NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_re_us/naacp_dinner

"Michigan voters will be asked in November whether governments and university admissions programs should be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Supporters include California businessman Ward Connerly, who has backed similar proposals in his home state and in Washington. Opponents have waged a lengthy but unsuccessful legal battle to block the referendum."

Finally established racism is being scrapped for the principals of equality and fairness!

I loved most this quote from someone who supports the perpetual establishment of institutionalized discrimination;

"There will be affirmative action here today," Kilpatrick said. "There will be affirmative action here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in our state forever."

Sorry Mr. K - but not if the voters have their way. Equal treatment will reign! W00t!

Isn't the idea of affirmative action that one day, it will become useless and therefore disappear?

If so, stating that it will be there forever is somewhat contradictory to the objectives of affirmative action, is it not?

So when should I schedule the end of Affirmative Action Party in Michigan? :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_re_us/naacp_dinner

"Michigan voters will be asked in November whether governments and university admissions programs should be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Supporters include California businessman Ward Connerly, who has backed similar proposals in his home state and in Washington. Opponents have waged a lengthy but unsuccessful legal battle to block the referendum."

Finally established racism is being scrapped for the principals of equality and fairness!

I loved most this quote from someone who supports the perpetual establishment of institutionalized discrimination;

"There will be affirmative action here today," Kilpatrick said. "There will be affirmative action here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in our state forever."

Sorry Mr. K - but not if the voters have their way. Equal treatment will reign! W00t!
Fantastic. It's high time affirmative actions policies--which are FAR beyond their lifetime of use--are thrown out. Even if it's just in Michigan, it's a step forward.

Fantastic. It's high time affirmative actions policies--which are FAR beyond their lifetime of use--are thrown out. Even if it's just in Michigan, it's a step forward.

I would argue they never had a period of usefulness - but not that there was no problem. They were just the wrong answer to a good question.

Fantastic. It's high time affirmative actions policies--which are FAR beyond their lifetime of use--are thrown out. Even if it's just in Michigan, it's a step forward.

Is it really such a horrible thing to go to predominantly minority schools and encourage them to go into fields in which they are underrepresented? To make sure that they know that there are no opportunities barred for them simply because of minority status? Such programs are part of affirmative action. Do you really think we are beyond that point? If so, why are minorities still underrepresented in our nation's universities and most high-paying jobs?

This is aweful. Racism hasn't been eliminated. Why just the ohter day I heard somebody use a very bad word for Mexicans. Oh, why couldn't my ancestors just have gotten along with the other races?

Is it really such a horrible thing to go to predominantly minority schools and encourage them to go into fields in which they are underrepresented? To make sure that they know that there are no opportunities barred for them simply because of minority status? Such programs are part of affirmative action. Do you really think we are beyond that point? If so, why are minorities still underrepresented in our nation's universities and most high-paying jobs?
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. But as B0zzy said, affirmative action is the wrong answer.

Plus--though I've yet to experience this myself--there have been plenty of times where well qualified people were turned down for someone less qualified just because a quota needed to be fulfilled. For instance, let's say I--a white male--am trying to apply to a college, and have worked incredibly hard at it. Yet, my application is turned down in favor a minority less qualified than me simply because of a quota. What right do they have to deny me that? What right do they have to practice reverse discrimination, a practice I find absolutely abhorrant because you would think people who have suffered racism would know better.

No, we need to be completely color blind and what have you. You can't try elevating a portion of the population above another in the interest of fairness. It is just as wrong as treating a portion of the population as inferior. EQUAL MEANS EQUAL.

why are minorities still underrepresented in our nation's universities and most high-paying jobs?
Obviously it cannot be attributed to the success of 40 years worth of affirmative action. Thank you for mentioning that - it is proof enough that affirmative action is not working.


Is it really such a horrible thing to go to predominantly minority schools..
Right - and we can even give them their own drinking fountains too. :rolleyes:

..and encourage them to go into fields in which they are underrepresented? To make sure that they know that there are no opportunities barred for them simply because of minority status? Such programs are part of affirmative action. Do you really think we are beyond that point? If so,

"Michigan voters will be asked in November whether governments and university admissions programs should be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin."

So, what you are saying is that it is OK to doscriminate based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or natrional origin so long as you pick the right one.

Any denied opportunity based or even considering race, gender color ethnicity or national origin is discrimination. IT matters not the race of the victim.

Any argument otherwise is to support bigotry.

why are minorities still underrepresented in our nation's universities and most high-paying jobs?
Obviously it cannot be attributed to the success of 40 years worth of affirmative action. Thank you for mentioning that - it is proof enough that affirmative action is not working.

ooo - that bears placement at the TOP of this post!

Anyone that would describe affirmative action as institutionalized discrimination has never experienced true systemic discrimination.

Anyone that would describe affirmative action as institutionalized discrimination has never experienced true systemic discrimination.


Oh gee - how profound. not.

Try adding something worthwhile rather than some cheezeball mystic line better suited to the Sphinx from Mystery Men.

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/mysterymen/sounds/questions.wav

Never make an unbased assumption again about a person you do not know - you have no idea what my minority status is nor my experience with people of various minority groups. If you did you would blush enough shades of red to make a sunset look boring.

I do not know how I feel about this. I have mixed feelings.

I do not know how I feel about this. I have mixed feelings.
A fair statement. I still stand firm that discrimination exists and that it should be addressed by the government and it's policies. I simply disagree that affirmative action is the right tool - and 40 years of history seem to bear that out.

Finally established racism is being scrapped for the principals of equality and fairness!

It's the other way around. Exhortations of colorblindness miss the point and avoid the problem.

Isn't the idea of affirmative action that one day, it will become useless and therefore disappear?

If so, stating that it will be there forever is somewhat contradictory to the objectives of affirmative action, is it not?

well, How I understand affermitive action, and how I would support it, yes.

Dont believe it has reached that stage yet though.

Finally established racism is being scrapped for the principals of equality and fairness!





Sorry Mr. K - but not if the voters have their way. Equal treatment will reign! W00t!

Sorry Buzzy, but there is a difference between treating everyone the same and treating everyone equally.

It's the other way around. Exhortations of colorblindness miss the point and avoid the problem.


Explain to me how could you come to such an incorrect conclusion. OBviously you feel that discrimination is an acceptable policy - explain why you feel race gender etc. should be a consideration in fair employment practice.

Sorry Buzzy, but there is a difference between treating everyone the same and treating everyone equally.


Good, then you can share an example of how this applies regarding to the color of a person's skin (or the origin of their ancestors) and seeking employment or an education.

well, How I understand affermitive action, and how I would support it, yes.

Dont believe it has reached that stage yet though.

It never will because it is the wrong tool for the job. It is no more likely to achieve the goal of eliminating discriminative practices than a hammer is of cutting a straight line.

Well I can be sure to vote on ending this practice. Affirmative action policies can only do so much to help a minority that (from what I have seen from going to probably the most diverse high school in Michigan) has a general apathy towards education. Why do I say this?

Back in my highschool, when it came to the higher level courses the number of black students declined very extremely (to the point of 2 or 3 black students in AP classes when they made up over a quarter of the student populace). While our gym classes were mainly filled up with about to over 50% black students. Affirmative Action policies cannot fix this problem nor is discrimination the problem here. It is just a general apathy in the general black community towards education. If this apathy can be turned around then college enrollment will become proportionate to the population.

Explain to me how could you come to such an incorrect conclusion. OBviously you feel that discrimination is an acceptable policy - explain why you feel race gender etc. should be a consideration in fair employment practice.

Because racism is still prevalent in our society, and its harmful effects need to be countered if the economic and social integration necessary for ending it are to occur.

Because racism is still prevalent in our society, and its harmful effects need to be countered if the economic and social integration necessary for ending it are to occur.
That does not answer the question. You are saying, essentially, that discrimination in employment and education is the only way to end discrimination in employment and education. Explain how you come to the conclusion that racism is fair. Surely you are beyond the age where I have to explain that two wrongs don't make a right...


(but three lefts do!)

Well I can be sure to vote on ending this practice. Affirmative action policies can only do so much to help a minority that (from what I have seen from going to probably the most diverse high school in Michigan) has a general apathy towards education. Why do I say this?

Back in my highschool, when it came to the higher level courses the number of black students declined very extremely (to the point of 2 or 3 black students in AP classes when they made up over a quarter of the student populace). While our gym classes were mainly filled up with about to over 50% black students. Affirmative Action policies cannot fix this problem nor is discrimination the problem here. It is just a general apathy in the general black community towards education. If this apathy can be turned around then college enrollment will become proportionate to the population.


I think you are closer to the solution - though I don't feel that it is found in college education - by then it is too late and you only serve the people who really can do it on their own. If we are to help underachieving minorities it would make most sense to help them achieve in and complete the 13 year primary education system which is already free. It would benefit the largest number of people and be the most cost effective. Once equal achievment is achieved there then we can move on. Sadly, our current primary education system has woefully neglected this goal.

Actually, as a Michigan citizen, I can tell you that the MCRI is a bit more complicated than those in favor of it would have you believe. For example, here at MSU, there's a thing called Safe Place, for battered women. MCRI would force MSU to scrap this program, as it's meant to help women. So it would also do harm.

Calling affirmative action "institutionalized discrimination" is like confusing the smallpox vaccine with the disease.

That does not answer the question. You are saying, essentially, that discrimination in employment and education is the only way to end discrimination in employment and education.

In the same way, you "discriminate" in choosing to point the hose of water at the house that's on fire, and not at the one that's not. No one serious shouts "let's be fireblind!" in response.

Explain how you come to the conclusion that racism is fair. Surely you are beyond the age where I have to explain that two wrongs don't make a right...

I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, nor do I believe that racism is fair. I made neither claim anywhere.

Supporters of the MCRI claim that it will not end affirmative action.

Glad to see B0zzy recognize that claim is fraudulent.

Is it really such a horrible thing to go to predominantly minority schools and encourage them to go into fields in which they are underrepresented? To make sure that they know that there are no opportunities barred for them simply because of minority status? Such programs are part of affirmative action. Do you really think we are beyond that point? If so, why are minorities still underrepresented in our nation's universities and most high-paying jobs?
Is it really such a horrible thing to give minorities the same chance as the majority? The whole idea behind discrimination being wrong is that race is not related to intelligence. So why coddle people based on their race?

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. But as B0zzy said, affirmative action is the wrong answer.

Based on your reply, I don't think you actually know what Affirmative Action entails. I also think that you didn't read my post, considering that nothing concerning a quota was mentioned. I simply supported encouraging those in disadvantaged backgrounds - those who might be told that they can't do something because of their minority status - to reach for their goals.

Plus--though I've yet to experience this myself--there have been plenty of times where well qualified people were turned down for someone less qualified just because a quota needed to be fulfilled.

Not in any recent time, considering that quotas as a part of Affirmative Action programs have long since been a thing of the past.

No, we need to be completely color blind and what have you. You can't try elevating a portion of the population above another in the interest of fairness. It is just as wrong as treating a portion of the population as inferior. EQUAL MEANS EQUAL.

We can only be completely colorblind when the problems caused by institutionalized discrimination against certain ethnicities are actually balanced out. I agree that we should be mostly colorblind, but completely won't work until people of all ethnicities actually have equal opportunity.


Obviously it cannot be attributed to the success of 40 years worth of affirmative action. Thank you for mentioning that - it is proof enough that affirmative action is not working.

They are much more represented than they were 40 years ago.

Right - and we can even give them their own drinking fountains too.

What? Where the hell did that come from? Did you even read what I wrote?

So, what you are saying is that it is OK to doscriminate based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or natrional origin so long as you pick the right one.

I'm saying no such thing. My comment was not directed at the vote in question, but instead at the calls for the abolishment of *all* Affirmative Action.

Any denied opportunity based or even considering race, gender color ethnicity or national origin is discrimination. IT matters not the race of the victim.

Indeed. And the Affirmative Action programs I am talking about are designed to make sure that those who have been denied opportunity in the past not only get an equal opportunity, but know it is there.

Well I can be sure to vote on ending this practice. Affirmative action policies can only do so much to help a minority that (from what I have seen from going to probably the most diverse high school in Michigan) has a general apathy towards education. Why do I say this?

Back in my highschool, when it came to the higher level courses the number of black students declined very extremely (to the point of 2 or 3 black students in AP classes when they made up over a quarter of the student populace). While our gym classes were mainly filled up with about to over 50% black students. Affirmative Action policies cannot fix this problem nor is discrimination the problem here. It is just a general apathy in the general black community towards education. If this apathy can be turned around then college enrollment will become proportionate to the population.

Actually, affirmative action policies include efforts to encourage traditionally underrepresented groups to go into areas that were once barred to them. Thus, while certain elements of society may suggest to minority students that they should not strive to succeed in school, because they are "meant" for less skilled jobs, affirmative action policies can seek to correct the misconceptions early on, by making sure that minority students know that they can eventually be a part of the higher paid, more skilled jobs by succeeding in their studies.



I think you are closer to the solution - though I don't feel that it is found in college education - by then it is too late and you only serve the people who really can do it on their own. If we are to help underachieving minorities it would make most sense to help them achieve in and complete the 13 year primary education system which is already free. It would benefit the largest number of people and be the most cost effective. Once equal achievment is achieved there then we can move on. Sadly, our current primary education system has woefully neglected this goal.

Oh dear, now Bozzy is espousing Affirmative Action policies. Whatever will we do??


Is it really such a horrible thing to give minorities the same chance as the majority?

Of course not! And giving them the same chance is exactly what I am espousing. The only difference is I think we should also make sure they know they have the same chance. But at least it seems that we are on the same page.

The whole idea behind discrimination being wrong is that race is not related to intelligence.

Indeed. So why shouldn't we work to make sure that the stereotypes that have grown up around race are shown to be wrong?

So why coddle people based on their race?

Who said anything about coddling?

Judgments based on skin color are bad, whether in the positive or negative. Instead of making any decisions that are rooted in ethnicity what ought to be done to serve the public good is to make decisions based on economic need, namely enrolling more poor students in colleges/universities and paying for their education when it's clear that they work hard and wish to improve themselves using those means.

Good, then you can share an example of how this applies regarding to the color of a person's skin (or the origin of their ancestors) and seeking employment or an education.

I will give you a simpler example. If we decided to give everyone a nice sugary lollipop, that would be treating everyone the same. Except that it wouldn't be treating everyone equally. Because, for example, diabetics would not have any use for that lollipop. It would be meaningless to them. So we could treat everyone equally by getting sugar-free lollipops for the diabetics. Then everyone would have a lollipop they could enjoy. But I am sure you would object to that on the grounds that it is "special treatment".

The bottom line is affirmative action has had its successes and its failures. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, legislators shoudl be focusing on making it better, or finding a better solution entirely. For example, affirtmative action tends to work best when it focuses on equality of opportunity (e.g. point systems) rather than equality of outcome (e.g. quotas).

We could start by abolishing the distinction between merit and equity. I will offer a simple proposition. One, a diverse group of decison-makers will, in the long run, offer better decision-making than a homogeneous group of decision-makers. So a group made up of people of different cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds, and genders, will bring different perspectives to the decision-making process based on different life experiences, worldviews, etc. that will enable better decision-making. We need to start recognizing the merit of having people with different perspectives and life experiences at the table.

I will give you a simpler example. If we decided to give everyone a nice sugary lollipop, that would be treating everyone the same. Except that it wouldn't be treating everyone equally. Because, for example, diabetics would not have any use for that lollipop. It would be meaningless to them. So we could treat everyone equally by getting sugar-free lollipops for the diabetics. Then everyone would have a lollipop they could enjoy. But I am sure you would object to that on the grounds that it is "special treatment".

If I may, your example misses the key issue. The issue isn't the type of lollipop being given out, it's how the lollipops are distributed. If you have only a limited supply, treating everyone equally would mean giving a lollipop to everyone who asks for one in a certain amount of time. But, if you have to give a certain amount from your limited supply to people of a certain skin tone, then you are setting a higher priority on those people and creating a situation of unequal distribution. Equal distribution does not demand setting preference on anyone.

(referring to the diabetic comment) Man, you liberals don't want to go more than 5 minutes without appologizing for offending someone. If that person was offended is in the first place is irrelevent.

Affirimitive action is racism in that it says that minorities cannot succede with governmental help, and need a big ole nanny state to help them get along to even compete with the majority; in this case white people. A good place to start would be to abolish the racial classification system, or make it overly exacting to the point that every single ethnic group is listed (I for example, am Polish, and before you tell me that is not a seperate group, look at white the Irish in this country did to my people). Once we get rid of AA, lets move on to equal opportunity! (If a business could really hire women for less then men, every single one of them would employ nothing but women, who would work for less in the first place!)

If I may, your example misses the key issue. The issue isn't the type of lollipop being given out, it's how the lollipops are distributed. If you have only a limited supply, treating everyone equally would mean giving a lollipop to everyone who asks for one in a certain amount of time. But, if you have to give a certain amount from your limited supply to people of a certain skin tone, then you are setting a higher priority on those people and creating a situation of unequal distribution. Equal distribution does not demand setting preference on anyone.

Of course, since quota systems have been thrown out a long time ago, your example means nothing. No one is given someone a lollipop just because they have to give a certain number to a certain group of people - that has been declared unconstitutional.

On the other hand, if you used to give lollipops only to white people, minorities may not know that lollipops are available to them. They may think (and probably have been conditioned to believe) that, by virtue of being a minority, they do not have access to lollipops. Affirmative action, in some of its forms, simply encourages such groups to ask for lollipops, and lets them know that they are just as elligible for them as everyone else.

Affirimitive action is racism in that it says that minorities cannot succede with governmental help, and need a big ole nanny state to help them get along to even compete with the majority; in this case white people.

How so?

Many programs are designed to do nothing of the sort. All they do is create a way to let minorities know that they *can* succeed and compete, and should attempt to do so.

When I and other women from the Society of Women Engineers went to schools to help with after-school math and science programs, was that sexism? Were we suggesting that girls cannot succeed or compete without help? Or were we simply serving as examples that women *can* do both, and that any young girls interested in math and science should strive to do well in them?

Fantastic. It's high time affirmative actions policies--which are FAR beyond their lifetime of use--are thrown out. Even if it's just in Michigan, it's a step forward.

Michigan is the main battleground. This would be monumental.

How so?

Many programs are designed to do nothing of the sort. All they do is create a way to let minorities know that they *can* succeed and compete, and should attempt to do so.

When I and other women from the Society of Women Engineers went to schools to help with after-school math and science programs, was that sexism? Were we suggesting that girls cannot succeed or compete without help? Or were we simply serving as examples that women *can* do both, and that any young girls interested in math and science should strive to do well in them?

Affirmative action is racist in that it discriminates against white people. Not only is that stupid, it's equally as wrong.

I understand that the "point system" is not a quota. Unfortunately, when you look into it, it does lead to the same sorts of problems as quotas.

(I'm using arbitrary numbers here, not some real point system. Regardless, this should illustrate the basic functioning of a point system to those who only know about quotas.)

Student A:
White 0 points
Male 0 points
GPA 4.0 4 points

Studen B:
Black 1 point
Female 1 point
GPA 3.0 3 points

Student A gets 4 points. Student B gets 5 points.

The problematic results of quotas are thus repeated, the objectively less qualified student can get in on the basis of race and/or gender.

Passing up more qualified individuals for less qualified individuals on the basis of race, gender, or some other such measure is the very definition of discrimination (or at least one valid definition).

I understand that the idea here is to make up for the lack of oportunities kids have had in the past, but it doesn't do the job by making sweeping racial generalizations. There are black kids who grow up in rich private schools and white kids who get dragged into the gang warfare of the "ghetto".

If our worry really were for dealing with the past discrimination an individual experienced and compensating for that, we would look at perhaps the income level of their parents when they were kids (favoring lower income households).

That system is color blind, but does take into account disparate conditions and experiences, and makes a real effort to correct for past inequalities of opportunity, without bringing race specifically into the equation. Even if minorities happen to be the beneficiaries of this system, no one in their right mind could call it racist.

How so?

Many programs are designed to do nothing of the sort. All they do is create a way to let minorities know that they *can* succeed and compete, and should attempt to do so.

When I and other women from the Society of Women Engineers went to schools to help with after-school math and science programs, was that sexism? Were we suggesting that girls cannot succeed or compete without help? Or were we simply serving as examples that women *can* do both, and that any young girls interested in math and science should strive to do well in them?

It is only sexist if the after school math and science programs did not allow male students into them, or discouraged their participation. The other problem with any affirimative action programs is that they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Basically, affirmitive action programs unfairly discriminate against those in the majority on the basis of race or sex. When the ammendment was passed it didn't define people in the first sentence as "being of a disenfranchised race," but simply all people. While the ideal system resembles "i recognize that you are, in fact, chinese/black/whathave you, and I do not care (meaning you are no different from me)," affirmitive action says "I recognize that you are non-white, and, because you are inherintly different from me, you need my help to succede in life."

Affirmative action is racist in that it discriminates against white people. Not only is that stupid, it's equally as wrong.

Do you read?

Try to actually address the points in the post next time.

Once again, I ask, if members of the National Society of Black Engineers go to an elementary school and help with after-school math and science programs or help students with their homework, are they discriminating against white people?

Or are they, just maybe, letting young black (and white) students know that ethnicity doesn't matter in engineering? Are they maybe demonstrating the message that, black or white, a person who wishes to succeed in math and science can do so?

It is only sexist if the after school math and science programs did not allow male students into them, or discouraged their participation. The other problem with any affirimative action programs is that they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment.

Guess what? No gender preference was made at all on the after school programs. However, what we were doing was still considered to be an Affirmative Action program.

In other words, I have just demonstrated that Affirmative Action is not necessarily discriminatory. Nothing that we did in any way violated the 14th Amendment, and we didn't discriminate against any students.

Basically, affirmitive action programs unfairly discriminate against those in the majority on the basis of race or sex. When the ammendment was passed it didn't define people in the first sentence as "being of a disenfranchised race," but simply all people. While the ideal system resembles "i recognize that you are, in fact, chinese/black/whathave you, and I do not care (meaning you are no different from me)," affirmitive action says "I recognize that you are non-white, and, because you are inherintly different from me, you need my help to succede in life."

How did the program I just described do any of this?

Do you read?
How did the program I just described do any of this?

I was actually thinking of the points system the university of michigain used to increase the percentage of minorities at the expense of better educated, more intelligent white people, or how it ends up playing out in the job market today.

I was actually thinking of the points system the university of michigain

You mean the one that, IIRC, was found to be unconstitutional?

used to increase the percentage of minorities at the expense of better educated, more intelligent white people,

Most likely, this is a bit of an exaggeration. We cannot determine whether or not the non-minority applicants were better educated or more intelligent. There might have been some that scored better in other areas, but, as far as I know, there is no data out there on the rest.

or how it ends up playing out in the job market today.

How does it end up playing out?

In the same way, you "discriminate" in choosing to point the hose of water at the house that's on fire, and not at the one that's not. No one serious shouts "let's be fireblind!" in response.

.


Extreemely irrelevant example. More to the point would be to arrive at two houses next door to one another, one owned by a black family and the other occupied by a white family, which are both on fire and point the hose only at the black families house because they are black. It may not be fair to the white family, but hey - we need more black home ownership.

See - that is a racist response and it is what you endorse. You consider that 'fair'.

Supporters of the MCRI claim that it will not end affirmative action.

Glad to see B0zzy recognize that claim is fraudulent.


Oh come on Kat - certainly you can provide a link to support your claim.

Here. Once again, I will help you out. What would you do without me?

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law with the best of intentions and the noble goal of creating a color-blind society. Have we gotten much closer? The original idea of "affirmative action" — enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to guarantee that opportunities be made equally available to individuals of all races — is being redefined through Orwellian double-speak into a divisive, condescending system of preferential treatment based on race. Our society is more divided because of racial preferences. The principles of the Civil Rights Act are noble - the practices of some government agencies have not been.

There - now you have an accurate picture of their position on affirmative action and institutitional discrimination.

Not in any recent time, considering that quotas as a part of Affirmative Action programs have long since been a thing of the past.



are you THAT ignorant or just simply out of touch? The article which is the subject of ths thread is not 'a thing of the past' - nor is preferential hiring. Quotas and 'preferential hiring' may not be exactly the same - but they produce the same results to their victims - discrimination based on their race, gender, etc.

We can only be completely colorblind when the problems caused by institutionalized discrimination against certain ethnicities are actually balanced out. I agree that we should be mostly colorblind, but completely won't work until people of all ethnicities actually have equal opportunity.

This is another way of saying - I think it is OK to discriminate against a person based on their skin color, race, gender, etc. Whatever your goal - you support discrimination and it cannot be denied.

They are much more represented than they were 40 years ago.

Funny how discriminating against one group provides advantagious results for another. Isn't it strange however, that the poverty rate among black families has stayed relatively constant sbetween 1968 and 1996. Only after welfare reform did the poverty rate among black families drop by a third.

THAT is the difference between a successful program and a miserable failure - results. New concept for ya, eh?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

What? Where the hell did that come from? Did you even read what I wrote?


.


Maybe I misunderstood the part where you suggested segregating minorities into their own schools.

Is it really such a horrible thing to go to predominantly minority schools

I'm saying no such thing. My comment was not directed at the vote in question, but instead at the calls for the abolishment of *all* Affirmative Action.



As it is currently recognized - the two are synonymous. Sorta like 'styrofoam' and foam packing or 'coke' and soda. It may not be accurate, but it is convention.

As I said in the header I agree that there is still a need for federal programs protecting minorities interests. (with the exclusion of illegal immigrants)

I will give you a simpler example. If we decided to give everyone a nice sugary lollipop, that would be treating everyone the same. Except that it wouldn't be treating everyone equally. Because, for example, diabetics would not have any use for that lollipop. It would be meaningless to them. So we could treat everyone equally by getting sugar-free lollipops for the diabetics. Then everyone would have a lollipop they could enjoy. But I am sure you would object to that on the grounds that it is "special treatment".
Diabeties is not within the disussion of race. Try again. I was specific - I challenged you to provide an example "of how this applies regarding to the color of a person's skin (or the origin of their ancestors) and seeking employment or an education." Which - you failed to do and I do not believe you are cabable of doing.

The bottom line is affirmative action has had its successes and its failures. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, legislators shoudl be focusing on making it better, or finding a better solution entirely. For example, affirtmative action tends to work best when it focuses on equality of opportunity (e.g. point systems) rather than equality of outcome (e.g. quotas).

We could start by abolishing the distinction between merit and equity. I will offer a simple proposition. One, a diverse group of decison-makers will, in the long run, offer better decision-making than a homogeneous group of decision-makers. So a group made up of people of different cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds, and genders, will bring different perspectives to the decision-making process based on different life experiences, worldviews, etc. that will enable better decision-making. We need to start recognizing the merit of having people with different perspectives and life experiences at the table.

Either of your systems is flawed as they still discriminate. A considerably less discriminatory (and especially less condescending) approach would be to provide a better primary education experience to minoirities so they rhey are ABLE to compete with others on an equal footing without need for an insulting handicap (unless you think people LIKE being called 'affirmative action hires')

Le woot!

Preferential treatment against discrimination equals procreating for virginity!

When I and other women from the Society of Women Engineers went to schools to help with after-school math and science programs, was that sexism? Were we suggesting that girls cannot succeed or compete without help? Or were we simply serving as examples that women *can* do both, and that any young girls interested in math and science should strive to do well in them?
It would depend - did you offer help only to girls? If so then yes, that was sexism. IF you offered it to anyone and held yourself out as role models to all students then no - what you did was commendable. It demonstrated to both boys and girls that women can be successful and effective as engineers.

Affirmative action is racist in that it discriminates against white people. Not only is that stupid, it's equally as wrong.

Not just white people. Asians can also be affected. AFIK there is also no quarters for Arabs or Jews.

In other words, I have just demonstrated that Affirmative Action is not necessarily discriminatory. Nothing that we did in any way violated the 14th Amendment, and we didn't discriminate against any students.

How did the program I just described do any of this?

As I mentioned in my prior post - you are using a different definition of the term than most others do - which is why the topic of this thread was not aa, but preferential hiring - which you have already stated you agree with me on. The rest of your argument is based primarily on semantics.

Isn't the idea of affirmative action that one day, it will become useless and therefore disappear?

If so, stating that it will be there forever is somewhat contradictory to the objectives of affirmative action, is it not?
I think that is the ultimate HOPE for most people who support affirmitive action. However, many of them believe we will never actually attain a world where affirmitive action is unnecessary.

Funny how discriminating against one group provides advantagious results for another. Isn't it strange however, that the poverty rate among black families has stayed relatively constant sbetween 1968 and 1996. Only after welfare reform did the poverty rate among black families drop by a third.

THAT is the difference between a successful program and a miserable failure - results. New concept for ya, eh?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
Just some fun trivia, but the one factor that seems to correlate most directly with decreasing poverty is increasing reproductive health care (including access to contraception, legal medical abortion, and education regarding same).

What I found utterly shocking is that increasing access to reproductive health care appears to result in faster changes in the poverty rate than improving access to better public education. I would never have expected that.

Now back to your regularly scheduled anti-AA thread...:)

I think that is the ultimate HOPE for most people who support affirmitive action. However, many of them believe we will never actually attain a world where affirmitive action is unnecessary.


And there is the dilemma. There's a lot of folks who think that affirmative action is unacceptable for even a mere instant. Including me.

It would depend - did you offer help only to girls? If so then yes, that was sexism. IF you offered it to anyone and held yourself out as role models to all students then no - what you did was commendable. It demonstrated to both boys and girls that women can be successful and effective as engineers.
One counter argument is that boys normally receive more help than girls in many areas. I attended a very progressive school, but I still saw some of this in action; boys got more one-on-one tutoring, more attention from teachers, and were more likely to be singled out to be sent into advanced classes. In that situation, if you want to return a state of equality, you need to impliment some programs that help girls more than boys.

I think that is the ultimate HOPE for most people who support affirmitive action. However, many of them believe we will never actually attain a world where affirmitive action is unnecessary.


IMHO I think it can be achieved - but instead of exagerating our differences we sould be celebrating the things we have in common. America is often called 'The Melting Pot' where people from all cultures come and add to the greater American culture. It is not called the Confederate of seperate but equal cultures. Rather than make distinctions between each other we should be drawing closer together. There should be no 'black culture' or 'white culture' or 'hispanic culture' only American culture.

If we can ever get there then I believe that racism would cease to have any footing in this country.

One counter argument is that boys normally receive more help than girls in many areas. I attended a very progressive school, but I still saw some of this in action; boys got more one-on-one tutoring, more attention from teachers, and were more likely to be singled out to be sent into advanced classes. In that situation, if you want to return a state of equality, you need to impliment some programs that help girls more than boys.
Then why is it that college enrollment among males is in serious decline?


http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap01/anderson-010209.pdf#search='males%20college%20enrollment'

Where The Boys Aren't

According to statistics from the Department of Education, males made up just 44 percent of higher education enrollments in 1997

Just some fun trivia, but the one factor that seems to correlate most directly with decreasing poverty is increasing reproductive health care (including access to contraception, legal medical abortion, and education regarding same).

What I found utterly shocking is that increasing access to reproductive health care appears to result in faster changes in the poverty rate than improving access to better public education. I would never have expected that.

Now back to your regularly scheduled anti-AA thread...:)


Interesting - do you have more information on this? Imagine - Fuck your way to success. Worked for Aston Kutcher! :)

(just kidding - I get your point -though I am interested in seeing more onm the topic)

IMHO I think it can be achieved - but instead of exagerating our differences we sould be celebrating the things we have in common. America is often called 'The Melting Pot' where people from all cultures come and add to the greater American culture. It is not called the Confederate of seperate but equal cultures. Rather than make distinctions between each other we should be drawing closer together. There should be no 'black culture' or 'white culture' or 'hispanic culture' only American culture.

If we can ever get there then I believe that racism would cease to have any footing in this country.
I'm with you on that one.

I think many (if not most) affirmitive action programs reinforce the idea that there is something fundamentally different about various groups. The male-female divide is the best example. There's all this bullshit about how boys need this and girls need that, how male brains are just magically good at all the hard sciences and useful subjects while females need special handling to keep up, and it just makes me tired. Screw all of that.

Then why is it that college enrollment among males is in serious decline?


http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap01/anderson-010209.pdf#search='males%20college%20enrollment'

Where The Boys Aren't

According to statistics from the Department of Education, males made up just 44 percent of higher education enrollments in 1997
There is a very long list of possibilities. Just to name a few,

Females are still chronically underpaid compared to males, and so many females realize that they will need to get a higher degree in order to make the same amount of money that a man could make with a high school diploma. Many of the best-paying unskilled jobs are still effectively "men only."

Many of the cultures within America discourage males from showing the skills and behaviors that are required for success in college. Being well-behaved, studious, and creatively-minded are often labeled as "gay" or "pussy." The ability to sit quietly and respect authority is valued in women, who are encouraged to be submissive, but males are more often encouraged to resist authority and act out. This obviously is not a hard and fast rule, but it is a serious consideration in some demographics.

The differences in college enrollment also need to be examined in the context of socioeconomic class. Upper class males and females don't show the same disparity as lower class males and females. Instead of focusing on how males and females must be fundamentally different, perhaps it would be helpful to look at why lower class males and upper class males are so different.

I'd love to go on about this more Bottle - especially since I have my own theory on why male enrollment is down (and it is NOT ddue to discriminatory practices) but I have to go to work - I'm late!

I'd love to go on about this more Bottle - especially since I have my own theory on why male enrollment is down (and it is NOT ddue to discriminatory practices) but I have to go to work - I'm late!
Stupid real world, always getting in the way of our fun.

Judgments based on skin color are bad, whether in the positive or negative. Instead of making any decisions that are rooted in ethnicity what ought to be done to serve the public good is to make decisions based on economic need, namely enrolling more poor students in colleges/universities and paying for their education when it's clear that they work hard and wish to improve themselves using those means.
I agree, and mostly because making assumptions based on skin color isn't actually going to benefit the people who most need help.

Being born with black skin doesn't inherently mean a kid is going to have a hard time in school. Black kids can be born to rich families, just like white kids can be born to poverty-stricken families. Economic status HAS been directly linked to educational success, and when we let ourselves get distracted by skin color we end up ignoring the real causes for a lot of genuine problems.

Race/ethnic background aren't the only things that give people unfair advantages though. Especially in college admissions. Athletes get in easier, for example. How is this not considered a form of affirmative action? Does anyone want to end that as well, since it discriminates against non-athletes? Or what about the colleges who give extra points to "legacy" students? Or do people not care about those? Is it just about race?

And as I've pointed out, MCRI isn't just about Affirmative Action. It would also end things that genuinely do do good for certain groups of people (such as the battered women's shelters I previously mentioned). Please, stop simplifying the issue.

I agree, and mostly because making assumptions based on skin color isn't actually going to benefit the people who most need help.

Being born with black skin doesn't inherently mean a kid is going to have a hard time in school. Black kids can be born to rich families, just like white kids can be born to poverty-stricken families. Economic status HAS been directly linked to educational success, and when we let ourselves get distracted by skin color we end up ignoring the real causes for a lot of genuine problems.

So perhaps it's time to relegate the criterion skincolour to the same social relevance as starsign?
( I.E. summat only given serious attention at social parties... )

So perhaps it's time to relegate the criterion skincolour to the same social relevance as starsign?
( I.E. summat only given serious attention at social parties... )
Hmmm.

I'm not sure if it's quite time for that, to be honest. I believe racism still has a significant impact on people's ability to succeed in certain areas, and until that changes we will need to at least pay attention to racial dynamics. I don't believe we should use race as our criterion for determining things like affirmitive action, but I also don't think we should throw out racial issues as irrelevant.

This is another way of saying - I think it is OK to discriminate against a person based on their skin color, race, gender, etc. Whatever your goal - you support discrimination and it cannot be denied.

No, it isn't. It's a way of saying, "I know that certain ethncities have suffered institutionalized discrimination in the past. They were not treated equally under the law. There are consequences to this that will not go away unless they are actually corrected. Thus, I think it is a good thing to correct them."

Maybe I misunderstood the part where you suggested segregating minorities into their own schools.

Maybe you have a serious reading comprehension program, considering that I never suggested anything for the sort. I merely made a reference to the current situation, in which schools still are largely segregated. Inner-city schools have very low proportions of Caucasian students. Well-funded school systems (often in the suburbs) have lower proportions of minority students than the population differences would cause. While schools may not be actively segregated, they are segregated by where people live, and minorities are much more likely to live in inner-city areas.

Hmmm.

I'm not sure if it's quite time for that, to be honest. I believe racism still has a significant impact on people's ability to succeed in certain areas, and until that changes we will need to at least pay attention to racial dynamics. I don't believe we should use race as our criterion for determining things like affirmitive action, but I also don't think we should throw out racial issues as irrelevant.

I'm assuming that with racism, you mean discrimination.
How do 2 wrongs create a right?

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that race is a social fiction. Is it your wish, then, to continue it ad infinitum?

We can abolish affirmative action ( unlike, say, war ) and I rather think we should.

My cant is that the entire subdivision of mankind into seperate races is a thing that should not be continued without need. And frankly, I see no need whatsoever. The concept of affirmative action to help a perceived underclass is no more sensible than it would be to cut off the legs of men who run too fast, so that others may win a marathon.

are you THAT ignorant or just simply out of touch? The article which is the subject of ths thread is not 'a thing of the past' - nor is preferential hiring. Quotas and 'preferential hiring' may not be exactly the same - but they produce the same results to their victims - discrimination based on their race, gender, etc.

Good thing I wasn't talking about the article, which probably refers to a vote brought about by people who aren't aware that quota systems have long since been abolished. At most, Affirmative Action programs give minority applicants the tie (ie. equally qualified majority and minority applicant - can only hire one - go with the one that increases diversity). Interestingly enough, this means that predominantly black organizations will often give the tie to white applicants.

As it is currently recognized - the two are synonymous. Sorta like 'styrofoam' and foam packing or 'coke' and soda. It may not be accurate, but it is convention.

And people need to realize that the two are not synonymous - hence my posts.

I have listed an example of an affirmative action program that is not in any way discriminatory. Are you opposed to it? If not, you are not opposed to all affirmative action.

As I said in the header I agree that there is still a need for federal programs protecting minorities interests. (with the exclusion of illegal immigrants)

Then why are you arguing with me?

As I mentioned in my prior post - you are using a different definition of the term than most others do - which is why the topic of this thread was not aa, but preferential hiring - which you have already stated you agree with me on. The rest of your argument is based primarily on semantics.

I am using the actual definition as it stands and is used by most organizations. It is only those who assume the old quota systems who use it differently.

Meanwhile, while this thread may not have been begun as an AA discussion, people were literally jumping out of their skin to call for abolishment of all AA. I was merely pointing out what a bad idea that would be.

My cant is that the entire subdivision of mankind into seperate races is a thing that should not be continued without need. And frankly, I see no need whatsoever. The concept of affirmative action to help a perceived underclass is no more sensible than it would be to cut off the legs of men who run too fast, so that others may win a marathon.

Hardly. In most of its incarnations, it is more like helping the others in the marathon to realize that, even though they have not been allowed to run in the past and many think they cannot run, they actually can run, and with training can run just as fast as the others.

I'm assuming that with racism, you mean discrimination.
How do 2 wrongs create a right?

I don't believe I have claimed that they would. In fact, I think I have pretty clearly stated that I don't support using race-based criterion for discriminitory purposes.


Furthermore, you know as well as I do that race is a social fiction. Is it your wish, then, to continue it ad infinitum?

Again, I don't see where I have stated that.

I believe, as you say, that race is a social fiction. I do not personally believe there are significant differences in (for instance) intelligence across "races." However, I do believe that there are many human beings who hold racist beliefs, and who impliment their personal misconceptions in a way that will significantly impact the lives of others. I believe it would be naive of us to claim that because races are social constructs there is no such thing as racism. Racism is real, even if the "races" are not.


We can abolish affirmative action ( unlike, say, war ) and I rather think we should.

I think you need to be more specific in what you mean by "affirmitive action," since that can include a huge range of different programs.


My cant is that the entire subdivision of mankind into seperate races is a thing that should not be continued without need. And frankly, I see no need whatsoever.

Acknowledging that racism still exists is quite different from perpetuating racial myths.


The concept of affirmative action to help a perceived underclass is no more sensible than it would be to cut off the legs of men who run too fast, so that others may win a marathon.
This assumes that if one group improves its success rate then another group must lose. This is not always the case.

Some forms of affirmitive action would be more like offering a specialized training program for one group, in order to help them improve their marathon times. This would not directly handicap any of the other runners, nor would it "chop the legs off" of individuals who already could run fast.

Hardly. In most of its incarnations, it is more like helping the others in the marathon to realize that, even though they have not been allowed to run in the past and many think they cannot run, they actually can run, and with training can run just as fast as the others.
It is interesting to see how some people perceive success and failure.

For instance, if women improve their average income over a period of years and men do not, then some people will insist the men are "losing"...even if the men are still paid more than women. If the ratio of black students to white students is becoming more even, some people will perceive this as a "loss" of white students even if the actual percentage of white kids in school has been increasing.

I don't believe I have claimed that they would. In fact, I think I have pretty clearly stated that I don't support using race-based criterion for discriminitory purposes.


Again, I don't see where I have stated that.

I believe, as you say, that race is a social fiction. I do not personally believe there are significant differences in (for instance) intelligence across "races." However, I do believe that there are many human beings who hold racist beliefs, and who impliment their personal misconceptions in a way that will significantly impact the lives of others. I believe it would be naive of us to claim that because races are social constructs there is no such thing as racism. Racism is real, even if the "races" are not.


I think you need to be more specific in what you mean by "affirmitive action," since that can include a huge range of different programs.


Acknowledging that racism still exists is quite different from perpetuating racial myths.


This assumes that if one group improves its success rate then another group must lose. This is not always the case.

Some forms of affirmitive action would be more like offering a specialized training program for one group, in order to help them improve their marathon times. This would not directly handicap any of the other runners, nor would it "chop the legs off" of individuals who already could run fast.


En bref ( as always ): I don't see a moral distinction between AA and other forms of racism. And no practical argument could constitute a moral statement. Case to be closed asap.

Calling affirmative action "institutionalized discrimination" is like confusing the smallpox vaccine with the disease.

The smallpox vaccine prevents a disease (smallpox).

Affirmative action is a disease (racism).

No, it isn't. It's a way of saying, "I know that certain ethncities have suffered institutionalized discrimination in the past. They were not treated equally under the law. There are consequences to this that will not go away unless they are actually corrected. Thus, I think it is a good thing to correct them."
.

So, you are saying that with no regard to a persons history relating to discrimination - if they have the same skin color as those who did the crimes before, they must be punished.

Oh yea, you are the pinnacle of fairness there. :rolleyes:

I fail to see why so many leftists don't see A.A. as "discrimination." How is giving preferential treatment to certain groups not racist? Hiring a person just because he has a certain skin color is just as stupid as refusing to hire someone because he has a certain skin color. Why can't people be judged on merit, instead of ethnicity? The only people who benefit from A.A. are unabashed race-baiting leftists (i.e., Jesse Jackson) who want to keep racism alive.

Maybe you have a serious reading comprehension program, considering that I never suggested anything for the sort. I merely made a reference to the current situation, in which schools still are largely segregated. Inner-city schools have very low proportions of Caucasian students. Well-funded school systems (often in the suburbs) have lower proportions of minority students than the population differences would cause. While schools may not be actively segregated, they are segregated by where people live, and minorities are much more likely to live in inner-city areas.

Where do you find the info to make the conclusion that well funded schools have significantly lower proportions of white students? You said it - now prove it.

Regarding minorities geographinc prefernce for residence - once again - prove it then, if you are successful, speculate on why you they make that decision. Obviously it is not likely the schools...

Good thing I wasn't talking about the article, which probably refers to a vote brought about by people who aren't aware that quota systems have long since been abolished. ?

Thatns for answering my question - you ARE that ignorant.

At most, Affirmative Action programs give minority applicants the tie (ie. equally qualified majority and minority applicant - can only hire one - go with the one that increases diversity).

So then, you think that in the event of a tie that racism is ok then.

Interestingly enough, this means that predominantly black organizations will often give the tie to white applicants.
yeah, riiiiight. "Waiter - I'll have what she's having"

And people need to realize that the two are not synonymous - hence my posts. I have listed an example of an affirmative action program that is not in any way discriminatory. Are you opposed to it? If not, you are not opposed to all affirmative action.

You are arging semantics, which is the last resort of someone who has lost the primary debate.

Then why are you arguing with me?
As soon as I realized you had resorted to arguing semantics I stopped - and now I claim victory. Racial preference is immoral and you agree. I never made the case that other programs which encourage diversity are unnecessary - in fact I would argue we need more, better and more effective ones.

I am using the actual definition as it stands and is used by most organizations. It is only those who assume the old quota systems who use it differently.

Meanwhile, while this thread may not have been begun as an AA discussion, people were literally jumping out of their skin to call for abolishment of all AA. I was merely pointing out what a bad idea that would be.


If that were the case then you would have no trouble wearing a button on your lapel that says "Proud to be an Affirmative Action Hire"

The smallpox vaccine prevents a disease (smallpox).

Affirmative action is a disease (racism).


No - Kats example was far more subtle that that. Give him credit.

The vaccine for Smallpox IS smallpox - albeit a weakened version of it. You body produces antigens to combat the non-lethal virus and carries that antigen forever - confounding any attempt of the lethal virus to take hold.

So, essentially, Kat is saying - don't confuse just a little bit of non-lethal discrimination with full blown racism.

Even that does not hold much water, but I give him bonus points for subtlty.

Stupid real world, always getting in the way of our fun.

Back from work - a good day.

To my point of why I don't necessarily agree that declining male enrollmet is an issue. One important point overlooked is that they do not consider trade schools. Skilled trades are still dominated by men (HVAC, Electrician, Plumber, etc) These are jobs which pay well and which do not require college. The number of men at any given point is finite (as is the number of women). Until women start to pursue these careers there will be fewer men in college because they have other choices.

I find two things unusual about that. One is that nobody seems too concerned that women are not pursuing the skilled trades. We hear organization like NOW scream about college enrollment but MUM about trade school enrollment. I also find it interesting that some feminists are starting to take note of the low male college enrollment and see it as a crisis - but not one of equality so much as the fact that women may have to 'marry down'. :rolleyes:

nevermind. pointless to point things out to the willfully blind



Oh come on Kat! I love pointing things out to you - even if it is pointless! :)

Back from work - a good day.

To my point of why I don't necessarily agree that declining male enrollmet is an issue. One important point overlooked is that they do not consider trade schools. Skilled trades are still dominated by men (HVAC, Electrician, Plumber, etc) These are jobs which pay well and which do not require college. The number of men at any given point is finite (as is the number of women). Until women start to pursue these careers there will be fewer men in college because they have other choices.

I find two things unusual about that. One is that nobody seems too concerned that women are not pursuing the skilled trades.

I totally agree so far. Regardless of the nominal equality afforded by law, there is still pronounced inequality in the way jobs are distributed between men and women. The highest paying jobs that don't require college degrees are still very heavily male dominated.

Neither women nor men are stupid, so this reality will probably influence both groups: women may feel they are unwelcome in such jobs, and must get a college degree if they want good pay, while men see the sky-rocketting costs of college education and wisely conclude that they would be better off in a trade school than accumulating $40K in debt by age 20.


We hear organization like NOW scream about college enrollment but MUM about trade school enrollment. I also find it interesting that some feminists are starting to take note of the low male college enrollment and see it as a crisis - but not one of equality so much as the fact that women may have to 'marry down'. :rolleyes:
Here I have to disagree. Feminist organizations are among the most vocal supporters of increasing female enrollment in trade schools.

Also, it is certainly not the feminists who are complaining about low male college enrollment in terms of how women will have to "marry down"...feminists are insulted by the very assumption that women are that concerned about getting married in the first place! When men are "forced" to marry unskilled, uneducated women, nobody talks about men having to "marry down," and feminists feel the same standard should apply to women. Your partner's education level does not define their value, nor should all women be assumed to be judging their mate's caliber by his earning power.

Feminists fight these misconceptions more strongly than any other group. Instead, it is generally traditionalists who try to use the lack of "good husbands" as a justification for discriminitory practices that will increase male enrollment. They use alarmist rhetoric about how feminism is going to deprive us all of "good men," by chasing men out of college. They assume that ending up without a husband is the worst fate that could befall a woman, and that no women would ever want to marry a husband who had less education than she. Feminism doesn't support any of this bunk :).

But it's true that there are plenty of people who call themselves "feminist" who parrot patently anti-feminist garbage. This is the new wave of anti-feminist backlash. You'll especially see a lot of upper middle class white women participating in this, which makes it particularly confusing because why would women want to bash feminism? Tis a strange world we live in.

So, you are saying that with no regard to a persons history relating to discrimination - if they have the same skin color as those who did the crimes before, they must be punished.

Oh yea, you are the pinnacle of fairness there. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. At what point did I, in any way, advocate punishment of anyone based on skin color?

I fail to see why so many leftists don't see A.A. as "discrimination." How is giving preferential treatment to certain groups not racist?

Giving preferential treatment to a given group just because they are a certain race would be racist. Creating programs to help out the disadvantaged isn't racist, however. Is it racist to have need-based scholarships? Are colleges evil for giving scholarships to those who actually need them, rather than giving them to kids who could easily pay for their own education?

Hiring a person just because he has a certain skin color is just as stupid as refusing to hire someone because he has a certain skin color.

Indeed. Thus, it's a good thing that AA has nothing at all to do with this.

Why can't people be judged on merit, instead of ethnicity?

They should be. And that is what AA pushes for, while trying to ensure equal opportunity to gain said merit.

The only people who benefit from A.A. are unabashed race-baiting leftists (i.e., Jesse Jackson) who want to keep racism alive.

Really? I'm fairly certain that any black kids who had bought into the idea that black people cannot succeed in technical fields benefitted from the members of the National Society of Black Engineers at my college going and serving as a role model in math and science programs. On top of that, I'm fairly certain that children of other ethnciities in the classrooms benefitted, as any who were being raised in a racist household also gained positive black role models.

Thatns for answering my question - you ARE that ignorant.

Really? Show me a legal system in which racial quotas are used.

So then, you think that in the event of a tie that racism is ok then.

No, I think that, in the case of a tie, you need another qualifier. In this case, the qualifier is what is best for the university - that which increases the number of viewpoints and backgrounds of the students. The same thing could be said of two white students who had a tie. In that case, if only one could be admitted, the student with a background that was less represented at the school should be the one admitted. If the student has, for instance, lived abroad, while most of the students in the school have not, that student will bring a different viewpoint to the classroom, and will be an asset to the learning experience of all students at the school.


yeah, riiiiight. "Waiter - I'll have what she's having"

It's actually true. Historically black colleges have been trying to increase enrollment of other ethnicities. Since they also place value on diversity, they wish to have people of different backgrounds in their schools. Thus, at such a college, it is likely that a "tie" would go to a white student over a black student.

You are arging semantics, which is the last resort of someone who has lost the primary debate.

I have never debated that discrimination is wrong. I have simply pointed out that affirmative action is not what so many people think it is.

If someone said, "This one school taught students that babies come from storks. I say we BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!!!" would it be incorrect to point out that schools in general do not teach this, and that they do good?

I never made the case that other programs which encourage diversity are unnecessary - in fact I would argue we need more, better and more effective ones.

Indeed. And such programs would fall under the umbrella of affirmative action. Note that I didn't start debating with you, but with another poster who called for the abolishment of *all* affirmative action. You were the one who started arguing with me, not the other way around.


If that were the case then you would have no trouble wearing a button on your lapel that says "Proud to be an Affirmative Action Hire"

In the forms of AA that I espouse, there is no such thing as an "Affirmative Action hire. " Anyone who is hired is hired based on what they will bring to the company - period. Thus, in a way, everyone is an "Affirmative Action Hire." So, sure, if everyone at a company got passed out buttons that said that, I'd wear it.

Isn't the idea of affirmative action that one day, it will become useless and therefore disappear?

If so, stating that it will be there forever is somewhat contradictory to the objectives of affirmative action, is it not?

:confused: Pessimism?

Where do you find the info to make the conclusion that well funded schools have significantly lower proportions of white students? You said it - now prove it.

It's rather well-known, although I'll look for sources. Percentages of ethnic minorities inside a city are much larger than percentages in the suburbs. Suburbian or rural schools generally get more funding.

Regarding minorities geographinc prefernce for residence - once again - prove it then, if you are successful, speculate on why you they make that decision. Obviously it is not likely the schools...

It isn't so much a matter of "preference" as necessity. Minorities are statistically less likely to be able to afford moving to the suburbs, whether it is because they cannot afford transportation (ie. need public transportation) or cannot afford housing there. Thus, there really is no decision. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs, then the city is all there is.

Those who do have the opportunity to move out to the suburbs, on the other hand, are likely to make that decision specifically for the schools. I know my own family moved out of a city and into a more rural area specifically because the school system was better there. Luckily, we had the financial stability and enough money to do so and I ended up in a good school system for high school. Others who couldn't move out of the city, however, weren't so lucky, and there were schools there in which entire senior classes couldn't graduate because they couldn't even pass the (8th grade level) graduation tests...



Ah, here we are: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/31D276EF-72E1-458A-8C71-E3D262A4C91E/0/FundingGap2005.pdf

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. But as B0zzy said, affirmative action is the wrong answer.

Plus--though I've yet to experience this myself--there have been plenty of times where well qualified people were turned down for someone less qualified just because a quota needed to be fulfilled. For instance, let's say I--a white male--am trying to apply to a college, and have worked incredibly hard at it. Yet, my application is turned down in favor a minority less qualified than me simply because of a quota. What right do they have to deny me that? What right do they have to practice reverse discrimination, a practice I find absolutely abhorrant because you would think people who have suffered racism would know better.

No, we need to be completely color blind and what have you. You can't try elevating a portion of the population above another in the interest of fairness. It is just as wrong as treating a portion of the population as inferior. EQUAL MEANS EQUAL.
Agreed.

I totally agree so far. Regardless of the nominal equality afforded by law, there is still pronounced inequality in the way jobs are distributed between men and women. The highest paying jobs that don't require college degrees are still very heavily male dominated.

Neither women nor men are stupid, so this reality will probably influence both groups: women may feel they are unwelcome in such jobs, and must get a college degree if they want good pay, while men see the sky-rocketting costs of college education and wisely conclude that they would be better off in a trade school than accumulating $40K in debt by age 20.

I suspect it has more to do with working outdoors than anything else. Ever notice that the jobs women tend toward are the air conditioned ones? I'm sure there is a reason but I don't know it.


Here I have to disagree. Feminist organizations are among the most vocal supporters of increasing female enrollment in trade schools.

I did not know that. Got any links?

Also, it is certainly not the feminists who are complaining about low male college enrollment in terms of how women will have to "marry down"...feminists are insulted by the very assumption that women are that concerned about getting married in the first place! When men are "forced" to marry unskilled, uneducated women, nobody talks about men having to "marry down," and feminists feel the same standard should apply to women. Your partner's education level does not define their value, nor should all women be assumed to be judging their mate's caliber by his earning power.

Feminists fight these misconceptions more strongly than any other group. Instead, it is generally traditionalists who try to use the lack of "good husbands" as a justification for discriminitory practices that will increase male enrollment. They use alarmist rhetoric about how feminism is going to deprive us all of "good men," by chasing men out of college. They assume that ending up without a husband is the worst fate that could befall a woman, and that no women would ever want to marry a husband who had less education than she. Feminism doesn't support any of this bunk :).

But it's true that there are plenty of people who call themselves "feminist" who parrot patently anti-feminist garbage. This is the new wave of anti-feminist backlash. You'll especially see a lot of upper middle class white women participating in this, which makes it particularly confusing because why would women want to bash feminism? Tis a strange world we live in.


I was specific to say 'some feminists' intentionally. Wether you consider them 'real' feminists is your own decision. I have to go so here is the best link I could find regarding it. It is relevant to women in general - not exclusive to feminists. IF I had more time I'd get more specific..

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/01/career-women-downwardly-mobile-men-and.html

The women surveyed were less willing to marry down - marry someone with much lower earnings or less education - than the men were to marry up. ...

You may think that women's attitudes are changing as they get more college degrees and financial independence. A woman who's an executive can afford to marry a struggling musician. But that doesn't necessarily mean she wants to. Studies by David Buss of the University of Texas and others have shown that women with higher incomes, far from relaxing their standards, put more emphasis on a mate's financial resources.

Back from dinner - yum!
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0519.html
the concern of the colloquium participants was a growing trend of women marrying men who were less educated and earned less money than they did. Minority women expressed the greatest concern … and with reason. According to the Sum study, “in 1999-2000, for every 100 degrees awarded to Black men, Black women were awarded 188 associate degrees, 192 bachelor degrees, and 221 master’s degrees.” Hispanic women earned nearly 130 degrees for every 100 awarded to Hispanic men. Sum concluded that highly educated women would have to consider "marrying down." He labeled the prospect as "a serious economic and cultural problem."

http://www.go2thestart.com/2005/10/feminisms_hango.html

Ever wonder why women frequently complain that there are 'no good men left' but you never seem to hear the reverse from men? This pretty much explains why, in a nutshell:

Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.


I will note - that really for the most part the observation is NOT a feminist position (one way or the other) - I stand somewhat corrected. It IS however, a majroity of female attitude - as the links I provided demonstrate. Not sure what to make of that...


and here is just a funny article I found;
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz041102.asp

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. At what point did I, in any way, advocate punishment of anyone based on skin color?


Umm, that is what happens when you giver preference to one group over another based on their skin color. Try to keep up - will ya.


Giving preferential treatment to a given group just because they are a certain race would be racist.
EXACTLY! Now you're with the program! Hence the lawsuit in Michigan! The NAACP however, does not agree with you;

In blunt and passionate tones, officials at a major NAACP fundraiser that drew 10,000 people blasted a ballot initiative that aims to restrict affirmative action programs in Michigan.

Michigan voters will be asked in November whether governments and university admissions programs should be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

(from link in OP)

Creating programs to help out the disadvantaged isn't racist, however. Is it racist to have need-based scholarships? Are colleges evil for giving scholarships to those who actually need them, rather than giving them to kids who could easily pay for their own education? only if access to those scholarships is predecated by skin color, gender, etc... I know you agree unless you think a white male scholarship would not be racist. Ther are plenty of white males who cannot afford college too.



Indeed. Thus, it's a good thing that AA has nothing at all to do with this.

umm, once again, not according to the NAACP. See quote in italics above.


They should be. And that is what AA pushes for, while trying to ensure equal opportunity to gain said merit.

Once again - not according to the NAACP. They want preferential treatment. IT is pretty clear within the first three paragraphs of the article.


Really? I'm fairly certain that any black kids who had bought into the idea that black people cannot succeed in technical fields benefitted from the members of the National Society of Black Engineers at my college going and serving as a role model in math and science programs. On top of that, I'm fairly certain that children of other ethnciities in the classrooms benefitted, as any who were being raised in a racist household also gained positive black role models.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Really? Show me a legal system in which racial quotas are used.

hehe - first of all, the ignorant part was the fact that you have no idea who brought the vote out - even though it has been discussed quite thoroughly in the article and even here. Even Kat provided an insightful observation - which I even linked to their website and quoted;
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10888027&postcount=46
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law with the best of intentions and the noble goal of creating a color-blind society. Have we gotten much closer? The original idea of "affirmative action" — enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to guarantee that opportunities be made equally available to individuals of all races — is being redefined through Orwellian double-speak into a divisive, condescending system of preferential treatment based on race. Our society is more divided because of racial preferences. The principles of the Civil Rights Act are noble - the practices of some government agencies have not been.

Which pretty much makes this statement of yours look retarded;
Good thing I wasn't talking about the article, which probably refers to a vote brought about by people who aren't aware that quota systems have long since been abolished.

Now - regarding your quota system - why is it you keep trying to change the subject from preferential hiring to quotas? Must be because you know you can't win any other way. The net result of either is the same. Institutionalized discrimination.


No, I think that, in the case of a tie, you need another qualifier. In this case, the qualifier is what is best for the university - that which increases the number of viewpoints and backgrounds of the students. The same thing could be said of two white students who had a tie. In that case, if only one could be admitted, the student with a background that was less represented at the school should be the one admitted. If the student has, for instance, lived abroad, while most of the students in the school have not, that student will bring a different viewpoint to the classroom, and will be an asset to the learning experience of all students at the school.
If racial preferences were not the topic this woud be a valid observation, but as it stands it really is meaningless. At this point the tie is irrelevant because even the more qualified students are denied based on their skin color, gender, etc. (and, btw - some colleges are starting to give preference to MALE applicants - no, turnabout is NOT fairplay.)


It's actually true. Historically black colleges have been trying to increase enrollment of other ethnicities. Since they also place value on diversity, they wish to have people of different backgrounds in their schools. Thus, at such a college, it is likely that a "tie" would go to a white student over a black student.
Please! Post a link to a recruitment page from a black college recruiting white students! I really really would love to see this.
(BTW - have you seen the movie "Drumline" Your post makes me think of this for some reason)


I have never debated that discrimination is wrong. I have simply pointed out that affirmative action is not what so many people think it is.
You mean, like the NAACP.

If someone said, "This one school taught students that babies come from storks. I say we BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!!!" would it be incorrect to point out that schools in general do not teach this, and that they do good?
If only it were just an isolated experience...

Indeed. And such programs would fall under the umbrella of affirmative action. Note that I didn't start debating with you, but with another poster who called for the abolishment of *all* affirmative action. You were the one who started arguing with me, not the other way around. [/qoute]
really? Oh. I'll take your word for it, I don't feel like reading back.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
In the forms of AA that I espouse, there is no such thing as an "Affirmative Action hire. " Anyone who is hired is hired based on what they will bring to the company - period. Thus, in a way, everyone is an "Affirmative Action Hire." So, sure, if everyone at a company got passed out buttons that said that, I'd wear it.
If affirmatice action has such positive public connotations then I'm sure you would have no trouble with other promotional ideas;
1) "I owe my job to affirmative action." T-Shirts
2) "Affirmative Action is your ticket to success!" wall posters.
3) "Affirmative Action - because minorities can't get a fair shake here without it" paperweights.

Point is - with the willing aid of NAACP, NOW and others - Affirmative action, no matter what else it may entail - has become just as synonymous with racial preferences and institutionalized as INS and FEMA have with incompetence.

It's rather well-known, although I'll look for sources. Percentages of ethnic minorities inside a city are much larger than percentages in the suburbs. Suburbian or rural schools generally get more funding.



It isn't so much a matter of "preference" as necessity. Minorities are statistically less likely to be able to afford moving to the suburbs, whether it is because they cannot afford transportation (ie. need public transportation) or cannot afford housing there. Thus, there really is no decision. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs, then the city is all there is.

Those who do have the opportunity to move out to the suburbs, on the other hand, are likely to make that decision specifically for the schools. I know my own family moved out of a city and into a more rural area specifically because the school system was better there. Luckily, we had the financial stability and enough money to do so and I ended up in a good school system for high school. Others who couldn't move out of the city, however, weren't so lucky, and there were schools there in which entire senior classes couldn't graduate because they couldn't even pass the (8th grade level) graduation tests...



Ah, here we are: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/31D276EF-72E1-458A-8C71-E3D262A4C91E/0/FundingGap2005.pdf


GODDAM FUCKING JOLT!! FUCKING LOGGED ME OUT WHILE I WAS POSTING A REPLY! SHIT! There MUST be a way to fix that.

It's rather well-known, although I'll look for sources. Percentages of ethnic minorities inside a city are much larger than percentages in the suburbs. Suburbian or rural schools generally get more funding.



It isn't so much a matter of "preference" as necessity. Minorities are statistically less likely to be able to afford moving to the suburbs, whether it is because they cannot afford transportation (ie. need public transportation) or cannot afford housing there. Thus, there really is no decision. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs, then the city is all there is.

Those who do have the opportunity to move out to the suburbs, on the other hand, are likely to make that decision specifically for the schools. I know my own family moved out of a city and into a more rural area specifically because the school system was better there. Luckily, we had the financial stability and enough money to do so and I ended up in a good school system for high school. Others who couldn't move out of the city, however, weren't so lucky, and there were schools there in which entire senior classes couldn't graduate because they couldn't even pass the (8th grade level) graduation tests...



Ah, here we are: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/31D276EF-72E1-458A-8C71-E3D262A4C91E/0/FundingGap2005.pdf


GODDAM FUCKING JOLT!! FUCKING LOGGED ME OUT WHILE I WAS POSTING A REPLY! SHIT! It is all gone now. There MUST be a way to fix that. Any suggestions?

It's rather well-known, although I'll look for sources. Percentages of ethnic minorities inside a city are much larger than percentages in the suburbs. Suburbian or rural schools generally get more funding.

I can wait.

A heads up though - make sure you include DC.


It isn't so much a matter of "preference" as necessity. Minorities are statistically less likely to be able to afford moving to the suburbs, whether it is because they cannot afford transportation (ie. need public transportation) or cannot afford housing there. Thus, there really is no decision. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs, then the city is all there is.

Thats BS. The data clearly refutes it. Here, compare two cities, one which is primarily 'black'
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=4920&city2=5775

If you dig further you'll see that rural areas cost of living is lower than city living. Nobody in America is 'stuck' and unable to move. The proof in the pudding is in the illegal immigrants who come here each day without two pennies to rub together. Their economic condition does not prevent them (in fact it inspires them!) Legal residents can move without breaking any laws at all so they have no excuse.


Those who do have the opportunity to move out to the suburbs, on the other hand, are likely to make that decision specifically for the schools. I know my own family moved out of a city and into a more rural area specifically because the school system was better there. Luckily, we had the financial stability and enough money to do so and I ended up in a good school system for high school. Others who couldn't move out of the city, however, weren't so lucky, and there were schools there in which entire senior classes couldn't graduate because they couldn't even pass the (8th grade level) graduation tests...

That was not luck at all. Call your parents right now and thank them. It was their hard work, determination and sacrafice. Mothers day is coming....



Ah, here we are: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/31D276EF-72E1-458A-8C71-E3D262A4C91E/0/FundingGap2005.pdf[/QUOTE]

Good find - thanks. What's missing is the student performance in these samples. Do the districts with the highest budgets produce greater results? (regardless of a 40% budget 'handicap') What is the efficient frontier for educational spending? (hint - private schools do it with less - much less.)

Umm, that is what happens when you giver preference to one group over another based on their skin color. Try to keep up - will ya.

Not if that "preference" is a leg-up for the disadvantaged. Programs designed to encourage ethnicities that were not allowed to succeed in the past don't harm ethnicities that have never suffered such oppression.

Michigan voters will be asked in November whether governments and university admissions programs should be prohibited from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Here's the problem - what exaclty is "preferential treatment"? This is the problem with legal-speak, it is all too often horribly vague. Would programs which were designed to go specifically to inner-city schools and recruit applications from minority students be "preferential treatment"? Would the situation I described before, in which a "tie" student is picked over the other because of the diverse views they can bring to the campus count as "preferential treatment"?

umm, once again, not according to the NAACP. See quote in italics above.

You seem to be obsessed with the NAACP. I, on the other hand, am neither a member, nor do I care what they have to say.

hehe - first of all, the ignorant part was the fact that you have no idea who brought the vote out - even though it has been discussed quite thoroughly in the article and even here.

I can guess. In my experience, laws are most often proposed by people who are completely ignorant of whatever it is they are trying to legislate.

Which pretty much makes this statement of yours look retarded;

Actually, the paragraph seems to be referring to AA in exactly the same way that you guys are - only citing the misuses and ignoring the rest.

Now - regarding your quota system - why is it you keep trying to change the subject from preferential hiring to quotas? Must be because you know you can't win any other way. The net result of either is the same. Institutionalized discrimination.

The only way that people can make the argument, "A less qualified X over a more qualified Y......" is in quota systems. Systems in which the tie goes to the minority may be seen as "preferential", but they do not involve any less qualified person getting a job over a more qualified person.

If racial preferences were not the topic this woud be a valid observation, but as it stands it really is meaningless.

Why? Do you think that being of a different ethnicity, and most likely having been treated differently as a result, doesn't bring a diverse viewpoint to the table?

At this point the tie is irrelevant because even the more qualified students are denied based on their skin color, gender, etc. (and, btw - some colleges are starting to give preference to MALE applicants - no, turnabout is NOT fairplay.)

If you are going to make this claim, you need to back it up. I have seen no system in which this is true actually get through a legal challenge. The closest was a law school somewhere, but it wasn't an example of less qualified students getting in - it was simply a more obvious emphasis on diverse viewpoints over specific academic measures.

Please! Post a link to a recruitment page from a black college recruiting white students! I really really would love to see this.

I'll look around, but I know that Morehouse in Atlanta has been actively recruiting white students.

If only it were just an isolated experience...

If only a few schools taught bullshit. Unfortunately, quite a few do, but I don't see that as a reason to call for an abolishment of all schools.

If affirmatice action has such positive public connotations then I'm sure you would have no trouble with other promotional ideas;
1) "I owe my job to affirmative action." T-Shirts
2) "Affirmative Action is your ticket to success!" wall posters.
3) "Affirmative Action - because minorities can't get a fair shake here without it" paperweights.

In the AA, I am talking about, it would be impossible for someone to "owe their job" to AA. They would owe their job only to their own merit. Thus, none of these things would make any more sense than "I owe my job to Green Jello" stickers.

If you dig further you'll see that rural areas cost of living is lower than city living.

And how many unskilled jobs are there in rural areas? How much public transportation is there? How much low-cost housing is there?

Even if the average cost of living is higher in the cities, for the truly poor, rural living is generally not much of an option.

Nobody in America is 'stuck' and unable to move.

That's quite a naive viewpoint. What about those who can't get enough money to move? Those who have to live within walking distance of their jobs (unskilled labor, generally) because they cannot afford a car and public transportation isn't available/useful?

The proof in the pudding is in the illegal immigrants who come here each day without two pennies to rub together. Their economic condition does not prevent them (in fact it inspires them!) Legal residents can move without breaking any laws at all so they have no excuse.

If you want to give up everything and *hope* for the possibility of stability elsewhere, you could throw all caution to the wind and hope for it. But if you are at least surviving in one place -and barely that - would you put your family through the possibility of going even deeper into poverty on the off-chance that you *might* be able to find low-cost housing and a job elsewhere?

Good find - thanks. What's missing is the student performance in these samples. Do the districts with the highest budgets produce greater results? (regardless of a 40% budget 'handicap') What is the efficient frontier for educational spending? (hint - private schools do it with less - much less.)

I don't have that at the moment, but I know that it has been true in my experience. I also know that I hear reports all the time on how poorly students do in inner-city schools.

I suspect it has more to do with working outdoors than anything else. Ever notice that the jobs women tend toward are the air conditioned ones? I'm sure there is a reason but I don't know it.

That's an interesting theory, but I don't think it's got much to do with outdoors versus indoors. I think it's more about the type of labor that is viewed as "appropriate" for women. This trend predates the invention of AC, at least in the US.


I was specific to say 'some feminists' intentionally. Wether you consider them 'real' feminists is your own decision. I have to go so here is the best link I could find regarding it. It is relevant to women in general - not exclusive to feminists. IF I had more time I'd get more specific..

...

I will note - that really for the most part the observation is NOT a feminist position (one way or the other) - I stand somewhat corrected. It IS however, a majroity of female attitude - as the links I provided demonstrate. Not sure what to make of that...

Yeah, you pretty much already covered what I was going to say.

There are women and men who refer to themselves as "feminist," yet who promote ideas that directly conflict with the fundamental principle of feminism (belief in the social and political equality of the sexes). I don't like to wander into "No True Scotsman" territory, but sometimes it seems impossible to do otherwise...when you have people insisting they are feminist, yet simultaneously insisting that all women want to stay and home and be submissive to their husbands, it's hard not to point out that THIS IS NOT A FEMINIST POSITION. :P

It's kind of like people who say, "I'm anti-racism, but I think all black people secretly want to steal and cheat and have promiscuous sex."

Obviously it cannot be attributed to the success of 40 years worth of affirmative action. Thank you for mentioning that - it is proof enough that affirmative action is not working.
Funny that. Affirmative action and preferential treatment seemed to work well enough for the 400 years that it prefered white males...

Funny that. Affirmative action and preferential treatment seemed to work well enough for the 400 years that it prefered white males...
But that's the thing, you can't make that comparison. Affirmitive action describes a pretty damn narrow set of hiring/acceptance practices. White male privaledge is so far above and beyond such practices that it sometimes boggles my mind.

Check out Gratz v. Bollinger. That is just one example of why those in the majority hate affirimative action. Afterall, it seems like AA was started by a bunch of self hating white people. While you are at it, read this: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html.

It's kind of like people who say, "I'm anti-racism, but I think all black people secretly want to steal and cheat and have promiscuous sex."

I thought they were called rappers?

Not if that "preference" is a leg-up for the disadvantaged. Programs designed to encourage ethnicities that were not allowed to succeed in the past don't harm ethnicities that have never suffered such oppression.

Nope - you are wrong. Motivation does not make a wrong action right. I could kick you out of your home and turn it into a homeless shelter for the poor. It may be a noble motive - but it would still be wrong. Just as is preferential treatment based solely on skin color or gender.


Here's the problem - what exaclty is "preferential treatment"? This is the problem with legal-speak, it is all too often horribly vague. Would programs which were designed to go specifically to inner-city schools and recruit applications from minority students be "preferential treatment"? Would the situation I described before, in which a "tie" student is picked over the other because of the diverse views they can bring to the campus count as "preferential treatment"?

Sorry, I'm not a legal dictionary. As it is generally accepted (and understood by me) preferential treatment is giving an advantage to a work or school applicant for the simple task of being a minority or a woman which would elevate that application ahead of others with more job related skills and experience.


You seem to be obsessed with the NAACP. I, on the other hand, am neither a member, nor do I care what they have to say.
They are the primary organization for 'colored people' in the US, a primary proponent of AA, and over 90% of the black caucas, our electred officials of color, are members. Damn straight I care what they say about it. You should too.


I can guess. In my experience, laws are most often proposed by people who are completely ignorant of whatever it is they are trying to legislate. [/qoute]
Like affirmative action?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
The only way that people can make the argument, "A less qualified X over a more qualified Y......" is in quota systems. Systems in which the tie goes to the minority may be seen as "preferential", but they do not involve any less qualified person getting a job over a more qualified person.
yes, they do involve less qualified people getting a job. And it happens. See my post above. This form of 'preference' is ending - but it has been going on for decades. It has nothing to do with 'ties' (as if that were so common anyway) And even if it did - it is still not a fair way to base a decision - period.


Why? Do you think that being of a different ethnicity, and most likely having been treated differently as a result, doesn't bring a diverse viewpoint to the table?
I made no statement supporting nor denying this. Why do you presume I did? Dealing with projection issues? That conversation is not directly relevant to the topic of this thread. It is a highly subjective and broad topic which could easily support it's own thread. I would encourage you to start one.


If you are going to make this claim, you need to back it up. I have seen no system in which this is true actually get through a legal challenge. The closest was a law school somewhere, but it wasn't an example of less qualified students getting in - it was simply a more obvious emphasis on diverse viewpoints over specific academic measures.
Here is an essay on that very topic;
www.d.umn.edu/equaloo/pdf/affirm_action.pdf
For example, how much emphasis ought to be placed on an individual’s racial or ethnic background, or on socioeconomic disadvantage alone? A useful and comprehensive definition is this: Affirmative action is a designed effort to increase the representation of minorities and women in a role in which they have been under-represented, and in which they may receive a variable measure of preference by virtue of their race or gender. Obviously, a key question begged is: Exactly how much preference ought “protected class” members receive?

Now, most affirmative action programs contain mroe doublespeak than a used car salesman in plaid. Here is an example of one;
www.d.umn.edu/equaloo/pdf/affirm_action.pdf

QUESTION 3: What voluntary affirmative action programs are common in higher education? Widening admissions criteria to academic programs for women and minorities in areas where they are underrepresented; sometimes these programs have scholarships associated with them.
followed by this;
REALITY: No affirmative action plan calls on an institution to lower its standards for the hiring or advancement of employee.

THAT is called doublespeak.


In the AA, I am talking about, it would be impossible for someone to "owe their job" to AA. They would owe their job only to their own merit. Thus, none of these things would make any more sense than "I owe my job to Green Jello" stickers.
If that is the case then AA is completely unnecessary - like green Jello.R

And how many unskilled jobs are there in rural areas? How much public transportation is there? How much low-cost housing is there?
THeres a helluva lot more laws to more, for one example. Agriculture is anothere. There is plenty.

Even if the average cost of living is higher in the cities, for the truly poor, rural living is generally not much of an option. [.quote]
because... umm. yes.. because...

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
That's quite a naive viewpoint. What about those who can't get enough money to move? Those who have to live within walking distance of their jobs (unskilled labor, generally) because they cannot afford a car and public transportation isn't available/useful? If you want to give up everything and *hope* for the possibility of stability elsewhere, you could throw all caution to the wind and hope for it. But if you are at least surviving in one place -and barely that - would you put your family through the possibility of going even deeper into poverty on the off-chance that you *might* be able to find low-cost housing and a job elsewhere?
That is exactly what illegal immigrants do - daily. It is, by your own words, at least close to what your parents did. If you do the same thing you've always done you'll always get the same results. All the rest is nothing but excuses for inertia.



I don't have that at the moment, but I know that it has been true in my experience. I also know that I hear reports all the time on how poorly students do in inner-city schools.
My expectation is that the schools with higher average funding will have higher average scores, but the HIGHEST funded schools will NOT have the highest scores, and likely the lowest funded schools will not have scores which correlate directly either - meaning there are other dynamics at work.

Funny that. Affirmative action and preferential treatment seemed to work well enough for the 400 years that it prefered white males...
and it was just as fair then too.

But that's the thing, you can't make that comparison. Affirmitive action describes a pretty damn narrow set of hiring/acceptance practices. White male privaledge is so far above and beyond such practices that it sometimes boggles my mind.
Is that sarcasm or do you really mean it? IF you mean it then share some examples of 'white male priviledge'.

Check out Gratz v. Bollinger. That is just one example of why those in the majority hate affirimative action. Afterall, it seems like AA was started by a bunch of self hating white people. While you are at it, read this: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html.
Gratz v. Bollinger had a valid point.

That link is the sadded crock of apologetic crap I ever saw. Most of it is nothing at all about priviledge " I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me" WTF is that? A fucking insult to me, my family and all people of any race - not a priviledge. Anyone who would believe that shit has got serious self-esteem issues - among other things.

Thanks for posting it though. It pretty much demonstrates the fallacy of what some consider 'whitre male priviledge' is.