Please rationalize affirmative action for me

[AJFenix]

Because to me it is quite absurd that someone of one ethnic group can attain a position that someone else was better qualified for only due to their ethnicity/race. I am not a racist/bigot, a republican OR liberal, or any kind of activist, and I could care less about politics for the most part. I am more than happy with everyone having an equal chance. I know people of all creeds and colors that share my sentiments, as well. I mean, a black person should have the same opportunity for a job as a white person. If the black person is better qualified, he should get the job. Yet its possible for the white guy to be higher qualified and get screwed due to "affirmative action". Isn't that a bit racist? The white guy isn't getting the job strictly because hes white, or rather "not black", when he was more qualified for the position. Obviously there are people that support it, but there are people that strongly disagree even in the black community. So what exactly is affirmative action accomplishing, and why do some people deem it necessary and support it?

[MCS]

Quick notes:

--There is value in diversity. Personally, I like the idea that we should actively attempt to foster a climate of diversity.

--What does it really means to be "qualified" for something? Is there an absolute standard?

--Legacies recieve preference in college admissions, which is an obvious form of race/class discrimination, but most people seem to accept that.

--Affirmative action is designed for borderline cases. If you are on the borderline, you don't get to whine.

--White women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.

--Affirmative action doesn't just apply to blacks/Hispanics. Many times, white applicants to historically black schools are given preference and scholarships.

[PoBoy321]

If I understand affirmative action correctly (which I might not), the purpose is not simply to give jobs to less qualified minorities. My understanding is that its intent is to allow minorities, many of whom grew up in impoverished conditions with little access to worthwhile education, and still face racism in the job application process, to have an even playing field with affluent whites.

I personally have my own objections to affirmative action (I feel that it actually promotes racism rather than helps curtail it), but I think that its intent is admirable, even if its applicatioin leads to far more problems than it solves.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

--There is value in diversity. Personally, I like the idea that we should actively attempt to foster a climate of diversity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm probably one of the most liberal people you'll ever meet, but this is BS. The very concept of "diversity," is premised on the belief that there are real, fundamental differences between races and that supposition hinders the ability to truly integrate different "races," which is the supposed goal of "diversity."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I am more than happy with everyone having an equal chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamentally impossible.

There's no way to structure society such that everyone has the same familial upbringing, education, mental/physical capacity, culural values, social exposure and talents without instituting complete totalitarianism.

Life is not fair, and the cost of instituting fairness is not worth the effects.

Let the jobs go to the best qualified individuals.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am more than happy with everyone having an equal chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamentally impossible.

There's no way to structure society such that everyone has the same familial upbringing, education, mental/physical capacity, culural values, social exposure and talents without instituting complete totalitarianism.

Life is not fair, and the cost of instituting fairness is not worth the effects.

Let the jobs go to the best qualified individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I primarily meant equal as in race not being a factor when looking at qualifications. As you said, let the jobs/positions go to the best qualified individuals, whether those individuals be black, white, or whatever, but don't screw either side because they aren't a particular race. Affirmative action DOES cost higher qualified people jobs.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The very concept of "diversity," is premised on the belief that there are real, fundamental differences between races and that supposition hinders the ability to truly integrate different "races," which is the supposed goal of "diversity."

[/ QUOTE ]


But I think it's important to have people see faces that aren't the same color as theirs and deal with them, even if there is no real underlying difference. Maybe especially if there's not an underlying difference, because then people will realize that fact.

(Also, I don't view diversity as strictly racial, and didn't just have race in mind when I wrote that.)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it's important to have people see faces that aren't the same color as theirs and deal with them, even if there is no real underlying difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who are you to make that decision for other people? Maybe your house should be more "diverse"? What better place to "integrate" then your own home?

This decision to force employers to hire less qualified people based on race likely costs those businesses money.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This decision to force employers to hire less qualified people based on race likely costs those businesses money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it may give groups that have been systemically and grossly, as well as legally and morally, disadvantaged economically, for a number of generations a chance to get to a level playing field.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This decision to force employers to hire less qualified people based on race likely costs those businesses money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it may give groups that have been systemically and grossly, as well as legally and morally, disadvantaged economically, for a number of generations a chance to get to a level playing field.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a level playing field. Have the top qualifactions for the position = get the job, regardless of race/ethnicity etc. is a level playing field. But instead we say "hey, you are (blank), you get hired over this other guy who would be doing the job better, but we need to meet our quota". A bit absurd, no? This doesn't negate racism, it creates it. Now (blank) is being favored while the other guy, who would have been better for the spot, is left out to dry simply because of his and the other guy's race.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Who are you to make that decision for other people? Maybe your house should be more "diverse"? What better place to "integrate" then your own home?

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments and courts make decisions for other people all the time. It's an unavoidable part of living in an organized society. The idea here is that there is a societal obligation to correct wrongs of the past, and that society is made better off by these programs.

The comment about my home is ridiculous. No one works or receives educational instruction in my home. My home is not changing anyone's social or economic status.

[ QUOTE ]
This decision to force employers to hire less qualified people based on race likely costs those businesses money.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? There are lots of laws that cost businesses money, but we tolerate them if we decide that the overall impact is significantly positive enough. I suspect affirmative action has a very small impact on a company's bottom line anyway.

[Metric]

I think the standard rationalization is something like this: Promising "group X" preferential treatment is a pretty effective way to make "group X" a loyal constituancy in future elections.

[gumpzilla]

Is your argument centered on presumed inefficiency of this setup? Or does straying from what you perceive as a meritocracy bother you? If it's the latter case, then I think your argument is sort of tenuous. If the rates at which, say, black people go to college is substantially lower because they historically have lower income, then they're going to be pretty systematically disadvantaged, because with a smaller proportion going to college, their income will probably grow more slowly as a demographic. Is this fair?

It seems like there's going to be unfairness somewhere in the system. The questions I think are most interesting are: where do you want it, and, by putting it in particular places, can you hopefully move toward less unfairness in the future?

EDIT: I remember when I was 16 or so reading a quote from Jesse Jackson that said "To ignore race is racist," and thought it was the stupidest thing ever. Since then, I figured out what he was saying. It sounds like you still have the viewpoint I used to.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

The very concept of "diversity," is premised on the belief that there are real, fundamental differences between races and that supposition hinders the ability to truly integrate different "races," which is the supposed goal of "diversity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really, truly think that there aren't substantial differences between blacks and whites culturally? I think you're delusional if so. People get very excited when they hear in a college course that race is a social construct. Sure it is; that doesn't make it any less meaningful given the way things have developed to this point today.

[chrisnice]

It is beyond question that affirmitive action is discriminatory and probably wrong. However, a hell of a lot more unqualified applicants get into college or get jobs because of legacy policies. You never see qualified white guys getting pissed off that an average student like George W Bush gets into Yale because his father went there and has some pull.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This decision to force employers to hire less qualified people based on race likely costs those businesses money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it may give groups that have been systemically and grossly, as well as legally and morally, disadvantaged economically, for a number of generations a chance to get to a level playing field.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a level playing field. Have the top qualifactions for the position = get the job, regardless of race/ethnicity etc. is a level playing field. But instead we say "hey, you are (blank), you get hired over this other guy who would be doing the job better, but we need to meet our quota". A bit absurd, no? This doesn't negate racism, it creates it. Now (blank) is being favored while the other guy, who would have been better for the spot, is left out to dry simply because of his and the other guy's race.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end of the day, white males have such a huge advantage interviewing for most jobs that it doesn't matter.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments and courts make decisions for other people all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make it right. All that means is that governments are bossy and obtrusive.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea here is that there is a societal obligation to correct wrongs of the past, and that society is made better off by these programs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? I've never done any wrong to any minorities. Why should I be punished for other peoples' crimes? Why should people who haven't been wronged be the beneficiaries of my money?

[ QUOTE ]
The comment about my home is ridiculous. No one works or receives educational instruction in my home. My home is not changing anyone's social or economic status.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have kids or a wife/gf? Do you play poker online? Ever mow the lawn? Wash the dishes? Work is certainly being done.

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of laws that cost businesses money, but we tolerate them if we decide that the overall impact is significantly positive enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt AA has had much of a positive effect except to make minorities look like bottom feeders who need a crutch to make it in the real world. What a healthy idea!

Maybe that idea should be expanded into the poker world? Give back all the fish a % of the money you win from them so they don't have to work as hard. It's only fair.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect affirmative action has a very small impact on a company's bottom line anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
And now you're the arbiter of how much money companies "really" need.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is beyond question that affirmitive action is discriminatory and probably wrong. However, a hell of a lot more unqualified applicants get into college or get jobs because of legacy policies. You never see qualified white guys getting pissed off that an average student like George W Bush gets into Yale because his father went there and has some pull.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the company's decision. It's not something forced on them by someone else who think they know better.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make it right. All that means is that governments are bossy and obtrusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your argument in general is that "government should not be involved in anything," then I simply disagree with you about the role of government. I think one of its jobs is to make sure that its citizens get a fair deal from society. So, for example, we ended slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? I've never done any wrong to any minorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually an important point I want to make. I am assuming you are white here by the way you phrased this, but if not, it applies to whites.

Whether or not you have actively participated in any wrongdoing, you benefit by being white in America. Because of your heritage, you have advantages that others don't. So it's not that you are being "punished" for anything. It's that other people have been unfairly punished, and now we are trying to fix that.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have kids or a wife/gf? Do you play poker online? Ever mow the lawn? Wash the dishes? Work is certainly being done.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I'm confused as to what point you're making here. Are you saying I should adopt children of a different race? Or what? Frankly, I suspect you know there is not much of a point here.

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt AA has had much of a positive effect except to make minorities look like bottom feeders who need a crutch to make it in the real world. What a healthy idea!

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are wrong. And I will repeat what I said before: white women are the primary beneficiaries. Keep that in mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that idea should be expanded into the poker world? Give back all the fish a % of the money you win from them so they don't have to work as hard. It's only fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is invalid.

There is not a history of racial discrimination with respect to online poker. There are no sins of the past that have a lasting effect today.

[ QUOTE ]
And now you're the arbiter of how much money companies "really" need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should companies be allowed to have their employees rob banks for them? Or be exempt from taxation? My point is, there are certain things that hurt a company's bottom line but are "worth it" because society is better off that way.



I do think there are some legitimate libertarian-rational-economic type arguments against affirmative action, but I also think most opposition comes from a superficial understanding and analysis of what it really is.

[MrMon]

The fact that the children of Jesse Jackson or Will Smith get an automatic leg up on some poor white child from West Virginia is an indicator of just how morally bankrupt race-based affirmative action is.

If you really wanted to help all people, you'd switch to an economic-based affirmative action system. That would still disproportionately benefit minorities, but would direct the program to those who really need it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of its jobs is to make sure that its citizens get a fair deal from society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Taking from one to give to another doesn't seem fair at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not you have actively participated in any wrongdoing, you benefit by being white in America. Because of your heritage, you have advantages that others don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
And others have advantages that I don't. May I be "given" jobs that might have gone to richer people just because I'm not rich? The rich have huge advantages that the less rich don't.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not that you are being "punished" for anything. It's that other people have been unfairly punished, and now we are trying to fix that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your "fix" is to punish me. It's not my fault that I am the color I am so you have no right to punish me by discriminating against me. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'm confused as to what point you're making here. Are you saying I should adopt children of a different race?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you "should" do anything. I am not qualified to comment on what you should do and vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are wrong. And I will repeat what I said before: white women are the primary beneficiaries. Keep that in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
So AA is failing in its goal of righting past sins against minorities? Wonderful!

[ QUOTE ]
There is not a history of racial discrimination with respect to online poker. There are no sins of the past that have a lasting effect today.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about all poker then? Were all casino games in the 1800s open to any race? Somehow I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
Should companies be allowed to have their employees rob banks for them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Holy strawmen, Batman! Robbing banks is illegal and immoral. In fact, robbing people is what AA does. It robs qualified individuals of jobs they would have gotten and robs us by making us pay for it. It robs the company of a better employee. I think it robs people being propped up by it of their dignity by giving them a victim mentality.

[ QUOTE ]
Or be exempt from taxation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Companies and employees should be exempt from coercive taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, there are certain things that hurt a company's bottom line but are "worth it" because society is better off that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that society is "better off" or that AA is "worth it".

[Taraz]

BCPVP,

Do you believe that in a world with no AA that whites and blacks actually have an equal playing field? Assuming two equal applicants, one black and one white, do you actually believe that they both have an equal chance of getting a job?

[Taraz]

Focusing on AA with regard to college admissions, do those of you who are against it believe that having a diverse student body is not desirable? If you have 500 open spots and the 500 "best" candidates (highest GPA and test scores) are white do you give them all the spots?

[Jdanz]

i'll give my very basic take on this as to do more would require a lot of politics.

Society works when it's in people's interest to follow societies rules

i.e.
it's +EV for dem and rep to let the other party take power when they lose an election, same can not be said for shia and sunni in iraq neccissarily.

if we allow for a systematic underclassing of a race (read: allowing inertial stuff like legacies, essentially like grandfathering voting practices) without some macro counter-weight, we drive a further and further wedge between the dominant group and the minorty.

At some point the disadvantaged group no longer finds it +EV to play by the rules, and will decide that property allocations and stuff like that are pretty arbitary.

Obviously in some places we are at that stage in America. where large amounts of underprivilidged youth have determined that playing by the rules doesn't offer much and that illegal activty (breaking the rules) offers a more +EV alternative.

I'm not going to get into it here as to whether or not this view is justified, but clearly this is one of the basic reasons for AA.

For "our" system to work, for democracy, property rights, laws in general to work, there needs to be at least some equality in oppurtunity or those without have no incentive to play by the rules.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP,

Do you believe that in a world with no AA that whites and blacks actually have an equal playing field? Assuming two equal applicants, one black and one white, do you actually believe that they both have an equal chance of getting a job?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. But I think that that is the business's decision to make and not someone elses. The playing field will never be completely level. There will always be people who are smarter, better, "luckier" than you. I don't think people should be forced to not be racist. [censored] happened in the past. Blacks had it rough in the past. So did my Irish ancestors. So did the Germans. Pretty much every group that has immigrated to the U.S. has had a rough time at some point in their history. Hell, even the Indians, who were here first have been hunted and persecuted to the brink of being nearly gone. Blacks may have had it rough as slaves, but they weren't systemmatically robbed of their land and massacred. There will always be groups that have had it rough in the past. Arbitrarily giving preference to one group over another for past damages is unfair to all involved. AA is about buying votes.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The very concept of "diversity," is premised on the belief that there are real, fundamental differences between races and that supposition hinders the ability to truly integrate different "races," which is the supposed goal of "diversity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really, truly think that there aren't substantial differences between blacks and whites culturally? I think you're delusional if so. People get very excited when they hear in a college course that race is a social construct. Sure it is; that doesn't make it any less meaningful given the way things have developed to this point today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that there aren't necessarily cultural differences, but cultural differences have never been a qualification in determining race. Is an African-American white if he wears Polo instead of Fubu? Is one white person a different race from another white person if they root for different sports teams? No.

The question is not whether or not "race" has been a meaningful construct in the past; the question is whether or not it should continue to be a meaningful construct in the future, and so long as good-intentioned "diversity" campaigns continue, the concept of race will be perpetuated, and so long as it exists, so will racism.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is beyond question that affirmitive action is discriminatory and probably wrong. However, a hell of a lot more unqualified applicants get into college or get jobs because of legacy policies. You never see qualified white guys getting pissed off that an average student like George W Bush gets into Yale because his father went there and has some pull.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the company's decision. It's not something forced on them by someone else who think they know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But just dont then complain that more qualified applicants dont always get the job.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is beyond question that affirmitive action is discriminatory and probably wrong. However, a hell of a lot more unqualified applicants get into college or get jobs because of legacy policies. You never see qualified white guys getting pissed off that an average student like George W Bush gets into Yale because his father went there and has some pull.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the company's decision. It's not something forced on them by someone else who think they know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But just dont then complain that more qualified applicants dont always get the job.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with more qualified people not being hired. I have a problem with businesses being told they must hire the lesser qualified person.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Blacks may have had it rough as American citizens within the last generation

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my first FYP, but FYP.

Also if it is the business's decision, then are you not against AA programs of private institutions (edit: colleges/universtities)?

I'm also wary of your point that [censored] happened in the past and we shouldn't do anything about it now. If there had been slaves up until yesterday and Bush had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, would you then just say to the slaves, "Welcome to America!" Would they just have to find food/shelter/jobs etc the very next day? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm curious as to what you think.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Also if it is the business's decision, then are you not against AA programs of private institutions?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean if the private institution chooses on race? No, I'm not against that. It's not something being imposed on them, it's something done from the inside out.

[ QUOTE ]
If there had been slaves up until yesterday and Bush had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, would you then just say to the slaves, "Welcome to America!" Would they just have to find food/shelter/jobs etc the very next day? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm curious as to what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. My ancestors had to deal with finding food/shelter/jobs fresh off the boat and newly-released minorities should be no different. In fact, if one could prove being directly damaged by someone, they should take them to court. So in your example where the blacks were released yesterday, I think they should take their former slavemaster to court.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the standard rationalization is something like this: Promising "group X" preferential treatment is a pretty effective way to make "group X" a loyal constituancy in future elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

Affirmative action is racist, liberals foster it in hopes of garnering the hugely underutilized minority vote.

There is no sufficient, meaningful validation of affirmative action if one accepts that racism is bad.

"To be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
Sounds like another attack on affirmative action to me!

Cambraceres

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. My ancestors had to deal with finding food/shelter/jobs fresh off the boat and newly-released minorities should be no different. In fact, if one could prove being directly damaged by someone, they should take them to court. So in your example where the blacks were released yesterday, I think they should take their former slavemaster to court.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, your ancestors (who, I imagine, were of the same ilk as mine) likely didn't suffer the same amount of prejudice as newly freed slaves in the antebellum South. Nor were they (assuming they were white) subject to state-sanctioned segregation in jobs, housing and education.

I could get into a lengthier discussion about how the prison system in the antebellum South was largely an institution which served the purpose of keeping blacks enslaved, which has had far reaching implications, even to today, but it's late and I'm tired.

As for your point of freed slaves suing their former masters, that's obviously impossible due to prohibitions on ex post fact laws in the US Constitution.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. My ancestors had to deal with finding food/shelter/jobs fresh off the boat and newly-released minorities should be no different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ancestors chose to get on the boat.

BTW, I'm not arguing that this has much to do with being in favor or opposed to AA. I was just genuinely curious about what your response would be.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes. My ancestors had to deal with finding food/shelter/jobs fresh off the boat and newly-released minorities should be no different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ancestors chose to get on the boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

When slavery collapsed in the south, slaves had the choice of staying, or "getting on the boat"

Then you say "but that's not a choice, they were enslaved!"
My ancestors chose to come here to save themselves from starvation, yet they chose to get on the boat?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

My ancestors chose to come here to save themselves from starvation, yet they chose to get on the boat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah. They could choose between getting on a boat or starving. They still made the choice. They were not forced at gunpoint to be transported halfway across the world to be enslaved.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Nor were they (assuming they were white) subject to state-sanctioned segregation in jobs, housing and education.

[/ QUOTE ]
This State concept sure sounds awful...

[ QUOTE ]
could get into a lengthier discussion about how the prison system in the antebellum South was largely an institution which served the purpose of keeping blacks enslaved, which has had far reaching implications, even to today, but it's late and I'm tired.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds even worse!

[ QUOTE ]
As for your point of freed slaves suing their former masters, that's obviously impossible due to prohibitions on ex post fact laws in the US Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sucks too. So under the Constitution, sometimes you have no recourse for legitimate grievances. Wonderful.

Remind me why more gov't is a good idea when it's gov't that is creating the problems?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My ancestors chose to come here to save themselves from starvation, yet they chose to get on the boat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah. They could choose between getting on a boat or starving. They still made the choice. They were not forced at gunpoint to be transported halfway across the world to be enslaved.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that I (nor others) should not be responsible for compensating other people for what happened to their ancestors when neither I nor even my own ancestors had anything to do with whatever oppression they suffered. If Daddy hits Mommy, Mommy should not force Junior to give her his piggybank.

[PoBoy321]

Seriously, WTF is with you and every other ACer needing to turn every thread in every forum into an issue about whether or not government is good?

As for your last point:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your point of freed slaves suing their former masters, that's obviously impossible due to prohibitions on ex post fact laws in the US Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sucks too. So under the Constitution, sometimes you have no recourse for legitamite grievances. Wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is wonderful. Far better than an insurance company deciding, after the fact, that I'd done something wrong and punishing me for it.

Perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with everyone on this forum getting thrown in jail because online gambling is made illegal.

[PoBoy321]

BC,

It has nothing to do with what happened to their ancestors. It has to do with correcting the injustices against people living today which are a direct result of what happened to their ancestors.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My ancestors chose to come here to save themselves from starvation, yet they chose to get on the boat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah. They could choose between getting on a boat or starving. They still made the choice. They were not forced at gunpoint to be transported halfway across the world to be enslaved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there was a choice. The slaves could have chosen to die for their liberty just as my ancestors could have chosen to die from starvation. My point is that neither choice was a good one in either case. So what makes the slaves so special that their DESCENDENTS get preferential treatment.

And no one has yet tried to refute that AA is racist. It seems to be the irreducible essence of the argument.

Cambraceres

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
BC,

It has nothing to do with what happened to their ancestors. It has to do with correcting the injustices against people living today which are a direct result of what happened to their ancestors

So it's about the ancestors?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, WTF is with you and every other ACer needing to turn every thread in every forum into an issue about whether or not government is good?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's with people in this specific forum questioning Christianity at every turn? Because people believe in it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is wonderful. Far better than an insurance company deciding, after the fact, that I'd done something wrong and punishing me for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arbiters and Appeals Courts would probably not disappear. Any insurance company that punishes you unfairly risks losing a lot of clients who would be wondering "Am I next?".

But of course, the gov't never, ever unfairly punishes people (cough Korematsu cough)...

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with everyone on this forum getting thrown in jail because online gambling is made illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
And who has the power to do that? The State. And if you listen to the news, this is not that far from becoming a reality...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
BC,

It has nothing to do with what happened to their ancestors. It has to do with correcting the injustices against people living today which are a direct result of what happened to their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're going to correct injustice with...more injustice? A harming B does not give B the right to harm C.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BC,

It has nothing to do with what happened to their ancestors. It has to do with correcting the injustices against people living today which are a direct result of what happened to their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're going to correct injustice with...more injustice? A harming B does not give B the right to harm C.

[/ QUOTE ]

No... no... no more injustice. Just levelling the field. That seems just and christian, I would have thought. Your god could not be so unjust as to force people in poverty because of their ancestors. Maybe we should abolish inheritance laws.. that would help levelling the field, and get closer to meritocracy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

Do inheritance laws really have much effect? If your dad is rich, and you are by relation, how is this augmented by law. Surely one would not suggest we disallow the willful distribution of wealth to progeny?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]

No... no... no more injustice. Just levelling the field.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now who's using doublespeak? Taking jobs from qualified individuals = more justice? The field will never (repeat NEVER) be levelled. Thus it seems such racist programs will continue forever. Thus your solution is not just, but unjust.

[ QUOTE ]
Your god could not be so unjust as to force people in poverty because of their ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercing one group because another's ancestors were harmed in the past is not just either. It's quite the opposite. A harming B does not give B the right to harm C. This is very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we should abolish inheritance laws.. that would help levelling the field, and get closer to meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
More coercion = bad. Forcing people to do what you want them to do with their money = coercion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Do inheritance laws really have much effect? If your dad is rich, and you are by relation, how is this augmented by law. Surely one would not suggest we disallow the willful distribution of wealth to progeny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not, if you favour meritocracy? What has the parents achievements got to do with the children?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do inheritance laws really have much effect? If your dad is rich, and you are by relation, how is this augmented by law. Surely one would not suggest we disallow the willful distribution of wealth to progeny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not, if you favour meritocracy? What has the parents achievements got to do with the children?

[/ QUOTE ]
I favor people doing with their money what they want to, as long as they aren't coercing someone else.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I favor people doing with their money what they want to, as long as they aren't coercing someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
And giving adavantge to their progeny even if they are even more moronic than their lucky parents... LOL

Nice sense of meritocracy you have!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I favor people doing with their money what they want to, as long as they aren't coercing someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
And giving adavantge to their progeny even if they are even more moronic than their lucky parents... LOL

Nice sense of meritocracy you have!

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't I just say I don't favor a meritocracy (at least not one the State is any part of)? I'm quite sure I said that people should not be coerced by others. That means, no there may not be laws that say you cannot give money to certain people at certain times. If some rich parents/relatives want to leave money for others, that's their perogative.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do inheritance laws really have much effect? If your dad is rich, and you are by relation, how is this augmented by law. Surely one would not suggest we disallow the willful distribution of wealth to progeny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not, if you favour meritocracy? What has the parents achievements got to do with the children?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do indeed favor meritocracy, it is natural and beautiful and true. But when I work, and I sacrifice to make tomorrow better, my children are the first things in my mind.

I want to pass my wealth along to my children, and will do so. To take away a persons right to their property would be the highest of criminal acts. It is possible and natural to have a meritocracy, but one with property rights is the only one acceptable.

Cambraceres

[MidGe]

So what you are saying is:

"people should not be coerced by others" unless I was the one benefitting from it and it gave me an advantage. Then it should only apply from now on, and F**k meritocracy. LOL

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
To take away a persons right to their property would be the highest of criminal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word slavery, ironically, comes to mind...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is:

"people should not be coerced by others" unless I was the one benefitting from it and it gave me an advantage. Then it should only apply from now on, and F**k meritocracy. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Can you quote me once without twisting my words or is it all you're capable of? I do not deserve any benefit I have received from coercion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not deserve any benefit I have received from coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what affirmative action is trying to, however inadequately, address. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not deserve any benefit I have received from coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what affirmative action is trying to, however inadequately, address. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So inadequately it should be stricken from the law books of this nation.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To take away a persons right to their property would be the highest of criminal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word slavery, ironically, comes to mind...

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, thank god we took care of that in 1865!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So inadequately it should be stricken from the law books of this nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better some progress that none at all.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So inadequately it should be stricken from the law books of this nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better some progress that not at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not at the cost of basic rationality

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not deserve any benefit I have received from coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what affirmative action is trying to, however inadequately, address. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
My being hired is not coercion against someone who didn't get hired. All AA does is coerce the employer against his will to make bad business decisions. And I'd prefer to deal with what AA actually does, not what gov't claims it's trying to do, if it's not too much trouble.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So inadequately it should be stricken from the law books of this nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better some progress that none at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
What progress? You've raised one man at the expense of another. You've gained nothing and have probably made things worse by creating a worse business, fostering a mentality of victimization and handouts, and perpetuated racism.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh.. was slavery progress? It seems that its proponents did and gained in exactly the way you object.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
All AA does is coerce the employer against his will to make bad business decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes... the slave owner did not do just that to the slave??? Wake up, dude!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh.. was slavery progress? It seems that its proponents did and gained in exactly the way you object.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating slavery, you are. You are suggesting that you (or others) should control someone else's decisions and property. I'm advocating that no one should control someone else's decisions and property.

Btw, AA is not needed to make progress. That's another reason why it's bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes... the slave owner did not do just that to the slave??? Wake up, dude!

[/ QUOTE ]
Both the slave and the slave owner are dead. It's water under the bridge. Nothing can be done about past coercion. All we can do is stop coercing. Coercing someone else is no better.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating slavery, you are. You are suggesting that you (or others) should control someone else's decisions and property. I'm advocating that no one should control someone else's decisions and property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How disingenuous of you. No I am not advocating slavery. I am saying that if one group got an unfair advantage, it should be remedied before the race starts again. So, no control, no inheritance, every one start the same.. .. seems very fair to me.

[ QUOTE ]

Both the slave and the slave owner are dead. It's water under the bridge. Nothing can be done about past coercion. All we can do is stop coercing. Coercing someone else is no better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it is water in the bridge.. so lets start again.. even field this time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Ah, I forgot that would not suit you personally.. you are the unwitting beneficiary of history.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All AA does is coerce the employer against his will to make bad business decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes... the slave owner did not do just that to the slave??? Wake up, dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

The slave owner took his quarry by force, it was a bad thing and a hallmark example of might over right. But to set up an institution to punish the descendents of the perpetrators is another great example of might over right.

No one should control another man's belongings except by his own consent.

Cambraceres

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The slave owner took his quarry by force, it was a bad thing and a hallmark example of might over right. But to set up an institution to punish the descendents of the perpetrators is another great example of might over right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea of punishment... only levelling the field.. nothing wrong with that I hope.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The slave owner took his quarry by force, it was a bad thing and a hallmark example of might over right. But to set up an institution to punish the descendents of the perpetrators is another great example of might over right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea of punishment... only levelling the field.. nothing wrong with that I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes wrong!! very wrong!!!

An even playing field is one in which every one has an EQUAL shot at success!!

Go ahead tell me how in the fiery depths of hades the above statement could be wrong

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The slave owner took his quarry by force, it was a bad thing and a hallmark example of might over right. But to set up an institution to punish the descendents of the perpetrators is another great example of might over right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea of punishment... only levelling the field.. nothing wrong with that I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes wrong!! very wrong!!!

An even playing field is one in which every one has an EQUAL shot at success!!

Go ahead tell me how in the fiery depths of hades the above statement could be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only suggesting that no one benefits from the mistakes of their ancestors. So that retroatively the cost of the abused labour be deleted from their estate, as well as the opportunity cost of having that money/capital and its earning capability.

Fairly simple, more equitable than what exists now, not perfect, but hey, it is an answer to the morons that feel that they have a given right to the wealth of their country.

And then truly everyone would have an "equal" shot at success.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How disingenuous of you. No I am not advocating slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]
You want employers to be forced to hire lesser qualified people based on race. IOW, you want to control other peoples' decisions and behaviors as well as their property. Sounds like slavery to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed it is water in the bridge.. so lets start again.. even field this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as an even field. Nor should there be. And B harming C because A harmed pre-B is not evening the field. It is immoral. Taking another man's job and giving it to someone less worthy of it is not evening the field.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as an even field. Nor should there be. And B harming C because A harmed pre-B is not evening the field. It is immoral. Taking another man's job and giving it to someone less worthy of it is not evening the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess.. You are white and a chistian on top of it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif [so you are topgog] lol

[ QUOTE ]
It is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike slavery which was probably condonned by the churches.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]


Let me guess.. You are white and a chistian on top of it. [so you are topgog] lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes on both. I'm Irish and German and my ancestors came over after the Civil War. So I am being unfairly punished for whatever sins were committed by other people.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike slavery which was probably condonned by the churches.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was Christianity that was driving the abolishionist movement. Don't you look stupid.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
unfairly punished

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah well.. it happens, but bear in mind it is not you, if there are no inheritances... everyone is the same... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
unfairly punished

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah well.. it happens, but bear in mind it is not you, if there are no inheritances... everyone is the same... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Well at least you now admit that your attempt to "level the playing field" is really just coercing innocent parties.

I don't really see what inheritances have to do with anything. Smells like a strawman to me...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Well at least you now admit that your attempt to "level the playing field" is really just coercing innocent parties.

I don't really see what inheritances have to do with anything. Smells like a strawman to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, dude.. got nothing to do with it... If you get robbed and someone steals the deed to your house, your children have no recourse, right, because it is now the thief childrens that own your ex-house.. Tough luck for your children... but fair. Right?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see what inheritances have to do with anything. Smells like a strawman to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

He’s only trolling you man. It is his only purpose here. I understand it is hard not to respond to him because he says such stupid things, but you need not be concerned. I don’t think anyone buys his bs anyway, so don’t sweat it. In fact, only a select few (of which I used to be a part of) even respond to him at all. It makes me wonder how many people have him on “ignore this user.”

About AA. I have mixed feelings about it. It seems to be both necessary and very harmful to the big picture for both blacks and whites. I just haven’t decided which carries more weight.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
You want employers to be forced to hire lesser qualified people based on race.

[/ QUOTE ]
Outside of government-run institutions, please provide examples of employers who have been forced to adopt affirmative action policies.

[Jdanz]

BC i've always found you to be one of the more reasonable people in the politics forum even if we attend to disagree on a whole lot. However i've also found that if i don't go ad hominium i rarely get responses, so i'm quoting myself here.

I'd like your thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
i'll give my very basic take on this as to do more would require a lot of politics.

Society works when it's in people's interest to follow societies rules

i.e.
it's +EV for dem and rep to let the other party take power when they lose an election, same can not be said for shia and sunni in iraq neccissarily.

if we allow for a systematic underclassing of a race (read: allowing inertial stuff like legacies, essentially like grandfathering voting practices) without some macro counter-weight, we drive a further and further wedge between the dominant group and the minorty.

At some point the disadvantaged group no longer finds it +EV to play by the rules, and will decide that property allocations and stuff like that are pretty arbitary.

Obviously in some places we are at that stage in America. where large amounts of underprivilidged youth have determined that playing by the rules doesn't offer much and that illegal activty (breaking the rules) offers a more +EV alternative.

I'm not going to get into it here as to whether or not this view is justified, but clearly this is one of the basic reasons for AA.

For "our" system to work, for democracy, property rights, laws in general to work, there needs to be at least some equality in oppurtunity or those without have no incentive to play by the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't really see what inheritances have to do with anything. Smells like a strawman to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is. His point was that if you could remove the means by which long-term advantages and disadvantages are propagated to new generations, you could conceivably reduce a great deal of existing inequality, the problem that affirmative action is meant to address. Now this is unrealistic, as direct inheritance isn't really the main mechanism (in my opinion) for this kind of thing. Wealthier families can afford to live in areas with better school districts or send their children to private school, and can help them out more with college. This isn't an issue of inheritance, then.

I agree, basically, with the person earlier in the thread who said that affirmative action (at least in say, university admissions) should be based primarily on class, rather than on race, as that's what the real goal is. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't done this way, it just isn't really talked about too much.

Much of this debate seems to hinge around making distinction between sins of commission and sins of omission; too bad Sklansky doesn't post in this forum anymore to offer his thoughts on that one.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I don't think that a black person who does worse on a test should be picked over a white person. But if it's a tie ... [censored] em. They've had a 400 year headstart!

[/ QUOTE ]

As in most things Chris Rock is right.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
unfairly punished

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah well.. it happens, but bear in mind it is not you, if there are no inheritances... everyone is the same... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone will only be "the same" when we "see the light" and permanently strip children from their parents and send them to a government-run "growth and development" camps beginning at age 2, never to see their parents again until adulthood. Until then, people like me will benefit from the fact that my parents both had advanced degrees themselves, worked hard and made sacrifices to send me to a better school, and were willing to invest more of their personal time in my development during childhood years.

Until you forcibly take children from their parents, things will NEVER be "fair" in the way you define it, due to the above effect. I and people like me WILL have the advantage.

On the other hand, we do have a shot at promoting freedom, and letting parents invest in their children as they see fit (which includes inheritance). Although you cringe at this notion, I will ALWAYS take freedom over a "forced" leveling of the playing field -- which somehow always amounts to government taking money away from one person to give to another (who may, for all we know, have had things great and blown them through their own stupid decisions).

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the children of Jesse Jackson or Will Smith get an automatic leg up on some poor white child from West Virginia is an indicator of just how morally bankrupt race-based affirmative action is.

If you really wanted to help all people, you'd switch to an economic-based affirmative action system. That would still disproportionately benefit minorities, but would direct the program to those who really need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

Does everyone realize that the primary people benefitting from AA are the RICH minorities? If a school, job, etc. is accepting a certain # of people of a certain 'race', it is the highest qualified people from that race. It isn't the ones who went to a crappy school and were below the poverty level.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Does everyone realize that the primary people benefitting from AA are the RICH minorities? If a school, job, etc. is accepting a certain # of people of a certain 'race', it is the highest qualified people from that race. It isn't the ones who went to a crappy school and were below the poverty level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably didn't make my feelings clear earlier in this thread, and this is primarily what it comes down to. I far more ardently support solving the education crisis in poor, heavily minority areas than AA.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
and I could care less about politics for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

This Americanism is nonsensical. The original as still extant this side of the pond is "I couldn't care less". It means I care so little about the matter in hand I couldn't care less.

You apparantly care to such an extent that, to quote you, you COULD care less. I couldn't care less whether or not you take the point, but there you go!

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does everyone realize that the primary people benefitting from AA are the RICH minorities? If a school, job, etc. is accepting a certain # of people of a certain 'race', it is the highest qualified people from that race. It isn't the ones who went to a crappy school and were below the poverty level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably didn't make my feelings clear earlier in this thread, and this is primarily what it comes down to. I far more ardently support solving the education crisis in poor, heavily minority areas than AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sign me up for this bandwagon.

The problem with AA as I understand it is that it sends the wrong message. Let me explain... I grew up very poor with a single working mother who also received supplemental welfare. I am white, btw. My entire family had bad credit, as most poor people do I guess. At 18 (I think) I had saved $1500 for a car by working at Burger King. (This was in the late 80's) I found a used car that I wanted for $3200. I went to get a bank loan and was turned down for simply “inheriting” my family’s bad credit. More specifically, I had no credit and no credible co-signer. I went home pissed and complained to my mother that it was unfair... After all, I was putting 50% down & taking a much bigger risk than the bank was by comparison. They could loose $1500 and wouldn’t mean near as much to them as it would to me. She taught me right then & there that I should expect nothing to be “given” to me. I would have to fight for everything I wanted to achieve in life.
I am now a very successful business owner & it is because of the paradigm of working harder than the next guy rather than expecting things to be given to me. I find that the opposite is being taught to most young people today, but especially young blacks through AA.

[BCPVP]

Sorry for taking so long.

[ QUOTE ]
if we allow for a systematic underclassing of a race (read: allowing inertial stuff like legacies, essentially like grandfathering voting practices) without some macro counter-weight, we drive a further and further wedge between the dominant group and the minorty.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt the number of people accepted to a job because of legacies really justifies AA. But even so, it is the business's decision to do so and if they want to hurt their own performance, they should be allowed to. I don't think anyone else should be able to make such a decision.

[ QUOTE ]
At some point the disadvantaged group no longer finds it +EV to play by the rules, and will decide that property allocations and stuff like that are pretty arbitary.

Obviously in some places we are at that stage in America. where large amounts of underprivilidged youth have determined that playing by the rules doesn't offer much and that illegal activty (breaking the rules) offers a more +EV alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]
I happen to think that government is largely responsible for this. Gov't created the problem, gov't exacerbates the problem, and then prevents people from being able to respond. More gov't doesn't seem to be the answer. Nor does punishing innocent parties for past sins.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to get into it here as to whether or not this view is justified, but clearly this is one of the basic reasons for AA.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet, a study by a UCLA professor showed that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year and are more likely to drop out and fail the bar exam. The study concluded there would be more black lawyers if AA was ended because blacks would attend less prestigious schools but be better matched up with their classmates and thus perform better.

[Sharkey]

What does Stars feel toward Party?

Of course, it’s PP envy.

Same thing. Though, of course, the established group exercises an AA of its own.

[Jdanz]

ok we can argue about whether AA is effecitve, i think however, that it's justified.

I know this is somewhat unfair, but if we can work for an instance within a statist framework as we can both readily admit it's not going anywhere anytime soon, then within this framework is it possible that if all the inertia is going in one direction (i.e. seperation of the races due to starting position in terms of general benefit garnered from playing by the rules) that a redistribution of benefit, though unfair, could preclude serious strain on what is a working system.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
if all the inertia is going in one direction (i.e. seperation of the races due to starting position in terms of general benefit garnered from playing by the rules) that a redistribution of benefit, though unfair, could preclude serious strain on what is a working system

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can show what I've bolded to be true, then you'd have an argument. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jdanz]

just trying to get a basis to work with, if we can agree that if these hypotheticals were true AA could be useful, then i can try to prove them. too many of the arguments here involve countless back-tracking and cicular logic because we couldn't come up with a way in which the argument could feasibly be proven/falsified in the beginning.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
But even so, it is the business's decision to do so and if they want to hurt their own performance, they should be allowed to. I don't think anyone else should be able to make such a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
I reiterate my previous request:

[ QUOTE ]
Outside of government-run institutions, please provide examples of employers who have been forced to adopt affirmative action policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But even so, it is the business's decision to do so and if they want to hurt their own performance, they should be allowed to. I don't think anyone else should be able to make such a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
I reiterate my previous request:

[ QUOTE ]
Outside of government-run institutions, please provide examples of employers who have been forced to adopt affirmative action policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Department of Labor Website:

[ QUOTE ]
Non-construction (service and supply) contractors with 50 or more employees and government contracts of $50,000 or more are required, under Executive Order 11246, to develop and implement a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each establishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically any large employer who ever gets a government contract is required to have an AA program in place. The EO was signed in 1973.

[VarlosZ]

Fair enough, but that's not what affirmative action tends to be. Generally, employers don't have to seek out government contracts, and hence don't have to do AA if they don't want to. I suppose exceptions might be if you work in the highway construction or weapons manufacturing industries -- in those cases, I guess it's fair to say that the employers are being forced to adopt AA policies.

My point, though, was that BCPVP is arguing against a kind of AA that doesn't exist (or, at least, is the exception and not the rule). Very few employers are actually forced to adopt AA, and even those that are forced face only indirect pressure.

[MrMon]

You will find very few large businesses who do not have some sort of government contract at some point. It a de facto way of forcing all large employers to have AA programs, unless they conciously avoid all government business. Not many are willing to give up such large contracts.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
You will find very few large businesses who do not have some sort of government contract at some point. It a de facto way of forcing all large employers to have AA programs, unless they conciously avoid all government business. Not many are willing to give up such large contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they're still given the option and I really don't see how you can argue that they're being "forced" into accepting AA. The government won't do business with any company that doesn't adopt AA which, as far as I can tell, is not forcing them to do anything.

[MrMon]

Yeah, it's a little like the IRS claiming that the income tax system is "voluntary", or states have to have a 21 year-old drinking age or they lose federal highway dollars. Or better still, how that insurance money to Guido is just a donation, otherwise something bad will happen to your business.

Trust me, any large business refuses to have an AA program, they'll have the EEOC performing a rectal on them. Having one is a form of protection, government contracts or not.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Then they're still given the option and I really don't see how you can argue that they're being "forced" into accepting AA. The government won't do business with any company that doesn't adopt AA which, as far as I can tell, is not forcing them to do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be a mild form of forcing but it still seems to qualify imo. After all, if someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to give them your wallet - it doesnt seem right to say you did so voluntarily afterwards. You were forced to cooperate by the threat of violence.

[FlFishOn]

"--There is value in diversity. "

Fine slogan. Prove same.

[FlFishOn]

"...you'd switch to an economic-based affirmative action system."

Tried it in the USSR. Still available in Cuba and N Korea.

Enjoy!

[joel2006]

First of all your question contains two false premises. AA is not implemented merely across the axis of race, but of sex as well. Secondly AA hires are generally qualified for their jobs and examples like the Bakke case tend to be rare. It is interesting to me that you asked a question about why AA exists and the idea of discrimination against women and minorities appears nowhere in your post. It is also interesting that the majority of posters who argue against AA tend to only characterize it across the axis of race when all studies show that white women have been the greatest beneficiaries of AA. AA was created because it was determined that at that time (mid 70s mostly) qualified minorities and women were still not being hired because of current discriminatory hiring practices and would not be hired unless the organizations were forced to by the govt. Keep in mind we are talking about the government and educational institutions that accept govt money. For example the NYFD was (and still is) famous for their discrimination against minorities, commonly using tricks like "losing" applications and giving minorities wrong dates and locations for entry testing. This was true of many PD and FD across the country both north and south. After these types of practices were continually documented over a number of years, AA laws were put into place. AA exists because after legal discrimination was outlawed, (mostly in the 60s) people continued to engage in the practices. What AA accomplishes is that women and minorities who are qualified for jobs have an actual chance to be hired. In businesse where there is no AA, hiring records of minorities and women are abysmal, even now. For example, look at the NFL, their front office hiring practices were obviously extremely exclusionary and remained so until the Rooney Rule (self-imposed AA) was established. Although there is no evidence that men have better medical skills than women, only one NFL team has even one woman on their medical staffs (Steelers). Many blacks don't like AA, but recognize that without it there is little to no chance of them being hired or admitted to collleges or Univ. thus it is a necessary evil. They would much rather live in a world where the most qualified applicant got hired, but unfortunately we don't live in that world.

[MidGe]

Great post Joel,


Indeed AA is the recognition that abilities cut accross sex, races and other bigotted grouping, and therefor, in all fairness, the constitution of a workforce ideally would be representative of the groups distributions in the population at large.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Joel,


Indeed AA is the recognition that abilities cut accross sex, races and other bigotted grouping, and therefor, in all fairness, the constitution of a workforce ideally would be representative of the groups distributions in the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice politically correct fantasy. Too bad it's not actually true.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad it's not actually true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you there. At least it is an attempt at fairness, however unsuccessfull. Better than sitting on your hands doing nothing to remedy injustices.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all your question contains two false premises. AA is not implemented merely across the axis of race, but of sex as well. Secondly AA hires are generally qualified for their jobs and examples like the Bakke case tend to be rare. It is interesting to me that you asked a question about why AA exists and the idea of discrimination against women and minorities appears nowhere in your post. It is also interesting that the majority of posters who argue against AA tend to only characterize it across the axis of race when all studies show that white women have been the greatest beneficiaries of AA. AA was created because it was determined that at that time (mid 70s mostly) qualified minorities and women were still not being hired because of current discriminatory hiring practices and would not be hired unless the organizations were forced to by the govt. Keep in mind we are talking about the government and educational institutions that accept govt money. For example the NYFD was (and still is) famous for their discrimination against minorities, commonly using tricks like "losing" applications and giving minorities wrong dates and locations for entry testing. This was true of many PD and FD across the country both north and south. After these types of practices were continually documented over a number of years, AA laws were put into place. AA exists because after legal discrimination was outlawed, (mostly in the 60s) people continued to engage in the practices. What AA accomplishes is that women and minorities who are qualified for jobs have an actual chance to be hired. In businesse where there is no AA, hiring records of minorities and women are abysmal, even now. For example, look at the NFL, their front office hiring practices were obviously extremely exclusionary and remained so until the Rooney Rule (self-imposed AA) was established. Although there is no evidence that men have better medical skills than women, only one NFL team has even one woman on their medical staffs (Steelers). Many blacks don't like AA, but recognize that without it there is little to no chance of them being hired or admitted to collleges or Univ. thus it is a necessary evil. They would much rather live in a world where the most qualified applicant got hired, but unfortunately we don't live in that world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, nice politically correct fantasy. According to you, all gains made by women and minorities are due to affirmative action policies. Then how would you explain the inconvenient fact that women and minorities actually made greater gains before those policies were in place than after?

You will find very few arguing that remedial affirmative action is a bad thing, it's actually what should happen. The problem comes in when people like yourself assume that everyone is guilty, without proof, and apply a blanket solution where no problem was ever shown to exist. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Too bad it's not actually true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you there. At least it is an attempt at fairness, however unsuccessfull. Better than sitting on your hands doing nothing to remedy injustices.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically arguing that when evil is done for "bad" (as defined by you) purposes, it should be eliminated, but when evil is done for "good" (as defined by you) purposes, it should be encouraged. Well there's moral bankruptcy for you.

Why not start with the concept that all people should be treated equally under the law and enforce that concept? Nah, that would be too difficult, you'd actually have to work and prove someone was violating the law. Much easier to just declare oneself morally superior and pronounce all before you guilty and inferior, and therefore subject to the imposition of your "good".

[joel2006]

" According to you, all gains made by women and minorities are due to affirmative action policies."

I neither made this statement nor hold this position.

"Then how would you explain the inconvenient fact that women and minorities actually made greater gains before those policies were in place than after?"
Greater gains measured how? In percentages or total numbers? What time period specifically are you speaking of?

"You will find very few arguing that remedial affirmative action is a bad thing, it's actually what should happen. "

You must not listen to talk radio or have read many of the posts in this thread.

"The problem comes in when people like yourself assume that everyone is guilty, without proof,"

Please demonstrate where I did such a thing.

"and apply a blanket solution where no problem was ever shown to exist. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"

If your position here is that discriminatory hiring practices against blacks and women were not common (and overt) in the US from say 1954-1978, then it will be impossible for me to take you seriously. The amount of evidence for this staggering, the legal discrimination alone against blacks in this country is one of the longest on the modern historical record (~340 yrs), even Apartheid in S. Africa (which was modeled on the Jim Crow Laws of the Southern US) only lasted ~50 yrs. You must be very young (<25) and terribly ignorant of American History. No person who was alive in the 50s and 60s and in their right mind now could ever make such a statement.

[cambraceres]

So remedial AA WAS put in place, and it has ineptly served it's purpose. Now that this widespread discrimination has disappeared, (Please don't be ridiculous and say it is still pervasive) let's get rid of this arcane mistake of social policy. To favor one group over another for the correction of misdeeds is an implicit admission of inferiority, of the NEED for this righteous help.
How could this be good for the formally impeded group?

Cambraceres

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
So remedial AA WAS put in place, and it has ineptly served it's purpose. Now that this widespread discrimination has disappeared, (Please don't be ridiculous and say it is still pervasive) let's get rid of this arcane mistake of social policy. To favor one group over another for the correction of misdeeds is an implicit admission of inferiority, of the NEED for this righteous help.
How could this be good for the formally impeded group?

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]

It is still pervasive.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
" According to you, all gains made by women and minorities are due to affirmative action policies."

I neither made this statement nor hold this position.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you do. you said:

[ QUOTE ]
AA was created because it was determined that at that time (mid 70s mostly) qualified minorities and women were still not being hired because of current discriminatory hiring practices and would not be hired unless the organizations were forced to by the govt.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, since women and blacks have made all these gains since the programs were put into place, how else to explain them in your world? Are you now arguing that they would have made them anyway? But no, you go on to argue that minorities and women are STILL discriminated against, and would continue to be so unless your AA progrmas were in place.

[ QUOTE ]
In businesse where there is no AA, hiring records of minorities and women are abysmal, even now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument seems to be that no minority or woman is ever going to make progress unless AA programs are in place. Yet you say it's not your position that all gains are due to AA. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]

"Then how would you explain the inconvenient fact that women and minorities actually made greater gains before those policies were in place than after?"
Greater gains measured how? In percentages or total numbers? What time period specifically are you speaking of?


[/ QUOTE ]

Trick question actually. The gains made by blacks and women in the 1945-70 (pre-AA) period were greater than those
in the 1970-95 period (post-AA). Of course, you were starting from a lower base, but to argue that there were no gains in that period, or to dismiss them, is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
"You will find very few arguing that remedial affirmative action is a bad thing, it's actually what should happen. "

You must not listen to talk radio or have read many of the posts in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

By remedial AA, I meant exactly the cases you were pointing to, the police and fire departments that have been proven to discriminate. Where there is PROVEN discrimination, of course AA is an appropriate action for a given organization. The fact that some nut cases continue to argue against it (or the fact that there is any discrimination whatsoever) does not mean in specific cases, the public disapproves of AA.

[ QUOTE ]
"The problem comes in when people like yourself assume that everyone is guilty, without proof,"

Please demonstrate where I did such a thing.

"and apply a blanket solution where no problem was ever shown to exist. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"

If your position here is that discriminatory hiring practices against blacks and women were not common (and overt) in the US from say 1954-1978, then it will be impossible for me to take you seriously. The amount of evidence for this staggering, the legal discrimination alone against blacks in this country is one of the longest on the modern historical record (~340 yrs), even Apartheid in S. Africa (which was modeled on the Jim Crow Laws of the Southern US) only lasted ~50 yrs. You must be very young (<25) and terribly ignorant of American History. No person who was alive in the 50s and 60s and in their right mind now could ever make such a statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole attitude of your post and reply is that America as a whole is a racist society and that as a whole, a blanket solution needs to be applied. No, I'm not 25, not even close, and I'm quite away of the history of this country, but I could say you must be some sort of Washington Limousine Liberal, tut-tuting on the evils of America and condemning even those who have done nothing wrong. Groups do not have rights, individuals do. Those individuals disciminated against should be compensated by those individials or organizations that caused them harm.

The fact that someone who looks like me has committed a crime should in no way obligate me, who has not committed a crime, from serving that persons jail sentence. Yet that is precisely what blanket AA programs do. One member of the group has done something wrong in the past, therefore we punish the entire group.

[joel2006]

Quote:

Actually, you do. you said:

Quote:

AA was created because it was determined that at that time (mid 70s mostly) qualified minorities and women were still not being hired because of current discriminatory hiring practices and would not be hired unless the organizations were forced to by the govt.

Quote:

I can't tell if your mis-interpretation of my statement here is deliberate or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My statement is that in the 70s it was determined that discrimination still existed and that the offending organizations would not cease said behavior unless forced to. This says nothing at all about whether or not gains had been made since the cessation of legal discrimination, only that discrimination STILL existed. It is entirely possible (and in fact the case) that discrimination had lessened, but was still pervasive.

"The whole attitude of your post and reply is that America as a whole is a racist society and that as a whole, a blanket solution needs to be applied"

That America as a whole is a racist society is an easily demonstrable fact, given that it has existed as a nation for almost 230 years and for 190 of those years racial discrimination was not only legally permitted, but MANDATED in the parts of the country where 90% of the people being discriminated against lived. A country which requires RD for approx. 80% of its history can be fairly characterized as a racist society. I won't even bring up the fact that the two most racially discriminatory modern nations outside of the US (Nazi Germany and South Africa) were both directly inspired by the US example (Germany by US treatment of Native Americans and SA by Jim Crow laws). Compare Germany's maybe 10 years of legal discrimination and South Africa's approx. 50 years to the US at ~340 years. Furthermore, "States Rights" (read, a State's right to treat its negroes as it pleases) was an issue even before the country was formed, was a major factor in its only Civil War, and was used explicitly by the Republican Party to recently (last 26 years) regain political control of the country, via its "Southern Strategy." In 1980 Ronald Reagan successsfully began implementation of the SS by opening his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS (where three northern civil rights workers were brutally murdered by Klan members) and giving a speech in defense of "states rights". Ever since, the formerly Democratic Southern US has become a bastion of Republican support. What are the odds that Reagan's choice of locations was coincidental? I'd rather be all-in with my life on the line, needing to hit an inside straight flush with one card to come, than take those odds. My point here is not that the US hasn't made huge, gigantic, tremendous strides in the last 40 years, it has. Overt discrimination is now fairly rare, and illegal. But even a casual peek at one of the race/IQ threads on this board alone will show that the cause of white supremacy is not dead, it has merely changed its tactics. Eschewing vitriolic rant and racial slurs in favor of the pseudo-scientific veneer found glossing the 'Bell Curve' and other tomes of its ilk. Gone are the overt statements of white racial superiority in favor of more polite euphemisms. There has been some ceding of ground as well, where until the 70s whites were declared superior in EVERY way, now blacks are considered superior athletically, with whites only reserving moral and intellectual superiority for themselves. The country as a whole is still as segregated as it was 50 years ago, but the integrated places are far more integrated than ever before. Much progress has been made, but much more still needs to be made. You may truly feel that "groups do not have rights, individuals do", however the US Constitution disagrees (see the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments among others)
And at no point have I ever advocated any 'blanket solutions', I was asked to provide the rationale for AA, and I did so.

[joel2006]

On what grounds are you arguing widespread discrimination has disappeared? Overt discrimination is clearly mostly a thing of the past, but that is not the same thing as saying ALL discrimination has disappeared. For example the four black men who recently finished wrongly serving prison terms for the 'Central Park Jogger' rape case would very strongly disagree with your assessment, as would the families of James Byrd, and Earl Washington and the members of the successful class action lawsuits against Denny's and Texaco and so on, etc.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, robbing people is what AA does. It robs qualified individuals of jobs they would have gotten and robs us by making us pay for it. It robs the company of a better employee.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're going to correct injustice with...more injustice? A harming B does not give B the right to harm C.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating slavery, you are.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, [affirmative action is] a little like . . . how that insurance money to Guido is just a donation, otherwise something bad will happen to your business.
Trust me, any large business refuses to have an AA program, they'll have the EEOC performing a rectal on them. Having one is a form of protection, government contracts or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It may be a mild form of forcing but it still seems to qualify imo. After all, if someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to give them your wallet - it doesnt seem right to say you did so voluntarily afterwards. You were forced to cooperate by the threat of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will find very few arguing that remedial affirmative action is a bad thing, it's actually what should happen. The problem comes in when people like yourself assume that everyone is guilty, without proof, and apply a blanket solution where no problem was ever shown to exist. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that someone who looks like me has committed a crime should in no way obligate me, who has not committed a crime, from serving that persons jail sentence. Yet that is precisely what blanket AA programs do.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm always amazed by the analogies that people whip out when affirmative action comes up. Affirmative action is robbery. It's like a gun to your head. It's a like a sham criminal prosecution. It's like a prison sentence for white people. It's like the mafia. It is slavery.

This is not helpful. At worst, people will think you're letting slip racist attitudes by introducing the stereotype of the black thug into what should be a sedate discussion of politics and society. At best, people will think you've got a persecution complex and are too emotionally involved with the issue to think about it rationally. Either way, you're not going to have a productive conversation.