|
Admissions based on racial preference is stupid. It is clearly racism.
If the idea of allowing more minorities is to make up for economic injustices, why not make economic preferences instead? So instead of "we'll let more students of X minority in", make it "we'll let more students in X income bracket in".
If the idea is that racially diverse environments make for superior learning conditions, how then can the intellectual success of foreign nations with more homogeneous populations be explained?
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
|
As I'm Asian, and white, and trying to get into Utexas,
I hate affirmative action with a burning passion.
|
On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
|
On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
|
Affirmative action is incredibly racist. Merit is the only thing that should ever be judged in situations like this. I find it incredibly offensive that people of different skin color than me get scholarships to go to school just because of their skin, while I have to pay out my ass to go (I'm white). I would like to see scholarships and admittance go solely to people with merit. I don't see how it can be balanced in any other way. I can't believe policies like this even exist in modern society.
|
On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
|
On November 02 2012 07:11 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA. I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
|
On November 02 2012 07:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:11 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA. I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion. If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because racial discrimination was a factor at the time when affirmative action in this context was relevant, racial discrimination created unfair socioeconomic background problems with in the population and affirmative action was meant to combat that. Now people are arguing that it's no longer applicable,
|
On November 02 2012 07:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world. I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason. And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue because that's what the discourse has been reduced to in the US.
|
On November 02 2012 07:25 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:18 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 07:11 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA. I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion. If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue? Because racial discrimination was a factor at the time when affirmative action in this context was relevant, racial discrimination created unfair socioeconomic background problems with in the population and affirmative action was meant to combat that. Now people are arguing that it's no longer applicable,
Yes.
On November 02 2012 07:28 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:24 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world. I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason. And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges. Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue because that's what the discourse has been reduced to in the US.
I'm sorry but that's just how it is in the US, when affirmative action is brought up its about race. It might be more appropriate to title the thread US Supreme Court to Rule On Affirmative Action based on Race.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:28 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:24 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world. I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason. And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges. Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue.
How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
|
Affirmative Action was an interesting social tool to tinker with. It was a useful tool for forcing integration in education and the workplace amongst entities that resisted it. However, we have moved past this as a society. It is now clearly just perpetuating racism.
Quite frankly, we've moved past the point where AA is going to be of significant use. It's time to do away with it. If you read Justice Thomas' opinion on this matter, that pretty much sums up my feelings towards AA. You can't use racism to vanquish racism. It's like fighting fire with fire.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
thomas would have said that if this was 1970. the dude is hostile to policy considerations in law and that's a particular kind of detached ideology that only sustains itself through callous adherence to legal mythology.
one involves a direct rejection of a right, while the other has possible consequence upon others. these are rather different in law
|
On November 02 2012 07:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:11 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA. I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion. If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. The broader meaning is that you're helping these people and cultural outlooks elevate themselves. You're decrying this as "racist," but race goes hand in hand with cultural development and socioeconomic condition in contemporary U.S.A. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
|
On November 02 2012 07:33 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:28 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:24 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world. I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason. And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges. Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue. How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
I don't understand your argument, the incentive to advantage the least advantaged is consistent with almost every ethics / morality system, it's the basis of charity, altruism, and socialist democracy. If there is an existing discrimination based on a specific trait, then obviously the most effective way to combat that is to use that trait to distinguish the party that will receive the help. Yes absolutely it's discriminating, that's why the degree and implementation is extremely important so that you only offset a problem and discontinue it after equal playing fields have been reached. Is it discriminating to help and be sympathetic to the Jewish people and only the Jewish people post WWII? Absolutely it was unfair, and arguably it's created many problems due to the scope of leeway that they were given, which is why continuous change and updating to affirmative action is so important.
The problem with the American legal system is that precedence has such a big impact on decision making that existing examples are just taken for granted to enforce some notion of fairness that should be determined to the specific case. I don't have an issue with the clauses of admission specific to American university being removed, but I know that if this gets overturned then it will be used to overturn similar cases for other affirmative actions, it's just stupid.
|
On November 02 2012 07:34 BluePanther wrote:
Affirmative Action was an interesting social tool to tinker with. It was a useful tool for forcing integration in education and the workplace amongst entities that resisted it. However, we have moved past this as a society. It is now clearly just perpetuating racism.
Quite frankly, we've moved past the point where AA is going to be of significant use. It's time to do away with it. If you read Justice Thomas' opinion on this matter, that pretty much sums up my feelings towards AA. You can't use racism to vanquish racism. It's like fighting fire with fire.
While I do not support Affirmative Action, ironically, you CAN and DO fight fire with fire... and it works!
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. The broader meaning is that you're helping these people and cultural outlooks elevate themselves. You're decrying this as "racist," but race is a good yardstick for cultural development and socioeconomic condition. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
You assume that AA helps elevate the cultural outlooks of a people and helps their "cultural development." Why should this be? If a culture denounces education, are we able to change it just through AA? I think that the current experience with AA has shown no. Furthermore, why should the government aim to change the culture of a people just because it places them at a disadvantage? Is it really the government's function to bend, or destroy cultures so we can say that they're developing culturally? Essentially, you argue that we should change a culture to make it appreciate education. I argue that it cannot be done, and if it can, we have no obligation to see it done.
And perhaps this is biased, but I'm not decrying my society as racist because race has had no effect on the Asians going from a poor, discriminated against group into a superminority where they are discriminated against. I do not believe it was AA that caused Asians to flood into top college institutions. It was their own work ethic and culture which they cultivated on their own, AA or not. I ask why one group, who has pulled itself up due to its own culture of hard work and education, has to be discriminated against while another group, who has been in the same position and even favored for a while, cannot pull themselves up as a group and why AA still favors them.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:40 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:33 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:28 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:24 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:15 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:13 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:10 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:07 Myles wrote:On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either. So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population. There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference. Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world. I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason. And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges. Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue. How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case? I don't understand your argument, the incentive to advantage the least advantaged is consistent with almost every ethics / morality system, it's the basis of charity, altruism, and socialist democracy. If there is an existing discrimination based on a specific trait, then obviously the most effective way to combat that is to use that trait to distinguish the party that will receive the help. Yes absolutely it's discriminating, that's why the degree and implementation is extremely important so that you only offset a problem and discontinue it after equal playing fields have been reached. The problem with the American legal system is that precedence has such a big impact on decision making that existing examples are just taken for granted to enforce some notion of fairness that should be determined to the specific case. I don't have an issue with the clauses of admission specific to American university being removed, but I know that if this gets overturned then it will be used to overturn similar cases for other affirmative actions, it's just stupid.
Charity and altruism are not something to be legally enforced, imo, as it ceases being charity and altruism. And at this point I guess we're better off stopping since I believe it's wrong to discriminate even if it's for 'good' reasons, while you seem ok with it.
And I tend to agree the amount of weight precedence is given in the American legal system to probably too much, but at the same time changing it to allow judges to make more specific changes rather then just favor/overturn allows them to mold law even more than they already do, which has it's own problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
