# Let's debate affirmative action **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818 "2014-02-20T20:35:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/301 "2014-03-12T17:31:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem isn’t that we give a hand up to African-American students, it’s that we give a hand up to all minorities, just so long as they aren’t overperforming. Limit the program to African-Americans only, who have suffered unique discrimination in this country. You can’t win. Either way, every time you try to use discrimination by race, or any other group characteristic, to “fix” past discrimination, you introduce a new unfairness. You either have to drop it, or take it to absurd extremes. It can never be fair. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/302 "2014-03-12T17:58:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If we’re arguing physical reality, yes. If we’re arguing economics, no. Demand for parking in most places is lower than supply due to zoning laws that require the overbuilding of parking in suburbs and small to medium sized towns. Demand for elite college admission vastly outstrips supply. The demand by QAULIFIED people is much smaller than overall demand. Noone is being pushed out of harvard and into Apex Tech. Its marginal. > [@](#): > > They should be separate concepts, although I don’t think diversity is much of a problem except at the commanding heights of society. Thus my complaint that the very white folks who created these well-meaning programs insured that they and their kin would be unaffected. Well, I can’t really disagree with you. But it is exactly at the commanding heights of society that we need the diversity. Legacy admissions in bother me too. If I had to choose between AA + legacy preferences or neither, I would probably pick neither because the distortive effect of legacy admissions is so dramtaic. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Really? The only historical event you’re aware of is slavery and segregation? You can’t think of any others that have caused long-term disadvantage to certain groups of people? And why must it even be related to groups? If a white person grew up a poor homeless orphan who was beaten and abused at an orphanage and didn’t go to school, that’s a disadvantage – one that’s worse than the average black experience. AA is not trying to give everyone the same starting point in life, it is trying to remedy a particular historical injustice. > [@](#): > > And why must it be “as compelling?” If someone’s historical suffering has been less than slavery, does that make it completely worthless? What’s that say about, for instance, women? I’m pretty sure AA applied to women. I don’t know if it does anymore, and if it does, it probably shouldn’t (at least in college admissions). > [@](#): > > No. No conditions. Then no. > [@](#): > > I understand what white privilege means. That has nothing to do with this. I demand respect as a person, not as a member of a particular race. That should always be true, but especially on a thread about racism and such. This is a thread about affirmative action, not racism. If you know what white privilege is then how can you say it has nothing to do with affirmative action? > [@](#): > > Not true. College slots are not unlimited. /sigh they are not fixed the way parking spots are. > [@](#): > > AA is used for two reasons - to increase diversity, or to remedy past disadvantages. You can choose to want to use it only one of those two ways if you want, just say so. I thought I was being clear. I think admissions preferences for diverity’s sake is not AA. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/303 "2014-03-12T18:01:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You can’t win. Either way, every time you try to use discrimination by race, or any other group characteristic, to “fix” past discrimination, you introduce a new unfairness. You either have to drop it, or take it to absurd extremes. It can never be fair. So you’re saying that because we can never get it perfect we shouldn’t try to reverse the effects of past discrimiantion and just keep things the way they are now. How convenient. We can’t have any preferences at all unless we take it to ridiculous extremees (despite the fact that we have been doing exactly this for decades)? Pfft. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/304 "2014-03-12T18:09:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I thought I was being clear. I think admissions preferences for diverity’s sake is not AA. It’s not just that you think; they are different concepts. See post 21. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/305 "2014-03-12T18:43:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > AA is not trying to give everyone the same starting point in life, it is trying to remedy a particular historical injustice. I know, and that’s the problem. Why is one particular historical injustice worthy of fixing in this way while others aren’t? > [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure AA applied to women. I don’t know if it does anymore, and if it does, it probably shouldn’t (at least in college admissions). Since women do NOT suffer from the results of past historical injustice any more than men do (since women and men are both the product of an equal number of men and women in our families), you can’t say AA for women has anything whatsoever to do with remedying historical injustice. That’s my point. > [@](#): > > Then no. Then this conversation is over. I will not accept racial prejudice, ever, but especially in a conversation with someone who claims to want to remedy it. Racial prejudice is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/306 "2014-03-12T19:46:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Since women do NOT suffer from the results of past historical injustice any more than men do . . . Whatever other viewpoints you may post with which I agree or disagree, this has to be the utterly silliest thing I have seen you post. It has no basis in reality. Sexual discrimination has been much ameliorated over the last 40 years, but claiming that women suffer no more discrimination than men, particularly in an historical context, is simply not connected to reality. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/307 "2014-03-12T22:31:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Whatever other viewpoints you may post with which I agree or disagree, this has to be the utterly silliest thing I have seen you post. > It has no basis in reality. It’s not silly at all. Blacks today suffer from the discrimination imposed on their ancestors. They inherit it, so to speak, through poverty and similar disadvantages. Correct? But women do not, because all women and men have the exact same number of male and female ancestors. One cannot disproportionately inherit the problems of female ancestors. If your mom was discriminated against, your dad wasn’t, and that’s true of everyone, male or female. > [@](#): > > Sexual discrimination has been much ameliorated over the last 40 years, but claiming that women suffer no more discrimination than men, particularly in an historical context, is simply not connected to reality. And I was careful to explain that I was not saying that dicrimination against women no longer exists NOW. I’m saying that the effects of discrimination against a female ancestor, unlike a black ancestor, cannot be passed on to future generations, unless perhaps you’ve got a few single moms in your recent family tree. A woman could not say “I deserve extra help because I come from a long line of women,” because she has an equal number of men in her family line - which is also the same number as men have in their family line anyway. What I said made sense, you just didn’t get it. Hope you do now. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/308 "2014-03-13T00:09:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s not silly at all. > > Blacks today suffer from the discrimination imposed on their ancestors. They inherit it, so to speak, through poverty and similar disadvantages. Correct? > > But women do not, because all women and men have the exact same number of male and female ancestors. One cannot disproportionately inherit the problems of female ancestors. If your mom was discriminated against, your dad wasn’t, and that’s true of everyone, male or female. > > And I was careful to explain that I was not saying that dicrimination against women no longer exists NOW. I’m saying that the effects of discrimination against a female ancestor, unlike a black ancestor, cannot be passed on to future generations, unless perhaps you’ve got a few single moms in your recent family tree. A woman could not say “I deserve extra help because I come from a long line of women,” because she has an equal number of men in her family line - which is also the same number as men have in their family line anyway. > > What I said made sense, you just didn’t get it. Hope you do now. I get it and you are mistaken. The way that women were kept out of various occupations, for years, affects the number of women in those occupations, today, which affects their ability to enter those occupations, today. Is it a “genetic” inheritance? No. However, it is an historical inheritance. It is also fading, but is a long way from having faded. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/309 "2014-03-13T00:24:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I get it and you are mistaken. The way that women were kept out of various occupations, for years, affects the number of women in those occupations, today, which affects their ability to enter those occupations, today. Is it a “genetic” inheritance? No. However, it is an historical inheritance. It is also fading, but is a long way from having faded. It’s not an inheritance at all. You could say society “inherited” attitudes toward women, perhaps, but that’s not what this is about. This is about PAST discrimination against your ancestors that causes YOU to suffer from the effects - even if you don’t suffer from discrimination now. In the case of AA, a school doesn’t admit more blacks as a way of not discriminating against them. It does so based on the idea that blacks are disadvantaged in qualifications for school because of past discrimination - you know, slavery and Jim Crow. (Unless they’re doing it for diversity reasons, which is different). Women can’t inherit past discrimination from women in their ancestry, because we all have an equal number of women and men in it. A woman can’t claim that she has a disadvantage because of women in her family history suffering from past discrimination. There’d be no basis for an AA program based on that premise. That’s all. Nobody said discrimination no longer exists against women today. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/310 "2014-03-13T01:23:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Whatever other viewpoints you may post with which I agree or disagree, this has to be the utterly silliest thing I have seen you post. Must… resist… snide… remark > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s not an inheritance at all. > > You could say society “inherited” attitudes toward women, perhaps, but that’s not what this is about. > > This is about PAST discrimination against your ancestors that causes YOU to suffer from the effects - even if you don’t suffer from discrimination now. > > In the case of AA, a school doesn’t admit more blacks as a way of not discriminating against them. It does so based on the idea that blacks are disadvantaged in qualifications for school because of past discrimination - you know, slavery and Jim Crow. (Unless they’re doing it for diversity reasons, which is different). > > Women can’t inherit past discrimination from women in their ancestry, because we all have an equal number of women and men in it. A woman can’t claim that she has a disadvantage because of women in her family history suffering from past discrimination. There’d be no basis for an AA program based on that premise. That’s all. Nobody said discrimination no longer exists against women today. When people say “the legacy of slavery and segregation” what do you think they mean? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/311 "2014-03-13T01:30:11Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I know, and that’s the problem. Why is one particular historical injustice worthy of fixing in this way while others aren’t? I invited you to name another historical injustice that compares to slavery and segregation. So do you have one or are you saying that unless we remediate every historical injustice ever we cannot attempt to address the greatest ones? > [@](#): > > Then this conversation is over. I will not accept racial prejudice, ever, but especially in a conversation with someone who claims to want to remedy it. OK. If you don’t think your race and gender have anything to do with your perspective, you are welcome to your opinion. You are wrong but you are welcome to your opinion. > [@](#): > > Racial prejudice is wrong. Gesundheit. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/312 "2014-03-14T02:47:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Women can’t inherit past discrimination from women in their ancestry, because we all have an equal number of women and men in it. A woman can’t claim that she has a disadvantage because of women in her family history suffering from past discrimination. There’d be no basis for an AA program based on that premise. That’s all. Nobody said discrimination no longer exists against women today. You are back to pretending that the issue is genetic. Women, today, have limited access to many occupations because women, yesterday, were barred from them and there are few to no women in a position to act as mentors or to provide promotions to other women. There is a reason that the phrase “good ol’ boy” is associated with networking so often. The situation is changing, but that has as much to do with Affirmative Action extended to women as it does to some miraculous change of attitudes among the men who dominate various industries and associations. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/313 "2014-03-14T04:57:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are back to pretending that the issue is genetic. > Women, today, have limited access to many occupations because women, yesterday, were barred from them and there are few to no women in a position to act as mentors or to provide promotions to other women. There is a reason that the phrase “good ol’ boy” is associated with networking so often. The situation is changing, but that has as much to do with Affirmative Action extended to women as it does to some miraculous change of attitudes among the men who dominate various industries and associations. It’s not an either/or issue. In terms of the disparity in male/female occupational representation it’s quite plausible that it partially comes down to neural and hormonal differences between the s8xes (eg. [Baron-Cohen](http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation), Kimura) as well as institutional & cultural factors. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/314 "2014-03-14T13:39:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are back to pretending that the issue is genetic. No I’m not. > [@](#): > > Women, today, have limited access to many occupations because women, yesterday, were barred from them and there are few to no women in a position to act as mentors or to provide promotions to other women. No, women today have limited access to many occupations today because they have limited access to them today. You are still confused about my point. This is not about the history of discrimination. Yes, some past attitudes and standards have been carried into today. This is about claims that someone can have a disadvantage - not due to current discrimination, but due to past discrimination against his/her ancestors. For instance, a black man can say he is poor because his ancestors were poor and weren’t able to pass wealth, skills or education to him. The legacy of slavery, etc. A woman can’t say that, for reasons I’ve explained and I think you understand. I am not claiming that there is no current discrimination. I am not claiming that current discrimination wasn’t inherited, culturally, from our past. I’m saying a woman can’t say “my ancestors suffered from sex discrimination and that’s the reason I’m disadvantaged as a woman.” ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/315 "2014-03-14T13:43:26Z")
I find it strange, and horrible, that people who claim to want to end racial discrimination and its legacy not only want to continue to use it, but when such a simple moral statement that racial prejudice is wrong, they not only can’t accept it, they belittle it. It’s even more interesting, and horrible, that it involves a white person saying that to a non-white person. Our ancestors spent centuries trying to get white people to accept that basic moral principle, and now that they do, it’s suddenly not wanted. We obviously have more work to do. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/316 "2014-03-14T15:32:32Z")
And that is the fundamental crux of the problem. You can’t end racial discrimination until you end racial discrimination. A system that is designed to make us more race conscious rather than less is one in which racism will persist and possibly even grow. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/317 "2014-03-14T15:40:31Z")
The fundamental crux of the problem exhibited in this thread is that you do not seem to acknowledge that ending racial discrimination qua racial discrimination is not the purpose of affirmative action. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/318 "2014-03-14T15:43:03Z")
That’s indisputable. The question is, does it stand in the way? I say it does. One can argue that it’s a price worth paying, but I don’t think there’s any question that such programs promote race consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/319 "2014-03-14T15:46:45Z")
That’s just a tautology. Affirmative action is defined by race consciousness. No one has disputed that, either. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/320 "2014-03-14T16:46:52Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > The fundamental crux of the problem exhibited in this thread is that you do not seem to acknowledge that ending racial discrimination qua racial discrimination is not the purpose of affirmative action. First of all, the nature of the purpose doesn’t change my statement. AA (or at least some forms of it) use racial discrimination. That alone makes it wrong, regardless of intent. OBVIOUSLY the purpose of AA can’t be to end racial discrimination, since it IS racial discrimination. Supporters of AA typically state two purposes: to give those suffering from the legacy of past discrimination a boost, or to promote diversity that is not present due to either that legacy or perhaps current, persistent discrimination. Neither are much of a difference from saying they are designed to end discrimination, or at least the effects of discrimination. The fact that many diversity policies almost always focus only on historical discrimination and not true diversity strengthens that (though I think diversity is the stronger argument for AA, since it is a long-run solution to eliminating racial separation and attitudes). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=17)