Affirmative Action

[Abacus]

The point of affirmative action is not necessarily to stop racism. Some races are economically advantaged compared to other races for historical reasons (slavery for example). Affirmative action is an attempt to fix this, to make wealth decoupled from race in any way. When someone has less money, they have fewer opportunities, worse health care and most importantly worse education growing up. When combined with the stark differences in average wealth among the races, this means that one race as an aggregate has fewer opportunities to succeed. Affirmative action tries to make up for these missed opportunities.

Also, affirmative action does not mean that you are choosing the less qualified candidate. When judging two potential candidates to hire, people have a natural tendency to let their prejudices overcome complete objectivity. One study showed that people asked to judge (fake) job applications tended to judge more 'foreign-sounding' names to be less qualified. Affirmative action tries to fight this inherent bias to let the truly most qualified candidate get the job.

I don't agree with everything I put in this post, but I felt that the arguments needed to be made. I personally support aa or something similar for schools but not for jobs.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

If you want to argue that we can't get rid of Affirmative Action because it harms the rights of minorities, first you're going to have to prove that Affirmative Action currently helps minorities. Otherwise, your argument is no more sound than "We can't serve pancakes because it harms the rights of minorities.".

I understand that sweeping statements such as these are often made (I'm sure I've made a few myself), but when they go against all intuition, they need some proof. It isn't obviously the case that the US is not a meritocracy; in fact, I don't see why a company concerned with maximizing worker efficiency wouldn't want the best workers. A link of some sorts would be necessary to back this claim up (since the onus is on you for going against conventional, hiring procedure--procedure that benefits employers and procedure that contradicts your claim). Also, you can expect me to closely analyze your source!

Intentions alone are not a valid enough reason for the continuation of AA (why didn't I think of this short form?). Policy needs to be judged according to an independent standard.

Ok, I'll play.

***About "instituting quotas is reverse racism!":

This would be relevant if instituting quotas had been legal since 1978, but unfortunately it hasn't been. US Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke (1978) upheld that instituting quotas based on race/gender was not permissable. So, this argument of "AA forces people to hire minorities" is not grounded in reality. Here is a link for more information, as it is obvious that everyone arguing against me on this point has never heard of this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke)

If I did say or imply that I thought a quota system was the right way to go, I apologize. I thought everybody knew that quotas haven't existed for more than 30 years, but I guess after reading that "misleading media" thread I can understand where you guys are coming from now.

***About "even encouraging people to hire minorities is racist!" and "helping minorities hurts white people!":

There were two fairly recent Supreme Court cases regarding similar statutes used by the U of Michigan's policy on AA, (Gratz v. Bollinger) and also that of its law school (Grutter v. Bollinger). The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, did not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.

In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice, it promoted a "compelling state interest" in diversity at all levels of society. A record number of "friend-of-court" briefs were filed in support of Michigan's affirmative action case by hundreds of organizations representing academia, business, labor unions, and the military, arguing the benefits of broad racial representation. As Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

(Source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html)

The Supreme Court agrees with me on the fact that AA is valid, but needs to be modernized.

Minorities have a significantly higher poverty rate than whites, and the amount of hate crimes in this country is still on the rise. Not only does the foundation of AA help minorities gain a level playing field in the workplace and school, it helps caucasian men become more diverse and well-rounded.

QED

 

[Ancien Régime]

So essentially, you can have "racial preferences in hiring" for utilitarian reasons. I still don't see how AA is any more than "the solution to past racism is future racism."

Furthermore, it assumes that the person hiring has bias; and then imposes a one-size-fits all method of countering that bias (that may not exist!).

Ultimately, the matter is irrelevant; I think all institutions should have the right to discriminate how they want and suffer the consequences later.

 

[Deck Knight]

Minorities have a significantly higher poverty rate than whites, and the amount of hate crimes in this country is still on the rise. Not only does the foundation of AA help minorities gain a level playing field in the workplace and school, it helps caucasian men become more diverse and well-rounded.

QED

Yeah, we all know those white people hate all the darkies and need to civilized by our progressive betters, who constantly tell us about how many black/gay/minority friends they have.

The foundation of AA tells me that there are still backwards progressives out there who believe that because you are not pale-skinned you are inferior and need a government coerced handout to advance yourself.

Newsflash jrrrrrrr: Nobody chooses to be white, either (except perhaps Michael Jackson). Stop pretending an entire group of people have a character flaw based on their skin color. That used to be called racism until people stopped defining it as "prejudice based on race" and started defining it as "prejudice based on race unless you're insulting whites."

Asian Americans have been coming to America for decades and still managed to become successful, functioning members of society even during the days when people called them "Chinamen" as a categorical derogatory.

My ex was Fillipina and made a random reference one day about how NAACP has done nothing for Asians. Asians do not get bonus points on admissions exams, Asians are actually discriminated against because they violate the cardinal assumption of AA: If you're skin ain't white you're dumb as a post and can't get a job or into college without a benevolent government to give you a +10 pt cap of official blackness on an entrance exam.

No African American living today is the victim of slavery. Their parents and grandparents long ago were able to get any job they wanted if they worked for it. In fact, the largest benefactors of affirmative action are upper and middle class blacks, poor blacks still get the screw because the government tells them they can't excel without a handicap. Poor whites? LOL. Those are the neanderthals that must become more "well-rounded" and "diverse" without assistance according to AA.

Affirmative Action: The soft bigotry of low expectations.

There is no proof that being with people of different skin colors is in and of itself beneficial educationally. In fact when put together blacks, whites, and asians still self-segregate into smaller groups. "Diversity" is for bean-counters. The business school I went to, God bless them, was mostly white (80%-ish) and mostly male (about 60-40, with the ratio going down each successive year. It was established in 1863 and used to be an all male school), but I guarantee you there's a black student in every single university approved advertisement.

After all, university isn't about intellectual rigor or critical thought anymore, it is about accepting wholesale the premise of diversity bean-counters. Educational experience is aided by intellectual rigor, not studying in the same class as someone with a different skin tone. You will not be a better manager, physicist, engineer, or teacher merely because you had to share physical proximity with someone of a different skin tone in college. If you are truly racist no amount of exposure will cure you.

Here is a fun game:

Not only does the foundation of AA help whites gain a level playing field in the workplace and school, it helps negroids and mongoloids become more diverse and well-rounded.

QED

Explain to me why Quote 1 is not considered improper to you where Quote 2 would likely get you in a dander.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

So essentially, you can have "racial preferences in hiring" for utilitarian reasons. I still don't see how AA is any more than "the solution to past racism is future racism."

Furthermore, it assumes that the person hiring has bias; and then imposes a one-size-fits all method of countering that bias (that may not exist!).

Because this isn't racist at all. The current form of AA does not say "you have to hire this many black people", it says "hey, if your entire workforce is white, you might want to check out these other groups of people too..."

Ultimately, the matter is irrelevant; I think all institutions should have the right to discriminate how they want and suffer the consequences later.

I agree to some extent, however since that is a very long time off I would rather work with what we have in reality.

Yeah, we all know those white people hate all the darkies and need to civilized by our progressive betters, who constantly tell us about how many black/gay/minority friends they have.

The foundation of AA tells me that there are still backwards progressives out there who believe that because you are not pale-skinned you are inferior and need a government coerced handout to advance yourself.

No, the foundation of AA says that if you are not pale-skinned, working with pale-skinned people will benefit both of you more often than not (and vice-versa). Nothing is being coerced by the government, as I've already pointed out, quotas have been illegal for more than 30 years.

Newsflash jrrrrrrr: Nobody chooses to be white, either (except perhaps Michael Jackson). Stop pretending an entire group of people have a character flaw based on their skin color. That used to be called racism until people stopped defining it as "prejudice based on race" and started defining it as "prejudice based on race unless you're insulting whites."

Once again, it is not prejudicial at all. I agree that the original quota institution is a horribly flawed model, and I agree with its ban. The benefits of having a broad racial representation anywhere outweigh the benefits of allowing bias to control choices 100%. Several court cases have upheld this notion.

Asian Americans have been coming to America for decades and still managed to become successful, functioning members of society even during the days when people called them "Chinamen" as a categorical derogatory.

Asian Americans were also not forced away from their families and into slavery, then denied education and voting rights over the course of several hundred years in this country. Lynching Asians has never been a popular activity for any part of the population, etc. I really don't want to compare races because which race went through which atrocity is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides, if they can live in that environment, wouldn't they actually have done better in a pro-equality America? If we are going to have a government, shouldn't it try to help people succeed anywhere it can?

My ex was Fillipina and made a random reference one day about how NAACP has done nothing for Asians. Asians do not get bonus points on admissions exams, Asians are actually discriminated against because they violate the cardinal assumption of AA: If you're skin ain't white you're dumb as a post and can't get a job or into college without a benevolent government to give you a +10 pt cap of official blackness on an entrance exam.

Source?

No African American living today is the victim of slavery. Their parents and grandparents long ago were able to get any job they wanted if they worked for it. In fact, the largest benefactors of affirmative action are upper and middle class blacks, poor blacks still get the screw because the government tells them they can't excel without a handicap. Poor whites? LOL. Those are the neanderthals that must become more "well-rounded" and "diverse" without assistance according to AA.

Once again, I never said that AA was perfect. I also addressed your "helping minorities hurts white people!" argument above. You are really stretching my position into something it isnt. I agree that AA needs some work but the foundation of why it exists is solid.

There is no proof that being with people of different skin colors is in and of itself beneficial educationally. In fact when put together blacks, whites, and asians still self-segregate into smaller groups. "Diversity" is for bean-counters. The business school I went to, God bless them, was mostly white (80%-ish) and mostly male (about 60-40, with the ratio going down each successive year. It was established in 1863 and used to be an all male school), but I guarantee you there's a black student in every single university approved advertisement.

Ok, I have the Supreme Court with evidence on record saying one thing, and then there is you estimating the minority population at one school that you went to saying another.

And w/e, I might as well provide MORE proof: http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/W97/research.html

While it could be argued that socializing with nonwhite students is, in itself, a positive experience for white students, what is perhaps most pertinent about these findings is that socializing across racial lines and participating in discussions of racial issues have both been shown in other studies to be associated with widespread beneficial effects on a student's academic and personal development, irrespective of race (Astin 1993; Villalpando 1994).

After all, university isn't about intellectual rigor or critical thought anymore, it is about accepting wholesale the premise of diversity bean-counters. Educational experience is aided by intellectual rigor, not studying in the same class as someone with a different skin tone. You will not be a better manager, physicist, engineer, or teacher merely because you had to share physical proximity with someone of a different skin tone in college. If you are truly racist no amount of exposure will cure you.

The "diversity bean-counters" help improve critical thought by providing multiple standpoints on one issue, among other educational benefits. This is not something that can be debated, it exists no matter how much you want to scream "reverse racism!". For example, as a software designer, it might help to know that a large portion of the world reads from right to left instead of left to right when attempting to design button layouts on interfaces, etc. That kind of perspective would not be had by someone who has been accustomed to only one culture their entire life. I know this might be surprising, but working with people who are different than you can actually help you in the real world!

Does working with a brown person guarantee that you will be a better engineer? No. Can it help? Most likely. Does it hurt? No.

Also, AA isn't about curing racism. It is about helping the victims of racism. That is quite the philosophical difference.

Here is a fun game:

Explain to me why Quote 1 is not considered improper to you where Quote 2 would likely get you in a dander.

Well other than the ridiculous word choice, I don't really see any issue with either quote. "negroids", "mongoloids" and "whites" all benefit from AA. It levels the playing field for everybody, and helps everybody become more diverse. Diversity is a proven educational benefit that helps everybody. Nowhere in AA does it state "this only applies to colored people". If blacks made up an overwhelming majority of an area, it would also apply to whites too. It just so happens that since this country has a white majority, blacks and asians etc tend to be on the "minority" end more often.

Most, if not all of the anti-AA sentiment comes from its blatant misrepresentation in the media. The fact that people still think quotas exist is a perfect example of this.

 

[Jenigmat]

I personally think that one of the biggest issues with the current state of Affirmative Action is the amount of aid that goes not to poor black Americans, but to the wealthy black who tend to be more highly qualified for the school/job/whatever's going on. If the real issue is that minorities should be put on an equal playing field as a compensating factor for lower incomes, then Affirmative Action should be geared not at blacks in general, but at people who live in poverty. If two people are at an equal income level and only one can be helped, fine, help the minority if it'll make you feel better, but there's no reason that a rich black person should be given opportunities over poor whites.

 

[ivar]

Black, or White, poor or rich, it shouldn't matter: applicants should be granted entrance to institutions on the basis of academic or relevant work-related merit alone.

And I guess I should have defined the specific form of quota that I meant, since I didn't mean it in a traditional sense: I meant quota in a loose sense of the word, like a dynamic quota (it wouldn't be AA if no minorities were accepted, so it is, to an extent, a quasi-quota system).

And jrrrrrrr, your "proof", from Diversity Digest, offers little in the way of demonstrating evidence for its proof--that students benefit academically from a diverse student body. It merely repeats the conclusions of a UCLA study, but does not show how the UCLA study reached its conclusions, nor does it show the study itself, merely referencing it; you cannot honestly expect me to grant its assertions without seeing the study itself. Is the methodology flimsy (for example, a school like Yale has AA initiatives for its admissions process; is this study comparing schools that would be excellent regardless of AA)? Is the author entitled to his conclusions based on the evidence presented? These are all things I need to know before I accept proof (since it goes against all logic--that somehow taking lesser students equates to better academics).

In fact, the article itself references a court ruling--Hopwood v. University of Texas School of Law ruling of the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit--"that [suggests] that there are no significant educational benefits associated with having a racially diverse student body". Me citing said ruling as counter-proof (even without the details of the ruling) would be just as much proof that AA has no educational benefits as the article has proof that AA does have educational benefits.

 

[Psycho]

I havent really taken the time to read all of these responses, but just to kind of give my opinion on the topic: I think it was necessary at one point, for a certain generation. However, I think Affirmative Action has long since overstayed its welcome and in some respects actually brought about the discrimination against other races in an attempt to equalize the white/black issues that were prevalent in the mid 1900's.

 

[adman2]

The problem with pure merit is that it fails to take into account other factors, mainly oppurtunities. For a simple example, think of GPA. AP classes are weighted, and can increase the grade point average beyond what is otherwise possible. Two students equal in all other things (assuming same environment, genes, grades, everything) can have different GPAs if one goes to a school that offers more AP courses than the other. Of course, GPA is not the only factor that colleges look at, but you would be naive to think that it wouldn't be a factor.

One can add economic factors, too. If both students are equally good, but one has to have an after-school job to pay for necessities, it gives him less time to study, and the one with more time to study would win.

The real world is of course more complex than my examples, but they show how advantages and disadvantages can rear their heads. I would advocate full merit if the job has no room for error (nuclear plant, special forces, etc.).

 

[ivar]

The problem with pure merit is that it fails to take into account other factors, mainly oppurtunities. For a simple example, think of GPA. AP classes are weighted, and can increase the grade point average beyond what is otherwise possible. Two students equal in all other things (assuming same environment, genes, grades, everything) can have different GPAs if one goes to a school that offers more AP courses than the other. Of course, GPA is not the only factor that colleges look at, but you would be naive to think that it wouldn't be a factor.

Then go to a different school that does offer AP courses, or an enriched program; schools generally allow (in Canada, at least) for students to attend schools that are not designated as their home schools if entering an enriched program of sorts. If you have to travel, then do it; I know I did.

One can add economic factors, too. If both students are equally good, but one has to have an after-school job to pay for necessities, it gives him less time to study, and the one with more time to study would win.

White people have to deal with economic despondency, too. AA ignores this, and discriminate purely on the basis of ethnicity--this is despite the fact that said minority student may be wealthy.

Not only that, but a white may be a minority, poor white (say, an immigrant from Macedonia or Kosovo) and will not receive AA benefits because he is not the "appropriate" minority, fitting under the category of Caucasian. Not to say that I think AA should exist in any form (be it for whites, or blacks, or whatever, since it would be discriminatory), but even if accepting the claim that the concept of AA is not discriminatory, the actual practice of it is. AA initiatives seem to be more concerned with visible diversity, from what I've picked up.

 

[Invective]

news i just found

basically, in the article, a firefighting department issued a test that met federal guidelines to mitigate racial disparity, yet when it was discovered that no minorities passed the test, decided that there was something wrong with the test.

Marcarelli (a white guy) said it was "gut wrenching" to learn that he was No. 1 on the test but would not get promoted. "It's something that shakes what you believe in. Because you believe if you work hard, you're rewarded for that, and that's not necessarily the case," Marcarelli said.

so, yeah, white guy who aced the test, yet will potentially not receive any promotion even though the test was in accordance with the federal guidelines. so once the black guys start failing, they decide its flawed. yeaahhh....