Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree. I think a million thefts are less of a crime than one murder. There's no coming back from being killed.

And of course you are correct, as the law in most nations reflects this perpective for capital crimes, not some volume game involving multiple counts of mail fraud.

[dre]

I disagree. I think a million thefts are less of a crime than one murder. There's no coming back from being killed.

You are talking about your own moral judgement of an individual crime though and not considering the impact on society as a whole. To paraphrase I think you named one of the objectives of the justice system as "protecting society". Based on that the most serious crimes are the ones that do the most damage to the biggest ammount of people. Financial criminals, and administrative criminals, politicians etc. A guy with a whole pile of administrative or political power is potentially a lot more dangerous than some nut with a gun.

[The_Squid]

Because they're Not A conservative government. They're a pragmatic government, and in this case they allow it because if they stop it they'll be accused of being racists for denying 'equal opportunities' to the underprivileged, or some such bs.

Or they agree with the policy and actually think it's a good idea.

[bush_cheney2004]

The point is moot in Canada, as Wiki says - Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically authorizes affirmative action in various forms:

...(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[Shady]

Affirmative action is just an accepted form of discrimination. Except apparently with no actual end or metrix for end.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think Chris Rock sums up my view on Affirmative Action with this joke; “I don’t think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on the test but if there’s a tie, f--- them. You've had a 400 year head start motherf---er.”

The history of black people in Canada is much different than of black people in the US.

[Moonlight Graham]

So are you in favour of a "get tough on crime" approach towards natives and increase their numbers in prison, or would you expand the "get smart on crime" approach to non-natives?

IMO, the program to reduce the numbers of natives in prisons does protect society from criminals. If we were to keep locking them up in the numbers that were we would just be manufacturing more criminals, this generation and subsequent ones - this to me would be far more offensive than the current "positive discrimination". Also, the money wasted on excessive incarceration is offensive.

I think the entire criminal justice system, and how our society responds to crime, needs to be overhauled. People, including natives, who commit crimes need to punished for their actions, but at the same time this punishment needs to occur within a situation that makes them less likely to commit crime in the future and not systemically perpetuate crime. For one, I think having criminals hanging out with other criminals almost exclusively for years on end is a horrible idea. The roots of WHY these people chose to commit crimes also needs to be better addressed.

[bush_cheney2004]

The history of "black people" in Canada was greatly influenced by experiences and origins in the U.S.

[Moonlight Graham]

The only way to make that possible would be to nationalize the practice of law. Minorities are not over-represented in prisons because of racism they are over-represented because of economics. They are less able to afford a competent defense, and their lawyers on legal aid cases spend a tiny fraction of the time they do on paid cases. If you want the law to be applied equally to everyone then Rufus the stuntbum has to have the same access to legal representation as OJ Simpson.

We have a pay for play system where in large part you get the verdict you can afford.

I agree.

[Moonlight Graham]

Like I said... the whole thing is a pay for play system. I think you are right that everyone should be treated the same, Im just pointed out that things like affirmative action, or the disproportionate number of poor and minorities in prison are just the tip of the iceberg. The real driver of institutional inequality is not race its economic disparity.

There are some other factors that intersect with economic disparity, but in large part you're right.

There are certain things in society that might need to be nationalized (or fully subsidized) for their to be much more equality of opportunity not based on a money. We've already nationalized healthcare, but we would have to nationalize the justice system as you said, as well as the entire educational system so access to education is not based on income but 100% on merit.

Another big problem is that political influence is also often based on economics. Rich people have better access to other rich people. People with money also have much better means to fund their own and other people's political campaigns, the funds to lobby government, and the ability to get other powerful people to support them politically. Poor people often don't form powerful interest groups that influence legislation.

[carepov]

Which is what? Treat people differently based on their race? Joe native commits murder and gets 2 years and Joe whitey commits murder and gets 20? How much does a black guy get, 10? Maybe 30 for the Asian guy since they are under-represented in the prison system? Should we codify all this? Sentence duration multipliers for everyone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion? This is not "best in the real world".

No, your being silly. I am in favour of the status quo. There is no need to expand "positive discrimination".

Based on dre's point, the most immediate solution seems to be to provide more funding for poor people to get access to better legal counsel in criminal cases, as well as seeking ways to reduce the costs of legal proceedings rather than letting these costs continue to grow exponentially. That's what would be "best in the real world", not racist policies.

dre had a good point but it is not the only reason that Natives are over-represented in prisons. There is a vicious cycle and it needs multiple interventions and investments to break it. More money on legal aid will be expensive for little benefit. The current program is creating a bennefit while saving money. My understanding is that victims are in favour too.

[GostHacked]

Affirmative Action. I think it needs to go. In terms of hiring minorities just for the sake of hiring minorities, then I have a problem with it. If you have to hire a minority with low experience over a white person, then you may not be getting the experience level you need. Not to say that minorities are not smart and motivated, but the AA automatically puts them in that category. A company needs to hire the best candidate for the job, not to hire someone just to fill a minority quota.

We are all at different levels and not all of us are suited for all the jobs out there.

[Michael Hardner]

How does a white Ukrainian immigrant whose family was eradicated in artificial famine and lived under the oppression of the Soviet Union until ~20 years ago have a 400 year head start on a Black Canadian son of a middle class Canadian family which has lived in comfort and relative privilege? How does a white Jew whose ancestors suffered the worst atrocities and discrimination in history up until just a few decades ago have a 400 year head start?

If we could answer that question then maybe we could address major inequalities and social problems by other means. We don't know what makes a group successful or unsuccessful, but we can measure the results and we know it's not biology.

[Bonam]

If we could answer that question then maybe we could address major inequalities and social problems by other means. We don't know what makes a group successful or unsuccessful, but we can measure the results and we know it's not biology.

Er, it was meant to be a rhetorical question (which should have been fairly obvious from the context), the people in question DON'T have a head start.

[Michael Hardner]

Er, it was meant to be a rhetorical question (which should have been fairly obvious from the context), the people in question DON'T have a head start.

I realize that - I was turning the proposal around on the questioner.

So, the groups in question don't have a head start - do they have an advantage at all ? Why are they successful ?

[Bonam]

I realize that - I was turning the proposal around on the questioner.

So, the groups in question don't have a head start - do they have an advantage at all ? Why are they successful ?

Groups are not successful or unsuccessful, individuals are. The success of an individual can depend on their parenting/upbringing, innate mental and physical characteristics, random chances and opportunities, and other factors. Their can be correlation between being in a certain culture and having a certain type of upbringing. There can also be correlation between being a member of a certain ethnic/racial group and having certain mental/physical characteristics. And there can be correlation between being in a certain economic class and the types of opportunities/chances that one might encounter throughout their life. Nonetheless, in the end it all comes down to the individual. That is why thinking about people purely based on what group they belong to is flawed, why we did away with racism to begin with. It's the individual that matters, not their race.

[cybercoma]

Groups are not successful or unsuccessful, individuals are.

The fact of the matter is that there are aggregate differences between groups that cannot be explained by personal attributes alone. Econometric modelling shows that there is something about race that puts barriers in front of people that they wouldn't otherwise have, even when you control for myriad other attributes that might also affect them. Said differently, the analysis that argues that race affects people in this way is ceteris paribus. When all other things are equal, race does generally have an effect on outcomes. That doesn't erase individual variation, but the effects are very real and the barriers are a problem.

Looking at your statement above a different way, it's like saying "countries are not successful or unsuccessful" or "provinces are not successful or unsuccessful." There would be no point in collecting aggregate data, including GDP using that thinking. When we talk about girls having higher literacy scores than boys, that would also be meaningless because "girls" as a group are not more successful at reading, individuals are. The fact is that there is value in looking at aggregate characteristics. They highlight barriers. Ignoring group characteristics is burying your head in the sand and ignoring what may be a serious problem.

Edited November 21, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Groups are not successful or unsuccessful, individuals are. The success of an individual can depend on their parenting/upbringing, innate mental and physical characteristics, random chances and opportunities, and other factors. Their can be correlation between being in a certain culture and having a certain type of upbringing. There can also be correlation between being a member of a certain ethnic/racial group and having certain mental/physical characteristics. And there can be correlation between being in a certain economic class and the types of opportunities/chances that one might encounter throughout their life. Nonetheless, in the end it all comes down to the individual. That is why thinking about people purely based on what group they belong to is flawed, why we did away with racism to begin with. It's the individual that matters, not their race.

But groups share traits, and as such one group can fare much better than another group. A correlation between certain mental/physical characteristics ? Please elaborate. Do you mean that people of African descent have darker skin ?

A correlation between being in a certain economic class and having opportunities isn't surprising - are you suggesting we mitigate against that somehow ? I'm not sure how that figures into this.

It's kind of backwards, though, to say "we discriminated based on groups and that practice caused severe consequences for those groups therefore we will not ever treat groups differently" You're admitting that the practice itself was bad but not doing anything to address the consequences.

[Argus]

There was an item in the Globe today which bears reading. It's with regard to the zealousness with Sweden and other Nordic countries pursue gender equality. Despite doing virtually everything possible to ensure equal opportunities, including mandatory quotas for females on boards of directors, it turns out that men still want to drive trucks and women still want to look after children.

We've seen, time and time again here, the police and fire departments and other non-traditional employers of women striving desperately to recruit and promote women, lowering their standards however much they can, to persuade women to do jobs which, by and large, they don't really want to do. The same thing happens with regard to minorities. The social engineers want 50% of every job to be female, whether women want it or not, but biology and instinct goes against that. No, women don't WANT to be police or firefighters or soldiers, at least, very few of them do. They want to work in daycares and as nurses.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/do-women-really-have-it-better-in-sweden/article15552596/#dashboard/follows/

[carepov]

...in the end it all comes down to the individual. That is why thinking about people purely based on what group they belong to is flawed, why we did away with racism to begin with. It's the individual that matters, not their race.

No, in our society, race matters.

Choose any reasonable definition of success; a child born today into a Native family does not have the same probability of "success" as a child born into a non-Native family. Certainly there has been some improvement compared to 20-30 years ago. But there is still clearly a need for programs such as:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml

Yes, it has been over 10 years since the final report of the Manitoba commission, but the report is still very apt today.

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html

[Argus]

No, in our society, race matters.

Choose any reasonable definition of success; a child born today into a Native family does not have the same probability of "success" as a child born into a non-Native family. Certainly there has been some improvement compared to 20-30 years ago. But there is still clearly a need for programs such as:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml

Yes, it has been over 10 years since the final report of the Manitoba commission, but the report is still very apt today.

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html

Except take that child away from his parents and culture right after birth and drop him into the middle class home of 'white' Canadians and chances are his chance of success would be identicial to that of any other 'white' person.

It's not the skin colour which decreases his chances of success, okay?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Argus

[carepov]

Except take that child away from his parents and culture right after birth and drop him into the middle class home of 'white' Canadians and chances are his chance of success would be identicial to that of any other 'white' person.

No, it is more likely that the child's mother was drinking, made other poor decisions, or was the victim of violence, neglect or mistreatment during pregnancy.

It's not the skin colour which decreases his chances of success, okay?

OK, I never said it was.

[Bonam]

OK, I never said it was.

Then the problems to be addressed are not ones of race or discrimination.

[Michael Hardner]

Race itself may not be the root cause, and discrimination may not be but aren't we just splitting

[Bonam]

Race itself may not be the root cause, and discrimination may not be but aren't we just splitting

Not at all, it is a distinction of fundamental importance.