Affirmative Action = Affirmative Harm

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, you found it? I couldn’t get it to come up – please provide a link. [/quote]

Nah, just from memory.

Ok, forgive me for misreading your intent then.

Focus on you? Not at all. I just wanted your perspective which, if I’m not mistaken, reflects that of the author of the article.

Like I said, it’s fine if you don’t wanna answer my questions. I respect that.

But it shows that you aren’t willing to get to the bottom of the issue though.

Many of the people opposed to AA are racists. I know a heckuva lot of them.

I’ve only had the opportunity to read a couple of them. You didn’t go into details, but you were quite harsh on AA every time. I just wanted to get the perspective you’re speaking from.

[quote]Indeed. The question needs to be settled – irrespective of whether a lot of people in academia have a vested interest in the answer to the question.

This question is purely pragmatic – I am not even trying to touch on the underlying logic or morality of the program. That would be another thread (and argument).
[/quote]

I, on the other hand, was trying to understand your underlying logic.

Raincheck then.

22

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No - it’s not an ad hominem. It is calling out your hypocrisy. You want to point fingers at the US, while women in your country have few rights at all.

Are you sure you know what hypocrisy means?

If I was any more feminist, I’d be a woman. So, do us all a favor and think before posting.[/quote]

No one is saying anything about you - except that you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

I could give a shit if you are a feminist, or not.

The fact remains your country hates women, yet you feel the need to wag your finger at the US, and in particular BB because you think we are racist.

It is evident that you think hypocrisy has a variable meaning.

My whole point is that you should keep your fucking nose out of the US business until your own country can crawl out of the dark ages.

If thinking before posting was a requirement in this forum - you would not be allowed to even log in.

23

[quote]lixy wrote:
…

If I was any more feminist, I’d be a woman. …[/quote]

Nahh…too easy

24

It’s amazing how many posts you can generate and still not address the main point.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, you found it? I couldn’t get it to come up – please provide a link.

lixy wrote:
Nah, just from memory.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Irrespective, I don’t get too riled up about internet debates, so I don’t think “rage” would be an accurate description.

lixy wrote:
Ok, forgive me for misreading your intent then.

BostonBarrister wrote:
No, your questions were completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and were an attempt to get the argument to focus on me particularly.

lixy wrote:
Focus on you? Not at all. I just wanted your perspective which, if I’m not mistaken, reflects that of the author of the article.[/quote]

You wanted my perspective on items that are at best tertiary to the point, and you still haven’t addressed the point. This is the classic ad hominem response by supporters of AA: “If you question AA or any aspect of AA, prove you’re not racist.”

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Firstly, how does any of that relate to whether affirmative action programs are working or are having negative effects?

lixy:
Like I said, it’s fine if you don’t wanna answer my questions. I respect that.

But it shows that you aren’t willing to get to the bottom of the issue though.[/quote]

This from someone who still hasn’t addressed the main point. To remind you (and to quote myself above):

“Anyway, aside from all your irrelevant questions, the point of the article was that affirmative action actively hurts its intended recipients, on average and as a group. So, looking at it from a pragmatic perspective, why would we want to continue a policy that is hurting the group it is intended to benefit?”

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Thirdly, what would be the purpose of essentially asking me whether I’m racist? How does that relate to the point?

lixy:
Many of the people opposed to AA are racists. I know a heckuva lot of them.[/quote]

I am “shocked, shocked” that you would try to use ad hominem to “argue” (read: obfuscate and avoid) this point.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And lastly, I’ve participated in enough threads and discussions talking about alternatives to race-based affirmative action, such as economic-class based affirmative action. There is no inherent responsibility to rehash those discussions each time new evidence or arguments come up about why race-based affirmative action is a flawed policy.

lixy wrote:
I’ve only had the opportunity to read a couple of them. You didn’t go into details, but you were quite harsh on AA every time. I just wanted to get the perspective you’re speaking from.[/quote]

That’s kind of funny, because I don’t even think you were a member of this site the last time I really got involved on an AA thread, but I could be wrong about that. Please feel free to link my responses that you’re referencing.

Generally, I don’t think AA is a good thing. I think it actively harms its intended beneficiaries in a number of ways, and I think its an anathema to enshrine race-based discrimination into the law.

To quote from Gerald Reynolds, Chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights:

“Race-based admissions have been found to harm minority law students by setting them up for failure. Law schools that continue to use racial preferences despite this evidence should at least disclose the risks of academic mismatch to minority student applicants.” Continuing, Chairman Reynolds said, “A true civil rights strategy would focus on these students much earlier in their educational development, rather than providing them with inadequate training and then using preferential treatment to admit them into schools at which they are likely to fail.”

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Indeed. The question needs to be settled – irrespective of whether a lot of people in academia have a vested interest in the answer to the question.

This question is purely pragmatic – I am not even trying to touch on the underlying logic or morality of the program. That would be another thread (and argument).

lixy wrote:
I, on the other hand, was trying to understand your underlying logic.

Raincheck then.[/quote]

I’d wager it would be more productive if you’d just address the point.

25

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To quote from Gerald Reynolds, Chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights:

“Race-based admissions have been found to harm minority law students by setting them up for failure. Law schools that continue to use racial preferences despite this evidence should at least disclose the risks of academic mismatch to minority student applicants.” Continuing, Chairman Reynolds said, “A true civil rights strategy would focus on these students much earlier in their educational development, rather than providing them with inadequate training and then using preferential treatment to admit them into schools at which they are likely to fail.”
[/quote]

I would like to point out that quoting this person does not strengthen your point. Let’s dig a little bit into his background.

[i]Gerald A. Reynolds (1964-) is an American politician and lawyer, and the current chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush on December 6, 2004…

Notable for being an African-American opposed to racial preferences, he managed one of the largest civil rights law enforcement agencies within the federal government, and revised civil rights regulations…[/i]

It seems to me that he might have a vested interest in making sure these programs fail to serve his master. Given GWB’s track record of appointees, it would be hard not to hold his opinion suspect. I would like to see the data on this study myself and draw my own conclusions rather than trust someone else.

I know that any discussions of AA on this board eventually turns into personal attacks and lack of true discourse. I have participated in them in the past and I pretty much know who is going to say what. However, I couldn’t let this quote go without at least giving a better picture of who said it.

26

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

I would like to point out that quoting this person does not strengthen your point. Let’s dig a little bit into his background.

[i]Gerald A. Reynolds (1964-) is an American politician and lawyer, and the current chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush on December 6, 2004…

Notable for being an African-American opposed to racial preferences, he managed one of the largest civil rights law enforcement agencies within the federal government, and revised civil rights regulations…[/i]

It seems to me that he might have a vested interest in making sure these programs fail to serve his master. Given GWB’s track record of appointees, it would be hard not to hold his opinion suspect. I would like to see the data on this study myself and draw my own conclusions rather than trust someone else.

I know that any discussions of AA on this board eventually turns into personal attacks and lack of true discourse. I have participated in them in the past and I pretty much know who is going to say what. However, I couldn’t let this quote go without at least giving a better picture of who said it.
[/quote]

Well, it is good to see you around, Al Durr - and we need more of you.

That said, you have basically indulged in a naked ad hominem. I do understand that you qualified it by saying you would like to see the study for yourself, but your discrediting of the messenger makes even less sense when we see that Bush has appointed Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Janice Rodgers Brown (to name a few).

I am sure that Bush hasn’t appointed enough black public servants to satisfy, say, Al Sharpton, but to suggest Bush is deliberately refusing to appoint minorities in a baseless claim. You are better than that.

27

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:

I would like to point out that quoting this person does not strengthen your point. Let’s dig a little bit into his background.

[i]Gerald A. Reynolds (1964-) is an American politician and lawyer, and the current chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush on December 6, 2004…

Notable for being an African-American opposed to racial preferences, he managed one of the largest civil rights law enforcement agencies within the federal government, and revised civil rights regulations…[/i]

It seems to me that he might have a vested interest in making sure these programs fail to serve his master. Given GWB’s track record of appointees, it would be hard not to hold his opinion suspect. I would like to see the data on this study myself and draw my own conclusions rather than trust someone else.

I know that any discussions of AA on this board eventually turns into personal attacks and lack of true discourse. I have participated in them in the past and I pretty much know who is going to say what. However, I couldn’t let this quote go without at least giving a better picture of who said it.

Well, it is good to see you around, Al Durr - and we need more of you.

That said, you have basically indulged in a naked ad hominem. I do understand that you qualified it by saying you would like to see the study for yourself, but your discrediting of the messenger makes even less sense when we see that Bush has appointed Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Janice Rodgers Brown (to name a few).
[/quote]

Hey, I didn’t say that I was being perfect about it. All I was saying is that it seems a little suspicious. I’m human just like anybody and when I see a person’s track record and then see a quote from them, it all plays a part in how I view a situation.

[quote]
I am sure that Bush hasn’t appointed enough black public servants to satisfy, say, Al Sharpton, but to suggest Bush is deliberately refusing to appoint minorities in a baseless claim. You are better than that.[/quote]

Excuse me? When did I say any of this? You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Bush is deliberately refusing to appoint minorities. This distortion of the facts is beneath your normal abilities. It was a cheap shot that had no basis in reality. YOU are better than that.

What I am saying is that it seems that the minorities that he puts in place seem to serve HIS and HIS CRONIES interests and not the interest of the American people. He hires minorities. I’ve never said that he didn’t. It’s the character of the minorities that is the question. Speaking of character, didn’t one just resign recently?

28

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Hey, I didn’t say that I was being perfect about it. All I was saying is that it seems a little suspicious. I’m human just like anybody and when I see a person’s track record and then see a quote from them, it all plays a part in how I view a situation.[/quote]

A fair statement - credibility is important.

Here is the quote I was referring to:

It seems to me that he might have a vested interest in making sure these programs fail to serve his master. Given GWB’s track record of appointees, it would be hard not to hold his opinion suspect.

Now, if I am wrong then you can tell me what you meant, but your quote seems to suggest that the Reynolds was acting to deliberately fulfill Bush’s mission to keep minorities out of public service, because you said he had a “vested interest…to serve his master” - that sounds like an intentional plan to exclude minorities, to be carried out by Reynolds. And you referred to Bush’s track record of appointees, suggesting it was lacking.

That said - what does the above quote mean exactly?

Ok, but how does trying to undermine Affirmative Action - which it is clear you think that is going on - serve the interests of Bush if he isn’t interested in keeping minorities out of public service?

What personal and cronyistic purpose would undermining AA serve if not the exclusion of minorities? You say Bush’s agenda is his own, not the public’s - no problem: then what personal reason does he have to try and make AA “fail as a program”?

29

A hot blonde walks into a bar and sits next to two doctors. The affirmative action doctor says to the other " my mother is sick and she may die, I need to find a doctor that can save her life". The other doctor replies “my mother died a few years ago and she didn’t want my help”. The hot blonde overhears this and asks how she died.

The doctor replies “some affirmative action doctor gave her the wrong medicine and killed her”. The hot blonde replies “maybe I should find an affirmative action doctor for my mother, she used to abuse me growing up”. The doctor grabs her purse and pulls out her card and hands it to the blonde gentlemen and says “call me if you’re in favor of affirmative action”.

30

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
What I am saying is that it seems that the minorities that he puts in place seem to serve HIS and HIS CRONIES interests and not the interest of the American people. He hires minorities. I’ve never said that he didn’t. It’s the character of the minorities that is the question. Speaking of character, didn’t one just resign recently? [/quote]

So the minorities Bush has on staff are not minority enough? Or are they the wrong type of minority?

Sounds like you are advocating some sort of minority litmus test to ensure that the blacks are the “right kind” blacks.

Clarence Thomas is not the right kind of black to sit on the USSC.

Who should be the judge of the character of these minorities that are of questionable quality?

I know you don’t like his politics - but give the man some credit. Bush has done more than any other President when it comes to hiring minorities to high government positions.

31

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
What I am saying is that it seems that the minorities that he puts in place seem to serve HIS and HIS CRONIES interests and not the interest of the American people. He hires minorities. I’ve never said that he didn’t. It’s the character of the minorities that is the question. Speaking of character, didn’t one just resign recently?

So the minorities Bush has on staff are not minority enough? Or are they the wrong type of minority?

Sounds like you are advocating some sort of minority litmus test to ensure that the blacks are the “right kind” blacks.

Clarence Thomas is not the right kind of black to sit on the USSC.

Who should be the judge of the character of these minorities that are of questionable quality?

I know you don’t like his politics - but give the man some credit. Bush has done more than any other President when it comes to hiring minorities to high government positions.

[/quote]

I think he just meant that Bush appointees are having a hard time lately due to character issues (nothing to do with race). I don’t really agree with him.

32

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I know you don’t like his politics - but give the man some credit. Bush has done more than any other President when it comes to hiring minorities to high government positions.

[/quote]

I don’t know where you guys are getting this interpretation. AlDurr seems to be saying:

  1. Bush appoints only people who will faithfully parrot the positions he favors.
  2. Bush is not in favor of affirmative action.
  3. Reynolds is a Bush appointee.
  4. Therefore, Reynolds faithfully parrots Bush’s position regarding affirmative action.
  5. Further, any interpretations of facts or studies that come from Reynolds must be suspect, and judgment should be suspended pending independent evaluation of the data.

I don’t see anything about being the “right kind” of minorities, or anything other than an acknowledgment that Bush hires minorities, coupled with the opinion that these minorities possess the same woeful competence as the rest of his appointees.

33

Well, allow me to present these pragmatic reasons I dislike affirmative action as it’s generally applied in higher ed (again, not getting into the underlying ethics/morality of the program):

  1. It hurts working class whites and Asians - including immigrants - most - these aren’t the “elites” who enjoy the privileges most cite as justification for AA;

  2. It creates an artificial bidding war for the top African American, Latino and (though statistically insignificant) American Indian talent, often providing the most benefit to people from privileged and/or wealthy families; and

  3. It sets the most marginal beneficiaries for failure.

34

[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I know you don’t like his politics - but give the man some credit. Bush has done more than any other President when it comes to hiring minorities to high government positions.

I don’t know where you guys are getting this interpretation. AlDurr seems to be saying:

  1. Bush appoints only people who will faithfully parrot the positions he favors.
  2. Bush is not in favor of affirmative action.
  3. Reynolds is a Bush appointee.
  4. Therefore, Reynolds faithfully parrots Bush’s position regarding affirmative action.
  5. Further, any interpretations of facts or studies that come from Reynolds must be suspect, and judgment should be suspended pending independent evaluation of the data.

I don’t see anything about being the “right kind” of minorities, or anything other than an acknowledgment that Bush hires minorities, coupled with the opinion that these minorities possess the same woeful competence as the rest of his appointees. [/quote]

What I am saying is that it seems that the minorities that he puts in place seem to serve HIS and HIS CRONIES interests and not the interest of the American people. He hires minorities. I’ve never said that he didn’t. It’s the character of the minorities that is the question. Speaking of character, didn’t one just resign recently?

My interpretation of that line was that Bush hires minorities that aren’t very good minorities. I would like to know what the difference in a bad minority and a good minority is, and who makes that determination.

36

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
lixy wrote:

But do I support AA? Heck no. I repeatedly stated in other threads that I consider it racism.

Exactly![/quote]

All that needs to be said.

As a white male living in South Africa, I was last on the list of getting a job. Priority went to black men & women, so I said fuck it and I left.