Maybe someone should start a thread about that, and you could read it, and then you’d know more about diversity vis a vis affirmative action, adaher.
Nm…
And you correct that by abandoning equality under the law?
Yes. This needs to be repeated, evidently, over and over again.
When the status quo is that nothing but group X accedes to a particular membership, but there’s general agreement that members of group X and members of group Y are qualified, and the decision-making entity affirmatively chooses to ensure that members of both groups X and Y are represented in the final selection population, that is qualitatively different from the fucking racism that got us to the status quo in the first place. In particular, it’s different because it is an effort to purposely include. Which difference no amount of equivocation or empty rhetoric about race blindness overcomes.
So basically, people compete against others of their race for a fixed number of slots. Wow, that’ll get us to an equal society any minute now!
I agree with affirmative action as it applies to employment: find and recruit qualified minorities and make a special effort to develop them for promotion, while not reducing standards. If you accept lower standards, you’re wrong. Period. There is NOTHING about affirmative action that requires anyone to reduce standards. So if someone is reducing standards, they don’t understand affirmative action. Rather, they are simply being racially discriminatory.
Affirmative action as it applies to college admissions, on the other hand, is not just senseless, it’s harmful. California’s experience with ending discrimination in college admissions has made everyone better off.
**Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools,[6] which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,[7] and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.[6]
While African American graduation rates at UC Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,[7] the enrollment rates dropped significantly.[8] Criticism was made of the fact that of the 4,422 students in UCLA’s freshman class of 2006, only 100 (2.26%) were African American.[9] In fact, opponents of Proposition 209 note that there are greater disparities in elite education in the post-Proposition 209 era due to decreased African American and Latino enrollment. Proponents, on the other hand, note that Asian American enrollment rates dramatically increased at a majority of UC campuses.[10]**
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?
That’s an area of genuine continued racial discrimination against minorities. My objection is to correcting injustice with injustice. For example, would it be justified to have judges consider race when sentencing and giving whites harsher sentences and blacks lighter sentences to compensate?
To the extent you made factual claims here, they’re incorrect. I guess I don’t post in GD all that much; is that important? Should I bother? People do not compete against each other for a fixed number of slots - that is exactly what a quota system is. Affirmative action doesn’t mean quotas. And recruitment efforts aimed at minorities or disadvantaged groups are specifically not affirmative action.
I wait with baited breath for your solution to naked inequality.
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.
Didn’t you just agree with Damuri that next time the white guy should try to be in the top 100?
No, but it does mean they are treated with equality under the law. That’s a bedrock principle of our legal and social system, even if it’s an ongoing project. What you’re basically saying is, throw in the towel, and create a discriminatory system that is just, somehow.
Alternate solutions are always welcome. This appears to concern you greatly adaher, so you have ideas on how to solve it I assume.
I think you misunderstood that exchange. In the sense you appear to be using it, the “fixed number of slots” is an inevitable result of having more students apply than can be accepted. The only question is which ones fill those slots. Affirmative action isn’t causing that.
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. 
No, I am saying that concept doesn’t exist as you are suggesting. Will Bill Gates get the same bail as a gardener in every case? Are prisoners allowed to vote? Are 10 year olds and 18 year olds accused of a crime treated the same and subject to the same penalties? There are so many logical exceptions to this general ideal that it’s not worth going on about it.
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. 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. In fact, I’ would be shocked if that hasn’t happened to me several times in my life. (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. I would agree that in theory it could be taken too far, but in practice, I don’t see a problem. I would suggest we wait until things get really bad for the white guys before we start claiming victim-hood. Otherwise, we would look silly.
As I have noted on a couple of occasions, already, several people complaining about Affirmative Action seem to want to pretend that the only way to implement AA is through quotas. That is not true. AA was implemented at the Federal level and then implemented at General Motors without ever setting a quota several years before the first quota program appeared.
Pretending that quotas are the sum total of AA is merely a convenient way to say that any remedy for 400 hundred years of abuse is simply unworkable because it is “racist.”
As John Roberts said, the best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.
Yes, that’s a platitude, but we don’t respond to platitudes by doing the opposite. We instead recognize that we live in an imperfect world and keep trying to do better, rather than just chuck the ideal altogether.
The law is clear: you may not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, marital status, yada yada. We’re doing better in that regard than we did in the past, and we’ll do even better in the future. Assuming we don’t institutionalize the idea that we should discriminate based on race, but only if we have good intentions.
I’d say that Prop 209 showed that at least in university admissions, affirmative action is not necessary.