and disdain me for being hispanic and disdain Wes for being black.

[west3man]

I think part of the challenge of this debate (and why you keep encountering people who keep saying "they're not mutually exclusive") is because the absolute terms you use. Here, again you say "the" problem, instead of "a" problem.

By continually saying race is the problem, it ignores the fact that has changed in the last generation.

The approach your recommend is in-line with that apparent perspective. If that's what you mean, okay. We can go from there (though not necessarily in the same direction :) ), but I think you've continually said that's not what you mean.

Something to consider.

One can argue that minorities have it the hardest in getting ahead and they'd be right, but I honestly don't think it is because they are minorities per se, I think it is because they are poor. This I don't get. Minorities have it the hardest, of the poor, but it's because they're poor?

...or are you saying that more minority members ARE poor? None of the above?

[phoenixrising]

I understood that's what you meant. And I'm saying that the minorities have no interest in sharing what few benefits they can get with white people, no matter how poor. And they've got the lobbies.

Ah, good. I was afraid it was another case me of me making sense in my own head and looking like a raving loony to everyone else because I wasn't presenting my argument in a remotely coherent form. (which seems ot be happening more and more lately)

[phoenixrising]

This I don't get. Minorities have it the hardest, of the poor, but it's because they're poor?

...or are you saying that more minority members ARE poor? None of the above?

I believe the minorities who are affected by "the system getting them down" and most in need of the help AA can provide are those who are poor. I thought I'd essentially explained that in the very next sentence, but perhaps not.

[K'Nort]

And honestly, elitist thinking has many excuses for marginalizing people. They can disdain you for being poor and disdain me for being hispanic and disdain Wes for being black.

Not to veer off-topic, but you just posted a photo. How often does anyone realize you're hispanic?

[Ray R.]

I realize they don't have to be mutally exclusive, but why is that argument the only one ever used to justify race-based AA? I want someone to give me an answer as to why race-based AA is needed if we can level the playing field for EVERYONE another way.

Maybe its an overly critical assessment of our government, but I assume that as long as race-based AA is in place, it will serve as the catch-all government band-aid that allows a total ignorance of the problems addressing all poor students. They can say, "Look, we're helping them!' when in fact, they are only helping a small amount of those who actually need it.


You know, I agree with your point, because I came up the same way. Criminy, I was barely able to write when I got to college, which put me squarely behind the eightball, because "po' white trash" like me didn't know my ass from my elbow compared to the Philips Exeter, Andover, Choate and other private school folks. AP courses? My high school was barely accredited. (And I carried two pails of coal to school in the snow :rolleyes: )

But to be honest, I think I got into my university because of both the socioeconomic conditions of my hometown, which were known because I went to college in-state, and because I played sports. I benefited from a choice by our admissions department for geographical diversity, socioeconomic diversity, and athletic diversity. I also applied to a need-blind university which based its admissions decisions regardless of financial ability to pay.

I think that most universities and graduate programs want to promote a diverse, heterogeneous, study body. And the best way to do that is to promote admission of various races, religions, backgrounds, incomes, etc., while at the same time realizing that the pool for one doesn't necessarily equate to the pool for the other. I mentioned Kaplan, and tutors, and professional application services, and thousands of dollars to apply to numerous "safety schools" and other actions I'd say show a predisposition towards "professional preparation for college." Those services tend to be used by middle class, upper middle class and rich families, who are predominantly white. They should all be swimming in the same application pool. A girl who works at McDonald's after school to make ends meet, who has history books that end at World War II, that has a graduation rate in the thirty and forty percentiles at best -- college prep just doesn't have the same cachet. In the urban high schools, the biggest visitor to the guidance counselors are the military. They're there every day.

Now, I'm not saying this doesn't cut across class lines, rather than racial lines, but in in the interest of promoting diversity of culture, diversity of experience, diversity of opinion, and diversity of race, creed, religion and sexual orientation, as well as meeting needs for music, art, dance, athletics, etc., that university policies need AA. There are a lot of situations like you, Pho, where you were a big fish in a small pond. Then there are situations where there are a tremendous number of big fish all gunning for the same 1 in 10 chance of getting in a prestigious school. Again, if we leave it entirely up to a merit/score-based system, someone loses, could be a white kid from a poor area, I'm guessing more likely a black kid from an urban high school, a Hispanic from a school where more Spanish than English is spoken, or a Native American kid who just wants to get noticed.

It's not perfect, but in order to promote heterogeneous student bodies, and a diversity of experiences, then the bar shifts up and down. And I tend to think a white kid from Appalachia gets the bar shifted down in his or her favor quite a bit as well.

In any case, K'Nort is right. We're attacking the issue from the top rather than the bottom. Rather than begrudging those getting in ostensibly because of their skin color, we should be equalizing the playing field from the K-12 level, not at college and grad school. We went through the period of integrated busing in the '70s, which may have been wiped out and gerrymandered out of existence, if current statistics are to believed....so we're back to separate but inequal for the most part, again when property taxes and property values fund school districts. The federal money just isn't enough, and when it is enough, it's mired in bureaucracy and red tape.

It's an interesting issue. But again, I think AA serves its purpose, historically, socially, and for the betterment of this country via diversity and cultural understanding, even if it pulls races out of their socioeconomic strata and deposits them higher up in the food chain where they "forget where they came from". There have to be better ways, but I don't think we abandon where we are, because there's lot of work to be done yet.

[K'Nort]

In any case, K'Nort is right. We're attacking the issue from the top rather than the bottom. Rather than begrudging those getting in ostensibly because of their skin color, we should be equalizing the playing field from the K-12 level, not at college and grad school. We went through the period of integrated busing in the '70s, which may have been wiped out and gerrymandered out of existence, if current statistics are to believed....so we're back to separate but inequal for the most part, again when property taxes and property values fund school districts. The federal money just isn't enough, and when it is enough, it's mired in bureaucracy and red tape.

There's always vouchers....

[Slappy san]

It goes beyond that (at least for me). I think there is a fundamental problem with addressing inequality. I know I'll get jumped all over for saying it, but the most disenfranchised people in this country are not of any particular race. The biggest discrepancy in quality of life is not between blacks and whites anymore, but the haves and have-nots. By continually saying race is the problem, it ignores the fact that has changed in the last generation. One can argue that minorities have it the hardest in getting ahead and they'd be right, but I honestly don't think it is because they are minorities per se, I think it is because they are poor.

I know it seems to completely discredit the struggles of upper middle class suburban minorities that likely exist and I don't know of them...but I strongly doubt those kids don't have trouble getting into or paying for good colleges and or getting a job as anyone that is poor.

You sound like you have pretty much right. AA has it's place BUT there needs to be something that helps all the have-nots as well.

Also, I'm more in favor of government subsidies that would pull almost all schools on the same level. It makes no sense that poor kids have to share books and ration toilet paper.

[west3man]

It makes no sense that poor kids have to share books and ration toilet paper.Would you prefer it the other way around?

COMMUNIST!

[phoenixrising]

There's always vouchers....

Not a good catch-all system there. Milwaukee's had what could - at best - be called mixed results. It'd be best if the state just spent the money to even out the public school systems to be equal (and standardized), but I think its far better for the kids than going to crappy schools.

[Samurai]

It seems to me that in general black Americans are alot more supportive of AA than white Americans. That includes black conservatives. Both Dr. Rice and Collin Powell have backed some form of AA. Dr. Rice does not like quotas but believes that race can and should be a factor in things like college admissions.

As far as AA "not working." Seems like an easy thing to say but a very hard thing to prove. It takes a very polar approach towards judging the efficacy of a very complex issue.
Of course more blacks are in favor of AA than whites... it's an entitlement program that benefits them and hurts whites. Similarly, more whites than blacks supported Jim Crow laws or slavery, which hurt blacks and benefited whites. But just because some members of a group getting an unfair benefit enjoy and want to retain that benefit, it doesn't mean the benefit isn't morally wrong and needs to be dismantled.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There's always vouchers....

Sure. But a study last year found that overall, private-schooled kids tested no better than, and possibly a bit worse than, public-schooled kids.

[K'Nort]

Sure. But a study last year found that overall, private-schooled kids tested no better than, and possibly a bit worse than, public-schooled kids.

It's not always a public/private thing. And don't get me started on the value of testing. One issue here is just letting parents transfer their kids to better public schools, regardless of where they live.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One issue here is just letting parents transfer their kids to better public schools, regardless of where they live.
Lots of places allow for that without vouchers, via open enrollment.

As to the value of testing, you wouldn't get a lot of argument from me, but it's noteworthy that by the standards touted by the Administration, their pet idea - private schools - fails to make the grade.

[Slappy san]

Lots of places allow for that without vouchers, via open enrollment.

As to the value of testing, you wouldn't get a lot of argument from me, but it's noteworthy that by the standards touted by the Administration, their pet idea - private schools - fails to make the grade.

Vouchers/open enrollment take money away from already cash strapped schools. Or atleast I think that what alot of the fuss was around here.

[K'Nort]

Vouchers/open enrollment take money away from already cash strapped schools. Or atleast I think that what alot of the fuss was around here.

And if their performance was connected to their funding, I could see their point.

[Slappy san]

And if their performance was connected to their funding, I could see their point.

But why take money from an already poor school? I guess i'm misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

[heretic]

I understood that's what you meant. And I'm saying that the minorities have no interest in sharing what few benefits they can get with white people, no matter how poor. And they've got the lobbies.
Speaking as a Minority, I suspect it is a failure on some level to realize that there _are_ white people that bad off.

Where I grew up, you had to go more than halfway to San Bernadino to find seriously poor Anglos.

HTG

[heretic]

One issue here is just letting parents transfer their kids to better public schools, regardless of where they live. Lots of places allow for that without vouchers, via open enrollment.

However, that adversely affects the right of others to freedom of association... which is even more horrid.

HTG

[Hoss]

Of course more blacks are in favor of AA than whites... it's an entitlement program that benefits them and hurts whites. Similarly, more whites than blacks supported Jim Crow laws or slavery, which hurt blacks and benefited whites. .

I disagree with the argument that a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment" into a discriminatory program.

Of course, there is nothing but lousy anecdotal evidence that AA policies have hurt whites. The basic "My uncle lost out on a good jon to a less qualified black guy." Or, "I got accepted to Harvard and couldn't afford it but some woman with worse grades than me got to go with a scholarship because of a quota." And voila - you use these biased views of events and pile them up and turn the very people who were systematically oppressed for centuries into the villians and you turn the group that systematically oppressed them into victims.

It amazes me that we can look at women being oppressed by men for millenia or blacks being enslaved for centuries and ask that white men be seen as victims because as a society we are doing everything possible to catch those groups up. And meanwhile, statistics will show you that white men still make more money, go to school more, are better employed and have not suffered statistically since AA. But still, they are the victims.

[Samurai]

I disagree with the argument that a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment" into a discriminatory program.

Of course, there is nothing but lousy anecdotal evidence that AA policies have hurt whites. The basic "My uncle lost out on a good jon to a less qualified black guy." Or, "I got accepted to Harvard and couldn't afford it but some woman with worse grades than me got to go with a scholarship because of a quota." And voila - you use these biased views of events and pile them up and turn the very people who were systematically oppressed for centuries into the villians and you turn the group that systematically oppressed them into victims.

It amazes me that we can look at women being oppressed by men for millenia or blacks being enslaved for centuries and ask that white men be seen as victims because as a society we are doing everything possible to catch those groups up. And meanwhile, statistics will show you that white men still make more money, go to school more, are better employed and have not suffered statistically since AA. But still, they are the victims.
First, a debunking of the bolded part above...

http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=620
Those college administrators responsible for admitting a new class of students each year have been aware for some time of the phenomenon we refer to as the gender shift. For the past 20 years more women than men have earned bachelor degrees, and in each successive academic year the gap is widening. In 2003, 712,000 women earned a bachelor's degree, compared to 531,000 men. More women than men received associate degrees, and 274,000 women attained master's degrees, compared to 194,000 men. Division I NCAA universities that study enrollment ratios carefully for the purpose of meeting Title IX requirements have reported a 54 percent female to 46 percent male ratio overall in their undergraduate student bodies.
Title IX... that is a part of Affirmative Action that is supposed to help women get into universities. But for 20 years now, more women than men have graduated from university, and the gap is widening every year. How much longer do we keep this AA program going? Is it time to encourage more men to go to university to try and even things out again?

I equate AA and Jim Crow laws because they are identical. Both were created for the express purpose of helping 1 race and hurting another. Both give govt-sanctioned advantages based on nothing more than skin color. Both are unfair, and should be outlawed. In fact, there is only 1 real difference between them... 1 helped whites, and 1 blacks. You can't cure racism with more racism. You can't end prejudice by being prejudiced. You can't create a color-blind society by catagorizing people according to skin color. These things are so fundamentally rational and easy to understand, I can't understand why this isn't obvious for all to see...

Edit: Just wanted to add that the "we're only helping blacks, not hurting whites" line is ridiculous. There are limited numbers of jobs, school openings, etc. If you give it to one, you take it away from another. And if other schools/jobs/etc are just as good, why not let the lower scoring blacks go there?

[Hoss]

Not to veer off-topic, but you just posted a photo. How often does anyone realize you're hispanic?

Never. Even when I introduce myself as Jorge. They think I'm Sweedish or something. Especially since I don't speak with an accent. Other Latinos are usually the most shocked.

But it is also about living in the US. Most Latin American countries have a European caucasian population. However, they are a minority. I imagine it would be like being a black American in Africa. If you spoke the language with out an accent most people would assume that you were African and not American. But when you were in America speaking English no one would assume that you were African.

[warspite1805]

I would be happier if people were treated as individuals not as stats or as part of groups. That is why I dispise quotas and things like AA.
Why should individuals be screwed over because peoplre of their ethnic group is doing better than the ethnic group of an another individual of a different ethnic group. All that should matter is most capable person gets it.

I ask the posters here one question if you where going to under go a very risky operation would you favour the most skilled person doing the operation or the person who is almost ads qualified and skilled as the first but got the job because of a quota, no matter how well intentioned. Personally I could not give a shit about the ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation/disabilty all that matters is competence.
.

[JerrBear81]

Not to mention that need-based grants lack any sort of policy besides "look and see how much money this kid's parents make".

Too true. When I tried to apply for a Pell Grant, based on what my dad made in a year at the time, they denied me beacause of what he made. And my parents were struggling just to pay bills and such.

[Hoss]

First, a debunking of the bolded part above...

http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=620

Title IX... that is a part of Affirmative Action that is supposed to help women get into universities. But for 20 years now, more women than men have graduated from university, and the gap is widening every year. How much longer do we keep this AA program going? Is it time to encourage more men to go to university to try and even things out again?


That ignores A) that there are more women alive in this country than men and B) it in no way proves that men have been hurt by this. Just because more women are getting college degrees does not in any way shape or form mean that there is a proportionately smaller group of men getting degrees than did in the past or that men are having trouble getting access to universities.

And notice how the goal posts have changed. If AA is wrong and ineffective while showing that women have taken full advantage of going to college and are now outnumbering men at institutes of higher education, then that sounds an awful lot like AA worked for women. And as I mentioned before it does not show that men have been hurt at all.

Like I said I am more than willing to discuss the future of AA policy. But if you think that it didn't work or that it wasn't fair, you're arguing from ideology and not facts and history.

[Hoss]

...

Edit: Just wanted to add that the "we're only helping blacks, not hurting whites" line is ridiculous. There are limited numbers of jobs, school openings, etc. If you give it to one, you take it away from another. And if other schools/jobs/etc are just as good, why not let the lower scoring blacks go there?


Edit: Notice that this is a bunch of assumptions with no evidence but the anecdotal "My uncle's buddy lost out on a good job to a black guy" or "I know the reason I didn't get into Berkely is cause they let all those lower scoring blacks in"

[Hoss]

I would be happier if people were treated as individuals not as stats or as part of groups. That is why I dispise quotas and things like AA.
Why should individuals be screwed over because peoplre of their ethnic group is doing better than the ethnic group of an another individual of a different ethnic group. All that should matter is most capable person gets it.



Well, while you might not care we live in a country were for centuries the color of a person's skin and their gender was enough to lock them out of the system. So as a society we needed to find a way to help those disenfranchized groups. And by the way the moment that you can show me any concrete proof that AA has led to someone being operated on by an unqualified surgeon be my guest.

For those of you who love gripping about quotas - I challenge you to provide proof and not speculation. I've been hearing the same "unqualified brown person cutting you open" line for 3 decades and I've never seen a shred of proof backing it up.

[K'Nort]

Well it's not like there aren't individuals who have gotten the short end of the stick due to Affirmative Action. And I think the Jim Crow analogy made sense enough. There can be an analogy on some aspects without making the two things morally comparable; there's nothing to get insecure about there. Both policies were putting races on unequal footing -- the fact one was being done for good and one for ill doesn't change that.

The main difference is when a white man loses out on an opportunity, it's seen to impact him. White men as a group are still doing just fine. But when a minority misses out, it's part of a bigger picture.

It's just an issue of utilitarianism -- common good vs individual.

[JerrBear81]

Well, while you might not care we live in a country were for centuries the color of a person's skin and their gender was enough to lock them out of the system. So as a society we needed to find a way to help those disenfranchized groups. And by the way the moment that you can show me any concrete proof that AA has led to someone being operated on by an unqualified surgeon be my guest.

For those of you who love gripping about quotas - I challenge you to provide proof and not speculation. I've been hearing the same "unqualified brown person cutting you open" line for 3 decades and I've never seen a shred of proof backing it up.

Didn't someone mention that AA works sort of like this:

White Employee Opportunity applies for job
Black Employee Opportunity applies for same job

Black Employee Opportunity is more qualified for the job, but the person Hiring prefers whites, so AA steps in.

I think when people argue that someone gets stiffed by AA, why aren't they arguing that someone would also get stiffed if it didn't exist? Either way, someone may or may not be denied a job based on their skin color.

[warspite1805]

I just chose an extreme example to show how daft I feel things like AA is, the only thing that matters about who gets any job should be who is the most capable.

[JerrBear81]

I just chose an extreme example to show how daft I feel things like AA is, the only thing that matters about who gets any job should be who is the most capable.

I feel the same way. Though there are people who think that more qualified = white (Not meant toward you, just employers in general).

[K'Nort]

Didn't someone mention that AA works sort of like this:

White Employee Opportunity applies for job
Black Employee Opportunity applies for same job

Black Employee Opportunity is more qualified for the job, but the person Hiring prefers whites, so AA steps in.

I think when people argue that someone gets stiffed by AA, why aren't they arguing that someone would also get stiffed if it didn't exist? Either way, someone may or may not be denied a job based on their skin color.

That's not the version that upsets people so much. Take universities. Many will have lower standards for admitting students from underrepresented minorities than they do for white students. So it's not an issue of equal qualifications. Ditto giving preference to minority-owned businesses for government contracts.

[warspite1805]

I feel the same way. Though there are people who think that more qualified = white (Not meant toward you, just employers in general).

I am of the opinion that it should be up to the employer (with the exception of Government departments or any company who receives state funding) as it should be in the companies best interest to pick the most capable person. If they are dumb enougth to pick the crappest of the two applicants due to some dumbass reason like race then they deserve what ever they get, which in the long term should be lower profits, esspecially if the public finds out that they are run by racist pricks.

[K'Nort]

I am of the opinion that it should be up to the employer (with the exception of Government departments or any company who receives state funding) as it should be in the companies best interest to pick the most capable person. If they are dumb enougth to pick the crappest of the two applicants due to some dumbass reason like race then they deserve what ever they get, which in the long term should be lower profits, esspecially if t