SCOTUS to review affirmative action

[Craig234]

<Above, it was stated as "qualified for" a position is good enough, rather than "the best qualified person." I'm sure it doesn't apply to all jobs. If you get someone with a physics PhD working the fryer at McDonalds, versus someone with a high school diploma, the outcome is going to be pretty much the same. How much the person exceeds the minimum qualifications has no impact on the quality of the final product that's produced by the company. But, not all jobs are like being a fry cook at McD's. Let's look at teaching. I'd guess that every teacher you've ever run across has met the "minimum qualifications" to be a teacher. Heck, even the people whose resumes I look at, but don't even select for an interview meet the minimum qualifications. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with a paragraph here, since it's pretty obvious the difference in outcomes between "meets the minimum qualifications" and "best candidate for the job" has in teaching. I doubt that teaching has the distinction of being the only field where who you hire (of those who are qualified) can make a huge impact on your outcomes.

First, I think you're right. And I don't have a problem with common sense being included as a factor.

If you're desiging a $100 billion mission to Mars, you're going to put the best person for the position you can in charge of it.

That's why affirmative action generally has these common sense considerations and is done on large-scale discrimination situations.

(And we've seen some problems with 'unofficial' racial advantage, almost always for political reasons - the poster person for that being Clarence Thomas.)

But let's take your case of teachers. Let's say a district has 10,000 teaching positions, and 20% of the teachers qualified for the positions are black, but only 5% of hired teached are.

First question is, do you give a crap?

Second question is, why is that?

Third question is, what are the best solutions available to help make that number better reflect the workforce? Maybe it incudes 'affirmative action', maybe not.

But note, you are making a false description by comparing 'the worst person who meets the minimum qualifications' with 'the best person'. It doesn't work out that way.

Let's say the teachers are hired by a score averaging factors from experience to interviews on a scale of 100.

If the disadvantage group has 5 points added to their score, then you might get the 2,702th bet candidate out of 10,000 instead of the 2,586th. Not that's not such a black and white - no pun intended - massive difference in 'quality' to make the kind of difference you are describing. It's not going to overnight fix the percentages, it's going to shift them in the right direction over time.

But you are simply forgetting and ignoring the issue, why are only 5% of teachers black?

See my first question, do you give a crap?

It's a blunt instrument, but do you have a better solution, really, to do something about it?

Note, your other suggestion is complementary to other affirmative action - both can be done.

 

[Craig234]

We're pushing close to 50 years of AA.

It's very, very little. It has helped but it's not enough to 'solve the problem'.

Your criticism is like saying 'Save the Children' has operated as a charity for world hunger for 50 years, and we still have world hunger. So clearly it just doesn't work.

That's not correct.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Affirmative action is the frozen trout we use to tighten the bolt.

 

[HendrixFan]

We're pushing close to 50 years of AA. It has helped some individuals, but is it fixing the problem? Do people in inner cities value education more now, or less now than they did 50 years ago?

People have been working non-stop to undercut, erode, ban, bar, evade, ignore, etc AA for 50 years. Progress has certainly been made. My mother started her education before integration. My boss a few years back, who is black, was in the same boat at one time. Things are different now, and better. Things aren't "where they should be" in regards to the desired outcome, because every inch gained is met with denouncement of racism.

 

[werepossum]

I disagree in a part that its a racially segregated underclass. I have seen the same mentality in areas of the south.

I have family in KY (beautiful area. if not for the lack of jobs i would move. the poeple are kind..but yeah many are stupid) and MS. There its not uncommon ot see many young girls who WANT to get pregnant. why? for welfare. they drop out of high school because t hey think its a waste and get knocked up.

I suspect its a poor culture thing. They know a high school diploma won't help much beyond the military. Now way in hell can they afford college let alone CC.

to many want to be handed stuff and not work for it. The governemt is to willing to give them money.

I don't see any amount of AA helping the situation.

Personally i would rather see need based program purely on economic and education. IF you have a kid from a poor family getting good grades? great he should get a bonus (or she!).

someone mentioned legacy admissions. I understand why they are there. I do think they should be ended though.

I agree completely, affirmative action should be based on need, and our permanent underclass is not completely nor even mainly a racially based class. However, I say racially based because most affirmative action is geared toward blacks, because blacks are as a group the most poor and the most anti-education. To the degree that is caused by the legacy of segregation and sanctioned discrimination, affirmative action SHOULD be targeting blacks, because it's very difficult to achieve parity in any society if your group starts from a significant disadvantage.

<quote> <snip> </quote>

We're pushing close to 50 years of AA. It has helped some individuals, but is it fixing the problem? Do people in inner cities value education more now, or less now than they did 50 years ago?

Condoleeza Rice was used above as an example. Her parents were a high school science/music/oratory teacher, and a guidance counselor/minister. Is she an example that affirmative action worked? Or is she an example of someone from a better background who got additional help getting even further forward than she perhaps deserved?

Above, it was stated as "qualified for" a position is good enough, rather than "the best qualified person." I'm sure it doesn't apply to all jobs. If you get someone with a physics PhD working the fryer at McDonalds, versus someone with a high school diploma, the outcome is going to be pretty much the same. How much the person exceeds the minimum qualifications has no impact on the quality of the final product that's produced by the company. But, not all jobs are like being a fry cook at McD's. Let's look at teaching. I'd guess that every teacher you've ever run across has met the "minimum qualifications" to be a teacher. Heck, even the people whose resumes I look at, but don't even select for an interview meet the minimum qualifications. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with a paragraph here, since it's pretty obvious the difference in outcomes between "meets the minimum qualifications" and "best candidate for the job" has in teaching. I doubt that teaching has the distinction of being the only field where who you hire (of those who are qualified) can make a huge impact on your outcomes.


My thought: change the welfare system. Make the welfare system encourage a good education. Sort of like this: let's say the standard payment for a family of 4 is $1000 a month. Let's make it 950. Your kids are allowed 5 absences from school. If they hit 6-10 absences, you lose $10 per month. 11-15, you lose $20 per month, etc. For each subject that they score at mastery level on, you get an extra $5 per month for the next year. (Test would have to be a standardized test, otherwise teachers would simply be pressured into giving everyone A's.) Your kids haven't been caught with illegal drugs in the past 3 years? Extra $25 per month. Your kids aren't teen mothers or fathers? Extra $25 per month. Your kid has a baby before your kid is 18 and out of your household? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Your kid gets caught with illegal drugs? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Etc.

Tweak those numbers, (using actuaries & people who can actually figure these things out, rather than politicians who can't do math), and while it might be more expensive short term to reward families with some extra cash, long term, it might just help some of those kids escape a life of poverty from which they cannot escape because they lack the education and/or skills.

Well said, and I agree. I would point out that there are qualifications for fry cook as well though; applicants for fry cook may vary wildly in performance and should not be judged on whether their skin color fills a statistical distribution even though the job is extremely easy to perform. If anything, such jobs are even harder to fill well, because one cannot simply present one's fry cook degree and therefore selection falls almost entirely on subjectively judged areas.

One caveat on employment though - I have had two employers that I've personally heard ask "You didn't hire that ni**er, did you?" If you are black (or whatever minority not in vogue in your particular area) and in a small town, or in a specialized field, or it's a down market, you may well be screwed. So while I agree with your points and I'm firmly against racial distribution policing such as Craig described, I can see a legitimate role for the federal government if numbers are too skewed without a logical reason. There's a fine line between allowing employers the necessary freedom to select the best employees (thereby benefiting us all) and allowing employers the freedom to discriminate. While the federal government is hardly equipped to wisely deal with fine lines, I don't see much choice but to allow them to at least sanction the most blatant offenders. Otherwise we're not providing equal protection or equal opportunity.

 

[werepossum]

People have been working non-stop to undercut, erode, ban, bar, evade, ignore, etc AA for 50 years. Progress has certainly been made. My mother started her education before integration. My boss a few years back, who is black, was in the same boat at one time. Things are different now, and better. Things aren't "where they should be" in regards to the desired outcome, because every inch gained is met with denouncement of racism.

Perhaps to a small degree that's true, but denouncement of racism doesn't actually hold anyone back. It does however minimize the consequences of not trying - although obviously our welfare programs and general entitlement mentality are much more to blame - so to some extent affirmative action hurts even as it helps.

 

[Fern]

I also find it unfortunate that people who are against AA so frequently leave out legacy admissions and similar programs, which are for the most part just white person affirmative action.

I would oppose legacy admissions at public universities, just I would most AA programs. I'm OK with help/assistance for economic reasons.

From what I've seen SCOTUS has only upheld AA programs when the racial component is a very small factor.

I don't really care what private universities do. They can have AA or legacy programs. If they're private it's their business.

Fern

 

[HendrixFan]

Perhaps to a small degree that's true, but denouncement of racism doesn't actually hold anyone back. It does however minimize the consequences of not trying - although obviously our welfare programs and general entitlement mentality are much more to blame - so to some extent affirmative action hurts even as it helps.

AA /= Welfare.

Socioeconomic factors are hugely problematic in ensuring that all youths have equal opportunity to make the most of their abilities for sure. Race is still a limiting factor, and since the two run in conjunction to an incredible degree the effects are multiplied. That isn't to say the two are the same though.

 

[Doppel]

I don't pretend for a second that all races are equally advantaged.

I still find AA offensive. If we are to demonize racism, we must too demonize punishing people due to their race, which AA does to those skipped over for not being in its protected class.

 

[HendrixFan]

I still find AA offensive. If we are to demonize racism, we must too demonize punishing people due to their race, which AA does to those skipped over for not being in its protected class.

No AA punishes people due to their race. Enslaving a race for hundreds of years then following that up with 100 years of separate but equal puts you in a position where you can't flip a switch and just say "hey we are all equal now" and have it be true.

 

[Craig234]

I don't pretend for a second that all races are equally advantaged.

I still find AA offensive. If we are to demonize racism, we must too demonize punishing people due to their race, which AA does to those skipped over for not being in its protected class.

IMO you have not thought this through.

Say a man steals from you and buys his son a gift.

The court then rules that the money was stolen and so the gift must be taken from the son and returned to you.

OH, THE INJUSTICE! THAT'S THE COURT STEALING, STEALING FROM AN INNOCENT CHILD WHO DID NOTHING WRONG!!!! IT'S JUST AS BAD AS THE ORIGINAL THEFT!!

That is the logic of the people who say affirmative action is 'racism'.

I've already explained it's not. You didnt listen. It is a disadvantage... for those who have an unfair advantage, to lose a bit of that unfair advantage.

As I said AA if for situations where a group is significantly UNDERREPRESENTED for reasons based on discrimination - analogous to theft in my analogy.

You are saying you want for unfair underrepresentation to continue forever as far as you're concerned with no remedy.

You don't mind if things get more fair by accident - analogous to 'hey, if the son decides to return the gift on his own, or loses the gift and the person stolen from happens to find it, that's fine, but no way a court can order it'. This goes to what I said the real main question is, 'do you give a crap about significant underrepresentation caused by discrimination'.

You answer 'no'.

 

[Craig234]

I would oppose legacy admissions at public universities, just I would most AA programs. I'm OK with help/assistance for economic reasons.

You also answer my question, 'do you give a crap about significant underrepresentation for reasons of discrimination', with 'no'.

But hey, if there is underrepresentation for reasons of poverty, that's worth action.

Except even there you use vague statements not saying if the 'help' includes AA, and that you oppose 'most' AA programs without saying what ones you support.

But for good measure you toss in meaningless opposition to legacy programs to be fair.

 

[Fern]

You also answer my question, 'do you give a crap about significant underrepresentation for reasons of discrimination', with 'no'.

You flatter yourself. I never saw your question. I rarely read your wall of texts that typically amount to nothing other than highly partisan political propaganda.

I'm pretty sure I quoted eski and so was clearly responding to him.

But hey, if there is underrepresentation for reasons of poverty, that's worth action.

Absolutely.

Talented kids from poorer households should not be prevented opportunity because they are poor. We'll be breaking the vicious cycle of poverty for that family and society will a highly educated talented person as a benefit.

Except even there you use vague statements not saying if the 'help' includes AA, and that you oppose 'most' AA programs without saying what ones you support.

Read up on 'em. I oppose the ones that award huge bonus points for race. (Some have awarded more bonus points for race than a perfect SAT score.) That's just a quota system.

I see no point either in sending underachievers to fill slots that poor, but talented and hard working, kids could use.

But for good measure you toss in meaningless opposition to legacy programs to be fair.

How is it meaningless?

Why should public universities have legacy programs?

Fern

 

[PowerEngineer]

For the most part, I've found this discussion to be very interesting. Interesting enough to prod me into requesting access to this forum.

Bravo! :thumbsup:

What started out as a discussion of race-based affirmative action has moved toward something of a consensus that perhaps it's the economically disadvantaged (regardless of their race, sex, or creed) that need help. I agree.

I know that the information in this linked video is really "news" to anyone that was in earshot of any "occupy" protesters. It is pretty surprising just how skewed the distribution of wealth has become:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/Wealth-Inequality-in-America-viral-video-Politizane/

I see this extreme skewing of the rewards of our current political/economic system is a growing threat to the long-term viability of our country. Regardless of one’s beliefs, everyone needs to recognize that general discontent has to increase with the disparity between what the people sees as “fair” and what actually happens.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with the increasing rigidity of our economic classes, by which I mean the increasing institutionalized viscosity preventing individuals from rising or falling economically based on their own merits. Not only are the rich getting richer (and the poor getting poorer), but the rich are staying rich (and the poor are staying poor). Too much of our children’s success depends on the economic status of their parents. This is why I generally support generous funding of public schools (rather than private or charter schools), providing school meals for needy students, scholarships based on need, etc. as at least token efforts toward leveling the educational “playing field” and providing a more “equal opportunity” for young adults (NOT "equal results").

It makes sense (at least to me) that we’d like everyone in this country to believe that they get a fair opportunity to pursue their happiness and that they are comfortable with the results of their pursuit (even if not very successful). If this “American dream” is no longer available to a growing segment of our society, then it stands to reason that the discontented will look to change the rules to better suit themselves. I’d like to think that we’ll look for ways to mitigate these problems before they lead to social unrest, but I fear that we’ll choose to ignore the signs for as long as we can (and just buy more guns to protect ourselves from these ingrates).

My two cents...

 

[werepossum]

AA /= Welfare.

Socioeconomic factors are hugely problematic in ensuring that all youths have equal opportunity to make the most of their abilities for sure. Race is still a limiting factor, and since the two run in conjunction to an incredible degree the effects are multiplied. That isn't to say the two are the same though.

True. I wasn't equating the two, merely admitting while making the point that affirmative action can minimize the consequences of not trying, that our welfare programs and general entitlement mentality do so to a much greater rate. Regarding race being a limiting factor, that can be true to an extent, but not in education or government employment. It can even be an asset in the private sector; many companies are looking for minority participation. We've lost nice engineering jobs to very small minority firms who provide a handshake and a photo op, then hire a white engineering firm to do the actual design. The black professional gets 5% or 10% of the contract with practically no overhead and little work.

My point however was that you attributed the lack of results from affirmative action to "denouncement of racism" and that is simply not true. Someone decrying affirmative action as reverse race-based discrimination (which is accurate) doesn't actually hold anyone back. If you get awarded 100 SAT points for having the correct skin color and consequently get into a university for which you otherwise would not qualify, you are in that university regardless of what anyone thinks or says about it. Your education is what you make of it from that point, and if you flunk out, it's not because people denounced the program. If you make valedictorian, it's not because you were awarded 100 SAT points for having the correct skin color. You want to eat your cake and have it too by getting special treatment without anyone allowed to mention it.

This kind of situation is thankfully becoming more rare, replaced by smarter systems like that of UT that Shehateme posted. By accepting the top 10% of every high school graduating class, a university allows anyone to work her way into a good university. To the degree that blacks are over-represented in very poor school systems, this kind of system levels the entrance playing field, although obviously the work will be much more difficult if the majority of your teachers couldn't even earn entrance via SAT scores. But then, I wouldn't consider that sort of policy as affirmative action at all; it addresses the same problem, but does so in such a way as to avoid disadvantaging anyone. That is where we should be moving.

 

[HendrixFan]

I understand your point werepossum. There have been huge efforts and clear barriers put in the way of AA, most notably college admissions.

Since UT switched to the top 10% (I was the first high school class in Texas when that rule went into effect) the outcome wasn't what they were looking for. Instead of pulling in a substantial amount of minorities from minority schools/areas, they ended up pulling out the 10% of white kids from those areas. Not strictly, but generally speaking.

There have been plenty of court cases going all the way up to the Supreme Court as people have tried, sometimes rather successfully, to block AA. That is just dealing with large scale legal issues. You have to believe that similar efforts of subversion are going on every day on an individual or small time basis working towards that same goal. Blocking AA.

Nothing will ever be perfectly equal, but it should be somewhere in that ballpark. The centuries of state sponsored racism have had a huge impact on the class mobility and opportunities available to blacks. We have to undo what we have done. In the meantime, AA won't be "fair" in the sense that we are admitting that things aren't equal. But it works towards equality, which is the goal.

I grew up in minority areas and went to minority schools, so my viewpoint is different than most people. I saw firsthand many intelligent and otherwise capable people get crushed and never have a real shot at success. The contrast couldn't be more drastic as I made it to a Tier 1 university and saw the majority (though certainly not all) of the students there didn't have the same drive or intelligence as some of the brighter classmates from where I came from. But they did have family and connections.

Who you know has always been more important than who you are. There are a few exceptions of truly remarkable people who exist far on the extreme of the bell curve, but that fact is predominantly true. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the like kept blacks away from anything resembling a chance to be in the "who you know" crowd.

I think I'm meandering a little, but there is no way to bring blacks to where they should be without disadvantaging some. But that is only because others would be losing their current advantage of having blacks remain disadvantaged by default.

 

[werepossum]

I understand your point werepossum. There have been huge efforts and clear barriers put in the way of AA, most notably college admissions.

Since UT switched to the top 10% (I was the first high school class in Texas when that rule went into effect) the outcome wasn't what they were looking for. Instead of pulling in a substantial amount of minorities from minority schools/areas, they ended up pulling out the 10% of white kids from those areas. Not strictly, but generally speaking.

There have been plenty of court cases going all the way up to the Supreme Court as people have tried, sometimes rather successfully, to block AA. That is just dealing with large scale legal issues. You have to believe that similar efforts of subversion are going on every day on an individual or small time basis working towards that same goal. Blocking AA.

Nothing will ever be perfectly equal, but it should be somewhere in that ballpark. The centuries of state sponsored racism have had a huge impact on the class mobility and opportunities available to blacks. We have to undo what we have done. In the meantime, AA won't be "fair" in the sense that we are admitting that things aren't equal. But it works towards equality, which is the goal.

I grew up in minority areas and went to minority schools, so my viewpoint is different than most people. I saw firsthand many intelligent and otherwise capable people get crushed and never have a real shot at success. The contrast couldn't be more drastic as I made it to a Tier 1 university and saw the majority (though certainly not all) of the students there didn't have the same drive or intelligence as some of the brighter classmates from where I came from. But they did have family and connections.

Who you know has always been more important than who you are. There are a few exceptions of truly remarkable people who exist far on the extreme of the bell curve, but that fact is predominantly true. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the like kept blacks away from anything resembling a chance to be in the "who you know" crowd.

I think I'm meandering a little, but there is no way to bring blacks to where they should be without disadvantaging some. But that is only because others would be losing their current advantage of having blacks remain disadvantaged by default.

I agree that who you know is often more important than what you know. With regards to pulling the white kids out of predominantly black schools, isn't that culture? If one has the opportunity to succeed but doesn't do so because it's "acting white" or "being an Uncle Tom" or one of the many other things we use to justify our own sloth, is sympathy really justified? Seems to me that's being disadvantaged by choice. We can't (and shouldn't try to) forcibly change black culture for their own good; if a person is of sound mind, he deserves to make his own life choices. What we can and should do is offer opportunity. if one scorns that opportunity, one is not due the benefits of working to take advantage of it.

This is one area where private companies can and should help out. I've heard over the years a lot of whining about having to hire blacks to stay out of trouble with the feds, employers who can't find decent black welders or black engineers or black steam fitters. These companies hire pretty much the first nominally qualified black applicant under the theory that none of them will be of any use or competent. Well, if you need something but can't find it, change your methods. Look elsewhere, look with a different method, or better yet grow your own. A company large enough to face problems for not having enough black employees should be large enough to work with a local school system to establish a program teaching the things they need, assuming they provide a decent wage. An inner city kid may not know anyone who is a steam fitter or an engineer or a lead burner, so he or she probably has no idea what they earn or what they do or how to become one. The local school system is probably more concerned with not having the inner city kids kill each other than with them learning a trade or profession, more likely to favor replacing that leaking cooler or worn-out boiler than establishing a program the teachers probably don't understand anyway. By working together, the employer can within a decade or so produce not only the employees he needs to hire, but also make them the employees he wants to hire.

This is also what good trade unions do, to an extent. One who goes through the plumbing apprenticeship program for example earns not only entrance into a well-paid trade, but also an associate degree. (But since trade unions are growing their own and don't need qualified applicants, a high percentage of apprentices tend to be relatives of journeymen and masters. Again, who you know.) No reason corporations can't operate similar programs where strong trade unions aren't present or for jobs where trade unions don't normally operate. Work with the school to develop a program, or with other corporations to establish apprenticeship programs combining work and education to the benefit of both employer and employee.

 

[Craig234]

Since UT switched to the top 10% (I was the first high school class in Texas when that rule went into effect) the outcome wasn't what they were looking for. Instead of pulling in a substantial amount of minorities from minority schools/areas, they ended up pulling out the 10% of white kids from those areas. Not strictly, but generally speaking.

Are you sure that isn't exactly what they were looking for?

To me that's kind of like saying 'the results of former Goldman-Sachs chairman Paulson's policies in the 2008 crash weren't at all what he was looking for.

None of the money went to help the American people, but Goldman Sachs was paid many billlions of dollars, covering their investments worth cents on the dollar at 100%.'

Of course they SAID that wasn't their desire, in both cases.

There have been plenty of court cases going all the way up to the Supreme Court as people have tried, sometimes rather successfully, to block AA. That is just dealing with large scale legal issues. You have to believe that similar efforts of subversion are going on every day on an individual or small time basis working towards that same goal. Blocking AA.

Nothing will ever be perfectly equal, but it should be somewhere in that ballpark. The centuries of state sponsored racism have had a huge impact on the class mobility and opportunities available to blacks. We have to undo what we have done. In the meantime, AA won't be "fair" in the sense that we are admitting that things aren't equal. But it works towards equality, which is the goal.

I grew up in minority areas and went to minority schools, so my viewpoint is different than most people. I saw firsthand many intelligent and otherwise capable people get crushed and never have a real shot at success. The contrast couldn't be more drastic as I made it to a Tier 1 university and saw the majority (though certainly not all) of the students there didn't have the same drive or intelligence as some of the brighter classmates from where I came from. But they did have family and connections.

Who you know has always been more important than who you are. There are a few exceptions of truly remarkable people who exist far on the extreme of the bell curve, but that fact is predominantly true. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the like kept blacks away from anything resembling a chance to be in the "who you know" crowd.

I think I'm meandering a little, but there is no way to bring blacks to where they should be without disadvantaging some. But that is only because others would be losing their current advantage of having blacks remain disadvantaged by default.

Well said. I keep trying to get people to understand that thing they object to most - the slightly less qualified but still qualified person in the disadvantaged group getting something instead of the advantaged person, which seems to unjust to them, never needs to happen when there isn't significant underrepresentation from the effects of dicsrimination - so the people are really just trying to keep their undeserved excessive representation, but they don't understand that's the case. It's a bit like calling recovering stolen money from the thief 'the same theft as the thief originally committed', a bit like the thief stealing and then saying 'ok, let's get rid of theft now, so you can't take it back'.

Oh, so simply saying 'no discrimination now including AA' means that the effects of discrimination cause whites to get a far larger share of spots in an area, because the effects of past discrimination continue to cause that? Too bad!' Hence why I say the first question is where people give a crap about significant underrepresentation caused by discrimination. Many people's answer is 'no', and they don't know that.

AA is a blunt and imperfect instrument whose justice outweighs its injustice when applied reasonably.

It has stronger measures like direct advantage for the disadvanted for stronger discrimination, and weaker actions, like advertising to minorities, for lesser cases.

It is a tool for when there is a lot of underrepresentation. I haven't ever seen one opponent offer an alternative solution that would fix - answering 'do you give a crap', 'no'.

 

[Craig234]

What started out as a discussion of race-based affirmative action has moved toward something of a consensus that perhaps it's the economically disadvantaged (regardless of their race, sex, or creed) that need help. I agree.

I have shifted from the wealth-based position to the position that there are some situations appropriate for wealth-based, and others for race-based.

The leading problem for many people with race-based seems to be that they can't help but view race-based affirmative action as 'reverse racism' - just as bad as old racism.

This is simply an ignorant position in my opinion.

People have been bombarded with the message of the injustice of discrimination, so that they now accept racist (not racial) discrimination as unjust. After that, it's now the 'norm' in society. People often don't quite understand how the 'norm' used to not be that and that racist discrimination was very strongly supported everywhere in the country.

But similarly to how calls for ending racist discrimination fell on deaf ears in the century after the civil war, today calls for justice in ending the remaining underrepresentation for blacks from that discrimation get the same response that calls for integration used to - objection.

In both cases I think it had a lot to do with just not really understanding the issue well.

I don't think a lot of people during segregation reacted to calls to end discrimination by asking how fair discrimination was for blacks. And I don't think that a lot of people opposed to affirmative action respond to it by asking how much justice it's providing, how much injustice there is.

People earlier simply said 'we have separate equal, so the issue of fairness is answered'. People today say 'we removed discrimination from the law, so fairness is answered'.

In both cases, if they'd put themselves in the shoes of the disadvantaged group, if they'd get more informed how centuries of racism cause injustice that is perpetuated if there is no intervention, if they 'give a crap' about the underrepresentation more than some flawed policy of 'justice', then they'd come to appreciate why affirmative action is a bit like taking a bit of stolen property and returning it to the owner - even if that stolen property has been sold to an innocent person.

It's not going to be close to 'perfect', but people who just hate affirmative action never really are pushed to get informed, to look at a workforce of 10,000 in a company with significantly underrepresent blacks and say 'are you just going to ignore that'. They can just ignore it, they didn't hear about it.

Anyway, I think there are situations where economic-based policies are fair; but that there are others where recognizing the effects of racism are fair.

I see this extreme skewing of the rewards of our current political/economic system is a growing threat to the long-term viability of our country. Regardless of one’s beliefs, everyone needs to recognize that general discontent has to increase with the disparity between what the people sees as “fair” and what actually happens.

The effects are large, as is the problem.

A popular talking point is comparing one group's - I think it might be the average - wealth with the top 100th of 1%:

If you take the first group's average wealth and represent it on a chart as one inch high, the wealth of the second group is five miles high.

People are not taught the harm of that inequality - the drag on the economy, the way it defeats democracy - instead they get propaganda, 'don't hate the wealthy'.

People don't understand that we don't have a 'poor country' that can't do big things.

We have a country where all of the economic growth for decades instead of being proportionally distributed, has gone to the top, greatly increasing their share of wealth.

The top 1% under Jimmy Carter received 9% of the income; today that's 24%. And wealth is far more unequal than that, as you showed.

So people ACT like the country is poor, because it is artifically poor with all that wealth taken from them and given to the top. That created support for 'austerity', as if bleeding the people more is the way to restore prosperity for Americans - no country has ever become wealthy from austerity policies.

If the economic growth would have stayed proportionally rewarded, the minimum wage today would be $22/hours. All Americans in the bottom 99% would make far more.

That's not a poor country, it's a country moving to plutocracy.

The American people don't understand that making them poorer is not a failure of policy for the rich, it's the goal. They can't own everything if you own anything.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with the increasing rigidity of our economic classes, by which I mean the increasing institutionalized viscosity preventing individuals from rising or falling economically based on their own merits. Not only are the rich getting richer (and the poor getting poorer), but the rich are staying rich (and the poor are staying poor). Too much of our children’s success depends on the economic status of their parents. This is why I generally support generous funding of public schools (rather than private or charter schools), providing school meals for needy students, scholarships based on need, etc. as at least token efforts toward leveling the educational “playing field” and providing a more “equal opportunity” for young adults (NOT "equal results").

It makes sense (at least to me) that we’d like everyone in this country to believe that they get a fair opportunity to pursue their happiness and that they are comfortable with the results of their pursuit (even if not very successful). If this “American dream” is no longer available to a growing segment of our society, then it stands to reason that the discontented will look to change the rules to better suit themselves. I’d like to think that we’ll look for ways to mitigate these problems before they lead to social unrest, but I fear that we’ll choose to ignore the signs for as long as we can (and just buy more guns to protect ourselves from these ingrates).

Well said. I just think you need to reconsider the need for race-based affirmative action in some cases.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And Fern returns to manual ignore, again.

If you want to ignore someone, just do it. We don't need declarations of such in here.

The leading problem for many people with race-based seems to be that they can't help but view race-based affirmative action as 'reverse racism' - just as bad as old racism.

This is simply an ignorant position in my opinion.

Calling a position "ignorant" accomplishes nothing, as your opponents could easily say the same about yours.

If you want to argue that affirmative action isn't "racism" because it doesn't include an attempt to say one race is better than the other, fine. But race-based affirmative action most certaily is racial discrimination, and pretty much by definition. If you are saying that people should be hired, promoted, or accepted to college based in any way on their skin color, you are supporting race-based discrimination. You can try to justify this if you want, but that doesn't change what it is.

People often don't quite understand how the 'norm' used to not be that and that racist discrimination was very strongly supported everywhere in the country.

And now it's strongly supported in most parts of the country in the opposite form.

In both cases, if they'd put themselves in the shoes of the disadvantaged group, if they'd get more informed how centuries of racism cause injustice that is perpetuated if there is no intervention, if they 'give a crap' about the underrepresentation more than some flawed policy of 'justice', then they'd come to appreciate why affirmative action is a bit like taking a bit of stolen property and returning it to the owner - even if that stolen property has been sold to an innocent person.

And if you put yourself in the shoes of groups who are now disadvantaged by policies that combat racism they don't feel or support and had nothing to do with, you might understand some of the objections to affirmative action, rather than just accusing your opponents of some combination of ignorance or insensitivity.

 

[waggy]

You flatter yourself. I never saw your question. I rarely read your wall of texts that typically amount to nothing other than highly partisan political propaganda.

I'm pretty sure I quoted eski and so was clearly responding to him.



Absolutely.

Talented kids from poorer households should not be prevented opportunity because they are poor. We'll be breaking the vicious cycle of poverty for that family and society will a highly educated talented person as a benefit.



Read up on 'em. I oppose the ones that award huge bonus points for race. (Some have awarded more bonus points for race than a perfect SAT score.) That's just a quota system.

I see no point either in sending underachievers to fill slots that poor, but talented and hard working, kids could use.



How is it meaningless?

Why should public universities have legacy programs?

Fern

i agree.


I would rather see poor get a bonus then someone who is not qualified get in just because of race.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There are already extensive financial support systems in place in the educational system. I know some people who send their kids to schools we could never afford, because they are paying a fraction of the full tuition that "well to do" (lol) people like us would be expected to cough up out-of-pocket.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

I grew up in minority areas and went to minority schools, so my viewpoint is different than most people. I saw firsthand many intelligent and otherwise capable people get crushed and never have a real shot at success. The contrast couldn't be more drastic as I made it to a Tier 1 university and saw the majority (though certainly not all) of the students there didn't have the same drive or intelligence as some of the brighter classmates from where I came from. But they did have family and connections.

That's exactly my concern; The gifted from poor disadvantaged families.

And I would give these kids the financial help, and a bit of an edge in getting accepted.

I fear some promising kids in these circumstances might give up because they lack hope and believe even if they work hard and do well they can never get in college anyway. I want to give them hope.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

i agree.


I would rather see poor get a bonus then someone who is not qualified get in just because of race.

Since you ignore what has been said repeatedly, let's repeat it: correctly implemented affirmative action ONLY ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED.

Further, it *NEVER* DOES ANYTHING 'JUST BECAUSE OF RACE'.

It is ONLY used when there is evidence of significant underrepresentation. So any time someone 'gets in' it is addressing an inequity for a group now going on.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since you ignore what has been said repeatedly, let's repeat it: correctly implemented affirmative action ONLY ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED.

Further, it *NEVER* DOES ANYTHING 'JUST BECAUSE OF RACE'.

You can repeat it as much as you want -- it's still a load of BS. As *I* have said repeatedly, "qualified" is not a binary decision, and as soon as skin color is taken into account in determining whether or not someone gets into a school, the system is based on racial discrimination.

All of that said, I think this girl is a big whiner.