Comment on Affirmative Action debate

[craigthedeac]

Diversity being an interest is an added benefit of affirmative action, but certainly isn't what determines when it is to be used. Therefore, while the NBA/NFL/anyone is benefitted from being diverse, it is not required.

The NBA and NFL do not have racial barriers to entry. Likewise, there are no instances of discrimination against underrepresented groups (at least that I'm aware of).

Diversity being a legitimate interest stems from the Bakke case (or at least I'm pretty sure it does) that justified affirmative action programs, but at the same time, did not force affirmative action on anyone. That's the same way that I'm using the diversity ideal in my case, which overall is a pretty small part.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Diversity being an interest is an added benefit of affirmative action, but certainly isn't what determines when it is to be used. Therefore, while the NBA/NFL/anyone is benefitted from being diverse, it is not required.

The NBA and NFL do not have racial barriers to entry. Likewise, there are no instances of discrimination against underrepresented groups (at least that I'm aware of).

Diversity being a legitimate interest stems from the Bakke case (or at least I'm pretty sure it does) that justified affirmative action programs, but at the same time, did not force affirmative action on anyone. That's the same way that I'm using the diversity ideal in my case, which overall is a pretty small part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think you can straddle the fence like that. One, of course, could have a very interesting argument about the benefits of diversity. But, using the definition of AA provided, I respectfully believe that diversity as a goal cannot be used as an argument. To be fair, I also think the arguments about whether AA hurts/helps business should be left out of the discussion using the definition provided. Because, if the overriding principle is that everyone has a fair shot in life then who cares about the affect on businesses. Those concerns are easily overridden by our core beliefs of individuality.

[craigthedeac]

For the most part I agree with you which is why I haven't focused on diversity very much in the debate. My main arguments are centered on hierarchies and how they impede equal opportunity. These arguments should be the basis of the decision and debate.

At the same time, good policy-making incorporates or at the very least analyzes the effects of the plan.

For example, let's assume that affirmative action is good because of this overriding principle. However, let's say that the implementation of affirmative action would guarantee a nuclear war and extinction. Obviously this is an extreme example but it illustrates the importance of also weighing impacts.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time, good policy-making incorporates or at the very least analyzes the effects of the plan.

For example, let's assume that affirmative action is good because of this overriding principle. However, let's say that the implementation of affirmative action would guarantee a nuclear war and extinction. Obviously this is an extreme example but it illustrates the importance of also weighing impacts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. However, the danger is usually the other way - ie, people/policymakers find or makeup reasons to excuse their failure to live up to principle. It is very rare that anyone would ever really use principle to justify a decision.

[ QUOTE ]
My main arguments are centered on hierarchies and how they impede equal opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]What about hierarchies of intelligence? We certainly select on the basis of intelligence and almost everyone is fine with that. However, the the trait of intelligence is no more a trait than skin color or sex. One can easily argue that intelligent people provide more value to society and thus should get more opportunities. However, if we are all viewed to be equal, how is discriminating against the unintelligent any different than discriminating against color?

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
What about hierarchies of intelligence? We certainly select on the basis of intelligence and almost everyone is fine with that. However, the the trait of intelligence is no more a trait than skin color or sex. One can easily argue that intelligent people provide more value to society and thus should get more opportunities. However, if we are all viewed to be equal, how is discriminating against the unintelligent any different than discriminating against color?

[/ QUOTE ]
Intelligence is very different than race/sex in my opinion. Intelligence can be applied and its application has value to a workplace or university, for example. Therefore, the workplace is justified in making offers to people based on their intelligence. So, while a person can be declined a job because he doesn't have the smarts, a person should not be declined a job because of his skin color.

Intelligent people also don't need more opportunities. Many are available to them because of their qualifications and there certainly aren't any barriers they have to overcome because of previous discrimination.

Intelligence is also very subjective while race/sex are not. This would make it very difficult to distribute opportunities to certain people.

Finally, one can affect his/her intelligence. People can get smarter (and dumber) based on what they do and their efforts. You can't say the same for race/sex.

[bkholdem]

sorry, wrong thread lol

[HeavilyArmed]

The fraud of AA is revealed when its supporters are required to define the terms and metrics needed to end AA. You'll find unmeetable goals and AA in perpetuity or you will uncover their straight up socialist agenda or both.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anyone who supports affirmative action by definition must hold in contempt the concept of individual liberty.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand the sentiment and agree in principle, it is a useless point because one can make the same blanket statement about almost any government regulation. And you don't see the same anti-AA folks getting so riled up about the other trampling of liberties ... in fact, quite often they're doing the trampling.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anyone who supports affirmative action by definition must hold in contempt the concept of individual liberty.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand the sentiment and agree in principle, it is a useless point because one can make the same blanket statement about almost any government regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no. There's a big different between valuing some things over individual liberty and holding "in contempt the concept of individual liberty."

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anyone who supports affirmative action by definition must hold in contempt the concept of individual liberty.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand the sentiment and agree in principle, it is a useless point because one can make the same blanket statement about almost any government regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no. There's a big different between valuing some things over individual liberty and holding "in contempt the concept of individual liberty."

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, if the same anti-AA folks who use the liberty argument don't make the same argument against income tax, then they are total hypocrites. I suspect Nate would argue as strongly against both and this post isn't directed at his opinion, just the point that many right-wingers who cry "OMG, this tramples liberty" are quite selective in that cry. Of course, this is not much of a revelation to anyone.