Interesting new take on Affirmative Action - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Manx · 01-30-2005, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I'm not responding to your other posts, I'm responding to this post. And I don't believe there is an explanation in your other posts. Prove me wrong. I'm not going hunting for something that may or may not be there.

Or give up. I can live with either choice of yours.

Are you kidding me? You asked a question or made a point (at this time, I don't even remember what you did) and I explained to you that I already answered/addressed it in a previous post in this thread. You may not "believe" that I have done so, but there's not much more I could do about your belief beyond telling you to go read the posts I have made in this thread or repeating myself.

As for giving up? Hardly. I cannot control your ability to take the 1 minute that is necessary to read context.

I'm done with this entirely tangenital portion of this discussion. Read what I posted, or don't. It's your decision.

Manx · 01-30-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Perhaps you can be more specific. Are you saying that the race with the lowest population density is the race that receives AA preferences?

Which race(s) would that be?

It all depends on context. Are we speaking of a specific field of study? A specific field of business? Which races have the lowest population densities in those fields? Those are the races that require preference.

Manx · 01-30-2005, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Another pertinent point that needs to be made in any discussion of AA: "race" per se is nonexistent. Researchers in the field of human evolution have rejected the entire concept of "race" as applied to human biology.

Biology is ignorant of psychology. If you want to eliminate the concept of race because some biologists claim it doesn't exist, you're more than welcome. You are of course wrong, but that much would be obvious by walking down the street. To humor you for a brief moment, however, the claim that races do not exist on a biological level is questionable. The evidence that demonstrates such a claim to be false is apparent in the field of medicine which shows that some races are more suseptible to certain health problems than others. But again, biologically defined race is entirely irrelevent. We're talking about psychology. Psychologically, race exists and racism exists.

Quote:

So racial diversity is really just diversity in some superficial human traits that somebody recently decided are important.

Nonsense. Racial diversity is not superficial and it quite clearly is not some "recently decided" important aspect of society. Racial diversity is extremely important for racial tolerance. One need only look back through history to recognize that many decisions have been based on race. They had this thing called slavery for centuries and centuries.

I'm all for cultural diversity. But I don't see how one can ignore racial diversity as a driving factor in cultural diversity. On average, a white male in his 30's has FAR more in common with the average white male in his 30's than he does with the average black woman in her 30's.

Manx · 01-30-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

The only reason I'm even referring to race is that race has been your perspective all along.

Nonsense. You focused this discussion on race. You responded to my initial post, which is very clearly about discrimination in general. My observation is accurate.

Quote:

My responses here have been entirely reactive.

I don't even know what that means. But I guess I can raise my hand and state that my posts here have also been entirely reactive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

The purpose of AA is to give a particular race or gender assistance. If it doesn't provide any assistance, then it is not doing anything. Assistance is the "action" in "affirmative action." A synonym for assistance is "leg up".

"leg up" implies an advantage that is extraordinary. AA is designed to restore balance. Hence, "leg up" is not accurate. Someone who receives AA is not receiving something that is not already afforded to someone who cannot receive AA.

Quote:

Now you may argue that overall, AA is just, and that's fine, but that's a completely different point.

Not really, that is actually my entire point.

Quote:

The fact is that in any instance in which AA actually performs an action, it increases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of one group, and decreases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of another group.

This is the secondary aspect of AA which you, incorrectly, define as the primary aspect.

FoolThemAll · 01-30-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I'm done with this entirely tangenital portion of this discussion. Read what I posted, or don't. It's your decision.

I gave in. I took the minute.

The answer, predictably, was not there. Not the first time I've been disappointed in this way, hence my lazy cynicism.

Try again. Or don't.

Manx · 01-31-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I gave in. I took the minute.

The answer, predictably, was not there.

I spent 2 minutes going back to remind myself what it is you were asking. This is it:

Quote:

Show me why one can't believe that racism exists and also believe that AA is wrong. That's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

And from that I went back further to triple check that I had addressed that in my posts prior. I see that I did.

I leave it to you to take the time to find it on your own, as I see clearly that I addressed that topic specifically in atleast two different posts.

The information is there. Have at it or ignore it.

This is silly.

FoolThemAll · 01-31-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

The information is there. Have at it or ignore it.

It isn't. Variations of the leap you made are, but that's it.

I suppose we're done.

smooth · 01-31-2005, 09:30 AM

I certainly hope you are.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Manx' points, he's at least added something of substance to the discussion. I don't find your posts amusing or engaging, FoolThemAll.

FoolThemAll · 01-31-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I certainly hope you are.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Manx' points, he's at least added something of substance to the discussion. I don't find your posts amusing or engaging, FoolThemAll.

I wasn't trying to be amusing. Manx won't/can't address my arguments addressing his claim and instead points me toward his earlier posts. His earlier posts contained no additional hidden wisdom. The leap was not explained, it was merely repeated. It was redundant.

I don't consider it substance when it isn't defended/explained adequately.

smooth · 01-31-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I wasn't trying to be amusing. Manx won't/can't address my arguments addressing his claim and instead points me toward his earlier posts. His earlier posts contained no additional hidden wisdom. The leap was not explained, it was merely repeated. It was redundant.

I don't consider it substance when it isn't defended/explained adequately.

It's just an afternoon discussion for me--not a formal debate.
Lighten up, dude.

If he didn't answer your questions adequately, move on; don't bog down the discussion a bunch of other people were having because you want to make an issue of one of his minor points.

FoolThemAll · 01-31-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

It's just an afternoon discussion for me--not a formal debate.
Lighten up, dude.

If he didn't answer your questions adequately, move on; don't bog down the discussion a bunch of other people were having because you want to make an issue of one of his minor points.

I was prepared to do just that when you replied.

I pursued the 'minor point' because it was a somewhat insulting and particularly ill-conceived point. If it's just an afternoon debate for you, surely you could pass by this 'bogged-down' portion of the discussion.

raveneye · 02-07-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Nonsense. You focused this discussion on race. You responded to my initial post, which is very clearly about discrimination in general. My observation is accurate.

Did you read the article linked in the original post in this thread? Its title is "Race-Based Affirmative Action."

Hence, race based affirmative action is the subject of this thread. I did not start this subject, I responded to it.

If you were referring to gender-based AA, then it certainly was not obvious from your post.

My comment was accurate.

Manx · 02-07-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Did you read the article linked in the original post in this thread? Its title is "Race-Based Affirmative Action."

Hence, race based affirmative action is the subject of this thread. I did not start this subject, I responded to it.

If you were referring to gender-based AA, then it certainly was not obvious from your post.

My comment was accurate.

You were responding to me, not the article.

My post was not specific to race.

You comment was inaccurate.

raveneye · 02-07-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

It all depends on context. Are we speaking of a specific field of study? A specific field of business? Which races have the lowest population densities in those fields? Those are the races that require preference.

OK, then it seems we have come to this wayside in the discussion.

If a race-neutral form of AA was implemented that, over time, basically equalized the socioeconomic status of the different "races," than according you we would still need AA in order to provide preference to "races" that have the lowest population density in those "fields."

So this leads to two very fundamental questions: How many "races" is one required to recognize in order to implement this AA? For example, are Aleuts a different race from, say Aztecs? From Missosukis? Are Egyptians different from Moroccans and from Haitians?

What if members of a particular "race" have never applied to a particular job in a particular company?

What if members of a particular "race" don't live near a particular company? Is the government required to keep detailed records of the race of individuals in different locales so that they can check whether they are being hired at the appropriate rate by local companies?

Are all "races" then subject to preference, if they are underrepresented in a particular field? If a small business in Atlanta has primarily "blacks" on their payroll (many exist), are they then required to institute AA in favor of "whites"?

raveneye · 02-07-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

You were responding to me, not the article.

If you go back and read my first post, you will see that I was not responding to you at all. I was responding to the idea of "race based affirmative action" which the article was specifically focused on.

You are simply wrong here.

You questioned people's motives by bringing up the subject of "race" in this thread. In fact, "race" was inherent in the original article.

Manx · 02-07-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

If you go back and read my first post, you will see that I was not responding to you at all. I was responding to the idea of "race based affirmative action" which the article was specifically focused on.

You are simply wrong here.

Your first post was ignored. The primary discussion in this thread was mine. Which was not exclusive to race. I am not wrong here.

Quote:

You questioned people's motives by bringing up the subject of "race" in this thread. In fact, "race" was inherent in the original article.

As my discussion, which was the primary discussion of this thread, was not based on the article, and as my discussion was consistently responded to specific to race, my observation was entirely appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

OK, then it seems we have come to this wayside in the discussion.

If a race-neutral form of AA was implemented that, over time, basically equalized the socioeconomic status of the different "races," than according you we would still need AA in order to provide preference to "races" that have the lowest population density in those "fields."

So this leads to two very fundamental questions: How many "races" is one required to recognize in order to implement this AA? For example, are Aleuts a different race from, say Aztecs? From Missosukis? Are Egyptians different from Moroccans and from Haitians?

What if members of a particular "race" have never applied to a particular job in a particular company?

What if members of a particular "race" don't live near a particular company? Is the government required to keep detailed records of the race of individuals in different locales so that they can check whether they are being hired at the appropriate rate by local companies?

Are all "races" then subject to preference, if they are underrepresented in a particular field? If a small business in Atlanta has primarily "blacks" on their payroll (many exist), are they then required to institute AA in favor of "whites"?

You want to nit pick it to death? Sorry, no, I'm not going to let you. All of those are good questions - but only questions that need to be addressed once everyone, you, are onboard with AA. But you are obviously not and instead intend your ultra-detailed questions pertainining to absolute specifics to be a means of dismissal.

I'm done discussing this into nonsensical circles with you because my next sentence would probably get me banned.

Xell101 · 02-10-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drakers

How will blacks or any other minority be at any equal level with us white people if they continue to go to schools that are crappy.

That problem lies not in race, so why address on such terms?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle El

if you don't know, you don't know.

Indeed. I don't doubt that at that at a fair number of institutions racism is still a impediment. The problem with AA is that it is too broad of a solution. Not only will it create the notion that this colored fellow achieved what I did through lowered standards as per AA, but it also will also work to help minority fellows into college where racism in admissions is negligable or nonexistant. There are far better solutions to this problem than a broad reaching beast of policy, that seems to be more or less a political tool for rallying support.

host · 02-11-2005, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xell101

That problem lies not in race, so why address on such terms?

If it isn't race related, what is it ? Please read this 2003 AJC.com news coverage:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/news/articles/ajc062203.html">http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/news/articles/ajc062203.html</a>
...........................Gary Orfield, co-director of Harvard's Civil Rights Project and author of several books on race and education, says metro Atlanta's suburban residential segregation is the driving force behind its school resegregation.

Even in urban DeKalb and Fulton, black people tend to live in the south and white people in the north. "When we moved to south Fulton 20 years ago, the school down the street was all white," says Eddie Martin, an African-American parent in south Fulton whose two children rise at 5 a.m. to travel across town to north Fulton schools. "Now, the school is totally black."

Another factor in resegregation is private school enrollment. Between 1960 and 1999, private school enrollment fell everywhere in the United States, with two exceptions: the South and the nation's southwestern border states.

While the city of Atlanta's population is 33 percent white, only 7 percent of its public school students are white. And though Avondale Estates in DeKalb is 88.8 percent white, Avondale High School is just 5 percent white. The numbers reflect the choice by many white parents in Atlanta and Avondale for private education for their children.

"If left up to the communities, we will migrate back to all-black and all-white schools. I think school integration has become a lost cause," says Martin.

The rising resegregation of schools comes at a time when the United States is on the brink of a seismic demographic shift from a predominantly white population to a multiracial one.

"White people who grow up in racially isolated schools, however excellent, are increasingly going to be out of step in the world in which they are going to live," says Jack Boger, deputy director of the University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights. ................

And this:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/artajcnorthsouth.htm
">http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/artajcnorthsouth.htm</a>
Take Philadelphia, for example.

Settlers founded the city along the banks of the Delaware River. Fine homes and businesses flowed west and north; gritty factories and oil refineries headed south. The rolling fields of suburban northwest Philly, like Chestnut Hill, are the places to be; flat and swampy townships like Chester are not.

"People with money like to be on hilltops because of the views and the better air circulation," says professor Abbott of Portland. "And a lot of the key rivers flow north to south, so that means the northern ends tend to be the higher land and southern sites tend to be lower. That also means better drainage (in the north), so you don't find yourself living in a swamp. The upscale people tend to capture the high ground."

Implied, but left unsaid, by Abbott is that the well-off burghers of Philadelphia and dozens of other towns didn't want to draw water which somebody upstream had sullied.

"People generally move upriver so they don't get the garbage and pollution," says Ford of San Diego who wrote "Cities and Buildings: Skyscrapers, Skidrows and Suburbs."

It should come as no surprise that America's migratory patterns so greatly influenced the urban divides of newer U.S. cities throughout the Midwest and West. Trains from the south carried legions of poor blacks and whites to the low-paying blue-collar jobs in south Chicago, south Indianapolis, and beyond. There, families filled the steel-bending and meat-packing communities, which too often lagged behind the wealthier enclaves found north of Chicago, Indianapolis and elsewhere.

Whites from New England and the Mid-Atlantic states settled in north and west Indianapolis; whites and blacks from the Carolinas, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee peopled the south side. Today, I-70 and the east-west train tracks split Indianapolis, much like I-20 and the rails do Atlanta.

Why the enthusiasm to eliminate affirmative action when there is nothing
of equivalent potential proposed to level the playing field ?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/07/will_bush_truly_renounce_privilege_in_admissions/">Will Bush truly renounce privilege in admissions?</a>
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | August 7, 2004

WASHINGTON -- AS HE STOOD before thousands of journalists of color, President Bush was reminded by columnist Roland Martin that Texas A&M Univeristy recently announced it would end preferential treatment toward applicants whose parents and grandparents were graduates. "If you say it's a matter of merit and not race," Martin asked Bush, "shouldn't colleges also get rid of legacy?" Bush tried to dance for a moment with a light joke saying, "Well, in my case I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Then he added, "If what you're saying is, is there going to be special treatment for people -- in other words -- we're going to have a special exception for certain people in a system that's supposed to be fair, I agree. I don't think there ought to be."

Martin followed up, "So the colleges should get rid of legacy?"

Bush said, "Well, I think so. Yeah, I think it ought to be based on merit."

One more time, a few moments later, Martin asked, "Just to be clear . . . you believe that colleges should not use legacy."

Bush answered, "I think colleges ought to use merit in order for people to get in."

We don't know yet what Bush thought to himself as he left the Unity conference of African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and Native American journalists. But even the world's most famous legacy admission and the world's most glaring example of privilege with his C average at Yale, had to realize the seismic proportions of what he said. This was the same man who had his attorneys file a brief just before the 2003 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to support the white students bent on destroying affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

That summer, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action at the Michigan law school, judging that race was only one of many factors in admissions. It struck down the affirmative action plan for the undergraduate school, saying the points awarded for race were too arbitrary. In support of the brief, Bush said, "quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution . . . the motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination and that discrimination is wrong."

Bush of course never volunteered during his presidency that legacy admissions are divisive, unfair, and impossible to square with the Constitution and that the result was wrongful discrimination. Nor has he been forced to address the issue by an overwhelmingly white press corps (90 percent according to a new Unity survey done by the University of Maryland journalism school). Nor has he been forced to by other black groups, since he has avoided the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus at every possibility.

But yesterday, speaking before the largest group of journalists of color in his presidency, he ran right into the buzzsaw of his own legacy. He simply had nowhere to go. His answer is sure -- if the 90 percent white Washington press corps was paying attention -- to set off a renewed focus on the most obvious hypocrisy during these years of attacks on affirmative action. While African-American and Latino students became the nation's scapegoats of "preferences," legacies who are overwhelmingly white have a two-to-four times better chance than regular applicants of being admitted to Harvard, Penn, and Princeton.

While Texas A&M says it is eliminating its legacies, and while vice presidential candidate John Edwards has called for their abolition, many elite schools, most notably Harvard, defend them. In a Wall Street Journal interview last month, Harvard President Lawrence Summers said flaty, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is." Despite Harvard's recent pledge to relieve lower-income families of tuition costs, Summers was crystal clear that legacy admissions -- read that as "legacy admi$$ion$" -- come before anyone else.

Other schools, such as Duke, are just as blunt, saying legacy is a "plus factor." Read that as "plu$ factor." Summers defends legacies, saying, "the way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to admit and recruit more terrific and diverse students." That does not explain how legacies crowd out those terrific students.

That raises the obvious question. Bush, to his credit, did not duck the question on this day. But tomorrow and the next, as he races to his million-dollar fund-raisers full of men and women who, like him, benefited from the privilege of legacy, it is uncertain if he will bring up the subject on his own. If he brings it up himself again, we will know that the world's most famous legacy admission truly renounced his privilege. If he does not, his most famous legacy in education will be hiding behind it while attempting to destroy it for the scapegoats.

sob · 02-11-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If it isn't race related, what is it ? Please read this 2003 AJC.com news coverage:

And this:

Why the enthusiasm to eliminate affirmative action when there is nothing
of equivalent potential proposed to level the playing field ?

I'd been wondering whose picture you had in your avatar. So with trembling fingers, I clicked on your link.

To my surprise, I like your man, Jackson. Here's a quote from him, accessed by your link:

Quote:

Life is highly competitive, business and government are in constant search (even in bad times) for men who know, who stand up under responsibilities, who have courage and character. But they demand that men prepare for positions before obtaining them. They do not expect one to learn wholly by the costly process of trial and error. You should not be misled by talk of advancement through “pull” or relationship, nor even politics. That is the gospel of the misfit, to explain his failure. The fact is that responsibility comes to one who is prepared for it as certainly as harvest follows seed time. To give responsibility to one who is not prepared merely injures the appointing power and humiliates the one advanced. Even politicians know that.

Xell101 · 02-14-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

If it isn't race related, what is it ?

It isn't because you're black that you have a poor educational background. It's economic.

raveneye · 02-14-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

The primary discussion in this thread was mine. Which was not exclusive to race.

Your post was not exclusive to race, correct.

But if it was general, then it applied to race.

If it applied to race then it was entirely correct to assume it applied to race.

If you're going to post an article that defends AA in a thread on race-based AA, then you shouldn't be surprised that people interpret it as being supportive of race based AA.

And in fact everybody was correct in assuming that you are in favor of race-based AA.

So again: what are you so surprised about? Why are you making such a big deal about this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

All of those are good questions - but only questions that need to be addressed once everyone, you, are onboard with AA.

So we can't answer good, questions about what AA means, in the most basic fundamental terms, until we have unanimous acceptance of AA? How can we know what we're accepting unless we first know what it is composed of? Isn't good social policy based on open, rational debate?

Quote:

I'm done discussing this into nonsensical circles with you because my next sentence would probably get me banned.

I'm sorry that you think fundamental questions about what "race" is is not relevant to race-based AA. And you are incorrect in believing that my mind is made up on this. My mind is always open to argument. If you want to convince me of your position, then you are going to have to argue it well and convincingly.

If you choose not to, then your voice won't be heard.

raveneye · 02-14-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Why the enthusiasm to eliminate affirmative action when there is nothing of equivalent potential proposed to level the playing field?

1. It promotes racism and sexism, and thereby is an obstacle in developing a more race- and gender- blind society.

2. There are many other forms of recourse. There is no convincing evidence that AA as currently implemented has been more effective in "leveling the playing field" than any of these other forms of recourse.

3. It puts detailed information about the "race" of large numbers of people into the hands of the government. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government with that information. Especially this government.

Manx · 02-14-2005, 03:17 PM

OK, I can get back to this for a bit now. Too bad we're having a discussion about discussion instead of a discussion about the topic, but hey, whereever you want to take things, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

So again: what are you so surprised about? Why are you making such a big deal about this?

I'm not suprised about anything. My statement was that AA discussions typically focus on race even while AA is typically applied based on gender. That the thread is race based only bolsters my statement. That my tangenital discussion, being non-exclusive to race, was twisted back to exclusivity to race bolsters my statement.

In essence, my statement is an accurate description of how society approaches discussions about AA: the discussions focus on race.

Quote:

So we can't answer good, questions about what AA means, in the most basic fundamental terms, until we have unanimous acceptance of AA? How can we know what we're accepting unless we first know what it is composed of? Isn't good social policy based on open, rational debate?

I'm sorry that you think fundamental questions about what "race" is is not relevant to race-based AA.

You did not ask "basic fundamental" questions. You asked highly specific, detailed questions. If you cannot agree on the philosophical need for AA, there is no point in discussing the practical minutiae.

Quote:

And you are incorrect in believing that my mind is made up on this. My mind is always open to argument.

You have not demonstrated that to be true.

Quote:

If you want to convince me of your position, then you are going to have to argue it well and convincingly.

I have argued it well and convincingly. You have both ignored the argument and attempted to alter the discussion. That I refused to accept your approach to the discussion is not a sign of a weakness in my argument.

Manx · 02-14-2005, 03:22 PM

Google search, 1,240,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=affirmative+action+race&btnG=Google+Search" target=_blank>affirmative action race</a>
Google search, 628,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=affirmative+action+gender&btnG=Search" target=_blank>affirmative action gender</a>

raveneye · 02-14-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

You did not ask "basic fundamental" questions. You asked highly specific, detailed questions. If you cannot agree on the philosophical need for AA, there is no point in discussing the practical minutiae

How to define "race" and how to determine which "races" are going to be given preference is not minutiae. That is the core of the whole project.

If you don't want to describe and defend the core of your project, that's up to you.

raveneye · 02-14-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

You have not demonstrated that to be true.

The reason I asked you those questions was to give you an opportunity to change my mind. Those are the questions that I consider key. But if you don't care what I think, then feel free to ignore them.

Manx · 02-14-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

How to define "race" and how to determine which "races" are going to be given preference is not minutiae. That is the core of the whole project.

The "core of the whole project", considering it is my "project", is that it is a requirement of society to promote minority genders and race in order to counter-balance the affects of discrimination. It is most certainly minutiae to then discuss, in which circumstances, any particular race is to be considered the minority. That you feel differently about the scope of the discussion does not change the scope of the discussion.

Quote:

If you don't want to describe and defend the core of your project, that's up to you.

I have described the core of my "project". If you want to discuss the minutiae, that might be possible after we have reached agreement on the core.

alansmithee · 02-14-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

1. It promotes racism and sexism, and thereby is an obstacle in developing a more race- and gender- blind society.

AA doesn't promote racism/sexism, it punishes it. It says because there is race/sexism, the group it's targeted against gets bonuses to compensate for the innate bonus that the majority has. Instead of getting mad at the solution, why not get mad at the problem? If there was no racism, there is not needed AA. Same for sexism.[/quote]

Quote:

2. There are many other forms of recourse. There is no convincing evidence that AA as currently implemented has been more effective in "leveling the playing field" than any of these other forms of recourse.

I have yet to see any reasonable alternate that didn't boil down to "hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem". If you have seen one, i would be very interested in seeing it.

Quote:

3. It puts detailed information about the "race" of large numbers of people into the hands of the government. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government with that information. Especially this government.

The government probably knows things about people they don't even know about themselves. Race is generally something you can know just by looking at someone, I don't see how it's this big state secret.

sob · 02-14-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

AA doesn't promote racism/sexism, it punishes it. It says because there is race/sexism, the group it's targeted against gets bonuses to compensate for the innate bonus that the majority has. Instead of getting mad at the solution, why not get mad at the problem? If there was no racism, there is not needed AA. Same for sexism.

I AM mad at the problem, which is AA. Because of this numbskulled idea, people are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character.

And even more importantly, it's employed in a racist fashion against whites and Asians.

Host has certainly been quiet since I pulled this from the website he promotes:

Quote:

To give responsibility to one who is not prepared merely injures the appointing power and humiliates the one advanced.

alansmithee · 02-14-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I AM mad at the problem, which is AA. Because of this numbskulled idea, people are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character.

And even more importantly, it's employed in a racist fashion against whites and Asians.

But AA isn't the problem. Again, it's the initial racism inherent in America which causes the need for AA. All AA does is attempt to balance out the discrimination (which it goes about in an admittedly inefficient manner).

So you believe the it's only fair that whites benefit because of their skin color? Because that's the alternate. If that's what you think, that's your opinion, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But if you believe racism is a problem worth solving, you cannot logically be against AA.

Manx · 02-14-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Because of this numbskulled idea, people are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character.

People are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character - regardless of AA. Your comment is a regression in this thread.

01-31-2005, 09:30 AM	#88 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I certainly hope you are. Regardless of whether one agrees with Manx' points, he's at least added something of substance to the discussion. I don't find your posts amusing or engaging, FoolThemAll. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

02-14-2005, 03:22 PM	#104 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Google search, 1,240,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=affirmative+action+race&btnG=Google+Search" target=_blank>affirmative action race</a> Google search, 628,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=affirmative+action+gender&btnG=Search" target=_blank>affirmative action gender</a>