Why do you reify the idea of a “valid category”? A category is only as good as its reflection of the real world and of its instrumental value.
Race is not a valid category for determining a person’s virtue, his heavenly rewards, his IQ, and his work ethic.
Race is a valid category for the redress of historical wrongs perpetrated on members of that race, since they are still paying the costs of the wrongs inflicted on their ancestors.
Why is this so controversial?
A polygon is a valid category for geometry. A polynomial is a valid category for algebra. The fact that they are not valid categories when you change their contexts does not undermine the validity of these categories in general.
I have no problem with this noble goal. (I even tend to support it, using phrases such as “perceived race,” or “people whose ancestors were imported from Africa,” and similar constructions in most of these discussions.) However, we have over 200 years of history in which people discussed race and those discussions (and the texts to which we refer that emanated from them) do not go away simply because we declare we will not talk about them any more. The laws that currently define discrimination in terms of “race, creed, color, or national origin” are fairly effective (when they are enforced) even if “creed” includes atheism and “race” and “color” are malleable.
We have not even gotten most people (including some Dopers) to recognize that race has no biological utility for humans. I think we’re a bit distant from getting it out of societal discussions.
However, there is no evidence that the genetic component is linked to anything we would call a “race.” All the great sprinters tend to have ancestors in Western, coastal Africa, not South Africa, Tanzania, Somalia, or other locations away from that region.
Are there people who argue against even the possibility of genetics because of a need to perceive humanity as uniform? Sure. But we don’t cut them any more slack, here, than we do Creationists or people who insist that “the Negro race” has some specific properties. (It is simply taking longer than we thought.)
I agree with that, and I don’t think we should simply not talk about them, but talk about why they don’t work. Simply ignoring that race is still a concept with societal currently doesn’t do much good. Educating children about why race is an arbitrary, ephemeral and malleable construct that isn’t necessary is a much better way to go about things. And, of course, alternatives for terminology (and associated through-patterns) can then be substituted and discussed.
I agree with that, too, although, eventually, it might be nice to change it to “perceived ancestry, creed, color, etc…”
After all, I wonder how many people who “know” what black means would say that this is a black woman, and thus, of African heritage.
You know… from Africa, a town, I suppose, in Australia.
I know. It’s taking much longer than we thought.
Oh, I agree. I think I’ve hypothesized that a figure of somewhere between three and five generations for a true paradigm shift. But I don’t think that because the project will almost certainly last much longer than my lifetime, it shouldn’t be undertaken starting yesterday. Heck, for a long, long time, people talked about the four humours. Or about how going out at night could make you sick. Or how mental patients were possessed, or communing with God, or what have you.
Sure, it’ll take time. Maybe even multiple lifetimes.
Seems to me, that’s a great reason to get going.
Because it hasn’t been established; only asserted.
If X is a valid way to identify those who have characteristic Y, AFAICT then you are asserting that members of group X are more likely, on average, to have characteristic Y. And if you have enough evidence, then you can establish that this is true.
If someone then comes along and shows, with an equal amount of evidence, that group X also shares characteristic Z, then you need to show why Z is false but Y is true for exactly the same group.
Don’t see why what I wrote is in conflict with anything brickbacon is saying. AA doesn’t require that something be taken from one person to be given to another. For one thing, that suggests that a certain “something” (a job, a school slot) was only one person’s to begin with and was stolen to be given to someone else. Not true.
But let’s talk about employment.
Two people interview for a management position, both with satisfactory qualifications. The employer makes the decision to hire the woman partially because out of a group of 10 managers in the company, there are only two women.
Is it fair to say that the man who didn’t get the position “lost” the position? It wasn’t his to begin with. It wasn’t owed to him. She took nothing from him.
Here’s another reason why it’s stupid to call this zero sum. *The only reason the woman had an advantage in that particular situation is because that company had few women managers. * If you analyze this problem logically, you’ll see why it makes no sense to say that the male has a net disadvantage due to gender-preferences.
A man can only be considered to have a “net disadvantage” only if every time he applied to a company, 1) his only competition were females AND 2) the company had a female shortage. But there’s no way these two conditions can be in effect simultaneously at every company he interviews for. They undo one another.
This is why calling this discrimination is wrong. When blacks were discriminated against in the past, there was no accounting for qualifications, underrepresentation, and whatnot. They were discriminated because they were black and were hated because of it. AA doesn’t come anywhere close to this.
So the same would be true if the hiring manager didn’t hire the woman, right? The position wasn’t “owed” to her. So nobody took anything away from her.
Why? Ask her what she meant. We are discussing a specific term. You say it means something every definition I can find says it doesn’t.
Why American colleges?
Either way, here is a list . I would argue that you could get as good an education at any of those school in the top 25. Yes, you don’t always have that name recognition, but those schools are as excellent education wise.
Excuse me, I misread the question. I doubt the are two dozens schools equal to Harvard in prestige and reputation, but I don’t see hwat that has to do with the argument.
But why was she denied the job? That’s the key question. Was it because her gender was seen as a handicap or deficiency? Or was it because the company had a lot of women already and wanted to bring in someone different for the sake of diversity?
Why was the man denied the job? Was it because his gender was seen as a handicap or deficiency? Or was it because the company had a lot of men already and wanted to bring in someone different for the sake of diversity?
The answer depends on whether the situation is discrimination or whether its AA.
So what? I already explained what I understood the term to mean.
My claim is that affirmative action is a zero sum game in the sense that a preference given to people in Group X generally means a detriment to people outside of group X.
If you think that I’m abusing the phrase “zero sum game,” or using a non-standard definition, then I hereby define the phrase “flying unicorn” to mean a situation where a preference given to one person means a detriment to someone else.
I claim that affirmative action is a flying unicorn, and all my other points stand.
Because most American students prefer to attend American universities.
Well, prestige and reputation are important things to people who apply to places like Harvard. Not to mention location. Suppose your child gets admitted to Harvard, and after he accepts, he’s told that Harvard has decided to send him to Kansas State University instead. He will pay Harvard tuition, but live in a Kansas State dorm; take Kansas State classes; and receive a Kansas State diploma. Would you have a problem with that?
A Harvard law degree is highly esteemed in this country.
Two applicants to a law firm. One from Harvard. The other from a state university. Both received quality educations. Both did well on their bar exams. Both had great resumes.
The lawyer from the state university couldn’t afford the Harvard education, but was smart enough to get in (he actually got accepted but declined). So he went to the good ole state school and performed well.
The Harvard grad came from an affluent background and could afford to attend the school of his dreams. He also performed well.
They both interview with the firm. The Harvard gets the gig. Why. Because he comes from Hahvard, duh.
Question: is it fair to characterize the value placed on a Harvard degree as producing a detriment to others who lack one?
