joefromchicago wrote:But let's leave government-sponsored affirmative action aside for one moment. Would you have any problem with a purely private college enacting an affirmative action program on its own initiative?
No.
joefromchicago wrote:rosborne979 wrote:Just because we want the world to be a better place doean't mean that whatever ham-handed thing we come up with to change it, is the right thing. At the very least, we should be consistent with our principles, and if discrimination is wrong, which we all seem to agree that it is, then let's stop using it as a tool to try to make things right, because no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that we're justified in doing something which is wrong, for the right reasons, it's just never going to be fair, to anyone.
See, that's the problem. You use the term "discrimination" indiscriminately.
I don't think I did. If your following question is meant to demonstrate that I did, then I don't see how.
joefromchicago wrote:When there are two equally qualified applicants for a single position, and the "tie-breaker" is minority status, how does that "discriminate" against the non-minority applicant?
It doesn't. Equally qualified is equally qualified. The whole point of AA is that they are not equally qualified, because selected groups are being given an edge with regard to grades and academic achievement.
Colleges routinely select students of lower academic achievement due to pressure to maintain a certain percentage of selected groups. If the academic credentials of everyone were already equal, then I wouldn't care who they selected.
The implimentation of Affirmative Action in colleges and workplaces doesn't doesn't say that if all things are equal choose a particular group. It says that the total population of the institutution must reflect certain percentages of selected groups regardless of the academic achievement level of the individuals in the groups compared to others.
Joe, in repsonse to your theoretical situation.
First, send each a test regarding this particular freshman class. If both get identical grades.... reject both. Only fair thing to do.
Naj
Joe
Quote:Or are you simply saying that race should never be the sole deciding factor?
Exactly race cannot nor should it be the deciding factor.In fact it should not be a factor at all. There in my opinion cannot be two people one white and one black that are so similar in grades and background that a decision need be made based on race alone.
Quote:However, if all things are equal. I will buy into Santanta's solution Flip a coin.
Just being flippant. I do not believe that we would ever come to the point, after considering all the variables. Where a valid decision cannot be made without the use of color or ethnicity. And frankly if it were to happen I am not sure how I would feel. However, as I said I cannot foresee it ever happening.
I would like to make one more comment. I noticed in one of the responses that the schools were being blamed for the poor achievement level of inner city students. I totally reject that thesis. The same schools that produced generations educated students are now unable to do so. Bull! Place the blame where it belongs. The students and their parents. Bill Cosby had it right. Those who care to learn can and will despite the disruption by those students who do not want to.
Rosborne, you stated that:
"Despite the fact that you want the government to take on the role of selective discrimination, nowhere in our constitution does it even imply that this is the role of government. To the contrary, the government is supposed to oppose discrimination in all forms. AA is practically unconstitutional.
And even if we could agree that the government *should* take on the role of selective discrimination judge, who in the government is qualified to make these judgements? What process will we put in place to quantify which groups/people get special dispensation? Such a system is undefinable, and has no backing in the constitution. How can you, or anyone, possibly make a system of selective judgement work equitably?
There is a natural system in place which will eventually level the playing field without any government intervention, other than to prevent legislated discrimination. We just need to give this process time. The process is competition, and I will give an example of it in response to JoeFromChicago's post earlier in this thread. "
You do realize, Rosborne, how your entreaty to be patient and give the "natural process" time sounds to those who have been waiting for centuries? It sounds grossly hypocritical. It is sounds to minorities that you are underestimating their intelligence by such a ruse. Why are you looking for reasons to disqualify the government as the agent of such important change when it is obviously the agency most likely to succeed? Why not use your intelligence to suggest ways it can achieve its constitutional mission? The goal is clearly correct. The means may be difficult, but the best instrument to serve that function is OUR federal government.
Also, we should keep in mind that we have changed our Constitution to keep up with the times. Slavery and the disenfranchisement of women were in the past quite constitutional, and all bigots and sexists were enthusiastic constitutionalists regarding those injustices. Look at how you try to discourage the process by asking "who in the government is qualified to make such [reparative] judgements?" You sound like you don't want there to be any such qualified individuals. The task is to determine what constitutes such qualifications and to identify the best judges and/or to provide the necessary education to qualify individuals for that task. Are you suggesting that if there are no perfect judges, there should be none at all? That is sabotage and it suggests, if you'll pardon my presumption, bad faith.
By the way, somebody has asked about the role of skin color, asking if a wealthy black child should have AA advantage over a poor white. I think not. What AA is trying to do is mitigate the effects of past and present discrimination, and if you ask me, we ARE coming to a place in our history, with the rise of a black and brown middle class, where class is seen to be the major basis for discrimination. While ethnic minority status remains highly correlated with class position, that correlation is lessened every decade, and that is in part due to Affirmative Action. Children of poor parents should not be deprived of the opportunity to excel, regardless of their skin color. Blacks who are rich have virtually no disadvantages;whites who are poor do. Moreover, it was asked if black immigrants should be favored solely because of their skin color. My understanding is that while immigrants should be granted equal rights, they do not merit any reparative justice because it is only the descendants of unjustly treated black AMERICANS who deserve reparation, not the descendants of AFRICAN parents. The same principle applies to the difference between Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants.
cicerone imposter wrote:Only government can make corrective action - not necessarily AA, but to ensure equal opportunity in all facets of education and jobs. If we leave it to the majority, no matter which culture, inequality will happen. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Inequality changes over time. We hire the Irish and Catholics now and that had nothing to do with government intervention in this form. We also no longer discrimiate against Native Americans, and we no longer send Japanese to internment camps. Prior to enslavement Blacks enjoyed the same rights as other citizens, as they do now.
Humans are social animals, and they try to create seperate groups and hierarchies. The government will never be able to stop this behavior by trying to predict who is being discriminated against more than others at any point in time.
The way for the government to consistently be non-discriminatory is for it to never allow for law exceptions, and give equal protection to all of its citizens. The government garuntees the freedom of the pursuit of happiness, but it doesn't garuntee happiness.
In the event that the government wants to lean towards socialism, and try to garuntee more equal happiness, a consistent predictor for satisfaction would be wealth. There is no reason to use race as a predictor other than the fact that people vote along racial lines.
Also, if you see affirmative action as a form of reparation, you should ask yourself why people who have been discriminated against more recently have not also been compensated. (for example: Jews, Koreans, the Japanese, the Irish.)
Not to mention the fact that "white" includes a lot of groups who were never involved in slavery or black-hispanic racial discrimination, and that the sons and daughters of a criminal are not responsible for their crimes.
PS, It's evident you have not understood anything I have posted in this thread. I'll let somebody else repond for me; I tire of unprovoked challenges.
rosborne979 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:But let's leave government-sponsored affirmative action aside for one moment. Would you have any problem with a purely private college enacting an affirmative action program on its own initiative?
No.
Why not? Surely if a private institution discriminates, it's still discrimination, right?
rosborne979 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:When there are two equally qualified applicants for a single position, and the "tie-breaker" is minority status, how does that "discriminate" against the non-minority applicant?
It doesn't. Equally qualified is equally qualified. The whole point of AA is that they are not equally qualified, because selected groups are being given an edge with regard to grades and academic achievement.
No, that's not the whole point of AA. That's the common
perception of AA, as fostered by its fiercest opponents, but it is simply not true.
rosborne979 wrote:Colleges routinely select students of lower academic achievement due to pressure to maintain a certain percentage of selected groups. If the academic credentials of everyone were already equal, then I wouldn't care who they selected.
Are you suggesting that there is an objective standard by which all students can be fairly judged, so that admissions decisions, for instance, could be done strictly "by the numbers" rather than taking subjective factors into account?
rosborne979 wrote:The implimentation of Affirmative Action in colleges and workplaces doesn't doesn't say that if all things are equal choose a particular group.
Sorry to break this to you,
rosborne, but that is
exactly what it says.
rosborne979 wrote:It says that the total population of the institutution must reflect certain percentages of selected groups regardless of the academic achievement level of the individuals in the groups compared to others.
No, what you're describing are
quotas. Those are unconstitutional.
najmelliw wrote:Joe, in repsonse to your theoretical situation.
First, send each a test regarding this particular freshman class. If both get identical grades.... reject both. Only fair thing to do.
Naj
Well, I suppose it's fair in an abstract sense.
au1929 wrote: Exactly race cannot nor should it be the deciding factor.In fact it should not be a factor at all. There in my opinion cannot be two people one white and one black that are so similar in grades and background that a decision need be made based on race alone.
But you've already suggested that you would take wealth or family status into account. Why, then, is race off-limits while other factors, such as socio-economic status, aren't? What makes race so special?
au1929 wrote:Just being flippant. I do not believe that we would ever come to the point, after considering all the variables. Where a valid decision cannot be made without the use of color or ethnicity. And frankly if it were to happen I am not sure how I would feel. However, as I said I cannot foresee it ever happening.
It happens all the time.
Joe
rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:Quote:It says that the total population of the institution must reflect certain percentages of selected groups regardless of the academic achievement level of the individuals in the groups compared to others.
Joe wrote
No, what you're describing are quotas. Those are unconstitutional.
Yes, they are unconstitutional however, that never stopped it from being applied.
I worked in the defense industry. The Gov't auditors came in many times to check the color and ethnicity of the work force. They made it pretty plain what they were after
Portal Star, I would like to respond to your statement
"... that "white" includes a lot of groups who were never involved in slavery or black-hispanic racial discrimination, and that the sons and daughters of a criminal are not responsible for their crimes."
Affirmative Action should not be designed to punish the descendants of discriminators of the past. It should be designed to change the distributive pattern of privilege and ability resulting from those discriminations. This distribution of abilities is in good part the consequence of historic unfairness. It denies that the disadvantages suffered by minorities is a function of their natural inabilities. Class and the deprivations that reflect it includes grossly unequal schools and the resulting "culture of poverty" that perpetuates the results of deprivation--even as it "adapts" to them. It is my conviction that whites should not suffer because of Affirmative Action. At present we have a situation where the different ethnic categories are unnecessarily competing for higher educational opportunities. The size of the pie of opportunity is kept static and ethnic groups are forced into a zero-sum situation wherein one's gains are the other's losses. This situation generates and exascerbates divisiveness and inter-group hostility. I see no valid reason why we cannot put more money into higher education in order to increase the size of the pie. This would permit us to accomodate able minorities without excluding able majorities.
By the way, during my many years as a university professor, I have served on the University, College and Department Affirmative Action committees, and it has been my experience that, for the most part, Affirmative Action is not really intended to go out, as it should, and beat the bushes for able but deprived minorities. Instead its major, and covert, function has been to protect the university from being sued. What a disappointing revelation that was to me.
Joe.
Quote:What makes race so special?
Indeed what makes race so special when
all other factors are equal.
When all other factors are equal "race" becomes important because it is equated with class/ethnic deprivation. It assumes, reasonably, that the members of a minority "race" are members of a underprivileged class. The problem is that sometimes, rarely but sometimes, privileged members of a minority group are "compensated" for disadvantages they have not suffered. But "race" per se is not--or should not be--the principal factor. This is so because races (as biologically defined entities) do not exist, while ethnic groups (as socially defined populations) do.
JLNobody wrote:Why not use your intelligence to suggest ways it can achieve its constitutional mission?
It's not our constitutional mission JL, it never has been, and it shouldn't be. The government is not, and shoud not, be charged with making the world a level playing field.
And asking me to solve the problem doesn't win the debate. I already know how to solve the problem: stop discriminating. Completely. Everywhere. Ignore everything except what matters, and only what matters will come into play. It's natural, and in the end, it's inevitable.
rosborne, I must disagree with your thesis that "stopping discrimination" is the solution. The quesiton is, how do we stop discrimination? It's easier said than done. If you believe discrimination doesn't exist, there isn't much to argue about. As a minority citizen (third generation) of the US, I can tell you discrimination still exists.
joefromchicago wrote:rosborne979 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:But let's leave government-sponsored affirmative action aside for one moment. Would you have any problem with a purely private college enacting an affirmative action program on its own initiative?
No.
Why not? Surely if a private institution discriminates, it's still discrimination, right?
Private is private. I believe in personal freedoms, even to be prejudice if one chooses, even if I don't like that behavior myself. I don't like people's choices of religion either, but they have the right to believe what they want.
joefromchicago wrote:rosborne979 wrote:The implimentation of Affirmative Action in colleges and workplaces doesn't doesn't say that if all things are equal choose a particular group.
Sorry to break this to you,
rosborne, but that is
exactly what it says.
I appologize if I'm ill informed on this. It was my understanding that these were common results from AA. Can you provide more detailed documentation which supports your understanding of the definitions of AA?
joefromchicago wrote:rosborne979 wrote:It says that the total population of the institutution must reflect certain percentages of selected groups regardless of the academic achievement level of the individuals in the groups compared to others.
No, what you're describing are
quotas. Those are unconstitutional.
Maybe my understanding of AA is not accurate. I thought that quotas and AA were entwined to the point of merger.
Maybe you can give me your definition of AA. And then maybe we can get an "official" definition of AA from the law somewhere. Are you sure that your view of AA is what is actually in play?
cicerone imposter wrote:rosborne, I must disagree with your thesis that "stopping discrimination" is the solution. The quesiton is, how do we stop discrimination? It's easier said than done. If you believe discrimination doesn't exist, there isn't much to argue about. As a minority citizen (third generation) of the US, I can tell you discrimination still exists.
Perhaps my goal is too theoretical to be realistic CI. And yes, I do know that discrimination still exists, and always will. And I'm not sure we can ever stop it at a personal level.
My point was that if governments and laws should be non-discriminatory in all ways. All we can hope to do is to provide a model by which people can measure their own choices. If the government provides an example in which discrimination is used to measure and control society, then we will be forever bound to the recognition and distribution of groups.
The government needs to set the best ultimate model, and then we need to work towards it. And the best model is to stop grouping people. These groups are arbitrary, they are useless.
