Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[TimG]

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 ?

Because it perpetuates a culture of institutionalized racism. If poor people need help then programs to help them should not check their race.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think racism applies to anything that treats groups differently.

[TimG]

I don't think racism applies to anything that treats groups differently.

A poor person being denied access to a program because they are not the right race is racism. It creates a sense of entitlement among the people who are the right race and a sense of resentment among those that are denied access because they are the wrong race. This is human nature. Governments should never exacerbate these problems by institutionalizing racism. It always possible to address the underlying problems without resorting to racism. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Lol, so much 'progressive racism' in this thread. The infeasibility of a treating people differently based on race/gender aside (how do you deal with mixed race people or intersex/transsexual people?), the immorality of discriminating based on race/gender should be sufficient to justify and end to affirmative action.

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.

Please provide me with some of these econometric studies, explain how these econometric studies account for other factors sufficiently to suggest that racial discrimination is a statistically significant factor in a person's income (specifically for Canada), then explain to me how more racial discrimination (via affirmative action) is the best solution to racial discrimination.

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.

The problem of racial/gender discrimination will disappear gradually due to cultural changes and due to the darwinian nature of private competition for the best employees. State intervention isn't required and with the case of affirmative action can cause resentment which can increase racial/gender discrimination. If you want the state to do something about discrimination I suggest funding awareness campaigns.

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:

Difference of outcome for different racial groups doesn't indicate that racial discrimination is the cause of the difference in outcome. Different education levels, cultural influence (such as work ethic), and population distribution (first nations in rural/remote areas compared to the the rest of the population).

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't think racism applies to anything that treats groups differently.

.....................................................

...................No, that is racism!

[Michael Hardner]

The problem of racial/gender discrimination will disappear gradually due to ...

You could make this argument about a lot of social programs, and in fact people have.

"Flood relief isn't necessary... they'll get through it eventually somehow..."

[Michael Hardner]

A poor person being denied access to a program because they are not the right race is racism.

In some definitions of the word, it is... but 'racism' as we know from experiences on here is turning into the more pejorative interpretation of the word. To say "Chinese Canadians are hardworking" isn't commonly considered racist either, but it is.

As such, I don't agree that programs that target groups shown to be disadvantaged are racist just because they treat one group differently than another.

[TimG]

As such, I don't agree that programs that target groups shown to be disadvantaged are racist just because they treat one group differently than another.

What you are missing is the need for the programs has nothing to do with race. The programs are needed because some people come from poor families. The focus on race means people who don't need the program will get access to it because they are the correct race and people who need the program will be denied access because they are the wrong race. There is absolutely no difference between this racism and the racism behind school segregation.

The only reason you even entertain the idea that it is not racism is because you have bought into the 'oppressor' myth - i.e. it is OK to deny people from 'oppressor' groups even though most individual members of the 'oppressor' group don't gain any benefit from being a member of that group. I reject this notion.

If you could come up with a program targeted at one race that no other people has any need for (i.e. no one is being denied access to a program) then that would have a program that may not be racist.

Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

What you are missing is the need for the programs has nothing to do with race.

I disagree completely. Do you really think the continuing struggles that African Americans in North America face, as a group, has nothing to do with the fact that they were slaves ? That's just denial.

There is absolutely no difference between this racism and the racism behind school segregation.

I think that that is denial. Giving redress to a disadvantaged group is the same as repressing them then ?

The only reason you even entertain the idea that it is not racism is because you have bought into the 'oppressor' myth - i.e. it is OK to deny people from 'oppressor' groups even though most individual members of the 'oppressor' group don't gain any benefit from being a member of that group. I reject this notion.

I feel like you should address my points rather than making up ideas about what I entertain.

If you could come up with a program targeted at one race that no other people has any need for (i.e. no one is being denied access to a program) then that would have a program that may not be racist.

There is lots of need, however we accept that poverty exists in every group and that every group needs some help. If we don't acknowledge that some groups have faced additional disadvantage due to the rules and due to the society that we set up then it's just denial.

[TimG]

I disagree completely. Do you really think the continuing struggles that African Americans in North America face, as a group, has nothing to do with the fact that they were slaves ? That's just denial.

I reject the notion that events of 150 years ago have any bearing on today. People who claim they do are just making excuses.

I think that that is denial. Giving redress to a disadvantaged group is the same as repressing them then ?

Excuse me - the issue is you are repressing another group - that is what it makes it racism. You cannot fight racism with racism.

If we don't acknowledge that some groups have faced additional disadvantage due to the rules and due to the society that we set up then it's just denial.

Again - people face disadvantages because they come from poor families - full stop. There are no "rules" of society today that impose disadvantages on people based on their race. That said, success is not automatic and requires that one make certain lifestyle choices to be successful. There are some people who argue that these lifestyle choices are discriminatory but I reject that notion. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I reject the notion that events of 150 years ago have any bearing on today. People who claim they do are just making excuses.

Ok, well if you're not convinced you could break it down into 10 year segments and track how things have gone for that group over ghe generations. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why that group would be doing worse ? We know it's not biology - not sure what else is left.

Excuse me - the issue is you are repressing another group

We're not repressing another group - we're offering services to those in need for other groups, but offering extra to groups who particularly need help.

[Argus]

I disagree completely. Do you really think the continuing struggles that African Americans in North America face, as a group, has nothing to do with the fact that they were slaves ? That's just denial.

Please explain how slavery is responsible for the troubles of the Somalian community in Canada, their high rate of incarcertaion, for example.

[Argus]

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

No. Children growing up in an environment of neglect, corruption, substance abuse and violence are clearly going to perform worse and have statastically poorer outcomes in life than children who grow up in a more nurturing environment. The poor outcomes of natives are a result of the environments in which they are raised, not racism and prejudice being directed against them as natives.

[Michael Hardner]

Please explain how slavery is responsible for the troubles of the Somalian community in Canada, their high rate of incarcertaion, for example.

Are you talking about Somalians who have been in Canada for 100s of years or recent refugees ? There are different, groups, of course and each one has a different set of factors.

[Michael Hardner]

No. Children growing up in an environment of neglect, corruption, substance abuse and violence are clearly going to perform worse and have statastically poorer outcomes in life than children who grow up in a more nurturing environment. The poor outcomes of natives are a result of the environments in which they are raised, not racism and prejudice being directed against them as natives.

I didn't say that racism and prejudice directed at them is the cause.

[carepov]

.....................................................

...................No, that is racism!

Is it racist to focus on white people for a campaign to prevent skin cancer?

[carepov]

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.

I provided statistics earlier. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to be victims of violence. Kids are two-eight times more likely to be neglected/abused compared to non-abiriginal kids living in the same region. The over-representation in prisons is also too high to be explained by poverty alone. Try reading the Manitoba Commission report.

If the program has benefits it should not be limited to aboriginals - it should be extended to all.

The bennefits of the program are based on the the fact that the program is in synch with Aboriginal cultures. Aboriginal leaders were consulted in developing the program. Yes the bennefits should be extended to non-aboriginals whereever possible - but you said that we should cancel the program.

[Moonlight Graham]

I reject the notion that events of 150 years ago have any bearing on today. People who claim they do are just making excuses.

You're wrong.

One example: British and French colonized Canada hundreds of years ago. Does it have any bearing on today?

[Argus]

Are you talking about Somalians who have been in Canada for 100s of years or recent refugees ? There are different, groups, of course and each one has a different set of factors.

To my knowledge, all Somalians are recent refugees.

[Argus]

I didn't say that racism and prejudice directed at them is the cause.

So if it's not our fault why do we have the responsibility to sacrifice to help them get ahead, even while agreeing with every measure they insist on to maintain their poor, unnuturing societies and cultures?

[-1=e^ipi]

You could make this argument about a lot of social programs, and in fact people have.

"Flood relief isn't necessary... they'll get through it eventually somehow..."

Strawman argument. I never said that we shouldn't have affirmative action because racism will disappear eventually. We shouldn't have affirmative action because it is ineffective, counter-productive and racist.

In some definitions of the word, it is... but 'racism' as we know from experiences on here is turning into the more pejorative interpretation of the word. To say "Chinese Canadians are hardworking" isn't commonly considered racist either, but it is.

Chinese is a nationality, not a race.

As such, I don't agree that programs that target groups shown to be disadvantaged are racist just because they treat one group differently than another.

Yeah, that is racism (at least when it applies to race). How much cognitive dissonance must you perform to convince yourself otherwise?

Is it racist to focus on white people for a campaign to prevent skin cancer?

It depends how it is done. Skin cancer affects people from all races, but people with less melanin are at higher risk. If the campaign targets everyone but mentions that people with less melanin are at greater risk then it is fine. If the campaign says that it will only help white people who suffer from skin cancer (but not black people who suffer from skin cancer) then it is racist.

[Bob Macadoo]

It depends how it is done. Skin cancer affects people from all races, but people with less melanin are at higher risk. If the campaign targets everyone but mentions that people with less melanin are at greater risk then it is fine. If the campaign says that it will only help white people who suffer from skin cancer (but not black people who suffer from skin cancer) then it is racist.

Yes it depends how it's done, that's the whole point. I mean I'm this gainfully employed individual but I sure would like to have the gov't give me a grant to retrain like they're giving to those factory workers whose plant shutdown. I mean we're equal, we'll both have the same economic benefit to society.....why not me too.

IMHO affirmative action is no different. Somebody has had to ration a benefit. We could offer this benefit to all poor people and go belly up or we could offer it to a select group who statistically dominate this group and hopefully rectify a generational problem.

It would be great if in these interviews we could ask, "Hey Native.....is your family rich?" "Oh they are.....well then could you send in that fella out in the hall with the Lee jeans and the 'Who Farted!!??' T-shirt? I bet his socio-economic situation is not due his parents just being sent to catholic schools off reserve to be abused. Oh we'll poor's poor am I right?"

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes it depends how it's done, that's the whole point. I mean I'm this gainfully employed individual but I sure would like to have the gov't give me a grant to retrain like they're giving to those factory workers whose plant shutdown. I mean we're equal, we'll both have the same economic benefit to society.....why not me too.

You are suggesting that there is no difference between the 2008/2009 bailouts of the auto-industry and affirmative action? really?

1. Everyone is equal means everyone should have equal rights under the law not everyone is the same so should have the same economic outcome regardless of what they do.

2. One's profession is not a race. No one is born as an auto worker. People choose their career paths and their economic outcome is very dependent on their merit and hard work; the same is not true for race/gender.

3. Whether the auto bailout was justified aside, different sectors of the economy affect the economy of Canada in different ways. Therefore, it often makes sense to treat them differently. You wouldn't treat a renewable common good such as the pacific salmon fishery the same way you treat the oil sands or the way you treat the manufacturing sector.

IMHO affirmative action is no different. Somebody has had to ration a benefit. We could offer this benefit to all poor people and go belly up or we could offer it to a select group who statistically dominate this group and hopefully rectify a generational problem.

The reason you cannot see the difference is because you are racist and are in denial (see progressive racism thread). That is why you have no problem with affirmative action.

Also, your claim that helping poor people of all races rather than poor people of visible minorities would cause us to go bankrupt is unjustified and makes no sense. Being poor or not isn't binary, it is a continuum. If you spend $1 million dollars that can only help 1000 poor people, why would you limit yourself to only help people of a certain race? If you chose the most needy regardless of race you would do more good.

It would be great if in these interviews we could ask, "Hey Native.....is your family rich?" "Oh they are.....well then could you send in that fella out in the hall with the Lee jeans and the 'Who Farted!!??' T-shirt? I bet his socio-economic situation is not due his parents just being sent to catholic schools off reserve to be abused. Oh we'll poor's poor am I right?"

Maybe the interviews should instead ask questions that are relevant to the job and pick the candidate that is best for the job? Race and gender shouldn't be a factor.

Also, out of curiosity, what is the demographic distribution of people in this thread who support affirmative action vs people in this thread who view it as racist?

[cybercoma]

Please provide me with some of these econometric studies, explain how these econometric studies account for other factors sufficiently to suggest that racial discrimination is a statistically significant factor in a person's income (specifically for Canada), then explain to me how more racial discrimination (via affirmative action) is the best solution to racial discrimination.

I'm not the least bit interested in building an annotated bibliography of studies for someone that isn't even remotely interested in being reflexive or learning from others.

[TimG]

I'm not the least bit interested in building an annotated bibliography of studies for someone that isn't even remotely interested in being reflexive or learning from others.

I have probably seen the same stats as you which show income variations by race but these stats were the raw numbers - what he is asking for is evidence that someone has tried to compensate for confounding factors such as family income. I suspect that such stats don't exist because the racial grievance industry has no need of them since the raw numbers give them the propaganda tools that they need and neutral analysts stay away from a topic that is likely to get them publically vilified as a racist if the numbers contradict the dogma of the racial grievance industry. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG