Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > The equality and affirmative action challenge. Prove me wrong.

The equality and affirmative action challenge. Prove me wrong. (Page 3)
Thread Tools
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:11 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


human beings:

80% nurture, 20% nature (genetic PREDESPOSITION). this is according to most cultural anthropologists. that's why racism (among many other reasons) is a total load of crap, and conservative ideology bunk.
Italics added.

I believe that the quote above about "when you're a hammer" applies here. For this one you're better off asking neuroscience, and I don't know what answer they give, to be honest.

Also, the discussion of nature vs. nurture was, at least intended, as in general. I know that racism isn't something people are born with. As a side note, though, people can be born with a pre-disposition to fear the different, the unknown. Do you know how much racism the Irish were subjected to in the 19th century? The only reason the skin color racism has stuck around so long is because it is "obvious" what race someone belongs to (I provided a link above that debunks this myth, if you were paying attention).

deek, you use exclamation points, and all caps words too much. It makes you sound like an unthinking zealot...

Do you suppose if we locked Spliff and deek in a room together, they would explode, or would they find commonality in their unthinkingness and start to get along? Interesting possible experiment... (he says with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek)
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:15 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Some people take an ethical position that it can never be justified and that the only morally defensible position is strict racial neutrality. Others (I suspect you) argue that not assuming that people in racial minorities are disadvantaged is itself taking a non-neutral position that harms them. I think that either position is defensible and should be taken seriously. Neither should be dismissed with too-convenient assumptions about bad motives.
Unfortunately, "racial neutrality" is not the status quo. So basing programs on that ideal are unrealistic, and presumes that merely treating the situation as if it were racially neutral will somehow magically make it racially neutral.
Society is not a tabula rasa control group, there are dynamics already in place. Some may argue those dynamics should be completely ignored, but if indeed they are ignored, they will simply flourish in their present state because they are being tacitly approved by not being addressed.


This is not to say I'm for or against affirmative action, but I find the concept of "racial neutrality" as an argument against it is merely a tool of convenience.

You can consider almost anything a discriminitory practice, against any group, if you try hard enough, but saying the majority that has the most access to education is discriminated against by affirmative action is trying way too hard.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Some people take an ethical position that it can never be justified and that the only morally defensible position is strict racial neutrality. Others (I suspect you) argue that not assuming that people in racial minorities are disadvantaged is itself taking a non-neutral position that harms them.
but that's exactly my point. THERE IS NO NEUTRAL! why? because history MATTERS!

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:49 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
For this one you're better off asking neuroscience, and I don't know what answer they give, to be honest.
oh, no. and to tell you the truth, they'd probably give you the same answer.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

As a side note, though, people can be born with a pre-disposition to fear the different, the unknown.
oh sure. but what does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Do you know how much racism the Irish were subjected to in the 19th century? The only reason the skin color racism has stuck around so long is because it is "obvious" what race someone belongs to (I provided a link above that debunks this myth, if you were paying attention).
i am not sure what point you are trying to make here, but in my opinion there really isn't anything like race. the concept is inherently flawed, and historically only served the purpose to "box" others in and give onesself a solid identity vis-a-vis the "other".

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

deek, you use exclamation points, and all caps words too much. It makes you sound like an unthinking zealot...
sorry. would it help if i used bold and italicsa lot?

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Do you suppose if we locked Spliff and deek in a room together, they would explode, or would they find commonality in their unthinkingness and start to get along?
you're funny. i dunno, but it really does seem like our thinking is diametrically opposed. i don't have any problem with that. afaic people can believe whatever they want, as long as they are not in the position of policy making.

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Unfortunately, "racial neutrality" is not the status quo. So basing programs on that ideal are unrealistic, and presumes that merely treating the situation as if it were racially neutral will somehow magically make it racially neutral.
Yes, as I said, this is one very reasonable side of the debate.

The problem with it is it conflicts with what has historically been the most powerful argument in favor of racial equality in the US. Namely, that any form of racial discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and more fundamentally, the opening words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these Thuths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

That's a problem that proponants of affirmative action should address. How do you use race as a proxy for individual traits without violating these basic principles?

I don't think they really can be squared because affirmative action seeks to ensure particular outcomes. This puts it into conflict with one of the most dominant American political traditions - that "equality" means equal opportunity as a matter of formal process, not outcomes.

This bias in American political tradition is one of the primary reasons why Affirmative Action has such a hard time gaining support. In order to ensure equal outcome, you have to manipulate people and processes in a way that many find contrary to American individualist traditions. Almost every affirmative action program, for example, has necessarily involved some soft quota system. How else could an outcome be determined if not by measuring results? But the fact that supporters of affirmative action seem to go to such lengths to disguise and deny this basic reality just indicates the inconsistency between ensuring equal results, and the dominant results-indifferent traditions of American society.

Again, this isn't necessarily an argument about the desirability of affirmative action, so much as it is a call to be honest in defending it.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 19, 2002 at 11:17 AM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


but that's exactly my point. THERE IS NO NEUTRAL! why? because history MATTERS!
Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to point out that there is another point of view out there that is equally ethically grounded.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:13 AM
 
<Liberal 1> Hey we need to find a way to make minorities equal, and stop this racial bickering. People need to stop seperating people by race. The more we seperate ourselves, the more people will have racial hatred!

<Liberal 2> Hey I know! How about we make it so a minority can get a job over a non-minority just because of their skin color! That will make everyone equal, and not bring animosty to people losing jobs to another person just because they have a different color of skin. See how this plan will bring equality, and lesson ratial hatred?


YAY!
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:18 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, as I said, this is one very reasonable side of the debate.

The problem with it is it conflicts with what has historically been the most powerful argument in favor of racial equality in the US. Namely, that any form of racial discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and more fundamentally, the opening words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these Thuths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

That's a problem that proponants of affirmative action should address. How do you use race as a proxy for individual traits without violating these basic principles?

I don't think they really can be squared because affirmative action seeks to ensure particular outcomes. This puts it into conflict with one of the most the dominant American political traditions - that "equality" means equal opportunity as a matter of formal process, not outcomes.

This bias in American political tradition is one of the primary reasons why Affirmative Action has such a hard time gaining support. In order to ensure equal outcome, you have to manipulate people and processes in a way that many find contrary to American individualist traditions. Almost every affirmative action program, for example, has necessarily involved some soft quota system. How else could an outcome be determined if not by measuring results? But the fact that supporters of affirmative action seem to go to such lengths to disguise and deny this basic fact just indicates the inconsistency between ensuring equal results, and the dominant traditions of American society.

Again, this isn't necessarily an argument about the desirability of affirmative action, so much as it is a call to be honest in defending it.
well, I don't think people are being dishonest when they defend it. I think, using Deekay as an example, that they are being honest that it is creating an opportunity where none would have existed previously or without intervention. That's being honest.
I think they are simply disagreeing with those on the other side as to whether this is the best means to acheive an end.
If the end result (as stated by both sides, as far as I can tell) is to reach a point where race is not a factor, then the only real disagreement is with method:

one side notes that at present race IS a negative factor, and therefore pushing the pendulum the opposite direction will create a more even equillibrium as the pendulum adjusts and swings back. It is viewed as a temporary calibration until the system itself becomes more even.

The other side sees the pendulum swinging the other way and saying it is not in equillibrium (and it isnt) but object thinking the pendulum is being permanently affixed in the other direction. To them, the means accomplishes an opposite extreme which is still not equitable.

I see it as the difference between seeing AA as a process that can be incrementally adjusted as needed to achieve balance, or seeing AA as a threat to the existing balance that will either be carved in stone or should be abolished altogether-- either or.

Unfortunately, what makes this a messier issue is that it involves
racism, something that we breathe in and out sometimes unaware of our own level of susceptibility to. Therefore, there will be some who object to AA on purely racially motivated grounds, and merely use fears about the pendulum swing as a convenient excuse for promoting institutional racism.
And, there will be some who want to use AA to compensate for hundreds of years of discrimination, whether the pendulum is effective overall longterm or not.

To the extent that I'm able, I will try to divorce myself from my own personal race inclinations and look instead on the pendulum itself:

1. stated goal is to accord opportunity to those who are denied it due to institutional racism. Does it achieve that?
--- YES, in a trickle-up way: in that as more minorities are given opportunity, it widens the gap of opportunity through example and actually making families that support more opportunity, etc, etc. success begets success.
--- NO, in that the core problems that bring about institutional racism are unaffected, and in fact to some degree become more galvanized against AA because it is perceived as a threat in and of itself. So, instead of strides being made to make institutions more open to minorities, the opposite effect, or at least a more polarizing effect is the unintentional byproduct.
     
ringo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:32 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem with it is it conflicts with what has historically been the most powerful argument in favor of racial equality in the US. Namely, that any form of racial discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the First Amendment, and more fundamentally, the opening words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these Thuths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
Agreed, this is a fundamental issue and a valid reason for many to question the merits of Affirmative Action.

I'll counter by saying that these historical protections were only enjoyed by white land owners at the time when the Constitution and Declaration came into existance. Even after the Civil War, Constitutional ammendments, and legal freedom, it took the civil rights movement of the 1960's for Blacks to start to overcome the discrimination and opression of the past. This period took place 30-40 years ago, barely a generation in the past.

Even today, especially among those who were raised in a pre-civil rights time, discrimination based on ethnicity is all too common.

Historicly, the United States has overstepped the bounds of our legal tradition to address specific problems. Consider The New Deal and the depression. The Federal government took many steps that are considered unconstitutional in order to achieve a desired result.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think they really can be squared because affirmative action seeks to ensure particular outcomes. This puts it into conflict with one of the most the dominant American political traditions - that "equality" means equal opportunity as a matter of formal process, not outcomes.
True, AA does seek particular outcome...that of equal opportunity. Just because the Declaration says "all men are created equal," doesn't mean that this goal has been achieved. I think the fundamental difference that people have on this issue is their idea of just how equal that opportunity is. I would argue that because of existing and historical prejudice and the resulting financial effects on the black community, that equal opportunity has not yet been accomplished.

Much of this nation's wealth and current economic dominance was gained because of forced labor. AA gives the descendants of this injustice a better chance to make their own way and seek the financial equality that was denied them because of the sins of the past. While it is true that we must each make our own way and are responsible for our own lives, how much of our opportunity is inherited? Did your parents help pay for college? Have you benefited from the wealth and experience of generations past? Again, I'm wandering into a class discussion instead of a race discussion, but consider the census results in my first post and that K-12 funding is based on local property taxes. Class and race are, for the moment, linked.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This bias in American political tradition is one of the primary reasons why Affirmative Action has such a hard time gaining support. In order to ensure equal outcome, you have to manipulate people and processes in a way that many find contrary to American individualist traditions.
Traditions like slavery? Traditions like Jim Crow laws? Traditions like separate drinking fountains? The traditions you speak of are idealogical traditions, not the real traditions that have been present in this country and continue to influence our society in many ways. Give it a few more generations, time for society to live up to the ideals that you support. Time for the old to die and the past to become history instead of memory. Only time can heal these wounds, but AA can and should be part of the salve that will restore our health.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
<Liberal 1> Hey we need to find a way to make minorities equal, and stop this racial bickering. People need to stop seperating people by race. The more we seperate ourselves, the more people will have racial hatred!

<Liberal 2> Hey I know! How about we make it so a minority can get a job over a non-minority just because of their skin color! That will make everyone equal, and not bring animosty to people losing jobs to another person just because they have a different color of skin. See how this plan will bring equality, and lesson ratial hatred?


YAY!
Oh! Goody! More division based on oversimplified terminology!! JUST what we needed!
For someone so sensitive to bias, you sure can sling it.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


well, I don't think people are being dishonest when they defend it. I think, using Deekay as an example, that they are being honest that it is creating an opportunity where none would have existed previously or without intervention. That's being honest.
I think they are simply disagreeing with those on the other side as to whether this is the best means to acheive an end.
If the end result (as stated by both sides, as far as I can tell) is to reach a point where race is not a factor, then the only real disagreement is with method:

one side notes that at present race IS a negative factor, and therefore pushing the pendulum the opposite direction will create a more even equillibrium as the pendulum adjusts and swings back. It is viewed as a temporary calibration until the system itself becomes more even.

The other side sees the pendulum swinging the other way and saying it is not in equillibrium (and it isnt) but object thinking the pendulum is being permanently affixed in the other direction. To them, the means accomplishes an opposite extreme which is still not equitable.

I see it as the difference between seeing AA as a process that can be incrementally adjusted as needed to achieve balance, or seeing AA as a threat to the existing balance that will either be carved in stone or should be abolished altogether-- either or.

Unfortunately, what makes this a messier issue is that it involves
racism, something that we breathe in and out sometimes unaware of our own level of susceptibility to. Therefore, there will be some who object to AA on purely racially motivated grounds, and merely use fears about the pendulum swing as a convenient excuse for promoting institutional racism.
And, there will be some who want to use AA to compensate for hundreds of years of discrimination, whether the pendulum is effective overall longterm or not.

To the extent that I'm able, I will try to divorce myself from my own personal race inclinations and look instead on the pendulum itself:

1. stated goal is to accord opportunity to those who are denied it due to institutional racism. Does it achieve that?
--- YES, in a trickle-up way: in that as more minorities are given opportunity, it widens the gap of opportunity through example and actually making families that support more opportunity, etc, etc. success begets success.
--- NO, in that the core problems that bring about institutional racism are unaffected, and in fact to some degree become more galvanized against AA because it is perceived as a threat in and of itself. So, instead of strides being made to make institutions more open to minorities, the opposite effect, or at least a more polarizing effect is the unintentional byproduct.
OK, but as we have discussed earlier in this thread, there are other mechanisms that can be used to address the opportunity issue without using race in the remedy. You can do that even while accepting the fact that race played an enormous part in the creation of the problem in the first place (which, of course, I understand to be true).

For example, I mentioned helping people who come from educationally-disadvantaged homes gain entry to higher education. That would be a race-neutral scheme that would disproportionally benefit racial minorities suffering from the cumulative exclusion from higher education. But it is one that would be narrowly targeted at individuals suffering a specific disadvantage, rather than using a loose and error-prone assumption that entire groups are homogenous and equally disadvantaged.

This is a basic difference. Race-neutral policies would not puport to seek a particular goal in terms of results by group. They would seek instead to make it easier for individuals to compete. Even if I would hope that opening opportunity to individuals who are specifically disadvantaged would have the effect of assisting disadvantaged minorities in the aggregate, I do not think the government should or can be in the business of forcing group success. Government should open doors, it cannot carry people all the way to the finish line. Ultimately, people have to do that by themselves.
     
ringo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 11:55 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Government should open doors, it cannot carry people all the way to the finish line. Ultimately, people have to do that by themselves.
I've seen this arguement before and I don't understand it. AA desn't hand out diplomas. Any success in college is a result of the individual student. AA helps people get into the game...no one is being carried to the finish line, just being given a chance to run.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 12:27 PM
 
Originally posted by ringo:

I've seen this arguement before and I don't understand it. AA desn't hand out diplomas. Any success in college is a result of the individual student. AA helps people get into the game...no one is being carried to the finish line, just being given a chance to run.
Great! As long as it is just opening up access to individuals with specific disadvantages, I'm all for it. But no arbitrary lumping people into race-based groups or measuring success or failure by racial statistics. Deal with individuals and their specific circumstances and there is no problem.

Of course, a consequence of your description of AA is that you just eliminated any justification for AA beyond the undergraduate level. If you give a leg up to get into college, you should not need to give another one for grad school. After all, you said that "Any success in college is a result of the individual student." All individuals in colleges thus had the opportunity to compete equally in the same institutions, and there is therefore no inequality of opportunity for affirmative action to compensate for in grad school admissions. Right?
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 19, 2002 at 12:45 PM. )
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 01:39 PM
 
You know what, Simey? Screw Law school. You need to go into politics.
Seriously, I'd vote your ass in. I may not agree with all you got going, but it is well thought out and seems to be based in something other than "Conservatism" or "Liberalism" or other shallow concepts.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
ringo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 02:09 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course, a consequence of your description of AA is that you just eliminated any justification for AA beyond the undergraduate level. If you give a leg up to get into college, you should not need to give another one for grad school.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.

BTW, ditto on the "run for office" bit, you'd be hell in a debate.
Hmm, ex-military, washington insider, future lawyer....maybe in another 30 years or so?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 02:15 PM
 
The one drawback that occured to me during lunch of the financial need rather than race as criteria for affirmative action is that there are (naturally) going to be more students with financial need than there will be slots to fill at the universities. Since Whites are a larger portion of the population, there will automatically be more of them that would qualify than minorities (by definition).
At some point, then, some human person (or computer program) will make the decision of who gets in of the large pool of possibles. When that happens, will minorities get in at all? If not, then what does that do the overall mix?
I think we'd be back at square one.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 02:43 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to point out that there is another point of view out there that is equally ethically grounded.
aren't all points of view "ethically" grounded in one way or another?

even heinrich himmler's views on the "role of jewish people" was "ethically grounded", i just vehemently disagree with his ethics.

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 03:42 PM
 
Originally posted by ringo:


Yeah, I'd agree with that.

BTW, ditto on the "run for office" bit, you'd be hell in a debate.
Hmm, ex-military, washington insider, future lawyer....maybe in another 30 years or so?
I'd be 65!

I'm flattered by your and Maxelson't comments, though. Thanks!
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 19, 2002 at 04:17 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 04:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The one drawback that occured to me during lunch of the financial need rather than race as criteria for affirmative action is that there are (naturally) going to be more students with financial need than there will be slots to fill at the universities. Since Whites are a larger portion of the population, there will automatically be more of them that would qualify than minorities (by definition).
At some point, then, some human person (or computer program) will make the decision of who gets in of the large pool of possibles. When that happens, will minorities get in at all? If not, then what does that do the overall mix?
I think we'd be back at square one.
If this was meant about my proposal, I'm not really thinking about financial need. I think that's a separate question. And as someone who went to college on loans, the GI Bill, and Pell grants, I'd have to say that college is affordable for pretty much anyone.

No, I'm thinking more about the significant academic disadvantage a student has if they come from a family where where the student is the first to go to college. An unsupportive home environment or a high school without a strong academic tradition can be devastating to the chances of a bright kid getting into college.

I think that the goal of opening up opportunity would be better served by recognizing this very real handicap than pretending that dentist's or lawyer's sons still need help getting into college because of their race. They can get in on their own without AA, others still can't.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 19, 2002 at 04:16 PM. )
     
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 07:38 PM
 
I support Affirmative Action.

I want my children to cared for by the less qualified but black doctor.
I'd really prefer that the surgeon operating on my wife be the guy that got to where he is on something other than merit or intelligence or talent or hard work.

So he may not be the best doctor available. So my wife or children may have less of a chance of recieving the best possible care....that's not what matters. What matters is skin tone. Its about priorities.
     
ringo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2002, 08:34 PM
 
AA doesn't hand out diplomas or affect grades. The doctor you speak of is just as qualified as any other who graduated medical school.

If you want to worry about doctors, worry about the residents who work 20 hour days for weeks straight.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 03:03 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


oh, no. and to tell you the truth, they'd probably give you the same answer.
Get the answer, we'll discuss then. I gave a reason for why cultural anthropologists would believe that cultural factors weigh heaviest in to a person's makeup.

oh sure. but what does that have to do with anything?
Person has predisposition to fear different/unknown + cultural construct that people of different skin color are different in an important way => a person who is more likely to be racist.

i am not sure what point you are trying to make here, but in my opinion there really isn't anything like race. the concept is inherently flawed, and historically only served the purpose to "box" others in and give onesself a solid identity vis-a-vis the "other".
Have you even been paying attention to what I've been posting? I posted a link to an article on ars where researchers found that there is no genetic basis for race whatsoever. That means that race, and all issues dealing with it, are 100% cultural constructs.

The only reason I mentioned the Irish is because it's an example of racism that didn't have the skin color overlay to keep it going.

sorry. would it help if i used bold and italicsa lot?
Basic netiquette: all caps = shouting, bold/italics = stressed. Writing 101: overuse of exclamation points makes the writer look over emotional, exitable, and thus irrational.

The entire end of my post was a commentary on your writing style, really. That is, you have honestly been coming across to me as an unthinking zealot. Responses like "I disagree" with no further argumentation or support don't help, either. As a reader, your opinion means jack to me. Your reasons, however, are the battle ground that may or may not convince me.

you're funny. i dunno, but it really does seem like our thinking is diametrically opposed. i don't have any problem with that. afaic people can believe whatever they want, as long as they are not in the position of policy making.
Pop quiz: what do I think? Have you actually been reading what I've written, or are you inserting your own expectations?

BlackGriffen
     
RGB
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: College in the Land of Oz
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 03:14 AM
 
I'd love to see if whena pro affirmative action politician is told by their new doctor that he/she only got into medical school because the quota of blacks/hispanics/whatever needed to be met, and he didn't really meet full qualifications, and qualified white doctors were passed up in favor of him, and see if this patient continues to see and trust the doctor.
     
ringo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 08:01 AM
 
Originally posted by RGB:
I'd love to see if whena pro affirmative action politician is told by their new doctor that he/she only got into medical school because the quota of blacks/hispanics/whatever needed to be met, and he didn't really meet full qualifications, and qualified white doctors were passed up in favor of him, and see if this patient continues to see and trust the doctor.
This arguement, also presented a few posts ago, makes no sense because...

If neither canidate was in medical school, then no "qualified doctor" was passed up because a person has to finish medical school before they are a doctor.

From a few posts up:
AA doesn't hand out diplomas or affect grades. The doctor you speak of is just as qualified as any other who graduated medical school.

If you want to worry about doctors, worry about the residents who work 20 hour days for weeks straight.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 08:32 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
As a reader, your opinion means jack to me. Your reasons, however, are the battle ground that may or may not convince me.
oh boy. i'm not even going to go into this. i can only say that one doesn't neccessarily preclude the other. if my opinions don't mean jack to you, then don't read my posts...

i try to give "reasons" whenever i reply. if you don't agree with my reasoning, tough shyt.

i don't give a hoot what you think about emotions and how they bear on a persons' reasoning. i personally think they are important...

the same goes for the comments on my style. i use caps and exclamation marks the way I SEE FIT! mmmkay?! maybe they mean something different to you, to me they are just stressing certain aspects (points) in my writing.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Pop quiz: what do I think?
quite frankly, i'm beginning to wonder what your f*ckin' problem is.

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:19 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


If this was meant about my proposal, I'm not really thinking about financial need.
No, it was just something I was thinking about in reference to the topic in general.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:22 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


No, it was just something I was thinking about in reference to the topic in general.
My mistake.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:24 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think that the goal of opening up opportunity would be better served by recognizing this very real handicap than pretending that dentist's or lawyer's sons still need help getting into college because of their race. They can get in on their own without AA, others still can't.
What IS the breakdown of students receiving preference from affirmative action in universities? Is it dentist's or lawyer's sons, and if so, what is the percentage? I'm asking because I have no idea. not knowing makes it hard to refute your claim here.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:32 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My mistake.
hey, no problem. The reason it was the thread in general was I thinking about it at the chinese restaurant where I was having lunch away from the computer. There might have been some element of what you proposed that was running around in my mind, but since I wasn't reading the thread or your post directly as I was thinking about it, I was free to just look at the concept in a more general form.

Again, though, like I said previously, I'm not necessarily saying the present AA as implemented is necessarily what I view as the optimal solution, I just think there is a problem, and some solution needs to be found/implemented in some form. Where I disagree with some is that I think simply ignoring it will not solve it, because it certainly didn't work that way in the past.

And, back to another point: using "men are created equal" quotes as proof that racial equality has been around since the founding fathers is using some very rosy glasses. At the time of the constitution black people were counted as chattel, even by the founding fathers. When they wrote that, they meant white men, and in fact they meant landowners.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


What IS the breakdown of students receiving preference from affirmative action in universities? Is it dentist's or lawyer's sons, and if so, what is the percentage? I'm asking because I have no idea. not knowing makes it hard to refute your claim here.
That's a good question. I have never seen any statistics. Perhaps part of the problem is that universities are reluctant to disclose how much of a difference their AA programs make in admissions. Partly, I suspect that is for legal reasons (it would make the program easier to challenge) and partly because the information could firther stigmatize minorities. After all, I firmly believe that most minorities make it on their own.

Not having statistics, my comment was based on my own limited experience. Admittedly, I went to a private university, but it did seem pretty obvious that there wasn't much economic difference between the races. Both the white and the minority students were overwhelmingly upper middle class children of professional parents.

But the thing is that minority communities as a whole are more likely (percentage-wise) than whites not to fit that economic strata. That makes me wonder if what we are seeing is a blocking effect caused in part by AA. If AA only gives a little boost, the ones that are closest to getting in will benefit the most. And since AA only looks at the racial axis, and not the class one, AA tends to disguise the fact that it isn't doing much for the poor.

No doubt this is somewhat different in public universities. It certainly was when I was in community college. But then the economic demographic as a whole was different there. There also wasn't any affirmative action because it really wasn't a selective school.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 10:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And, back to another point: using "men are created equal" quotes as proof that racial equality has been around since the founding fathers is using some very rosy glasses.
No, no. This is the opposite of what I was saying. I was saying that the most powerful argument in favor of equal opportunity in the US has always been pointing out the hypocracy of having laws that discriminate while at the same time declaring "all men are created equal."

It's that disjuncture between what the country said and what it did that made such a powerful argument for making what we do the same as what we say we stand for. Unfortunately, we weaken that argument when we argue for racial preferences because whatever the motivation, we are using the same mechanism that we otherwise condemn.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 11:06 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a good question. I have never seen any statistics. Perhaps part of the problem is that universities are reluctant to disclose how much of a difference their AA programs make in admissions. Partly, I suspect that is for legal reasons (it would make the program easier to challenge) and partly because the information could firther stigmatize minorities. After all, I firmly believe that most minorities make it on their own.

Not having statistics, my comment was based on my own limited experience. Admittedly, I went to a private university, but it did seem pretty obvious that there wasn't much economic difference between the races. Both the white and the minority students were overwhelmingly upper middle class children of professional parents.

But the thing is that minority communities as a whole are more likely (percentage-wise) than whites not to fit that economic strata. That makes me wonder if what we are seeing is a blocking effect caused in part by AA. If AA only gives a little boost, the ones that are closest to getting in will benefit the most. And since AA only looks at the racial axis, and not the class one, AA tends to disguise the fact that it isn't doing much for the poor.

No doubt this is somewhat different in public universities. It certainly was when I was in community college. But then the economic demographic as a whole was different there. There also wasn't any affirmative action because it really wasn't a selective school.
Ah! well, I attended the state public college, and all the black students I knew were definitely NOT coming from families that were well off. Two were women whose mothers were on welfare, one already a single mother who was living at the Dorm with assistance while her mother helped raise her infant son.
Most of the black men I knew (around 11-15 of them), would have fallen under very lower middle class to poor. One or two probably were in the same boat financially as me (and I had to work my way through)
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 11:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


Ah! well, I attended the state public college, and all the black students I knew were definitely NOT coming from families that were well off. Two were women whose mothers were on welfare, one already a single mother who was living at the Dorm with assistance while her mother helped raise her infant son.
Most of the black men I knew (around 11-15 of them), would have fallen under very lower middle class to poor. One or two probably were in the same boat financially as me (and I had to work my way through)
Right. But how selective was the school? Was it your state's flagship? You don't have to answer this. It's just a rhetorical question, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. It's just that AA really only becomes a really hot issue when you are talking highly selective schools where a lot more apply than get in. Those tend ot be the ones that wealthier people attend. That's why you see the cases coming from flagship schools like Michigan that are highly selective.

For example, my failsafe school when I was transferring from community college was George Mason. To get into GMU as a transfer student you only need a 2.5 GPA. Because of that, whether or not GMU had an affirmative action program was pretty much moot. People don't exactly have to claw their way in.

On the other hand, the school I was lucky enough to finally go to is one of the most selective in the country with around 13 pretty much equally qualified applicants for each seat. In that context, class (and consequently the amount of preparation an applicant gets at the secondary level) makes a big difference. That's probably where the dentist's and lawyer's kids have the most advantage. There were some poor kids, but most were pretty well off regardless of race.

Edit: Incidentally, I don't want this to seem personal. As far as I know, AA never hurt me at all. I got my first choices for both undergrad and law school. I don't have any reason to complain. In fact, the emphasis on "diversity" in admission (outside of race) probably helped me. My veterans status, economic background (not wealthy), and having been raised overseas probably all counted as pluses.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 20, 2002 at 11:34 AM. )
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


oh boy. i'm not even going to go into this. i can only say that one doesn't neccessarily preclude the other. if my opinions don't mean jack to you, then don't read my posts...
Good idea. You obviously don't read mine, arguing with you has been like talking to a brick wall. All of my arguments have been to the effect that we need more study to determine how much AA is needed. I never claimed to be anti AA.

So, you'll be joining cash on my ignore list because I see no further value our dialog. Everybody else in the thread managed to engage me constructive debate.

i try to give "reasons" whenever i reply. if you don't agree with my reasoning, tough shyt.
My apologies on this one, I confused one of denim's posts that contained one word responses with yours. When questioned, though, he backed those words up with solid arguments. Without shouting.

i don't give a hoot what you think about emotions and how they bear on a persons' reasoning. i personally think they are important...
Not saying emotions are unimportant, just trying to give you writing tips so that you don't come across as having uncontrolled emotions in the future.

the same goes for the comments on my style. i use caps and exclamation marks the way I SEE FIT! mmmkay?! maybe they mean something different to you, to me they are just stressing certain aspects (points) in my writing.
See what I mean? Completely not open to suggestions.

quite frankly, i'm beginning to wonder what your f*ckin' problem is.
Aside from the admittedly inappropriate joke where I called you an unthinking zealot, I don't have a problem at all. You'll find that I'm very prepared to admit when I'm wrong, and have done so many times in this thread alone. Also, the question about what I was thinking was half-rhetorical. You commented that our thinking was diametrically opposed. I didn't think so, and got rather annoyed at what appeared to me to be evidence that you hadn't been reading my posts. If you had actually read my posts, you would have realized that we disagreed on side issues to AA (nature vs. nurture [I personally believe that it cannot be usefully averaged the way you did because people have different susceptibility levels to societal/peer pressure, see the experiment by Solomon Asch], the classification of AA, etc.), and the reasons behind it/for it, but not the need for it, which is hardly what I call "diametrically opposed." My hope was that, given that the question came in response to a comment of yours about what I was thinking, you might have realized that our thinking was not diametrically opposed, or at least stated what you though I was thinking so that I could rebut. I'll admit that my annoyance shaped the wording of the question, but not the intent.

Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water...

BlackGriffen
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2002, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:

hey, no problem. The reason it was the thread in general was I thinking about it at the chinese restaurant where I was having lunch . . .
Reminds me of a story related to AA/discrimination. The very first time I looked for a job (over 30 years ago), I walked into a Chinese restaurant and asked if they were looking for any help. Everybody in the place was Chinese and looked at me like I was, well, crazy.

I had some kung pao chicken and left.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,