insufficient premises.
there are other factors to consider. for example the concentration of certain minorities in perhaps low income areas with underfunded schools and so forth.
OK here is my essay.... flames away...
Except in rare cases, the hiring of one candidate over another based solely on the color of their skin is wrong. Affirmative action harms all parties involved and there are better ways to ensure equal opportunities in education and advancement for all races and creeds of people.
In his article Affirmative Racism, Charles Murray argues that due to affirmative action, under qualified blacks are being admitted to jobs and schools so that these institutions can maintain some sort of diversity standard. One of the examples that he uses is of a fictional student named William, who scores a 520 on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Since William is a minority student, he is able to get in a prestigious Ivy University that a white applicant with the same score would not be able to get into. For comparison?s sake, a white applicant at Ivy University would score around 670 on the mathematics part of the test.
The argument is that William is now unfortunately set up to fail. He is attending a University that he is unprepared for. The admission, while made with the best intentions, was clearly not the proper choice. William attends the university where he finds himself behind other students in talent and ability. Even though he studies hard, he only gets mediocre grades because of his educational background. Clearly William was unqualified for this university and never should have been admitted in the first place.
In his essay Affirming Affirmative Action, Ronald Dworkin would disagree with the statements made above. Dworkin cites the example of test statistics provided by the College and Beyond database, a database of twenty eight Universities where such statistics such as test scores, graduation rates, and grade point averages are recorded. Five of the twenty eight universities had black students who scored above the national average of white students on the SAT. Clearly, as Dworkin would like us to believe, this shows that black students are qualified to attend these Universities. Affirmative Action should not be a concern because the applicants are clearly qualified.
Charles Murray would be quick to point out the other twenty three universities that are included in the database. The statistic provided by Dworkin is also misleading. The College and Beyond database also includes such schools as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. Clearly these schools would not let in any applicants who scored only at the national average on their aptitude tests. The possibility still exists that while the black students scored above the national average for white students on the scholastic aptitude test, they still might fall far below the level that their white peers at Yale scored. We still come back to the same arguments and examples that the best candidate should be accepted for the job or admission, regardless of their skin color. Consider the following examples.
A hospital needs to hire new doctors for its trauma ward. The hospital has openings for a total of ten doctors. There are a total of fifteen doctors, ten white and five black applying for the ten positions. For arguments sake, the ten white doctors are superior in all areas to the black doctors. Would it be then right to hire one or some of the black doctors in an effort to maintain some sort of diversity at the hospital? What if the black doctors were not given the same opportunity for education and training compared to white doctors? Would it then be acceptable to hire black doctors over white ones in order to ?right the wrongs done in the past?? My answer is no. Clearly this case should be an example where it is in the patient?s best interest to hire the most qualified doctors regardless of their skin color. Using the hiring process to iron out any injustices created during the education and training period is harmful for both parties involved and possibly fatal for the patients who would receive their care.
A popular argument for the case of affirmative action is that in the case of two equally qualified candidates, the black applicant should receive the job over the white applicant. James Rachels made the argument that if a white applicant may have had more advantages in life, the black one should be hired over the white. He also makes this argument in the case where a white applicant might be more qualified than a black one. An example would be that perhaps the white applicant went to math camp, and that is why he can perform calculus equations while the black candidate cannot. Therefore the white applicant?s qualifications are undeserved and the black candidate should be hired instead.
I find that there are several flaws with this line of thinking. What should happen in the case of an affluent black candidate and a poor white one? Statistically speaking, the white applicant is still in the majority, but he or she may have had far less opportunities for education and advancement than the affluent black applicant. Is it then still acceptable to hire the black candidate over the white one even though the black one could be also considered undeserving of his or her qualifications?
The argument by Rachels is also a fallacy for another reason. It assumes that both candidates are equally matched. This sort of perfect paring, occurs only in hypothetical questions and examples. In the real world, no two candidates for employment or admissions are exactly identical. There will always be some sort of factor that makes one candidate superior to another. My father sat on a scholarship board and he had two candidates who were so similar that one candidate wasn?t awarded the scholarship because he had affixed his stamp crookedly on the envelope. This small difference, this attention to detail shown by the scholarship winner, proved to be enough for that candidate to distance himself from his competitors and win the scholarship. In the end there will always be some difference, no matter how minute, that will make one candidate better for the job or admission than the rest of the applicants. That?s what hiring and admissions should be about.
So where do we go from here? It is impossible to ignore the past injustices and discrimination that minorities have faced. However, using affirmative action to try and right the wrongs of the past is harmful to all parties involves. To use it, is to take the attitude that two wrongs make a right. Instead of trying to correct the problem when the damage is done, efforts should be put into preventing the problem from ever occurring. There is an old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By making sure that inner city and disadvantaged children receive proper education, healthcare, and social welfare, we can help prevent the discrepancies from forming in the first place. I believe that the money and effort spent on affirmative action should be invested instead into education and other programs for disadvantaged children and adults to help to prevent the education and opportunity gap between the classes.
Except in rare cases, the hiring of one candidate over another based solely on the color of their skin is wrong. Affirmative action harms all parties involved and there are better ways to ensure equal opportunities in education and advancement for all races and creeds of people.
In his article Affirmative Racism, Charles Murray argues that due to affirmative action, under qualified blacks are being admitted to jobs and schools so that these institutions can maintain some sort of diversity standard. One of the examples that he uses is of a fictional student named William, who scores a 520 on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Since William is a minority student, he is able to get in a prestigious Ivy University that a white applicant with the same score would not be able to get into. For comparison?s sake, a white applicant at Ivy University would score around 670 on the mathematics part of the test.
The argument is that William is now unfortunately set up to fail. He is attending a University that he is unprepared for. The admission, while made with the best intentions, was clearly not the proper choice. William attends the university where he finds himself behind other students in talent and ability. Even though he studies hard, he only gets mediocre grades because of his educational background. Clearly William was unqualified for this university and never should have been admitted in the first place.
In his essay Affirming Affirmative Action, Ronald Dworkin would disagree with the statements made above. Dworkin cites the example of test statistics provided by the College and Beyond database, a database of twenty eight Universities where such statistics such as test scores, graduation rates, and grade point averages are recorded. Five of the twenty eight universities had black students who scored above the national average of white students on the SAT. Clearly, as Dworkin would like us to believe, this shows that black students are qualified to attend these Universities. Affirmative Action should not be a concern because the applicants are clearly qualified.
Charles Murray would be quick to point out the other twenty three universities that are included in the database. The statistic provided by Dworkin is also misleading. The College and Beyond database also includes such schools as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. Clearly these schools would not let in any applicants who scored only at the national average on their aptitude tests. The possibility still exists that while the black students scored above the national average for white students on the scholastic aptitude test, they still might fall far below the level that their white peers at Yale scored. We still come back to the same arguments and examples that the best candidate should be accepted for the job or admission, regardless of their skin color. Consider the following examples.
A hospital needs to hire new doctors for its trauma ward. The hospital has openings for a total of ten doctors. There are a total of fifteen doctors, ten white and five black applying for the ten positions. For arguments sake, the ten white doctors are superior in all areas to the black doctors. Would it be then right to hire one or some of the black doctors in an effort to maintain some sort of diversity at the hospital? What if the black doctors were not given the same opportunity for education and training compared to white doctors? Would it then be acceptable to hire black doctors over white ones in order to ?right the wrongs done in the past?? My answer is no. Clearly this case should be an example where it is in the patient?s best interest to hire the most qualified doctors regardless of their skin color. Using the hiring process to iron out any injustices created during the education and training period is harmful for both parties involved and possibly fatal for the patients who would receive their care.
A popular argument for the case of affirmative action is that in the case of two equally qualified candidates, the black applicant should receive the job over the white applicant. James Rachels made the argument that if a white applicant may have had more advantages in life, the black one should be hired over the white. He also makes this argument in the case where a white applicant might be more qualified than a black one. An example would be that perhaps the white applicant went to math camp, and that is why he can perform calculus equations while the black candidate cannot. Therefore the white applicant?s qualifications are undeserved and the black candidate should be hired instead.
I find that there are several flaws with this line of thinking. What should happen in the case of an affluent black candidate and a poor white one? Statistically speaking, the white applicant is still in the majority, but he or she may have had far less opportunities for education and advancement than the affluent black applicant. Is it then still acceptable to hire the black candidate over the white one even though the black one could be also considered undeserving of his or her qualifications?
The argument by Rachels is also a fallacy for another reason. It assumes that both candidates are equally matched. This sort of perfect paring, occurs only in hypothetical questions and examples. In the real world, no two candidates for employment or admissions are exactly identical. There will always be some sort of factor that makes one candidate superior to another. My father sat on a scholarship board and he had two candidates who were so similar that one candidate wasn?t awarded the scholarship because he had affixed his stamp crookedly on the envelope. This small difference, this attention to detail shown by the scholarship winner, proved to be enough for that candidate to distance himself from his competitors and win the scholarship. In the end there will always be some difference, no matter how minute, that will make one candidate better for the job or admission than the rest of the applicants. That?s what hiring and admissions should be about.
So where do we go from here? It is impossible to ignore the past injustices and discrimination that minorities have faced. However, using affirmative action to try and right the wrongs of the past is harmful to all parties involves. To use it, is to take the attitude that two wrongs make a right. Instead of trying to correct the problem when the damage is done, efforts should be put into preventing the problem from ever occurring. There is an old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By making sure that inner city and disadvantaged children receive proper education, healthcare, and social welfare, we can help prevent the discrepancies from forming in the first place. I believe that the money and effort spent on affirmative action should be invested instead into education and other programs for disadvantaged children and adults to help to prevent the education and opportunity gap between the classes.
If you were ever made to stand in the back of the bus by a white man, then sure you can do that. Why should white people have to pay for things that their ancestors did? White people are paying dearly today for slavery. Don't get me wrong slavery was a terrible thing and very wrong, but I never had a slave and neither did my parents or my grandparents.
one thing to consider, which hasn't been brought up thus far, is the possibility that affirmative action, in certain cases, is adventageous not simply to the applicant or some theoretical global karma, but to the actual institution practicing it. IE: in some cases, diversity is not simply a window dressing, but in fact has actual value and utility. One very easy but important example is journalism. I could expand on this but I think it's relatively intuitive.
Just because there is no law on it does not mean it's not equally discriminatory. Legislatures are full of silver-spoon fed legacy-affirmative action beneficiaries, so I would not consider the law a good judge of that.
I don't agree with it. I think race can be used as a minor factor, but not a major factor. I think it should have the same weight as geographic location, legacy, etc. (in a university setting).
I think race should be somewhat of a factor, but not as significant as it is sometimes. I think more emphasis should be placed on economic position.
I agree in principle, but it seems the priveleged are still benefitting from it more than they should. And so every hard working person who is perceived as a minority gets a backlash about how they got there because of AA. I'd like to see more scholarships funded for underrepresented minorities (including lower-class whote people) that can demonstrate financial need.
i was too lazy to read all the above posts.. (sorry its 3am)
just wanted to to put my two cents in here:
you work hard to earn things in life, why should anyone get a bonus? what did they do to deserve that advantage?
thats the bottom line, no ands, ifs or buts.
just wanted to to put my two cents in here:
you work hard to earn things in life, why should anyone get a bonus? what did they do to deserve that advantage?
thats the bottom line, no ands, ifs or buts.
It's a shame that it is still needed today.
Hopefully the next generation will be truly color blind.
We can all hope.
Hopefully the next generation will be truly color blind.
We can all hope.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Before 1968, only white males had the advantage of affirmative action in the form of legacy, nepotism, basically being having connections. Also white males tended to hire and promote white males.
For example how did George W Bush get into Yale?
My wife and I were talking about this earlier today because of Limbaughs comments. I believe affirmative action should be gotten rid of, but if it stays in place I wouldn't make a fuss. I understand why it was needed, and it has served a important role in our countrys development. However with times changing...its not as needed as it once was.
As far as racial descrimination goes...its just wrong in any form. But thats something that will always be a issue no matter what region of the world you live in. I sometimes think how my children will grow up being from a culturaly diverse background (im 2nd gen. irish and my wife is 1st gen cambodian). And I can only hope things will improve with time.
As far as americans paying for slavery...I don't agree with this. My family in Ireland had nothing to do with slaves, and my wife grew up in a Khmer Rouge labor camp the first 4 years of her life working as slave labor with her family while many in the camp were being killed. We are both Americans and certainly can't be blamed for what occurred 200 years ago.
The day that the U.S. govt grants reparations to millions of people for slavery of their ancestors is the day I move to canada!
As far as racial descrimination goes...its just wrong in any form. But thats something that will always be a issue no matter what region of the world you live in. I sometimes think how my children will grow up being from a culturaly diverse background (im 2nd gen. irish and my wife is 1st gen cambodian). And I can only hope things will improve with time.
As far as americans paying for slavery...I don't agree with this. My family in Ireland had nothing to do with slaves, and my wife grew up in a Khmer Rouge labor camp the first 4 years of her life working as slave labor with her family while many in the camp were being killed. We are both Americans and certainly can't be blamed for what occurred 200 years ago.
The day that the U.S. govt grants reparations to millions of people for slavery of their ancestors is the day I move to canada!
Reparations is another topic that we went over in my class.... there are some interesting arguements regarding it....
I wonder what everyone thought of my essay...
I think we should all be discrimnated against equally by our own merits. That probably isn't going to happen but it doesn't justify reverse discrimnation tha AA imposes.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Affirmative action was a helpful and necessary thing when racial discrimination was widely and publicly accepted.
It was one of the key components needed to help overcome traditional racial barriers to opportunity and advancement.
I won't argue that racism is gone. Cleary it isn't. But, society's acceptance of racism as normal practice is gone. In today's american society, minorities have all the opportunities that whites have.
In today's society, I believe the attitudes created by affirmative action is more damaging to minorities than racial discrimination. Affirmative action basically says that minorities are not capable of competing with whites for jobs and college admissions. In the 1960's this was true. Not because of their intelligence or skill, but because of racist attitudes. Today this is not true.
In addition, it raises doubt about the qualifications and intelligence of those minorities who get admitted to college or those who get hired by companies because you don't know if they met the same requirements or were admitted or hired because of affirmative action.
So overall, I think the time for affirmative action is over.
I think it is bad for minorities for two main reasons:
It perpetuates the attitude that minorities are not capable of competing and need a little extra help to succeed. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If young minorities are constantly told that they cannot succeed on their own merits, they will believe this.
It reduces the respect and admiration that minorities deserve for their accomplishments in school and business.
It was one of the key components needed to help overcome traditional racial barriers to opportunity and advancement.
I won't argue that racism is gone. Cleary it isn't. But, society's acceptance of racism as normal practice is gone. In today's american society, minorities have all the opportunities that whites have.
In today's society, I believe the attitudes created by affirmative action is more damaging to minorities than racial discrimination. Affirmative action basically says that minorities are not capable of competing with whites for jobs and college admissions. In the 1960's this was true. Not because of their intelligence or skill, but because of racist attitudes. Today this is not true.
In addition, it raises doubt about the qualifications and intelligence of those minorities who get admitted to college or those who get hired by companies because you don't know if they met the same requirements or were admitted or hired because of affirmative action.
So overall, I think the time for affirmative action is over.
I think it is bad for minorities for two main reasons:
It perpetuates the attitude that minorities are not capable of competing and need a little extra help to succeed. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If young minorities are constantly told that they cannot succeed on their own merits, they will believe this.
It reduces the respect and admiration that minorities deserve for their accomplishments in school and business.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter