Affirmative Action

Hmmmm - it would help if you debated, instead of posting strings of childish insults, Noah.

Perhaps then, also, others would have been prepared to join in. Why, you might have had several good debates at once - who knows?

Affirmative Action seems an anathema to the meritocratic ideals that the U.S. was founded and built upon.

The perceived "justice delayed" doled out to those deemed oppressed is viewed, with much justification, by others denied such consideration as the result of a zero sum game that leaves the latter with a feeling of being cheated and that the former is a cheat and inherently less qualified.

In its recent addressing of the U. Michigan cases the U.S. Supreme Court only obfuscates this issue when it essentially hands down a combination of decisions that supplies us with the message that its OK to discriminate according to race as long as that action doesn't involve specific facts and figures (undergraduate admissions) and is sufficiently hidden from popular view (those of its law school). Not much moral clarity from the justices' quarter there.



No. Shifting the justification for something inherently wrong is, at best, dishonest and makes little sense at the current level AA is currently applied. However, this question hints at an answer that I suggest a couple of paragraphs further on. AA is the use of discrimination to rectify the past abuses of discrimination. Those that endorse its use would seem fine with the concept that making the same mistake twice, deliberately so the second time, is a valid exercise in social engineering.

But some would ask: "But James, surely you can see that the resultant diversity in our society is desirable?" But this merely implies agreement with the concept that the end justifies the means and proposes the use of Band-Aids where perhaps sutures are needed. Further, it tends to ignore the social cost of such social artificial inseminatory efforts.

AA is divisive and not the solution. The remedy lies at the bottom rung of the educational ladder. It is here that our society should provide help for those who not only need it but desire it. This is the only solution that makes economic real world sense. To say everyone has the right to a top quality education is unrealistic and its pursuit will only waste our educational resources. These resources are, like most desirable things, in short supply.

Given these economic realities the best we can do is to help young children start on an even playing field and let the individual combination of intelligence and industry take over from that point. It is more than unfair for our society to "make allowances" for those that demonstrate less of the above combination and promote their insertion into desired vocations and academic institutions purely for the pursuit of ethnic diversity. It is cultural and civilization self destruction. It just doesn't seem a good idea to promote mediocrity.

Diversity is a desirable goal for it implies equality of different ethnic backgrounds. But the social engineering gymnastics manifest in AA are unnecessary. We have ample evidence that, in this country (U.S.) at least, this is a natural progression. Witness the social ascendancy of the Irish, Italians, and Chinese sans Affirmative Action. Was it easy? No. Why, is it supposed to be? Does everyone deserve the income of a doctor or CFO of IBM? No, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the anti-meritotic society, speaks volumes.

Affirmative Action is more than a flawed concept. AA and ethnic discrimination are different terminologies cloaking the same immorality. The pursuit of "feel good" measures whether via social policies or self medication is not a desirable social goal. What are next, soccer games that are averse to keeping score for fear of insulting 50% of the participants?

Respectfully,

JM

Oh... Puh-leaseeee!!!! There's several pages of strings of me debating yours truly (Craven) where others joined in and quickly joined out (I'll let them tell you why) DLowan.... You are Johnny Coming Lately and trying to tell me what's been going on.

Who Knows???

All you have to do is go back to page 17, 18, 19.... You know whatever precipitated what you know want to comment on... So don't come to me whining about being "prepared" to join in. Perhaps that's why you just now had something to say. You were not "prepared". And in terms of really debating, I'm sure you're still not which speaks volumes to what you have ultimately decided to say.

FYI...
Besides whatever I have discussed with Craven, there is still a strikingly unanswered post (2 to be exact) where I principally posted links to articles about MLK and Affirmative Action. Perhaps you or the gentleman quoted below are "prepared" to deal with those??



This is frequently asserted... I am glad to see though that you refer to it as "inherently" so. Perhaps you can tell me whether you ever saw a need for such a program in the first place and why? (I'll reread you post maybe you stated it...)

That is? What would you propose to correctly address what it is suppose to have addressed at least done at its inception?

That to me would be what's problematic. People bemoan affirmative action some saying that it is no longer useful today and others like you saying essentially it never was useful - i.e. it was/is inherently flawed (and has been since day one)... Well, I guess your opinion is that you excuse the racist past and the real life consequences.... unequal ones on the life chances of people who are still living and lived through those eras of indisputable inequality.

So, if AA is inherently "wrong" to you then I feel all the more embolden to say America is "inherently" racist and mean it in the same way that you do. Nevermind that no amount of logic within the context of history and real life wherein you can defend your position. Of course, in the abstract your position may make perfect sense to you. But life and history are not abstract or absolute affairs...

Heehee - I was criticising, rather than whining.

But, have it as you will....

Actually, I believe I asked you a question re MLK after that, which you did not answer - or perhaps that was Noah 1, it is hard to tell...

James,

I think it important to note that inequality of opportunity is also counter-productive to the aims of a meritocracy.

So neither side has exclusive right to the claim of bettering meritocracy.

To weigh the odds intentionally can also be described as aiding meritocracy by seeking to equalize the starting line (education).

Simply put there are elements of our society that are anything but a pure meritocracy. It's becoming increasingly necessary to have documented education. It's not enough to be smart, you need a piece of paper (diploma) that says you are.

Said piece of paper is becoming increasingly expensive.

It's not a meritocracy for the scions of the wealthy to be the only ones with the opportunity to compete.

Without some programs, a large portion of the population would simply be excluded from the opportunity alltogether.

I favor equality in education opportunity. I do not at all think it should be race-based, what I do think is that a child who has the misfortune to be born to parents who do not or cannot secure the child's education is a handicap that does not help meritocracy at all. It simply perpetuates the barriers to upward moblity.

I don't think any race should be treated favorably at all.

But I do think that anyone who wants an education should be able to get one.

America can afford to provide free higher education to those who need it. I think that would be a fine way to equalize things and promote real meritocracy.

But on the subject of AA it's really not meant to do this. Racial discrimination is supposed to be illegal. The problem is that there's almost no way to prove that someone's hiring criterias are racially discriminatory.

The only scientific way to do so is to analyze the statistical trends.

From this come the quotas. From the inherent difficulty in determining when discriminatory practices are being implemented.

So I don't know why you call it "inherently wrong".

"Inherently" it was just supposed to be a way to enforce the laws against racially discriminatory practices.

Ultimately policies that aim to equalize opportunity can't be called inherently against the ideal of meritocracy. Implementations can be flawed and AA has certainly grown beyond the initially intended scope.

But the ideal, which is equal opportunity, is not inherently wrong. And it's also not in any way contrary to the ideal of meritocracy.

It's kinda like trying to make sure that the starting line in a race is fair.

You'd be hard pressed to argue that lower class children born into families that can't secure higher education for them are competing at the same level as the higher class kids with their futures secured for them.

The spirity of competition is not a stacked deck. How to unstack it is tricky but an ideal ideal for a meritocracy.

I personally favor complete equality in access to education, and for the rest let the chips fall where they may.

Evidently our standards of debate are very different and evidently the reading disability continues.

I made very explicitly clear that I was simply engaging you for mirth. I invited you to a debate a serious subject (as the Noah's are simply not a serious subject) and you declined.

So don't mischaracterize the fun as a debate, as it was not.

So if you want to lay claim to having engaged me in debate you'll have to actually pick up the gauntlet and debate. This is something you were not up to and refused.

Second Craven.

I went to UCLA, a good university, and it cost me $26.00 in fees my first semester. That was in 1960. It jumped, I think, to $76.00 my last semester. I lived at home, worked 30 hrs a week to pay rent at home (my father was unemployed), for food, books (espensive), bus fare, some clothes. Then Ronald Reagan came along.

I strongly believe in making higher education available to all who qualify, and support helping people qualify by an advanced tutoring system.

As I have understood affirmative action, all the people who got in through it with so called lower grades had qualified anyway under the stated grade levels accepted at the university. They just didn't walk in with 4.0's. Neither did lots of other people, daughters of alums, or football players.

This angst could be alleviated if there were more good schools with more funding.

Well Noah, I've created the thread. I know you said you weren't interested but you alternate between shying from serious discussion with me and claiming that you've aleady done so.

So on the off chance that you are up to it here you go.

I expect the usual "I don't want to debate you" tirades with the "are you deaf" and "you are IRRELEVANT" being thrown in. But feel free to prove me wrong on the predictable retreat.

Alternating.... Is that what you call your whining about me calling you Bernie Mack's nephew??? Milk & Coooookies!?

Funny how you assailed me for having fun and then for taking things to serious.... Now, I'm as confused as I was offended about you talking about my "intelligence".

And I guess you are alternating on whether you want to "debate" me on reparations or whether you would simply just like to here my position spelled out in detail. This "mirth" stuff you're on sure makes it hard to figure out what you really mean to say. I guess I'll take everything you say here as a joke. And considering the way you have "alternated" about your intended purpose for your invitation, I can only take that as a joke as well.... as I take you to be period - a big joke! :wink:
_____________________________________________

To JAMES:

It's actually rather ironic that on this very issue that you, like so many others invoke the sacred golden calf of meritocracy (also known as a graven image - i.e. an idol god - i.e. a FALSE god, etc.). It's ironic because the very history of race in this country flies right in the face of the idea of merit. So we're talking about what?? This nation gave an unfair advantage to whites over blacks (and others) for what?? Most or more of its history?

And yes... we can include women.... and we can also include the poor or the property-less class(es). So, I really have a hard time keeping a straight face as I suspect you do at the suggestion that you really believe there is such a thing or has been such a thing as a meritocracy.

Again, cronyism and nepotism seem to evade this discussion so that America's "inherent" pasttime - race - can take its 'rightful' place at the center of the nation [un]consciousness. Now, when 80% of jobs are filled by the Who You Know method rather than by the strict merit of open, publicized, want-ad applications then it shouldn't be hard to see how Nepotism and Cronyism even in their most "innoncent" forms account and accounted for so much of the perpetuated job discrimination or rather lack of equal opportunity issues in this country.

Though this is increasing becoming a thing of the past... this illustrates benign and less than merit based everyday "discrimination":

Dad gets a job at the local factory;
Dad knows when the factory is hiring;
Dad tells son to fill out an application before the openings are put in the paper;
Son fills out the application;
Son gets job off the good name if not good work ethic of father.

Granted that somewhere in America Dad and Son accounts for any number of jobs being held by this Word Of Mouth and Who You Know method, not to mention the plant manager and owner's family members even do to nephews and all kinds of relatives... those who just married into the family, etc. Now, think about it. Dad and Son represent two generations. Depending on how long Son has been working at the plant, it could very well be that Dad got the job when open and sanctioned discrimination occurred.

Also, take into account that this happens also along friendship lines as well. Your buddy tells you his boss is hiring.... You get the job because of your Good Ole Buddy.

Now, take into account that most of these family members and friends who benefit from less than fair and open competition for jobs are inevitably white, when it comes down it... There is no meritocracy when it comes to that.

So, I for one will not ignore this everyday reality that we all know exist in order to engage in America's racist pasttime...
___________________________________________________

Craven?? What do you think about Peter Irons' Thurgood Marshall Plan??

Craven's quote, "I favor equality in education opportunity. I do not at all think it should be race-based, what I do think is that a child who has the misfortune to be born to parents who do not or cannot secure the child's education is a handicap that does not help meritocracy at all. It simply perpetuates the barriers to upward moblity." I totally agree.

"Meritocracy" is an ideal that will never work in the real world. There are many reasons for this. Just because an individual does well in school does not mean they will do well in the work place - nor succeed economically. It "improves," but does not guarantee anything. As with many things in real life experiences, it helps to have good karma, good looks, average intelligence, and a good personality. How far one advances their education in the real world rarely has anything to do with race, culture, or national origin. That's the reason why we have people of every color successful in this world. It's MHO that women still suffer from the most discrimination than any other group. They still earn a smaller percentage of men's salaries - on the average, even though they represent about 50 percent of the work force.

CI said:

"As with many things in real life experiences, it helps to have good karma, good looks, average intelligence, and a good personality. How far one advances their education in the real world rarely has anything to do with race, culture, or national origin."

Thing is (minus karma, which I cannot comment on!) - average intelligence, a good personality - and possibly even good looks (eg good bones, skin, energ, health, straightened, well-cared for teeth) have a great deal to do with how well-off your family is - since many of the risk factors for poor attachment, child abuse and neglect, less than ok nutrition, impoverishment of early learning environment, exposure to violence and other trauma etc etc frequently coincide with poverty, cultural dislocation and so on.

These things have measurable effects - ON AVERAGE -on brain development, personality development, even looks - (which affects employability). (There are, of course, always exceptions and the protective factors are being actively researched)

Where particular cultures have a history of poverty, social alienation, family dislocation, oppression, high levels of family violence and early trauma etc (I will stay close to home - Australian Aboriginal people fall disproportionately into all of these groups) then I believe that race/culture -based affirmative action is highly indicated - eg spending more on early intervention services, more on schools with a high Aboriginal population and more on special educational programs for Aboriginal students (finding the working programs is the thing!), concentrating on special health programs for Aboriginal people (they have the worst health in the nation and have great trouble, for cultural and historical reasons in accessing main-stream services at present), on helping kids stay in school, on getting black young people into employment etc .

So - I am not arguing against a poverty based AA, but adding that, sometimes, it is easy to identify particular racial/cultural groups where, just to get them anywhere near the possibility of standing on a level playing field, they need extra help from the taxs of the more historically fortunate - or rapacious.

dlowan, I said "rarely." That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

"Australian Aboriginal people" are by it's very nature restricted to Australia. I'm speaking more in more universal terms.

Actually, being good looking doesn't have much to do with success, at least in certain industries.

cjh, There are always exceptions.

I'm also part of the "exception."

Yeah, so am I - like the Maoris in New Zealand, the native inhabitants of South America, North America and I assume Canada......etc.

Cjhsa - that photo and quip is hilarious!

where do i sign up ? "hamburger"