Positive Discrimination

[TheFaithfulStone]

No offense munch, but I immediately get suspicious when white people start talking about being "discriminated against."

 

Let's see - blacks have not been second class citizen (at least in theory) since... 1964?

 

The difference between "whites only" scholarships and "blacks only" scholarships is a matter of statistics, and your argument against it is a matter of edge cases.

 

Statistically speaking, African-Americans need more "help" in getting to college than white people.

 

There are two coherent arguments against Affirmative Action. One is that all discrimination is unjust. This has some merit - but it doesn't really address the main issue, which is that the starting condition of the system is unfair. How does one compensate for unfair starting condition if NOT through Affirmative Action? You make this claim tangentially.

 

The second argument is that Affirmative Action amounts to harm to someone else. In the great majority of cases, this isn't true. It depends on the assumption that funds available to blacks only would still be available if they were open to all. That's not really supported - since many "black-only" scholarships and aid programs are established with the specific goal of helping black students. The second part of this claim depends on an incomplete understanding of racial preferences in admissions. If you don't get into a university, and some-one else, who you perceive to be less qualified DOES, chances are it had little to do with race. Perhaps person B is a talented Baseball player, but his grades are only average. Perhaps he is a talented Artist, or Musician, or his admission essay was REALLY good. The chances of a dead tie with race being the only tie breaker are actually pretty slim. And even if that DOES occur, the harm done to the "white" student may be insignificant in relationship to the benefit done the "black" student.

 

In other words, I'm not particularly moved by your "justice" arguments, as it's arguing for justice in an unfair system. We give one party a lawyer, the other a doctor, and then put them in a court. The lawyer wins. Am I making the distinction clear? I'm not sure I am.

 

As for your "harm" argument, I have yet to see any harm demonstrated by Affirmative Action - although I have seen a decided lack of any movement in the desired direction.

 

edit: Good analogy. Affirmative action is like a broken down car - it's not really hurting anyone, because it's just sitting there on the side of the road. On the other hand, it's not getting you to where you want to be either.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

How do your classifiers work when applied to the specific situations the rest of the thread was largely about.

Essentially, if my innitial suspicions are correct, anybody accusing a positive discriminatory measures as being a racist measure will need to doublecheck their moral compass because it is way off. Is it effective? It doesn't matter, morally it is still as good as somebody trying and failing to improve our health service.

 

Perhaps you could be kind enough as to tell me what you think is the difference between racism and anti-racism / positive discrimination?

 

For example,

No offense munch, but I immediately get suspicious when white people start talking about being "discriminated against."

You have no reasonable basis for those suspicions. You must address the concerns of the white community who feel themselves at a disadvantage or you will be yourself racist.

[InfiniteNow]

Essentially, if my innitial suspicions are correct, anybody accusing a positive discriminatory measures as being a racist measure will need to doublecheck their moral compass because it is way off.

 

Does a moral compass work using the geomagnetic north, or true north? Which way is north? What does that mean?

[sebbysteiny]

Does a moral compass work using the geomagnetic north, or true north? Which way is north? What does that mean?

A moral compass shows what direction is the North pole. Perhaps you should follow it and stay there :lol:.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You have no reasonable basis for those suspicions. You must address the concerns of the white community who feel themselves at a disadvantage or you will be yourself racist.

 

I've got plenty of "reasonable basis" for those suspicions stebby.

 

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

I think I'll answer on behalf your your imaginary friend 'Stebbysteiny'.

That makes no sense. What power? It does not take much to have an all black employment policy for a business which would be racist.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sorry about getting your name wrong, - it doesn't have a T does it? Damn, I'm illiterate.

 

Sebby have you ever, because of your race:

1) Been followed around in a store?

2) Not been allowed to see a girl?

3) Had the police called on you for stolen credit cards (that belonged to you.)

4) Answered to "boy"?

5) Ever actually been discriminated against in a meaningful way?

 

What I'm saying is that "reverse discrimination" is a rare creature indeed. So when people make claims like "I think white people are discriminated against in college admissions," yeah, I start getting suspicious of them.

 

Because they don't even know what that word means

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Sorry the Faithfulstone, but minorities can be racist against majorities just as easily as majorities can be against minorities. Why don't you take a walk around a black neighbourhood? I'm sure you will get a similar response as if a black person were to go for a walk around a white neighbourhood.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

 

And I think you may be making some unfounded assumptions.

 

TFS

[munch]

**All quotes taken from previous posts by TheFaithfulStone. Used without permission.**

 

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

 

That's true, but you have to agree they have a cause and effect relationship. Although a racist may not have the opportunity to discriminate, he will, given the chance.

 

Or try this: whatever "ism" is motive, the end result is discrimination; the deciding factor is opportunity.

 

You mind sharing what said "unfounded assumptions" are?

 

And finally, a few days back to my last post.

 

Statistically speaking, African-Americans need more "help" in getting to college than white people.

 

Then they'll, statistically speaking, get more need-based scholarships, won't they?

 

I have a fundamental problem with handing out cash based solely on skin color. Or whatever PC term the scholarships use. If the money for race-based scholarships was changed to need-based, for most black students, the amount of money recieved would drop very little, if at all.

 

I think the amount would increase, because wealthy black students would no longer be elegible. This would solve the problem of the brown-haired students who start with a dollar getting another dollar, and increases the number of dollarless students who get one.

 

Keep in mind, too, that wealthy black students are more able to make a convincing argument for a scholarship than are poorer students.

 

And with that final sentence, he submitted his post, turned off his computer monitor, and rested from a hard day's non-work.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Then they'll, statistically speaking, get more need-based scholarships, won't they?

 

I have a fundamental problem with handing out cash based solely on skin color. Or whatever PC term the scholarships use. If the money for race-based scholarships was changed to need-based, for most black students, the amount of money recieved would drop very little, if at all.

 

I think the amount would increase, because wealthy black students would no longer be elegible. This would solve the problem of the red-haired students who start with a dollar getting another dollar, and increases the number of dollarless students who get one.

 

Keep in mind, too, that wealthy black students are more able to make a convincing argument for a scholarship than are poorer students.

 

You make a cogent argument that certainly addresses one (probably the) major problem with the current system.

 

Moving to an entirely need based system would help, and I don't think it's a bad idea, but there are a few more issue that need to be addressed.

 

1. With few exceptions, schools which are predominantly blacks are simply not as good as predominantly white schools. They have less "college prep" courses, fewer opportunities, etc. Even if you gave every poor kid in America a free ride to college, the ones from those schools would still underachieve because they are not prepared to the same level as kids from "white" schools.

 

2. Standardized tests measure two things A) How good you are at taking standardized tests and :) Your level of richness and whiteness. Relying on them as heavily as we do results in a system that privileges an utterly useless skill.

 

So, I think that your idea of passing out only need based aid, is certainly a good one, but how do you account for the wildly differing starting conditions.

 

TFS

 

I don't want to type this story again, because it's depressing.

[sebbysteiny]

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

 

And I think you may be making some unfounded assumptions.

 

That's true, but you have to agree they have a cause and effect relationship. Although a racist may not have the opportunity to discriminate, he will, given the chance.

Munch is right. Also, just because you are in a minority does not mean you lack the means to impliment your racism and discriminate against the majority. Apartheid South Africa for example.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sebby, you're trying to change the subject.

 

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

 

You need the most guns, the most money, or the most bodies. I didn't say it required you be a majority.

 

In any case, I said I was suspicious when white people talked about being "discriminated against" because I would wager that most of them don't have any real experience with it.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

So, I think that your idea of passing out only need based aid, is certainly a good one, but how do you account for the wildly differing starting conditions.

 

From the studies I have read the starting point is identical. The issue is not so much race as it appears to be income.

 

1st, 2nd and 3rd graders tested in the same schools had no difference based on race (white kids tested the same as a whole as black kids in both poorer schools and more well off schools).

 

The biggest factor seems to be support at home. The number of African American households without two parents is greater than the number of Caucasion households without two parents. This seems to be the bigger factor after the first few years of school.

 

The book 'Freakonomics' has a lot of interesting studies in it. You may enjoy it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The biggest factor seems to be support at home. The number of African American households without two parents is greater than the number of Caucasion households without two parents. This seems to be the bigger factor after the first few years of school.

 

I agree that this is HUGE.

 

How do you fix it?

 

edit: I guess maybe "starting conditions" isn't accurate. But of course, no kid gets to control if his parents stay together, or how much they make or any of that, and that's what I meant. Those are big factors, and although they're not dictated by race or income, they're pretty highly correlated.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Now THAT is an excellent question!

 

The whole issue is incredibly complex as there are many contributing factors.

 

As I see it, our welfare system in the 1960-1990s actually encouraged people of low income to have more kids (not sure about the current state of the welfare system, perhaps it still does??).

 

This, and the US legal free for all ('oooo I triped, I'll sue the city, county and state') has taught people that:

 

1) Nothing that happens to me is my fault.

 

2) There are no consequences to my actions.

 

In addition, I have heard a number of broadcasts indicating that many kids are made fun of if they try to advance accedemically. It just isn't 'cool'.

 

I think the issue's foundation lies with people's lack of personal responsibility. This has led to lots of other contributing factors. I propose the solution also lies with teaching kids (adults may be hopeless) personal responsibility.

 

I also believe that racism/classism does play a role, but I think that it is a minor role at this time. Not that it doesn't exist, but that the problem is much larger than the discimination that does exist.

[sebbysteiny]

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

 

You need the most guns, the most money, or the most bodies. I didn't say it required you be a majority.

 

All you need to have a racist black only beach is one black man with the money and right to buy a beach. Guns, having the most money or bodies are not necessary.