Why Do Liberals Support Affirmation Action?

[you_with_the_face]

@orcenio

If true, why isn’t AA synonymous with gender divisions but racial ones? Where’s the wave of misogyny that’s created by AA? Why does every single discussion on the merits of AA boil down to people’s unease toward racial preferences? If AA is the root of social tensions it tends to steer this tension solely towards African-Americans.

It’s simple, AA does not create modern-day racists; just like it doesn’t create modern-day misogynists. Racists and misogynists already exist in society and they hitch their wagon to their pet causes.

Posts like this make me wish we had a “thanks” button.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chief_Pedant

Ibn, I thought we went over this already.
“Race” is a self-identified categorization. It’s a social construct, by definition, as the term is typically used.
It’s biological underpinnings derive from the fact that this self-identification tends to lump people into groups which reflect gene pools from the populations from which they actually descended. “Black” self-identification correlates well–on average–with populations of sub-saharan origin, for example.

It’s easy to prove this. Look up race-associated diseases or physiologic differences and you’ll find countless examples.

I think the thing that confuses you is this simplistic idea that if someone categorizes themselves atypically, a biologic construct is meaningful for that individual. Or if someone has a number of populations whose gene pools are represented in their particular genome, that renders the whole biological average moot. But it doesn’t.

N****avin Johnson self-identifying as “black” does not mean that blacks–as an average group–have a higher incidence of cystic fibrosis. ** Biologically, Navin is white,** so we would predict his chance of CF to be higher than his social siblings.

Again, as it turns out, most self-identification is a fairly accurate predictor of ancestral population origin, and that’s why the biologic construct of race correlates as well as it does with the social construct.

Even biologically, “race” is a large and crude construct; not nearly as specific as identifying a sub-population. That does not mean that average biologically-driven differences cannot be identified even within that crude grouping. Men and women are two different groupings, and there are average differences. You would not want to draw an a priori conclusion of a difference between any given man and woman based simply on which group they belong to, but that doesn’t mean the average difference (height, for example) doesn’t exist.

I’m sorry, but your comments here are ridiculous and intellectually inconsistent.

On the one hand you’re claiming that race is a “self-identified categorization”, but on the other you claiming that someone is “biologically white”.

You also later claim that Navin Johnson self-identifies as “black” but is really “white.”

Such claims are simply moronic and don’t pass the laugh test.

Beyond that, you’re also claiming that “Hispanic” is a race as well.

Since you apparently believe that someone can be “biologically white” please tell us what the qualifications are to be “biologically hispanic”?

You seriously want to argue that this guy, http://www.blackradionetwork.com/images/userfiles/andy-garcia.jpg

this guy, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4ynpbjsnPvk/SFBIRHkgauI/AAAAAAAAFS4/tcoiwC4rvJE/s400/david-ortiz-2.jpg

this woman,
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/D/Cameron-Diaz-9273866-1-402.jpg

and this woman,
http://directv.images.cust.footprint.net//photos/celebs/celebs/155494/155494_ba_d.jpg

are all of the same race but at the same time you’re insisting that “blacks” and “whites” are separate races?

Now, if I’m wrong and you really don’t believe that Hispanics are a race and you made a mistake in your earlier post, please correct it and then explain what “race” the people in the photos belong to.

[orcenio]

@you_with_the_face

Posts like this make me wish we had a “thanks” button.

Awwww shucks.

[WillFarnaby]

@tomndebb

Why not? It seems to be rather odd that you claim a situation has two identical (possible) outcomes but that you are only going to make a claim for one of them. Confirmaion bias? Cherry-picking data? Preference for one group of disadvantaged persons over another group?

No. I refuse to continue to defend myself in this echo chamber.

If one action will produce a results on two groups, it seems absurd, to me, to argue that it happens on one group but not the other.

I have no data on one group so I don’t make assumptions about that group. It’s as simple as that. It is possible it increases misogyny but I can’t back that up by experience.

ETA: If the competing candidates are exactly equal, then choosing the man or the white could be just as easily seen as favoring white men–an example of racism and sexism. So, in your scenario, we are going to have accusations of racism or sexism (or both) regardless who is chosen.
[/QUOTE]

This is true. Black on white racism could be increased if AA is ended. Also female on male resentment could increase.

[WillFarnaby]

@tomndebb

Affirmative Action is not intended to stamp out racism. AA is intended to give people who were explicitly excluded from “the American Dream” an opportunity to partake in it, fully. Arguments that AA wil not end racism are irrelevant.

As to claims that AA promotes racism, they are simply after the fact rationalizations. The racism comes first, then people attempting to defend themselves from charges of racism make the absurd claim that AA “caused” their racism. People who are racist need excuses, not reasons, and if it were not for AA, it would be some other excuse.

Of course that is one theory. As i said before the only way to defeat racism is to understand it. It’s possible my theory is incorrect. Nobody has been able to disprove it. Your theory may also be correct, but I have had different experiences.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Byte_Ryder

How will we know when Affirmative Action has achieved it’s objectives and is no longer needed?

When the voters say so. That’s pretty much how you judge the necessity of any piece of legislation.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

Who believes that?

I certainly don’t. And it appears most other people in this thread don’t. It was your theory about what racists believe.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

As i said before the only way to defeat racism is to understand it.

Why do you assume people that oppose racism don’t understand it? We oppose it because we understand it. Understanding something doesn’t mean you have to tolerate it.

I understand that pedophiles want to have sex with children; that doesn’t mean I have to go out and have a conversation with a child molester.

[Kearsen]

@Little_Nemo

Yes, it is. Fuck racism.

I’ve never said we need to tolerate or condone or understand racism. Racism should be treated like crime or disease. Our goal should be to eliminate it entirely.
I agree. And when society reaches the point where people actually do this, we can stop worrying about racism because it’ll be dead.

But we’re not there yet. Racism is on the run but it still exists. So we need to keep hitting it until we kill it.

I think you and many like you will never get the fact that keeping racism alive is what programs like these are doing.
Is eliminating ALL of the programs designed to promote opportunity equality a good thing? I’d say no, but as soon as you cross the line and start TELLING people what kind of quote they have to reach, the program itself is racist.

Racism will eventually go by the wayside, not because of programs like these, but in spite of them. The community (world, state, city) is getting better and better about policing what is “correct”. It’ll happen anyway.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Affirmative action programs don’t involve quotas. The idea that affirmative action legislation makes you hire X% of minority workers, or whatever, is a misunderstanding (and frequent fabrication from the Limbaugh set).

[Kearsen]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Affirmative action programs don’t involve quotas. The idea that affirmative action legislation makes you hire X% of minority workers, or whatever, is a misunderstanding (and frequent fabrication from the Limbaugh set).

I was thinking more along the lines of collegiate scholarships etc.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Colleges can’t use quotas either. Private donors can, of course, but I don’t think you were talking about them.

[Kearsen]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Colleges can’t use quotas either. Private donors can, of course, but I don’t think you were talking about them.

Enlightening, I would have sworn I read that race based admissions was a way of getting into certain colleges. In lieu of strictly test scores or such or other measurables. I had heard they were allowed lee way in selecting individuals based upon subjective criteria which possibly included race. Not true?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Race can be considered as one factor among a number of “diversity” factors - say, age, socioeconomic status, parents’ education level, sex, national origin, marital status, geographic area, and the like. What Gratz said is that it can’t be a standalone criterion.

SCOTUS had already ruled in the 70s that fixed quotas weren’t allowed (I posted the wrong link in the previous post).

ETA: Private colleges which do not accept federal funds can discriminate however they want, but I’m not aware of any that do nowadays.

[Kearsen]

Reading the Bakke decision sure sounds like race based criteria to me. How they dress it up is really inconsequential. It allows those underrepresented minorities in to places they shouldn’t get into based upon measurable data.

If you have to justify that by changing the scoring system to account for subjective qualities then I feel that might be construed as racism (in reverse if there was such a thing)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

“…shouldn’t get into based on measurable data” is kind of the point. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that repressed minorities don’t get in on merit because they don’t have the same opportunity. They go to shittier schools, have less parental support, worse living conditions, and so on.

However, in the case of education, objective academic criteria aren’t the only thing that colleges want to look at. Research shows that diverse classes do better, on the whole, because they are exposed to more varied viewpoints. So, colleges have an interest in recruiting diverse classes for the benefit of even the non-minority students.

[Kearsen]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

“…shouldn’t get into based on measurable data” is kind of the point. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that repressed minorities don’t get in on merit because they don’t have the same opportunity. They go to shittier schools, have less parental support, worse living conditions, and so on.

However, in the case of education, objective academic criteria aren’t the only thing that colleges want to look at. Research shows that diverse classes do better, on the whole, because they are exposed to more varied viewpoints. So, colleges have an interest in recruiting diverse classes for the benefit of even the non-minority students.

But AA doesn’t fix the schools or fix the out of wedlocks kids opportunities. It’s a shitty fix, well meaning maybe, but still shitty. Which was kind of my original point, you will never create equality of opportunity you need to create. You can give them entrance into top tier schools, you can even help them financially but if their progress is stymied from lack of parental support, or the fact that they start so much further behind then what kind of fix are you really providing?

[Czarcasm]

@Kearsen

But AA doesn’t fix the schools or fix the out of wedlocks kids opportunities. It’s a shitty fix, well meaning maybe, but still shitty. Which was kind of my original point, you will never create equality of opportunity you need to create.

And your alternative plan is…?

[suranyi]

@Kearsen

I think you and many like you will never get the fact that keeping racism alive is what programs like these are doing.
Is eliminating ALL of the programs designed to promote opportunity equality a good thing? I’d say no, but as soon as you cross the line and start TELLING people what kind of quote they have to reach, the program itself is racist.

Racism will eventually go by the wayside, not because of programs like these, but in spite of them. The community (world, state, city) is getting better and better about policing what is “correct”. It’ll happen anyway.

I disagree. Racism will never go away. So the opinion of racists should be ignored. On this matter, and on every other matter.

[Kearsen]

@Czarcasm

And your alternative plan is…?

I guess the first step is for me to get elected…