Affirmative Action

[Sage]

^^ Exactly. There was a time and place for affirmative action. There isn't anymore.

 

[eaglefan48]

I don't think the subjects discussed in this thread are as black and white (figuratively) as some would have them be.
Is affirmative action past its usefulness? Maybe…Probably.
Did programs of this kind push our society forward? Yes, I’m sure to some extent.
Does celebrating Black History month sound somewhat racist? Perhaps.
Does additional focus on part of our collective history that was largely ignored for years have any benefit? I say yes. Through my children’s eyes I see that they view black history as part of their history. My 8 year old daughter thinks of both MLK and JFK as great American leaders from the past. (She can't believe I was alive when they were alive!)
All progress is a process, however. You can not simply declare an end to racism and have it be so. To say that these programs are inherently evil is to ignore the positive influence have our society.
A long way to go? Of course.

I add this next part at the risk of being flamed for incredible sentimentality, but it is a genuine moment from my life. I hope it shows that we are headed where Danoff and others have described we should be…

Last summer my 12 year old son was on the sidelines of his soccer match talking to my mom. He was trying to point out one of his teammates. He pointed, He said, “The relly fast guy,” He gave his uniform number but my mom couldn’t spot him. He added, “The skinny kid…the one with the purple socks!”
My mom finally found him.
I honestly don’t think it occurred to him to mention that his teammate was the only black kid on the field.

 

[Sage]

And that is the idealistic world that I think we all want. If I have a child, I want him/her to look at skin color as being no more important than eye color (which is to say, not at all).

You know, the funny thing is that I've heard a very similar story to yours, but I can't remember when or where. Anyway, it's a good sign. And that's why I believe so strongly against AA – I should be able to get into a college with people who had to meet the same academic requirements as I did, because we all should be blind to race. I shouldn't have to worry about not getting into a good college since I'm going to be held to a higher standard, just because I was born from an Asian mom and a white dad and not black or latino parents. Especially public schools.

 

[Danoff]

The real question that needs to be answered is why the above 3 topics even existed in the first place.

Slavery.

All 3 of those factors have been around long before Affirmative Action -- so if there is anything we need to eliminate first, it's the above 3.

The second statement does not follow the first. We instituted Affirmative Action later and it isn't a good idea so we should get rid of it as soon as possible. That being said, working on your other 3 points is much more difficult than elliminating obvious ill-conceived programs like AA.

I see no reason why the elimination of non-legislated racism must preceed legislated racism. It seems that the one we have the most control over is the government sponsored variety - and that we should start with the low hanging fruit.

How would you go about doing that? Or, what steps do you think need to be taken (other than eliminating affirmative action) in order to make sure the above 3 "factors" disappear?

I already gave you my answer but I'll do it again.

I'm not sure anything can be done about it. Black, or Hispanic individuals need to continue to struggle to raise above poverty. The US has the worlds most upwardly mobile poor, so if there is anywhere they can do it it's here. Over time corporations that cling to racist practices will find that they can't compete.

The bottom line is that there really isn't anything we can (or perhaps even should) do from a government point of view. Racism is not illegal, nor should it be. So we can't legislate it away.

 

[Famine]

I strongly disagree because the other factors were around long before affirmative action came into existance. I believe affirmative action (as messed up as it is), was designed to help counter the destructive nature of the aforementioned factors...

The way I see it -- we eliminate the root of the problem (which logically cannot be affirmative action as it came afterwards) and then abolish affirmative action.

Imagine racism as being a big-ass ugly spider inside a room. "Affirmative Action" is a padlock on the door.

You cannot get into the room to kill the spider without first taking the padlock off the door.


As long as "Affirmative Action" is in place, it propogates racism - and gives it a psuedo-egalitarian face. It would be impossible to eliminate racism without first eliminating "Affirmative Action".

If you will, imagine a world without racism, but with "Affirmative Action" still in place. A Chinese kid gets a job because the company doesn't have enough Chinese kids. What's the first thing that comes into the heads of the unsuccessful applicants of other racial origins when they find out this is why the Chinese kid has got the job? Yep - "he only got the job because of his race, I hate the Chinese, they're all the same". Oh look, racism has come flooding right back.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Imagine racism as being a big-ass ugly spider inside a room. "Affirmative Action" is a padlock on the door.

You cannot get into the room to kill the spider without first taking the padlock off the door.


As long as "Affirmative Action" is in place, it propogates racism - and gives it a psuedo-egalitarian face. It would be impossible to eliminate racism without first eliminating "Affirmative Action".

If you will, imagine a world without racism, but with "Affirmative Action" still in place. A Chinese kid gets a job because the company doesn't have enough Chinese kids. What's the first thing that comes into the heads of the unsuccessful applicants of other racial origins when they find out this is why the Chinese kid has got the job? Yep - "he only got the job because of his race, I hate the Chinese, they're all the same". Oh look, racism has come flooding right back.

I agree 100%. What bothers me, though, is that racism existed BEFORE Affirmative Action came into existence.

That's like saying:

Cigarettes cause cancer, but cancer existed before cigarettes came into existence. We must eliminate cigarettes in order to eliminate cancer...

 

[Duke]

Eliminating cigarettes will not eliminate ALL cancers... but it WILL drastically reduce a highly common form of cancer, thus reducing the amount of cancer over all.

That's not a ridiculous statement in any way.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Eliminating cigarettes will not eliminate ALL cancers... but it WILL drastically reduce a highly common form of cancer, thus reducing the amount of cancer over all.

That's not a ridiculous statement in any way.

I wasn't trying to ridicule -- just making a comparison. You're right, though -- some cancers will be reduced. However, are you suggesting that racial discrimination will be "reduced" in the event that Affirmative Action is abolished?

 

[Danoff]

However, are you suggesting that racial discrimination will be "reduced" in the event that Affirmative Action is abolished?

I'll suggest that.

Cigarettes cause cancer, but cancer existed before cigarettes came into existence. We must eliminate cigarettes in order to eliminate cancer..

But you see, my argument works there as well. In order to eliminate cancer you must eliminate cigarettes. Otherwise people will keep getting cancer.

 

[Duke]

I wasn't trying to ridicule -- just making a comparison.

I understand; didn't mean to imply you were ridiculing it.

You're right, though -- some cancers will be reduced. However, are you suggesting that racial discrimination will be "reduced" in the event that Affirmative Action is abolished?

Heck, yes, I am saying that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'll suggest that.

Heck, yes, I am saying that.

I won't simply because there was racism before Affirmative Action. Jim Crow = racism. i.e. before Affirmative Action. There were more racists before AA than after. However, although I believe that AA has served its purpose and can go away now, doing so will NOT reduce racism.

But you see, my argument works there as well. In order to eliminate cancer you must eliminate cigarettes. Otherwise people will keep getting cancer.

That only works for certain types of cancers as there are plenty of other caricinogens in our environment.

The key to eliminating racism is to promote understanding and tolerance. (Damn... that sounds a bit too idealistic/naive... ) Eliminating stereotypes and closing the achievement gap are crucial.

 

[Danoff]

That only works for certain types of cancers as there are plenty of other caricinogens in our environment.

But you can't eliminate cancer without eliminating cancer causing cigarettes. Just like you can't eliminate racism without eliminating affirmative action (because it is racism).

That being said, it is your fundamental constitutional right to be racist if you want to. Not only can you not ever eliminate racism, it is part of freedom.

But you can eliminate state sponsored racism, which is fundametnally wrong since it is funded by tax dollars from people of all races. Which is why affirmative action has to go. Getting rid of it would be a good step toward ending racism in general (not that you can possibly ever do that).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But you can't eliminate cancer without eliminating cancer causing cigarettes. Just like you can't eliminate racism without eliminating affirmative action (because it is racism).

Excellent analogy. 💡

That being said, it is your fundamental constitutional right to be racist if you want to. Not only can you not ever eliminate racism, it is part of freedom.

I'm aware. However, what everyone has to understand, though, is that racism almost always manifests itself into situations where a person's constitutional rights are VIOLATED. Freedom should be restricted if it results in a "safer" place for everyone.

But you can eliminate state sponsored racism, which is fundametnally wrong since it is funded by tax dollars from people of all races. Which is why affirmative action has to go. Getting rid of it would be a good step toward ending racism in general (not that you can possibly ever do that).

True. However, if the people didn't want it, it wouldn't exist. I have my own reasons for why I think it should be eliminated, however, my reasons are clearly different from yours.

 

[Danoff]

Freedom should be restricted if it results in a "safer" place for everyone.

Say goodbye to your gun then - and cars, say goodbye to them. And knives and bungee jumping, rock climbing, football...

You cannot use the "safer" place for everyone argument to restrict freedom. The safest thing for all of us would be to lock us all up in a padded cell in straight jackets to protect us from everyone else and ourselves. That's also the ultimate restriction of freedom by the way. Freedom is risk, it is danger of having your rights violated. That's why we have laws and police, to help us preserve our rights and send those who would violate those rights to jail. Having freedom means allowing other people to be free. That means allowing people to be racist, or hate gays, or think women are inferior, or hate white people, or join the nazi party. It's all about freedom for everyone.

So that's not a valid reason to continue affirmative action. It's certainly not a valid reason to try to make racism illegal.

True. However, if the people didn't want it, it wouldn't exist.

The same argument could have been made about the slaves before the civil war - or the 98% tax bracket that was levied on the highest income earners in the 70's (I think), or segregation...

The will of the majority is not necessarily moral. That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect the fundamental rights of the minority - the rights that cannot be voted away. So you can't use a "most people support it" argument to justify affirmative action. It's a weak argument anyway, if you can't say why people support it then you should re-evaluate whether it should be supported.

 

[Duke]

I won't simply because there was racism before Affirmative Action. Jim Crow = racism. i.e. before Affirmative Action. There were more racists before AA than after. However, although I believe that AA has served its purpose and can go away now, doing so will NOT reduce racism.

No one said AA caused racism - obviously it didn't, because if there was no racism there would have been no 'need' for AA to have been created.

You've got cause and effect a little logically confused. There's no logical proof that the reduction in racism wasn't caused by other factors: increased understanding, aging and death of idiotic bigots, general sea change of society. You can't logically attribute this reduction to AA, but you can logically show that AA perpetuates racism in the form of using race as a criteria rather than performance.

The key to eliminating racism is to promote understanding and tolerance. (Damn... that sounds a bit too idealistic/naive... ) Eliminating stereotypes and closing the achievement gap are crucial.

Thank you for proving my point in this thread, too. Affirmative Action does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype that minorities are incapable of achievement on the same level as others and must therefore be given officially-sanctioned breaks and must have the bars lowered so they can hurdle them.

 

[PS]

Thank you for proving my point in this thread, too. Affirmative Action does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype that minorities are incapable of achievement on the same level as others and must therefore be given officially-sanctioned breaks and must have the bars lowered so they can hurdle them.

The fat kid on track & feild day is always a great analogy.

Why can't we drop this? Almost all "debates" (if they even deserve to be called that, despite the redundancy of them for the past few months) start in the Opinions Forum end up like this. An incessant circle of bickering over a small discrepancy in which a moderator eventually has to intervene with his words of wisdom, to get us to move on, so we can start bickering over another nonsense point. We CAN drop it, we just refuse to (ie. Brian reviving this thread), because we don't like having questions unanswered-- but we already know the answer for ourselves and nothing is going to change anyway, so why not just accept it? The thread either gets locked, or dies off- in which case it just gets ressurected a month later only to continue this argument over who is right or wrong, or why someone should or shouldn't do something, and frankly, I think it's just stupid.

I strongly suggest that before some of you write a rebuttal to anything, you stop, read what you've just written, and think "where is this going to take us?", "what will this do to convince whoever is on the other side?", "is it worth it to get nitpicky over one word?", and then decide whether or not it's worth asnwering.

My point is, is that this thread in particular, is going nowhere. Racism will never end, nor will cancer, but we can reduce both by targeting the main causes. That's all there is too it- it doesn't matter what your reasons if your both striving for the same goal, so why argue? Almost everyone who was active in this discussion had the same general opinion, but it turned into a b*tch-fest after someone (don't know exactly who) started to challenge the "Why" factor of someone elses decision. Many of these die off for a reason- there's no more to say. Until some A) newb or B) person with a grudge decides to bring it back to continue a lost war.

 

[Zrow]

It's the Opinion Forum - there's no reason to drop the subject. It's a debate.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Say goodbye to your gun then - and cars, say goodbye to them. And knives and bungee jumping, rock climbing, football...

That is not what I was trying to say. I was referring to certain liberties, not everyday activies.

And for the record, I do not own a gun -- whether or not you meant that as a joke.

You cannot use the "safer" place for everyone argument to restrict freedom. The safest thing for all of us would be to lock us all up in a padded cell in straight jackets to protect us from everyone else and ourselves.

Now you're taking it to the extreme.

That's also the ultimate restriction of freedom by the way. Freedom is risk, it is danger of having your rights violated. That's why we have laws and police, to help us preserve our rights and send those who would violate those rights to jail.

Sometimes.

Having freedom means allowing other people to be free. That means allowing people to be racist, or hate gays, or think women are inferior, or hate white people, or join the nazi party. It's all about freedom for everyone.

Including my favorite -- freedom of speech.

So that's not a valid reason to continue affirmative action.

I wasn't saying I wanted affirmative action to continue.

It's certainly not a valid reason to try to make racism illegal.

Even if it could be proven that speech acts are casually linked to physical acts?

The same argument could have been made about the slaves before the civil war - or the 98% tax bracket that was levied on the highest income earners in the 70's (I think), or segregation...

The will of the majority is not necessarily moral. That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect the fundamental rights of the minority - the rights that cannot be voted away.

So where were the Bill of Rights during segregation, slavery, and the 98% tax bracket?

So you can't use a "most people support it" argument to justify affirmative action. It's a weak argument anyway, if you can't say why people support it then you should re-evaluate whether it should be supported.

I'm not justifying affirmative action. I'm telling like it is.
To answer your question, most people are too concerned with the Middle East and other issues at the moment to worry about Affirmative Action.

 

[Danoff]

And for the record, I do not own a gun -- whether or not you meant that as a joke.

I didn't mean it as a joke, but I own a gun... I guess I figured lots of people did.

Even if it could be proven that speech acts are casually linked to physical acts?

Of course.

So where were the Bill of Rights during segregation, slavery, and the 98% tax bracket?

Out the window.

To answer your question, most people are too concerned with the Middle East and other issues at the moment to worry about Affirmative Action.

That doesn't mean it's not a big problem. Highschoolers who are applying to college right now are certainly concerned with it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No one said AA caused racism - obviously it didn't, because if there was no racism there would have been no 'need' for AA to have been created.

OK. With you so far...

You've got cause and effect a little logically confused. There's no logical proof that the reduction in racism wasn't caused by other factors: increased understanding, aging and death of idiotic bigots, general sea change of society. You can't logically attribute this reduction to AA, but you can logically show that AA perpetuates racism in the form of using race as a criteria rather than performance.

Even though race was used as a criteria rather than performance BEFORE Affirmative Action came into existence.

Thank you for proving my point in this thread, too. Affirmative Action does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype that minorities are incapable of achievement on the same level as others and must therefore be given officially-sanctioned breaks and must have the bars lowered so they can hurdle them.

Why look at it from that perspective? Why not say:

"Slavery, segregation, and its effects gave the majority a specific advantage over minorities -- not that minorites are incapable."

Even if AA were to be eliminated, there are still plenty of other "outlets" for that stereotype to perprtuate. I don't see why AA has to be the only target.

Oh yeah, according to Dan, it's because it's legislated.

I can't wait to see what happens when AA is finished...

Black family incomes, relative to those of whites, remained virtually unchanged from 1949 to the mid-1960s. However, because of the Civil Rights Movement, antidiscrimination laws, affirmative action programs, and a tight labor market, blacks made real gains relative to whites in family income from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. From this point, with the national recession firmly rooted, black family income gains relative to whites stalled and on many accounts reversed through the mid-1980s.1

Two clear patterns emerge in median family income during the 1990s. First, the median family income of whites and blacks over this period followed trends in the general economy (see Figure 1). Median family income for whites and blacks rose modestly during the economic expansion of the late 1980s and declined somewhat during the early 1990s recession. However, blacks and whites made strong gains in family income during the late 1990s economic expansion. Both whites' and blacks' family income was at its highest level at the end of the expansion in 2000. From 1994 to 2000, whites' family income grew from nearly $45,000 to $53,000, a gain of $8,000, or about 17 percent. Blacks' family income grew over this period at an even stronger rate, 24 percent, from nearly $25,000 to $31,000, a gain of about $6,000.

Eliminate AA and this gap will be reduced! Why? Well according to Dan and Duke, racists will no longer think of minorities as incapable anymore and their salaries will automatically go up! 💡 j/k


MrktMkr's Opinion on Affirmative Action summarized in one tiny paragraph:

Seriously, I'm not saying I want Affirmative Action to continue. All I'm saying is Affirmative Action is not the "cancer" some of the people in this thread are making it out to be. There are other underlying issues that are CONSIDERABLY MORE HARMFUL than AA that need to be addressed both BEFORE and AFTER Affirmative Action is eliminated.

Hopefully, this will be my last post in this thread, now that you know where I stand on this issue.

 

[Danoff]

Eliminate AA and this gap will be reduced! Why? Well according to Dan and Duke, racists will no longer think of minorities as incapable anymore and their salaries will automatically go up!

It will help minorities to stop thinking of themselves as incapable. They'd have to stop playing the victim and go out and help themselves. That's the real way to social change.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It will help minorities to stop thinking of themselves as incapable. They'd have to stop playing the victim and go out and help themselves. That's the real way to social change.

I was hoping to make that my last post but you leave me no choice.

I was not talking about minorities thinking of themselves as incapable. No minority I've ever met (myself included) EVER thought of themselves as inferior or incapable. It's the labeling and stereotypes of others BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION why some minorities (not all, because I'm an example of one who does not) play the victim and REFUSE to go out and help themselves. The real way to social change is for the majority to change the way they look at minorites.

AND THAT is my final post in this thread.

 

[Danoff]

The real way to social change is for the majority to change the way they look at minorites.

I think, for the most part, that is done.

No minority I've ever met (myself included) EVER thought of themselves as inferior or incapable.

You're right. I should have been clearer. I should have said, incapable of going out and becoming successful. Of course they think they're capable, but (and yourself included) they think there are too many barriers in their way because of the color of their skin.

I don't see it. I've never seen it.

I work in engineering - which is made up mostly of white males. Almost everywhere I've been there will have been only one black person around - so the ratio is about 500 to 1. With a mixture that sparse, you'd expect people to treat that person differently. I haven't seen it. As far as I can tell nobody ever really notices.

I think there are still some places in the country where it might be a problem, but these aren't areas where there are many career opportunities anyway.

The biggest thing I have seen is minorities being racist - or claiming racism. The thing I run into over and over are minorities that define themselves by the color of their skin. THAT attitude is the result of affirmative action - and THAT is one of the last major sources of racism. The victim mentality is the reason fewer Black people go to college or get high paying jobs. It's not their minority status - it doesn't hold back Asians.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think, for the most part, that is done.

I must respectfully disagree.
FOLLOW THE YELLOW-BRICK ROAD...

CLICK HERE TOO!

You're right. I should have been clearer. I should have said, incapable of going out and becoming successful.

Even THAT, I have a hard time "subscribing" to. That sounds so foreign, I don't even see that as "minority" problem. I see that as a universal problem -- usually among people who live in poverty and/or have issues within their home. This kind of "problem" is not exclusive to minorities.

Of course they think they're capable, but (and yourself included) they think there are too many barriers in their way because of the color of their skin.

That is a "truth" you're obviously not going to accept. If there were no barriers against minorities, there would be no need for Affirmative Action. If there were no barriers against minorities, there would be no disparity between the salaries of Black families and the salaries of white families.

I don't see it. I've never seen it.

I think you choose not to see it.

I work in engineering - which is made up mostly of white males. Almost everywhere I've been there will have been one black person around - so the ratio is about 500 to 1. With a mixture that sparse, you'd expect people to treat that person differently. I haven't seen it. As far as I can tell nobody ever really notices.

It probably would have been better to actually talk to the one Black person and get his/her opinion rather than making assumptions based on what you saw.

I think there are still some places in the country where it might be a problem, but these aren't areas where there are many career opportunities anyway.

I strongly disagree. Would you consider New York City an area where there are many career opportunities?

The biggest thing I have seen is minorities being racist - or claiming racism.

Again, either because you choose to, or live in an a comparatively isolated area.

The thing I run into over and over are minorities that define themselves by the color of their skin.

I guess I'm one minority that does not define myself by the color of my skin. If that were the case, my username would not read "MrktMkr".

THAT attitude is the result of affirmative action

Depends on who you talk to. Some would argue that that attitude is the result of an oppresive majority.

- and THAT is one of the last major sources of racism.

I disagree, and explained why just above.

The victim mentality is the reason fewer Black people go to college or get high paying jobs. It's not their minority status - it doesn't hold back Asians.

With the exception of the Japanese internment (FOR WHICH THEY WERE DIRECTLY COMPENSATED FOR!!!), I cannot recall ANY situation where Asians were treated as inferior to the majority. And before you mention the Chinese immigrants who worked on the railroads in the late 1800s, they were "paid" (not much, but still compensated) for their labor.

Whether you want to admit to it or not, slavery and segregation DOES have a lasting effect on people. I briefly mentioned this in my "American foreign policy" essay with the Slavs.

 

[Danoff]

I knew I'd get you to post again.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I knew I'd get you to post again.

Yeah, it worked.

 

[Duke]

I guess I'm one minority that does not define myself by the color of my skin. If that were the case, my username would not read "MrktMkr".

I have to ask you: Why do I know you're black?!

Because you announced it. So in some way, you do define yourself by the color of your skin.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I have to ask you: Why do I know you're black?!

Because you announced it. So in some way, you do define yourself by the color of your skin.

Ten asked me if I was Black, and I answered his question. Would it have been more appropriate on the forum to say "I prefer not to answer"? <<< Not being facetious. I really would like to know. Although I'm not aware if I've done anything wrong in that respect, I wouldn't mind modifying any posts that I've made that make it sound as if I was "announcing" it.

Also, did you get a chance to read any of what I wrote in my previous posts?

 

[Duke]

Yes, I did read your other posts. I believe I understand your point, but I fail to agree with it.

There's certainly nothing wrong with being black, being proud of it, or announcing it. It's not inappropriate in any way. My point was that you've got an opportunity in an internet forum where no one ever has to know what race you are unless you tell them.

I could be black... or Inuit, for all anybody knows. Jordan could be a woman (well, OK, except for numerous references to my wife, so could I for that matter).

But it was just an interesting point that we're discussing perception of minorities and when given a chance to not necessarily identify yourself as a minority, you did so anyway. Not a real earth-shattering revelation, more a curiosity on my part.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yes, I did read your other posts. I believe I understand your point, but I fail to agree with it.

That's fair.

There's certainly nothing wrong with being black, being proud of it, or announcing it. It's not inappropriate in any way. My point was that you've got an opportunity in an internet forum where no one ever has to know what race you are unless you tell them.

...and I blew it...

I could be black... or Inuit, for all anybody knows. Jordan could be a woman (well, OK, except for numerous references to my wife, so could I for that matter).

This is true. The Internet does offer a level anonymity.

But it was just an interesting point that we're discussing perception of minorities and when given a chance to not necessarily identify yourself as a minority, you did so anyway. Not a real earth-shattering revelation, more a curiosity on my part.

In retrospect, I can't believe I actually wrote that. At the time of the writing, I was so "caught up" in the discussion, I didn't even realize that I was typing something so "revealing". I guess that's what happens when one gets too "involved" in a subject so personal -- it's difficult to be objective.