Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[carepov]

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

Not necesarily.

Violence is a problem.

First, is it "positive discrimination" to focus on stopping violence against women?

Aboriginal women are 3.5 times more likely to be victims of violence compared to non-Aboriginal women. ⁴⁹

http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence

Second, is it "positive discrimination" to focus on stopping violence against Aboriginal women? Or should we just ignore this fact? Aboriginal women in Canada are far less secure than the average Canadian, is this not evidence of discrimination?

Edited November 22, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

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

Ah no. There are arguments to be made that poor families face challenges that wealthier families do not, however, you cannot meaningfully address these problems with programs that only look at skin colour because all these programs do is provide benefits to the members of the minority group that did not experience those problems (e.g. Obama had all of the benefits of middle class upbringing and that gives him an edge when completing with blacks who did not have those benefits).

In Canada I predict we will still see abject poverty on reserves 30 years from now but at the same time land claims will create a cabal of super rich elite natives which have nothing in common with the people suffering on the reserves yet they will receive the lion share of the benefits from any programs designed to help natives because they will have the wealth that allows them to grab those opportunities.

Edited November 22, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Here is some data from 2008. Do you think that increased rates of neglect/abuse in childhood have anything to do with increased rates of incarceration?

How does the risk to Aboriginal children compare to non-aboriginal children in the same region?

Maltreatment in substantiated investigations, involving First Nations and non-Aboriginal children, conducted in sampled agencies in 2008 (rate per 1,000 First Nations or non‑Aboriginal children in areas served by sampled agencies)

Neglect: 8.0 times greater

Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence: 4.7 times greater

Emotional Maltreatment: 5.4 greater

Physical Abuse: 2.1 times greater

Sexual Abuse: 2.7 times greater

http://www.fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/FNCIS-2008-report.pdf (page 19)

[Michael Hardner]

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

How so ? The answer doesn't have an impact on the question of whether we should do something or not.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah no. There are arguments to be made that poor families face challenges that wealthier families do not, however, you cannot meaningfully address these problems with programs that only look at skin colour ...

I don't think we should look at skin colour at all, but at race as an overall significant indicator of well being. I'm all in favour of things like this being means tested, and that seems to address your concerns.

[TimG]

I don't think we should look at skin colour at all, but at race as an overall significant indicator of well being. I'm all in favour of things like this being means tested, and that seems to address your concerns.

If you are going to means test then why should race enter in the equation at all? Don't poor whites need the same supports as poor blacks or natives? Edited November 22, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Ah no. There are arguments to be made that poor families face challenges that wealthier families do not, however, you cannot meaningfully address these problems problems with programs that only look at skin colour because all these programs do is provide benefits to the members of the minority group that did not experiences those problems

I disagree. Native Canadian societies are living with various diseases (medical and social) and focussed programs are needed to rectify the diseases.

Do you find it controversial that some programs that try to treat prostate cancer look only at older men? How about skin cancer programs that benefit only white people or even just red-heads?

It is perfectly reasonable to, (in fact it would be stupid not to) implement programs that try to reduce alcoholism, child abuse, FAS, obesity, diabetes, etc.. in Aboriginal communities

Edited November 22, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

I disagree. Native Canadian societies are living with various diseases (medical and social) and focussed programs are needed to rectify the diseases.

The progams don't need to single out a race. They can and should be targeted at all poor communities which face these issues. They may all be native but making it a 'native' program perpetuates the racism which the programs claim to want to address.

Basically, don't justify racism because of statistics that show a correlation between adverse outcomes and a race. People who do these kinds of correlations are no different from people who use correlations between IQs as a justification for other less noble policies.

If poverty is a problem then that is what the programs need to address. Leave race out of the equation.

Edited November 22, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

The progams don't need to single out a race. They can and should be targeted at all poor communities which face these issues. They may all be native but making it a 'native' program perpetuates the racism which the programs claim to want to address.

Basically, don't justify racism because of statistics that show a correlation between adverse outcomes and a race. People who do these kinds of correlations are no different from people who use correlations between IQs as a justification for other less noble policies.

If poverty is a problem then that is what the programs need to address. Leave race out of the equation.

What is you opinion on this program?

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

How would you "leave race out of the equation?"

[TimG]

How would you "leave race out of the equation?"

By getting rid of it. If there are elements that would improve the justice system in general (i.e. a focus on reconciliation) then they are general improvements that should be available to everyone regardless of race. The idea that there are different tiers of justice depending on your race is abhorrent. Edited November 22, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If you are going to means test then why should race enter in the equation at all? Don't poor whites need the same supports as poor blacks or natives?

Not if whites as a group are doing better than blacks - unless there's some hard reason why they should do worse ?

[carepov]

By getting rid of it. If there are elements that would improve the justice system in general (i.e. a focus on reconciliation) then they are general improvements that should be available to everyone regardless of race. The idea that there are different tiers of justice depending on your race is abhorrent.

I do not see it as different tiers of justice. It is a different approach or administration of justice. Do you find it abhorrent that there are different laws and sentences in different provinces and countries?

By getting rid of it you would be making our justice system more abhorrent. We already have different tiers of justice, for evidence check out: http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html#13

[bleeding heart]

Further, as has already been pointed out, we already have different tiers of justice...based one one's ability to pay for counsel. I should think that, in terms of disparities in justice, that this would be the point to focus upon.

[TimG]

Further, as has already been pointed out, we already have different tiers of justice...based one one's ability to pay for counsel. I should think that, in terms of disparities in justice, that this would be the point to focus upon.

I agree - legal aid to all people who need - not just people of designated groups.

[TimG]

By getting rid of it you would be making our justice system more abhorrent. We already have different tiers of justice, for evidence check out: http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html#13

I see nothing that can't be explained by the fact that aboriginals are often poorer. Control for the wealth of the families that the criminals belong to and I think you would see the disparity disappear.

The best solution for these kinds of problems are ones that target people based on need - not race.

Edited November 22, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Groups are not successful or unsuccessful, individuals are.

...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.

The fact of the matter is that there are aggregate differences between groups that cannot be explained by personal attributes alone....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.

...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.

I agree with Cybercoma, but Bonam also has a point so I'll mash what you two are saying together to reach what I think Bonam is trying to say.

Statistically, you can see different economic (and social and political) outcomes within different groups. This matters, since as Cybercoma pointed out, it can reveal problems/issues that may need to be addressed. Different racial/cultural outcomes, different outcomes based on sex etc.

But these group outcomes are generalities, and as Bonam says there is usually widely varying outcomes within any given group. Group outcomes can help point to problems within that group, but to treat all individual members of that group as the same, and to give ALL individual members of that group an advantage while giving ALL individual members of other groups a disadvantage (ie: affirmative action) is short-sighted and unfair discrimination.

ie: Giving a rich black woman who comes from a wealthy family and had a healthy, privileged upbringing an employment hiring advantage over a poor white man who came from a poor family and had a abusive upbringing, and giving that advantage to her just because it's a black woman vs a white male, is extremely unfair. Affirmative action policies almost always generalize and stereotype, and very rarely consider individual circumstances. They are racist, sexist, discriminatory, short-sighted, and overall horrifically flawed and unjust.

[carepov]

How about you MG, what is you opinion on the Aboriginal Corrections program?

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

[carepov]

I see nothing that can't be explained by the fact that aboriginals are often poorer. Control for the wealth of the families that the criminals belong to and I think you would see the disparity disappear.

The best solution for these kinds of problems are ones that target people based on need - not race.

Poverty can explain some increased rates of Aboriginal neglect, alcoholism, crime, etc... but not the magnitute of the differences.

Why are you so against the Aboriginal Corrections program? Victims, Aboriginal communities, Corrections Canada are all for it. The program is helping to make our country safer. It's probably saving us money. What's the problem?

[Bonam]

How so ? The answer doesn't have an impact on the question of whether we should do something or not.

No, but it has a big impact on what we should do. If the problem with your house is a bad foundation, replacing the roof ain't gonna help anything.

[TimG]

Poverty can explain some increased rates of Aboriginal neglect, alcoholism, crime, etc... but not the magnitute of the differences.

Is this something you are just making up or do you have actual data to support your assertion? I have seen studies from the US that compare poor whites to poor blacks and find comparable outcomes. The only difference is a larger percentage of blacks are poor so a larger percentage of that group experience the negative outcomes.

Why are you so against the Aboriginal Corrections program? Victims, Aboriginal communities, Corrections Canada are all for it. The program is helping to make our country safer. It's probably saving us money. What's the problem?

If the program has benefits it should not be limited to aboriginals - it should be extended to all. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No, but it has a big impact on what we should do. If the problem with your house is a bad foundation, replacing the roof ain't gonna help anything.

I don't see how. If race isn't a direct 'root cause' that we can prove, but we know that members of a certain group are doing worse, as a whole, what is the difference and what is the impact on what we do ?

[TimG]

If race isn't a direct 'root cause' that we can prove

If race is not the cause then program using race as a measure of progress is misguided. For programs to work properly the root causes need to be identified and addressed directly. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If race is not the cause then program using race as a measure of progress is misguided. For programs to work properly the root causes need to be identified and addressed directly.

Why ? I don't understand the necessity for race to be the root cause. It could be an important cofactor, though.

Race produces very little difference in humans, but culture and human factors can result in culture clashes ... that's the story of humanity. One tribe can destroy another, or conquer another, or live as a conquered people.

[TimG]

Why ? I don't understand the necessity for race to be the root cause.

You already acknowledged that race based programs should not benefit people of that race who happen to be wealthy. Does it make any more sense to deny poor people access to programs that could help them simply because they are not the correct race? Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You already acknowledged that race based programs should not benefit people of that race who happen to be wealthy. Does it make any more sense to deny poor people access to programs that could help them simply because they are not the correct race?

I suppose you could look at it that way. The fact is that we don't have unlimited resources to solve every problem. You and I seem to agree that those in need should be given priority, so why not a group in need ?