Now, since men are falling behind in education, it appears that some universities are now giving affirmative action preferences for men. To quote:
Now, I see this as pathetic. If men suck at college, they suck at college. Affirmative action is wrong, whether it benefits white males or bisexual autralian aborigines. However, are there any opponents of affirmative action who think this is a good idea? Proponents of affirmative action who think this is a bad idea? Or is affirmative action only good when your pet group benefits? Is a statisical under-representation enough to trigger affirmative action remedies?
Is there ANYONE who would defend the practice of preferences for men? If you are in favor of affirmative action in general but oppose this policy, please explain exactly why.
I am an opponent of afirmative action who thinks that this is even worse than the regular affirmative action. Men are not a group that has some real or perceived obstacle in their path that needs to be overcompensated for.
I think this may be a product of the shift towards characterizing affirmative action less as a move to favor any group then as having as its purpose to increase diversity. In this context, men are as eligible as any other group.
This makes my blood boil. (I’m a male). We are overlooking too goddamn many good women already, and now we’re officially discriminating against them too?
I am opposed to other forms of discriminatory affirmative action too.
Is it typical of you that you would pick out something like recruitment iniciatives in this article instead of what it was really talking about just so you can get another dig in on AA? This article was not about AA it was about the scary fact that males are declining to go out for a higher education. It even suggested that a distrubing trend in our culture might be at fault.
I agree that it is actually a serious problem if men stop desiring education.
But it was the affirmative action part that blew my gasket. I just can’t understand how ANYONE would think that was a good solution. You don’t, I don’t, Jesse Jackson wouldn’t. So why in hell are they doing it? And ahem it points out the bankruptcy of the other affirmative action programs as well. Since I am against affirmative action, of course I’m going to wave this article in the breeze as evidence that affirmative action is foolish. What, I’m supposed to keep this secret? Not bring it up?
If you want to start a thread about the under-representation of various population sectors in various positions and what that means culturally and why we might or might not need some remedies and what they might be, go ahead. I’ve started this thread to show how affirmative action, especially blind senseless affirmative action that was displayed in the article, is flawed. Well, and to take some shots at affirmative action supporters for hypocracy. Either you support this or not, either way I can mock you. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Does that explain why I focused like a laser beam on one part of the article?
If the dearth of qualified male applicants can be traced to some practice in the educational system that makes it harder for males to succeed, then yes, I would support such a plan until that practice has changed. (I’ve heard it argued that K-12 teachers tailor their classes to “female” learning styles and frequently penalize boys for acting like boys. I don’t know enough about elementary education or child development to tell whether this is true, and in general I tend to be skeptical about studies that presuppose massive psychological or intellectual differences between the sexes. But IF it turned out to be true, and a significant reason why male students have a hard time later in life, I’d support affirmative action at the college level.
If males are voluntarily deciding to pursue some other opportunity (job, military service, whatever) instead of going to college, of course I wouldn’t support affirmative action for the ones who do choose to apply. Diversity is a laudable goal, but it doesn’t mean that every campus has to reflect the gender distribution of the general population.
The third possibility (and the one I think most likely) is the tricky one: what if boys are being discouraged from concentrating on academics by their own peer culture? (Yeah, I know it’s tough to be a nerdy girl as well; I was one. But I do think males are likely to pay a heavier social price if their peers perceive them as too school-centered, particularly if their field of interest is something like English or art.) In this case, I’d have to say – reluctantly – that I’m not in favor of affirmative action. The educational system didn’t cause the problem; it’s not their responsibility to cure it. In addition, boys who know they’re likely to get a free pass into college are probably even more likely to decide school is for suckers.
Incidentally, I used to support race-based affirmative action, and am now agnostic on the issue for precisely the reasons I just outlined. I’ve come to believe that many (but certainly not all) minority students do poorly in school, not because the school has failed to meet their needs, but because they choose not to.
I never went to college. But I fail to see where recruitment iniciatives designed to promote diversity on campus could ever be a bad thing. And if you will read the article it said that most colleges were using recruitment tactics to lure more males on campus, not selective admissions iniciatives. The one school that did also stated that none of the men selected were less qualified than the women.
Diversity in the workforce may or may not be necessary. But I cannot see where promoting diversity on our college campuses can ever be a bad thing. Besides just getting your degree in basketweaving shouldn’t a college education be about expanding your horizons?
What I find patently insulting, narrow minded and just plain bigoted is that every opponent I hear speak about AA assumes that it is blanket coverage for the unworthy. Yeah, it’s racist alright because people just naturally assume that minorities and women got these jobs and slots on college campuses not because they were qualified but because they were filling a quota. And just because it suits the AA opponents whiney baby adgenda does not mean that most AA iniciatives are about quotas. In fact most of them are not. An AA iniciative might be as simple as putting up flyers in the local Boys Club or sending pamphlets to minority high schools about enrollments.
I have to agree with Fretful…what disturbs me about this article is that a lack of scholarship by young men just might be attributed to some ignoramous, macho peer thing. We’ve discussed this here on the board before but not at length. AA seems not to be working in some instances for minorities because black males are not availing themselves. Yet, black women have made great strides. Wonder what’s gonna happen now that this “I don’t need no education” attitude has bleed over to the white male population? I think this issue is far more dangerous for our society than Affirmative Action iniciatives.
It’s a mistake to get insulted about a difference in terminology. People may mean different things by the same terms. You are apparently understanding what these “whiny babies” mean when they use the term “Affirmative Action”, and should be able to respond in this context, instead of getting worked up about what the proper useage of the term should be.
needs2know, why is it fine to say that there is a possibility that white males lack scholarship, but if I was to say the same thing about black males, I would be evil incarnate?
I am very much for reaching out and trying to get minorities to apply and I believe affirmative action has done some good. However, if the possibility exists that someone received their position through affirmative action, why is it horrible for people to think that they may have received their position because of affirmative action? It could be true…right?
Do not presume to tell me what I should and should not get worked up about. It does outrage me that so many people have been indoctrinated into thinking that Affirmative Action is racist. Racist toward minorities and women as well as white males. And yes, I will concede that it is racist now because we have huge segment of society that assumes unjustly that people who benefit from AA do so ONLY because they are black, women, diabled etc. It is so obvious to me that the opponents of AA who started these ideas in the beginning have done a bang up job of winning over even the most sincerely non-bigoted of our society.
We’ve wondered here often about why black males have not made more progress in education and in improving their general lot in life despite AA. It seems pretty obvious to me. The prevailing attitude that AA promotes a climate of fear of reprisals in the business world, that it advances the less qualified, and that it favors one group over another has just about left it dead in the water. I can only guess as to why black males have be reluctant to utilize this opportunity fully. Perhaps it’s a matter of stiff necked pride. Who wants to take a job when all the white people think you only got it because of the color of your skin. Yes AA has helped. Yes it is true that it’s original purpose and application have often been misapplied, mishandled and misconstrued, but much of that can be blamed on it’s opponents from the start. How hard is it for young people to realize that just 30 years ago you never saw black people like Colin Powell take high political office? How hard is it for them to realize that you didn’t walk into a hospital emergency room and see dozens of women doctors, only nurses? Affirmative Action is partly responsible for that, despite it’s occasional problems.
Take a look at what gays are talking about right now. And not to minimize their plight, but they’ve at least had an outlet for getting by all these years, they could hide in the closet. Blacks, hispanics, and women have not been able to do that. Can’t people see that these extreme conservative concepts have started to insinuate themselves into our way of thinking again? By abolishing AA instead of reavaluating and revamping it’s practices we are saying that everything is OK we’ve achieved the goal. A goal that we determined as a society just a little over 30 years ago was important to make our growth as a nation. It’s helped but discrimination is not over yet.
I’m out of here I am sick to death of fighting this particular type of ignorance.
I assume, based on your opening sentence, that your most recent post was directed at me. But I don’t otherwise see any connection between it and my post, or, for that matter, your previous post. You might, if your tolerance is not completely exhausted, wish to clarify.
needs2know, I understand your frustration. I have a couple of issues I feel passionately about and it seems everyone disagrees with me. It does make you not want to talk about it because it takes much energy and you feel drained.
I agree that affirmative action has done good. I lean towards being against affirmative action now but not strongly, I need to hear both sides some more. What I am very much in favor of is what you mentioned…I see nothing wrong with reaching out and trying hard to recruit minorities.
I disagree. As the article says “Anecdotal evidence suggests that more men than women respond to the lure of high-tech jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree.” Perhaps these young men are pursuing careers in technology, going after CISCO, MCSE, or Oracle certification. An Oracle DBA can make more money than a run of the mill college graduate, so they these men are simply utilizing opportunities.
why do college campuses need to be diverse? colleges should be filled with one kind of person - intelligent and interesting. i don’t want to go to college with white people or black people or crippled people or gay people. i want to go to college with intelligent interesting people. if studies show a decline in intelligent, interesting people on campuses, then i would support affirmative action to recruit more of them. who cares if men are applying or gays or women or blacks. those groups aren’t ‘college’ material. members of those groups that belong to the ‘smart and works hard’ group are.
I do not quibble with the aims of AA. Certainly it is at heart an honest attempt to cure a real problem. But I cannot understand how someone can defend it as being non-discriminatory. (‘Racist’ only describes one set of qualities AA concerns itself with.) Any way you slice it, all other things being equal, preference is given to someone based on race, gender, or disability. I understand that the proponents of AA argue that preference is extended to majority populations all the time. It certainly is true that the private sector treats white males better than it does anyone else. Nevertheless, for a government to mandate discrimination in any form is insidiously wrong, even if it is to correct unjust trends in society.
In the beginning of AA, many who feel as I do believed that it was a necessary evil, and that the ends in this instance justified the means, however unsavory. Now, many years later, much progress has been made, and AA has contributed to it. Is there a true equality? Hah! Far from it. Nevertheless many feel that AA has taken us as far as it possibly can; this particualar bus is out of gas. The negative side-effect of this inherently discriminatory program is that it fosters resentment and fuels friction between the races, and occasionally the genders as well. AA sends a lot of messages, almost all of which are bad. “We know that you wouldn’t hire a minority if we didn’t force you. You minorities can’t make it on your own merits. Discrimination is wrong! (Unless it is the Officially Approved version.)” Plus it causes envy, mistrust, and even self-doubt as people wonder, “Was I hired because I am a {______}?”
While I’m touched to see the purity of the intellectual meritocracy that many people here are ascribing to the ideal form of college admissions, I don’t think we should entirely lose sight of the fact that in the real world, it’s also largely about satisfying consumer demand, too. Remember, colleges in order to survive have to provide not only the curriculum and activities but also the campus atmosphere that appeals to their customer base. Many students like and actively seek out schools with lots of ethnic and cultural diversity, and many prefer their school to have about a fifty-fifty gender split, too. It’s all very well to say that a college admissions office should be absolutely oblivious to any issues other than sheer academic merit (as if there were any really useful way to quantify that!), but in reality, they also have to supply what the customers want.