Affirmative Action in Trouble in Michigan

[Disinterested]

Quote by: someguymp3 Disinterested clearly the only sane one in here. Props. African Americans are still not on an equal footing, this is one of the more effective ways to re-adress that imbalance. Williams sisters proving America has full and complete equality of opportunity. Brillaint

Without intending disrespect towards tinybear, the post regarding the williams sisters is dripping with bigotry and prejudice.

[Osborn F Enready]

Disinterested said:
That's nice ideology, but it's not the reality.

I say:
And you prove me so, because....... I am a white, 33 year old male, who is of Ukrainian/American descent, who has received nothing in financial aid for school, was denied my aid from the service based on ground of my early out, was denied any assistance for all but two claims of unemployment, skipped over repeatedly because of my "beliefs", and viewed badly by my "labor union" because I refused to drop THEIR argument once the heat was turned up a bit, and they were uncomfortable with being associated with any "drug" related cases, since it was bad press.

At the same time, I have watched minorities of every shade of color, from every nation, get welcomed in with open arms, tax free business start-ups, grants and low-intrest loans, college scholarships based on location, not education, and experienced every single aspect any minority cares to bring up, with the exception of bias of skin color, as opposed to beliefs.

Spare me the socialist crap, as I am not a Socialist, a communist, or a nanny-statist. I am not a Republiblood, or a Democrip, and I didn't support Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush Jr. I don't want more bi-partisanship, I want less, and more parties than just two. I want more voice not less choice.

You seem to think an equal field has something to do with reverse racism, and I don't see in any way where Affirmative Action is anything but reverse racism.

Disinterested said:
Affirmative Action is one program intended to help level the playing field. Are you also opposed to "Head Start" since it targets minority socio-economically disadvantaged children?

I say:
No, I am against anything that doles out taxpayer money, with prejudice, hypocrisy and a favored group of recipients. I am against wealth redistribution, and I am against the removal of rights and the Constitution. I am against slavery, racism, bigotry, sexism, classism and I fully embrace open borders with clear and intensely monitored checkpoints. I welcome free trade, and am against corporratism, corruption and elitism. I deplore the U.N.,and all of our non-isolationist foreign policy unless valid threat is issued or foreseen.

I am probably against a lot of things you are "for", but probably for none of the reasons you would assume so. Let's debate.

[Osborn F Enready]

SomeguyMP3 said:
Disinterested clearly the only sane one in here. Props.

African Americans are still not on an equal footing, this is one of the more effective ways to re-adress that imbalance.

I say:
First of all, do I know you? Have I debated you? I would think you must know me, to judge me as insane, wouldn't you? Debate, state your position, and prepare to defend.

I am not saying anyone is EQUAL, in todays society, except that we all should know our rights, and we all have a means to defend them legally and through protest. But I surely don't believe working towards setting new standards of bias and discrimination are a way to acheive a more "equal" field.
Simply reversing a bias just creates more problems, more backlash, and more hate.

[Disinterested]

Yeah, dominant groups should keep the sub-dominant groups out of the workplace and academia and into prisons. We need more draconian mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug offenders. We also need to classify drugs predominantly used by minorities or perceived to be predominantly used by minorities such as crack cocaine with stiffer sentences than drugs such as powder cocaine. That's what I call equal opportunity at its finest.

We need more prisons and less affirmative action.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready SomeguyMP3 said: Disinterested clearly the only sane one in here. Props. African Americans are still not on an equal footing, this is one of the more effective ways to re-adress that imbalance. I say: First of all, do I know you? Have I debated you? I would think you must know me, to judge me as insane, wouldn't you? Debate, state your position, and prepare to defend. I am not saying anyone is EQUAL, in todays society, except that we all should know our rights, and we all have a means to defend them legally and through protest. But I surely don't believe working towards setting new standards of bias and discrimination are a way to acheive a more "equal" field. Simply reversing a bias just creates more problems, more backlash, and more hate.

Yeah, nice and all but at the moment, minorities are less advantaged and have less opportunities. What are you going to do about it? Just allow this to continue, or argue for the mantainance of the status quo with some half-baked cover (liberty being my current favourite) and build up into what has become a startling parallel, nay, repeat of the great reform act. The formula is pretty much the same, the numbers are different. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes and two hundred years on, I'd like to think we'd learnt a bit. Clearly not.

[tinybear]

By 'minorities', do you include Asian Americans?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Disinterested If you truly believe that the average African-American has the same opportunity as the average white person in this country, you're ignorant. The dangerous part comes in when you further remove mechanisms by which oppressed minorities may have equal footing. In every society throughout history, vast distortions in the concentration of socio-economic power and wealth have resulted in unrest and revolution.

I hate to use this analogy, so please don't take it wrong but here's how I see much of this problem. In my family if I treat a child too well and give them most of what they ask for and don't place pressure on them to eventually move out and become self sufficient, they have a good chance of becoming dependent on my support. This helps neither of us. I recognize that some people feel this assistance is desirable but truly, though it might appear as beneficial in the short term it creates and maintains longer term problems. There are many examples of recent immigrants to the United States that had greater disadvantages than African-Americans (including in many cases no ability to even speak English, not to mention little of anything physically valuable) but have become very successful in spite of these large hurdles. African-Americans have been doing fine in the U.S. though still some areas are chronically dependent on government assistance. In the long run, finding greater incentives in moving out of this condition, instead of being rewarded for remaining dependent is better for everyone involved. It's also unfair to those who pay these costs. If we use race as a critieria in accepting people into a school, then we're also rejecting other people because of their race. Wouldn't many African Americans feel unjustly treated if they were rejected from attending a school simply because they were black? Imagine if this wasn't simply discrimination by an individual over a private establishment but something government required by law. Obviously this is something that even Martin Luther King would have opposed. I try to resist using demographics but from personal experiences I think almost half the African Americans I've had any discussions with over this also agree that affirmative action is a bad idea, yet they are legally also included by this system. Something else to consider is that at least regarding education, if you artificially accept someone into a higher level of education than is appropriate, it doesn't serve their educational needs well. Simply because someone is accepted into a specific school doesn't mean they're adequately able or willing to make good use of the educational resources.

I hope nothing in there was taken wrong but ultimately everyone (white, blacks, asians, hispanics etc.) would be better served by paying less attention to race. Having discrimination encoded into law doesn't serve this well and in some ways even adds to racial tensions.

To be honest, yes some racial discrimination still exists and likely won't ever entirely be gone but consider that this means that minorities will find greater incentives to working together, instead of being dependent on others. There are areas of L.A. here that are largely of a single racial demographic and truly much of this isn't out of any real racial discrimination other than the people living there simply prefer to live among others of the same race. If outside assistance is constantly flowing into these areas, then that does little to encourage real economic growth in the area and the way things operate currently it truely serves to discourage more entrepeneurs from emerging. I don't remember the sources exactly but I've heard before that blacks in the U.S. were making significant gains well before affirmative action was in place and that things would have become relatively equal much sooner if this phenomenon had been left on its own. I'll admit that it was second hand information and I can't be certain where or how that was measured and extrapolated but I have no doubt it's true nonetheless. Obviously the civil rights movement came out of a growing trend toward blacks being independence, when the rewards of being free and independent were so great at the time. Now, at least economically, there's much less to encourage people to succeed, and truly many reasons people (not simply minorities) find it easier to simply remain dependent on government assistance. In the long run, breaking this dependence will lead to even more individual freedom for everyone, including African Americans.

Quote by: tinybear By 'minorities', do you include Asian Americans?

As far as I know, it's generally asians and whites that are penalized by affirmative action. (Sometimes I wonder if it's a mixed blessing, but either way it's unjust have laws requiring this)

Quote by: someguymp3 Disinterested clearly the only sane one in here. Props. African Americans are still not on an equal footing, this is one of the more effective ways to re-adress that imbalance ...

If the laws require racial discrimination then obviously people aren't on equal footing. Removing racial discrimination from being enforced by government itself should be a #1 priority for people desiring to see a color blind society.

What if someone said "Let's have every black person work 20 hours a year serving white people!". Would you find that promoting racial equality or providing it a disservice? The point is you can't go around saying everyone should be on equal footing .... except groups X, Y and Z, as that specifically doesn't place people on 'equal footing'.

[tinybear]

C'mon guys, it's not just minorities (and by that, Asians are excluded, for some inexplicable reason) who are "less advantaged and have less opportunities". It's the poor and the downtrodden in society of all races. So what do we do? Do we exercise 'affirmative action' on a 'means-tested' basis? Let's face it. There's a lot of injustice and inequality in society. But, does affirmative action help alleviate it? No. It compounds it, in my view.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tinybear C'mon guys, it's not just minorities (and by that, Asians are excluded, for some inexplicable reason) who are "less advantaged and have less opportunities". It's the poor and the downtrodden in society of all races. So what do we do? Do we exercise 'affirmative action' on a 'means-tested' basis? Let's face it. There's a lot of injustice and inequality in society. But, does affirmative action help alleviate it? No. It compounds it, in my view.

Good point. If it were truly about people needing economic assistance, it would simply differentiate on economic conditions and ignore race. This might still provide relatively greater assistance to minorities and those communities and avoid promoting racism.

I still oppose government wealth redistribution programs in general (at least federal programs) but whatever exist definitely shouldn't be based upon race.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: SteveA If the laws require racial discrimination then obviously people aren't on equal footing. Removing racial discrimination from being enforced by government itself should be a #1 priority for people desiring to see a color blind society. What if someone said "Let's have every black person work 20 hours a year serving white people!". Would you find that promoting racial equality or providing it a disservice? The point is you can't go around saying everyone should be on equal footing .... except groups X, Y and Z, as that specifically doesn't place people on 'equal footing'.

'color blind society' is an utterly stupid, dangerous and unachievable goal. Look what happened in France, the government said "hey, listen. In our view everyone is equal and judging on race is wrong. So we'll not collect any race based data as that is judging people by race. Makes sense oui?". Of course, the resulting alienation of the Paris minorties led to those riots, not looking so clever now.

Look kids, anology time. So listen up.

Two people, runner A and runner B are racing long-distance around a running track. They need to complete, say, 20 laps.

The organisers then give runner A a bicycle, three laps later supporters complain this is unfair and the bicycle is withdrawn.

Now, is it more fair to say "well no more bicycle help as it is always wrong" and leave things as they are, with runner A having a large advantage of runner B or to try and redress that balance?

[SteveA]

Quote by: someguymp3 'color blind society' is an utterly stupid, dangerous and unachievable goal. Look what happened in France, the government said "hey, listen. In our view everyone is equal and judging on race is wrong. So we'll not collect any race based data as that is judging people by race. Makes sense oui?". Of course, the resulting alienation of the Paris minorties led to those riots, not looking so clever now. Look kids, anology time. So listen up. Two people, runner A and runner B are racing long-distance around a running track. They need to complete, say, 20 laps. The organisers then give runner A a bicycle, three laps later supporters complain this is unfair and the bicycle is withdrawn. Now, is it more fair to say "well no more bicycle help as it is always wrong" and leave things as they are, with runner A having a large advantage of runner B or to try and redress that balance?

Are you trying to say we should use reverse reverse discrimination now and give minorities a disadvantage now in favor of whites and asians? I would totally disagree with that idea. Imagine if people tried to say that African Americans have been unjustly rewarded by living in America and don't live under the same circumstances as the more impoverish people in Africa live? Should we equalize African Americans with Africans? After that ends we can use reverse reverse discrimination to compensate for the reverse discrimination against discrimination. etc. etc. etc. It will never end like that.

The damage (or "help") is done and if everyone wanted to undo the effects of affirmative action it would lead to even greater problems. Just stop with the mentality that everyone has to measured in some sense and forcibly equalized. It's a ridiculous method of thought ... what do you do with people who are better looking or taller or healthier etc.?

I'd recommend getting rid of almost every form of forceful attempts at equalizing people other than to simply respect and protect individual rights equally.

Should I attempt to claim damages for having been discriminated against? I'm not even someone long dead and simply written about in a history book.

It seems obvious to me that everyone is born into different walks of life and has different experiences in life. They don't all share the same identical physical traits, social pleasure, or physical security but everyone, regardless of race or sex should have their right to pursue their desires as they find possible within their means without being forced into being made equal or unequal simply because some other people feel they know what your life should truly be like. To put it more clearly, why should a few beaurocrats be the judges and enforcers of what personal successes are appropriate or inappropriate to experience? I don't see any moral right to do this, nor have I agreed to be subjected to limitations in this regard. Don't try to sell me the idea either ... I haven't bought it in the past, nor will I in the future.

Look at it this way ... if we're to discuss slavery, does anyone even know anyone else who even had a great grandparent who might have known someone who had a slave? No. It's dead and gone and people keep trying to rehash it and sadly some people are still experiencing the negative effects of this because others can't simply let slavery die as the bad idea it's always been. I've been one of the strongest opponents against any forms of slavery, yet simply because I was born white do I have an original sin that's got to be paid off?! That's entirely bogus, dude. I have no problems in my relations with different racial groups. If you feel guilty about something, fine. Pay someone off if it makes you feel better but I don't ultimately think that really changes anything and likely will even serve to promote the continuance of pressures into maintaining this relationship. It won't be until people finally stop using race as an excuse or judge of people that tensions will drop. If you haven't been racist and harmed others because of their race, what do you have to feel guilty about? And even if you prefer hanging out with people of a specific race because you feel more comfortable in that environment, who cares? Should we force everyone to mix and mingle and try to smile under threat of jail time? If you think that will finally result in racism being eliminated, you're wrong as it simply enslaves people to a system that's powered by discriminating on race. Do we take group samples and say we have X whites, Y blacks, Z asian and Q hispanics, then test against some statistical distribution for the surrounding area and determine if a gathering has statistically detectable racial preferences then go send police to grab whatever racial groups are underrepresented and force them to participate also? The only way to really get rid of racism is to go cold turkey and stop using it as means to justify using force against people. Affirmative action is the perfect place to start. Period.

[someguymp3]

None of that makes sense amigo?

Why would anyone draw that living in America/ unfair reward conclusion?

Why do you talk about slavery?

[SteveA]

Quote by: someguymp3 None of that makes sense amigo?

See, that's why there are still problems. Racism continues because of ignorance.

I was saying that though you imply that reversing affirmative action to compensate whites and asians for damages done under it could remedy things, it's not true as it would simply place other minorities at a disadvantage, which would later need to be reversed again by using this same logic ... so it would never end and wouldn't serve the purpose of removing race as a determining factor in what individual rights are.

Why would anyone draw that living in America/ unfair reward conclusion?

Exactly.

Why do you talk about slavery?

Good point. Apparently I'm a hypocrit. Wouldn't it be nice if noone felt a need to bring it up? Removing affirmative action would be a good start. This whole thread wouldn't have existed without affirmative action. It's in this same fashion that racial issues continue to propogate.

It's a common mentality nowdays to assume people must be made equal in many ways but this is simply an abuse of the idea of equal rights. Trying to make people become physically equal in almost any sense is pretty much doomed to cause conflict and especially if it targets people on irrelevant traits. Do we have to make all races of people equally able to sing or run or work etc? Are asians underrepresented in the music industry? Do we need special surgical operations or singing lessons available to asian people until they become approximately 20% of the singers in this industry? Or do we pay them money to compensate for this? What if they didn't spend that money to become singers ... would we have to give asians even more money until many became singers? It's just silly to use something like race as a criteria for these decisions. Maybe we should instead let people who want to sing, sing and let people who prefer to do something else, do it without forcing our views on how they should be living their life. It seems a much more peaceful way for people to treat others and allows people to enjoy or excel at whatever they're best at or enjoy most. You might think that sounds funky and idealistic, but it's the direction I'd love to see social views head. :)

[fushigi]

Not to mention the offense affirmative action gives to blacks who actually succeed despite racism. So long as affirmative action remains, any blacks who get a master's degree or get high positions in big companies can be written off by racists as tokens courtesy of affirmative action.

Can you imagine how frustrating that must be for blacks who succeed on merit alone? You fight everything to graduate, get a good job, and rise through the ranks, only to overhear someone spout off the condescending affront, "Oh, he's the token black guy." That guy worked his ass off to get where he is! But until affirmative action's dead, no one will know that.

[tinybear]

Yeah. Affirmative action has got to go. I'm amazed no one (including the US Supreme Court) has yet had the guts to say so.

[someguymp3]

Quote by: SteveA See, that's why there are still problems. Racism continues because of ignorance. I was saying that though you imply that reversing affirmative action to compensate whites and asians for damages done under it could remedy things, it's not true as it would simply place other minorities at a disadvantage, which would later need to be reversed again by using this same logic ... so it would never end and wouldn't serve the purpose of removing race as a determining factor in what individual rights are. show me where, as that's the opposite of what I'm saying Good point. Apparently I'm a hypocrit. Wouldn't it be nice if noone felt a need to bring it up? Removing affirmative action would be a good start. This whole thread wouldn't have existed without affirmative action. It's in this same fashion that racial issues continue to propogate. It's a common mentality nowdays to assume people must be made equal in many ways but this is simply an abuse of the idea of equal rights. Trying to make people become physically equal in almost any sense is pretty much doomed to cause conflict and especially if it targets people on irrelevant traits. Do we have to make all races of people equally able to sing or run or work etc? Are asians underrepresented in the music industry? Do we need special surgical operations or singing lessons available to asian people until they become approximately 20% of the singers in this industry? Or do we pay them money to compensate for this? What if they didn't spend that money to become singers ... would we have to give asians even more money until many became singers? It's just silly to use something like race as a criteria for these decisions. Maybe we should instead let people who want to sing, sing and let people who prefer to do something else, do it without forcing our views on how they should be living their life. It seems a much more peaceful way for people to treat others and allows people to enjoy or excel at whatever they're best at or enjoy most. You might think that sounds funky and idealistic, but it's the direction I'd love to see social views head. :)

Unfortunately, it wouldn't work. As per the running example, if you introduce a level playing field now, it's one which favours those already in the lead. That may be the goal, but those with the power, the wealth and the stake in the status quo (or the runner in the lead) are the ones that will benefit, and disproportionately so. The equality you promote would in fact work towards more inequality, benefitting those - as I said - with the the stake in the status quo and harming those who are already disadvantaged.

[Osborn F Enready]

So, who are you saying the field needs to be equalized in relation to?

The white man, on average?

The elitist corporatists?

Anyone who has more than you?

I don't see the logic here, at least with such vague notions of what your speaking in reference to.

[someguymp3]

Until the point that there is a reasonable level of equality of opportunity. I'm realistic, I'm not advocating communism - but the inequality that exsists is not acceptable.

[Osborn F Enready]

Someguymp3 said:
Until the point that there is a reasonable level of equality of opportunity. I'm realistic, I'm not advocating communism - but the inequality that exsists is not acceptable.

I say:
So your seeking "reparations", not "equal" opprotunity?

What about reparations for EVERY race that has been in some way held back, or held down by ANY other race?

Do American Indians deserve reparations?
Do Irish Americans deserve reparations?
Do Polish Americans deserve reparations?
Do Ukrainian Americans deserve reparations?

Couldn't a case be made about every race or ethnicity at one time being wronged by another, and if so, what line delineates the point of due reparations?

Is there no case of the people who were "wronged", being provided OTHER things that would somehow offset the reparations?


I mean, I just don't follow the logic.

Perhaps you could elaborate more, on how you get to the point you make, and why you consider it valid.

For example, my family wasn't even here during slavery, nor did my family own any slaves, so why should I and my family have to donate to the reparations for the evils others have caused?

[Disinterested]

Quote by: tinybear Yeah. Affirmative action has got to go. I'm amazed no one (including the US Supreme Court) has yet had the guts to say so.

The U.S. Army in an unusual move petitioned the court to testify as a "friend of the court" on behalf of keeping Affirmative Action stating that without it the U.S. Army would be much weaker as a result of racial discrimination and segregation than it is today.

You can live in your world of ivory tower ideology and justify your racist attitudes to prevent disadvantaged minorities from attaining equality on account of societal prejudices and oppression all you want, but please don't make the bizarre and irrational claim that affirmative action hurts society.