# 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:** 6
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/101 "2014-02-24T14:25:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What?!?! The fact that you have to even ask that question shows how blind you are to the effects of racism. 400 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation has created not only inequality of wealth assets and institutional advantages, it has created a culture bias against blacks. Bullshit. This is about the right remedy to racism, not whether racism was bad. Logic fail. > [@](#): > > So you think racism exists today but we don’t need to do anything to remedy the effects of past racism? No, of course not. That’s a false dilemma. AA is not the only solution. > [@](#): > > So why is it that whites (especially white males) are so against affirmative action? because they just can’t see why anything needs to be done at all. Things seem pretty fair to them from a white male’s perspective. Don’t put words in other people’s mouths. > [@](#): > > That is about as nonsensical as telling people who think that taxes should be higher to go ahead and pay more in taxes, after all noone is stopping them from donating more money to the government. No it’s not. > [@](#): > > If you want to equate all race conscious legislation as racism then I suppose you can get to your desired result. After all Japaneses internment and the Chinese exclusion act, were certainly race conscious legislation and examples of racism. But I find it hard to believe that anyone can say that you can have racism without power and bigotry. Of course you can have racism without power. Racism is simply prejudice based on race. It’s wrong even when it means well. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/102 "2014-02-24T14:34:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You seem to be the one that is interested in protecting white male privilege. Not at all. Don’t play that game. > [@](#): > > Assuming you meant descendants. Lets say that my grandfather’s grandfather killed your grandfather’s grandfather and took all his land and as a result my great grandfather went to harvard and my grandfather went to harvard and my father went to harvard, while your great grandfather shined shoes and your grandfather picked fruit and you father was a plumber. So I apply to harvard and you apply to harvard. harvard is aware of our family history. Do you think it would be unfair of harvard to give you a preference in admission so that even if I scored 200 points better than you on the SATs, they could still accept you instead of me? Of course it would unfair. Do you actually think it would be fair? Are you trying to make my point for me? > [@](#): > > AA assumes all blacks are black and that all whites are white. There are disadvantages to being black in this society, separate and apart from any advantages there are to being rich. What ridiculous double-speak. There are many advantages and disadvantages in society, past and present. You can’t fix them all. Why do we even have SATs? Why not just admit students based on how many historical factors they can list? > [@](#): > > Of course AA should be better targetted. Too many of the black students you see in top colleges are not the descendants of American slaves or even the descendants of slaves at all. Uh-oh - you’re starting to think! First of all, it’s NOT slavery, but past racism that matters. But no matter - the more you try to “target” AA, the more you’ll wade into all the details and realize how absurd the attempt is. You’ll have point systems for who has a slave in their family tree, or two slaves, or three. But deduct points if there’s a white person or two in the family tree. Then the white applicants get points for being Irish, since they were discriminated against, but if only their mom is Irish, that’s worth half a point. That only scratches the surface of the lunacy of trying to quantify disadvantage. And every time you do, that just creates a new injustice, until you target it even more, to the point of absurdity. > [@](#): > > Its doesn’t get us all the way there but all we have to work with are blunt instruments so we get there slowly. No. I don’t accept that. You may not commit gross injustice in an attempt to fix past injustice. > [@](#): > > Its not, “sorry Jim, you don’t get the job because you are white,” its “sorry jim, bob, dave, ben, etc. we admitted 100 white dudes and 5 black dudes into our college even though those 5 black guys had lower test scores than you did. Next time try to be in the top 100” No it’s not. You pretend it is, but 5 white dudes didn’t get in because of your policy. Explain to them why. Don’t dodge. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/103 "2014-02-24T14:35:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That doesn’t really happen. Like hell it doesn’t. There’s NOTHING in a race-based policy to stop it. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/104 "2014-02-24T14:43:12Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Not the only ideas, but they are sensible and logical unlike yours. Explain why. > [@](#): > > Because your sentiments ring hollow given your selective indignation. My indignation is not selective. > [@](#): > > More importantly, discrimination is the basis for decision making. All you can do is choose the bases for that discrimination. Yes. So I oppose using race. You? > [@](#): > > It does because the damage, past and ongoing, is to against a class of people as well as individuals. No. Classes of people are a group of individuals. They are hurt as individuals when you discriminate against them as a group. This is the fundamental reason that racism is wrong. > [@](#): > > The culture that was created has damaged the esteem all Black individuals are held in broadly speaking, regardless of their wealth, position, or status. This is not about “esteem.” Esteem doesn’t get you into college, SAT scores do (to simplify). Blacks who get good scores get into college, do they not? > [@](#): > > Wrong. It assumes all Black people are Black, and will likely be judged negatively by many because of that. But you don’t fix that by judging white people negatively! > [@](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite. Give me a plausible scenario where that happens? More importantly, you can’t TAKE something from someone that they didn’t/can’t earn, or weren’t given. Really? You need me to tell you that? Come on. Tell me exactly what would prevent that from happening. And why it shouldn’t happen. > [@](#): > > I take issue with your diction, but that aside, White people are not being “punished” because their ancestors benefited, but rather because they did, and continue to. White privileged is a real and ongoing thing. Of course they are being punished. Stop pretending otherwise. People should be judged by their qualifications, not their race. “White privilege” doesn’t mean every white person is ahead of the game. Nor does it mean there weren’t other disadvantages in their life or their past. Treating someone just by their race is evil, even if you mean well. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/105 "2014-02-24T14:44:20Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Are you under the impression that exists now? Do you believe race has nothing to do with the severity of sentences passed for equal crimes? So should we have AA for sentencing? Whenever a white person is sentenced, add five years to the sentence just to fix the disparity? ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/106 "2014-02-24T14:46:22Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Equity under the law never existed as you are implying. If it did, we wouldn’t have wheelchair ramps, gender specific bathrooms, age restrictions on a variety of things, etc. etc. The point of that phrase is not that everyone is treated the same at every time without any consideration to need or context. So if one of my ancestors was in a wheelchair, can I have a special ramp? ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/107 "2014-02-24T14:47:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Absolutely they must be temporary. That’s the whole point of any such intentionally unbalancing quotas. > > And now I have to go lie down and try to come to terms with the fact that I’ve just agreed with a libertarian on a major facet of public policy. 😃 If it makes you feel better, I’m a Democrat and a “liberal” on many other issues. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/108 "2014-02-24T14:50:55Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > it’s a whole different thing to fire someone to make room for a minority applicant vs. giving position to the minority applicant in the first place. No. It’s not. It just makes it easier because you don’t see the effects. But a white person doesn’t get a job because of the racial preference. > [@](#): > > I have no problem as a white guy, not getting a job or admitted to a certain school to make room for some other qualified minority applicant. Why force it on those who do? > [@](#): > > (as I stated earlier, I was denied entry to Harvard _and_ Standard, despite being so very qualified, IMHO) I’ve had lots of advantages, and making it a wee bit harder to get something now and then isn’t going to hurt that bad. Sounds like more than a wee bit. > [@](#): > > I would agree that in theory it could be taken too far, Really? How exactly? Explain how your polices don’t go too far, but some others might. Tell us exactly how you draw that line. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/109 "2014-02-24T14:52:41Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > The focus on black Americans in the aff act debate is a function of resentment against them, not a concern for fairness or non-discrimination. What’s the difference? > [@](#): > > One thing I’ve noticed over the past ten years is that mildly racialist right wingers have gradually moved from attacking affirmative action to attacking discrimination law. This was their aim all along, I think, to return the country to Northern style, defacto Jim Crow. So what? I strongly support anti-discrimination law. Your point is irrelevant to this debate. One is wrong and the other is right. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/110 "2014-02-24T14:54:06Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Affirmative Action makes the most sense in political power. So when the US Senate has more than 10 African Americans and 50 women I’ll listen to arguments about how we’ve gone too far and my demographic is marginalized. Okay, so should we have AA in elections? Black and women candidates automatically get an extra 5% of the vote when the results are counted? If not…WHY NOT? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/111 "2014-02-24T15:58:25Z")
Dude, you need to start a blog. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/112 "2014-02-24T16:04:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Does affirmative action hurt women? The evidence is pretty convincing that it did not. Given that the essentially the same policies were/are in place to help both groups, why did it hurt Blacks and not women? Doesn’t that indicate that it’s not a failure of affirmative action or preferential treatment, but rather something unique to the treatment of Blacks and not women? Uh, no. When affirmative action was abolished in the UC system, it lead to a huge change in the racial makeup of the student body, but not much change in the gender makeup. Affirmative action, at least in the quota system as it was given, was causing racial discrimination but not gender discrimination, or at least very little. > [@](#): > > Why _after_ that? Honestly, if you think the above things are problematic, why are you only purposing we solve them AFTER you get what you want? I’d be perfectly happy to see our politicians ending the war on drugs, reducing prison sentences, and offering black kids access to a decent K-12 education right now. If you search, you’ll see that I’ve started threads on those topics. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/113 "2014-02-24T16:06:54Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Dude, you need to start a blog. Don’t dodge questions please. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/114 "2014-02-24T16:09:21Z")
In addition to AA for women and minorities in elections, maybe we should have it for the Olympics. Teams with histories of disadvantage due to racism - or anything else for that matter - would get to start a few seconds earlier in races or something. No doubt Haitians suffered from disadvantage, so why not give them a leg up in competition, for instance? ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/115 "2014-02-24T16:52:49Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I won’t give you any disagreement about the idea that poor whites need more help and are often overlooked or marginalized. But I ask about the rich black comment. To an admissions commite at a university or a hiring board at a large corporation, the problem is they are discriminating (in the cases that they are) based upon race, not race plus income level. in other words they will discriminate against rich blacks too. Well then the answer is for them to stop discriminating, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/116 "2014-02-24T16:55:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Explain why. This has been explain 100 times by this point. I can and have explained it to you, I can’t comprehend it for you. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > My indignation is not selective. Of course it is. Every decision we make requires discrimination. You seem to be only complaining (loudly) about one type that is only used as a corrective measure. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. So I oppose using race. You? Not in all cases. Should a casting director be able to only hire White actors to play Superman? Should a Chinese restaurant be sued for hiring Asian waiters? Should Lorne Michaels be sued for specifically looking to hire a Black woman? Is anyone who has a racial dating preference racist? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No. Classes of people are a group of individuals. They are hurt as individuals when you discriminate against them as a group. This is the fundamental reason that racism is wrong. You misunderstood. You claimed slavery and other wrongs of the past were over, and implied that since the people who were directly affected or involved are dead, that there is no person that needs to be made whole. That is wrong because the damage wasn’t just done to the individuals kept as slaves, but to a class of people who still suffer to this day because Blackness is viewed negatively in large part due to that past discrimination. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This is not about “esteem.” Esteem doesn’t get you into college, SAT scores do (to simplify). Blacks who get good scores get into college, do they not? Of course esteem gets you into college. No selective college just goes on test scores and resumes. Do you even understand how college admissions works, or the history of testing? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But you don’t fix that by judging white people negatively! This is just selective framing. It’s like arguing you are being punished for being childless or unmarried because tax benefits are given to people in those groups. You may be able to mathematically justify using it to look at quantitative metrics, but it makes no sense to pretend people in the out groups are aggrieved. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Really? You need me to tell you that? Come on. Tell me exactly what would prevent that from happening. And why it shouldn’t happen. Because at present, AA typically affects people on the margins. Black millionaires and poor, toothless White people generally don’t interact or compete for similar things for a variety of reasons. Yes, it could happen, but so could a lot of unlikely things not worth basing policy on. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of course they are being punished. Stop pretending otherwise. If you choose to view punishment as not getting the exact same thing someone else got, then you have a pretty distorted world view. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > People should be judged by their qualifications, not their race. What qualifications, and what do you do if those qualifications are skewed and affected by race? I’ll give you another example. At many highly selective colleges, they get tons of suspiciously perfect resumes and scores from a handful of Asian countries. As a result, a “perfect” student from [China](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonma/2012/02/13/how-to-stop-chinese-kids-from-cheating-on-college-apps/) may not be held in as high esteem as a US student with the same qualifications. Do you think that is fair? Is that racist or bigoted? Now what if the basis for this difference was that it is known that the prep school one of these students went to is known for rampant grade inflation? Or what if it is know that on average, student A will have access to SAT prep material, courses, instructors, etc. that student B doesn’t have. Does that score of student A indicate the same level of ability as someone who scored the same without access to all that stuff? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > “White privilege” doesn’t mean every white person is ahead of the game. Nor does it mean there weren’t other disadvantages in their life or their past. Treating someone just by their race is evil, even if you mean well. You are the only one using the term evil, or failing to understand the very basic concept. Just answer this basic question. Would the average White person be better or worse of if they were Black? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So if one of my ancestors was in a wheelchair, can I have a special ramp? Did this make sense to you when you typed it? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Uh, no. When affirmative action was abolished in the UC system, it lead to a huge change in the racial makeup of the student body, but not much change in the gender makeup. Is that because women had already made significant gains, or because AA didn’t work for them? If you are implying the latter, there is a huge body of evidence to suggest you are wrong about that. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Affirmative action, at least in the quota system as it was given, was causing racial discrimination but not gender discrimination, or at least very little. AA didn’t cause racial discrimination, people did (and do). How often were women assumed to be inferior and unqualified when they got to college? How often are resumes with female names thrown out despite similar qualifications? I think they disparate treatment here is pretty clear, and speaks to the results we see, in addition to the narrow definition of AA that is incorrectly used and the vitriol people on the right have for the program. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’d be perfectly happy to see our politicians ending the war on drugs, reducing prison sentences, and offering black kids access to a decent K-12 education right now. If you search, you’ll see that I’ve started threads on those topics. So why did you say AFTER? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/117 "2014-02-24T17:15:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > In addition to AA for women and minorities in elections, maybe we should have it for the Olympics. Teams with histories of disadvantage due to racism - or anything else for that matter - would get to start a few seconds earlier in races or something. No doubt Haitians suffered from disadvantage, so why not give them a leg up in competition, for instance? Another example from ignorance. The Olympics does that functionally by accepting competitors from a number of noncompetitive countries. Look at the list of Olympic medals from Sochi. Eighty-eight nations participated, 26 won medals, and more than half the medals went to 6 countries. Croatian (for example) athletes were already given a leg up by being invited in the first place. Do you really think there wasn’t a Russian who didn’t make it that was better than a Croatian who did in pretty much every event? What do you think the 100m field would look like if it were just based on time? Similarly, what do you think Harvard’s class would look like if it were only based on scores and the like? I can pretty much guarantee is would be mostly full of people from India and China. Do you think that would be ideal and fair? Either way, despite this discrimination, we rarely hear people like you complain about how the Olympics are unjust and unfair. Mostly because we recognize that that is not the sole point of the Olympics. It’s not only to rank people in their sports based only on performance. Similarly, college is not just about accepting the most “qualified” candidate. Not only because of the above, but also because “most qualified” is basically a nonsense phrase at that point. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well then the answer is for them to stop discriminating, isn’t it? YOU CANNOT STOP DISCRIMINATING. Why is this so hard to get. Look up the [word](https://www.google.com/search?q=dicriminate&rlz=1C1LAVE_enUS375US375&oq=dicriminate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2258j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=discriminate&spell=1): > [@](#): > > dis·crim·i·nate > disˈkriməˌnāt/Submit > verb > > 1. **recognize a distinction; differentiate.** > “babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion” > synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart You cannot pick and choose amongst things without “recognizing a distinction”. The only thing you can do is choose criteria (distinctions) that are relevant and somewhat measurable. There is no reason why race, which in the arenas we talking about, isn’t relevant, and shouldn’t be used to discriminate. To not do that, you either view it as being a non-factor, or you are stupidly and conveniently committed to ignoring 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:** [February 24, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/118 "2014-02-24T17:24:39Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > This has been explain 100 times by this point. I can and have explained it to you, I can’t comprehend it for you. No it hasn’t. Dodge. > [@](#): > > Of course it is. Every decision we make requires discrimination. You seem to be only complaining (loudly) about one type that is only used as a corrective measure. But racial discrimination is wrong. Correct? > [@](#): > > Not in all cases. Should a casting director be able to only hire White actors to play Superman? Should a Chinese restaurant be sued for hiring Asian waiters? Should Lorne Michaels be sued for specifically looking to hire a Black woman? Is anyone who has a racial dating preference racist? Oh, please. Of course not in those situations. That’s not the issue here. > [@](#): > > You misunderstood. You claimed slavery and other wrongs of the past were over, and implied that since the people who were directly affected or involved are dead, that there is no person that needs to be made whole. That is wrong because the damage wasn’t just done to the individuals kept as slaves, but to a class of people who still suffer to this day because Blackness is viewed negatively in large part due to that past discrimination. So every wrong of history must be made right? When are we giving back our land to the American Indians? > [@](#): > > Of course esteem gets you into college. No selective college just goes on test scores and resumes. Do you even understand how college admissions works, or the history of testing? SHOULD esteem get you into college? Racial esteem? > [@](#): > > Because at present, AA typically affects people on the margins. Black millionaires and poor, toothless White people generally don’t interact or compete for similar things for a variety of reasons. Yes, it could happen, but so could a lot of unlikely things not worth basing policy on. Bullshit. There is nothing in an AA policy that says this. > [@](#): > > If you choose to view punishment as not getting the exact same thing someone else got, then you have a pretty distorted world view. No I don’t. You just can’t admit that your policies actually hurt people while they try to help others. > [@](#): > > What qualifications, and what do you do if those qualifications are skewed and affected by race? Grades and test scores. If skewed by race, you fix the high schools that make them that way. > [@](#): > > I’ll give you another example. At many highly selective colleges, they get tons of suspiciously perfect resumes and scores from a handful of Asian countries. As a result, a “perfect” student from [China](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonma/2012/02/13/how-to-stop-chinese-kids-from-cheating-on-college-apps/) may not be held in as high esteem as a US student with the same qualifications. Do you think that is fair? Is that racist or bigoted? Huh? Now you want to discriminate against Asians because sometimes they cheat? > [@](#): > > Now what if the basis for this difference was that it is known that the prep school one of these students went to is known for rampant grade inflation? Or what if it is know that on average, student A will have access to SAT prep material, courses, instructors, etc. that student B doesn’t have. Does that score of student A indicate the same level of ability as someone who scored the same without access to all that stuff? But now you’re talking about things that are known. Pointing to any black and saying you KNOW they were disadvantaged or that a white was advantaged, just based on race, isn’t something you can know. And you end up leaving out hundreds of other factors. > [@](#): > > You are the only one using the term evil, or failing to understand the very basic concept. Just answer this basic question. Would the average White person be better or worse of if they were Black? But this is not about averages. This is about individual people. We could just as easily use your logic to discriminate AGAINST blacks. The “average” black is more likely to commit crime, for instance. Should we use that information to exclude them from jobs as a security risk? > [@](#): > > Did this make sense to you when you typed it? No - that’s the POINT. It’s your logic. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/119 "2014-02-24T17:30:15Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Another example from ignorance. The Olympics does that functionally by accepting competitors from a number of noncompetitive countries. Look at the list of Olympic medals from Sochi. Eighty-eight nations participated, 26 won medals, and more than half the medals went to 6 countries. Croatian (for example) athletes were already given a leg up by being invited in the first place. Bullshit. That’s not comparable to AA, at least not to quotas. (I have no problem with other forms of AA - seeking out better opportunity.) With quota-based AA, it would be like giving Croatia a 5-second lead in a race. Or automatically putting them in the finals without competing. > [@](#): > > What do you think the 100m field would look like if it were just based on time? Do you actually believe the 100m isn’t based only on time? > [@](#): > > Similarly, what do you think Harvard’s class would look like if it were only based on scores and the like? I can pretty much guarantee is would be mostly full of people from India and China. Do you think that would be ideal and fair? Of course. Why not? > [@](#): > > Either way, despite this discrimination, we rarely hear people like you complain DO NOT pull this shit with me. Do not tell me what you think I believe, or judge me on what you haven’t heard me say. > [@](#): > > YOU CANNOT STOP DISCRIMINATING. OF COURSE YOU CAN. You can stop discriminating based on certain factors, such as race. Of course you discriminate based on other factors. Just not race. We all know what discrimination means, thanks. > [@](#): > > You cannot pick and choose amongst things without “recognizing a distinction”. The only thing you can do is choose criteria (distinctions) that are relevant and somewhat measurable. There is no reason why race, which in the arenas we talking about, isn’t relevant, and shouldn’t be used to discriminate. Jesus, do you read what you type? A fucking KKK member could say the exact same thing! > [@](#): > > To not do that, you either view it as being a non-factor, or you are stupidly and conveniently committed to ignoring reality. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” ---
**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:** [February 24, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/120 "2014-02-24T17:33:22Z")
P.S. I looked and couldn’t find any evidence that anything other than merit in a sport is used to qualify a country’s competitors for the Olympics, other than the host country having the right to at least one spot in each sport. I call bullshit on that one until I see evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=7)