[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Having said that I personally don’t agree with AA. I think EO makes more sense. AA addresses our country’s ills (past and even present) on the wrong end but it’s cheaper and easier and shortsighted which are the things that our politicians love. [/quote]
What is the difference between the two?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
[/quote]
The part that is missing is “if.” If a white person loses out it is more likely to a black person. How often does that if actually happen? What’s more likely: a white person losing out to a black person or a white male losing out to a white female? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
The choices should be based on merit and merit alone. (We’re all also ignoring the fact a school will take a total dolt of any race or gender if they are connected to a big enough donor. lol)
I think, and I’m going from memory here, there is a large amount of women in the candidate pool, but I can’t remember if they are over or under represented. I think women to men ratios favor women, which would mean they would get passed over…
I can’t remember. Read the book, it is great. [/quote]
Then why are men complaining?
The point is that AA is not just about race. It’s basically non-handicapped, heterosexual, non-Hispanic white men on one side and everyone else on the other. It’s not the black man that white men should worry about but the black lesbian with no legs.
Having said that I personally don’t agree with AA. I think EO makes more sense. AA addresses our country’s ills (past and even present) on the wrong end but it’s cheaper and easier and shortsighted which are the things that our politicians love. [/quote]
Given our $17T debt, and the current fad of 1,000+ page legislation, - I submit that politicians have no concept of the words cheap or easy.
Furthermore, the entire Civil Rights Act/Great Society legislation of the mid-60’s had some fairly long-term goals: Institutional racism, poverty, and generational government dependence.
Just google “LBJ racist quotes”, as I am not going to re-post that murderous, racist. son-of-a-bitch’s words.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
[/quote]
The part that is missing is “if.” If a white person loses out it is more likely to a black person. How often does that if actually happen? What’s more likely: a white person losing out to a black person or a white male losing out to a white female? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
The choices should be based on merit and merit alone. (We’re all also ignoring the fact a school will take a total dolt of any race or gender if they are connected to a big enough donor. lol)
I think, and I’m going from memory here, there is a large amount of women in the candidate pool, but I can’t remember if they are over or under represented. I think women to men ratios favor women, which would mean they would get passed over…
I can’t remember. Read the book, it is great. [/quote]
Then why are men complaining?
The point is that AA is not just about race. It’s basically non-handicapped, heterosexual, non-Hispanic white men on one side and everyone else on the other. It’s not the black man that white men should worry about but the black lesbian with no legs.
Having said that I personally don’t agree with AA. I think EO makes more sense. AA addresses our country’s ills (past and even present) on the wrong end but it’s cheaper and easier and shortsighted which are the things that our politicians love. [/quote]
Given our $17T debt, and the current fad of 1,000+ page legislation, - I submit that politicians have no concept of the words cheap or easy.
Furthermore, the entire Civil Rights Act/Great Society legislation of the mid-60’s had some fairly long-term goals: Institutional racism, poverty, and generational government dependence.
Just google “LBJ racist quotes”, as I am not going to re-post that murderous, racist. son-of-a-bitch’s words.
[/quote]
“I will have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years…”
That racist quote ?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
Disclaimer: Not a big fan of affirmative action.
But your statement isn’t accurate to the extent it implies that the college is opposing the affirmative-action program or that its being shoved down the college’s throat.
“Kennedy said the ‘university must prove that the means chosen’ to attain diversity ‘are narrowly tailored to that goal,’ adding that the highest level of legal standard must be met before institutions use diversity programs. Strict scrutiny (of the policy) imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classification, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice,” he said.
The college is the proponent of the program in this case, and was defending its own program.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that this era of AA will, in time, be looked at through history much the same way segregation was. Your “world we live in” talk will be reflected on much the same way the southern segregationists and their “separate but equal” BS is now.
[/quote]
Minus the lynchings, riot police, fire hoses, church fires, burning crosses, etc., of course. [/quote]
Pass a law that ends AA and you might be surprised.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
Disclaimer: Not a big fan of affirmative action.
But your statement isn’t accurate to the extent it implies that the college is opposing the affirmative-action program or that its being shoved down the college’s throat.
“Kennedy said the ‘university must prove that the means chosen’ to attain diversity ‘are narrowly tailored to that goal,’ adding that the highest level of legal standard must be met before institutions use diversity programs. Strict scrutiny (of the policy) imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classification, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice,” he said.
The college is the proponent of the program in this case, and was defending its own program. [/quote]
You’re missing the point. The fact that race is a factor, however remote, in whether or not to accept a student, is preposterous. I get that many colleges are on board with it. Doesn’t make it right. If you want more poor kids to have a chance to go to your school, by all means, they can try and make that happen through scholarships and whatever. But what race the poor kid is should never be a factor.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
Disclaimer: Not a big fan of affirmative action.
But your statement isn’t accurate to the extent it implies that the college is opposing the affirmative-action program or that its being shoved down the college’s throat.
“Kennedy said the ‘university must prove that the means chosen’ to attain diversity ‘are narrowly tailored to that goal,’ adding that the highest level of legal standard must be met before institutions use diversity programs. Strict scrutiny (of the policy) imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classification, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice,” he said.
The college is the proponent of the program in this case, and was defending its own program. [/quote]
You’re missing the point. The fact that race is a factor, however remote, in whether or not to accept a student, is preposterous. I get that many colleges are on board with it. Doesn’t make it right. If you want more poor kids to have a chance to go to your school, by all means, they can try and make that happen through scholarships and whatever. But what race the poor kid is should never be a factor. [/quote]
No, I’m not missing the point, I was just clarifying an inaccuracy in your statement.
To your broader point, I’m inclined to agree that we have probably moved passed the point where AA is necessary or justifiable to remedy past race-based discrimination that was systemic and pervasive for most of the 20th century. I’ve always felt as though AA was shitty and unfair to people who were not at fault for the systemic and pervasive racism that existed in the past.
At the same time, I do think it is easy to forget how bad things were up until recently, and that it took what was for all intents and purposes a semi-violent, multi-generational civil/cultural war and the civil-rights movement through the 40s, 50s, and 60s and into the 70s and 80s to achieve a generational shift in attitudes towards race (and gender) that make it possible for us to now have a discussion that race should “never” be a consideration in hiring and entrance/education decisions–and have most people agree. Also, I firmly believe that the shift in attitudes would not have come about without the Voting Rights Act, Title VII, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and other similar legislation that beat it into peoples heads that it is illegal and wrong to exclude someone from the workplace; sports; education; voting; or in the general right to make and enforce contracts; because of the color of their skin or because of their sex, although these laws are now also roundly attacked as burdensome and unfair in their own right.
In short, there was a real and substantial problem that needed a remedy, but there was no good, uncomplicated, easy or effective remedy that didn’t have undesirable or unintended consequences in its own right or that didn’t unfairly burden someone else in its imperfect application. Nevertheless, things today, IMO, are, in fact, much better than they were as far as racial justice and equality because of the imposition of imperfect remedies like AA. How people treat each other in this regard in general has greatly improved, IMO, largely because of these remedies. So its tough for me to say “never” in the way that you say it above, even though I agree in large part with your sentiment.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
In short, there was a real and substantial problem that needed a remedy, but there was no good, uncomplicated, easy or effective remedy that didn’t have undesirable or unintended consequences in its own right or that didn’t unfairly burden someone else in its imperfect application. Nevertheless, things today, IMO, are, in fact, much better than they were as far as racial justice and equality because of the imposition of imperfect remedies like AA. How people treat each other in this regard in general has greatly improved, IMO, largely because of these remedies. So its tough for me to say “never” in the way that you say it above, even though I agree in large part with your sentiment.
[/quote]
Good post, you should do it more.
In a world of ideals, the word “never” is very appropriate. However, you are looking at it in a pragmatic “real world” point of view, so I understand the reluctance to accept the word never.
I get the argument that the changes never would have happened if it wasn’t forced, even though the legislation that forced it, is by itself racist. I don’t know if the transition would have been better or worse without the laws. I would like to think it would have been better, but I know that some people are just plain ignorant.
So based on ideals, I’m very much anti-AA. But I do understand where it came from, both the good intensions and the bad.
So, how do we move away from it, keeping in mind the PC world we live in?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
In short, there was a real and substantial problem that needed a remedy, but there was no good, uncomplicated, easy or effective remedy that didn’t have undesirable or unintended consequences in its own right or that didn’t unfairly burden someone else in its imperfect application. Nevertheless, things today, IMO, are, in fact, much better than they were as far as racial justice and equality because of the imposition of imperfect remedies like AA. How people treat each other in this regard in general has greatly improved, IMO, largely because of these remedies. So its tough for me to say “never” in the way that you say it above, even though I agree in large part with your sentiment.
[/quote]
Good post, you should do it more.
In a world of ideals, the word “never” is very appropriate. However, you are looking at it in a pragmatic “real world” point of view, so I understand the reluctance to accept the word never.
I get the argument that the changes never would have happened if it wasn’t forced, even though the legislation that forced it, is by itself racist. I don’t know if the transition would have been better or worse without the laws. I would like to think it would have been better, but I know that some people are just plain ignorant.
So based on ideals, I’m very much anti-AA. But I do understand where it came from, both the good intensions and the bad.
So, how do we move away from it, keeping in mind the PC world we live in?[/quote]
I think the consideration of race in the admissions process is on its way out for the most part, especially since the Supreme Court properly placed a heavy burden on public Universities to justify continuing to consider race to promote diversity with actual evidence that it is narrowly tailored to a specific need. I just don’t see colleges coming up with the evidence required to meet the standard or sustaining a continuing willingness to keep testing the evidence in court. Defending race-based admissions criteria costs real money, and colleges and universities don’t generally like spending money unnecessarily any more than other people or businesses do, even if they are state funded.
I think the trend is moving towards class-based affirmative action to promote diversity, which has its own set of proponents, detractors, and inherent problems: