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.

[kurto]

Media business -- hiring a multi-culture workforce allows those voices to aid in programming to new markets. Also- a multicultural workforce is more appealing to a company that works internationally with different cultures.

[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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating "diversity" with some limited bureaucratic policies concerning it. You can have diversity without lawsuits, quotas, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/ec...06/el0601.html

[HeavilyArmed]

From totalitarian, feudal wreck to world economic power in 40 years is not to be dismissed by a current slow down. Japan thrives in part due to its monoculture.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diversity was invented as a "competitive advantage" to mollify those who object to (reverse) discrimination in business and education. Isolating diversity as a component of success is impossible, thus the proposition cant be proven or disproven.

[Poofler]

The monoculture certainly helped propel Japan in the post-war world. But that's not to say it is better than a more diverse culture. Many would argue the prolonged stagnation was caused in part by that same monoculture. Potentially higher highs, but lower lows when situations change.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always felt this is the case, but try to point that out and you are labled a racist and discredited before you can finish the sentance. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's funny to me that "black leaders" can seriously make arguments for AA when they openly admit discrimination is wrong and yet white people are scared to call them out on it because as soon as anyone does any number of the parasitic "black leaders" swoops in raining down fire and brimstone to "protect" the black community from the evil racist white devil.

[Poofler]

I've never felt rascist arguing against AA. Besides the two wrongs objection, many African Americans in this country are not poor ghetto dwellers. IMO slavery put them in a position of economic plight. That's the main injustice, being forced to the bottom of the ladder, where it can be hard to climb up. Using race, to me, seems less appropriate than arguing on the basis of economic status.