NationStates Jolt Archive

Cat-Tribe - a short post reductio ad absurdum

Recently, there was a post that indicated that roughly 29 percent of the US military is composed of "people of color". The spurious definition of that term aside, I did some research, and found that since the mid-1980s, that's been fairly constant - but that "people of color" (which we may interpret strictly as "African-American") comprise only 13.4 percent of combat arms specialties.

Combat arms specialties are areas like Infantry, Armor, Artillery.

Since a combat division is composed largely of these specialties, the support troops (most of the other specialties - cooks, clerks, medics) comprise a minority of a combat division TOE.

So, if we send a combat division overseas, the African-Americans are underrepresented in combat overseas.

If equal opportunity can only be measured by equal results, should we give African-Americans an equal opportunity to be killed or wounded in combat?

I distinctly remember several African-American politicians at the start of the Iraq war proclaiming that they would be bearing the brunt of casualties - and then they stopped saying it when they realized that they were underrepresented in the population deployed to Iraq.

If we're going to enforce equal opportunity, we should enforce equal opportunity, even if someone doesn't want to go to Iraq. And if the problem is our All-Volunteer Army (which lets everyone pick the specialty they feel comfortable with), then perhaps we shouldn't let some people pick - so we can even things out.

If this is a joke, let us all in on it.

Cat Tribe is big on affirmative action, and I am not.

So I'm trying to make affirmative action, and the concept that "equal results is evidence of equal opportunity" look ridiculous by applying it to combat arms.

The percentages are accurate. And I hate having to explain the joke, because that ruins the effect. Thanks. :rolleyes:

I'm against affirmitive action myself, which most people would say is an odd thing considering my race, however I think affirmitive action should apply for anyone living in unpleasant and destitute conditions without and eminant relief.

I'm against affirmitive action myself, which most people would say is an odd thing considering my race, however I think affirmitive action should apply for anyone living in unpleasant and destitute conditions without and eminant relief.
I agree in those cases.

I've always thought it was a class issue, not a "race" issue. I find that whenever US politicians want to help the poor, they usually resort to race rather than addressing the class issue.

But that's because "class" is a dirty word in American politics. Go figure.

What percentage of the US population is people of color/african american anyway?

What percentage of the US population is people of color/african american anyway?

Thank you for belling the cat. It is now your job to Google up a source and give us an answer.

Speaking of figures, 5 years ago 25% of U.S. armed forces were African-American. Now they're down to 14%, which is much closer to the actual proportion of African Americans in the population, which is about 12 point something percent, I think. Damn I can't rember the exact figure, I'm only an Australian, goddammit!

13.3% of the population are black or black and one other race. (Whatever that means).

So I suppose they are actually still overrepresented in the combat arms. (Barely) :)

Edit: Shouldn't there also be some commissioned/non-commissioned breakdown too?

13.3% of the population are black or black and one other race. (Whatever that means).

So I suppose they are actually still overrepresented in the combat arms. (Barely) :)

Edit: Shouldn't there also be some commissioned/non-commissioned breakdown too?

Let us then for the sake of argument, posit a hypothetical situation.

Let us suppose that there are 13 percent of the population that is "a specific race previously underrepresented in our armed forces in history".

Let us then suppose that of the members of the specific race constitute 10 percent of the members of the combat arms specialties in the armed forces - that is, they are underrepresented by 2 percent of the total population of members of combat arms.

I've heard many people argue, for instance, that women should be allowed in combat arms specialties, because it gives a better chance for higher promotion (Colin Powell is an excellent example - he was in the Infantry in combat as a young lieutenant). So, for purposes of promotion, it's good to be in combat arms, especially if you want to become a General.

So, should we limit a minority's ability to choose their own specialty, and force some of them to become combat arms specialties (despite the fact that they often pick a specialty based on what that skill will provide them in the private sector)?

In extremis, should we force them to be killed at an "equal results is the only measure of equal opportunity" rate?

At first I came here ready to rail against the idea that "Equal results is an indicator of equal opportunity". I thought to myself that the insurance of equal results is can only be established by limiting opportunity for some individuals.

While I guess that my initial thoughts on that are correct on an individual level, on a societal level, if statistics show that an entire demographic is showing unequal results, that must mean that the opportunities for the individuals are skewed.

Let us then for the sake of argument, posit a hypothetical situation.

Let us suppose that there are 13 percent of the population that is "a specific race previously underrepresented in our armed forces in history".

Let us then suppose that of the members of the specific race constitute 10 percent of the members of the combat arms specialties in the armed forces - that is, they are underrepresented by 2 percent of the total population of members of combat arms.

I've heard many people argue, for instance, that women should be allowed in combat arms specialties, because it gives a better chance for higher promotion (Colin Powell is an excellent example - he was in the Infantry in combat as a young lieutenant). So, for purposes of promotion, it's good to be in combat arms, especially if you want to become a General.

So, should we limit a minority's ability to choose their own specialty, and force some of them to become combat arms specialties (despite the fact that they often pick a specialty based on what that skill will provide them in the private sector)?

In extremis, should we force them to be killed at an "equal results is the only measure of equal opportunity" rate?

Well supposing that I actually cared about affirmative action one way or another*, I would argue no.

As I understand it, affirmative action is a system of racial preference designed to compensate for structural and institutional racism created by past historic injustices - or something. In other words, all else being equal, if there are two qualified candidates, preference should be given to the minority applicant in respect of hiring decisions. However, in situations where there is a great disparity in qualifications for any given position between the two, the most qualified individual should be hired.

That's not what you are talking about here though. You seem to suggest that there is no institutional reason why minority candidates are hypothetically underrepresented in the combat arms, merely that they prefer not to serve in the "teeth" arms. And in any case, I don't see how limiting their choice of assignment would function as an affirmative action scheme. I suppose you could give preference to white candidates who chose to serve in the support arms, but I doubt it would accomplish much, because I don't see how it would increase the representation of any given minority in the combat arms, and thus wouldn't correct what you percieve to be an injustice.

Cat-Tribe - a short post reductio ad absurdum.

Cat-Tribe doesn't respond well when people point out the hypocrisy of his leftist positions or inaneness of his diatribes. He won't appreciate you sense of humor.

Cat-Tribe doesn't respond well when people point out the hypocrisy of his leftist positions or inaneness of his diatribes. He won't appreciate you sense of humor.

You wish, big boy. ;)

Nice try at flamebait. Better luck next time.

Well, I didn't think my post was flamebait.

Cat-Tribe doesn't respond well when people point out the hypocrisy of his leftist positions or inaneness of his diatribes. He won't appreciate you sense of humor.

Mild bait. I won't warn, but do try to avoid getting much worse than this when trying to point out flaws in someone else's arguing style or their political/ideological viewpoints. Criticism is OK, so long as it's constructive. This doesn't quite cross the line but it comes close.

EDIT: I'll give an example:

I think Cat-Tribe is [obviously] very well read and quite informed, but I'm concerned with his tendancy to elaborate on an already invoked premise as opposed to citing new ones in the course of the debates I've had with him so far. I think it's better form to cite new sources and find new arguments, which is an element I find lacking many places on these fora.

While I guess that my initial thoughts on that are correct on an individual level, on a societal level, if statistics show that an entire demographic is showing unequal results, that must mean that the opportunities for the individuals are skewed.
Opportunites are just that -- opportunites. If one does not take advantage of the opportunities available............

Mild bait. I won't warn, but do try to avoid getting much worse than this when trying to point out flaws in someone else's arguing style or their political/ideological viewpoints. Criticism is OK, so long as it's constructive. This doesn't quite cross the line but it comes close.
Wasn't my bait. Note the name.

Wasn't my bait. Note the name.

I wasn't talking to you.

Cat-Tribe - a short post reductio ad absurdum

Recently, there was a post that indicated that roughly 29 percent of the US military is composed of "people of color". The spurious definition of that term aside, I did some research, and found that since the mid-1980s, that's been fairly constant - but that "people of color" (which we may interpret strictly as "African-American") comprise only 13.4 percent of combat arms specialties.

Combat arms specialties are areas like Infantry, Armor, Artillery.

Since a combat division is composed largely of these specialties, the support troops (most of the other specialties - cooks, clerks, medics) comprise a minority of a combat division TOE.

So, if we send a combat division overseas, the African-Americans are underrepresented in combat overseas.

If equal opportunity can only be measured by equal results, should we give African-Americans an equal opportunity to be killed or wounded in combat?

I distinctly remember several African-American politicians at the start of the Iraq war proclaiming that they would be bearing the brunt of casualties - and then they stopped saying it when they realized that they were underrepresented in the population deployed to Iraq.

If we're going to enforce equal opportunity, we should enforce equal opportunity, even if someone doesn't want to go to Iraq. And if the problem is our All-Volunteer Army (which lets everyone pick the specialty they feel comfortable with), then perhaps we shouldn't let some people pick - so we can even things out.

I'd decided to mostly avoid debating Affirmative Action on here, but I will answer out of respect for you WL and because you've been seeking a response from me on the topic for a while.

As you are well aware, the premise of your argument is flawed. I won't answer every further spin you put on the point as it all starts from an error.

Affirmative Action does not require equal results. It seeks to encourage equal opportunity -- which, despite your mocking words, I assume you support.

Significant disparities in results without explanation can be evidence of lack of equal opportunity. But proportional results are not required nor expected. And disparities are measured with far more care towards variables.

People of color refers, of course, to more than African-Americans. Regardless, you appear to have, at most, shown a stastical overrepresentation of people of color in the military. Given the history of integration in the military and its relative success in overcoming racial barriers, that speaks well to people of color's view of opportunities in the military versus elsewhere.

Again, the pure statistics tell us little. As you are well aware, statistical disparate impact analysis is viewed with great skepticism by the courts -- even when much more focused and controlled for a variety of variables.

Moreoever, affirmative action has never, never sought to force anyone into certain career paths or "opportunities" against their will. Proponents of affirmative action like myself are skeptical when statistically significant disparties are waved away with a simple "women don't like math" or "African-American's don't try out for coaching jobs." That is often too easy an explanation.

Well, I didn't think my post was flamebait.

Nor did I. Nor did I say so.

If African-Americans are underrepresented in combat arms specialties, is that a missed opportunity?

Women seem to think so. They have been fighting for the opportunity to be in combat arms specialties, because they believe there's a better chance at higher promotion.

The Army believes that African-Americans are deliberately choosing non-combat specialties (with the exception of Ranger and Special Forces, you can choose your specialty). They are making these choices themselves, at least in this case.

The infantry, for example, has a really low percentage of African-Americans.

Do you think this is "fair", from both an "opportunity for promotion" and "opportunity for death" perspective?

I also have seen too many threatened lawsuits which hinge on the idea that percentage outcome is the sole sign of discrimination in effect. So I'm wondering why people make those threats based only on statistics - and they've won settlements with companies in this area - if those statistics and methods of thinking are toothless?

The Army believes that African-Americans are deliberately choosing non-combat specialties (with the exception of Ranger and Special Forces, you can choose your specialty). They are making these choices themselves, at least in this case.

The infantry, for example, has a really low percentage of African-Americans.

Do you think this is "fair", from both an "opportunity for promotion" and "opportunity for death" perspective?

I think the answer to this question was when CT said "Moreoever, affirmative action has never, never sought to force anyone into certain career paths or "opportunities" against their will."

If I'm not mistaken (which I may very well be).

I think the answer to this question was when CT said "Moreoever, affirmative action has never, never sought to force anyone into certain career paths or "opportunities" against their will."

If I'm not mistaken (which I may very well be).

It certainly forces certain people *out* of certain career paths.

It certainly forces certain people *out* of certain career paths.

But if that was their choice in the first place, so be it.

Like I said, I may be misunderstanding the point here, in which case you can ignore me completely. I really shouldn't be arguing a point that I'm not sure about. ;)

If African-Americans are underrepresented in combat arms specialties, is that a missed opportunity?

Women seem to think so. They have been fighting for the opportunity to be in combat arms specialties, because they believe there's a better chance at higher promotion.

You answered your own question. Women are fighting for the opportunity, not equal results.

The Army believes that African-Americans are deliberately choosing non-combat specialties (with the exception of Ranger and Special Forces, you can choose your specialty). They are making these choices themselves, at least in this case.

The infantry, for example, has a really low percentage of African-Americans.

Do you think this is "fair", from both an "opportunity for promotion" and "opportunity for death" perspective?

Yep. If, as you posit, African-Americans are deliberately choosing non-combat specialites and Caucasians are deliberately choosing combat specialties, that is perfectly fair. Each must be provided equal opportunities, not necessarily equal results.

I also have seen too many threatened lawsuits which hinge on the idea that percentage outcome is the sole sign of discrimination in effect. So I'm wondering why people make those threats based only on statistics - and they've won settlements with companies in this area - if those statistics and methods of thinking are toothless?

"Threatened" lawsuits are a bit different than actual lawsuits, aren't they?

Significant statistical differences -- as I said -- can be evidence of unequal opportunities. I think the caselaw is rather clear that it cannot be sufficient evidence.

You know as well as I do that companies often settle rather than defend against meritless actions. So that some such settlements may occur does not prove the statistics were enough to prove discrimination.

Moreover, why do you assume that -- if there is evidence of a significant statistical disparity and a company capitulates rather than refute it -- there was not, in fact, more to the story?

Mild bait. I won't warn, but do try to avoid getting much worse than this when trying to point out flaws in someone else's arguing style or their political/ideological viewpoints. Criticism is OK, so long as it's constructive. This doesn't quite cross the line but it comes close.

EDIT: I'll give an example:

I think Cat-Tribe is [obviously] very well read and quite informed, but I'm concerned with his tendancy to elaborate on an already invoked premise as opposed to citing new ones in the course of the debates I've had with him so far. I think it's better form to cite new sources and find new arguments, which is an element I find lacking many places on these fora.

I agree UP's post was mild bait and I am glad you did not officially warn him. It did seem to "cross the line," but not by far.

I am suprised, however, that you think "constructive" generic swipes at other posters style and viewpoints are to be encouraged. Your opinion of me is fine, but your endorsement of such posts opens a Pandora's box. Methinks this is a bad precedent.

Otherwise, no comment.

So, basically your argument is that if a black man wanted to become a pediatrician, he should be forced to become a proctologist instead if there's not enough black proctologists out there under affirmative action? How does that have anything to do with affirmative action? Affirmative action basically says that if a black man wanted to become a pediatrician, he should not be denied the opportunity simply because he's black. My main problem with affirmative action is when a minority is hired in the place of someone more qualified simply because he is a minority. Favoring minorities over whites is just as wrong as favoring whites over minorities.

Opportunites are just that -- opportunites. If one does not take advantage of the opportunities available............

Ok, I am assuming that there is data showing a definite differential in average incomes between races. I have not read this information specifically, but it does seem reasonable that it is out there.

Now since I am assuming that there is a disparity of earnings between people of different races, it can also be assumed that these differences are due to the race of the individual.

Since we have this disparity, you either must assume that other races as a whole are not able to capitalise on opportunities for earnings, or they are not offered the same opportunities as a whole.

I am not going to use this as an argument for AA, as I don't agree with enforced hiring policies, and any attempt to differentiate based on race is unethical, no matter if it is legal or not. There is a problem, but you cure it by providing education and letting them learn that there is no difference, rather than forcing them to accept it.

Affirmative action basically says that if a black man wanted to become a pediatrician, he should not be denied the opportunity simply because he's black
Your version of AA differs greatly with the current one in use....

So, basically your argument is that if a black man wanted to become a pediatrician, he should be forced to become a proctologist instead if there's not enough black proctologists out there under affirmative action? How does that have anything to do with affirmative action? Affirmative action basically says that if a black man wanted to become a pediatrician, he should not be denied the opportunity simply because he's black. My main problem with affirmative action is when a minority is hired in the place of someone more qualified simply because he is a minority. Favoring minorities over whites is just as wrong as favoring whites over minorities.

Agreed.

Of course, at least in the US, hiring an unqualified minority over a qualified white would be illegal -- contrary to common misperceptions of affirmative action.

Your version of AA differs greatly with the current one in use....

Or at least those imagined by conventional wisdom ....

Who threatens law suits because there is no affirmative action program?

I've heard of lawsuits brought becuase there are racial preference programs im place. (The recent flap at U. Michigan law school), but I thought whether or not they were in place was discretionary, and if there weren't any, tough shit &c. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so).

It certainly forces certain people *out* of certain career paths.

Dubious point.

Highly unlikely that you can show many who, in the absence of affirmative action, would be "able" to pursue a career that the cannot because of it.

For example, many complain that they cannot get into college because of affirmative action. But, if half of the people of color who are admitted to schools under affirmative action programs were cut, the acceptance rates of white men would only increase by 2%. (And that ignores the possibility that schools could increase enrollement, be better funded, etc. Hording your part of the pie is hardly the morally high ground.)

Cat-Tribe - a short post reductio ad absurdum

Recently, there was a post that indicated that roughly 29 percent of the US military is composed of "people of color". The spurious definition of that term aside, I did some research, and found that since the mid-1980s, that's been fairly constant - but that "people of color" (which we may interpret strictly as "African-American") comprise only 13.4 percent of combat arms specialties.

Combat arms specialties are areas like Infantry, Armor, Artillery.

Since a combat division is composed largely of these specialties, the support troops (most of the other specialties - cooks, clerks, medics) comprise a minority of a combat division TOE.

So, if we send a combat division overseas, the African-Americans are underrepresented in combat overseas.

If equal opportunity can only be measured by equal results, should we give African-Americans an equal opportunity to be killed or wounded in combat?

I distinctly remember several African-American politicians at the start of the Iraq war proclaiming that they would be bearing the brunt of casualties - and then they stopped saying it when they realized that they were underrepresented in the population deployed to Iraq.

If we're going to enforce equal opportunity, we should enforce equal opportunity, even if someone doesn't want to go to Iraq. And if the problem is our All-Volunteer Army (which lets everyone pick the specialty they feel comfortable with), then perhaps we shouldn't let some people pick - so we can even things out.

just a thought: equal opportunity should not be measured by(or confirmed by) equal results... equal opportunity should be confirmed by this: only MERIT is used to decide admission.

Example:

Let's say that 25% of a population are Group A and 75% are group B.

Let's say that Group A are terrible at mowing lawns.

Let's say that Group B are great at mowing lawns.

Now let's say that there are 100 lawn-mowing jobs available.

If this statement is true -- equal opportunity can only be measured by equal results -- then 25 of those jobs should automatically go to members of Group A, while 75 should go to members of group B.

Now let's say that 98% of the members of group A are better at mowing lawns than the top Group B lawn-mower.

Should we still so arbitrarily fill jobs? If the above are true... would it really be a case of "equal opportunity"? How about for Group B?

Judge on merit. Leave race out of it.

Dubious point.

Highly unlikely that you can show many who, in the absence of affirmative action, would be "able" to pursue a career that the cannot because of it.

For example, many complain that they cannot get into college because of affirmative action. But, if half of the people of color who are admitted to schools under affirmative action programs were cut, the acceptance rates of white men would only increase by 2%. (And that ignores the possibility that schools could increase enrollement, be better funded, etc. Hording your part of the pie is hardly the morally high ground.)

The Labour party in the Uk institutes women only shortlists in some constituencies in order to increase the number of women in Parliament.

they just lost a seat to an independent candidate, the ex-mp who got irritated he was being sacked in favour of an all woman shortlist.

just a thought: equal opportunity should not be measured by(or confirmed by) equal results... equal opportunity should be confirmed by this: only MERIT is used to decide admission.

*snip*

Judge on merit. Leave race out of it.

If you had bothered to follow WL's point, you might have noted that he was on your side of the issue.

Pray tell, o' wise one, what does one do about discrimination? Does one assume it does not exist?

What does one do to remedy past discrimination and its after-effects? Act as if it has never existed?

Do you honestly think merit is so easily and rigidly defined? That there is always some simple numerical score that can be assigned and followed?

Feel free to make up little hypothetical fantasies as long as you like. Until they bear some vague resemblence to reality, they are irrelevant.

The Labour party in the Uk institutes women only shortlists in some constituencies in order to increase the number of women in Parliament.

they just lost a seat to an independent candidate, the ex-mp who got irritated he was being sacked in favour of an all woman shortlist.

Really, really bad example.

Since when are political candidates or politicians selected purely on "merit"?

(What is "merit" when it comes to a politician?)

If the Labour party feels it is politically advantageous to run women for certain offices, so be it. If the voters disagree, it was a bad idea.

What does this have to do with affirmative action?

Really, really bad example, sparky?

Since when are political candidates or politicians selected purely on "merit"?

(What is "merit" when it comes to a politician?)

If the Labour party feels it is politically advantageous to run women for certain offices, so be it. If the voters disagree, it was a bad idea.

What does this have to do with affirmative action?

It is not carried out to gain votes (in fact, it lost votes), the intention is to make the house of commons more representitive by artificially increasing the number of women.

Hence it is positive discrimination, which is the British way of saying Affirmative Action.

It is not carried out to gain votes (in fact, it lost votes), the intention is to make the house of commons more representitive by artificially increasing the number of women.

Hence it is positive discrimination, which is the British way of saying Affirmative Action.

Again, this would be wrong because .....

Who does this discriminate against? How?

By what "merit" does one "deserve" to be a Labour Party candidate?

It is not carried out to gain votes (in fact, it lost votes), the intention is to make the house of commons more representitive by artificially increasing the number of women.

Hence it is positive discrimination, which is the British way of saying Affirmative Action.


I have to agree with CT here.

What you are talking about is not affirmative action. And anyway, I don't think AA programs can ever be applied in certain instances where the choices are extremely subjective, and the number of total available positions are extremely limited. It's one thing to give a racial preference when you are looking for electricians or qualified students for medical school (those things being measured by somewhat objective standards), it's another when it comes to movie stars or politicians, where there are no basic standards of fitness (at least objective ones) that I can see.

Anyway, what labour did was a political statement. Think of it as a mini-referendum in respect of their "positive discrimination" policy.

Edit: And no-one answered my question about law suits arising because there are no affirmative action programs in place.

Again, this would be wrong because .....

Who does this discriminate against? How?

By what "merit" does one "deserve" to be a Labour Party candidate?

By being a good representitive for your constituents. The candidate is chosen locally, not nationally, but the Labour party has been enforcing woman only shortlists on some areas.

It discriminates agaisnt male candidates who CANNOT stand in their local labour party elections to chose the local candidate

If you had bothered to follow WL's point, you might have noted that he was on your side of the issue.

Pray tell, o' wise one, what does one do about discrimination? Does one assume it does not exist?

What does one do to remedy past discrimination and its after-effects? Act as if it has never existed?

Do you honestly think merit is so easily and rigidly defined? That there is always some simple numerical score that can be assigned and followed?

Feel free to make up little hypothetical fantasies as long as you like. Until they bear some vague resemblence to reality, they are irrelevant.

1. What does one do about discrimination? STOP DISCRIMINATING.

2. What does one do to remedy past discrimination... etc.? STOP DISCRIMINATING! How can reversing the direction of discrimination make anything right? The goal should be to STOP DISCRIMINATION based on anything other than merit.

3. Can merit be easily defined? Yes. Base it on things like experience, education, criminal record (or lack thereof...), etc.

4. The fantasy is yours: that somehow, further discrimination can be good, that we can end racism by legislating it. Two wrongs do not make a right. We should be trying to end discrimination, not reverse it to make up for past wrongs.

I understand that there are biased people in the world who favor some groups of people over others. The utopian piece of my argument is that people will judge solely based on merit if you let them. I think that overall, we're getting better at seeing each other as people and not colors.

this is a tough call because either you institute planned discrimination to satisfy an algebraic equation, or you allow people to hire/admit as they will (and hence leave them possibly to their racist whims).

1. What does one do about discrimination? STOP DISCRIMINATING.

Nice. How does one stop others from discriminating?

2. What does one do to remedy past discrimination... etc.? STOP DISCRIMINATING! How can reversing the direction of discrimination make anything right? The goal should be to STOP DISCRIMINATION based on anything other than merit.

Think for a moment.

Education, employement, wealth, etc., have all long been distributed (and to some degree continue to be distributed) on the basis of race -- with the white male benefitting.

Whites -- because of past discrimination -- have an unfair advantage.

Moreoever, discrimination still exists and whites have an additional advantage based on current practices.

So, your "color-blind" policy locks in the advantage of white males.

You assume affirmative action is "reverse discrimination." Check with the Supreme Court: reverse discrimination is generally illegal.

But taking extra care to recruit minority applicants? Doesn't discriminate.

Paying attention to whether one is disproportionately hiring/admitting white males over equally qualified minorities? Doesn't discriminate.

Seeking to admit proportionate numbers of qualified members of demographic groups? Doesn't discriminate.

When all else is equal considering race as a factor among many others? Mild, acceptable discrimination confined to the furthering of an end to discrimination overall.

3. Can merit be easily defined? Yes. Base it on things like experience, education, criminal record (or lack thereof...), etc.

Have you ever been involved in hiring decisions? In university admissions?

Merit is rarely so simple across the board.

And one of the primary objectives of affirmative action is to promote merit-based decisions.

4. The fantasy is yours: that somehow, further discrimination can be good, that we can end racism by legislating it. Two wrongs do not make a right. We should be trying to end discrimination, not reverse it to make up for past wrongs.

Most affirmative action policies are voluntary.

They are legislated almost exclusively with regard to government actions.

You seem to think you can waive a magic wand of "merit" and end discrimination. How is that any more unrealistic?

Having increasingly proportionate numbers of qualified individuals of all demographic backgrounds seems the best way to ensure that decisions are based on merit, rather than race.

Again, your simplistic view of affirmative action as reverse discrimination is wrong. At least in the US, the latter is illegal.

I understand that there are biased people in the world who favor some groups of people over others. The utopian piece of my argument is that people will judge solely based on merit if you let them. I think that overall, we're getting better at seeing each other as people and not colors.

this is a tough call because either you institute planned discrimination to satisfy an algebraic equation, or you allow people to hire/admit as they will (and hence leave them possibly to their racist whims).

I think we are getting better. And I think anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action policies of the last 40 years have something to do with that.

You have a mistaken view of both affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws.

I'm against affirmitive action myself, which most people would say is an odd thing considering my race, however I think affirmitive action should apply for anyone living in unpleasant and destitute conditions without and eminant relief.
I am against race-based AA but in favour of economic class-based AA.

But that's because "class" is a dirty word in American politics. Go figure.
Yeah, funny how in America people like to think that everyone is equal. It's why most Americans think they are middle class.

Nice. How does one stop others from discriminating?



Think for a moment.

Education, employement, wealth, etc., have all long been distributed (and to some degree continue to be distributed) on the basis of race -- with the white male benefitting.

Whites -- because of past discrimination -- have an unfair advantage.

Moreoever, discrimination still exists and whites have an additional advantage based on current practices.

So, your "color-blind" policy locks in the advantage of white males.

You assume affirmative action is "reverse discrimination." Check with the Supreme Court: reverse discrimination is generally illegal.

But taking extra care to recruit minority applicants? Doesn't discriminate.

Paying attention to whether one is disproportionately hiring/admitting white males over equally qualified minorities? Doesn't discriminate.

Seeking to admit proportionate numbers of qualified members of demographic groups? Doesn't discriminate.

When all else is equal considering race as a factor among many others? Mild, acceptable discrimination confined to the furthering of an end to discrimination overall.



Have you ever been involved in hiring decisions? In university admissions?

Merit is rarely so simple across the board.

And one of the primary objectives of affirmative action is to promote merit-based decisions.



Most affirmative action policies are voluntary.

They are legislated almost exclusively with regard to government actions.

You seem to think you can waive a magic wand of "merit" and end discrimination. How is that any more unrealistic?

Having increasingly proportionate numbers of qualified individuals of all demographic backgrounds seems the best way to ensure that decisions are based on merit, rather than race.

Again, your simplistic view of affirmative action as reverse discrimination is wrong. At least in the US, the latter is illegal.



I think we are getting better. And I think anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action policies of the last 40 years have something to do with that.

You have a mistaken view of both affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws.


University of Michigan giving points to applicants based on their race.

Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030115-7.html) is your president's statement.

That is referred to as Affirmative Action by both supporters and attackers.

Are they all wrong? Or are you wrong? Or am I wrong?

Nice. How does one stop others from discriminating?



Think for a moment.

Education, employement, wealth, etc., have all long been distributed (and to some degree continue to be distributed) on the basis of race -- with the white male benefitting.

Whites -- because of past discrimination -- have an unfair advantage.

Moreoever, discrimination still exists and whites have an additional advantage based on current practices.

So, your "color-blind" policy locks in the advantage of white males.

You assume affirmative action is "reverse discrimination." Check with the Supreme Court: reverse discrimination is generally illegal.

But taking extra care to recruit minority applicants? Doesn't discriminate.

Paying attention to whether one is disproportionately hiring/admitting white males over equally qualified minorities? Doesn't discriminate.

Seeking to admit proportionate numbers of qualified members of demographic groups? Doesn't discriminate.

When all else is equal considering race as a factor among many others? Mild, acceptable discrimination confined to the furthering of an end to discrimination overall.



Have you ever been involved in hiring decisions? In university admissions?

Merit is rarely so simple across the board.

And one of the primary objectives of affirmative action is to promote merit-based decisions.



Most affirmative action policies are voluntary.

They are legislated almost exclusively with regard to government actions.

You seem to think you can waive a magic wand of "merit" and end discrimination. How is that any more unrealistic?

Having increasingly proportionate numbers of qualified individuals of all demographic backgrounds seems the best way to ensure that decisions are based on merit, rather than race.

Again, your simplistic view of affirmative action as reverse discrimination is wrong. At least in the US, the latter is illegal.



I think we are getting better. And I think anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action policies of the last 40 years have something to do with that.

You have a mistaken view of both affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws.

thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal. I still maintain that using race as a variable for hiring/admitting is wrong. You say that it's "illegal"... but is it? Haven't we legislated racism by including race as a variable?

What about quota hiring? Does that not allow for the consideration of race? If discrimination based on race at school or in the workplace is so "illegal" then why is it rampant?

That'd be like me uttering a racist slur to you and then stepping back and saying, "What I said wasn't racist because it's against the law to be racist."

University of Michigan giving points to applicants based on their race.

Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030115-7.html) is your president's statement.

That is referred to as Affirmative Action by both supporters and attackers.

Are they all wrong? Or are you wrong? Or am I wrong?

LOL.

President Bush's attack on the Unversity of Michigan's affirmative action policies is hardly a basis for an agreed upon definition of those policies. Yes, I think he is wrong.

Now, if you want to get into it, the University of Michigan's undergraduate program was properly held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. So much for that example.

The Unversity of Michigan Law School's admissions program was upheld.

Neither program met the overly simplist definitions of "reverse discrimination" offered by opponents of affirmative action.

And the two cases nicely illustrate how what most concieve of as affirmative action is (a) illegal and (b) oversimplified.

Thanks!

Here are the relevant cases:
Gratz v. Bollinger (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html), 539 US ___ (2003) (undergraduate)
Grutter v. Bollinger (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-241.html), 539 US ___ (2003) (law school)

LOL.

President Bush's attack on the Unversity of Michigan's affirmative action policies is hardly a basis for an agreed upon definition of those policies. Yes, I think he is wrong.

Now, if you want to get into it, the University of Michigan's undergraduate program was properly held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. So much for that example.

The Unversity of Michigan Law School's admissions program was upheld.

Neither program met the overly simplist definitions of "reverse discrimination" offered by opponents of affirmative action.

And the two cases nicely illustrate how what most concieve of as affirmative action is (a) illegal and (b) oversimplified.

Thanks!

Here are the relevant cases:
Gratz v. Bollinger (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html), 539 US ___ (2003) (undergraduate)
Grutter v. Bollinger (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-241.html), 539 US ___ (2003) (law school)


What is your definition of affirmative action then, if it is at odds with Bush's, Fords, Wikis and everyone else on here?

thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal. I still maintain that using race as a variable for hiring/admitting is wrong. You say that it's "illegal"... but is it? Haven't we legislated racism by including race as a variable?

What about quota hiring? Does that not allow for the consideration of race? If discrimination based on race at school or in the workplace is so "illegal" then why is it rampant?

That'd be like me uttering a racist slur to you and then stepping back and saying, "What I said wasn't racist because it's against the law to be racist."

<sigh>

"Quota hiring" is generally illegal, as well.

I did not say consideration of race was illegal. Just discrimination on the basis of race.

If you want to denounce particular programs or policies that are discriminatory, fine. I may well join you. One reason to denouce them may be they are illegal.

But if you want to say "law X is wrong because it allows Y" and I show you that law X expressly forbids Y, then your problem isn't really with law X -- is
it?

Discrimination on the basis of race is rampant despite it being illegal.

But you will have difficulty proving that affirmative action is responsible for quantitatively significant discrimination.

<sigh>

"Quota hiring" is generally illegal, as well.

I did not say consideration of race was illegal. Just discrimination on the basis of race.

If you want to denounce particular programs or policies that are discriminatory, fine. I may well join you. One reason to denouce them may be they are illegal.

But if you want to say "law X is wrong because it allows Y" and I show you that law X expressly forbids Y, then your problem isn't really with law X -- is
it?

Discrimination on the basis of race is rampant despite it being illegal.

But you will have difficulty proving that affirmative action is responsible for quantitatively significant discrimination.

How can considering race not lead to discriminating on the basis of race?

What is your definition of affirmative action then, if it is at odds with Bush's, Fords, Wikis and everyone else on here?

<sigh>

Didn't bother to read my links from the other thread, did you?

I'm working from what programs are legally mandated and/or legally allowed.

Here is the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.

Happy, sparky?

Unacceptable action:

Granting admission to a minority/woman who does not meet the requirements a school has set for admission or who is less qualified by those requirements than a "majority" applicant on the basis of their minority status.

Acceptable action:

Realizing that you tend to have less minorities/women applying at all. Actively recruit in areas with minorities/women. Allow groups to set up trips to predominantly minority schools to tutor/increase interest in the particular field. Should there be two equally qualified applicants vying for your last pick, choose the one that increases diversity.

I think this is what CT is saying. ((Correct me if I am wrong.))

Unacceptable action:

Granting admission to a minority/woman who does not meet the requirements a school has set for admission or who is less qualified by those requirements than a "majority" applicant on the basis of their minority status.

Acceptable action:

Realizing that you tend to have less minorities/women applying at all. Actively recruit in areas with minorities/women. Allow groups to set up trips to predominantly minority schools to tutor/increase interest in the particular field. Should there be two equally qualified applicants vying for your last pick, choose the one that increases diversity.

I think this is what CT is saying. ((Correct me if I am wrong.))

YES!!

And the "acceptable action" is an example of most affirmative action programs.

Some may cross the line. That is wrong. Just as any kind of discrimination is wrong.