Affirmative Action Explained

[kimmy]

Some people dont want to acknowledge how huge a factor simple "chance" is in what people normally define as success. Its true that merit is a big factor as well, but as far as the aquissition of wealth goes its extremely important to come out of the right uterus, at the right geographical location.

People of course LIKE to think we live in a meritocracy because admitting to themselves that we dont live in anything close to that would demean their own accomplishments.

But the difference in the odds of aquiring a large ammount of wealth for child that comes out of a poor uterus in a slum, and one that comes out of a wealthy uterus uptown is astronomical.

"What people normally define as success" isn't dependent on acquiring "a large amount of wealth".

"The right geographic location"? People are free to move.

"The right uterus"? That depends. If your notion of the "right uterus" belongs to a wealthy person, then no, I disagree.

If "the right uterus" is one that belongs to a capable parent, then I absolutely agree.

Sadly, I see no way for the government to provide a child with lousy parents with the same advantages that a child with good parents has in life.

Youve got to be kidding. Anecdotal evidence that two poor people went to university is proof that "poverty itself isn't the obstacle holding back others"???

Man...

This "anecdotal evidence" was intended to illustrate the fact that our country provides financial assistance that makes it possible for even the very poor to obtain post-secondary education.

-k

[kimmy]

Yup intelligence, work ethic, and creativity are all factors. But the child of someone with 20 million dollars in assets is virtually certain to be wealthy whether they have an IQ of 80 or 120.

How's that relevant to anything?

That some tiny fraction of the population is born into circumstances that allow them to be wealthy without accomplishing anything of their own doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of us do have to sink or swim on our own merits.

You cant have one without the other. As long as outcomes vary wildy from one person to another, there will also be disproportionate levels of opportunity for their children. Thats one of the important motivating factors in the competitive system... the ability to leave behind a legacy for your children, and the ability buy them the things they need to succeed.

I disagree that Equality of Opportunity is something to strive for. Its not even remotely possible in our system. The very most we can ever hope to do is level the playing a tiny little bit, and make sure that we dont have too many kids that cant get a good education etc. But thats FAR from "equality of opportunity", and in absolutely no way is it a "meritocracy".

If you were helping out disadvantaged children and set out to "buy them the things they need to succeed", what would your shopping list be? I don't think it would be a very daunting list.

I don't think material goods are what's lacking.

-k

[Shwa]

It's racist and sexist no matter what the excuse and "explanations".

Ah, The Saipan Method at play again. I bet you think you win most, if not all, of your arguments.

[kimmy]

But everybody can't be defined by the successes--or the failures--of specific people. A lot of folks are caught in circumstances which are formidable. The same standards you apply can be applied to you and me and every middle class person...who isn't a millionaire, but technically could conceivably become one. What's holding us back?

Lots of stuff is holding us back.

It's not all a simple matter, where we can recite the "personal responsibility" mantra. That's only a part of a much larger story.

It's a part of the story that some people seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Why aren't I a millionaire?

Oh, sure, some of it is beyond my control.

-wasn't born into wealth.

-wasn't born with the kind of looks where people would pay me large sums of money to just walk around wearing their clothes.

But there's also stuff like:

-I'm not smart enough to invent a million dollar idea. Or at least, I haven't had one yet.

-I have yet to create some work of art or literature or music that will inspire millions of people.

-I have not learned any skill that people would pay me millions to perform.

-I haven't got the business sense to wheel and deal my way to millions of dollars.

See? The reasons I'm not a millionaire primarily boil down to my lack of merit.

On the other hand, my decidedly modest list of merits has been sufficient to allow me to achieve a lifestyle where I have security, comfort, recreation, and the ability to save for the future. I think that these are goals that are attainable for most people and qualify as "success" by my standards at least.

Further, and on at least a somewhat related note, I would contend that our economy depends on there being people with little means. They are needed. If everybody somehow "succeeded," the standards would be forced to alter in concert with these successes, so that the impoverished remained with us no matter what.

I agree that we do need a supply of labor that has not yet "succeeded". However, one's lack of success need not be a permanent condition.

Finally--and this is a crucial point--I can tell you with certainty (ie plenty of direct experience) that plenty of poor people work their asses off...a lot moreso than, say, writers of Economic Opinion, or Currency Traders, or what have you. So laziness is obviously not the distinguishing factor of people with little money.

I didn't make any claim that poor people are lazy.

The poor people I know who are working their asses off are ones who remain poor because of poor spending choices (to put it as politely as I can), poor personal choices, and poor life planning choices. I'm sure the poor people you know who are working their asses off are a far nobler group who are disadvantaged entirely through circumstances beyond their control. But the poor people I know who are working their asses off remain poor because of they choices they've made.

-k

[Shwa]

I hire Jim instead of Joe because Jim is White and I give preference to White people, and that's racist. Okay.

But if I'm a government manager and I hire Joe instead of Jim because Joe is Black and I give preference to Blacks that's NOT racist?

Please explain the logic.

There isn't any logic to explain because your original premise is out to lunch.

No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks."

Which confims the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and also completely misunderstand what affirmative action is, how it is defined, its terms of reference and operation and how it is implemented.

What you are trying to do is weasel your ideology onto the back of affirmative action, but because you don't have a clue about it, your ideology is exposed for what it is.

[Saipan]

Ah, The Saipan Method at play again. I bet you think you win most, if not all, of your arguments.

Of course. It's quite simple, when you turn it into personal rant you're losing.

[TimG]

Which confims the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and also completely misunderstand what affirmative action is, how it is defined, its terms of reference and operation and how it is implemented.

Sorry you are the one to misunderstands who affirmative action works in practice:

Sara Landriault found the job posting while she was doing a job hunt online. Although she felt she was qualified for the job, she was blocked from submitting her resume because she was not an aboriginal or visible minority.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100721/OTT_Job_100721/20100721/?hub=OttawaHome

Affirmative action invariably means quotas because the social engineers look at the % of politically correct groups employed. As soon as you introduce quotas you are making hiring decisions based on race/gender. Racism is racism no matter how you twist to justify it.

[kimmy]

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.

Can you provide a link? I'd be very interested in reading more about this.

-k

[Saipan]

There isn't any logic to explain because your original premise is out to lunch.

Lunch is good.

No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks."

Yes, even public corporation like Noranda Mines did it.

And they, just like Chretien's government refused to implement anonymous test for hiring to prevent quotas.

[charter.rights]

Of course. It's quite simple, when you turn it into personal rant you're losing.

What is more personal than suggesting "you're losing". It is pretty pathetic to argue against ad hominem by using ad hominem to make your point...loser..

[bloodyminded]

I agree that we do need a supply of labor that has not yet "succeeded". However, one's lack of success need not be a permanent condition.

But it is, more often than not. It's a semi-permanent pool of labour.

Even a cursory glance would suggest there are profound sytemic forces at play; not a massive lack (millions upon millions of poeple ina country of 30 million) who are lacking in basic qualities...including, as you say, "work ethic."

I didn't make any claim that poor people are lazy.

The poor people I know who are working their asses off are ones who remain poor because of poor spending choices (to put it as politely as I can), poor personal choices, and poor life planning choices. I'm sure the poor people you know who are working their asses off are a far nobler group who are disadvantaged entirely through circumstances beyond their control. But the poor people I know who are working their asses off remain poor because of they choices they've made.

Well, maybe so; maybe it's a different world-view altogether. If so, I doubt either of us will be convinced by what amount, at bottom, to judgement calls on human worth, coupled with a different perspective on what amounts to institutional analysis.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Sorry you are the one to misunderstands who affirmative action works in practice:

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100721/OTT_Job_100721/20100721/?hub=OttawaHome

Affirmative action invariably means quotas because the social engineers look at the % of politically correct groups employed. As soon as you introduce quotas you are making hiring decisions based on race/gender. Racism is racism no matter how you twist to justify it.

"Social engineering"; "politically correct"....

A clear rhetorical pattern has emerged.

Well, at least you don't include shrill cries of "The Left!" to try to round out your political analysis. So that's better than nothing.

[Saipan]

Actually he said; "Racism is racism no matter how you twist to justify it".

And that's that.

[bloodyminded]

Actually he said; "Racism is racism no matter how you twist to justify it".

And that's that.

No, he said other things too. That's why I used quotation marks; I was quoting.

[Saipan]

That's why I used quotation marks; I was quoting.

So did I.

[bloodyminded]

So did I.

Yes, Saipan. I know, Saipan. But I wasn't denying objective reality; you were.

Are you really having trouble following a simple conversation, or are you reflexively disingenuous?

Or simply a bit peeved that His Holiness is a lefty and an admitted socialist?

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

Please. Unfortunately for your arguments, I'm not illiterate.

Technically speaking if you were illiterate you wouldn't be able to understand a single thing I wrote. On the other hand, you appear to not be understanding it regardless, though I suspect that is mostly tactical on your part.

You were not "deriding that point": that generalities contain exceptions.

I'm not sure your use of the term "deriding" really made any sense to begin with and so an argument over the legitimacy of what I was or was not deriding seems to be about as productive as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Yes. Decidedly and incontrovertibly including yourself.

Jeesh. An uncontroversial, undebatable truism, immediately demonstrable.

Why are you holding others to higher standards than you hold yourself?

My standards are my own, and if you check you'll see that only a few of my posts followed the path of least resistance into discussing family income as a basis for the economic success of the following generation. I'm actually more interested in returning the conversation to affirmative action, which, despite your above statement, has not been "decidedly and incontroveritbly" altered.

You surely must have had some interest in discussing that when you clicked on a thread titled Affirmative Action Explained?

Edited January 1, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Exactly not enough information. This may be surprising to you but I want all the information I can get before I make a decision. Cause the 6'5 250 pound guy might just be fat.

This is simply continued avoidance of the obvious. You're well aware that large men are physically stronger than small men or women but refuse to concede the point because you believe this will damage your argument in favour of affirmative action.

When did he retire because they haven't carried victims for years,

Levitation not yet being an option, victims are still carried where that is a possibilty. Granted, where firefighters are too weak to carry the victims they have to be dragged, inevitably resulting in further harm and slowing the rescue. But that appears to be something the supporters of AA are willing to accept in pursuit of equality of results.

modern hoses are a lot lighter than past hoses, and back drafts are hard to notice so you don't want to go cutting into doors even if there isn't any sign a back draft may happen.

This is just silly. Stop please. Is it your position that firefighters knock politely at each apartment door and then shrug and walk off if someone doesn't open it? If they hear children crying do they urgently call for a locksmith? Come on.

My mother was married for over 20 years where does she fit in your little caricature?

Nowhere. Why raise her as an issue?

Edited January 1, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Already presented. Note I'm not claiming "proof," but evidence, of a four-year study undertaken by The Washington State Commission on African-American Affairs.

Again, it's not proof...but it's somewhat better than the evidence you've offered...which is none.

I'm not sure how a study taken of American Blacks and their experiences has much relevance in Canada. I think, however, that this issue has been heavily influenced by the American experience. I think Canadian liberals have seized on the American need for affirmative action to propagate the same theories in Canada despite our wildly different cultural, historical and racial facts. Affirmative action is a sort of touchstone in the liberal experience simply because they've been reading too many American books and seeing too many American movies.

Again, as I said, you may be able to demonstrate that the centuries long experience of slavery and extreme racial discimination in the US requires some kind of counter to lift a long subjugated people from widespread poverty, but none of that applies in Canada.

Once again I ask, why exactly does Canada need sweeping affirmative action programs in order to assist people who are almost all first and second generation immigrants?

[Scotty]

An example - blueline.ca says that there can be 100 applicants for 1 position. Let's look at the math for 100 spots, 20 quota/80 non-quota. If 8000 white males apply, eliminating the quota system increases their chances from 1% to 1.25 %.

That is really only partially the point. The point being that we should want the best applicants for the positions, not someone with the apropriate designation of skin coloration, gender or sexual preference. It offends our sense of justice that people should get important, not to mention well-paying jobs they don't deserve on merit.

How well do these "advantaged" cops perform their duties? Has anyone ever actually had the temerity to investigate the work histories of a hundred or so firemen and policemen who were unjustly hired and promoted against the work history of their white contemporaries to see whether they actually perform well in their jobs? Note: being promoted unjustly does not = performing well.

[bloodyminded]

Technically speaking if you were illiterate you wouldn't be able to understand a single thing I wrote. On the other hand, you appear to not be understanding it regardless, though I suspect that is mostly tactical on your part.

This charge takes a bit of gall, considering I was remarking on this:

I am generalizing on the origins of single mothers. But my acknowledging that generalities contain exceptions is not 'deriding' that point.

No one could understand this; and was that not your intention?

My standards are my own, and if you check you'll see that only a few of my posts followed the path of least resistance into discussing family income as a basis for the economic success of the following generation. I'm actually more interested in returning the conversation to affirmative action, which, despite your above statement, has not been "decidedly and incontroveritbly" altered.

I didn't say, nor suggest, that the conversation had been decidedly and incontrovertibly altered; I said it was a decided and incontrovertible fact that you had personally indulged in the secondary discussion, exactly as I had. There is precisely no difference at all between us on this matter; and so holding me to account for this awful deviation was an odd sort of criticism.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

No government manager anywhere in Canada or any province or territory has hired someone because they are Black. So there is no "preference to Blacks."

Do you really feel its advisable to make such definitive statements without a single shred of supporting evidence? I mean, you're not even stating it as an opinion but as a fact. That's chutzpah but poor debating.

What you are trying to do is weasel your ideology onto the back of affirmative action, but because you don't have a clue about it, your ideology is exposed for what it is.

Your habit for personalizing these types of discussions inevitably leads to nothing more than back and forth echanges of insults. If you continue it I will simply stop responding to you.

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, standards are reduced in order to meet affimative action quotas.

To be fair - police work is one of the few job categories where ethnic background is a legitimate job qualification.

The 'standard' are the qualifying conditions. You either meet the standard or you don't.

[Michael Hardner]

That is really only partially the point. The point being that we should want the best applicants for the positions, not someone with the apropriate designation of skin coloration, gender or sexual preference. It offends our sense of justice that people should get important, not to mention well-paying jobs they don't deserve on merit.

I think we want the best force possible - which includes minorities and women to deal with situations where that perspective is helpful. 100% white male cops doesn't meet that.

Anyway, we're still talking about hiring here. There's no way to know how these recruits will turn out.

How well do these "advantaged" cops perform their duties? Has anyone ever actually had the temerity to investigate the work histories of a hundred or so firemen and policemen who were unjustly hired and promoted against the work history of their white contemporaries to see whether they actually perform well in their jobs? Note: being promoted unjustly does not = performing well.

Do you think the union would allow us to measure and publish performance statistics ? How are you going to ever figure out if someone is promoted 'unjustly' ?

[TimG]

The 'standard' are the qualifying conditions. You either meet the standard or you don't.

The issue is whether race/gender should be one of the qualifying conditions. In most job categories it should not be. All affimitative action does is create a culture of racism by giving people special treatment because of their race.