Debate on Affirmative Action

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Dworkin states that this is fine, because white students at Harvard will get a new, better perception of blacks, “they can be rich just like me!” So, even if the distribution is not effective in determining who was harmed, overall, affirmative action is good for race relations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest load of BS I've heard in a while. When people see someone who clearly benefited from racist policies, they don't think "wow, this person is just like me", they think "If I were black, I could have a 3.2 in High School, a 1150 SAT, and still get a full ride to Harvard".

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a simple question for Craig before I fully respond.

In college admissions, how will someone who is judging the applications be able to discriminate based on race if they do not know what race the person is?

[/ QUOTE ]
See all my arguments on the "color-blind approach."

Is it possible to be color-blind in admissions? Yes. Is that a good idea? No. My argument there is because there is a difference in the playing field. A color-blind approach would be great if there were conditions of equality or no barriers in society.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, in terms of my "concessions".

First, you agree that discrimination is still prevalent today.
No. I said it exists today. I did not say at what level.

You’re also conceding that there are societal gaps that resulted from previous discrimination. This proves my argument about the playing field being uneven.

You need to define what societal gaps are. I will not concede anything until you define what this actually means.

So, we have established harms. What’s the next step, what needs to be done?


The status quo or profit motivations don’t solve or even account for either of those harms. It does nothing to level the playing field (this is synonymous with the creation of equal opportunity).

Is this a concession? I strongly disagree here.

You acknowledge in the end that affirmative action would be a way to quickly close the gap.
No I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize these were not all meant to be "concessions" but that section of my post was intended to mention some concessions and draw some conclusions.

The magnitude of discrimination that you agree to is a non-issue. The important part is that you agree that discrimination exists today, which I argue is what has created an uneven playing field.

By "societal gaps" I am referring to hierarchies or differences between groups. The "gap" is the difference between status levels.

Those are the harms which I believe you have conceded or are at least losing on. I use those to make the argument that something needs to be done to correct those harms.

You have not proven a way for those to be solved, while affirmative action reduces discrimination by the "boost" it gives. This levels the playing field and therefore reduces the societal gaps.

As for what I interpreted to be a concession on affirmative action closing the gap, I was referring to this quote from you:

"This approach may take more time than a forced Affirmative Action approach."

I take that to mean that affirmative action would close the gap quicker than the profit margins idea or the status quo.

While you have argued that there will be certain externalities from affirmative action that would be bad, you at least have conceded (in my opinion) that something needs to be done and that affirmative action would at least solve those above harms.

At that point, it comes down to weighing those externalities with the benefit of solving the harms. Or, it comes down to analyzing which approach would be best to solve the harms, and you haven't really delineated such a plan.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dworkin states that this is fine, because white students at Harvard will get a new, better perception of blacks, “they can be rich just like me!” So, even if the distribution is not effective in determining who was harmed, overall, affirmative action is good for race relations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest load of BS I've heard in a while. When people see someone who clearly benefited from racist policies, they don't think "wow, this person is just like me", they think "If I were black, I could have a 3.2 in High School, a 1150 SAT, and still get a full ride to Harvard".

[/ QUOTE ]
A little more civility would be appreciated.

This is not a major argument and frankly not even one that I particularly like myself. I introduced it as Dworkin's for a reason and thought that it was interesting and gives us a different scenario to think about.

Having these people at Harvard would be good because certain stereotypes or whatever may be reduced when these groups work together and are able to find similarities between one another. I think this would be better than maintaining a gap between the groups or reinforcing stereotypes.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]


By "societal gaps" I am referring to hierarchies or differences between groups. The "gap" is the difference between status levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you actually define what this means? I am just trying to understand what you mean by hierachy. Certain groups have different median or average incomes. Does that make a "societal gap"?

[craigthedeac]

Wiki - "hierarchy"
"A hierarchy is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is subordinate to a single other element."

By "societal gap" I mean the distance between the groups on the hierarchy scale.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Wiki - "hierarchy"
"A hierarchy is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is subordinate to a single other element."

By "societal gap" I mean the distance between the groups on the hierarchy scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what a hierarchy is, I am wondering how it fits into a society composed of individuals. How is a group a part of a hierarchy? Mean/median type measurements?

[craigthedeac]

It's intangible and deals with a lot of things, wealth would be one. But mostly it has to do with power, privilege, and status. I'm referring to groups, not individuals.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
It's intangible and deals with a lot of things, wealth would be one. But mostly it has to do with power, privilege, and status. I'm referring to groups, not individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, please clarify, how can a group have such property? Are you measuring an average? A median? Groups are composed of individuals.

Take 2 groups- A & B. Let's just look at income.

A's incomes are $1,000,000, $2,000,000, $1000, $2000, $3000
B's incomes are $50,000, $100,000, $60,000, $20,000, and $45,000.

Which group is higher in the hierarchy?

[craigthedeac]

I would say that median is probably the best "measurement," but it's difficult because most of these factors are not quantifiable.

I think the total is an important "measurement" as well.