Affirmative Action Explained

[Bonam]

So no, you are wrong because non-visible-minority is not a race. Therefore affirmative action is not "institutionalized racism" and never was. So whomever was feeding you that line that it is or ever was "institutionalized racism" is talking out of their ass.

No, wiggling around the definitions evasively does not make your argument for you. Find me a white male of European origin and Christian religion that has benefited directly from affirmative action and you might have a point.

[Saipan]

nor is any affimative action program targeted at visible minorities, racist.

YES, it's racist because it DISCRIMINATES against a RACE.

[Smallc]

Systemic is the word they tend to use when they can't identify what practices are biased. IF the genders are unbalanced then there is presumed to be 'systemic' bias - unless the imbalance works in favour of women or minorities.

I'm glad you can tell me what we think. Generally, I think that it should work out that number of women and men are similar in many areas.

[dre]

YES, it's racist because it DISCRIMINATES against a RACE.

No affirmative action describes any policy meant to reverse descrimination. Sometimes its race, sometimes its nationality, sometimes its gender, sometimes its affluence, but it could also be age or any other identifiable attribute.

Forcing a schools to enroll a certain percentage of students from low income families is ALSO affirmative action.

The legal definition is...

A reverse discrimination law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged such as, for example, extending preferential treatment in regards to employment or education.

So its not necessarily about race but it can be.

Find me a white male of European origin and Christian religion that has benefited directly from affirmative action and you might have a point.

I could find you literally thousands of them.

In the midst of all the current breast-beating about affirmative action, the Washington State Commission on African-American Affairs has found that data -- provided by four-year institutions and compiled by the Washington State Office of Financial Management show that whites are the key beneficiaries of "special/alternative admission standards" and affirmative action affecting hiring at Washington States's four-year schools. The beneficiaries include significant numbers of white men as well as white women.

This contradicts the public perception among many white Americans, even among some African Americans, of the effects of affirmative action.

The Commission's findings clearly show that a broad schism exists between the public's perceptions of affirmative action and the reality of affirmative action as practiced in both student enrollment and hiring at Washington State public four-year schools.

Edited January 1, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

No affirmative action describes any policy meant to reverse descrimination.

Actually no. Affirmative action ASSUMES that any differences in outcome are the result of discrimination. It then seeks to eliminate those differences in outcome. It has nothing to do with reversing discrimination. Edited January 1, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

I could find you literally thousands of them.

You'd have to elaborate on what "special/alternative admission standards" means as a program, but if it is just about giving opportunities to poorer people, no, that is not affirmative action: that is just plain old socialism.

[Shwa]

No, wiggling around the definitions evasively does not make your argument for you. Find me a white male of European origin and Christian religion that has benefited directly from affirmative action and you might have a point.

There is no "wiggling around definitions evasively" here Bonam, I am being right up front and your assertion that affirmative action is "instutionalized racism" is wrong by the very definition of its terms. If you want to argue with those terms, please be my guest, but you can't ignore those definitions and you will still be wrong.

The fact is you cannot prove that affirmative action is "institutionalized racism" and now you are dragging some vague white European-ish Christian male into it and you telling me not to wiggle around? LOFL!

Plenty of white European-ish Christian males have directly benefitted from affirmative action since many of them are exposed to women and minorities in the workplace. This can only be a good benefit wouldn't you say?

[Saipan]

No affirmative action describes any policy meant to reverse descrimination.

Reverse discrimination means discrimination against those who discriminated.

You have evidence those Caucasians discriminated?

I have evidence to just opposite - now.

[dre]

Actually no. Affirmative action ASSUMES that any differences in outcome are the result of discrimination. It then seeks to eliminate those differences in outcome. It has nothing to do with reversing discrimination.

No sorry youre just plain wrong. If fact its not even remotely close.

Heres the Canadian definition...

law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada

Thats right out of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Heres the legal definition in the United States.

A reverse discrimination law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged such as, for example, extending preferential treatment in regards to employment or education.

The key word in both definitions being amelioration of people who are socially or economically disadvantaged, or descriminated against. Amelioration simply means "improvement". It has nothing to do with equal outcomes.

In practice affirmative action is any law that seeks to remedy a situation where ANY group is disproportionately excluded from any advantageous program or situation (employment, education, etc). It might be about race or it might not be. It could seek to remedy the disproportionate exclusion of midgets, or old people, or people with HIV, or people who are ugly or people who are poor or people who are christians or atheists or muslims or gay or hairy or pretty much anything else.

Edited January 1, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

In practice affirmative action is any law that seeks to remedy a situation where ANY group is disproportionately excluded from any advantageous program or situation (employment, education, etc).

Right. You know perfectly well that "disproportionately excluded" really means "pecentages of political correct minorities are not high enough to meet some social engineer's delusions". The definition does not apply to poor white men who happen to be excluded because of their situtation no matter what the definition claims. When it comes down to "affirmative action" is simply a excuse to justify racism and sexism. Edited January 1, 2011 by TimG

[Saipan]

In practice affirmative action is any law that seeks to remedy a situation where ANY group is disproportionately excluded from any advantageous program

Like Asians from basketball?

[TimG]

Like Asians from basketball?

I think the NBA's standards are biased towards tall people. As an entertainment provider they should be able to accommodate people disadvantaged because of their height. They should be able to come up with a 'height neutral' measure of performance that would allow more short people to gain employment as NBA players.

It sounds absurd but it does capture the absurdity of affirmative action programs.

Edited January 1, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think the NBA's standards are biased towards tall people. As an entertainment provider they should be able to accommodate people disadvantaged because of their height. They should be able to come up with a 'height neutral' measure of performance that would allow more short people to gain employment as NBA players.

It sounds absurd but it does capture the absurdity of affirmative action programs.

Except in the NBA height can actually effect performance, while the things AA deals with don't. This comparison always comes up and it always sound moronic.

[TimG]

Except in the NBA height can actually effect performance, while the things AA deals with don't.

Affect performance based on whose criteria? NBA provides entertainment. Are you saying that shorter players could not provide entertainment if accomodations were made?

[Saipan]

Except in the NBA height can actually effect performance, while the things AA deals with don't. This comparison always comes up and it always sound moronic.

So the actual performance should count, not the quota, right?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Affect performance based on whose criteria? NBA provides entertainment. Are you saying that shorter players could not provide entertainment if accomodations were made?

Based on pretty much everyone who's ever played basketball's criteria, It's easier to get the ball in the hoop if you are closer to it. It's also a lot easier to block a short guy from shooting or passing.

[TimG]

Based on pretty much everyone who's ever played basketball's criteria.

The same argument can be made for virtually every other job skilled job category but that does not stop the social engineers from claiming the job requirements are discrimintory and must be watered down.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The same argument can be made for virtually every other job skilled job category but that does not stop the social engineers from claiming the job requirements are discrimintory and must be watered down.

Either you saying height doesn't give an advantage in basketball or race gives an advantage in certain jobs, I can't tell which.

Edited January 1, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

Based on pretty much everyone who's ever played basketball's criteria, It's easier to get the ball in the hoop if you are closer to it.

It's easy to put the loop lower. Just like the lowering requirements for minorities to pass test in police training.

It's also a lot easier to block a short guy from shooting or passing.

That's discrimination.

[TimG]

Either you saying height doesn't give an advantage in basketball or race gives and advantage in certain jobs, I can't tell which.

What I am saying is the social engineers force employers to lower their standards when politically correct minority cannot meet them.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-16/politics/sotomayor.firefighters_1_supreme-court-frank-ricci-affirmative-action-case?_s=PM:POLITICS

Ricci was one of a group of 20 mostly white firefighters who sued the city of New Haven after it threw out the results of a 2003 firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions.

...

This was not a quota case or (an) affirmative action case," she said. The case was a challenge to a firefighter test that had a wide range of difference between the pass and failure rate of different groups. The city of New Haven, she noted, was at risk of being sued by employees who could show they were "disparately impacted" by the test

Forcing the NBA to hire short players is no different because the NBA cannot argue that short players cannot do the job. They simply can't do the job as well as taller players. Edited January 1, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

What I am saying is the social engineers force employers to lower their standards when politically correct minority cannot meet them.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-16/politics/sotomayor.firefighters_1_supreme-court-frank-ricci-affirmative-action-case?_s=PM:POLITICS

Forcing the NBA to hire short players is no different.

See here's the thing here there was concern that the test was biased, so a new test was to be created a neutral one. If the first test was not biased the results should be pretty much the same. Of course you could argue that the new test is not neutral but I have no interest in debating all of this again.

Of course you don't know what you are talking about because AA usually means when all thing are equal you pick the person AA is trying to benefit.

[Jack Weber]

Except in the NBA height can actually effect performance, while the things AA deals with don't. This comparison always comes up and it always sound moronic.

Bob Cousy and Calvin Murphy are the exceptions that prove this rule...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Bob Cousy and Calvin Murphy are the exceptions that prove this rule...

Can't say i get the reference, could you explain?

[Jack Weber]

Can't say i get the reference, could you explain?

Bob Cousy played for the Boston Celtics in the '60's under Red Auerbach.He was either 6'0" or 6'1".

Calvin Murphy played for the Houston Rockets in the 1970's,alongside Rudy Tomjanovich and Moses Malone...He was either 5'8" or 5'9"...

Spud Wbb did pretty good at a slam dunk contest at an NBA All Star game about 20 years ago while playing for the Atlanta Hawks...He was under 5'10"...

Exceptions that prove the rule...

[bloodyminded]

No, but you implied that we should be striving for greater wealth and that something is holding us back. That begs the question of why we should strive for greater wealth.

I wasn't implying that we "should" strive for greater wealth, and I used myself and Kimmy as examples only as a rhetorical device...personally, I have no desire to be rich.

Shrug, I've achieved every other goal I've set my mind to so far.

Fine, but your assertion that you could be a millionaire if you so chose is not evidence of anything. so like I said, as it stands, we'll simply never know.

True, I just don't buy the whole disadvantaged family background making it impossible to get ahead thing. Let me tell you, my own family were no better off over the last few generations than the lowliest black slaves in North America were. My great great grandmother had 7 children, only 2 survived the collectivization of farming, the rest starved to death or died from easily curable sicknesses. My great grandmother had 9 children. Only 2 survived WWII. My grandfather had 5 children, only 1 survived Stalin. My father wanted to get a university education, but was forbidden to enter the program he wanted because of what was considered his race. Maybe those of us who survived and descended from that should just be broken victims sitting down and begging for handouts. But that doesn't get you anywhere.

But--yet again--the majority of people with few means, who struggle terribly financially, are not lazy folks "begging for handouts." Most work much harder, and for far fewer rewards, than do most wealthy people.

I don't know why this "lazy" myth persists; and I don't know why you and Kimmy, who claim families from humble backgrounds, aren't keenly aware that this is a falsehood, and is in fact generated from top-down class warfare rhetoric about the Inferior Poor.

My opinion is based on direct evidence to the contrary, based not just on my own family but many many others that have also prospered within a single generation of no longer being the victims of extermination and repression.

And my opinion is based on the much larger number who never make it out of their dificult circumstances.

Interesting point. Why do we craft the policy of affirmative action, based on the mere hypothesis that it might help to compensate past wrongs, and ignore the reality that such a policy is institutionalized racism and precisely what got us into this mess to begin with?

As both you and Dre have pointed out, affirmative action is a problematic idea. I don't disagree. I'm only objecting to the fanciful notions of "merit" and "bad poor people" that have been generated from the discussion along the way.

A big enough pile of anecdotal evidence ceases to be anecdotal.

Then the majority of anecdotal cases would take precedence over the minority. Surely. By your standards, as stated right here.