Affirmative Action

[Ice]

I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.

I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.

What do you guys think?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.

I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.

What do you guys think?

I think it would help if you detailed the proposal, as affirmative action can mean quite a lot of different things - especially if you want views from outside the USA, where we might tend to use the term "positive discrimination" or many others.

[yesdachi]

Here are the basics…

Proposal 2, known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, would stop public agencies and universities from granting preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, awarding contracts or admissions.

I will also be voting YES to eliminate AA. I do think it was at one time a needed thing but I don’t think it is needed anymore.

[Don Corleone]

For me, this is where empiricism has to win out over idealism. Yes, truly, affirmative action should be unnessary in today's day and age. But as Kukri-san points out, data points otherwise, that when AA is removed as an acceptance criteria, minority enrollment drops. I would certainly agree that affirmative action is no longer required for women, as they outnumber men in advanced studies by a full 3:2.

[KukriKhan]

Text of the actual Proposal they'll be votingon:

"A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

"Should this proposal be adopted?"

We had a similar 'Proposition' (as it's called in California) in 1996, which passed. Minority uni enrollment is down since then.

What do you guys think?

I think it was a necessary evil done to compensate for several generations of previous discrimination. I think it has almost served its purpose, but not quite, yet. I think they should be allowed to prevail for one whole generation (40 years), then dropped.

[Major Robert Dump]

[QUOTE=KukriKhan]

We had a similar 'Proposition' (as it's called in California) in 1996, which passed. Minority uni enrollment is down since then.

QUOTE]


I was under the impression that while overall minority enrollment was down, Asian enrollment went way up and the enrollment rates statewide are not that far off from the normal racial distribution of the state, with the obvious exception of Asians being over represented. A quota inherently takes opportunity away from someone else who is more deserving. This is proof of that. Also, I've always been amused that even though Asians, by definition, are minorities, they are typically excluded from the same types of AA that benefits other minorities. I might also point out that the drop out rates for minorities has declined there because the undeserving ones are not getting in.

There are far too many community colleges, vo-techs and trade schools available to everyone and their grandma to justify filling quotas in the higher tiered acedemia. If they have the grades to get in they will get in.

[Pindar]

I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.

I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.

What do you guys think?

Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.

[Don Corleone]

Don't hold back, Pindar, tell us how you really feel. I don't think I've ever seen the Master of the Horse use such strong language.

I agree that AA is not the answer. I understand and agree with all of the arguments against it. And yet, there remains the fact that those people who identify themselves as African American see a decline in their enrollments when AA is forbidden. The answer must be in seeking to solve the cause, not the symptom. But how do you encourage an entire cultural identity group to value education more and work with their children. The single biggest component to the success or failure of a child in the American educational system is parental involvement, yet it's the one that gets the least amount of focus.

[Keba]

IIRC, didn't the U.S. Supreme Court rule such things as unconstitutional? Or was that university quotas? Been a while since that particular lecture.

Oh, and it's a despicable practice, it is discrimination just like any other, and, as such, must be abolished.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, the SCOTUS found affirmative action (specifically a Michigan Uni IIRC) not unconstitutional, though I don't recall specifics.

But either way, this is racism; they are choosing people based on their race.

Vote it down.

CR

[Pindar]

Don't hold back, Pindar, tell us how you really feel. I don't think I've ever seen the Master of the Horse use such strong language.

Hehe, I'm feeling a bit saucy.

I agree that AA is not the answer. I understand and agree with all of the arguments against it. And yet, there remains the fact that those people who identify themselves as African American see a decline in their enrollments when AA is forbidden.

Irrelevant. The government's job is not to bolster false categories or to foster undeserved standing. University education is not compulsory. If an individual does not have the wherewithal to pass muster so be it.

The answer must be in seeking to solve the cause, not the symptom. But how do you encourage an entire cultural identity group to value education more and work with their children.

It is not the government's job to encourage an entire cultural* identity group anything. The government should only concern itself with the individual qua citizen.



*I also reject the idea pigment is cultural.

[KukriKhan]

Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.

No argument with any of those 3 sentences. If the post-civil war men in power had held the same enlighted mindset, AA would never have been necessary. But they didn't, so it was.

The only other course to reconciliation and integration I can think of is: monetary compensation. And I submit, that a single generation of AA policies in education and work, is cheaper, more goal-directed, and less fiscally-onerous than trying to figure out a proper amount to pay out.

[Pindar]

No argument with any of those 3 sentences. If the post-civil war men in power had held the same enlighted mindset, AA would never have been necessary. But they didn't, so it was.

The only other course to reconciliation and integration I can think of is: monetary compensation. And I submit, that a single generation of AA policies in education and work, is cheaper, more goal-directed, and less fiscally-onerous than trying to figure out a proper amount to pay out.

Hello Master KuriKhan,

It appears you agree AA is theoretically absurd. The 'necessary' referent above would appear to be a practical appeal. If we follow this line of thought it would seem to be that discrimination is acceptable to redress the evils of the past. How does one determine the necessary condition has been met? Is it based on a time line (a number of years equal to slavery in the Republic?), Is it based on economic standing: X number of the educated oppressed have met economic standing Y? Would this have to be periodically checked so that any dip below Y would constitute a reintroduction of AA? How does one even determine proper benefitee status? Is it any drop of African blood or only Sub-Saharan African ancestry? Is it 1/32 oppressed ancestry, 1/16, 1/8, 1/2 that would constitute government largess? Does AA apply to any minority or only those traceable to the Civil War? What does one do with minorities that despite their own history of oppression in the U.S. nonetheless succeed in university: do we restrict/bar Asians because their too successful?

Rather than embracing absurdities and getting lost in a practical bog it is preferable to understand under basic jurisprudence one cannot be prosecuted for doing something that was legal at one time or expect redress for the same. If times change (as seems the case with the twin evils or slavery and segregation) then best to move on and let each be accounted for the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Recognize the evils of the past by not repeating them: discrimination is an example.

[KukriKhan]

Honorable Pindar:

You've adroitly addressed both the philosophical and practical pitfalls of using an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership) to combat an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership). I'm certain we agree there, and can only imagine with horror, if, at this late date, a one-time financial compensation scheme were proposed to remedy past discrimination.

When I read:

...If times change (as seems the case with the twin evils or slavery and segregation) then best to move on and let each be accounted for the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Recognize the evils of the past by not repeating them...

I found myself nodding my head "yes". But:

such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.

In short, I only say: Let AA continue until 2012 (40 years after the 1972 statutes, etc were enacted). Then revisit the issue. Anyone who has not taken advantage of AA policies by then: "Too bad, so sad. This is as level a playing field as we can achieve within our (american) system."

[Goofball]

Man, this is a topic I really hate. I hate it because I see and agree with statements to the effect of "AA is a racist policy and should not exist." But at the same time, I can't block from my mind the thought that those making those statements often are not acknowledging the fact that the other (the home grown, non-leglislated, I'm not comfortable with you because you are brown) kind of racism still exists.

It would be impossible to prove one way or the other, because I don't think there would be any available statistics, but I believe that for every nice white boy who didn't get into uni because he was white, there is a nice black boy who didn't get the job because he was black.

That's only my feeling, so please don't ask me to prove it, but feel free to disagree.

There is no happy answer to the AA question.

[whyidie]

I found myself nodding my head "yes". But:

such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.

Very nice.

[Divinus Arma]

Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.

Thank you. Exactly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.

[CrossLOPER]

Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.

It was apparently a good intention, but went badly when people who had no skill or wish to perform their jobs were being hired. Sometimes, misconduct and rudeness would be overlooked. The result is irritation for everyone.

Edit: lalallaalaalallaalalaala Friday.

[Major Robert Dump]

Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.

As I understood it in its original form, yes. But then it morphed into businesses and schools requiring quotas based on race to ensure they were not accused of being institionally racist. AA as a defensive body to keep racism/sexism in employers, agencies and schools in check is fine. The idea is to make sure people aren't being denied based on race or sex. Quotas institute the very thing AA is meant to stop.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.

Wow.. I couldnt agree more.

[Pindar]

Thank you. Exactly.

Wow.. I couldnt agree more.

[Pindar]

Honorable Pindar:

You've adroitly addressed both the philosophical and practical pitfalls of using an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership) to combat an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership).

Thank you sir.

I found myself nodding my head "yes". But...

such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.

Within the U.S. framework, I don't believe there is any jurisprudential referent/justification for economic equity (let alone higher educational equity) only political equity. Thus, if an adult citizen can vote (and similarly participate in the body politic) then it is sufficient: no governmental largess of a chicken in every pot, two cars in the garage or a degree on the wall is required or warranted.

In short, I only say: Let AA continue until 2012 (40 years after the 1972 statutes, etc were enacted). Then revisit the issue. Anyone who has not taken advantage of AA policies by then: "Too bad, so sad. This is as level a playing field as we can achieve within our (american) system."

I've marked my calendar.

[Ice]

It's good to hear a rational, sane dicussion going on here. If i tell most people I wanted vote Yes on proposal two, im either called a racist or ignorant. For example I was talking to my one hallmate who is for it and my other hallmate who is against it. A girl happens to stop by our room and asks:

"What are guys talking about?"

"Oh, I'm just explaning why voting No is the right answer. They think voting Yes is"

Girl- "Well that's very ignorant of you two"


I'm so sick of this ultra leftward, near pinko environment I go to school in.

[KukriKhan]

Our positions are within handshake distance, I believe.

Within the U.S. framework, I don't believe there is any jurisprudential referent/justification for economic equity (let alone higher educational equity) only political equity.

Yes. But since some level of near-equity of opportunity for social advancement was (rightly, I think) deemed good and necessary, this ugly, compromise thing called AA was instituted as a temporary catch-up measure.

The alternatives were:
1) do nothing. Pretend discrimination didn't/doesn't exist to the significant disadvantage of one group. Or

2) take it to the courts, where there is and was jurisprudential referent for financial compensation for unwarranted damage to one party by another.

The argument the thread starter posed is basically he and his fellow voters deciding: "Have we caught up yet?". Many say 'yes', for reasons you and others have outlined. I think 'not yet'; we need to go the full course of a generation, so that a black man who was 18 in 1972, can have benefitted from AA policies, AND his son - with the AA spigot being turned off just as his grandson is coming into majority - under the assumption that Pa and Grandpa now have the resources to help.