To me, racism is a form of bigotry, in which one assigns attributes (negative or positive) to someone based solely on his race. (Pardon the micro-aggression.)
In that sense, AA isn’t racist, per se. But that still flies in the face of your definition which links it to white supremacy. Is yours an American-centric definition? I’m still not buying it, but I can’t image you could use it universally.
Sure. I would describe that as the centrist-moderate definition.
Yes. And I could be wrong about how widespread it is. But certainly pockets of the left use the term “racism” interchangeably with “white supremacy.” That is why sometimes anti-white racial discrimination is called “reverse racism.”
Picking an actor to play a role is meaningful to the role. Malcolm X was black. It’s fairly obvious that a black actor would best fit this portrayal.
This doesn’t translate to AA practices in candidate or student selection unless the desired outcome is not purely based on merit. If some equality of outcome is desired - some mix that is trying to be achieved then fine. But that is racist - the bad kind.
Racism that props up one group at the expense of another is unacceptable to me. That’s what AA is.
Well, yes. The point is that your definition of racism is obviously not just “differential treatment on the basis of race.” It is “differential treatment on the basis of race when race is not relevant,” or “differential treatment on the basis of race in a way that characterizes one race as inferior,” or something. You have some additional clause in there. And the question is what that additional clause is, and why it does or does not apply to AA.
That’s one way to add the additional clause, by adding “at the expense of another.” But that doesn’t actually help you here. Selecting a black actor to play Malcolm X “props up one group at the expense of another” in exactly the same way that selecting a black law student “props up one group at the expense of another.” Just as a matter of logic that is not a sufficient distinction. You obviously have some other implicit premises for distinguishing the two situations.
I abhor that term-- reverse racism. It implies that racism has some sort of natural direction. But I think it is used as much by the right as by the left.
I have a hard time thinking that your definition of racism isn’t self-serving. It allows one to avoid charges of racism simply by redefining the word. I certainly agree that, in the US, the power structure is such that white racism is a huge social problem, whereas black racism has little to no effect on the society, as a whole. But if we are ever going to achieve anything close to a post-racial society, we are best served by treating all racism for what it is.
All sides want to define racism in certain ways because it helps with their substantive positions. Some people prefer to define “racism” as any differential treatment on the basis of race because they can then use the cachet and social power of labeling something racist in order to rail against affirmative action.
But let’s not pretend that is somehow the older or more objective definition of the term. It isn’t even an internally coherent one, as I think the Malcolm X and sickle cell examples point out. It is especially odd to define it that way if you agree that the big problem in America is anti-black discrimination–as you seem to. If you call both intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing them “murder,” then you either minimize the intentional killing or you over-dramatize the accidental one. “Racism” as a term came to be something that is universally despised because we were talking about centuries of brutal plunder of black people. It didn’t come to have that connotation because black people were forced to go to a slightly worse law school. So when you use the term to refer to, say, affirmative action, you are trying to scoop up some of that connotation derived from brutal injustice and smear it onto affirmative action in order to win a policy debate.
I think adding “in a way that’s not relevant” is sufficient.
Malcom X being black is relevant. Race in student admissions is not - that is unless there is a non merit based rationale.
As are you in your presentation. Why must it be as you say instead of a desire to be consistent?
Recall that your argument is that even defenders of AA must concede that it is racist. But if you define racism as using race “where it is not relevant,” then the question of whether AA is racist becomes about whether race is relevant to, say, admissions. And, of course, that’s the whole debate on the substance of the policy.
Accordingly, it is wrong to say that all sides must concede that AA is racist (even when you define it as you prefer), since they disagree over whether race is relevant and that is the critical question to determining whether the policy is racist (as you define it).
I assume the “as are you” is in reference to “trying to win a policy debate.” Obviously, I agree, as I stated explicitly in the post you quoted.
I think if you examine that idea more carefully you’ll see that it doesn’t make much sense. Why is one definition more consistent than the other?
I’ll say this for ITR: his personal method of tilting at windmills (or choice of windmills, rather) doesn’t require him to tire out a horse.
It’s not wrong - it’s a debate tactic. I don’t see race being relevant to admission but have acknowledged that people do feel this way. The premises that underly that belief are objectionable.
But yes that is the substance of the debate. I think I’m right and you’re wrong of course. You’d have to show race being relevant to admission and I don’t think you can do that.
My definition is more consistent because it relies on the premise that race isn’t relevant to admissions or other areas where AA type programs are employed. I’m not sure where the burden lies but in my mind those that want to use race have the burden because the default should be race blind. Where do you think the burden lies?
I think the problem is that many simply assume racial discrimination = racism.
To my mind, the two are simply different issues. Racism = a form of bigotry in which racial characteristics are assumed to correlate with claims of superiority/inferiority; racial discrimination = some act in which racial characteristics are used as the criteria for imposing some burden or providing some benefit.
Racial discrimination may be inspired by racism, or it may not be; also, racial discrimination may be justified by some legitimate purpose - or it may not be.
AA is clearly a form of racial discrimination. I don’t think there is a legitimate argument that it is inspired by racism - rather, the purpose it to attempt to redress the balance of cultural damaged caused by a legacy of racism.
The issue is whether it is justified by its ostensible legitimate purposes or not. An argument against AA is that, while it is not itself inspired by racism, it may have the perverse and unintended effect of re-inforcing racist beliefs in rational observers.
Right. But that means you have to concede that, if I’m right about the relevance, then the policy is not racist. And that is contrary to your original position.
I don’t know that it really matters. I’m fine with having the default be that race ought not be considered.
Yeah, I think the key point is that if the argument is over whether affirmative action is right or wrong, merely saying that it’s a racist policy and therefore wrong doesn’t get you anywhere unless everyone agrees either that everything that is racist is wrong in the same way, or that affirmative action is racist in the way that things are wrong when they’re racist.
So the burden is still on you, if all you’ve got is “it’s racist, by my definition,” to show that everything that fits your definition of racism is necessarily wrong. The fact that a particular flavor of historical racism is really, really wrong is irrelevant if it’s not analogous.
It’s sexist to deny women the right to vote. It’s also sexist that I only date women. If somebody tries to use that parallel to tell me what I’m doing is wrong, they have some work still to do.
That’s a fair fleshing out and I’d go with that. I could have articulated that better (at a conference and writing g fromy phone today). I don’t think you can show the relevance.
What I just remembered was that this thread was about micro aggressions. That’s still a bullshit exercise in seeking victimhood. I don’t think that’s really related to AA.
Well the term is mainly used by Social Justice Warriors, who usually are radical feminists as well, who certainly want AA to get more women into men-heavy jobs.
Albeit only the nice, well paying jobs, for some reason.
Sounds legit.
Nope not wish to stop them at all. They can say all they want about whatever perceive insult they see. Right up to the point where they wish to stop someone else from speaking their minds.
Also your right, they BOTH have the right to free speech. I wish to keep it that way.