Affirmative Action

[Desmond Hawkins]

If the goal is to reduce poverty, then help all poor people. Like Luiz said, wanting to help women and minorities in particular only shows a personal opinion of their inferiority. (or else you are one of them and are not acting out of moral struggle, but out of sel-interest)

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
If the goal is to reduce poverty, then help all poor people.

The goal is not to reduce poverty. The goal is to remove racial inequality.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Sarevok
this is a system that discriminates, rather than solve the problem. Id go postal if my 4.8 GPA was turned down while a 2.8 was accepted because of race.

This statement quoted is exactly logical and explains the situation precisely. The system is not valid rather it is vindictive and vengeful. "Teaching someone a lesson." <--Is a ridiculous way to try to solve a problem. The people harmed are often not at all racist. There is basically no way to avoid the charge that affirmative action is racial discrimination. Skin color should be irrelevant in the hiring process. If the government continues to desire it as a criteria for certain matters the problem will not be solved rather it may cause it to blister.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
See my previous post. The one that starts by
some stats. If providing education for all poor people is the way to correct the situation why isn't it done?

Because the education provided for the poor people is crappy, that's why. Give them quality education and your stats will vanquish.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni

I stand against racial discrimination and you dare calling me racist?

I said that IF you support giving handouts to people based on their skin colour you are a racist, and I'll say it again.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by WillJ
The goal is not to reduce poverty. The goal is to remove racial inequality.

Since all ethnicities are equally capable, by helping all poor people you are also removing racial inequality(since they should all be equally helped, regardless of skin colour)

 

[Zarn]

@Everyone: I couldn't care less about people's color. I admit, one of the first few things I think of when I see a black person or an Asian is that person is black/ Asian as they look different than the way I look (where as I wouldn't think about their color when I see a white/ hispanic person unless someone mentions something about origins or colors, and I really can't explain why). It's hard for me not to notice people of other races. That's the extent race goes with me. I just notice it, and it doesn't affect the way I feel about anyone. It's is what you do and say that gives me an idea of who you are. That's where alot of people are wrong in Affirmative Action. They are still basing everything on race, and they stop basing things on credibility. That is almost as bad as how the Klan sees things. The more comotion we make about race, the longer the issue will remain. Give it a rest!

@Europe: I would also like to add that some Europeans seem to have a misconception about race in the Untied States. Today, most don't judge one another on race on the personal levels. I'm not saying racism isn't there, I'm just saying you are making it look like race is everything. If there would be racist hiring or promotion, it is due to the fact that a white man was denied it due to gender and color and not a minority/ woman in which case Affirmative Action hurts fair play. No one made fun of me in high school (well two did but were then basically ignored by everyone else). I was actually fairly popular, as no one cares (exept the two who isolated themselves) about what races I am. I wonder, do some of you Europeans get this from our comedians, because they tend to make fun of everyone, here? The racists are a VERY vocal minority, and no one listens to them. This isn't the 1950's. It may be my location within the States (Northeast), but I never noticed much racism in other parts (and I've been all over the continental US), either.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by WillJ
The goal is not to reduce poverty. The goal is to remove racial inequality.

But the apparent "unjust" is the poverty of those peoples. Thus poverty is the target. If you are saying that they need "special" help, then you are putting people into castes.

@Zarn: Well put.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by luiz
Since all ethnicities are eqaully capable, by helping all poor people you are also removing racial inequality(since they should all be equally helped, regardless of skin colour)

That's what I say, and many minorites, whites, and people that don't know which catergory to belong to (people like me) agree that economically deprived people need the help not minorities.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by luiz
Since all ethnicities are eqaully capable, by helping all poor people you are also removing racial inequality(since they should all be equally helped, regardless of skin colour)

Sure, that might be how it should be done, but that's not how affirmative action works.

Originally posted by Sobieski II
But the apparent "unjust" is the poverty of those peoples. Thus poverty is the target.

But not poverty in general. Just poverty of people who aren't white men or Asians.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

But it shouldn't be targeted betterment, it should be betterment for ALL that need it. Not just people of a particular colour. All for the sake of padding an overall racial statistic, which in itself is just a simplified version of the human condition for those that will not admit that the world is more complicated than just black and white.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by WillJ
Sure, that might be how it should be done, but that's not how affirmative action works

And that's why AA sucks

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
- Some stats : White suburban schools have vastly more money than inner-city schools, whose students are often 90 to 100 percent children of color. That’s because almost half of school funding comes from local property taxes.
In New York state, the richest school district spent $38,572 per student in 1992. That’s seven times what the poorest district spent— $5,423. In Illinois, the ratio was 8 to 1. In Texas, per-student spending ranged from $3,098 to more than 10 times as much—$42,000.

White high school graduates are much more likely to go to college, and to finish college, than African Americans.
source

Two objections:

1. If $$ is the cause, then wouldn't basing AA is on income levels be much more direct, appropiate, and effective?

2. It's really not the money that matters. I've been to those crappy inner-city schools you spoke of, and it is rather obvious to everybody who attended those places that more money, better teachers, or smaller class sizes aren't going to change sh*t. The one factor (well, it's actually not the only factor, but it is certainly the most important factor) that kept the black/hispanic students there from achieving anything is that their attitude. It's a fair statement to say that the majority of them simply don't regard education that highly. People there wage spitball fights in class and real fights outside of class. Not one day goes by without somebody getting bruised somewhere.

And yes, about the money. Many of those schools actually do need a bt more money because their equipment costs tend to be larger because everything must be replaceable. Textbooks, rulers, any and all lab equipment, all must be replaceable. After almost every class session that those rulers are used, you can pretty much expect a third of them to either disintergrate completely or be otherwise unusable. Textbooks are usually lost by the end of the term (and if they are still there, it's probably unusable).

Since we are talking about money, I think I might as well tell you of a phenomenon that occurs a lot in the nyc subways: If you have ever used the nyc subway system, chances are that you have encountered various kinds of people soliciting money or otherwise attempting to sell candy at outrageous prices claiming to be raising money for something. One of the most common themes is black, inner-city schools kids selling candy to raise money for some school activity. If you examine closer, you will see that these activities are NEVER academic. In fact, I have never heard anything other than "[their] basketballl team". They certainly have their priorities.

 

[Syterion]

But not poverty in general. Just poverty of people who aren't white men or Asians

That's why AA is racist, and it's why AA should be need-based. Seems like you unwittingly supported my argument.

 

[Gogf]

People race or gender should be completely ignored in all decisions. In other words, affirmative action is both racist and sexist.

 

[student]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
- Some stats : White suburban schools have vastly more money than inner-city schools, whose students are often 90 to 100 percent children of color. That’s because almost half of school funding comes from local property taxes.
In New York state, the richest school district spent $38,572 per student in 1992. That’s seven times what the poorest district spent— $5,423. In Illinois, the ratio was 8 to 1. In Texas, per-student spending ranged from $3,098 to more than 10 times as much—$42,000.

White high school graduates are much more likely to go to college, and to finish college, than African Americans.
source

First, I wish you'd address the hypothetical situation in post 49, I think that makes a good point and I'd like to hear your response as to how a "non-colorblind" policy is more conductive to racial equality.

Secondly, to address your first paragraph, what rule is it that says that all poor people are minorities? There ARE poor white people, and there ARE rich black people. Why can't help be given on the basis of socio-economic status as opposed to the color of their skin.

According to affirmative action a white poor kid should not get admitted to college over a black rich kid, even if his credentials are higher. However, a black poor kid SHOULD get admitted over a white rich kid, again even if the white kid's credentials are higher. How is that not racist!?

MLK's speech didn't say "I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they WILL be judged on the color of their skin, not the content of their character"

 

[Archer 007]

Against it, since I'm not a racist.

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by nihilistic

Since we are talking about money, I think I might as well tell you of a phenomenon that occurs a lot in the nyc subways: If you have ever used the nyc subway system, chances are that you have encountered various kinds of people soliciting money or otherwise attempting to sell candy at outrageous prices claiming to be raising money for something. One of the most common themes is black, inner-city schools kids selling candy to raise money for some school activity. If you examine closer, you will see that these activities are NEVER academic. In fact, I have never heard anything other than "[their] basketballl team". They certainly have their priorities.

My high school didn't even sell anything. They had us raise money to go to football camp by "sponsoring" us for a weight lift test. Basically, people would give us x amount for every pound we lifted.

I just paid my own way...

Also, they're not just in the subways now. Often they park themselves outside of banks and supermarkets. And not selling anything either. It seems selling stuff just gets too costly.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

student A has a 3.9 gpa and a 1400 on the SAT, and student B has a 3.0 gpa and a 1100 on the SAT. They went to the same highschool and took the same classes. You have one spot left at your college, you would naturally choose student A. What is racially injust about this?

Well, nothing, since you haven't mentionned yet if either student A or B is a minority

student B is black, student A is white. Now your choice will change because of that fact? I think you are being racially unjust here. You are saying that the black can't be expected to achieve like the white, because he is black and everyone knows blacks can't do as good as whites because of the color of their skin is black, so he should be admitted. How is this not racially unjust?

I'm not sure what gpa and SAT mean, since I don't live in the United States, but I will assume it means that student A has better marks that student B.
A is white and B is black, ok. Does it means that B will be automatically selected over A? You may get a certain advantage if you are part of a minority, but you are also advantaged if you come from a poor family, if you pratice certains sports, if you come from an underrepresented State or county and also if you are from the same state as the college. Admissions are not entirely and solely based on skin color.

 

[The Yankee]

GPA is Grade Point Average, basically the cumulative grade for a student....SAT is a standardized test, with 1600 being "perfect" but 1400 being exceptional as well.

 

[student]

I think it's appropriate for the purposes of the analogy to assume all other things are equal, you didn't really give a decisive answer.

Also, how would you respond to the last 3 paragraphs in post 75??