Affirmative action - is it fair?

[Santosha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FimCUELRGGI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWS_MDJSiEE&NR=1

 

[ragashree]

Perhaps it's obvious to you, but I don't think a lot of the naysayers in this thread really think of it from that perspective. Plus if people bit on this comment, then the discussion would be steered toward arguments about white privilege, which, I'm sorry, are far more fucking interesting and constructive than people whining about "fairness" and saying the same thing over and over again.

<<edited>>

Please try to use more mature language than this, particularly when directing that language towards another poster (not just myself). Also, using this kind of language towards someone who has not used it towards yourself, then accusing the person you are directing it at of saying things "that don't add to the discussion, and can only serve to provoke", comes across as hypocritical and frankly rather irrational, if having a non-confrontational and productive discussion is your true goal as you seem to imply. What you mean, I think, is that you felt provoked by what I said and decided that this justified the use of childish language; sometimes it's better to just own one's own feelings rather than attacking the other person and making yourself look foolish in the process. Anyway, I'm going to try to explain myself more fully this time in the hope that you manage to refrain from further outbursts of this nature.

Well, this makes absolutely no sense, but okay.

You've implicitly assumed the premise that white privilege does exist in making the conclusion that affirmative action is fair, so far as I can see. This is to say that you have invoked an ideological construct upon which the policy of affirmative action is founded and argued to be fair, in order to ascribe the quality of fairness to affirmative action, without looking at anything outside this belief system or attempting to prove the validity of the premise, which you seem to think should be self-evident. This is a circular reasoning process.

Also, since the equitability of affirmative action is already argued largely on the grounds of "white privilege" being a real entity, it stands to reason that those who support the concept will also support affirmative action, and that those who are against will probably not. It takes considerable mental gymnastics to think affirmative action is unfair if one accepts the concept of white privilege, and conversely it is difficult to see that anyone who rejects the concept of white privilege will see affirmative action as fair.

I therefore don't think a statement like yours and the argument you make from that position later is saying anything much at all except to identify who is in which group, which is not difficult to work out already with the most basic knowledge of the issues. If that was all you were attempting to do, then fine, I accept that it may not be so obvious to some people; but it still seems to me that you are indulging in circular reasoning by trying to adduce truth values (about what is fair and unfair) purely from the belief system itself.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes, and it's mostly middle class white people who think it's unfair.

 

[erm]

It's not fair, obviously. That's in the definition.

Whether it's good or bad is the more important question, and possibly what is really meant by the OP.

Not that I'm going to answer that question, I will say that stereotype threat is a proven reality, side by side with racism and white privilege. If those are at least partly caused/perpetuated by a lack of exposure to certain minorities in certain roles, whether career roles, media roles and such, affirmative action has at least a theoretical chance of removing those problems permanently, through mere temporary enforcement. It puts more of those minorities in those roles, leading to exposure, countering those initial problems. That then leads to those minorities less inflicted by those problems, thus more likely to get into those roles without affirmative action. A positive cycle, which could remove the very need for affirmative action, thus providing a permanent solution.

 

[Haight]

Do you believe affirmative action in its current form is fair?

Do you believe that marginalizing blacks for two hundred plus years was fair?

If not, what are you going to do about it?

 

[reason]

It's unfair to individuals with diverse talents, aspirations, goals, and feelings so to be more fair to abstract categories of people based only on the colour of the skin or the shape of their genitals. So yes, it's "fair."

 

[Orangey]

Please try to use more mature language than this, particularly when directing that language towards another poster (not just myself). Also, using this kind of language towards someone who has not used it towards yourself, then accusing the person you are directing it at of saying things "that don't add to the discussion, and can only serve to provoke", comes across as hypocritical and frankly rather irrational, if having a non-confrontational and productive discussion is your true goal as you seem to imply. What you mean, I think, is that you felt provoked by what I said and decided that this justified the use of childish language; sometimes it's better to just own one's own feelings rather than attacking the other person and making yourself look foolish in the process. Anyway, I'm going to try to explain myself more fully this time in the hope that you manage to refrain from further outbursts of this nature.

Having a non-confrontational discussion is not necessarily my goal. I said productive. If we're going to have a productive discussion/argument, then each participant must say something which adds something substantial or new to the discourse. Of course, what counts as substantial is ill-defined at this point, but on a common-sense level it is not difficult to determine when someone's comment has added nothing to the discourse. As your comment did not add anything, I was able to deduce that it could only have possibly been intended to provoke. Is that clear enough for you?

Further, as you are not my mother, I would ask you to refrain from lecturing me on what language I can and cannot use. If there's a problem with anything I've said, the mods will notify me, thanks.

You've implicitly assumed the premise that white privilege does exist in making the conclusion that affirmative action is fair, so far as I can see. This is to say that you have invoked an ideological construct upon which the policy of affirmative action is founded and argued to be fair, in order to ascribe the quality of fairness to affirmative action, without looking at anything outside this belief system or attempting to prove the validity of the premise, which you seem to think should be self-evident. This is a circular reasoning process.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never made any such argument.

Also, since the equitability of affirmative action is already argued largely on the grounds of "white privilege" being a real entity, it stands to reason that those who support the concept will also support affirmative action, and that those who are against will probably not. It takes considerable mental gymnastics to think affirmative action is unfair if one accepts the concept of white privilege, and conversely it is difficult to see that anyone who rejects the concept of white privilege will see affirmative action as fair.

Okay? You've managed to say exactly what I said in an unnecessarily verbose way. Congratulations.

I therefore don't think a statement like yours and the argument you make from that position later is saying anything much at all except to identify who is in which group, which is not difficult to work out already with the most basic knowledge of the issues. If that was all you were attempting to do, then fine, I accept that it may not be so obvious to some people; but it still seems to me that you are indulging in circular reasoning by trying to adduce truth values (about what is fair and unfair) purely from the belief system itself.

What argument have I made? The most I've said is that "personally, I think that's incredibly naive [to believe that white privilege doesn't exist]", as an aside to another comment, but I didn't expand upon that or even attempt to argue that position.

 

[Haight]

It's unfair to individuals with diverse talents, aspirations, goals, and feelings so to be more fair to abstract categories of people based only on the colour of the skin or the shape of their genitals. So yes, it's "fair."

There was this dude named Lee that used to write abstract, unreasonable crap like this all the time. Maybe you should look him up.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

To quote edgar, it's bullshit.

Having to compete as hard as we have to to get a job (esp. these days) is one of the things that makes our economic system robust.

 

[reason]

There was this dude named Lee that used to write abstract, unreasonable crap like this all the time. Maybe you should look him up.

Oooo ... good argument

 

[Totenkindly]

Oooo ... good argument

I know, go figure in regards to that crazy Lee guy...

 

[reason]

Statistical disparities and individual injustices are not the same thing. The government should not be in the business of trying to prevent or compensate for statistical disparities, and whether it should prevent or compensate for individual injustices depends on the specific circumstance. Not every way that people mistreat each other is against the law and nor should be.

 

[ragashree]

Having a non-confrontational discussion is not necessarily my goal. I said productive. If we're going to have a productive discussion/argument, then each participant must say something which adds something substantial or new to the discourse. Of course, what counts as substantial is ill-defined at this point, but on a common-sense level it is not difficult to determine when someone's comment has added nothing to the discourse. As your comment did not add anything, I was able to deduce that it could only have possibly been intended to provoke. Is that clear enough for you?

Interestingly verbose way of rationalising your own incomprehension of what I was saying to start with and subsequent outburst, thanks. I think you imply that you want to have a non-confrontational discussion, or something amounting to that (nitpicking over the precise choice of adjective in a case like this is tiresome) when you complain that the other person is provocative.

Further, as you are not my mother, I would ask you to refrain from lecturing me on what language I can and cannot use. If there's a problem with anything I've said, the mods will notify me, thanks.

Did you think I was your mother? Never mind the mods, I was asking you to use more appropriate and mature language, particularly if you want to be able to have the meaningful discussion you claimed to be craving. If you choose not to after being asked, that indicates the likely value of continuing the discussion with you.

Okay? You've managed to say exactly what I said in an unnecessarily verbose way. Congratulations.

I was expanding on my statement earlier that this was already obvious to those who understood the issues.

What argument have I made? The most I've said is that "personally, I think that's incredibly naive [to believe that white privilege doesn't exist]", as an aside to another comment, but I didn't expand upon that or even attempt to argue that position.

Come again? You really don't think I'm naive enough not to see that you are implying it by your approach here? Your position at any rate is obvious, and you seem to be justifying it with reference to the whole concept of white privilege. I think it's too ideologically loaded to be used in that way (except to say that this is why I have my opinion).

I don't know why you've honed in on my posts in particular, but unless you have anything better to add than deconstructions of arguments I never even made, then kindly fuck off.

"Honing in on your posts," because I made one short post and one longer one to explain the shorter one after you threw a tantrum at me? That comes across as a bit paranoid, frankly. I still don't think you yourself were adding much there except a false (or redundant) line of reasoning as I went to some trouble to explain in my last post; though I appreciate from your responses so far that you would rather swear at me than actually discuss anything. That speaks for itself, really. I'm therefore not going to waste more time on you if you're not going to even try to behave in a reasonable manner; it's simply pointless and will rapidly become boring.

Erm's point is more important to the discussion than this bickering as far as I'm concerned in any case, so I'm quite happy to leave it here if you want to.

 

[A window to the soul]

Affirmative action that ensures a percentage of minority groups be included in higher educational programs is definitely BULLSHIT. If your academic credentials are poor, you don't deserve to get in.

 

[Orangey]

Interestingly verbose way of rationalising your own incomprehension of what I was saying to start with and subsequent outburst, thanks.

What you were saying "to start with" was this:

Are you trying to get kudos for stating the obvious here...?

This is neither difficult to understand nor substantive as regards the subject under discussion. It can ONLY BE meant for provocation.

You can continue to believe that I'm rationalizing, but the fact of the matter is that what you said was pointless.

Unless you want to clarify why you think it was important to tell me that what I was saying was so obvious, even after admitting that "it might not be so obvious to other people" (and snidely insinuating motives on my part), I will continue to believe that what you said was indeed intended to provoke.

I think you imply that you want to have a non-confrontational discussion, or something amounting to that (nitpicking over the precise choice of adjective in a case like this is tiresome) when you complain that the other person is provocative.

Provocation is okay as long as it is not the ONLY purpose of the post. It even says so in the forum rules. Your post, unfortunately, contained nothing else, which is why I complained.

Did you think I was your mother?

No, but you obviously thought you were mine.

Never mind the mods, I was asking you to use more appropriate and mature language, particularly if you want to be able to have the meaningful discussion you claimed to be craving. If you choose not to after being asked, that indicates the likely value of continuing the discussion with you.

1. There never was any value to be had in this exchange between us, as you started it off by saying something inane.
2. A meaningful discussion can be had with or without the foul words that seem to offend you so much.
3. When I indicated that I wanted to have a more meaningful conversation, I intended it as a criticism of what I viewed as meaningless comments on your part. I have already stated this several times.

I was expanding on my statement earlier that this was already obvious to those who understood the issues.

No sh**, Sherlock. And in the process you merely repeated what I had already said. Don't you see why that's pointless?

Me: If X then Y.
You: Well that's obvious.
Me: So what? I just wanted to point it out to people who may not know.
You: But [insert verbose repetition of "if X then Y."]
Me (now): Again, so what? All you've done is repeat what I said.

Come again? You really don't think I'm naive enough not to see that you are implying it by your approach here?

I may be implying it, but I haven't made any argument for or against it. If you want to accuse me of using underhanded rhetorical tactics, that's fine. But you can't attack an argument I never made.

Your position at any rate is obvious,

If it's obvious then it's because, as I told you in my last post, I have declared my position plainly. I haven't made any arguments for it (or against the positions of others, for that matter), but I have stated it.

and you seem to be justifying it with reference to the whole concept of white privilege. I think it's too ideologically loaded to be used in that way (except to say that this is why I have my opinion).

I've not attempted to justify anything. The bolded is exactly what I've done.

"Honing in on your posts," because I made one short post and one longer one to explain the shorter one after you threw a tantrum at me? That comes across as a bit paranoid, frankly.

Because the post you originally quoted of mine did not contain an argument, and yet you proceeded to (1) point out that it was so obvious (as if to devalue what I said, for whatever reason), and (2) accuse me of circular reasoning, even though there was no attempt at a line of reasoning present in the post! Can't you see why that's confusing?

I still don't think you yourself were adding much there except a false (or redundant) line of reasoning as I went to some trouble to explain in my last post;

Again, what reasoning? Stating that "the only way AA could be viewed as unfair is if you don't think white privilege exists" is not a line of reasoning. Are you crazy?

though I appreciate from your responses so far that you would rather swear at me than actually discuss anything. That speaks for itself, really. I'm therefore not going to waste more time on you if you're not going to even try to behave in a reasonable manner; it's simply pointless and will rapidly become boring.

If all that you gathered from any of my posts to you was that I was swearing at you, then either you fail at reading comprehension or you're ignoring what I'm saying.

And since when is the use of swear words itself a sign that one is not "behaving reasonably?" You must be a sensitive Susan.

Erm's point is more important to the discussion than this bickering as far as I'm concerned in any case, so I'm quite happy to leave it here if you want to.

If that were true, then you wouldn't have engaged me in bickering for as long as you have. Let's not pretend, shall we?

 

[Ginkgo]

Statistical disparities and individual injustices are not the same thing. The government should not be in the business of trying to prevent or compensate for statistical disparities, and whether it should prevent or compensate for individual injustices depends on the specific circumstance. Not every way that people mistreat each other is against the law and nor should be.

Thank you.

 

[Orangey]

Affirmative action that ensures a percentage of minority groups be included in higher educational programs is definitely BULLSHIT. If your academic credentials are poor, you don't deserve to get in.

That implies that academic credentials are the only factors that count towards whether one is admitted to a certain school or not. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), that is simply not the case.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Yes, and it's mostly middle class white people who think it's unfair.

No, lower middle and down think it's unfair because those are the people most affected by it. It's not a big issue for upper middle and $rich$ whites, although they may also disagree with some affirmative action policies it's not going to be as big an issue as property taxes, income taxes or estate taxes, etc, etc. I realize the application of affirmative action does cost money and it does indirectly affect middle and upper classes through income taxes, but they aren't being widely discriminated against because of affirmative action and they usually have more options for finding jobs when they get turned down to meet some racist quota.

Poor to middle class whites are discriminated against for what seems like absolutely no reason. How is a white individual making 8000 per year different than a black individual making 8000 per year if they have the same level of education, same family background, etc, etc? Anything besides skin color? Race shouldn't be a factor, especially when it comes to getting a job or receiving welfare. It's unfortunate that we have a government that goes from institutionized slavery, to institutionalized racism in favor of one racial group to institutionalized racism in favor of another.

If you want to help blacks who are struggling then change felony disenfranchisement laws, make laws that make discrimination against anyone who's committed a felony or misdemeanor and has served time in jail, prison, probation/parole, paid restitution illegal. You have about 15% of all black men who are forced to work at low-income jobs(illegal workers compete for the same jobs) because of past convictions, many of whom can't go to college, since a drug conviction automatically bars you from recieving grants and any conviction prevents you from working for most national, regional and multinational businesses and they're not going to make enough money to pay for college or other job training working for min. wage at mcdonalds. That 15% is expected to keep going up, btw. To add to that, 24% of blacks have "below basic" literacy(compared to 7% of whites), 30% of welfare recipients are black(double the percentage of the population they represent), etc, etc, etc....

If we focused on income, education(ie literacy rates, highest level of completion, etc) and citizenship instead of skin color and type of genitals, you'll see that blacks will still benefit from government assistance while cutting down the abuse of the system by middle-class women and illegal immigrants/aliens. The difference would be that it'd be fair...because it'd no longer be racist, just nationalist and socialist.

One more thing that is related to affirmative action and welfare...although only obliquely: Forced sterilization of habitual, low-income, uneducated breeders would help cut down the costs and negative social consquences of the perpetual cycle that exists within this specific group of people. If you have four kids by four different fathers who don't pay child support and you've never made more than 10k in your life maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have kids? If not sterilization then we need to stop giving incentives to people to have more kids than they can afford. If you know many poor women you might've noticed that quite a few like to have lots and lots of kids, not just because they're uneducated or stupid or ignorant of birth control methods, but because they know that having kids with only a part-time min. wage job to support them = govt. $$$$ and free food. It's almost as good as getting married to someone with a $50k/year job.

 

[A window to the soul]

That implies that academic credentials are the only factors that count towards whether one is admitted to a certain school or not. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), that is simply not the case.

What other factors are you thinking about?

 

[kyuuei]

I think about this the same way I think about most awesome theories - They make perfect sense in theory, and humans screw them up in practice.

It makes sense to give someone a leg up after you have a 200 year head start--but instead they're just giving them an extra arm while pointing out how far behind minorities actually have been.

I don't think it works. I think it's a great try, but I think its flawed too much. Im sure it helps some people out, but I don't think it's doing the right kind of help.