Affirmative Action

[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.

[Goofball]

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.

You'd probably be happier going to school with shining young example of conservatism then:

Brad Patzner, 23, admitted he knew very little about the candidates, but said he was voting to support Bush administration policies, including the war in Iraq. He said a lot of his friends have been deployed to Iraq and he is considering enlisting.
“Our economy has been slipping and it needs to rise, however, I do agree with Bush’s political views,” said Patzner of Fargo, N.D. “I just believe he has strong religious views and that’s an attribute that I really admire.”

Yikes.

Entire story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15504373/

[Pindar]

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.

Hello,

Aside from instances of direct self-interest I think you will find that most proponents of AA are sincere in their desire to redress the evils of the past and want to help their fellow man live a better life. Consequently the rhetorical posture assumed pushes advocates to see any opposition as immoral in some fashion in that the opposition is presumed to preserve a wrong. The stance often reflects sentimentality trumping rationality.

[Pindar]

Our positions are within handshake distance, I believe.

I think so too.

a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety

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.

Opportunity discourse does not have to displace meritocractic principle nor should it. To attempt to do so is to run the risk of the swamp AA illustrates.

If we have disenfranchised group X and the source of that disenfranchisement is a socio-cultural bigotry couched in law: the more enlightened civitas can change the law, and thus remove the legal impediment, that is all. The personal failings of the soul are beyond the scope of law. Further, to attempt to redress what was through a reverse bigotry fails both conceptually and practically. We agree on the conceptual question. I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.

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.

I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.

[Ice]

You'd probably be happier going to school with shining young example of conservatism then:



Yikes.

Entire story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15504373/

I'd be happier going to a school that let you think for yourself instead of shoving what they want you think down your throat.

[Ice]

I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.

This was my argument, worded differently, last night. All AA is doing is further dividing the US population.

[KukriKhan]

a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety

Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!

...I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.

Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).

It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).

However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.

I have appreciated the discourse.



And thank you, Ice for the topic

[Pindar]

Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!

I couldn't resist.

Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).

It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).

I agree. Of course there is always the Klingon method of resolving issues.

However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.

This is where we come together. I always prefer appeal to the voters over pronouncement from the bench.

I have appreciated the discourse.

Cheers

[Major Robert Dump]

This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:

Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:

38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.

So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?

[whyidie]

This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:

Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:

38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.

So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?

What I like is the "qualified" bit. Unless the requirement for Affirmative Action calls for employing and advancing unqualified Veterans, in which case it wouldn't be so good.

[KukriKhan]

(a) The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by
eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and
employment which can result from such service;
(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons
performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their
employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by
providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their
completion of such service; and
(3) to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their
service in the uniformed services.

(b) It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should
be a model employer in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

That's the 1974 language used in the implementing document to add the Act to the US Code. Recall that in '74, we were transitioning from a draftee to a "volunteer" force. Many of the provisions have been changed (generally, expanding 'qualified' service)... as recently as 2003.

My understanding of the use of "Affirmative Action" in this law, is so the Human Resource guys could bundle their "how we comply" plan in one catch-all package, to show the Dept o/Labor guys "Here is how we don't discriminate against race, gender, religion, military service, etc. etc.".

But, I'm not sure I answered your question. Do you challenge veteran/disabled-veteran preference in hiring/contracting?

[Major Robert Dump]

Not at all. Actually, I was curious though if the word "qualified" meant qualified as in qualified for the job, or qualified as in meeting the criteria to be considered special disabled.

[whyidie]

Not at all. Actually, I was curious though if the word "qualified" meant qualified as in qualified for the job, or qualified as in meeting the criteria to be considered special disabled.

Oh crap you may be right. They likely do mean qualified in regards to their disability.

[KukriKhan]

I should have linked-up earlier. Sorry.
Govt Printing Ofc doc tracker

Qualified = has the right service dates & campaign medals to assert coverage under the VEVRA.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't understand why they lump the veteran section under affirmative action law for the sake of simplicity and enforcement, but it really doesn't seem to fit (just like quotas don't fit) except in the spirit of existing to prevent discrimination, i.e. "we won't hire you because we don't like military people."

I'm assuming this is largely overseen by Veterans Affairs in the capacity of job placement assistance and reintegration into veterans old jobs etc. It just seems rather odd that this particular stuff is considered affirmative action.

On a side note, I think quotas are often a friend of companies who impose them, while working against the employees and the customers/beneficiaries of the services provided. Basically, quotas are the easy way out if you can prove you are trying to meet them, because the fact is that not all ethnic groups and sexes apply for certain jobs/schools.

This is why companies save applications for years, and why larger companies give you the option of putting your race on the application if you want. If a Latino man goes to a coffee shop and gets bad service, then sues the coffee shop and uses the lack of Latino employees as further proof of discrimination, how does the coffee shop prove it never gets Latino applicants?

[Scurvy]

This is why companies save applications for years, and why larger companies give you the option of putting your race on the application if you want. If a Latino man goes to a coffee shop and gets bad service, then sues the coffee shop and uses the lack of Latino employees as further proof of discrimination, how does the coffee shop prove it never gets Latino applicants?

they keep records of the applicants....

[KukriKhan]

Looks like Michigan voters decided to ditch AA afterall

Proposal - 2 Affirmative Action - Michigan 5651 of 5681 Precincts Reporting

Yes - 2,131,488 - 58.06%
No - 1,539,431 - 41.94%

from Detroit News online

[yesdachi]

Its about the only thing I voted for that passed/got elected. but

[Ice]

Its about the only thing I voted for that passed/got elected. but

Likewise, except my local rep for Congress got relected.

It's funny, the president of the University just had a huge rally in the diag (center of campus) bout how she was going to fight it legally, blah blah blah. Quite funny, how people preach for democracy, especially here, but never really seem to except the results.

[yesdachi]

Likewise, except my local rep for Congress got relected.

It's funny, the president of the University just had a huge rally in the diag (center of campus) bout how she was going to fight it legally, blah blah blah. Quite funny, how people preach for democracy, especially here, but never really seem to except the results.

At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy.

I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.
- Mary Sue Coleman

But quotas are fair and equal!?

[Ice]

At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy.


But quotas are fair and equal!?

Oh I know. I just rolled my eyes as hundreds of students mindlessly clapped and the minorities just shock their heads in agreement.

[Spino]

At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy.


But quotas are fair and equal!?

Of course they are! Didn't you get the memo? FYI, it also stated that henceforth 2+2 = 5.

[Kanamori]

OK, but I call it 2.5.

How do you count decimals, in your system?

[Spino]

OK, but I call it 2.5.

How do you count decimals, in your system?

Very carefully?!?

[yesdachi]

Very carefully?!?

I don’t. makes for much cleaner bookkeeping.

[Vuk]

AA promotes inequality and will only create tension between the sexes when none is necessary! It is an insult to women (and minorities) - to imply that they are somehow inferior and need extra help! I thought the whole purpose of the feminist movement was to free women and make them independent! AA only reinforces the image women have long been trying to ditch: that they are more dependent on men then men are on men or they are on other women - that is, that they are equal to men! Not that they got persecuted and now NEED men to compensate for the poor little helpless babies, and give them extra candy!

AA is stupid, sexist, and racist!!

[Cowhead418]

AA promotes inequality and will only create tension between the sexes when none is necessary! It is an insult to women (and minorities) - to imply that they are somehow inferior and need extra help! I thought the whole purpose of the feminist movement was to free women and make them independent! AA only reinforces the image women have long been trying to ditch: that they are more dependent on men then men are on men or they are on other women - that is, that they are equal to men! Not that they got persecuted and now NEED men to compensate for the poor little helpless babies, and give them extra candy!

AA is stupid, sexist, and racist!!

Aye! It is not only sexist to women and racist to minorities (by patronizing them) but it is also sexist against men and racist against whites. In short, it is degrading to everybody!