Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

JL, I agree totally that there just needs to be more money...that way there wouldn't be any "favorites" and everyone would get a slice. Now, some get all and some get none or very little.

0 Replies

JL, you seem to have worked very hard to better learn yourself and become more knowledgeable. You said that you didn't recieve help from AA, being a minority. Now my quesiton is, do you think you deserved it? What kind of economic state did you grow up in?

0 Replies

Carbon, I didn't deserve it because I was able to make it without AA, but I might not have succeeded without the scholarships and grants received on a competitive basis. I had some advantages most minorities do not have. My family was not wealthy (possibly lower middle class) economically but upper middle class culturally. I grew up with good language skills. I also enjoyed adult relationships (before college) with intellectuals and artists, and I had a good "paperback education", acquired in the ten years between high school and the university. I do feel that many youths, majority as well as minority youths, enter college well before their time. These people are generally, but not exclusively, of the lower classes and have not had the advantages of good schools and social models of success (except, perhaps, athletes and pop musicians). I have suggested to individuals who lacked adequate vocabularies and intellectual values--and, as a result, could not motivate themselves to study--that they might consider dropping out, obtaining language skills and then returning to college when they were ready--as I did (remember, I was twenty eight when I entered community college, part-time.

0 Replies

My question is why do people who have lower incomes deserve AA, why not just give financial help, instead of extra points?

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

Hmmmm. . . I was under the impression that college was a place to get a higher education and in turn a better, higher paying job. That is based on of course your accomplishments that you can prove you are capable of. Why turn away a white kid, despite whether he is 'rich' or not, so you can accept a black kid who hasn't been able to prove anything better than the white kid.

Why not? Why would the white kid have any more "right" to be admitted to college than the black kid?

CarbonSystem wrote:

If a white kid is pushed and pushed by his parents to do well, and he can succeed, why turn him away?

Why not? Is the college obligated to accept the white kid?

CarbonSystem wrote:

I'm going to try and think of a hypothetical situation, I'm not sure how well it will turn out but here it goes. What if a white student was applying to a university, along with a black one, competing for the same spot. Now what do you think would happen if the white student was given extra ponits on everything because he was white. This would disadvantage the black student and there would be an outrageous uproar. I myself would be disgusted by it. As you can imagine I am a white male. What makes this situation any different; considering that both of them come from an equal class background.

Awarding automatic "points" for minority status was ruled unconstitutional in Gratz v. Bollinger: you should be familiar with it, CarbonSystem, it's a University of Michigan case.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I know some people who were almost accepted into a university and missed the cut by a few spaces - because of the AA quota. This was back when they had quotas though. However, anything that counts race as a positive aspect in place of something like grades or scores or well-rounded activities is retarded.

Why do you believe that consideration of race should be impermissible (or "retarded") while consideration of a "well-rounded activity" is allowed?

0 Replies

I'm not saying it should be "impermissible". I'm saying it's stupid. The colleges want more minority students because they want to be "diverse". But what is "diverse" when you have an entire school of people who have the same political perspective, went to the same types of high schools and participated in the same types of activities, regardless of what race they are? I mean, the school I go to advertises that they have 13% minorities or something like that in their literature. But someone started a pro-life group on campus, and the antagonism against them is incredible. Half the school is from Iowa. The more I talk to people, the more I realize we all had similar high school experiences, wherever we came from. How "diverse" is minority student compared with a lower class student, or a student from the West, or (gasp!) a conservative? Just due to where I'm from and my experiences growing up there, I have radically different opinions and perspectives from most people I meet here, in terms of ideals and politics (if not high schools).

I don't know, I think either you gear your admissions toward carbon's ideal of "better" students who work harder and get better grades, or you gear it towards diversity - and if diversity is your thing, you should do it all the way, and not define "diversity" to mean "race". If you're not going to diversify your school in the ways that it matters, why pretend to diversify by using AA? And if you're not going to diversify, by using AA you just imply that being a minority makes you a "better" student somehow.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:
Hmmmm. . . I was under the impression that college was a place to get a higher education and in turn a better, higher paying job. That is based on of course your accomplishments that you can prove you are capable of. Why turn away a white kid, despite whether he is 'rich' or not, so you can accept a black kid who hasn't been able to prove anything better than the white kid.

Why not? Why would the white kid have any more "right" to be admitted to college than the black kid?

CarbonSystem wrote:
If a white kid is pushed and pushed by his parents to do well, and he can succeed, why turn him away?

Why not? Is the college obligated to accept the white kid?

CarbonSystem wrote:
I'm going to try and think of a hypothetical situation, I'm not sure how well it will turn out but here it goes. What if a white student was applying to a university, along with a black one, competing for the same spot. Now what do you think would happen if the white student was given extra ponits on everything because he was white. This would disadvantage the black student and there would be an outrageous uproar. I myself would be disgusted by it. As you can imagine I am a white male. What makes this situation any different; considering that both of them come from an equal class background.

Awarding automatic "points" for minority status was ruled unconstitutional in Gratz v. Bollinger: you should be familiar with it, CarbonSystem, it's a University of Michigan case.

To answer your first question, in that hypothetical situation the black kid wasn't as good a student as the white person, so he does deserve to be in over the black kid, not becuase he's white, but because he scored higher and is a better student.

Now to answer your second question. I was referring to Rufio's statement about white kids who don't deserve to be accepted if they are kids who's parents had to push them to succeed, even if they did use their own brains. The college, IMO is obligated to accept the student who did the best in high school. Once again, you are assuming that my reason for defending the white person is his race. Is that the only reason you think people in this world are turned down for things, is because of thier race? I hoped that you, Joe, would understand that other things are a factor.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I'm not saying it should be "impermissible". I'm saying it's stupid.

By what measure is it "stupid?"

rufio wrote:

The colleges want more minority students because they want to be "diverse". But what is "diverse" when you have an entire school of people who have the same political perspective, went to the same types of high schools and participated in the same types of activities, regardless of what race they are? . . . Just due to where I'm from and my experiences growing up there, I have radically different opinions and perspectives from most people I meet here, in terms of ideals and politics (if not high schools).

I'm confused, rufio. You say that everyone is alike, but that you're different? Wasn't that a scene from "Life of Brian?"

rufio wrote:

I don't know, I think either you gear your admissions toward carbon's ideal of "better" students who work harder and get better grades, or you gear it towards diversity - and if diversity is your thing, you should do it all the way, and not define "diversity" to mean "race". If you're not going to diversify your school in the ways that it matters, why pretend to diversify by using AA?

Why does it "matter more" to diversify based on factors other than race?

rufio wrote:

And if you're not going to diversify, by using AA you just imply that being a minority makes you a "better" student somehow.

That makes absolutely no sense. If a college is not interested in diversity, then why would it adopt AA?

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

To answer your first question, in that hypothetical situation the black kid wasn't as good a student as the white person, so he does deserve to be in over the black kid, not becuase he's white, but because he scored higher and is a better student.

Why does a student who scores higher on standardized tests or who has a higher high school GPA "deserve" to be admitted in preference to someone who had lower test scores or a lower GPA?

CarbonSystem wrote:

Now to answer your second question. I was referring to Rufio's statement about white kids who don't deserve to be accepted if they are kids who's parents had to push them to succeed, even if they did use their own brains. The college, IMO is obligated to accept the student who did the best in high school.

Why? Is it obligated by law to do so? Or does it have some sort of moral obligation?

CarbonSystem wrote:

Once again, you are assuming that my reason for defending the white person is his race.

Not only do you have no clue what my assumptions are here, I'm convinced you don't even know what your own assumptions are.

CarbonSystem wrote:

Is that the only reason you think people in this world are turned down for things, is because of thier race? I hoped that you, Joe, would understand that other things are a factor.

No doubt. But I'm pretty sure you think people are turned down for things solely because of their race. That, after all, has been the theme to which you continually return in your opposition to affirmative action.

0 Replies

I am not sure if this has been said - but Affirmative action as it currently stands (in three parts):

1) Affirmative fairness (making sure the playing field is as level as possible).
2) Affirmative Recruitment (making sure a wider net is cast).
3) Affirmative Preference (Hiring the similarly qualified minority over the majority - as added in by Nixon in 1972).

This is not intended to be fair (look at Number 3 in particular) but to stop the race riots in the 60's and to get more blacks and other minorities to work (women in the 70's) we decided to tip the playing field in thier favor for a short period of time.

Where AA goes wrong is that it is now an indefinite plan that essentially gives preference to everyone except white males and asian males.

All others are incuded (whether implicitly or explitly) under the umbrella in AA.

We have fought fire with fire (which can be debated further) but it was originally designed to be fair (under JFK) but has changed (Under LBJ and Nixon) to something that was not designed to be fair.

It was a comprimise between JFK's affirmative fairness and Nixon's Philadelphi plan that essentially ushered in Quota's. (Which was denounced by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional).

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory: How is "affirmative preference" (prefering a qualified minority candidate over a similarly qualified white candidate) "unfair?"

0 Replies

Joe, maybe we should not be thinking of the matter in terms of fairness--I think you are correct in challenging our assumptions on this matter. I grant that our nation's history of favoring white males over all other categories has been "unfair." And it may be said that favoring minorities IS "unfair" insofar as the white children disfavored are not necessarily guilty of the unfairness practiced or enjoyed by their parents. Perhaps we should simply focus on the criterion of merit and its relevance both to the welfare of the nation and of all individuals involved. The nation suffers when its members (both the more talented and the less talented) are deprived of the education needed to realize their potential. And the individuals themselves suffer to the extent that they are not self-realized. If our nation is willing--as it should be--to protect people from starvation and deprivation of constitutional freedoms, why not also assist them to realize their intellectual and creative potential? Why should we not allocate sufficient money to accomplish this, since we are clearly willing to allocate large amounts of money for other projects that serve the national interest. This "liberal" proposal is off the top of my head, but I hope it will provide another dimension for discussion.

0 Replies

My mention of the criterion of merit, was not to suggest that only the meritorious (as measured by questionable testing systems) should receive assistance. The task is to assist those who can benefit from the assistance, and this may only be determined by granting help and observing the individual's progress, to see if they are in fact benefitting from the assistance. But my reference to merit has both to do with using the crtierion for determining who should receive aid and for using national resources to CREATE merit. We go to school to become more meritorious.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, maybe we should not be thinking of the matter in terms of fairness--I think you are correct in challenging our assumptions on this matter.

Either we need to think in terms other than of "fairness," or else we need to re-examine that notion. And you are correct: my point, in responding to both CarbonSystem and rufio, is to force them to examine their own assumptions regarding such core principles as "fairness," "discrimination," and "merit."

0 Replies

Joe, are you trying to say my principles are predjudiced?

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

Joe, are you trying to say my principles are predjudiced?

When you're ready to drop the wounded martyr routine and honestly engage the issues that I've raised, I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

0 Replies

Joe,

I am not a matyr.

It is often thought to be unfair because given all other qualifications being equal - you are deciding on giving a position to someone who based on somthing (race or gender) that is not meritorious.

Now it can be argued (and has) that race is a form of merit (in that it diversifies the work place) and I think that has some merit (no pun intended).

But, in my research (I wrote my thesis on Reparations and AA for African Americans) as AA was modfified by Nixon (because affirmative fairness was not working and affirmative recruitment was not working fast enough) was not intended to be fair. It was intended to get more blacks jobs - period.

Nixon, as he initially had it planned, was to modify the federal works to hire a set number of blacks to work federal jobs (the Philadelphia plan) which was struck down as unconstitutional.

This was modified as a preference and held as constitutional. The problems lie when owners of businesses seek to shortcut the EEOC hiring guidlines by saying - 'Hire x amount of minorities so that we do not get investigated by the EEOC.' (Griggs vs. the Duke Power Company sets the amount of minorities a company should hire at an amount that represents the surrounding environment - typically a census of the 90 miles surrounding the company proper).

This is not a problem with AA standards per se - but a common result that leads to abuses f=of EEOC standards and AA as a whole.

So, perhaps the question can be reversed Joe - how is preference of one individual based on color or gender alone (all else equal) not discrimination (the same type of discrimination that was sought to be outlawed by the original instantiation of AA).?

TF

0 Replies

From Carbon:

Quote:

Now to answer your second question. I was referring to Rufio's statement about white kids who don't deserve to be accepted if they are kids who's parents had to push them to succeed, even if they did use their own brains. The college, IMO is obligated to accept the student who did the best in high school. Once again, you are assuming that my reason for defending the white person is his race. Is that the only reason you think people in this world are turned down for things, is because of thier race? I hoped that you, Joe, would understand that other things are a factor.

You didn't understand what I said at all. I didn't say that white kids whose parents pushed them didn't deserve to be in college. I said that kids that go to college only to party don't deserve to go. I also said, independantly of that, that kids that were pushed by their parents are more likely to do well in high school, and therefore more likely to get into college, and that since most poor families don't consider college on the radar, they don't push their kids and the kids don't get into college. You seem to have this idea that we are all born better or worse than other people, or that we have some sort of innate personality traits that make us so. The truth is, that if not for your mother, you'd never even be able to learn to speak in order to utter such a fallacy.

joefromchicago wrote:

rufio wrote:
I'm not saying it should be "impermissible". I'm saying it's stupid.

By what measure is it "stupid?"

By the measure that the college is obviously trying to diversify itself, but by relying on warped perceptions of diversity, they are failing.

Quote:

rufio wrote:
The colleges want more minority students because they want to be "diverse". But what is "diverse" when you have an entire school of people who have the same political perspective, went to the same types of high schools and participated in the same types of activities, regardless of what race they are? . . . Just due to where I'm from and my experiences growing up there, I have radically different opinions and perspectives from most people I meet here, in terms of ideals and politics (if not high schools).

I'm confused, rufio. You say that everyone is alike, but that you're different? Wasn't that a scene from "Life of Brian?"

This is pretty simple, Joe:
This college (that I go to) does not diversify in as many ways as I think it should. Thus, in some respects, everyone who goes here is the same.
This college does however diversify in other ways. Thus, in some different respects, a few of us are different.
In conclusion: Wouldn't it be great if it diversified in more ways, and thus made the campus a nicer place to live?

Quote:

rufio wrote:
I don't know, I think either you gear your admissions toward carbon's ideal of "better" students who work harder and get better grades, or you gear it towards diversity - and if diversity is your thing, you should do it all the way, and not define "diversity" to mean "race". If you're not going to diversify your school in the ways that it matters, why pretend to diversify by using AA?

Why does it "matter more" to diversify based on factors other than race?

Because race is not diversity. It's part of it, but it's a small part of it. A black person from NYC is probably more similar to a white person from NYC than to a black person from Texas. A school that chooses the two people from NYC as opposed to a white person from Texas is actually making itself less diverse.

Quote:

rufio wrote:
And if you're not going to diversify, by using AA you just imply that being a minority makes you a "better" student somehow.

That makes absolutely no sense. If a college is not interested in diversity, then why would it adopt AA?

My point exactly.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Joe,

I am not a matyr.

I never claimed otherwise.

thethinkfactory wrote:

It is often thought to be unfair because given all other qualifications being equal - you are deciding on giving a position to someone who based on somthing (race or gender) that is not meritorious.

By the time one has reached the "all other things being equal" stage, we can assume that all merit-related factors have already been considered. At that point, then, we are dealing with non-merit factors. So why shouldn't race be counted among those factors?

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now it can be argued (and has) that race is a form of merit (in that it diversifies the work place) and I think that has some merit (no pun intended).

You mean personal merit? I don't agree.

thethinkfactory wrote:

This was modified as a preference and held as constitutional. The problems lie when owners of businesses seek to shortcut the EEOC hiring guidlines by saying - 'Hire x amount of minorities so that we do not get investigated by the EEOC.' (Griggs vs. the Duke Power Company sets the amount of minorities a company should hire at an amount that represents the surrounding environment - typically a census of the 90 miles surrounding the company proper).

If you think that's what Griggs stands for, then you clearly misunderstood the decision.

thethinkfactory wrote:

So, perhaps the question can be reversed Joe - how is preference of one individual based on color or gender alone (all else equal) not discrimination (the same type of discrimination that was sought to be outlawed by the original instantiation of AA).?

It is only discrimination if the white candidate should have obtained the position but was passed over in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant. That's the holding in Bakke and that's the law today. On the other hand, a white candidate cannot complain of discrimination if a position is given to someone who is just as qualified for that position.

0 Replies

Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know