Positive Discrimination

[TheFaithfulStone]

You have a point, sebby. You don't have to have more money than everybody, just more money/power that the people you're trying to discriminate against.

 

But why don't you address my initial point

 

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.

[TheFaithfulStone]

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??).

 

True, in a sense. It still punishes them for working. Basically, if you get welfare (it's like two or three thousand a year I think) and you make a hundred bucks collecting cans, they deduct a hundred bucks from your welfare check. The more kids you have the more payout you get.

 

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.

 

Hmm. I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how to fix it. It used to be reasonably common occurrence in my wife's neighborhood for people to jump out in front of cars so they could sue the driver.

 

In a way, this is the same "logic" behind playing the lottery or playing the slots. You probably won't win big, but then, you might.

 

Gambling is one of those "human" characteristics, so I don't know that it's all about "nothing that happens to me is my fault" so much as it is "they've got it and I don't, and I want it."

 

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'.

 

Also a huge problem. Especially when the people who get respect are the thugs & gangstas.

 

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.

 

It's not so much "sit at the back of the bus" anymore, no. It's much more subtle than that. I don't stay in the hood anymore, but even the nice little town I live in does something called "tracking" where they put all the Hispanic kids into shop classes and all the rich white kids into "college prep" courses. Starts in eighth grade. EIGHTH GRADE. I refuse to believe that it's possible to know someone's life path in eighth grade by looking at their "test scores."

 

Or, it's being ignored on the new car lot. Or, it's having the salesman ask you patronizing questions like "Do you have any money to put down?" (Not a personal experience.)

 

Racism still exists, it's just much sneakier, and in it's way, much more dangerous.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

You have a point, sebby.

Thanks. It helps create understanding beneficial for all when one acknowledges and appreciates the points of the other.

 

Racism still exists, it's just much sneakier, and in it's way, much more dangerous.

 

Erm, what? I think a group of youths beating the living daylights out of a black youth who sat on the wrong part of the bus is much more dangerous than a salesman asking if the person has enough money.

 

I take it by that comment you yourself have never experienced the real and dangerous type of racism.

 

But why don't you address my initial point

 

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.

Nobody has addressed my initial point either probably because nobody has taken the time to try and understand it.

 

I would say a white person mugged by a black man has a real experience of racism. Or the person not hired because there was another equal person who was a Muslim.

 

Note these two examples are NOT morally equivilent. MY question is why. Why is positive discrimination not racism. Nobody (other than myself) has even attempted an explanation of this.

 

Political groups throw around the word 'racism' to describe positive discrimination and 'positive discrimination' to describe racism for far too long without anybody stepping back and saying 'shtopp, what are you doing?' I would like to finally deal with this but nobody else appears to care.

 

So what is wrong with me saying you are all being racist by trying to give the black community disproportionate aid in education that you will not apply to white people? By this I mean you are creating schemes whose sole purpose is to help one race at the expense of the other, even if the scheme itself is phrased without mention of race.

[pgrmdave]

If I grow up disadvantaged, and you grow up advantaged, is it bigoted to take that into account? If a person goes to a poor, inner city school and scores a perfect SAT, does it count the same as the rich kid who went to prep school, took classes just for the SATs, had summer courses and every advantage? Or is it possible, just possible, that the person who has more advantages is not the equal of the person who didn't.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Erm, what? I think a group of youths beating the living daylights out of a black youth who sat on the wrong part of the bus is much more dangerous than a salesman asking if the person has enough money.

 

That's not what I meant. I suspect that you know that and are being disingenuous.

 

The subtle racism is not more physically dangerous - there is little danger of me being lynched. But in a sense it's MORE dangerous, because it's easier to sweep it under the rug.

 

Which is more dangerous - the giant tumor growing out of your arm, which you immediately can notice and go to the doctor and get removed, or the infinitesimal cell, somewhere deep within your body that decides to start dividing without control? Soon it spreads into your lymph nodes, and before you know it, you're lousy with cancer. You never saw any cancer - but it was there - subtle and deadly.

 

Are you understanding now what I'm saying when I say that subtle racism is in it's own way more dangerous than overt racism?

 

TFS

[HydrogenBond]

Martin Luther King said something like, " I have a dream, that a man will someday be judged by the content of his chararcter and not the color of his skin". He was saying, just create a level playing field and let ability and character decide. The liberals perverted his word and wrote them backwards.

 

But on the other hand, most jobs do not require a 4.0 average. That is typically needed only for getting the job. After that, jobs are usually easier than school. A paycheck makes it easier. As such, although the best qualified may not get the job, many people far less qualified can still do a good job, if they are only given the opportunity. Most jobs specialize and retrain you. Up to 90% of what you learned in school will have very little day-to-day use in the work place.

[sebbysteiny]

If I grow up disadvantaged, and you grow up advantaged, is it bigoted to take that into account?

...

Or is it possible, just possible, that the person who has more advantages is not the equal of the person who didn't.

 

It could be counted as classist. It is also possible but also possibly not. However when you add a race element to this, then, [ignoring my criteria], it could easily be said to be a racist policy.

 

That's not what I meant. I suspect that you know that and are being disingenuous.

 

The subtle racism is not more physically dangerous - there is little danger of me being lynched. But in a sense it's MORE dangerous, because it's easier to sweep it under the rug.

 

Which is more dangerous - the giant tumor growing out of your arm, which you immediately can notice and go to the doctor and get removed, or the infinitesimal cell, somewhere deep within your body

 

I was not being disingenuous. Perhaps you did not mean 'dangerous' but 'stealthy' and 'harder to irradicate'.

 

Overt and obvious racism is the most dangerous type. It can take place when a societies belief systems allow it to develop. Where racism is not disgraced this type of racism is commonplace and causes genocides, massive human rights abuses, unequal rights and aparteids.

 

Overt racism cannot exist in modern liberal democracies not because of the system of government but because of our belief systems and total disgust of racism. Instead, hidden racism can occur and this is much harder to find and therefore eradicate. It can be deadly, but it can only cause isolated incidents. It cannot cause the no 1 crime against humanity, genocide as well as the other above human rights abuses. But it can cause problems and it is harder to get rid of.

 

Perhaps this is what you mean?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I was not being disingenuous. Perhaps you did not mean 'dangerous' but 'stealthy' and 'harder to irradicate'.

 

No, I meant dangerous, because it is not without threat. And it is both stealthy and harder to eradicate.

 

It's because the presence of subtle forms for racism prevent overt racism from becoming as "disgraced belief" (to use your terminology) as it ought to be.

 

"Hidden" racism hides within assumptions that we make about people. It buries itself in the guy who can't get helped at the car dealership, or who gets sideways looks about his platinum card.

 

No one is physically harmed in these scenarios, sure, but it reinforces the idea of making distinctions based on race. It prevents us from becoming an race-blind society.

 

So that's what I mean - it's easy to punish people who dress up in white sheets - much harder to punish people who just act like assholes.

 

I agree that it's not going to cause genocide, but I don't think an attitude needs to be responsible for genocide to be considered a "dangerous belief." In an individual sense, overt racism may be more dangerous, but I think in a social sense, hidden racism can be more dangerous, especially where overt expressions of racism are swiftly punished.

 

Overt racism cannot exist in modern liberal democracies

 

Experience leads me to believe the contrary. Perhaps not on an institutional scale, but there are still plenty of bigots out there.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

It could be counted as classist. It is also possible but also possibly not. However when you add a race element to this, then, [ignoring my criteria], it could easily be said to be a racist policy.

 

Just because it is based on race, class, age, gender, hair color, eye color or whatever does not mean it is wrong. There is a difference between treating people equally and treating people the same. Treating everybody the same is silly, dumb, and inherently biased. Treating people as equals, taking into account different backgrounds, abilities, lifestyles, experiances and whatnot is not wrong, and is necessary. The differences:

 

The situation:

Danny grows up wealty, in a rich neighborhood with every advantage money can buy. When he goes to take the SATs, his mother gets him a Princeton Review tutor, which guarentees to raise your SAT score by 200 points.

Donny grows up without money, living in the slums, dealing with drug dealers on the corner, gang fights in the street, noisy nights where he can't get enough sleep, and is unable to hire a tutor for the SATs.

When it comes time to take the SATs, Donny gets a 1300, and Danny gets a 1450. Who did better?

 

Treating people the same:

Danny got a higher score so he did better.

 

Treating people as equals:

Had the positions been switched, there probably would have been a greater disparity in the scores. Had they had the same experiances, Donny's score probably would have been higher. Had all other things been equal, Donny would have done better, so Donny's score is better.

 

 

Now, is it right to 'punish' Danny? When you look at it, he's not being punished, Donny's conditions and Danny's conditions are merely being taken into account. If they aren't, then Donny is 'punished' simply because he wasn't able to afford the better schools, or the tutor. Just because a system isn't blind doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

[infamous]

Just because it is based on race, class, age, gender, hair color, eye color or whatever does not mean it is wrong. There is a difference between treating people equally and treating people the same. Treating everybody the same is silly, dumb, and inherently biased. Treating people as equals, taking into account different backgrounds, abilities, lifestyles, experiances and whatnot is not wrong, and is necessary.

Excellent points pgrmdave..........; When someone is admitted into the hospital for treatment of an illness or disease, do we prescribe the same medications? Most certainly not, but they should be treated equally but not with the same technique when one example is a broken leg and the other cancer. Everyone has their own peculiar differences and different people have different needs, having said that, we are not all the same. Never-the-less, we are all equal under the law and each and every individual should be valued as having the same worth...................................Infy

[TheFaithfulStone]

Never-the-less, we are all equal under the law and each and every individual should be valued as having the same worth

 

This is also a good point. I think the distinction here is between justice and fairness.

 

Justice says there's no difference between the guy who killed the person by pounding on his chest, and the guy who killed him by doing CPR imperfectly. Justice is blind to both situation and intent.

 

Arguing from the point of view of affirmative action being "unjust" is fairly easy - but like I've said, it's a confusion of the situation. Affirmative action isn't meant to be a "just" program, it's meant to be a fair one.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

I think the distinction here is between justice and fairness.

 

Justice says there's no difference between the guy who killed the person by pounding on his chest, and the guy who killed him by doing CPR imperfectly. Justice is blind to both situation and intent.

 

No it isn't. Justice includes both situation and intent. The only possible difference I can think of is one is a legal evaluation and the other is a moral one.

 

The situation:

Danny grows up wealty, in a rich neighborhood with every advantage money can buy. When he goes to take the SATs, his mother gets him a Princeton Review tutor, which guarentees to raise your SAT score by 200 points.

Donny grows up without money, living in the slums, dealing with drug dealers on the corner, gang fights in the street, noisy nights where he can't get enough sleep, and is unable to hire a tutor for the SATs.

When it comes time to take the SATs, Donny gets a 1300, and Danny gets a 1450. Who did better?

 

Your approach is that to get the true 'fair' score, one include various factors to benifit the poor. The problem is that it is impossible to tell how much each factor effects each individual and you have deliberately selected your criteria that effects one class only. For example, being better taught does not necesserily mean getting better grades. A person who learns on his own would perform the same regardless of teaching. Some people may suffer more for losing their pet than others would for losing their mother. Some people may be born thick, whist others are born geniouses. Some people have been brought up to really work and have ambition, whilst others have not. Some people have been bought up really spoilt and have had an easy family life whist others have had things much tougher (and so have more resiliance).

 

The reason you could be said to be classist and "morally wrong" is that you have approached this problem by noticing different classes have different advantages and disadvantages that may or may not effect the individual under scrutany and then proposing to use factors that effect only one class ignoring all those that effect others.

[pgrmdave]

At least my way attempts to take into account people's different backgrounds. Treating everybody as though they are the same ignores basic facts. My was is not perfect, but it tries to make a level playing field.

[TheFaithfulStone]

No it isn't. Justice includes both situation and intent. The only possible difference I can think of is one is a legal evaluation and the other is a moral one.

 

Hmm... I'm using this in the sense of "justice ethics," which is Carol Gilligan. Admittedly a fine distinction. I can't find the citation where I first saw this distinction made - and I admit to it not being a common one. I think it was John Rawls.

 

In any case, the relevant thing here isn't the terminology - if you want to say that justice includes both situation and intent, that's fine with me - but do you understand my critique of your reasoning?

 

It's a reasoning that's blind to individual subjectivity, not because it denies it exists, but that it wants to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

 

To me, your reasoning is flawed, because I see the argument as going like this.

1) Not everyone has the same situation.

2) Not everyones reaction is the same to the same situation.

3) It is impossible to know what 2 will be.

4) It is therefore impossible to accurately and fully account for one.

5) Therefore we should treat everyone as having the same situation.

 

I think this qualifies as an "appeal to probability." Because something MAY happen, it is taken as something WILL happen. It MAY be possible for someone to overcome all disadvantages. It MAY be possible for one particular disadvantage to not affect one particular person. Or it may affect different people differently. Too many choices here lead to a messy syllogism.

 

It is also a bit of a false choice. "Because we cannot be perfectly fair, we should discard fairness altogether."

 

Affirmative action is not perfect. I'm of the opinion that it's a well-intended and moral action whose application is flawed to the point that it actually has the opposite of the intended effect. But it's difficult to argue that because nothing has been done well that nothing should be done at all.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

To both PgrmDave and TFS

 

Don't get me wrong. I am playing devils advocate. I do not agree that positive discrimination is racism. I think it is the amongst the highest possible moral position to take whist racism is the amongst the very lowerst.

 

My problem is finding some kind of consistent principal to distinguish the two even in the most obvious cases such as this. There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong with trying to give the poor a chance and it is not anti rich to suggest this. But the difference is only instinctively and emotionally obvious. Why it is different logically is not. Intellectually, without addressing the difference, Martin Luther King becomes no different than Hitler and we allow our entire moral code (racism = bad, anti-racism = good) to be subverted and abused.

 

Emotions also are dependant on the side you prefer. I HATE BEYOND ALL REASON any principal which relies on viewpoint because acts supported by a majority (eg genocide) are no grounds for moral correctness and right and wrong should never depend upon who you ask.

 

I want to find some guidlines that could distinguish the two opposites in less (emotionally) obvious cases. For example, is a synagogue that only accepts Jewish membership a racist institution? Is a program to increase funding to all but Muslim schools racist? Is giving women an advantage in the interview process sexist? And is trying to give the poor some advantage over the rich by distorting selection criteria classist? Our entire definition of right and wrong depends upon making this distinction.

 

Please someone tell me that they understand my point.

[TheFaithfulStone]

My problem is finding some kind of consistent principal to distinguish the two even in the most obvious cases such as this. There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong with trying to give the poor a chance and it is not anti rich to suggest this. But the difference is only instinctively and emotionally obvious. Why it is different logically is not. Intellectually, without addressing the difference, Martin Luther King becomes no different than Hitler and we allow our entire moral code (racism = bad, anti-racism = good) to be subverted and abused.

 

Sebby, you, like all philosophers throughout the history of the philosophy will find this to be exceedingly difficult.

 

Smarter people than you or I have written VOLUMES about this subject, and not a single one of them has come up with a perfect answer.

 

You might find Carol Gilligan instructive, for a way to be moral without needing to be inhumanly logical.

 

And of course, if you can distill the details out, all religion is about one thing - "Don't do anything you're not willing to be on the receiving end of."

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby, you, like all philosophers throughout the history of the philosophy will find this to be exceedingly difficult.

 

Smarter people than you or I have written VOLUMES about this subject, and not a single one of them has come up with a perfect answer.

 

You might find Carol Gilligan instructive, for a way to be moral without needing to be inhumanly logical.

 

You are right that what I am saying could be a philosophical question, but I am used to coming up against apparent philosphical questions and converting them into real practical questions with real practical answers. Often these answers are not 100% perfect, granted, but they are good enough for the purposes they are needed for. This is what I am trying to do again.

 

But this is an important question because there ARE times were our instinct cannot easily distinguish the two. In those cases, is it racism or anti-racism? Because if people misdiagnose it, then you get a pervesion of morality which can lead to deadly consequences.

 

My three factors that I have found that act as a guide are: 1) Is there a victimised race/class; 2) Does the measure give a race/class an unfair advantage; 3) Is there a race/class with a genuine need (actual or possible)?

These are not perfect (see my main post) but they are a good guide in most circumstances.

 

So in your education scholarships schemes, there is a race/class with a need (the poor who are getting worse results than the rich). The rich are not victimised because, despite the policy, the rich still have an advantage over the poor, so it is not directly racist. Also, the poor do not get an unfair advantage over the rich so it is not indirectly racist. It works here. Thus it is +ve discrimination, not classist even if the policy is not well thought out.

 

It would be great if you guys could help find any other factors or improve the ones I have.