Comment on Affirmative Action debate

[TomCollins]

This debate is getting very very long. I am really unable to fully respond to very long posts while at work, so my response time may be fairly slow. I intend to simplify the debate in the next post.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
This debate is getting very very long. I am really unable to fully respond to very long posts while at work, so my response time may be fairly slow. I intend to simplify the debate in the next post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea, I attempted to start to condense the debate at the end of my post which would be a good starting point.

[Utah]

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

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]Finally someone gets to the heart of the matter. imo - all the arguments made in the debate seem silly and secondary compared to the concept of individual liberty. I don't know how you can debate AA without discussing the core principle.

[bkholdem]

sorry, wrong thread lol

[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.

[Utah]

Agreed upon definition:

[ QUOTE ]
"A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment."

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig's comment:
[ QUOTE ]
Diversity in the workplace and in schools is a legitimate state interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one go from correcting past discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity to arguing that diversity in a legitimate interest? It would appear that you are using AA to push a different ideal. I think that either you need to change your definition of AA or you need to drop this argument.

Just curious, "should the NBA and NFL actively try and recruit more Whites and Asians to play in their leagues? Surely, these groups are underrepresented on a massive scale. It certainly would seem silly to go hire a bunch of short Asian players to play in the NBA because we know they would not be as good as the players currently playing. Yet, couldn't one argue that diversity is good for the team and a compelling state interest? We would never force sports teams to do this because we understand the purity of competition and the effects are quite obvious. Yet, the AAers have no problem forcing this upon businesses who compete in other areas.

[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.