Affirmative action

[TERRIBLETOM]

While listening to talk radio (again) the topic of affirmative action came up and how it came about and its meaning (correct me if I misunderstood or misquoted) It was enacted by the government to advertise government jobs in non conventional manners, In the years that it was enacted non conventional could have been described as minority news papers or things long those lines. If all this is correct or partially correct, how did it ever come about that minority groups would pound and shape this into a tool they would use to point the finger for racism or use it for racism terms? Maybe someone with a better grip on this can explain it.

[Cubsfan]

Along the same lines, my understanding of affirmative action is this:

You need to hire so many of a minority.

Isn't this racism in its purist form? The idea is to not have race be an issue in deciding employment. Doesn't affirmative action make race the #1 factor in deciding employment? Do two wrongs make a right?

(As far as my views on it, I think that in a perfect world, nobody would care about the color of someones skin when they hire. Unfortunately, in this world they do,therefore this is a somewhat necessary evil.)

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Cubsfan
Along the same lines, my understanding of affirmative action is this:

You need to hire so many of a minority.
No. Affirmative action is not that. That is a quota system, which is one way of implementing affirmative action. Many of those who oppose affirmative action either make this mistake of perception, or actively seek to propagate that perception. Quotas seem to be the most popular implementation of affirmative action, or certainly the one that gets the most attention. I imagine its popularity is a result of it being goal based and its results concrete and immediately measurable. These qualities make it attractive to businesses and regulators alike, because everything's well defined and easy to implement. Simply hire who you have to to meet quota.

Affirmative action means simply implementing measures to increase the hiring of minority workers, or promote the startup of businesses by minority owners, or somehow get more minorities involved in our public and private institutions. How you go about it is very open-ended. Targeted advertising of opportunities would seem a fairly ethical way of doing this, although it is a strategy whose results will be more limited, I imagine.
Isn't this racism in its purist form? The idea is to not have race be an issue in deciding employment. Doesn't affirmative action make race the #1 factor in deciding employment? Do two wrongs make a right?Affirmative action need not make race the #1 issue. Affirmative action need not affect hiring decisions. They may simply be aimed to encourage more minorities to get themselves to the interview.
As far as my views on it, I think that in a perfect world, nobody would care about the color of someones skin when they hire. Unfortunately, in this world they do,therefore this is a somewhat necessary evil. I pretty much agree. Our inner cities are pretty ****ed up places, and its not going to get any better without a certain amount of investment in the community. I think it can pan out in the long run, though.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by DarkFury
/me claps at zenbooty's explainations above.

Bravo Mr. Booty... Bravo. :D

I was impressed as well. /me curtsies to the Booty.

It really seems like many of those who are opposed to affirmative action refuse to look back at why we needed aa in the first place.

[Cantacuzene]

I support affirmative action until we find something better.

[Dave_7]

Worst Affirmative Action thread ever.

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/cbg.gif


I don't know what it is... but I expected a more exciting thread given the subject line.

Or maybe Affirmative Action isn't as exciting as I thought?






Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Dave_7
Worst Affirmative Action thread ever.

I don't know what it is... but I expected a more exciting thread given the subject line.

Or maybe Affirmative Action isn't as exciting as I thought?

Dave.

Don't worry, SBP hasnt responded yet. :D

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Dave_7
Worst Affirmative Action thread ever.

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/cbg.gif
Dave.

A big fat LOL out to DAVE. I've seen better too.

[ufcrusher]

I was going to reply that I find it really funny all of the people who support affirmative action as a good thing, but I realized that would come across as odd. I would rather make the following statements.

Affirmative action is in effect reverse racism (which would be racism), but it was created and implemented with the sole purpose of righting past harms. It is for this reason, that if quotas, redistricting, or other such actions are used in an area where there were no prior acts of racism...it would in fact be illegal.

Affirmative action seems to promote misconceptions and hostility among different racial groups. By this, I mean, that one could interpret affirmative action to mean that a member of X race is not capable of getting into the same school on his merits as a member of Y race. Now when a member of Y race has the same or better qualifications and is turned downed due to affirmative action so that a member of X can be given the same position...it makes the member of Y race mad.

The reality is that affirmative action is often misused. This is from my personal experience.

Three WHITE guys at my school were able to call themselves African Americans and thereby get into Harvard (all of them) because they were born in South Africa, although they were american citizens. As such, they checked African American (which they were, but not by the definition that was meant)...and with their good grades and affirmative action...got into the school.

I could keep going, but I dont really feel like it. Either way...it doesnt matter, I really dont particularly think afirmative action is a good thing and think it should be abolished.

[latingirl]

I don't necessarily think that aa is a good thing anymore, but it has obviously stirred up some heat by making other groups (particularly whites) understand how it feels to be passed over based on thier race.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, but maybe its something that needed to happen so that we can walk in each other shoes. And there are many good, intelligent people who have gotten opportunities because aa has forced the hand of employers and colleges. There will always be people who abuse the system when they can.

Its opened up a dialogue about the whole racial bias situation. It really wasn't that long ago when blacks were having to enter a restaurant through the kitchen and Mexicans were being mercilessly shipped off to Mexico whether they were legal or not, and I know other groups have had thier own issues. And the progress has been slow, but surely coming to pass. I do think things are munch getting better and I feel more comfortable at this point not having aa.

Instead of getting angry, I think there is a lesson to be learned through the whole aa experience and maybe we can make it our conviction to keep the bias from happening to anyone.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by DarkFury


Yeah... but consider this.

...even your NAME can sometimes give you away...


Agreed. I think social security numbers, or other unique identifiers combined with a birthdate (or such) should be used on things like college applications (to public supported schools) and names should be left off for the reason you describe above.

Let's face it, Todd White is a pretty "white" name, similar to the examples DarkFury gave (conversely, I suppose, Barry White is also a white sounding name).

Private schools are another story. But then again, they are not, historically, affected by affirmative action one way or another.

Nothing's perfect, granted.





Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Dave_7
Private schools are another story. But then again, they are not, historically, affected by affirmative action one way or another.

Actually they have. Any school that recieves one dime of federal money is subject to AA. Most private schools do indeed get some federal funding.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by latingirl
I don't necessarily think that aa is a good thing anymore, but it has obviously stirred up some heat by making other groups (particularly whites) understand how it feels to be passed over based on thier race.


I agree that AA is probably not a good thing anymore, especially as it stands right now. The thing to remember, though, is that many organizations where making sure not to hire based on race long before AA action too place. Obviously, AA wasn't meant for them, but many of the businesses/organizations that it was meant for were able to find ways around it.

Let's face it, there are some jobs that minorities today--even with AA--will never even see, if that is what that particular business is all about. And if they want to keep up their quotas, they can just hire minority workers for their lower echelon positions. After all, no one is too good to have a minority work for them. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I will never have respect for a program like AA until it deals with the real issue: economics. I know plenty of blacks, asians, latinos, etc. that have had a lot better chances in life than I have. Usually, I'm happy for them, because, most of the time, they are my friends and I want to see them succeed. But on the same token, I keep asking myself, why don't I have the same connections; why can't I get in on a good deal like that; why can't someone take me under their wing the way they did for my friends.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Actually they have. Any school that recieves one dime of federal money is subject to AA. Most private schools do indeed get some federal funding.

Naturally, I was referring to Private (by definition) Schools that are privately (not publicly) funded.




Dave.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Dave_7


Naturally, I was referring to Private (by definition) Schools that are privately (not publicly) funded.




Dave.
if that's your definition, then hillsdale college is about the only one i know of.

otherwise, schools aren't even eligible for students to receive federal student loans, pell grants, etc.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Honestly, I will never have respect for a program like AA until it deals with the real issue: economics.
man, i always go off on a rant about this topic whenever AA comes up, and no one every wants to discuss it :shrug:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by whitak24

man, i always go off on a rant about this topic whenever AA comes up, and no one every wants to discuss it :shrug:

Really?

Discuss!!!

:P

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Really?

Discuss!!!

:P
well, i would.....lord knows i love to babble about stuff like this :disa:....

but i'm really hungry and want to go home and find food.

maybe later tonight

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by whitak24

if that's your definition, then hillsdale college is about the only one i know of.


That's fine. That is my definition of "Private" (schools and business), however few of either there may be... those who can tell the lawmakers to take a hike (right or wrong) if they so choose.

Like I said, though, that's another thread.





Dave.

[Cubsfan]

So what does everyone think about this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75586,00.html

I think Bush is taking a "colorblind" approach, which is the correct approach. I just think that he may have picked a bad time to do it with the Lott thing and all.

[whitak24]

interesting opinion piece in the NYT two days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/opinion/14BOTS.html

i think it lays out a good argument as to why much of the current debate about AA is misguided and focuses in the wrong place.

and i think it also reinforces an important point: admission to many colleges is based on a lot of things besides merit anyway. so adding race in as a factor is not necessarily a big deal....

[Grimm]

Originally posted by whitak24
...
and i think it also reinforces an important point: admission to many colleges is based on a lot of things besides merit anyway. so adding race in as a factor is not necessarily a big deal....
I disagree. Whenever we establish a quota for a racial group we are saying "You are different and need help to do as well as everyone else". That is not a true statement. I am in favor of anti-discrimination laws, but quotas are discriminatory. The whole idea is to eliminate discrimination. If you use quotas you are saying that racial discrimination has to exist.

[molecularfire]

Affirmative action... my spin on it.

People are going to be racist period (irrespective of what race they are). There is no possible way to make things completely fair. Best thing to do is to sway things towards minorities and screw white people a little because they are at a better position in society.

:D

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Grimm

I disagree. Whenever we establish a quota for a racial group we are saying "You are different and need help to do as well as everyone else".
i disagree. contrary to what the bush administration claims, u-m's system does not "constitute a quota system".

a quota is a number that you're supposed to hit. the u-m system simply gives an additional advantage to people who are minorities. there's a big difference.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by DarkFury
I think that we need MORE information about the admittance procedure before they start flingin' around this "quota argument"... I wanna know what else comprises those other 68 points and whether or not they have the potential to EXCLUDE minorities... (But I bet Bush ain't even gonna go there to see what REALLY is up.)
actually, if you want information about how u-m's admissions decisions are made, you can find EXTREMELY detailed breakdowns of their entire process in various court documents that have been filed since the start of the case 5 years ago.

my GF did some pretty extensive research on this a couple years ago, and she said that pretty much every detail of how they make their admissions decisions is out there. of course, i'm too lazy (not to mention swamped with work) to go find it right now.

what i do know, however, is that the "quota" term is a misnomer. basically, the Bush administration is using the word because it is extremely loaded and basically everyone is opposed to it. they're trying to warp the debate by playing semantics (now who ever heard of politicians doing that? :hmm: )

[Grimm]

Regardless of what it is called, a system that considers race is inherantly flawed as being unfair. If they want to consider giving extra points to students from financialy disadvantaged families, I'm all for that. It would promote divirsity without being racist.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Once again... I'd say that you have to look at the "overall" admission process to the school...



You are absolutely correct... the U of M admission policy has always been a pretty hot topic around my neck of the woods They've been sued several times over this matter.

U of M has a pretty wide range of criteria that they base admission on, including race, academics, alumni in the family, etc. Race seems to be a major factor, but only in certain cases. For example, being African American or American Indian earns you a large number of points towards admission. However, if you're white or Asian, you get no advantage.

I think the one thing that's a sticking point here is that they're basing part of admission solely on particular races. Now I can understand if it's a socio-economic bias toward people from disadvantaged neighborhoods, but that is a separate consideration. The race factor is based on race alone - it seems like U of M is saying that if you're black or American Indian that you aren't going to be smart enough to get in to this school, so we'll give you a little help. I don't know about the rest of you, but that seems to be pretty condescending.

I understand the push for a diverse student population, and I support that wholeheartedly - especially in the midwest where diversity is not as prevalent as on the coasts.

However, it should not be at the expense of excluding other more qualified students just because they happen to be of a particular race.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You bring up a few good points, DF. It gives me a new perspective. However, I think it would make more sense to then award points based on the school they attended, rather than the color of their skin. According to your scenario, a white kid who attended a "less priviledged" school would be doubly screwed. He gets a poor education, plus he doesn't get any help because of it.


Originally posted by DarkFury
Furthermore... if it is ANYTHING like here in Indy, the "inner city schools" are NOTORIOUS for not providing as good an education as the township/suburb schools... Guess who mostly live in the "inner city" though? Hmmm... 1,2,3... MINORITIES!!!! Now here is a simple question that has bothered me for a long time... Why don't they move out of the inner city? Yes, I know they can't afford a home in a gated suburban community - but there are certainly places in Indiana cheaper than the inner city. :shrug:

[Cubsfan]

Originally posted by DarkFury

(other stuff cut)
Furthermore... if it is ANYTHING like here in Indy, the "inner city schools" are NOTORIOUS for not providing as good an education as the township/suburb schools... Guess who mostly live in the "inner city" though? Hmmm... 1,2,3... MINORITIES!!!! (Yay!!! :hmm: )


Ok, I can see the point here. But I do fail to see how judging a person based on the color of their skin solves this. There ARE white people who live in the inner cities. Granted, there's many less of them, but why don't they get the same benefits? Also, I can tell you that there's schools in very rural areas where the quality of the eduaction is just as bad. There are country schools where there's one teacher for all 20 or 30 students (K-12). Now you're discriminating against both of these people too.

The bottom line for me is that you must judge a person on their past performances and their potential. I don't see how judging a person on the color of their skin can determine this.

There is one thing that always strikes me. There's people who are always upset that there is discrimination based on the color of someone's skin. I agree with them. It just seems that many of these people are very willing to go along with programs that discriminate against a differnt group (i.e. whites, men, etc..) It seems kind of hypocritical to say how wrong discrimination is, and then support laws that discriminate.

(By the way, I'm pretty sure I've spelled "discriminate" at least three different ways in this message, and none of them are correct :))

[molecularfire]

What determines "more qualified". Standardized testing has been criticized immensely over the past few years... we already know that some of them are "culturally biased" in some cases therefore how do you prove that one high school's education is equal to another's.
I agree... standardized testing is not perfect, heck it isn't even very good. I can see that as a reason for fixing the standardized testing system or get rid of it altogether. I don't see how we are going to be doing any good by having a system that we say is flawed and then skewing or ignoring the data. We either accept standardized test scores or we don't... we can't say that blacks and hispanics should get 100 extra points, philipinos should get 50 extra points, and whites and asians should get 0 extra points.


Where I am going with this is this... what if you had one kid who was the TOP student at one of the inner city (i.e. "less priviledged") schools... Would you give them equal weight as the TOP student at the township school when they both put their applications in? Maybe the township student had some better lab equipment in Chemistry and actually had his own frog to dissect in Anatomy & Physiology, but overall... who determines who is the "better student"?

The township kid probably had a more "diverse" training, but that doesn't mean that the inner city kids are less deserving of a higher eductation based upon having a slight disadvantage in their elementary training.

How is the student from the better school automatically less deserving ? Under your argument (now correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words into your mouth) wouldn't giving the kid from the inner city school an advantage be saying that the kid from the better school had better opportunities and so is less deserving?

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Jeffbx

... it seems like U of M is saying that if you're black or American Indian that you aren't going to be smart enough to get in to this school, so we'll give you a little help. I don't know about the rest of you, but that seems to be pretty condescending.


That's a good point... the people who should be pissed should be the minority students who have outstanding scores/grades who will be, unfortunately, lumped into this whole debacle.

I find it interesting, too, that when speaking about Afirmative Action, articles and studies cite "non-Asian minorities" as the minorities in question.

College is a time of sucking it up... doing what you can do for yourself... because only YOU are choosing to put yourself there (except in the case of every Asian college student I've ever met who was in school and getting good grades because otherwise they will be killed by one or both of their parents :P )





Dave.

[TERRIBLETOM]

While trying to soak in what affirmative action stands for and the views of others I would like to take a minute and commend DarkFury on his detailed views and not resorting to under the belt shot tactics. I do not agree with everything he says but he does express himself in an intelligent manner. OK now I'll go back to soaking it in...

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by DarkFury

Ok... but what about this.

What determines "more qualified"

Take this example:

A black student and an asian student attend the same high school. They have the same teachers & live in the same neighborhood. The asian student gets a 1600 on his SAT and has a 3.8GPA. The black student gets a 1200 and has a 3.5 GPA. All other things being equal, the black student will be higher on the list of being accepted than the asian student, and it's possible that the black student is accepted while the asian student is denied. This is discrimination against the asian student, because he was denied based solely on his race.

I certainly agree with your arguments about people in poor communities, but U of M has a separate category for that - they also get preferential treatment, which is good. However, by making race (not minority status, but race) a factor in admissions is blatantly discriminatory, IMHO.

I also agree with you about removing all references to race (and sex) from applications... admission should be based on merit & accomplishment, not what you look like.

[TERRIBLETOM]

<I'm not sure if someone had already made this statement>
I was listening to talk radio today (again) and they had said that affirmative action is a direct violation of the constitutions 14th amendment. I'm sorry that I can not quote the 14th amendment at this time maybe someone can help me out. I will make an effort to post and edit it up as soon as I can find the exact wording.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The first section of this amendment reads as follows:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are four more long sections that do not relate to this issue, that I didn't include, but if you can find them in any copy of the U.S. Constitution, or at www.usconstitution.net.

At issue in the various affirmative action suits in the USA is the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" part.

Regardless, the US Supreme Court has upheld affirmative action on many occasions.

[Apex]

Just a quick interjection. Asian Americans are not helped by AA. Asian Americans make up about 3% of America, yet about 8% of the doctors (quoted in mid 90's, by UCSD medical board). The same goes with the vast majority of white collar positions. Schools are even worse.

If AA did not exist, by the time I got into college (1991), UCI would have been over 60% asian, instead of 40% (according to UC system rep that came to speak at our high school). So, off we go to the bottom of the barrel, Asians.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by DarkFury


Would you change your position on the topic if UofM didn't specify Blacks and said "MINORITIES" instead?

It wouldn't be as blatent if they didn't mention particular races (extra points for American Indians & Blacks, nothing for Caucasians & Asians). But it would still be discriminatory.


Originally posted by DarkFury

BTW... I honestly don't think that the Asian in your example would get denied... With that GPA and test score, he'd have scholarships galore on many minority tickets...

OK, maybe the exact numbers are off, but every single semester there are students that are more academically qualified being bumped because of their race. That's why there has been so many lawsuits filed against the university.

[molecularfire]

My thinking is this... if the kid from the nicer neighborhood walked in better prepared and he is equally deserving to be there as the kid from the inner city then didn't the kid from the nicer neighborhood start off less deserving?

The question that I have is this... lets say that there is only one spot for both kids (the reason why AA is even an issue of debate is because there are more people who want in than spots to fill, so I think this should be considered)... which kid should be allowed in?

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by molecularfire
My thinking is this... if the kid from the nicer neighborhood walked in better prepared and he is equally deserving to be there as the kid from the inner city then didn't the kid from the nicer neighborhood start off less deserving?

The question that I have is this... lets say that there is only one spot for both kids (the reason why AA is even an issue of debate is because there are more people who want in than spots to fill, so I think this should be considered)... which kid should be allowed in?

Take it back a step - take the rich vs. poor out of the equation. Both kids are from the same neighborhood - they live next door to each other. It's down to race only... who is U of M to say that the native american or the black kid are more deserving to get in than the asian or the caucasian? Today, this is their policy.