Comment on Affirmative Action debate

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom, in your definition you didn't specifically mention government mandated AA. Is that what we are talking about? My opinion on that is different from a private company using some form of AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. There are a couple of ways it can debated:

1) Should government be allowed to use it (and what are the limits that should be imposed, if any)?

2) Should the government mandate affirmative action in private organizations?

3) Should private orginizations use affirmative action (is it a good thing for them)?

4) Should private orginizations be allowed to use affirmative action?

For all practical purposes, I would like the debate to be centered around 1 and 3.

If I am successful in my debate, #2 will be useless. #4 is another issue, and I personally believe that all private orginizations should be able to exclude or include whoever they please. I also support the rights of the public to boycott or protest against racist orginizations as well.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an excellent point. There are a couple of ways it can debated:

1) Should government be allowed to use it (and what are the limits that should be imposed, if any)?

2) Should the government mandate affirmative action in private organizations?

3) Should private orginizations use affirmative action (is it a good thing for them)?

4) Should private orginizations be allowed to use affirmative action?

For all practical purposes, I would like the debate to be centered around 1 and 3.

If I am successful in my debate, #2 will be useless. #4 is another issue, and I personally believe that all private orginizations should be able to exclude or include whoever they please. I also support the rights of the public to boycott or protest against racist orginizations as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think #1 will be the main issue people will want to discuss. Even though the overall merits of private businesses and organizations using AA are certainly worthy of a good discussion.

I have mixed feelings on the issue (#1 that is). I know so many blacks stepped into the battersbox down 0-1 or 0-2 in the count because of past injustice. Even the greatest hitters in history had bad averages when down in the count. So I am sympathetic to the goals of helping people out who are down in the count thru little or no fault of there own.

However, I just cannot get over the problem of having government using race to give benefits to one group at the expense of others. As a result, I am opposed to government mandated AA based on race. I am much more sympathetic to giving benefits, especially in education, based on means, not race. Since blacks are disproportionaly poor, they would benefit from means related AA, without using race.

[craigthedeac]

JackWhite:
[ QUOTE ]
I have mixed feelings on the issue (#1 that is). I know so many blacks stepped into the battersbox down 0-1 or 0-2 in the count because of past injustice. Even the greatest hitters in history had bad averages when down in the count. So I am sympathetic to the goals of helping people out who are down in the count thru little or no fault of there own.

However, I just cannot get over the problem of having government using race to give benefits to one group at the expense of others. As a result, I am opposed to government mandated AA based on race. I am much more sympathetic to giving benefits, especially in education, based on means, not race. Since blacks are disproportionaly poor, they would benefit from means related AA, without using race.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for mentioning this. In fact, giving benefits based on financial status/background is something that I am an advocate for. When I first began to explore the issues, your main concern was my main concern as well.

I ultimately decided that I thought both race and financial background were important and now advocate giving benefits based on both situations seperately. If I was to choose one, I would pick financial background, because I think the arguments about resources/means which you mentioned and I talk about in the other thread are most important.

However, ignoring race is problematic because there are instances of racism (see my reference to the study of job applicants) still today. So, black people that are even financially well-off that have all these means that you allude to still have barriers. Using your analogy, they still start "behind in the count."

I think if you're an advocate of one you have to be an advocate of the other, given that you determine that racial barriers exist.