I would say yes. If Harvard Law School announced that it was no longer accepting black applicants, would you agree that, all things being equal, it would be a detriment to black people?
I am saying that the sharp increase in Asian students at Berkeley happened *before *affirmative action was overturned.
Are you stating that Stanford still uses affirmative action policies therefore limiting Asian students?
Again, I will reiterate that Stanford has a lower representation of Asian Americans compared to Berkeley because Stanford is private and cost prohibitive for most students. It only stands to reason that Asian students will not be represented in the same numbers at Stanford compared to Berkeley.
I tried to be charitable, but this makes no sense at all.
If “triangle” is a valid way to identify a figure with three sides and angles that sum to 180, then I am not asserting that members of this group are “likely” to have these characteristics. I am not asserting anything at all. These characteristics are required for admission into the group.
Some triangles have three angles at 60 degrees a piece. Characteristic Z. Fortunately, we can give them a category of their own. The equilateral triangle is a subset of the triangle. This does not, to my knowledge, make the idea of the triangle false for the same group.
So once again, a category is only as meaningful as its context and its instrumental value. It does not have to be deductively true to be true, lest we hold categories to a higher standard of evidence than we hold, say, belief in God.
So do you see anything wrong with placing value on a Harvard degree that confers a “detriment” to those without such a degree? This value will inherently favor the well-off. Which means those who can’t afford to attend an expensive school like Harvard will have a harder time landing prestigious jobs and will be disadvantaged for reasons that have nothing to do with ability and merit. This is okay with you?
I smell inconsistency here.
Not seeing how this questions pertain to AA or anything even in the same species of AA, but I’ll answer with a yeah. Especially if a Harvard degree is the ticket to success that you suggest that it is.
Call me when whites and Asians can’t get into Harvard, though.
Does that mean yes or no?
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I believe that Stanford would have a higher percentage of Asians but for affirmative action.
Probably not. I think places like Harvard should use their massive financial resources to make tuition low for everyone.
Sure, it’s a detriment – even though nobody has an entitlement to attend Harvard.
In my opinion, there do exist whites and/or Asians who would have gotten into places like Harvard but for affirmative action.
But they can get in, they just didn’t.
OK, then all that is necessary is to define “black” or “minority” such that all members of the defined group have the necessary characteristic(s).
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t understand the distinction.
I think we disagree on the definition of racism and discrimination. Sexism, racism, and anti-Semitism are all rooted in a belief of the inferiority of a group. I don’t believe a black man (African American) can be a racist until he has the power to dominate. Sure, you have blacks who dislike or maybe even hate whites, but the black man’s feelings are not because he feels racially superior. His feelings are the result of years of oppression and discrimination. The black man probably has feelings of inferiority. Even if a black business owner only hires blacks, his business probably has limited influence on the power class. A great read that offers insight into the more extreme black think that resulted from years of oppression is: The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
I would consider the dirt poor white a racist for hating those damn niggers because the bigotry was perpetuated by the white power class. The poor white can, at least, find solace in the belief that another group is even lower on the economic ladder. The belief that the lower, black group should not compete for jobs or hold positions of power because of the group’s racial inferiority allows the poor white group to feel less inferior.
Power and influence comes from economic independence and prosperity. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of poor white families in the U.S. and the number is increasing at a staggering rate. Poverty and ignorance are the underlying cause of all inequality.
Antisemitism is inexcusable in any group and particularly frightening to me. I can’t provide a citation, but I would venture to say that you will find more Antisemitism in the bigoted poor white family than among blacks. Usually the hard core bigots lump people of color and Jews together.
The American Black-Jewish relations have been strained for numerous reasons stemming back to the Civil Rights movement.
While this is easier to do with geometrical figures than it is for people, I do not think this is such an insoluble problem, or at the very least, a problem not worth tackling to enhance general welfare. I have outlined above why I do not believe this is to the detriment of fairness.
I consider myself a liberal, but can’t get behind AA until I get a straight answer to this question:
As a white male, exactly how much better qualified to I need to be than a black woman, to get the job?
The only response this has ever gotten is hostile, mealy mouthed double speak.
I’ve been hesitant to jump into this discussion thus far, but this really isn’t a problem. In our society, we define “Black” is anyone who self-identifies as “Black”. That’s it. Does that create the hypothetical problem that someone who is clearly White would claim to be Black just to get AA benefits? Yes. Has that ever been documented as a significant problem in real life? Not that I’ve ever seen.
So, race doesn’t exist as a useful biological contect, even if it is used in a social context. But one has to be careful about that first part. It can be somewhat useful in a biological context, if one restricts the group being analyzed to some subset of the humanity. In that sense, race can be used in a limited biological way in the US, since the people living here are not a random sampling of every population that is found in the world today-- rather, most people here are from smaller areas and we don’t have the continuum of genotypes or phenotypes that you would find elsewhere.
But even in the US you will have to exclude quite a large number of people if you insist on using race in a biological context (either because the are of mixed ancestry or they are from areas where people don’t easily fall into the traditional racial categories.) For example, the Mexican immigrants to the US are going to be all over the map in terms of European, Native American, and African ancestry. That’s just one example, and it’s a pretty large one.
If you are equally qualified, is it ok if we give it to her? And hey! no mealy mouthed double speak!
I’ve lost a good job to a black man explicitly for AA, pretty much equally qualified (however such a thing can be quantified) and, yeah, it pissed me off. So, I repaired to a place of contemplation and meditation, but it was too quiet, so I went to the bar. Ran into an old chum, growling out my tale of whoa. And he says…
“So, is this the first racial injustice you’ve ever suffered.”
“Well, yeah, I’m white, what are you talking?”
“Think he’s had more than one?”
“Well, sure, but why should it have to be me who makes it up?”
“Why not you?”
Now, all this “zero sum” stuff is a bit thick for a country boy, but seems to me if your committment to justice stops at the line of your own comfort, then you’re the kind of liberal that pisses off sincere radicals: “I’ve got mine, its OK if you get yours, just get it from somebody else”.
You and I, at least, are in direct conflict over the definition of racism, but it would be a hijack of this thread to pursue that.
Two questions:
-
What job are you talking about? AA isn’t at work in every situation. If you are a white man applying at a company is that is teeming with black women, then there would be no reason to entertain this question.
-
Why do you think you have to be better qualified than a black woman anyway? As has been stressed ad nauseum, AA is supposed to apply when two candidates with equal or sufficient credentials are being considered. If you are competing against a black woman and yall are both the same on paper AND the position has historically been underfilled by black women, then the scale will tip in her favor.
Was my answer hostile or meal-mouthed enough for you?
Well cry me a river for all the poor blighters out there begging on the streets because they didn’t get into Harvard law school.
If that’s all this rancorous debate over AA is about then I could go either way. In fact, I don’t care if from now on, Harvard restricts admission to Scientologists and Phelpses. :rolleyes:
I’m not really sure if this question makes a lot of sense. Have you ever asked “how qualified do I have to be to get this job” and not gotten kind of a mealy-mouthed answer?
I don’t subscribe to the Harvard hype myself. Just using Harvard to argue against brazil84’s idea of “deteriment”.
Could you recount one or more of the times you’ve been hurt by Affirmative Action?
Personally, that is.