|
where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group.
i lived in missouri for 4 years. my sister and i were the only two asians in our entire school. i know what racism feels like. my high school was 90%+ white, too and i got my fair share of "ching chong". drop the condescending tone ok?
and i was referring to on-campus, not out in the community. i live in downtown LA, i think i know that racism is prevalent in the "real world"
I was referring to off-campus for what it's worth. But that's kind of the point, you shouldn't only have oases of good. And campuses show how education can help.
As for all this principles (i.e. deontology)/utilitarian argument, let's recognize that in 99.9% of cases, it's never clear cut which philosophy we should follow. That should be obvious (and is for most here).
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread...
|
losingid8 wrote what i would have, but in a cleaner and better way
|
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK.
|
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
|
Anyone [losingid8] who suggests reverse discrimination is ok, in a sense, as a form of revenge, is fucking disgusting, and probably a little racist themselves.
Peace!
|
On February 01 2009 03:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Anyone [losingid8] who suggests reverse discrimination is ok, in a sense, as a form of revenge, is fucking disgusting, and probably a little racist themselves.
Peace!
Anyone who replies to logical arguments by calling people disgusting is a dumbass.
BTW, it's good to know you're not at all racist.
|
On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting.
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people.
|
On February 01 2009 02:29 Caller wrote:
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK.
First off, I want to point out for the 23498324th time that a socio-economic based system is not mutually exclusive with AA. Just because such a system has merits does not mean we should not do AA, because we can enact both policies at the same time. AA has benefits of its own, specifically, it helps improve race relations. The most common argument against this is that it actually hurts race relations, but I've already addressed this point in my previous post.
However, you do make a good point about old school networks. If that is the case, then it may be that AA is not a good idea. But in most schools, I would argue that such networks have little influence on the admissions process, public universities in particular.
I'd really like to see somebody who insists that AA hurts race relations reply to my argument that it only generates resentment towards the institution, not the individuals who benefit. I just don't see how that argument stands under scrutiny.
The other really good argument against AA is meritocracy, which like ONE person has brought up. This is probably the best argument against AA, and one I'm not so confident isn't true. Still, yutgoyun does a good job of addressing it.
On February 01 2009 01:10 yutgoyun wrote:
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread...
Ultimately, you have to weigh the benefits of AA vs its cost to efficiency. This is hard to do, but I'm willing to try out AA for another generation to see what effects it's had before we decide whether it's valuable.
|
On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people.
Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit?
|
On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit?
I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise.
|
On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit.
It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications.
The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing.
At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option.
|
On February 01 2009 04:20 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit? I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise.
Damn, ahara really doesn't give a shit about my opinion now because it doesn't agree with his! 
|
On February 01 2009 04:11 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 02:29 Caller wrote:
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK. First off, I want to point out for the 23498324th time that a socio-economic based system is not mutually exclusive with AA. Just because such a system has merits does not mean we should not do AA, because we can enact both policies at the same time. AA has benefits of its own, specifically, it helps improve race relations. The most common argument against this is that it actually hurts race relations, but I've already addressed this point in my previous post. However, you do make a good point about old school networks. If that is the case, then it may be that AA is not a good idea. But in most schools, I would argue that such networks have little influence on the admissions process, public universities in particular. I'd really like to see somebody who insists that AA hurts race relations reply to my argument that it only generates resentment towards the institution, not the individuals who benefit. I just don't see how that argument stands under scrutiny. The other really good argument against AA is meritocracy, which like ONE person has brought up. This is probably the best argument against AA, and one I'm not so confident isn't true. Still, yutgoyun does a good job of addressing it. Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 01:10 yutgoyun wrote:
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread... Ultimately, you have to weigh the benefits of AA vs its cost to efficiency. This is hard to do, but I'm willing to try out AA for another generation to see what effects it's had before we decide whether it's valuable.
Although socioeconomic and racial AA may not be mutually exclusive, one would say that if one is simply going to have both kinds of affirmative action, somebody is going to get squeezed out even more. In this case, with both kinds of AA, middle-class and upper-class (non-alumni/old school) Asians and Caucasians will be hit disproportionately hard and have even more applicants compete for a tinier pool.
The argument that affirmative action causes racial tensions I'm not so sure is a strong argument. However, I do know that affirmative action has led both to an increase in drop out rates and transfers of minority students (ostensibly because they cannot deal with the work load) as well as denigration of minority students who deserve to get in, often with people dismissing their admission as "affirmative action."
The meritocracy agreement I also agree is flawed in the sense that those with better parenting and resources have a leg up on other persons. But at the same time, much of the meritocracy issue is important by the individual. Individuals whom stand out of their environment, for instance, regardless of race. For instance, the valedictorian of a poorer school would be comparable to the valedictorian of a richer private school, as the fact that they have done well in their environment would suggest that they are doing well in their respective environments. The New York City Public School System is a good example of this: based on a test one takes, admission to the top public schools, ala Stuyversant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, et. al. But a large majority of those in the top schools are lower class Asians. The fact that they were still able to devote their resources to cram school and the like suggests that it doesn't require abundant resources for academic success.
At the same time, however, a lot of university admissions depend on connections, standardized tests, and the like, all of which do depend on monetary income. For instance, there are test preparation courses, interviews with admissions officers, alumni meetings, etc. etc. etc. These institutional uses are perhaps flawed. But at the same time, one could argue that even if one is filthy rich and received all the preparation one could possibly afford as a result, that if he/she did not make proper use of it they would not succeed. It is thus up to the individual how he/she wants to use whatever resources that he/she has, and admissions would ideally be judged to this standard.
|
Ahara, look at the responses. No one is saying "Damn the system!" They're saying "Damn the guy that got in over me." While that may not be perfectly logical, it is what happens. So, because of the way people ACTUALLY react, it HURTS race relations. And there is absolutely no reason at all that a privileged minority should get something over anyone because he is a minority. Look at the Obama example. How is it fair to anyone that his daughters would get even more special treatment because of their race? They're already going to get loads of special treatment because they're the president's kids (or ex-president depending on what age they are, and will be when applying for jobs/schools), and because they have loads of money. Why throw another benefit towards them? There is no need to try and heal things up with people who already have enough, because it's NOT HELPING RACE RELATIONS. If it were, people would not be replying in the manner in which they are replying. You have a valid point that the hatred, and disgust is being put on the wrong people, but that really doesn't matter, because no one is going to change their views on it. Besides that, the socio-economical will generally favor minorities anyway, because it's generally minorities that are poor, but it won't disqualify a poor white or Asian because they're white or Asian. There's no need to give to those who already have.
I disagree with any affirmative action, personally, because I don't think it's all that helpful (and given the things that Caller is talking about with increased drop-out rates, it would seem that I'm right, because it doesn't appear to be helping at all).
What I am for is something like the Rooney rule in the NFL (for those who don't know, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers made it a priority to give minority candidates a chance to become coaches on his team, and while it's not an actual rule of the NFL, it's used by almost every team). What that does is gives individuals opportunities they may not have had otherwise.
The other thing that I am for is making inner-city schools better. I don't know how to achieve that (if I did, I wouldn't be on this forum, I'm sure), but doing that will also help to alleviate the problems we currently face with discrimination, because people will be given an equal opportunity to succeed, which I (and I imagine almost everyone else in the world) have no problem with. What I have a problem with is things being decided on something other than qualifications. And again, that disgust passes right over the people administering the programs, and goes right to the people receiving the benefits (as shown by the responses here, which you are ignoring, for some reason. And by that, I mean that you're ignoring the clear signs of what I'm saying happens, and saying that it should go to the administration, even though that's clearly not what's actually happening).
|
On February 01 2009 04:46 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:20 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit? I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise. Damn, ahara really doesn't give a shit about my opinion now because it doesn't agree with his!
ya i guess that's how it is. why don't you post more about it.
|
AA is partially reasonable but unexcusable for a society such as this. Yes, racism still exists in America. But racism works in many directions, you'd be surprised how much more racism exists for Hispanics and Asians while racism against Blacks have decreased compared to 10 years ago,, especially in grade school nowadays. Blacks have already gotten enough special treatment and sympathy for the suffering they faced many many decades ago. (Heard of Black TV channels? Black colleges? )
The truth is, Affirmative Action DOES take skin color into consideration and that is a big no no, you need to look at individual's skills. Look at the Europeans, they're very well off in America because they can easily adjust and work here. Look at the Asians, they're decently well off too because they push themselves through immense education and work hard. Look at Hispanics, even though they have low education, they're one of the hardest working group of people I know, because they will put themselves through those hard labor jobs. Look at the Jews, their people have gotten massacred and they don't whine about racism and demanding sympathy. What do Blacks do? They ask for everything, some are successful but the majority of them live in poverty.
ahrara's point that although AA is harmful, but overall good to recover the backlashes of current racism does not work The reason being that racism against other races are there but they don't reap the benefits like Blacks. The second point being double negatives does not produce a positive. AA is harmful period. The only people who really benefit from it are Blacks and we've already given them enough, even a president this time.
|
IM BLACK GIVE ME SPECIAL TREATMENT
|
lol in Canada it's infinitely worse, we have actual race and gender quotas with respect to government jobs, and worst of all a travesty of a court called the Humans Right Tribunal which basically nods its head sympathetically and condemns, with legal powers, the opponents of any minority which comes before it. There are a ton of stories about people who are incredibly incompetent at their jobs but can't be fired because the Human Rights Tribunal automatically sides with any complaint given to them by a minority.
|
Affirmative action was created to prevent racism and discrimination, IMO it actually causes it to a certain degree.
|
On February 01 2009 04:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit. It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications. The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing. At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option.
it is a communistic/socialistic idea/motion but the capitalist idiots use it as a tool to gain more capital.
Why you callin me names?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
