Affirmative Action - Yeah or Nay.

[Uncommon Sense]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday agreed to decide whether affirmative action programs in the nation's universities should continue to help minorities, or whether they represent "reverse discrimination."

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/02/scotus.affirmative.action/) .

At issue is whether race be used as a factor in admissions to state-funded colleges, to increase diversity in the student body. Justices will be asked to decide whether a state has a "compelling interest" to promote a diverse student body, or whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment forbids giving one ethnic group or culture special advantages over another.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it`s time to take another look at affirmative action (nationwide) and decide whether or not it`s actually beneficial and fair to all parties. On it`s face, it seems unfair to those with the best qualifications regardless of race. There are situations where race should be considered such as a police officer or teacher in a predominately minority neighborhood. In many cases it is unfairly giving advantage to those with a race/gender advantage and discriminating against the (possibly better) candidate who may come from the majority race/gender.
The SC`s decision will affect universities and admissions. I think it will eventually have an effect on hiring practices in general. I also think that those who discriminate should be punished but that the laws should not force them to hire minorities for the sake of filling quotas. I see Affirmative Action as an unfair practice.

Thoughts?

[db4530]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
In many cases [affirmative action ] is unfairly giving advantage to those with a race/gender advantage and discriminating against the (possibly better) candidate who may come from the majority race/gender.
The SC`s decision will affect universities and admissions. I think it will eventually have an effect on hiring practices in general. I also think that those who discriminate should be punished but that the laws should not force them to hire minorities for the sake of filling quotas.

With all respect, I find your view of affirmative action to be short-sighted. Because the United States has, over the course of its existence, been about the individual freedom and the individual accomplishment, much is lost, IMHO, when each person is only considered individually. I would argue that those people who are benefitted by affirmative action would gladly trade places with a "displaced" white person because that minority memeber knows about the implicit advantages which are available to that person every day which they don't even think about.

White people easily get cabs in NYC. They don't have have to worry as much about being hassled by the police for walking down the street. They don't have to worry whether people will immediately judge them the color of their skin. These indecencies which minorities are forced to suffer in the US can really take a toll on the psyche of minority people and can be completely overlooked by those who don't experience it.

Affirmative action is not about merely promoting one person over another because of skin color. It is a recognition that, because of the years of damage which has been caused as result of the years of degradation which minorities as a group have had to endure, encouraging their participation in the processes which will help minorities, as individuals, and as members of minority groups, will ulitmately improve the society in which we live due to increased understanding and appreciation of the value of all people.

I do not argue that an underqualified minority person should be given a job or a college acceptance merely because of skin color. That would be stupid because all members of that person's minority group would be judged based on an unqualified person's actions (e.g., "well, the firm hired that one unqualified black guy a few years ago who really screwed up. I don't think we should do that again."). I merely suggest that affirmative action should be a recognition that certain "factors" used to determine eligibility, apptitude and qualification should include a measure of a person's life experience and group experience.

No one is asking for a hand out when they extol the virtues of affirmative action. They are merely asking for recognition that the paths which are available to most minorities in the US are not available to a very large number of minority people. Affirmative action is an effort to affirm that alternative path that minority people are forced to take as a result of the fact that the majoirty path is unavailable to them.

While I argue here in favor of affirmative action, it is my dream that one day it will not be necessary. I hope that one day there is no explicit or implicit discrimination which is based on anything besides an individual's abilities. At that time I will fight vehemently to do away with any sort of affirmative action. To act as if such no such discrimination currently exists, however, is to put blinders on to the realities of our society.

[RD]

One way to look at "fairness" is this:
Immigrant who become citizens pay taxes like the rest of us.
They and their children often have a harder time passing college entrance exams, however, when they are taken in English as a second language.
Why should they pay and get no services?
And why do we want part of the population to stop learning when they have not reached their full potential?

[db4530]

Originally posted by RD

Immigrant who become citizens pay taxes like the rest of us.
They and their children often have a harder time passing college entrance exams, however, when they are taken in English as a second language.
Why should they pay and get no services?
And why do we want part of the population to stop learning when they have not reached their full potential?

1. Even immigrants who do not become citizens pay taxes as long as they have US income.

2. I do not understand your point about the test. It appears that you might be attempting to say that the immigrants would do better on their standardized tests if they are given in their native language and not english.

3. I don't think that anyone is saying that a person should pay taxes to the government and get no government services as a result. I don't understand the connection.

4. I am positive that no one is saying that anyone should stop learning regardless of whether "full potential" (whatever that is) is reached. Again, I do not understand the connection.

[db4530]

Originally posted by RD

Immigrant who become citizens pay taxes like the rest of us.
They and their children often have a harder time passing college entrance exams, however, when they are taken in English as a second language.
Why should they pay and get no services?
And why do we want part of the population to stop learning when they have not reached their full potential?

1. Even immigrants who do not become citizens pay taxes as long as they have US income.

2. I do not understand your point about the test. It appears that you might be attempting to say that the immigrants would do better on their standardized tests if they are given in their native language and not english.

3. I don't think that anyone is saying that a person should pay taxes to the government and get no government services as a result. I don't understand the connection.

4. I am positive that no one is saying that anyone should stop learning regardless of whether "full potential" (whatever that is) is reached. Again, I do not understand the connection.

[Read_Neck]

Discrimination is just that. The euphymisms you wrap it in only show your mindset. Two wrongs make a right? Or do they?

Nay. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

[db4530]

Red Neck,

People discriminate every day. Some people get into college and some people don't. Those who don't get in might have lower test scores. Therefore, the group being discriminated against is those people who have lower test scores. If that group of people were racially, religiously, sexually and gender neutral then there would be no argument. Affirmative action merely recognizes that not all of the so-called objective criteria may be as objective as people (read white males) think it to be. If you would like to call that discrimination, go right ahead.

DB

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I would argue that those people who are benefitted by affirmative action would gladly trade places with a "displaced" white person because that minority memeber knows about the implicit advantages which are available to that person every day which they don't even think about.Then why does my hispanic fiancee insist on hyphenating her maiden name when we get married because if she didn't, employers wouldn't believe she was hispanic? (she's very light-skinned)

[db4530]

InquisitiveIdiot,

I apologize for not modifying the statement you quoted with the words "vast majority." I do not think that the OP intended for this to be a debate about individual antecdotes (and I would not get into such a debate). When speaking about the people who are affected by the laws and doctrines being discussed, no individual story will prove anything that applies to the entire group (either for or against affirmative action).

DB

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought this was a debate where people who aren't the "vast majority" have some importance. But tell me, if the "vast majority" is being put at a disadvantage by being forced to participate in a scheme that is exactly the same type of situation that it was intended to rectify, doesn't that make it ethically wrong? Whether it makes things more fair or not, isn't it very hypocritical to claim that the best way to fight discrimination is by discriminating?

[robertliguori]

Taking affirmative action to eliminte discrimination is a good thing. Judging someone based on their race is discrimination.

If you wish to argue that many black people are poorer than average and thusly missed out on certain advantages that richer people had, why not make such policies based on wealth, not race?

[ElJeffe]

White people easily get cabs in NYC. They don't have have to worry as much about being hassled by the police for walking down the street. They don't have to worry whether people will immediately judge them the color of their skin. These indecencies which minorities are forced to suffer in the US can really take a toll on the psyche of minority people and can be completely overlooked by those who don't experience it.


I grew up in a town with a large hispanic population. I had to worry about walking down the street and being hassled (or shot) by hispanic gang members. I was constantly judged based on the color of my skin. Where's my affirmative action?

Seriously, though, you go on to say that you have a dream that someday, affirmative action will not be necessary. That we'll achieve MLK's ideal of color-blindness. You do realize, though, that it is impossible to achieve color-blindness as long as we have affirmative action? That the constant attention that AA forces us to allot to everyone's skin color will someday hinder, rather then help, our progress towards this goal?

Someday, we'll need to abandon these policies. Someday, we'll have to recognize that government mandate has taken the journey towards colorblindness as far as it can, and the rest of the trip is going to come down to the simple passage of time. So how will we know that we've reached the point where AA is doing more harm than good?

Irrational prejudices, such as racism, go away over time. Every batch of immigration that the US has seen has had to deal with racism or prejudice of a sort. The Irish dealt with it. The Chinese dealt with it. The Italians dealt with it. In these cases, there was nothing like AA to help guide them through - the prejudices just gradually evaporated over time.

Of course, the case of blacks is unique - no other race or nationality had to deal with slavery in quite the same way. (I think the Chinese came the closest, but they were still free, even if only nominally.) Thus, the blacks had a lot more ground to cover in trying to achieve parity with the majority in America. But even without a concentrated effort the likes of AA, they achieved remarkable progress. While being a black person in 1960 was no picnic, it beat the holy hell out of being a black person in 1870. That progress would have continued, AA or no AA.

And really, the "ushering in acceptance" aspect of AA has been minor. It was really more of a Band-Aid, to make the integration process more tolerable. To the extent that some people got over their racism because of the forced proximity that AA required, it helped some in overcoming racism, but largely, the decline in hostility - overt or otherwise - towards blacks has been a result of the old maxim, "Time heals all wounds."

But someday - and it's my contention that "someday" has arrived - AA is going to get in the way. The hallmark of AA today is that sometimes - too often - less qualified people get jobs based solely on skin color. It's impossible for this to not have a negative impact on race relations. No matter how open minded and enlightened you are, if you see someone get a job, or get into school, or whatever ahead of you - and not because they're more qualified, but because they're more pigmented - it's going to breed resentment. And that resentment will keep race relations from progressing any further.

I think it's time to put AA to rest. It was a useful program that served its purpose, but it's now just a troublesome relic of a less enlightened era. We're not out of the woods yet in terms of the eradication of racism (and likely, there will always be some vestiges of racism to rear their unsightly heads), but we've come a long way. I think it's time to rev up for the home stretch. And a program that answers past unfairness with present unfairness isn't going to do our engine any good.


Jeff

[InquisitiveIdiot]

ElJeffe:

I agree wholeheartedly. I also shared the same childhood you did. The ironic thing was that it wasn't until high school that I found out I was oppressing them!

[db4530]

I think that someone who is more qualified for a job or for a spot in a competitive college class should feel resentment if someone who is less qualified. I merely think that the terms used to define "qualification" are less objective than many people like to admit. An acceptance of the premise is necessary to support any form of affirmative action. If you do not accept that premise then you will never agree with me (not that you have to). Because, historically, for certain minority groups (and I am not limiting this post to blacks), the historical trend toward acceptance has not occurred notwithstanding the fact that such minority groups have had a large presence in this country since before its founding, I think action is required to correct such an injustice. You may agree with everything I have said so far and still think that affirmative action is wrong because of all the problems that it brings about. In such a case, I would argue that we should then change the affirmative action system rather than ignore the problem as I feel is being suggested.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I merely think that the terms used to define "qualification" are less objective than many people like to admit.Yes, that's "rebuttal #1 for anti-affirmative action arguments": They're not being GIVEN the job because of their race, just HELPED. They're still "qualified"! Well, they're still being "helped" or "given a hand up" solely on the basis of their race.

And I completely agree. When cultural intergration is being held up for whatever reason, action needs to be taken. But that action needs to be an elimination of whatever barriers are in the way, not enforced discrimination on the race wherein the barrier lies. In short, education, not discrimination.

[John Mace]

Affirmative Action - Yeah or Nay.


Outreach: Yeah (if you really think it's necessary)
Preferences: Nay

I've only been participating on this board for a few months, but I've already been round and round on this issue enough to not want to say anything more than that.

[ElJeffe]

InquisitiveIdiot:

I agree wholeheartedly. I also shared the same childhood you did. The ironic thing was that it wasn't until high school that I found out I was oppressing them!


Yeah, I wish I'd known that when I was being punched around as a youth. I would've felt a whole lot better. ;)


db4530:

Because, historically, for certain minority groups (and I am not limiting this post to blacks), the historical trend toward acceptance has not occurred notwithstanding the fact that such minority groups have had a large presence in this country since before its founding, I think action is required to correct such an injustice.


Can you give an example of a minority group that did not make progress towards acceptance, even in the face of explicit laws declaring them to be equal to the majority group? Please make sure your example covers a reasonable time period over which progress could logically be expected to be made.


Jeff

[db4530]

El Jeffe:

I have your example: women. While I admit that studies have shown that females may not be in the minority (I read somewhere--no cite--that women make up 52% of the popoulation), they have certainly been oppressed like as a minoirty over the course of the existence of this nation. In addition women have not, despite laws in their favor, been granted the status and acceptance to which they are entitled.

[Spite]

No progress for women "over the course of the existence of this nation"? db4530, you are reaching. ANd your assertion that white males just can't, or don't, undertstand shows youe boggotry.

[Jimmy1]

It needs to go. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Magiver]

I guess I don't understand the logic involved in this particular form of discrimination.

It is so patronizing to say someone didn't do as well in school because they are black, Native American, Libertarian, or (pick a minority). Every single person I have met that worked hard in school has done well. I see a high correlation between college grades and financial success. The same should apply in advanced college courses.

I also don't understand why there needs to be numeric parity in any field. Positions for medical students are limited so I want the absolute best to advance. I could care less what my doctor looks like when I'm getting my heart worked on.

Think of how stupid it would appear if we applied this to college sports.

[pizzabrat]

robertliguori:
If you wish to argue that many black people are poorer than average and thusly missed out on certain advantages that richer people had, why not make such policies based on wealth, not race?

Because that's not what the argument is. The argument is that racism and sexism are constants in America that are impossible to be destroyed. Thus, a beauracratic, non-human system is needed to balance everything out.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

You will not solve old injustices by creating new ones.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by pizzabrat
robertliguori:


Because that's not what the argument is. The argument is that racism and sexism are constants in America that are impossible to be destroyed. Thus, a beauracratic, non-human system is needed to balance everything out.

I think you wanted to use the word "fair", but chose to phrase it differently. Forcing things to be fair is the oppostie of fair. Reverse discrimintation is still discrimination any way you phrase it.
Giving a false advantage to one group over another is creating a false representation of the actual group that should be in that position. There should be NO barriers, and AA is a barrier.

Let`s say I started a contracting business and I get some funding through the city/state for start-up help. The city says that I need to hire 10 percent minority. I need to fill twelve positions. Several things will happen. I may not get any minority applicants, which would cause me to actively pursue minority applicants (bad for me good for them). I may get twelve highly qualified applicants who are all monority (good for everyone). I may get the ten percent mix just by coincidence (good for everyone). I may get the twelve positions filled with the best applicants in which none are minority even though many applied (bad for me-city withholds funds). I dont get to have full control over my hiring because I`m stuck with this quota to fill. Not only does it hinder my attempts to hire the best twelve (maybe), it can cause resentment among my employees. Even if I hire my minority quota (2) I may have one that made my cut and one that didn`t. The one that made the cut will resent the one that got in because of the quota (not to mention the applicants that missed out legitimately). The other (10) non-minority will feel the same way towards that person. How is that beneficial to anyone but that one person whose only reason for employment is the quota.
It can cause resentment, poor performance, and forces people to use race/gender in their hiring practices. I as the employer may be disadvantaged depending on the work pool at the time. My employees may feel disadvantaged because they may be forced to work with an employee of sub-par skills.

As the The Peyote Coyote said: You will not solve old injustices by creating new ones.

[athelas]

Nay. If standards are good enough for sports, they're good enough for hiring.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

whuckfistle, I believe robertliguori is on your side. The standard AA theory is that AA needs to be in place until discrimination ceases. By claiming that discrimination is "constant and impossible to be destroyed", he's mocking their arguments in a sarcastic manner.

At least, I hope to god he's not being serious.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot
whuckfistle, I believe robertliguori is on your side. The standard AA theory is that AA needs to be in place until discrimination ceases. By claiming that discrimination is "constant and impossible to be destroyed", he's mocking their arguments in a sarcastic manner.

At least, I hope to god he's not being serious.


Right, it was pizzabrat that I should have been responding to.
If pizzabrat were a conservative saying that, then I could see the sarcasm. A liberal, on the other hand, might actually believe that.
I`m not sure of his/her (pb`s) stance on these issues.

[pizzabrat]

I don't see what's so ridiculous about the idea that racism and sexism will never go away. And I wasn't stating a side on the issue, I was just stating what the issue was. People keep saying "if it's about poverty then why don't you just base it on economic status and whatnot." But it's not about poverty, it's about racism and sexism.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Ah jeez, he IS serious.

Racism does indeed go away. This has been said several times previously in this thread. Sexism has had a far harder time of it, but has been making great strides once the current (and correct, IMO) mindset of this culture- namely that we're all equal- has set in.

The complaint with affirmative action is that I goes against the "we're all equal" mindset. It suggests instead the mindset of "I'm a minority, therefore I deserve to be treated better." All it does is substitute one discrimination for another.

AA was put in place to help equalize the playing field while society was able to adjust. It was never intended to offset a permanent problem with American culture, as you seem to think. Although it did have a noble purpose, those who decry it do so because the method it goes about making "equality" is basically to force everyone to discrimination in the opposite direction. The means does not justify the end.

The "poverty" argument goes like this: AA is there because minorities have had a hard time competing socioeconomically with whites. By forcing employers/schools to hire minorities, it gives them more of a chance to catch up and be treated equally. But, they reason, there are rich people who happen to be minorities, and poor people who happen to be whites. The rich minorities don't need AA, while the poor whites could certainly use it. Wouldn't it be more fair to give the "hand up" to EVERYONE who was poor? That way, the law would not have to discriminate, you'd still accomplish your intended goals, and no one would be able to slip through the cracks/take unfair advantage of the system.

[Tezmac]

I attended the University of New Mexico for 5 years and graduated last May. If I remember correctly, European Americans (to be PC) were the minorty at the school. Yet, every single scholarship fund was for Hispanics, African Americans, Asians etc. If I was to start up a European American Scholarhip Fund at the University, I would be labled a racist and be thrown out of school, even though I would be trying to attract more "minorty" students. Where is the affirmative action there? I was uneligible for pretty much every scholarship the campus offered simply because I am White, I mean European American. Where is the Affirmative Action or Equal Opportunity there?

Someone already posted this, but I think it is a fantastic analogy. Where is the Affirmative Action in the NBA and NFL "workplaces?" Shouldn't we force coaches and GM's to hire enough Whites, Asians and Native Americans to even out the racial bias on the playing fields? That would never fly, because anyone that proposed it would be considered a racist.

Affirmative Action is flat out wrong, why should I have to pay for the previous generations wrong doings? Then again you could say that minorities are paying for my previous generations wrong doings, but hell, my "ancestors" were poor Russians, moved here and became poor farmers in the midwest. What the hell did I or my family do to them? It's a messed up practice conjured up by some desperate messed up people. I'm suprised more minorites dont rise up and say "I dont need your handout!" I know my great-great-great-grandparents didn't.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Tezmac, in case you don't remember, your family is singlehandely responsible for the oppression of the entire african american, native american, hispanic, and asian american races. And women.

What's that you say? You family immigrated to a high minority area after the civil war, where the population of african americans is extremely low and therefore relatively unaffected by jim crow laws? Tought shit. You get the shaft because of the color of your-- uuh, on general principle.

And don't complain that it isn't fair. Klan member.

[Tezmac]

Wow, I cant believe you just called me that. I thought this was a place for quasi-intellegent debate and comments, guess I was wrong.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I was kidding, tezmac. Read my earlier posts (like the one directly above yours) and see if what I said above matches with what I said to you.

[pizzabrat]

whuckfistle:
Let`s say I started a contracting business and I get some funding through the city/state for start-up help. The city says that I need to hire 10 percent minority. I need to fill twelve positions. Several things will happen. I may not get any minority applicants, which would cause me to actively pursue minority applicants (bad for me good for them). I may get twelve highly qualified applicants who are all monority (good for everyone). I may get the ten percent mix just by coincidence (good for everyone). I may get the twelve positions filled with the best applicants in which none are minority even though many applied (bad for me-city withholds funds). I dont get to have full control over my hiring because I`m stuck with this quota to fill. Not only does it hinder my attempts to hire the best twelve (maybe), it can cause resentment among my employees. Even if I hire my minority quota (2) I may have one that made my cut and one that didn`t. The one that made the cut will resent the one that got in because of the quota (not to mention the applicants that missed out legitimately). The other (10) non-minority will feel the same way towards that person. How is that beneficial to anyone but that one person whose only reason for employment is the quota.
It can cause resentment, poor performance, and forces people to use race/gender in their hiring practices. I as the employer may be disadvantaged depending on the work pool at the time. My employees may feel disadvantaged because they may be forced to work with an employee of sub-par skills.

So you get a little government reward for putting out extra effort to hire a minority. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to.

InquisitiveIdot:
Racism does indeed go away. This has been said several times previously in this thread.

So what if it's been said several times, it's still not true. For a while people started being quiet about their racism, that's true, but now that it's hip to be "politically incorrect", people are just as open with their racist nonsense as they were before. Just search this board's archives for "blacks" and see how many of the resulting threads are positive.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

You don't get a reward. You get fined if you don't hire them. And you HAVE to accept it.

[light strand]

I don't see the problem with AA. The amount of people discriminated against by this policy are clearly a small minority. Now, of course if you happen to be a member of that small minority, then you'd be pissed. But if you happen to be the beneficiary, then it works out fine, if that minority has advantages elsewhere.

To clarify. Legacy points are pointedly skewed toward the wealthy, and the white. Yet these don't seem to bother most people. Athletic points are skewed toward men. These don't bother people. Affirmative action points are skewed toward racial minorities, yet these seem to bother white men. Why? It's not like you guys don't have advantages elsewhere that women and minorities don't have.

For example. I've worked for two small companies. In both companies the sons of the founders were placed in the VP positions, despite overwhelming evidence that they were not qualified for the positions. In addition both companies were rife with nepotism. Unqualified family members and friends placed in jobs for which they were unqualified, at the expense of more qualified candidates. These were not publicly traded companies, so what's the problem, you may ask? None, I say. However, the publicly traded companies aren't much better. In 2001 only 14 companies in the S&P 500 had minorities as CEO (http://www.domini.com/Social-Screening/Diversity/Issue-Briefs/brief_ceo.doc_cvt.htm). So to imply that "fairness" should be inherent in the system is just plain naive.

As for awarding points based on socioeconomic school standing, that doesn't work either. In Texas the admission process is based upon the guaranteed acceptance of the top 10% of graduating student body of any public high school. This clearly discriminates against the very good/competitive high schools where the lower scoring students might be far more qualified than those of the top 10% of a crummy performing school. In fact, this has happened in the case of students from a section of Dallas called the Park Cities where the schools are extremely well-funded and competitive, and students scoring high enough to be accepted at Princeton on their SATs were not accepted to UT because of the policy.

Considering the racism inherent elsewhere in the American system, I don't see a problem with this bit of backasswardness.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

So you're telling me to stop whining, and let society have it's way with my rear end, solely on the basis of my race?

Keep in mind that where I come from, whites are the very small minority. If anyone has been discriminated against during my upbringing, it would be me. Yet you say, because of the color of my skin, it's perfectly fair for me to be unfairly disadvantaged at everything in life?

I thought the civil rights movement said that NO ONE should.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

In Texas the admission process is based upon the guaranteed acceptance of the top 10% of graduating student body of any public high school. This clearly discriminates against the very good/competitive high schools where the lower scoring students might be far more qualified than those of the top 10% of a crummy performing school.Okay... so? No one I've ever heard has claimed this is right. Rather the opposite, the consensus is that the law should be repealed. But what does this have to do with using socioeconomic standing? Suppose all schools are ranked on the basis of performance, from 1-10. A student's bias, when applying for college etc., would be primary school rating*3+ secondary school rating*3+high school rating *4. That way, the law avoids rewarding students who say in poor home high schools instead of going to magnet schools, while still being fair to everyone. It also avoids race, btw, which was the entire point. It would be more ethical this way.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

The amount of people discriminated against by this policy are clearly a small minority. Now, of course if you happen to be a member of that small minority, then you'd be pissed. But if you happen to be the beneficiary, then it works out fine, if that minority has advantages elsewhere.Translation: As long as injustice cannot be measured in millions of people, it's perfectly all right.

Athletic points are skewed toward men. These don't bother people.Au contraire, it bothers those of us who think the primary function of universities and schools should be education, not athletics. If the NFL & NBA want to prep kids for pro sports, let them start farm teams.

Affirmative action points are skewed toward racial minorities, yet these seem to bother white men. Why? It's not like you guys don't have advantages elsewhere that women and minorities don't have.What advantages? Being from a relatively poor family and being unathletic, I would have no advantage other than academic achievement if I were to apply for college today. If I make better grades than a minority member or a woman, why should I be denied admission? If I have better qualifications for a job than a minority member, why should I be happy to see it go to them? I repeat: you ain't going to solve the problems created by old injustices by imposing new injustices.

You also seem to be overlooking the point that many schools in rural white America are nearly as bad as inner-city schools. Also, I would venture to say in these days of NAFTA and the dying family farm, that suburban minorities have far more opportunity than many rural whites. If you want policies to help poor people, then make them color-blind.

For example. I've worked for two small companies. In both companies the sons of the founders were placed in the VP positions, despite overwhelming evidence that they were not qualified for the positions. In addition both companies were rife with nepotism. Unqualified family members and friends placed in jobs for which they were unqualified, at the expense of more qualified candidates. These were not publicly traded companies, so what's the problem, you may ask?
I, too, have worked for such companies, including one newspaper where the owner's son should have been fired after I indirectly presented evidence to the managing editor of his incompetence. On one hand this bothers me as advancement should be based on merit. On the other hand, my observation is that such companies sooner or later go out of business because the people running them don't know what they are doing.

None, I say. However, the publicly traded companies aren't much better. In 2001 only 14 companies in the S&P 500 had minorities as CEO. So to imply that "fairness" should be inherent in the system is just plain naive.Since legal discrimination ended in the 1960's, this is only to be expected. It takes several decades to rise to CEO in traditional industries. I think we should see that number increase in the years ahead.

Considering the racism inherent elsewhere in the American system, I don't see a problem with this bit of backasswardness.Just out of curiousity, are you white or a minority?

[light strand]

Yup, Idiot, I'm saying exactly that. Suck it up. If you are a white male you will have many other advantages.

Take this example. An optics lab technician whom I know, who happens to be a man makes $50,000/ yr without a college education. However the technicians in my lab, who are primarily Biology graduates start at $20,000/ yr and are almost solely women. A construction worker makes $20/hr while a cashier makes $7.00. The laboratory I work in has about 80% women, however, we only have one woman supervisor, and one woman Scientist (me). I work for a huge, publicly traded, pharmaceutical company. When a woman acts aggressive, she's a bitch, when a black person does, he has an attitude, when a white guy does, he's a go-getter. I've seen this pattern repeated over and over in my 26 years of work experience. Feel free to tell me that it's my imagination, or to give me some bull-shit story of how you would love to have a woman engineer, but simply can't find one, and I'll tell you that you're full of shit. Men's pay out-paces women's because historically they were the bread-winners, and this hasn't yet changed. This is the advantage you get for no other reason than your gender. The advantage escalates considerably because you're white.

Which brings me to the preference for blacks in jobs things, does anyone have any real-world experience with this? I have heard repeatedly that blacks are taken with preference, and yet I've never (in 10 years of hiring) been requested to do this, and have never found anyone who has. I also have never even met anyone who claims this to have happened to them, for or against. Is this actually imaginary? Does anyone even have anecdotal evidence that this practice is even mildly wide-spread? On the other hand, I know of at least one HR person on this board who had publicly admitted that s/he discards the resumes of people with "black" sounding names.

Coyote, exactly. If an injustice is for the greater good, and the number of people harmed by it are minimal, than that injustice can be justified (think Iraq).

I noticed that you didn't address the question of legacy points. However, to address your statement of the rural white schools, if you look at the U of M's admissions point system (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/bush.affirmativeaction/) (see the lower right side of the link), rural students are given extra points based on underrepresented counties, and points are also given based on socio-economic disadvantage. Also where is the fury over the points given for men in nursing? I don't see one for women in the sciences? Note also, that although you claim that women are taking your space in college or jobs, there is not one single category that allows only women a point.

FTR I am white, female, and overeducated.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I never claimed that women took my place in college; I asked why I should be happy if I had superior academic qualifications, yet was rejected in order to admit a less qualified woman or black. I notice you failed to address that.

As for the construction workers vs. cashiers, you're fuckin' A right they deserve every penny they make. During my college years, I earned some money doing construction. I had to carry shingles up to a roof when it was 95 degrees. I helped build a log cabin when it was 4 degrees above 0. That's the actual temperature; not the wind chill. I installed insulation in an attic during the summer. Construction workers routinely risk their lives. Ask my father about the two times he fell more than 20 feet.

And what the hell do cashiers do? Run products through laser scanners. Construction workers DESERVE more money.

As for your comments about the male technician vs. the females, your anecdote is virtually meaningless: Do they work for the same company? Is he a supervisor? How long has he been at the job? Is he kin to the owners? How good a job does he do?
Degree be damned; if I own the company, a high school graduate with 30 years of experience and an excellent record is going to make more money than some wet-behind-the-ears grads who may have cheated their way through college, for all I know.

[light strand]

Actually I addressed your complaint in the first sentence of my first post. Yes you have every right to be pissed. Do blacks not have the right to be pissed when their resume is discarded because they have an "ethnic" name?

Both technicians are roughly the same age (mid 20s), and both do generally the same work (running tests on laboratory equipment), except my technicians do a lot dirtier work than the optics tech. He has roughly two years of work experience and she has a BS. No they don't work for the same company. But they are both large publicly traded companies with roughly the same number of employees, except my pharmaceutical company makes much higher profits than the defense contractor for whom the optics tech works. They both do fine work, and are competent (the optics tech works for my husband). His department is 98% male, mine is 80% female. Both positions are in the Quality Control field.

I've notice that you have still failed to address the question of legacy points, those for male nurses, those awarded for socio-economic standing, and those for rural students. Do these people deserve to get in U of M before you, or is it just the blacks and women that piss you off.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Yes, lightstrand, they certainly do have the right. However, I remember that poster you mentioned, and some other Dopers made a good argument that he may have been lying. Myself, I think that he was telling the truth, but quit the board when he realized he was pissing off people, and some Dopers have the knowledge and brains to figure out who he is.

As to the technicians situation, I think the below quotation explains part of it. Unfortunately, the unions ain't what they used to be, and I suspect many other companies are maximizing thier profits by screwing their employees:
my pharmaceutical company makes much higher profits than the defense contractor for whom the optics tech works

As for the legacy points, here is my take on it:
10 points - Michigan Resident.
6 points - underrepresented Michigan county. These first two points are probably unjust, but I suspect that every state in the union discriminates against every other state. I know that Indiana's public colleges charge out-of-state students a helluva lot more money than in-state students.
2 points - underrepresented state. This is interesting. I honestly don't know what to say, except that I would probably drop if it I were setting policy.
Alumni
4 points - "legacy" (parents, step-parents)
1 point - other (grandparents, siblings, spouses) I am ambivalent about these. They are certainly unfair to students from non-alumn families. On the other hand, I find myself thinking that if alumni make donations to their universities and give help to university community, why should their children not be admitted, provided they meet the minimum standards?
Essay
1 point - outstanding essay (since 1999, 3 points). I would drop this, partially because cheating is very possible unless the essays are written in the presence of university representatives, and partially because students capable of outstanding literary work should have any English and/or intensive writing requirements waived.
Personal achievement
1 point - state
3 points - regional
5 points - national. Frankly, I don't understand what is meant by these. If it refers to academic contests, then I think any students capable of winning national or regional competitions -- hell, state competitions for that matter -- probably have the smarts to go just about anywhere they please
Leadership and service
1 point - state
3 points - regional
5 points - national. I would drop these on the grounds that I think academic qualifications should be the only standard for admitting students. I know other people differ on the value of community service, and they may be right. YMMV
Miscellaneous
20 points - socio-economic disadvantage. I would drop this. When I attended Indiana University Southeast, I was involved in extra-curricular activities and got to know a couple of professors well. One day, out of idle curiousity, I asked one of them what he thought of a certain secondary school system (an all-white school, I might add) that I used to attend before I transferred to the systeml I graduated from. He replied that he had a low opinion of that school as at least half of its students routinely flunked out. I should clarify my remarks above; I favor helping poor students financially, but only if they meet the academic criteria of schools. Many students from rural or inner-city schools will flunk out of a place like MIT simply because they don't have the academic preparation needed to succeed in such a demanding environment. To be fair, I would flunk out, too; I am not bright enough and disciplined enough to succeed in such a place.
20 points - underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education. Nope.
5 points - men in nursing. Bullshit. It goes, too.
20 points - scholarship athlete. Fuck 'em. As I said above, if the NBA and NFL are worried, let them start farm systems.
20 points - provost's discretion. This is the worst of all, I think. It definitely goes.

[even sven]

But you see, Peyote, college admission isn't some reward that people get because they automatically deserve it. Universities arn't in the business of selecting students by merit- they are in the business of selecting students who will make their campus livlier, more intellectual, and hopefully will go on to do great things. Few valedictorians go on to do great things. Most of them end up rank-and-file. It's the poets and mad scientists that go on to bring fame (and money) into their institution. And an environment of all validictorians may be studious, but it isn't likely to the most stimulating, innovative, eye-opening and challenging place to be. Colleges are far more interested in fostering debate and creativity, even in the sciences, then they are in creating another generation of kids that know how to study well and little else. It's the people that come up with something new that get the books published, the awards won, and the donations rolling in.

Ask youself, as a professor, would you rather have the kid with the 4.00, or the kid who put together an international AIDS outreach program? The kid that writes a brilliant essay about how she's going to save the world versus the five millionth 4.00 who wrote about the big meet on the math team? How about the kid thats gonna go back to his rich suburb to be a tax attorney vs the kid thats going back to be a public defender in the ghetto? Good grades don't mean much more than your good at getting good grades. They are only of limited use when trying to assess how far a person is going to go in life.

[Honesty]

Originally posted by Tezmac
I attended the University of New Mexico for 5 years and graduated last May. If I remember correctly, European Americans (to be PC) were the minorty at the school. Yet, every single scholarship fund was for Hispanics, African Americans, Asians etc. If I was to start up a European American Scholarhip Fund at the University, I would be labled a racist and be thrown out of school, even though I would be trying to attract more "minorty" students. Where is the affirmative action there? I was uneligible for pretty much every scholarship the campus offered simply because I am White, I mean European American. Where is the Affirmative Action or Equal Opportunity there?

Someone already posted this, but I think it is a fantastic analogy. Where is the Affirmative Action in the NBA and NFL "workplaces?" Shouldn't we force coaches and GM's to hire enough Whites, Asians and Native Americans to even out the racial bias on the playing fields? That would never fly, because anyone that proposed it would be considered a racist.

Affirmative Action is flat out wrong, why should I have to pay for the previous generations wrong doings? Then again you could say that minorities are paying for my previous generations wrong doings, but hell, my "ancestors" were poor Russians, moved here and became poor farmers in the midwest. What the hell did I or my family do to them? It's a messed up practice conjured up by some desperate messed up people. I'm suprised more minorites dont rise up and say "I dont need your handout!" I know my great-great-great-grandparents didn't.



Black guy and a University of Michigan student chiming in.

InquisitiveIdiot , you can rest assured that Affirmative Action will go away, the Supreme Court will undoubtedly abolish it. This is mainly due to the fact that conservative leap in the United States has pushed this country toward a darwinistic type society: that is, the one who succeeds (or survives) is the fittest and everyone who didn't make it was either lazy or simply 'unfit'.

Americans have metaphorically clasped their hands over their ears and chanted, "We are equal! We are equal! We are equal!" to the point that they actually feel that everyone is treated equally in America. Let me be the bearer of bad news: We're not.

In this country, it has been less than a hundred years since women were allowed to vote, a bit more than forty years since the civil rights movement, and Americans have the audacity to say, "Yep, we sure fixed that. Let's all be equal now. Got problems? Well just tough it out, you'll make it somehow." America is free only for those who are white, male, heterosexual and upper class. Honestly, just in March, the most idiotic case went before the Supreme Court: Can two men have sex in their own bedroom. Why is it so difficult for America's "free" to recognize that the rest of us aren't afforded the same privileges as them. I mean c'mon, two men can't have sex in their own bedroom for crying out loud.

The eradication of Affirmative Action will be the undoing of the civil right's movement. It will effect just the University admissions, then someone will take an "equal opportunity employer" to court and get that repealed as well on the same basis as AA. In this country, blacks are the jesters in American's twisted court of democracy. Long as we play basketball, football, sing our tunes, and entertain the masses we're ok. When blacks are given the opportunity for just a breath of a chance, America's "free" calls foul. The whole thing is just a pimp-slap to every minority in this country, in an atempt to tell us exactly who "our massa' be."


It all boils down to the fact that Affirmative Action was working. When Affirmative Action was being thought of in the use in colleges, I am sure the reagents just snickered to themselves and said, "Yea, we'll go ahead and let them in. They'll just get kicked out anyway because they won't be able to compete on level with white kids, but this way, they can't say we didn't give them a chance!" The look on their face when blacks were graduating, were getting high-paying jobs, and were succeeding must've been priceless.

So congrats, Conservatives. You'll finally have it your way. We're all equal. Everything is fine. Rainbows and Skittles. Or whatever you guys say that allows you to sleep better at night.


Brian R. Stephens
LS&A Junior

[Philly Style]

AA addresses the failure of the public grade schools / high schools
in the US. Rather then prepare the many, lets only help the few.

Any system that assumes one or more groups are unable to compete on an equal footing institutionalizes racism. There is the assumption on inequality.

Do hiring managers view minority candidate through a prism that says this person didn't really earn the right to be here?

Fix the root cause and the point becomes moot. Pull out the life line now, and write off at least two generations.

At the end of all that, obviously, and practice that favors any group on the basis of race/gender, is discrimination. The question is, have we created a society where this "evil" has to exist?

[pizzabrat]

Have you taken a look at thisthread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=181123)? Read the responses. Like I said, racism is going nowhere.

InquisitiveIdot
You don't get a reward. You get fined if you don't hire them. And you HAVE to accept it.

That's not what his example said.

So you're telling me to stop whining, and let society have it's way with my rear end, solely on the basis of my race?

So how have you been hurt by AA?

[phraser]

originally posted by The Peyote Coyote
I never claimed that women took my place in college; I asked why I should be happy if I had superior academic qualifications, yet was rejected in order to admit a less qualified woman or black. I notice you failed to address that.

You don't have to be happy (I don't think anyone who worked hard to get into college would be happy if they didn't get in), but understanding that the woman or person of a minority ethnic background might not have been able to get the academic qualifications you did because of the fact that they're female or of an ethnic minority (eg, the librarian discriminated against them and wouldn't hold materials that they requested for an assignment when this was done for other students, or that they were bashed up and had their notes/books/etc defaced and stolen by other students, or that their family was economically disadvantaged and they didn't get as much time to do homework as they wanted because they had to work, or because their teachers were biased against them in the way they marked because of race/gender), and taking this on board, and considering that they may also be worthy of a place (and might have got similar academic qualifications, all things being equal) would be good. I don't think it's such a bad thing to discriminate on potential, especially if the person hasn't had equal chances in their background.

Granted, this stuff doesn't just happen to women or minority groups, but women and minority groups seem to be overrepresented in having stuff like this happen to them.

Count me in favour of affirmative action, even though it isn't much used in this country, except voluntarily by organisations working for diversity.

[athelas]

So how have you been hurt by AA?

Every slot that is taken by a less-than-qualified minority (or legacy guy, or Michigan resident) forces out a potential student. That's one reason why AA has been accepted more easily...it's easier to identify those helped by it than those hurt. However, they are in equilibrium

[pizzabrat]

Every slot that is taken by a less-than-qualified minority (or legacy guy, or Michigan resident) forces out a potential student. That's one reason why AA has been accepted more easily...it's easier to identify those helped by it than those hurt. However, they are in equilibrium

That doesn't even make sense. If they got in, they were qualified. It's the recruiter who determines who's qualified, not anyone else.

Basically, some arrogant losers with a ridiculous sense of entitlement couldn't get into college so they blamed minorities. Suddenly it becomes national debate.

[Splanky]

Basically, some arrogant losers with a ridiculous sense of entitlement couldn't get into college so they blamed minorities. Suddenly it becomes national debate.

No. If you didn't know already, many colleges are extremely selective. It isn't about being "qualified". Spots are being taken away from individuals who otherwise would have been accepted if it weren't from AA. That is the situation, plain and simple. And even moreso, their spots are being filled by people who otherwise would not have been accepted if it weren't for AA.

I don't think it is the court's job to determine if a minority deserves special treatment in something because of disadvantages they may have faced in their life. That is awfully subjective and doesn't face the issue. Not getting taxis, getting bad looks from cops, this has nothing at all to do with education, and happens to whites and Asians all the same.

It all boils down to this: Whoever is most deserving of the spot should get it, case closed.

There are better solutions than this in my opinion. Why punish companies who don't have a diverse work force? If anything, this will hurt businesses. Making it easier for one group to get in to a college who has had a hard time does get them into college, but sure as hell doesn't make them any more qualified. It just gives them another reason to lay back and not strive to do better. Go after primary schools if you want to see improvement.

I think that this is just another in the long list of those easy solutions that our government thinks up that doesn't really address the real problem, and ends up failing.

[pizzabrat]

Splanky:
No. If you didn't know already, many colleges are extremely selective. It isn't about being "qualified". Spots are being taken away from individuals who otherwise would have been accepted if it weren't from AA. That is the situation, plain and simple. And even moreso, their spots are being filled by people who otherwise would not have been accepted if it weren't for AA.

What's your point? What if schools decided to reduce admission altogether. Then those first students mentioned still wouldn't be able to get in. Would that be better somehow, as long as certain minorities aren't benefiting?


It all boils down to this: Whoever is most deserving of the spot should get it, case closed.

I agree. So who determines who's most deserving of the spot?

I think that this is just another in the long list of those easy solutions that our government thinks up that doesn't really address the real problem, and ends up failing.

What's the real problem?

[phraser]

This report is from the Courier-Mail (the newspaper of Brisbane, Australia) from page 17 on May 7, 2003:

It's a boy, so let's go get married

A (sic) unmarried woman who gives birth to a boy is more likely to marry the father than if she has a girl.

Men not only value sons more but little girls are more likely to grow up poor, according to researchers.

Writing in the May issue of the journal Demography, University of Washington academics Elaina Rose and colleague Shelly Lundberg said they found fathers of sons spent more money on their families and worked more overtime hours than the fathers of girls.

The economists analysed data from a national study of 600 children born to single mothers and found a woman was 42 times more likely to marry the father of her son than seh was to marry the father of a girl.

Unmarried mothers of boys were 11 percent more likely to find a husband - even a husband who was not the child's biological father - than those with girls.

Ms Lundberg said this was bad news for girls because children from single parent homes were more likely to be poor.

"Some men probably see a biological son as their immortality," Professor Rose said. "It's a little 'me'."

The real problem is the systematic inequality that many people who aren't white, male, straight and christian face. Affirmative action is a step towards addressing this inequality. Until straight white male christians accept that the inequality exists and start doing things to address it, so that the playing field may truly be level, things won't change, rendering affirmative action a necessary but evil stopgap.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Until straight white male christians accept that the inequality exists and start doing things to address it, so that the playing field may truly be level, things won't changeIf you're going to make that claim, I would like a list of demands. Since I don't feel that I'm racist, tell me what I can do to prove it, then tell me what government office I can go to to apply for minority status to receive equal treatment under the law. If there's nothing I as an individual can do, or if there is no where I can apply, you're doing nothing but blowing hot air. Saying that an entire segment of the population should be punished because there are still some backwater racist shitheads out there doesn't cut it.



Affirmative action is a step towards addressing this inequality.None of you seem to get it. Alright. I'll try to lay it out once more.

1) Discrimination is wrong. It should not be present in any aspect to society.

2) Legalized discrimination is doubly wrong. It's the government, that fair and impartial body, pushing/forcing discrimination of one kind or other on the country. It was the civil rights movement's biggest target. Once the government cannot pass discriminating laws, the first and largest step towards true equality is taken.

3) Affirmative action is discrimination. I honestly hope everyone can agree with me on this. I'm not going to take the trouble of explaining the obvious.

4) Affirmative action, as legally enforced discrimination, is just as wrong as Jim Crow laws and grandfather clauses, which did the same thing in the opposite direction.

5) Affirmative action therefore should not exist in an ethical government body.

Yes, there is still work to be done. Yes, there is still racism. But affirmative action by its very nature should not be the method by which these inequalities are corrected. The end does not justify the means.

To those who claim that "It's just a temporary evil. Shut up and live with it." Who says when it's over? The minorities benefiting from it? The white males being hurt by it? What safeguards are in place to keep it from getting out of check? Surely you would not be so stupid as to have no expiration date, or some other set-in-stone metric. Could it possibly be unneccesary now? The opinion of the majority of society is that everyone is equal. There are still a few racist people yes, but there are also still amish. The world will move on without them. Minorities will continue to climb the rungs of corporate ladders on their own merit. In summary, who says when enough is enough?

[holmes]

The opinion of the majority of society is that everyone is equal.

You have to know that isn't true. You have to. If I can't admit that, then this will never end.

In everyway Blacks are treated differently, from medicine (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/racial_healthcare990224.html) to being pulled over (http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11565&c=133) people are not being treated equally.

So what do we do? How do we fix this? You have generations of people who never got their fair due. I'm not talking about a string of bad luck or bad decisions or one family member who got treated badly. But Millions of people, for hundreds of years...millions of them.

I keep hearing that two wrongs don't make a right and that's fine when you're ten and break your brother's toy because he broke yours. It's different when you're talking about finally righting a wrong. We as a nation have to make this right.

4) Affirmative action, as legally enforced discrimination, is just as wrong as Jim Crow laws and grandfather clauses, which did the same thing in the opposite direction.


You're talking degrees here and motivation. No one wants or believes that affirmative action was designed to prevent all whites from going to any school or Job or having any power in the world which Jim Crow was created to do. You realize what the purpose of Jim Crow (http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating.htm) was right?

Why is it different? Because All whites weren't denied an education or a job and further only an person who is dishonest believes that there are less opportunities overall for that same "Discriminated" white as opposed to a black or woman. Every white student in the UofM got into college, not the one they wanted, but they did go to school. The big bad government didn't forbid them from going to any school...try that under Jim Crow. Funny thing is, if a black person had cried discrimination, they would be called whinners.....

Let me ask you this, what do you propose we do? What's your answer? How do we create an equal society, when the society was never equal in the first place?

How do we make this right? or do we just keep ignoring the problem and be glad that it's not us?

The world isn't fair nor just, but sometimes we can attempt to make it so, but only if we are willing to sacrifice a little bit of our own convenience.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Let me ask you this, what do you propose we do? What's your answer? How do we create an equal society, when the society was never equal in the first place?

How do we make this right? or do we just keep ignoring the problem and be glad that it's not us?
Easy. Instead of enforcing a policy that is just as unethical as the problem it's trying to fix, take care of the causes of that problem, and find ethical ways to accomplish the same results.

Diversity in education is IMO making the largest strides toward equality. Once people begin to see that other ways of doing things are just as valid as theirs, surface differences begin to matter less and less. Look how far education has managed to bring society. And don't tell me it's because of affirmative action. If people don't already support it, they generally dislike it once they understand it enough.

Couple education- the elimination of the roots of racism- with nonracial laws that do effectively the same thing and you pretty much have a solution. One example of a nonracial way of looking at the problem would be to base decisions on socioeconomic status rather than race. That way, people who honestly have had to overcome difficulties to succeed are rewarded, as opposed to saying "All minorities are discriminated against and no whites are, therefore all minorities deserve to be treated better than all whites"

Of course, keep in mind that I'm not advocating legalizing discrimination for anyone. The current anti-discriminatory laws should be kept, in that if you feel you have been discriminated against in employment or what have you, you should have legal recourse.



To address a few points I've been neglecting:

1) legacy points-
I have always disliked legacy points. In my opinion, it should be merit and merit alone that gets you anywhere in this world. But I don't think they should be outlawed for private industry. If businesses want to use them, they should be able to. But also, if they don't want to use them, they shouldn't have to.

2) So how have you been hurt by AA?
I have had, in my experience, a much harder time getting jobs than my minority friends, despite the fact that I have considerably better qualifications than some of them. Sometimes the job search is so frustratingly uneven that I would be tempted to sue, were I a minority. As it is, I have no chance of winning. Basically, everything I've said here.

[holmes]

Diversity in education is IMO making the largest strides toward equality. Once people begin to see that other ways of doing things are just as valid as theirs, surface differences begin to matter less and less. Look how far education has managed to bring society. And don't tell me it's because of affirmative action. If people don't already support it, they generally dislike it once they understand it enough.


I agree with you...in principle, but in reality most schools are segregated as are most neighbourhoods. Where are you going to find to create diversity unless you create it?

I didn't see any diversity until I went to college...guess what, it was committed to affirmative action and that was in the 80's.


One example of a nonracial way of looking at the problem would be to base decisions on socioeconomic status rather than race.

i agree again, but once again, reality check...most poor people in America are white, because there are more white people. If you go solely by numbers, there's no way to create diversity, i think there's about 13% or so of African-Americans and in some states African-Americans may only be 1%. That won't work.

I have had, in my experience, a much harder time getting jobs than my minority friends, despite the fact that I have considerably better qualifications than some of them. Sometimes the job search is so frustratingly uneven that I would be tempted to sue, were I a minority. As it is, I have no chance of winning. Basically, everything I've said here.

How do you know it was ONLY because you were white? I've taken and given many interviews and sometimes, employers just don't like you...because of you. Perhaps that 'chip' is clouding your judgement? Not to say that you're not right, but once again, if a black man said that he would be considered 'paranoid' or blaming 'the man' for his own short-comings.

Being on the stickly end on the stick, sucks.....

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I wasn't talking about evening up the education system in terms of the diversity of the students going there. I was talking about the material taught to the students at school. If bigotry is denounced at the school level, it would have more effect then forcing everyone to be bigots, IMO.

i agree again, but once again, reality check...most poor people in America are white, because there are more white people.Okay... suppose you have a poor white person, going to a poor underfunded school. Wouldn't that person have to overcome more than everyone else, just to compete on a even level? Doesn't that person deserve the same help that is currently reserved only for minorities? Isn't that what the entire program is about?

How do you know it was ONLY because you were white? I've taken and given many interviews and sometimes, employers just don't like you...because of you. Perhaps that 'chip' is clouding your judgement? Not to say that you're not right, but once again, if a black man said that he would be considered 'paranoid' or blaming 'the man' for his own short-comings.Very true. But how do you know discrimination against minorities goes on at all? Perhaps many employers don't like them... because of them? The answer: yes, you can write off a few jobs lost because of the personality factor. But there comes a point at which the differences are too great to simply say, "well, maybe they were better suited for the job than I was." If there were no circumstances in which one could say "I should have gotten the job", discrimination lawsuits would be impossible to enforce. But the fact remains that there are.

[holmes]

Okay... suppose you have a poor white person, going to a poor underfunded school. Wouldn't that person have to overcome more than everyone else, just to compete on a even level? Doesn't that person deserve the same help that is currently reserved only for minorities? Isn't that what the entire program is about?



First of all U of M gives points to poor whites, going to a poor underfunded school. i don't know what other schools do, but U of M is doing exactly what you want.

here (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-03/20wise.cfm)

Very true. But how do you know discrimination against minorities goes on at all? Perhaps many employers don't like them... because of them? The answer: yes, you can write off a few jobs lost because of the personality factor. But there comes a point at which the differences are too great to simply say, "well, maybe they were better suited for the job than I was." If there were no circumstances in which one could say "I should have gotten the job", discrimination lawsuits would be impossible to enforce. But the fact remains that there are.

The way you tell is by pattern, there is always a pattern. If every job you applied for and didn't get, you could show that every other white person was also denied and a black person was hired you have a case. If you can't then you don't. That's the criteria...real simple.

If it's just you, then it's just you.

[XT]

Hispanic man, and University of Arizona GRADUATE chiming in:

Wasn't going to get into this, just lurk, but I hate this whinning "I'm a minority, pity me you white male bastards" crapola...it just makes me grit my teeth. In my family, we were raised that, in spite of our 'race' or sex, we could do anything in this country. Certainly, we can do a lot more than we could of if our family would of stayed in Mexico.


Honesty writes:

"In this country, it has been less than a hundred years since women were allowed to vote, a bit more than forty years since the civil rights movement, and Americans have the audacity to say, "Yep, we sure fixed that. Let's all be equal now. Got problems? Well just tough it out, you'll make it somehow."

To me, this makes a great point...but its a point I'm sure he didn't intend. Its only been "less than a hundred years" since women could vote...and "a bit more than forty years since the civil rights movement". Yet look at the progress we've made!! Women not only vote, but are out in the work place, in force. One of the engineers I work with is a woman, and she is one of the best engineers I've ever worked with. We have the same amount of experience, and while I have a college degree, she has a lot of experience...and we make the same salary. Fancy that. My boss is black. I've never seen him be asked to dance or sing, Honesty, but he IS a top notch engineer and administrator. He wasn't hired 'cause he's black, he was hired 'cause he's GOOD. I asked him if the white man is keeping him down while I was writing this, and he just laughed and said 'bullshit'.

The race barriers ARE coming down. In my fathers day, mixed couples were almost unheard of, even in Arizona. I still remember my dad lecturing me on not trying to date 'white girls', cause I'd only be bringing myself trouble (kind of dates me). I'm now married to one of those 'white girls', and looking around, I see a LOT of mixed couples these days (and I rejoice when I do...to me its a clear sign that things have changed). Open your eyes and you'll SEE that things are better. Are they perfect? Nope. We have a long way to go still. But, every generation seems to get better and more integrated...IMO anyway.

In my grandfathers day, he could work on a farm, picking lettuce, or MAYBE, if he was really lucky, he could work construction. When my grandfather died, my family was forced to go on welfare just to survive. My father went into the military to get an education, and now he owns his own company through his own guts and will. Myself, I'm a senior network engineer for Williams and I like to think that I got my position because I'm good, not 'cause I'm hispanic. How have the white boys kept my family down? We excelled in spite of them, and now they HAVE to respect us. And now, they have to ACCEPT us too, because things have changed. My dad talks of when he was a boy and people called him a 'spic', and did all kinds of things to him and my family I won't bring up...anyone calls ME that and they will get a boot up the ass. You know its true...how maybe white boys would call you 'niger' now?? Not any that expected to live through the encounter, I'm sure. And they'd KNOW they were in the wrong, too. Yet, 30 years ago, it was common place. Sure, maybe some of that ingrained prejudice has gone underground, but some of it has washed away as well...as one of the posters said, time heals all wounds.

Honesty writes:

"Long as we play basketball, football, sing our tunes, and entertain the masses we're ok. When blacks are given the opportunity for just a breath of a chance, America's "free" calls foul. The whole thing is just a pimp-slap to every minority in this country, in an atempt to tell us exactly who "our massa' be."

:mad: All I can say to you is, I don't NEED the white boys to GIVE me anything. In THIS country, its there for the taking, if you have the will and the guts to take it...the white boys can't stop you, if you REALLY want to do something. Maybe it is a bit harder for me (or you perhaps) to make it, though I think thats not as much the case as it once was, but you CAN make it, if you want too. If you really think its so bad, go back and look at whatever is your 'old country' and see how much better things are there (*snort*), were everyone is your same 'race'. I still have family in mexico, and to me, this country is heaven on earth compared to there.

AA played a part in getting us where we are today. Without it, I'm sure my family would still be picking lettuce somewhere, or maybe have the coveted mechanic or construction job if they were REALLY lucky (I certainly used the grants to help get me through college). But its time is past. Its counter productive now. Now is the time to heal, and to allow time itself to weld us into one nation of AMERICANS, not a bunch of splinter groups.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic on this, but I see the progression from how things were in the past, to today, and I'm amazed by the progress we've made. Considering we are the ONLY country in the world with the mix of different races and religions that we have, its telling (and amazing to me at least) that we have so few problems...and its also telling that we are the greatest country on the earth as well.

But thats just my opinion...I could be wrong.

-XT

p.s. I appologize if this was more a rant than a reply to the OP. Reading back through this, I guess most of its the subject for another thread entirely.

[Swoop]

Affirmitive action is complete horseshit. NAY.

Discriminating against a person because of their skin colour is racism, no matter what colour the skin is. Some people describe AA as reverse racism, but it's just plain racism.
Here in South Africa, AA is government enforced. There is something called the Equity bill, which more or less states that there has to be racial distribution across a certain percentage of any company's employees (or the company faces stiff fines). There have been many jobs in the last few years which were/are described as "Affirmitive action only" in their placement adverts. This is no different to "No whites". NO DIFFERENT. Inevitably, you end up with posts being filled with unqualified or unskilled people, or simply, not the ideal candidates. The filter "business" effect on the companies/government is noticeable and irrefutable. More difficult to pin down is the social consequence, the resentment and anger harboured towards people who are given jobs because they had the right skin colour. There's also the flipside - knowing you got a job because of your skin, not because of what you know or can do. Most of them do not want it that way, and the situation is disagreeable to all involved.

As has been mentioned, AA only perpetuates racism, it can never hope to end it.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

xtisme, thank you for your post. I always feel that keeping this argument from being completely segregated helps a lot in keeping focus on the issues rather than the combatants.

First of all U of M gives points to poor whites, going to a poor underfunded school. i don't know what other schools do, but U of M is doing exactly what you want.The fact that it's using a socioeconomic program instead of a wholly racial one is good. The fact that it's still using race to determine who gets accepted is not, and is still racism.

And your link is hooey, btw. The argument present there basically boils down to, "You've had your chance for hundreds of years. It's our turn now, so shut up and bend over, whitey!" The argument is not a very valid one considering my ancestors immigrated fairly recently and became poor farmers, not rich businessmen. As I've mentioned earlier, the area I'm from is very hispanic, so discrimination has in fact run the other way for me. I've yet to see any of the highly touted implicit benefits of being white that the author of your article claims to be "like water to a fish." So enlighten me.

[holmes]

And your link is hooey, btw.

The link is opinion and should be taken as such, the facts of how UofM is using AA is not. Agree with the author's opinions or not.....

The point was to show that poor whites were getting the short end as was suggested. They're not.

If you don't understand or see the advantage of being white in America, over non-whites no matter what your social/ecomonic background is, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

A simple google on Race in America.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

If you don't understand or see the advantage of being white in America, over non-whites no matter what your social/ecomonic background is, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise."If you're not going to get it, you never will."

I love it. I negates all other arguments by its mere existence.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

If you don't understand or see the advantage of being white in America, over non-whites no matter what your social/ecomonic background is, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise."If you don't already get it, you never will."

I love it. I negates all other arguments by its mere existence.

[Francis E Dec, Esq]

Here's my 2 cents: The only way to make permanent advances in eradicating prejudices is to take a firm, consistent stance that skin color and other superficialities are irrelevant, period. You cannot eradicate racism with policies grounded in the notion of race. As long people accept that race is a valid basis for discrimination at all, then there will be who do so in unreasonable and hateful ways.

My personal reaction is that giving extra admission points to a particular group is insulting and amounts to an official recognition that members of the group in question are not good enough to be held to the same standards. Such policies perpetuate the assumption that the group is inferior.

[Honesty]

Originally posted by Swoop
Affirmitive action is complete horseshit. NAY.

Discriminating against a person because of their skin colour is racism, no matter what colour the skin is. Some people describe AA as reverse racism, but it's just plain racism.
Here in South Africa, AA is government enforced. There is something called the Equity bill, which more or less states that there has to be racial distribution across a certain percentage of any company's employees (or the company faces stiff fines). There have been many jobs in the last few years which were/are described as "Affirmitive action only" in their placement adverts. This is no different to "No whites". NO DIFFERENT. Inevitably, you end up with posts being filled with unqualified or unskilled people, or simply, not the ideal candidates. The filter "business" effect on the companies/government is noticeable and irrefutable. More difficult to pin down is the social consequence, the resentment and anger harboured towards people who are given jobs because they had the right skin colour. There's also the flipside - knowing you got a job because of your skin, not because of what you know or can do. Most of them do not want it that way, and the situation is disagreeable to all involved.

As has been mentioned, AA only perpetuates racism, it can never hope to end it.


Oh give me a friggin break.

South Africa has been the red-headed stepchild of Africa, used primarily as a resort for rich white people. It's been less than 15 years since blacks (who are indeginous to the area for goodness sakes) were allowed just basic freedoms.

South Africa was doing just fine before the white man came and said, "LOLOLOL!!!! Let's trot into their homeland with our kool weapons, discriminate against them and call it 'apartness!' ROFLOLOL." The fact of the matter is, South Africa was doing just great, once they were "released" from Great Britain in the 30's, the white people (who were in the minority) should have just left instead of trying to establish Apartheid.

Affirmative Action doesn't perpetuate racism, it is the fruits of white people (not you specifically) have planted years ago. For example, I am sure the number of hate crimes against whites wouldn't be so excruciatingly high if Dr. Malan didn't plan the seeds of Apartheid decades ago. Since the abolishment of Apartheid, the crime rates against whites by blacks have exploded. Can you guess WHY that is? Hmm?

White people have benefited enormously, for decades in South Africa. Give the people who actually have birthright there a chance too. Good grief.

Brian Stephens

[Honesty]

Originally posted by Francis E Dec, Esq
Here's my 2 cents: The only way to make permanent advances in eradicating prejudices is to take a firm, consistent stance that skin color and other superficialities are irrelevant, period. You cannot eradicate racism with policies grounded in the notion of race. As long people accept that race is a valid basis for discrimination at all, then there will be who do so in unreasonable and hateful ways.

My personal reaction is that giving extra admission points to a particular group is insulting and amounts to an official recognition that members of the group in question are not good enough to be held to the same standards. Such policies perpetuate the assumption that the group is inferior.


But skin color isn't irrelavent. Skin color determines where you live, where school you go to, how you will be treated by law officials, and the list goes on and on. Skin color isn't irrelavent and don't let anyone else tell you that it isn't.

I'm black, live in a very poor area in Detroit, and the fact that I got into the University of Michigan through Affirmative Action has given me a chance. Just for example, Kettering High School (In Detroit) has an average ACT score of 14 while if you were to choose Andover High School in Birmingham (I believe that's the city) has an average ACT score of 23. Detroit is over 90% black.

According to the [url=http://www.detroitk12.org/data/ACTSummary.html Detroit Board of Education[/url], the mean ACT score for their high schools is 16. Do you think any Detroit kid will get into any kind of University with a 16 ACT score? Do you really? Can you say that they can with a straight face? Affirmative Action attempts to give those students, who normally would not get in, a chance to go to a prestigious University.

Whether YOU or anyone likes it or not, blacks are graduating from these schools and they are performing extremely well despite setbacks. When we're all equal, when color doesn't determine anything in life, when the word "Inner City" is something is referred our history books as a trecherous time in history is when Affirmative Action should go away.

But never fear. The Supreme Court will rule that Affirmative Action is unconstitutional because we've moved to a social dawarnistic society. So you'll have your wish: black people will be here for your athletic and musical entertainment and to take your order at your local fast food restaurant.


Peace,

Brian Stephens

[Honesty]

Yikes,

Excuse the misspellings in that post. They won't let me edit my post. :(


B

[robertliguori]

But skin color isn't irrelavent. Skin color determines where you live, where school you go to, how you will be treated by law officials, and the list goes on and on. Skin color isn't irrelavent and don't let anyone else tell you that it isn't.


Er, it kind of is. There is a significant correlation between skin color and income, and income and all those other things. But race influences said factors primarily through income. You said it yourself: you live in a poor area, which happens to be mostly black.

Do you think any Detroit kid will get into any kind of University with a 16 ACT score?

If you posit that the ACT means something, and that 16 is an insufficent score to attend a university, why does it matter where the kid came from?
Also, do you agree that AA shafts poor white kids?

[Honesty]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Er, it kind of is. There is a significant correlation between skin color and income, and income and all those other things. But race influences said factors primarily through income. You said it yourself: you live in a poor area, which happens to be mostly black.

If you posit that the ACT means something, and that 16 is an insufficent score to attend a university, why does it matter where the kid came from?
Also, do you agree that AA shafts poor white kids?

On the scale, at the University of Michigan, you would get 0 points for a score of 16. You can get points deducted off based on the quality of the school. As you can see at that website, Detroit Public Schools are the bottom rung. Heck, the average building date on DPS is 1937. They are outdated and woefully unprepared. Detroit Public Schools offers curriculum like cosmetology, auto repair, all in an attempt to siphon minorities toward low-paying, blue-collar jobs.


Now, do I agree that Affirmative Action shafts poor white kids? No, I don't. The reason is that a poor white kid gets as many points as a poor black kid. In fact, those poor white kids probably get accepted at a much higher rate than black kids. Simply because coming from "Trailer Park" cities like Warren or Redford don't have such broken school systems.

I am a University of Michigan student and I can tell you that I don't see all of these black people running around. We are in the minority. Just for example, I stay in East Quad (It's a dorm) and out of 40-50 kids in my hall, there are only three black people (including me), two hispanic, and the rest are all white or asian. My students in my classes have similar racial gradients.

I just don't see where the whole, "These lazy black folks are taking all of the white spots!" is coming from but there sure isn't many of us here to begin with.

Don't worry, Affirmative Action is going away, and black people can continue to entertain the masses on TV with basketball and football. You can be rest assured that once Affirmative Action goes away, then its sister, the Equal Opportunity (aka Executive Order 11246) will be struck down as well. Once this is done, America will have chained the next generation of minorities to poverty. This'll be perfect, we'll be in our little uniforms behind the microphone saying, "Yes, massah, would you like fries with that?"

In my eyes, when opponents of Affirmative Action say, "We're not racist," I just shake my head in disgust. Willing Affirmation Action away is the undoing of the civil right's movement. The Civil Right's movement brought these laws into being. Without them, blacks are in the same position without the exception of Jim Crow -- though I have a hinting suspicion that'll be coming back too.

When the Supreme Court rules that Affirmative Action is unconsitutional -- which they will, I just can't see them ruling any other way, especially after listening to the hearing. Who wants to start taking bets when Equal Opportunity is struck down too?

Peace,

Brian Stephens

[Honesty]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Er, it kind of is. There is a significant correlation between skin color and income, and income and all those other things. But race influences said factors primarily through income. You said it yourself: you live in a poor area, which happens to be mostly black.

If you posit that the ACT means something, and that 16 is an insufficent score to attend a university, why does it matter where the kid came from?
Also, do you agree that AA shafts poor white kids?

On the scale, at the University of Michigan, you would get 0 points for a score of 16. You can get points deducted off based on the quality of the school. As you can see at that website, Detroit Public Schools are the bottom rung. Heck, the average building date on DPS is 1937. They are outdated and woefully unprepared. Detroit Public Schools offers curriculum like cosmetology, auto repair, all in an attempt to siphon minorities toward low-paying, blue-collar jobs.


Now, do I agree that Affirmative Action shafts poor white kids? No, I don't. The reason is that a poor white kid gets as many points as a poor black kid. In fact, those poor white kids probably get accepted at a much higher rate than black kids. Simply because coming from "Trailer Park" cities like Warren or Redford don't have such broken school systems.

I am a University of Michigan student and I can tell you that I don't see all of these black people running around. We are in the minority. Just for example, I stay in East Quad (It's a dorm) and out of 40-50 kids in my hall, there are only three black people (including me), two hispanic, and the rest are all white or asian. My students in my classes have similar racial gradients.

I just don't see where the whole, "These lazy black folks are taking all of the white spots!" is coming from but there sure isn't many of us here to begin with.

Don't worry, Affirmative Action is going away, and black people can continue to entertain the masses on TV with basketball and football. You can be rest assured that once Affirmative Action goes away, then its sister, the Equal Opportunity (aka Executive Order 11246) will be struck down as well. Once this is done, America will have chained the next generation of minorities to poverty. This'll be perfect, we'll be in our little uniforms behind the microphone saying, "Yes, massah, would you like fries with that?"

In my eyes, when opponents of Affirmative Action say, "We're not racist," I just shake my head in disgust. Willing Affirmation Action away is the undoing of the civil right's movement. The Civil Right's movement brought these laws into being. Without them, blacks are in the same position without the exception of Jim Crow -- though I have a hinting suspicion that'll be coming back too.

When the Supreme Court rules that Affirmative Action is unconsitutional -- which they will, I just can't see them ruling any other way, especially after listening to the hearing. Who wants to start taking bets when Equal Opportunity is struck down too?

Peace,

Brian Stephens

[Honesty]

<SIGH> Sorry for posting this a gillion times. I thought my browser wasn't actually doin that

[Back Lot Brawl]

Originally posted by Honesty

You can be rest assured that once Affirmative Action goes away, then its sister, the Equal Opportunity (aka Executive Order 11246) will be struck down as well. Once this is done, America will have chained the next generation of minorities to poverty. This'll be perfect, we'll be in our little uniforms behind the microphone saying, "Yes, massah, would you like fries with that?"



Asians are already ineligible for affirmative action, yet they're the least "chained to poverty" of any minority group.

[robertliguori]

Originally posted by Honesty
On the scale, at the University of Michigan, you would get 0 points for a score of 16. You can get points deducted off based on the quality of the school. As you can see at that website, Detroit Public Schools are the bottom rung. Heck, the average building date on DPS is 1937. They are outdated and woefully unprepared. Detroit Public Schools offers curriculum like cosmetology, auto repair, all in an attempt to siphon minorities toward low-paying, blue-collar jobs.


We agree that the Detroit Public school system could use some work. But you didn't answer my question: positing that the tests are fair, if a student from an upper-crust private school should be denied admission on the basis of a 16, shouldn't everyone else as well?


Now, do I agree that Affirmative Action shafts poor white kids? No, I don't. The reason is that a poor white kid gets as many points as a poor black kid. In fact, those poor white kids probably get accepted at a much higher rate than black kids. Simply because coming from "Trailer Park" cities like Warren or Redford don't have such broken school systems.


I'm willing to bet that you can find a school system as bad that is predominantly white, if for no other reason than they are a majority. Again I reiterate: what provisions would affirmative action include for a hypothetical white student in this school system? And, if you are willing to let this student be lost in the noise, why should the rest of us not be willing to let the entire Detroit school system be similarly lost?



I am a University of Michigan student and I can tell you that I don't see all of these black people running around. We are in the minority. Just for example, I stay in East Quad (It's a dorm) and out of 40-50 kids in my hall, there are only three black people (including me), two hispanic, and the rest are all white or asian. My students in my classes have similar racial gradients.


Well, come to Virginia Tech. I'm not doing demographic surveys, but we have a veritable spectrum of students on my hall alone.



I just don't see where the whole, "These lazy black folks are taking all of the white spots!" is coming from but there sure isn't many of us here to begin with.


Well, for some, affirmative action policies did end up denying them a position.



Don't worry, Affirmative Action is going away, and black people can continue to entertain the masses on TV with basketball and football. You can be rest assured that once Affirmative Action goes away, then its sister, the Equal Opportunity (aka Executive Order 11246) will be struck down as well. Once this is done, America will have chained the next generation of minorities to poverty. This'll be perfect, we'll be in our little uniforms behind the microphone saying, "Yes, massah, would you like fries with that?"

In my eyes, when opponents of Affirmative Action say, "We're not racist," I just shake my head in disgust. Willing Affirmation Action away is the undoing of the civil right's movement. The Civil Right's movement brought these laws into being. Without them, blacks are in the same position without the exception of Jim Crow -- though I have a hinting suspicion that'll be coming back too.

When the Supreme Court rules that Affirmative Action is unconsitutional -- which they will, I just can't see them ruling any other way, especially after listening to the hearing. Who wants to start taking bets when Equal Opportunity is struck down too?

Peace,

Brian Stephens

:rolleyes: on you. Would you like the simple version?
Racial discrimination is bad. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race. Affirmative action, therefore, is bad.

Also, I think that your assumption that black people need AA to be both fundamentally flawed (based on the number of black students in my classes who were academically kicking my ass) and intrinsically racist. Why should black students be given any special consideration, as opposed to poor students?

[Honesty]

Originally posted by robertliguori
We agree that the Detroit Public school system could use some work. But you didn't answer my question: positing that the tests are fair, if a student from an upper-crust private school should be denied admission on the basis of a 16, shouldn't everyone else as well?

I'm willing to bet that you can find a school system as bad that is predominantly white, if for no other reason than they are a majority. Again I reiterate: what provisions would affirmative action include for a hypothetical white student in this school system? And, if you are willing to let this student be lost in the noise, why should the rest of us not be willing to let the entire Detroit school system be similarly lost?


Well, come to Virginia Tech. I'm not doing demographic surveys, but we have a veritable spectrum of students on my hall alone.


Well, for some, affirmative action policies did end up denying them a position.



:rolleyes: on you. Would you like the simple version?
Racial discrimination is bad. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race. Affirmative action, therefore, is bad.

Also, I think that your assumption that black people need AA to be both fundamentally flawed (based on the number of black students in my classes who were academically kicking my ass) and intrinsically racist. Why should black students be given any special consideration, as opposed to poor students?


Poor students do get consideration.

Affirmative Action didn't deny white students anything. University of Michigan has said over and ove again that not taking race into account would raise a white student's chance of getting into the school by 1%.

University of Michigan has said this over and over again. Everyone just wants to ignore it.

How many coconuts has to hit you people on the head before it sinks in?

... 1,000,001

..... 1,000,002

....... 1,000,003


Nucifera-Shaker Brian

[Honesty]

Originally posted by Back Lot Brawl
Asians are already ineligible for affirmative action, yet they're the least "chained to poverty" of any minority group.



Asians don't have the history of adversity in the United States seen by African Americans, women, and hispanics. Asians didn't have to launch a civil right's movement, they didn't have Jim Crow, their ancestors weren't driven off to South America, nor do they have a history of repeated discrimination. While I acknowledge the struggles Asians went through during the SF gold rush and through WWII; the latter, the United States at least compensated them. I am still waiting for my check. If they aren't going to give blacks reperations, then the very least should be to fix the school system.

Asians, as a race, are just like the Irish, German, or any European country when they come to the US. You'll never see Wakiziki Yiroshima on the capital asking for civil right's because Asians were, more or less, afforded those privileges.

Sesame Brian

[Back Lot Brawl]

Originally posted by Honesty
Asians don't have the history of adversity in the United States seen by African Americans, women, and hispanics. Asians didn't have to launch a civil right's movement, they didn't have Jim Crow, their ancestors weren't driven off to South America, nor do they have a history of repeated discrimination.

Please. There’s been tons of discrimination against Asians. The government specifically crafted its immigration policy to ban Asian immigration in the late 1800s, and make life as uncomfortable as possible for the "Yellow Peril." Asians were not allowed to become citizens until the ‘40s. Certainly, blacks have faced a different level of discrimination over the years, but the Asian experience was at least as bad as that faced by Latinos (who you claim should get affirmative action), and probably worse. Moreover, Asians have historically been much smaller in number than blacks and Latinos in the U.S., and have had much less effective advocacy groups.

While I acknowledge the struggles Asians went through during the SF gold rush and through WWII; the latter, the United States at least compensated them. I am still waiting for my check. If they aren't going to give blacks reperations, then the very least should be to fix the school system.

I have a friend who’s Japanese-American. His family lost everything when they were interned -- the government seized it all. By the time they did get their reparations in the 1980s, however, they were middle-class. This was before they got their check (which was only $20,000). They managed to advance without reparations -- as have many, many blacks, by the way.

Lots of families were screwed by the United States government (including my white family), not just blacks. Most have not gotten reparations. I’m actually for reparations for blacks, partly so there won’t be any more excuses and we can put the "legacy of slavery" issue to bed -- also, I think a reparations program can be beneficial to America as a whole if done the right way. I’d prefer the reparations go into the school system, because the way for blacks to become more successful is not at the collegiate level through affirmative action or by giving money to individual families, it’s at the elementary and high school level.

Asians, as a race, are just like the Irish, German, or any European country when they come to the US.

Yeah, the Irish were just welcomed with open arms...

[Honesty]

Originally posted by Back Lot Brawl
Please. There’s been tons of discrimination against Asians.


:dubious:

Bandwagon Brian