Time's Klein on Affirmative Action

[HeavilyArmed]

Here's the whole thing: linky

I see AA as nothing more than racial discrimination. It was the lazy path to take in the 70s and it was never the right way to address any of the past discrimination, substituting one form of discrimination for another. There can not be 'correct' forms of racial discrimination because that is exactly what we had in America previous to Brown V Board of Ed.

But I really want to dig in to this sentence from Klein:

"In fact, there is a general acknowledgment, in all but the most troglodytic precincts, that our racial diversity is a major American competitive advantage in the global economy."

Now I understand that this idea is taken as absolute fact in all of academia and will doubtless be accepted dogma among the under 30 crowd but where lies the supporting evidence? I can think of many ways that diversity is costing American business money, most of it in general inefficiency of lawsuit-proofing procedures and hiring by quota instead of qualification. I see little upside that can be put on the bottom line. Oh yes, there's a ton of feel good, nebulous BS but show me the money.

And then I look at Japan where there is next to zero diversity, and I see a country that has economically kicked America's ass. No quota hiring there. Damn few lawyers too.

I know there are at least 90% AA/diversity defenders here. Defend these ideological pigs.

[Benman]

I think affirmative action has gone on too long in some circumstances. I don't think there's a need to correct voluntary re-integration, for example.

But, I'm reminded of an interesting analogy I heard once. Imagine a footrace with, say, twenty participants. At the start, five runners have heavy shackles placed on their feet, and the other fifteen don't. About half way through the race, everybody decides that the shackles on the five runners are quite unfair, and everybody is in agreement that they need to come off immediately. The problem is, there's still another half of the race to run, and the five previously shackled runners are well behind. What, if any, is the correct course of action to take? Suspend the race? Start over? Keep going? If one of the five runners is an extraordinary athlete and could manage to make it back to mid-field, but not win, is that grounds for an argument that nothing should be done?

I see forced segregation of blacks as a similar situation. The free market system we largely operate under is a good system, but it's also somewhat like a footrace. Not a zero sum game, exactly, but a very competitive environment where a large time period of artificial constraints can put you behind indefinately. If we work under the assumption that black Americans are just as "capable" of succeeding in an egalitarian society, but they (more precisely their parents) all started the race with shackles on, is it realistic to expect they'd ever catch up on their own? Why would that happen? Just some thoughts.

[HeavilyArmed]

Thank you for what I predict will be one of the few civil posts in this thread.

I've heard your idea previously. I counter by asking "What metric will we use to determine when AA has worked its magic?" I submit that America is a land of equal opportunity and unequal outcomes. It's not changing. Inequality of outcome is found in every civilization through history. Then some smart guy redistributes the land and a couple generations later, boom, outta nowhere, inequality comes right back.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for what I predict will be one of the few civil posts in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that you expected civil posts given the tenor of your initial post in the thread "idealogical pigs."

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for what I predict will be one of the few civil posts in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that you expected civil posts given the tenor of your initial post in the thread "idealogical pigs."

[/ QUOTE ]

Either your sarcasm* is above the rim or it's cocktail hour in Chicago. Have one for me.


* Almost nevers works in a message board environment.

[MrMon]

"Diversity" is code for "We want people who look different, but think alike."

To automatically assume that people who look alike also think alike and that people who look different also think different is, well, racist.

[andyfox]

An argument that has been made for affirmative action is that to not have some kind of affirmative action program is racist. That is, if we believe that blacks and whites, given the same preconditions, would attain equal status in the society, the fact that they have not must be due to deficiencies in societal structure that cause blacks to do less well. So affirmative action, in effect, levels the playing field by "making up" for those deficiencies. What affirmative action looks for, then, is equality of results as a true measure of an unbiased society.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
What affirmative action looks for, then, is equality of results as a true measure of an unbiased society.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fatal flaw, historically speaking. Equality of outcome has never occured in any society I know of.

Now if you're prepared to assert that on every metric, black and white potential is exactly equal then the equality of outcome test makes a perfect test of systemic racism. But that would be a foolish assertation.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you're prepared to assert that on every metric, black and white potential is exactly equal then the equality of outcome test makes a perfect test of systemic racism. But that would be a foolish assertation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its more amusing seeing people question that there is systematic racism.

[Money2Burn]

If systematic racism is at play, why does it not seem to effect Asians in our society? This is a white system set up by a white society. If we really believe that inherent biological differences make our race superior why would we set the system up only to hold back african americans and hispanics? I don't question the statistics proving these things, however I question the reason that is said to be behind them.