Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

if "diversity" only includes three majority-minority groups, then diversity isn't very diverse. In case anyone is confused about what diversity really is, check the cia world factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html

Of course affirmative action isn't fair. It's a discriminatory, rascist policy. Equality of citizens under law, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, and country of origin would be fair.

That was what I was trying to say.

Portal - Remember that Affirmitive Action was first set up to guarantee your definition of fairness.

TTF

Whose definition of fairness should it have been made for?

Fairness should not be determined by a point in time, but rather, a summation of time. A point in time analysis is that AA is unfair, racist and discriminatory. The summation of time analysis is that AA action is fair because it is a needed equal and opposite force to promote equality by undoing the history and force of past white AA (discrimination against blacks).

I've been alive for the past 20 years. All of the actions that I can legally be blamed for happened in the past 20 years. If you want to exact revenge for racism, you can't blame college students.

But this is beside the point. I don't think AA was ever supposed to be about blame or revenge, or undoing history. You can't undo history. That's why it's history.

rufio, Excellent point; we can't undo history.

Quite right. AA policies were not developed on the foundation of a "blame or revenge" mentality; that would be a rather erroneous perception of AA. Similarly, as is calling it racist, sexist or discriminatory.



This is a very simplistic understanding of equality before the law; it is problematic as you are suggesting "absolute equality". The notions of non-discrimination and equality do not require identical treatment of all. Differential treatment does not automatically equate to discrimination. In other words, you don't treat all groups equally to get equity, you treat disadvantaged underrepresented groups with more resources to achieve equity.

This thread on has been an interesting one but it has done little to challenge the "ceteris paribus, ergo femina" principle despite the vitriol directed at such policies. No evidence has justified dismantling the existing structure of equal employment opportunity programs. Affirmative action explicates the cultural bias (a system that picks a majority candidate over a minority one, with a certain disregard to equality and ability) and moves to correct it, that is all. It is neither discriminatory nor unfair.

[Edited to remove typo]

VooDoo, What is the "ceteris paribus, ergo femina/vir" principle?

Cheers for pointing that out, cicerone imposter. That was meant to read "ceteris paribus, ergo femina"

First and foremost, you detractors to Affirmative Action do so based upon emotions and not logic and reasoning. You are fooling no one by pretending to seek rational clarification or defense of the policy. The plain and simple fact is that you do not like it and do not want it, based simply upon your emotional prejudice, which biases what you are willing to intellectual consider or entertain, thus potentially preventing you from reaching a logical, rational and unbiased conclusion.

Secondly, the precedent of American citizens being held accountable, legally, for acts they did not personally commit or actions that happened before their lifetime has been set many times over, in regards to benefit and liability. For example, each and ever tax paying citizen is still paying for the savings and loan debacle that occurred under Ronald Reagan's presidency, even though most of us had nothing to do with creating it. On the flip side, if one can argue, based upon principle, that they cannot be held legally accountable for things before their time and or that they did not partake in, then the reverse should be true as well. In other words, these same folks should not be able to enjoy any of the accrued benefits from the past that created a better present for citizens. If you have never fought in a war for American independence and freedom, then you should not be able to enjoy it, because it is a benefit that you did not contribute to. It would certainly be hypocritical and show a void of principle and character to refuse to be held accountable for a nations past liabilities, while simultaneous feeling they have the "right" to enjoy assets and benefits accrued from the past. Think of inheritance laws. When one accepts the inheritance of an estate, they accept the assets and liabilities of said estate. It's a package deal.

Lastly, AA actually falls way short of solving the inequities created from nearly 4 centuries of white male affirmative action in this nation. The present is the creation of the past. No one is talking about changing the past, but rather, changing the effect of racial inequality that resulted from acts in the past, by correcting it with equal and opposite acts to blacks favor in the present and future.

I think you'll still need to translate that, VooDoo.

Sounds like, "all being equal, therefore the woman". In reference to the discussion, probably refers to choosing a minorty over a majority for no reason other than race/gender/etc.

Noah, do you really think AA changes the effects of racial inequalities from acts in the past? You don't think it is in essence creating a racial inequality, but simply against another race?

Tell me this, do whites who were abolitionists get the benefits of blacks; the whites who put thier lives and the lives of thier loved ones at risk to hold stations on the underground railroad for the slaves? Surely they were discriminated against because of thier beliefs.

Or is this system one that is mocking the entire idea of equality. The idea that the greatest civil rights leader of all, Martin Luther King Jr. said, all men are created equal. Using the word equality in order to tip the scales.

Entries to college should be like the business world, survival of the fittest. In the real world, it won't matter if you're black or white, if you can't get it done, you're out of a job. Example: Stock Brokers, Engineers, Social Workers, Psychaitrists, Doctors . . .the list goes on. If a white doctor commits medical malpractice, and kills a patient because of being careless, he will get sued, and he will lose. If a black doctor does the exact same thing, he will suffer the same consequences. How then, can you prepare someone for the real world if you give them a leg up that won't be there when they graduate?

AA is making a mockery out of the word equality. There are many different definitons of equality, but I can almost assure you, that every single one includes one word; equal.

I think that my last thread was very clear. If you are asking me questions subsequent to that thread, then bias is preventing you from reaching understanding.

Noah first of all I would like to refute your post



Useles argueing tactic. Never employ it ever again as long as you live Noah for you will look like a fool. Never start off by saying "You guys are wrong because you are biased towards yourselves". First this implies that all detractors of AA are white which is friggin wrong. I hate the damn system and I'm mexican. I get straight A's in school and I sure as hell hope I get into college based on my achievemnets and skills not on my race or ethnicity. All opinions are based of bias btw otherwise they would be fact. To argue otherwise is futile. Don't act all high an mighty like your the one acting without bias here. That would be hypocrisy.



You make the inferiorly treated equal not SUPERIOR. They should not be giving EXTRA rights for the past. Martin Luther King and every other civil rights leader fought for EQUALITY not SUPERIORITY. You don't balance out acts my dear friend. Discrimination is wrong whether against or for minorities. Remember two wrongs don't make a right ;-). Blacks don't need AA and neither do women or hispanics. They have to earn their way through like everyone else. Remember they fought for equality not superiority.



ar·ro·gant
adj.

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

hy·poc·ri·sy
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

cav·a·lier
adj.

1. Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive

The dictionary really does say it all.

The utility of my point is not the issue. The validity or invalidity is the issue. My first paragraph suggests nothing in regards to the color of opponents to AA, but thanks for sharing with me that you are Mexican. There are many black folk who are conservative and against it too. Thus, your communication has thus far failed at informing or persuading based upon your erroneous assumptions. This thread is also not about you as individual. If we want to talk individuals, I flunked the 11th grade in high school. I graduated with a D average. However, I eventually went to college and earned a bachelors of Science degree. I have been tested for IQ and my average score is above 140. So a person's grade at any given point it time does not necessarily reflect their capacities or abilities. However, the point is moot because this is not about me, because I cannot extrapolate that what is true of me is true for the whole….and neither can you.

There is a law of Newtons which states that any object removed from a state of equilibrium by a force will thus require an equal and opposite force to return the object to a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a state of balance and equality. Also, mathematically, basic rules of mathematics indicate that as long as two the two sides of an equality expression are treated equally they will always be equal. However, failure to abide by this rule produces an expression that is an inequality. Thus, the only way to return an expression that is an inequality back to an equality is to reverse the operations that created the inequality. In other words, if additions were made to one side of the equation and not the other, then one must make additions to the other side, going forward, to offset the additions made in the past to the other side.

Thus, what I am saying is that logically, mathematically and by virtue of the laws of nature, AA makes sense.

Ok now you're argueing good. I understand now where you are coming from. However I still disagree and I'll use math. Bad things such as discrimination are NOT offset by bad things such as discrimination candy-wrapped as AA. It IS offset however by good things such as integration and equality and equal rights and help (but NOT EXTRA RIGHTS) to the underprivelaged. Negative times Negative yields a greater negative. We should offset the past but not through AA there are other ways. Worried about blacks and women not doing as well and having the same chance? Spend more time teaching them so that if they get accepted places they know it's for what they have done not who they are at birth. Otherwise they will not work as hard because after all why do they need to? They get precedence over a white male who has tried his ass off to get where he is.

I really do not need your critique of whether I am arguing good or bad in your judgment (who are YOU and why should I care?). That having been said, you failed to use math and logic to anchor your point as you foreshadowed that you would. You can discredit my conclusion by either logically demonstrating how my logic is flawed or by logically demonstrating how your logic is correct. Your recommendations follow no laws of nature or mathematics that I know of.

The fact of the matter is that violence may be seen as wrong, but if you are attacked, using violence to defend your life is the equal and opposite force often needed for survival. When our nation was attacked with violence, we did not try to kill the enemy with kindness, rather, we used what they used….which was violence. Some times controlled fires need to be set to stop the ravages of uncontrolled fires.

Seriously I rarely do this but.... **** you. What the **** is your problem?



Somebody swallowed an anal pill today.

AAANNND you're wrong lol.


I didnt think I'd actually have to use the math terms buuuttt
-x*-x=-x^2=x^2>x
And I'm not being one hundred percent literal here.



And some times not.