Affirmative Action

[BloodyPepperoni]

How long do you plan on using this system, I ask again. Why don't we all just give a bunch of cash to these people?

It's the first time you suggest giving them money.

And...there are non-white groups that don't get the benefits of the current AA system? And what about the white people that are just as disadvantaged as many others

It's about having a proportional reprsentation of the citizens of America. Under-representation of some minorities can be attributed to various reasons: students from families where few people have pursued higher education are less likely to perform in high school; children who come from communities where English is not regularly spoken face a large disadvantage in reading and writing; and students from school districts with lower funding tend to perform poorly on exams(and black schools are far from being over-funded). But we often forget these cases, eh? Ok, let's make 'fair' and representatives colleges, with 81% white students, 17% asians, 0,8% Blacks and 1,2% Latinos. It would be an accurate representation of the American society, isn't it? Oh and those numbers are not even exagerated, since minorities clearly do not do as well as whites & asians on tests.

 

[Zarn]

I don't believe you understand what we are saying. Whatever, I will not talk continually to a brick wall.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by Syterion

One more thing-I find it weird that you still think that AA is accpeted by a majority, yet obviously most people on these boards are Anti-AA. I know this isn't the greatest sample, but I think it makes the point.

Poll finds 80% support college diversity

As you said, this isn't probably the best sample.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by Zarn
Whatever, I will not talk continually to a brick wall.

Reciprocal

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Poll finds 80% support college diversity

As you said, this isn't probably the best sample.

That info contradicts mine. It just goes to show how useful these poll are now. Besides, even yours says only have support racial AA. Now, I am done.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Me too

 

[luiz]

Another clear exemple of why AA is unfair.

Let's suppose I move to the US. Technically, I'll be considered a "Hispanic"(man, I hate this term!), and thus I'll be able to apply for AA handouts. However, I'm better-off then the average american(white, black or hispanic). Why the hell should I get a benefit simply because I'm from Latin-America? It makes no sense, and it would be completely unfair. And I'm sure many well-off blacks, hispanics and etc are getting AA handouts.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
AA is an attempt to correct this situation. Why don't you whine against lack of funding rather that whining against AA?

I whine about both.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Given the fact that blacks have a worse education than whites and therefore have less chances of being admitted, doing nothing should be considered as discrimination, not helping them.

So are you going to bother to explain how AA is not discrimination, or just continue pointing out ways in which not having it would be discrimination? I'm not (necessarily) saying AA is the "bad" option. I'm just saying it's discriminatory. That's all.

Oh, and I forgot to mention this before:

It's my opinion that ideally race should not matter at all. I'm sure most people, including you, agree with me, right? Well, then, consider this: racial inequality is unjust only when it's the result of one or more races actively discriminating against one or more other races. Let's pretend that black people can't get jobs at all, because the white people in charge hate blacks. That's a problem, right? Of course. Now let's pretend that black people can't get jobs at all, because all blacks are lazy-asses and wouldn't be good at these jobs. Perfectly just, right? So what's my point? This:

Assuming we're talking about a world where just about everyone has an opportunity for success (discounting genetic differences), which is of course something we should strive for, the only counter to racial inequality that should be in place is an agency or something similar making sure employers, etc. don't discriminate based on race. NOT making sure these employers, etc. accept certain numbers of certain collective groups.

If your reasoning is different, please explain.

 

[The Yankee]

Supporting diversity doesn't necessarily mean supporting Affirmative Action.

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
It's the first time you suggest giving them money.

Only because you kept talking about how all minorities are at an economic disadvantage...so maybe you would support just handing them cash.

It's about having a proportional reprsentation of the citizens of America. Under-representation of some minorities can be attributed to various reasons: students from families where few people have pursued higher education are less likely to perform in high school; children who come from communities where English is not regularly spoken face a large disadvantage in reading and writing; and students from school districts with lower funding tend to perform poorly on exams(and black schools are far from being over-funded). But we often forget these cases, eh? Ok, let's make 'fair' and representatives colleges, with 81% white students, 17% asians, 0,8% Blacks and 1,2% Latinos. It would be an accurate representation of the American society, isn't it? Oh and those numbers are not even exagerated, since minorities clearly do not do as well as whites & asians on tests.

I think your numbers are off on the percentages of ethnic groups. But anyway...you're also looking at this from a national level. What if there is a local college, say, in the Midwest, and the surrounding area is 98% white (for argument's sake). Would you "import" other races just to fill some quotas? And what would you do with those who are locked out? "Export" them to some inner cities?

Anyway, if they're so disadvantaged, why not have an economic AA...which will pick up a lot of minorities but also the white people that are forgotten at the bottom. And improving the schools themselves so that English can be taught and the students can work their way up? It's not always about race. What if a child comes here only knowing Russian? You'd leave him/her behind because of their skin tone. It's not dark enough.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Incidentally to this thread, the three black girls on American Idol were all in the bottom three tonight, and the only white guy on the show [John Stevens, who is the worst singer and should have gone weeks ago] is still comfortably in the top 4.

Too many people from you-know-where voting, I guess.

 

[student]

I tend to agree with Zarn, it's like talking to a brickwall!

Again bloodypepperoni, I think many anti-aa people would find your arguement easier to understand if you would just answer these three questions, without avoiding them directly or giving them the run around or making the same arguments. I really do want to understand your viewpoint, I'd just like answers to my main questions. By answer, I don't mean posting studies about how blacks are poorer on average or whatever, I mean answering each question as it is asked.

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race? Unless you believe that minorities are the ONLY possible group that can be poor.


Why do you take the racist assumption that blacks and indians and other non-whites are the only races that can be poor?



Why should a rich black (or other minority) person from a good school get admitted over a poor white person from a poor school who is more qualified just because of their race?

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by student
I tend to agree with Zarn, it's like talking to a brickwall!

Again bloodypepperoni, I think many anti-aa people would find your arguement easier to understand if you would just answer these three questions, without avoiding them directly or giving them the run around or making the same arguments. I really do want to understand your viewpoint, I'd just like answers to my main questions. By answer, I don't mean posting studies about how blacks are poorer on average or whatever, I mean answering each question as it is asked.

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race? Unless you believe that minorities are the ONLY possible group that can be poor.

Certainly not. As I always said, I'm talking about the fact that the majority of them in general are poorer. Does AA create injustices? Yes, I assume. I am a firm believer in an universal educationnal system, free for everyone which delivers high quality teaching regardless of socioeconomic status. But again, is it the case right now in United States? Is it the case when some schools -(mostly schools attented by minorities, but again, the majority of them, not all)- when some schools have 10 times less money than others? As I said to WillJ, you should complain against the lack of funding in public education. To me, AA is a (cheaper) solution against this. Of course, it's far from being the perfect solution, but I think it would be worse to do nothing.

 

[The Yankee]

It still doesn't answer the questions regarding poor areas and poor schools attended by mostly whites. And also, those schools with mostly minorities do have some white people in there. Should they be left behind?

At least an economic AA with regards to education only (I don't think AA should be in the workforce) has less injustices than the program as it stands today.

 

[Syterion]

Does AA create injustices? Yes, I assume.

Exactly why it is wrong. There are much better solutions(AA that is need based) that wouldn't be hard to put into effect. So why don't we do it? I'll be honest here-

I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

[Civvin]

If you want to have some kind of 'social' program that levels the playing field by giving certain people a 'preference' for jobs, college aid, etc. fine but it should be based on economic factors, not racial ones.

Just as an example, when I was growing up a good friend of mine was black and his family probably made twice the money that mine did, in fact he lived in a very nice neighborhood with a number of upwardly mobile black families, many college educated.

Yet if he and I were to apply for the same job or something he would have the advantage, all other things being equal.

Racial equality in America isn't perfect but it has gotten better and preferences based on race are unfair in many cases. Do away with it or change it so that economic factors are the basis, although obviously this is still 'socialist' or 'discriminatory' and will be opposed by certain elements.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Incidentally to this thread, the three black girls on American Idol were all in the bottom three tonight, and the only white guy on the show [John Stevens, who is the worst singer and should have gone weeks ago] is still comfortably in the top 4.

Too many people from you-know-where voting, I guess.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Syterion
Exactly why it is wrong. There are much better solutions(AA that is need based) that wouldn't be hard to put into effect. So why don't we do it? I'll be honest here-

I HAVE NO IDEA.

I can tell you why. Republicans would oppose the idea of any sort of handout, and Democrats are pandering for African-American votes.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Archer 007
I can tell you why. Republicans would oppose the idea of any sort of handout, and Democrats are pandering for African-American votes.

You may be surprised of what Republicans (the voters) think. Republicans here see an economic AA as equal opportunity, not socialism. Republicans here also value education more than most other Republicans (yet school budgets are horrible here, since Republicans don't have much power in New Jersey), so it may be that Republicans here can't speak for the majority.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

I think your numbers are off on the percentages of ethnic groups. But anyway...you're also looking at this from a national level. What if there is a local college, say, in the Midwest, and the surrounding area is 98% white (for argument's sake). Would you "import" other races just to fill some quotas? And what would you do with those who are locked out? "Export" them to some inner cities?

AA and area representation are actually combined, no? (correct me if i'm wrong) About your example, in the Midwest, if the surrounding area is 98% white, then let the students be 98% white. However, let's say (for argument's sake) a college in California, where the surrounding area is 45% white, 30% black and 25% latino. If, without AA, the college ends up admitting 85% white students, 8% black students and 7% latino, again, would the area be accurately representated?

Anyway, if they're so disadvantaged, why not have an economic AA...which will pick up a lot of minorities but also the white people that are forgotten at the bottom. And improving the schools themselves so that English can be taught and the students can work their way up? It's not always about race. What if a child comes here only knowing Russian? You'd leave him/her behind because of their skin tone. It's not dark enough.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning: improve schools ASAP!

originally posted by me {...}and students from school districts with lower funding tend to perform poorly on exams

I said that schools attended by minorities were in general less funded. Yes, it creates unfair situations, like that case that you don't stop pointing out : black rich kid vs poor white kid. But given the current situation, I think it is less worse doing with AA that doing nothing at all.