One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

Malachi151 said:
I never understood oposition to AA.

Its clear that some minorities are under privlidged.

Now, lets say that some black kid gets into a college because of his race, because of AA.

Are you saying that you would rather that this kid NOT get into college?

What do you think will ultimate better effect on society? Do you think that blacks staying poor and less educated is going to help in some way? Isn't there a better chance that this person will become a better and more productive member of society if they a job, an education, whatever.?

Or would you rather they just stay unemployed and collect welfare?

I don't get it, the same people who hate AA also hate welfare. So, which is it?

What you really want is for these people to just die and go away. Well, that's not going to happen.

You can either help the disadvantaged or let them help themselves to stealing your car and using welfare. Unless of couse you think that a black man with no college degree has other wonderful oppertunities waiting for him, asside of course from joining the front lines in Bush's imperial army.
Click to expand...

The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?
 
Another farcical aspect of Affirmative Action is AA for "Hispanics." Basically "Hispanics" are a racial mixture of white Europeans (Conquistadors) and people of Mongloid/Asian descent (Mayan, Aztec, Inca, native Americans came from Asia through Alaska).

Whites and Asians (randomly) are not qualified for AA. But a mixture of white and asian IS qualified for Affirmative Action!!!??
 
If you come from a low income family and you've worked your tail off in high school and you have the grades to show it, then AA should be helping you to get a college education because, ultimately, you will be a good return on investment for society. Race should have nothing to do with it. If a black student has higher SAT scores than his white counterpart, then he should get preference; vice versa.

AA is abused and, frankly, I'm getting real tired of the race card being played as much as it is. I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and went to the same schools as my neighbors did. How are they more disadvantaged than I was? They had access to the same library, the same teachers, the same resources. Yes, the neighborhood was a tough place to live and I didn't come from a wealthy family. So, why are my minority counterparts any more 'disadvantaged' than I was?

What do you suppose "disadvantaged" should really mean?
 
The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?
Click to expand...

Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(
 
c0rbin said:


Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(
Click to expand...

Yes. Maybe they should.
 
Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
The government using race to favor one group over another is WRONG, no matter how you try to justify it. Why not use socioeconomic AA instead, for the "underprivileged"?

Originally posted by c0rbin
Awww, is the poor white man feeling oppressed? Poor guy. They should make special cases for all the poor white people who never had a chance :(
Click to expand...

Your use of sarcasm in response to a legitimate point is noted. Now, can you answer the question?
 
Ladyhawk said:
If you come from a low income family and you've worked your tail off in high school and you have the grades to show it, then AA should be helping you to get a college education because, ultimately, you will be a good return on investment for society. Race should have nothing to do with it. If a black student has higher SAT scores than his white counterpart, then he should get preference; vice versa.

AA is abused and, frankly, I'm getting real tired of the race card being played as much as it is. I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and went to the same schools as my neighbors did. How are they more disadvantaged than I was? They had access to the same library, the same teachers, the same resources. Yes, the neighborhood was a tough place to live and I didn't come from a wealthy family. So, why are my minority counterparts any more 'disadvantaged' than I was?

What do you suppose "disadvantaged" should really mean?
Click to expand...

Okay so, if we have a group like just say blacks. And let's say that they score lower on SATs nationally than whites or Asians.

Now, according to most accepted sociological ideology environment plays a big role in development and ultimately in how well educated people become.

We have a few choices. We can let blacks have access to a higher education based on a lower standard for acceptance in the hopes that by having access to college more will make it through college and graduate, to go on to have better jobs and live in a more affluent lifestyle, etc, i.e. getting people out of the ghetto. The idea is that by doing this then future generations of people, their children, will grow up in better environments and then do beter on thier own.

Now, the question can be:

#1 Does that really work?

The anwser has to be yes unless you think that blacks are genetically inferior mentally, which is a viable option.

#2 Assuming that it does work (and I think it does), when is enough enough?

The anwser to that would be when the lines between ethnic groups is blured in measures of success.

AA has a few problems though. #1 Successful people who are minorities still have access to AA policy(there is really no way around it), and #2 AA can't do it alone. AA is just one part of the equation and if the other parts aren't being given proper care, and that responsibility falls mainly on the minority populations themselves, then it still won't work.

AA says, look, we are giving you guys a chance. YOU have to take the responsibilty though and take advantage of this oppertunity. I would nto be opposed to weakening AA to let minorities know that they need to take heed and take this oppertunity seriously. I'm all for AA, but it takes effort on both sides.
 
I thought Affirmative Action was supposed to be making up for intrenched racism and racial injustices. If so, why are blacks and "latinos" qualified for special privileges under AA, but Asians are not? Asians have been victims of racism every bit as much as "latinos". They were forced to work on the railroads, called Chinamen, spit on in the streets, you name it, and the Japenese were tossed into internment camps RECENTLY.

Why are Asians not elligible for AA? In fact, Asians get the opposite -- they are they actually discriminated against at many colleges and universities because too many of them have high scores and perfect grades.
 
Genghis Pwn said:
I thought Affirmative Action was supposed to be making up for intrenched racism and racial injustices. If so, why are blacks and "latinos" qualified for special privileges under AA, but Asians are not? Asians have been victims of racism every bit as much as "latinos". They were forced to work on the railroads, called Chinamen, spit on in the streets, you name it, and the Japenese were tossed into internment camps RECENTLY.

Why are Asians not elligible for AA? In fact, Asians get the opposite -- they are they actually discriminated against at many colleges and universities because too many of them have high scores and perfect grades.
Click to expand...
They are eligible for AA, and have used it in the past successively. But it's a procedural problem, in that Asians are not automatically included in AA programs, because, as you note, Asians who do go to university tend to be successful.

But there's a greater problem which is a twofold form of racism; firstly that Asians are a homogenous group, when in fact there is as many different ethnicities as within the white population and secondly, that as some Asian do well in society, then all Asians must be doing well in society--the myth of the "model minority"--which leads to institutional prejudice against them. Fortunately this is not problem with AA per se, rather it's the way AA programmes have been developed, so it should be fairly simple to extend AA programs to automatically include Asian groups.
 
Malachi151 said:
#1 Does that really work?

The anwser has to be yes unless you think that blacks are genetically inferior mentally, which is a viable option.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify--do you really think genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure?
 
Malachi151 said:


We have a few choices. We can let blacks have access to a higher education based on a lower standard for acceptance in the hopes that by having access to college more will make it through college and graduate, to go on to have better jobs and live in a more affluent lifestyle, etc, i.e. getting people out of the ghetto. The idea is that by doing this then future generations of people, their children, will grow up in better environments and then do beter on thier own.
Click to expand...

I've got a real problem with the 'lower standard for acceptance' thing, because it's discriminatory. As a non-minority, the bar is raised higher for me than others. How can that possibly be fair or equitable? I earn a higher GPA, maybe I graduate cum laude. And a minority student gets my place at a prestigious university simply because they're a minority?

More to the point, how does lowering academic standards benefit anyone? Student, university, employers or society? :confused:
 
BillyTK said:


Just to clarify--do you really think genetic inferiority is a viable explanation of Black socio-economic failure?
Click to expand...

No, I don't but you have to give people that option as a viable opinion if they want to try and support that idea. Essentially its just giving people a rope to hang themselves with if they try to use that argument :D

You really only have to two options, environment or genetics. I want to make it clear that if you don't support AA based on its sociological ideology then you are saying that minorities who are not as successful as a group are "genetically inferior".

Its either a social issue or its a genetic issue, make no mistake about what it is that you say.
 
Jon_in_london said:


disadvantaged should mean impoverished.
Nothing to do with race. Thats why AA is ◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...

Not really, because you assume that people would not be discriminated against based on race w/o it.

We know when AA was put into effect that out of a black and white of equal merit the white was almost always choosen.

There is no way to prevent people from discriminating. W/o the laws those in power, typically white males can choose whites over blacks even if the whites are less qualified.

I'm pro AA, but I also think a time will come when its time to get rid of it. I don't think that time is now.
 
Diogenes said:


Did they?
Click to expand...

No, Dio....they didn't. I'm just asking if people are okay with that logic or not. It has happened to close friends of mine, but, to be fair, more in the employment arena than in the scholastic one.
 
Malachi151 said:


No, I don't but you have to give people that option as a viable opinion if they want to try and support that idea. Essentially its just giving people a rope to hang themselves with if they try to use that argument :D

You really only have to two options, environment or genetics. I want to make it clear that if you don't support AA based on its sociological ideology then you are saying that minorities who are not as successful as a group are "genetically inferior".

Its either a social issue or its a genetic issue, make no mistake about what it is that you say.
Click to expand...

Which sociological ideology are we talking about? Functional, structural, post-structural, interactionist, feminist or Marxist? ;) :P

There's a third option though--interaction between genetics and environment; you might have a gene to make you grow six foot tall, but without adequate nutrition it's not worth a damn.
 
Ladyhawk said:


No, Dio....they didn't. I'm just asking if people are okay with that logic or not. It has happened to close friends of mine, but, to be fair, more in the employment arena than in the scholastic one.
Click to expand...

I'm not okay with that logic because it's fallacious--sorry. It assumes that someone has automatic entitlement to a place or a position, and if that place/position is "given" to someone else, then race/gender/(insert favourite AA card here) must be the only factor to explain why the other candidate got that place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom