Why affirmative action is silly

[BarDulL]

This blog is in response to this article: http://www.ebony.com/news-views/affirmative-action-vs-white-privilege-119/2

I came across this article on an acquaintance's wall, so I wrote this long response. I was going to post said response on that person's wall, but I stopped myself because I'm not entirely interested in negatively affecting my relations with others, nor do I feel any obligation to change a single person's mind on the matter or potentially make them look bad in public. However, I decided to share it here instead, and was wondering how everyone else feels about affirmative action. For those who don't know what affirmative action is, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Now, for the blog:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like I'm setting myself up for problems by stating this, however I don't necessarily see how it's naive to believe that if "race" were taken out of the equation of college applications, that it would somehow be unfair for "blacks" or other various ethnicities (inb4 irony of a "white" male stating this.)

Frankly, ethnicity is an arbitrarily contrived "stamp" being placed on others in the first place. I'm morbidly disgusted by the racial categorizing of human beings as being "black," "asian," "hispanic," and things of that nature when, really, we're all more or less the same in terms of bodily structure (by more or less, I refer to the oscillation of melanin levels, height, eye color, and so on and so forth). And to use these categorizations as a means to try and give people of varying ethnicities certain benefits (or disadvantages) is silly. In fact, I hate the fact that we use the word "race" to distinguish people of varying melanin levels because, really, we're all human. I feel the problem lays more in the fact that people are still trying to classify others as being parts of "racial groups." The general populace is somewhat deplorable in this regard; said populace is insistent that it's "right" to "classify" people into various differentiating groups, so they subsequently feel a need to try and have those groups be more represented, because to underrepresent those groups is to somehow be oppressing them or to not be giving them enough opportunity. Oh dear. When will people learn that skin color should never, ever, EVER be used as criterion for ANYTHING in the first place? Why should it be? It doesn't even begin to make sense when you really think about it. For me to state that someone is "black" is to categorize them and to potentially lump them with a group of individuals that may or may not hold a degree of influence in the general scheme of the social hierarchy, but why lump them there in this first place? The only significance that saying someone is "black" should have is to describe them physically, nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, people would argue that it's naive and silly of me to believe in this kind of rationale when there are several individuals of varying ethnicities who lack opportunity because of their financial backgrounds, but think for a minute, why should this have an impact on getting into a school? Why should ANY "group" of individuals of a specific ethnicity be privileged to enter schools before individuals of any other ethnic background? Why should ethnicity even MATTER?

I'm all for giving people coming from low income families the ability to attend school, because to not give people of gifted intelligence the opportunity to help society progress is to be doing society a disservice. I'm more than willing to see my taxpayer dollars go in that direction, and so should everyone else. I don't care what their ethnicity is in this regard, because frankly, skin color doesn't determine whether or not you can solve complex math equations or draw correlations between two elements in chemistry. Go ahead, give them scholarships and grants, but don't give them "space" to occupy in schools because of their ethnicity, good grief. To make space for people because of their skin color is to go against the very fundamentals that this country is built on, because really, we've been trying to abolish differential treatment between ethnicities for CENTURIES because of how illogical and arbitrary it is.

This Abigail woman may in fact have been legitimately denied from entering a school on the grounds that space was saved specifically for "black" and "hispanic" students and all the "white" slots had been filled, and I can't help but agree that this is pretty damn silly if that's truly the case. If Abigail is a hard working individual, well read, and has the intelligence and the resume to back her up and it subsequently puts her above students that are being placed in "ethnically reserved" slots, then that has to be one of biggest travesties to ever befall the education system. To deny someone who is more than qualified for a school on the grounds that all of the "white slots" had been filled up is absurd. Ridiculous. Backwards thinking. Because, really, schools and the education system are there for progressing our species as a whole in terms of pushing society forward. Creating new things. Inventing new mechanisms to work with. That's what it's about. We as students are learning stuff now so that we can use it for jobs to stay afloat, but really, those jobs will inadvertently lead to the progession of mankind. Even if you are simply selling something as a cashier, you are helping society progress.

If "blacks" and "hispanics" are being "underrepesented", that is not a direct result of their skin color, and it should never be correlated as such. The intelligent, the hardworking, and the successful should be the ones who have the opportunity to fill up slots in schools. Just because you're black, white, hispanic, asian, or whatever other "categorizations" there are for humanity, doesn't directly imply that you'll be more or less likely to succeed in school and push society forward, and whoever asserted the sentiment that skin color implies anything in the first place needs to resign from whatever position they are currently holding.

I also must ask why it's necessary for ethnicities of all classifications to not be "underrepresented." This might seem like a **** thing to say at first, but when you really think about it, the sentiment that "all ethnicities should be healthily represented in each school" is arbitrarily contrived and is based on...what, exactly? Where is the logic in this assertion? Sure, I want people of all varying ethnicities to succeed and to get into the schools of their choice and they should all have an equal opportunity to do so, but that doesn't mean that these individuals are competitive enough to accomplish this, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of individuals competing for those slots as well.

That isn't to say that I believe that equality amongst ethnicities is wrong, since the assertion that affirmative action is incorrect is to imply that I'm ok with the strong possibility that a lot of schools will witness a drop in a specific ethnicity's admission rate. No, on the contrary, it's extremely important that all ethnicities are treated fairly and appropriately, because to do otherwise is to submit to arbitrary differentiation, one of the greatest and foremost detriments to human intelligence to ever grace the earth. However, affirmative action doesn't seek to push this idea forward because it works against the very principle of ethnic equality simply by appealing to specific ethnic groups while potentially giving disadvantages to other ethnic groups. There is no logical reason to differentiate school entrance priority based on ethnicity because the process of categorizing, subsequent profiling, and direct appealing towards any ethnicity is arbitrary in and of itself.

 

[BarDulL]

A recent counter point was raised to me that affirmative action is a necessary evil in order to combat discrimination in school entrance examinations. I'm not sure how often discrimination based on ethnicity occurs in this regard, however I almost want to just agree with this point because it seems feasible that it happens more often than not.

But then I started thinking, why not just make it so that ethnicity isn't stated on college applications? Wouldn't that solve the problem immediately?

Food for thought.

 

[Luco]

I haven't read all of the report but before I forget it, keep in mind that there are differences in humans and if that's race, I think that's fine. Cultural (or ethnic) identity is really, really important. I can't stress this enough. We can't have a copy-paste society where we are all of us are the same (On that note, I disagree with the word 'equality' because it implies 'sameness', therefore the word 'equal opportunity' is better) as we, as people absolutely cannot live with no sense of identity and our own legal rules aren't enough to give us that feeling.

Of course I could be mis-reading your words.

 

[Teran]

Don't they do entrance examinations with a candidate number system so as to avoid any sort of discrimination?

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about. Kindred spirits! I've made a group for people like you and I to chill. Thanks for giving me the best idea this year.

http://www.smashboards.com/group.php?groupid=2797

Won't let affirmative action shut this group down (meaning don't shut it down, Teran)!

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Spoiler

On the actual topic at hand, in concept, I agree with you, it's stupid and only sets up to give opportunities to people less deserving (no, don't hate because in theory that's exactly what it does). However, in practice, there is bias and there is discrimination based on that bias. This is a rule for an imperfect world. There are a bunch of ******** cases of affirmative action being misused that should be brought to attention and dealt with, but I support the concept much like I support free enterprise as opposed to communism. In a perfect world, it's not what you need, but we don't have a perfect world, so the institution makes sense.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Attacking affirmative action ignores that the effects of racism still greatly circumscribe the opportunities of minorities. College enrollment is actually one of the few places where blacks have equal representation, and I think affirmative action had a large role in helping that to happen.

But more importantly, there are other areas where race plays a large role in decision making, such as criminal justice, housing, employment and other areas. I was going to trot out tons of statistics to prove these points, but I don't think its necessary. If your goal is equality, it would probably be a better use of your energy to rant against situations where race negatively impacts the lives of minorities, as there are far more examples of that than the supposed damage AA does to whites.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Supposed? It does do damage. That's kind of undebatable. I agree that it is not extensive enough to warrant AA being done away with, but it's there and it gets coverage because it is more interesting in many cases. It's a villain when a bad person lets their discriminatory nature get in the way of letting the more qualified person into a position, but it's a scandal when the system costs someone the same thing. Different races (shocker) are going to find them different levels of appalling because it hits closer to home.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I considered editing "supposedly" out of my post, because I figured that most responses would center on that word in particular. But I do think that the harm of AA has been overblown, and while it does keep white people (because let's be real: when we're talking about AA and the term "qualified" comes in, it usually means white) out of some places on an individual basis, it's nowhere near the levels at which blacks have historically been excluded from those same places.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

"Historically" and "been" are pretty lame words to include as well. Affirmative Action needs to disappear the moment that the problem "is presently" at a low enough point that it is doing more harm than good. We should probably re-examine and reform the idea as it approaches that line.

And every government policy that makes good T.V. gets overblown, I'll give you that.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That point was made for comparison, to say that it's absurd to suggest that affirmative action needs to be dismantled because of unfair racial outcomes, when it was instituted to correct for unfair racial outcomes on a much more massive scale.

My problem with the OP, and most arguments against affirmative action, is that they try to decouple history from the present. The OP argues that the best person for the position should get the position. Fine, but has he stopped to ask why certain people invariably seem to be more qualified than others? That's where the historical facts of racism and segregation come in. Affirmative action is needed because, as the saying goes, the past isn't really past. De facto segregation is still a very real problem in America, and the problem of de facto segregation comes directly from the practice of de jure segregation in the past. You can't separate the two.

I agree that when things are better, then it will be time for AA to go. But we're not there yet.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

It's an interesting argument when we agree on the conclusion.

You do have to decouple history from the present, though, to analyze when you've reached a satisfactory conclusion. You hold them side by side and compare the present with the mistakes of the past. You don't let the past bag you down and you ought not hold someone accountable for past mistakes when reform has taken place. That is NOT to say you don't look at past mistakes for possible future troubles.

However, I feel like you're not trying to say it how it comes across in my eyes.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Yeah, I know what you're saying, that we can't continue to ask for special policies because of past injustice if those injustices have been addressed. We're in complete agreement there, and we also agree that those injustices have not yet been addressed.

My point is directed at the OP, who seems to think that it's all about who is the best without any consideration of why and how things are that way. The OP makes a statement such as

If "blacks" and "hispanics" are being "underrepesented", that is not a direct result of their skin color, and it should never be correlated as such. The intelligent, the hardworking, and the successful should be the ones who have the opportunity to fill up slots in schools. Just because you're black, white, hispanic, asian, or whatever other "categorizations" there are for humanity, doesn't directly imply that you'll be more or less likely to succeed in school and push society forward, and whoever asserted the sentiment that skin color implies anything in the first place needs to resign from whatever position they are currently holding.

without any acknowledgement that skin color helps put people in bad neighborhoods, bad schools, low paying jobs and cycles of poverty, and that those things affect how qualified you are. Those are racial problems, and yes, they require racial solutions.

 

[Mediocre]

I used to be kind of uneasy about affirmative action, and I still think it's a bad solution to an even worse problem. Unfortunately, it's the best solution we've got.

I'm sure there will be a time when affirmative action is no longer needed, but for now it is important to correct for the systemic racial inequalities that are still present in this country.

 

[BarDulL]

Don't they do entrance examinations with a candidate number system so as to avoid any sort of discrimination?

If ethnicity is taken out of the equation entirely from college applications as it is, then affirmative action isn't "necessary" per se, that's the idea here. That being said, if a candidate number system is used (thus chances of discrimination affecting college applicants is substantially decreased), then the obvious question arises: "why is AA still around?" If AA is still in existence to make a statement about society in the present, then there isn't really a compelling reason to keep it around since AA is directly hitting a nerve that we've been trying to seal off for centuries now.

I agree however that there's an unfortunate number of individuals who still subscribe to this idea that "blacks" or "hispanics" or whatever are somehow lesser than whites, which is the real reason why we have black history month and things of that nature. I get it. However, I still feel that AA acts as a detriment primarily because it's enforcing the idea that we should acknowledge "ethnicity" as criterion when it should never be used as such. Some people here are saying it's a necessity because discrimination still happens in college applications (because otherwise we wouldn't "need" it in the first place), but why not just use a system that prevents discrimination from happening that doesn't directly touch on using ethnicity as a criterion? Remove ethnicity from college applications, easy peezy.

@Jam, I'm a reactionary person and don't go out of my way unless I'm approached with the problem. Like, if I was presented with discrimination in the court system, I would be furious, but I don't go out of my way to look for that kind of information. That being said, I'm more than willing to admit that there are more serious "racial" issues to be dealt with that operate outside of AA's jurisdiction, however the article above happened to come my way and I felt compelled to write a response.

I did raise an eyebrow at your use of the word "supposed," but I agree that there isn't much of an inclination to suggest that AA is preventing a number of individuals from getting into schools of their choice. Regardless, I still feel that it's a detriment because it directly operates against ethnic equality. If college applicants are being discriminated against, remove any information from the application that could potentially promote racial discrimination. This is an indirect method of solving the problem and it doesn't serve to benefit or hinder college applicants in a way that would otherwise be deemed as unconstitutional.

I'm aware of the history of this nation. I live in Los Angeles county, the home of the 1992 riots. That being said, I've gone to school with blacks, hispanics, whites, asians, and whatever else there is in terms of racial categorizing, and I've noticed that those of distinct intellectual capacity, assuming it's within there interest, will always come out on top. Always. Ethnicity literally plays no role in this matter.

There are, of course, a lot of people of specific ethnicities living in poverty in LA county, however that doesn't necessarily prevent them from learning and subsequently succeeding. With tools such as the internet at our disposal (almost in every household/local library/school at this point), anyone who is willing to learn and willing to move up in the world is only being prevented by their distinct lack of interest in pursuing those types of routes.

Take me for instance. I was captivated by story telling on an Adventure game message board when I was 13, and I subsequently ended up teaching myself how to write at a college level by age 15. I was the best writer in my class of 600 by the time I got to high school, AND without the help of quality professionals, as a result of this captivated interest.

If an individual is interested in what school has to offer, that person will succeed. Someone, a teacher, anyone, is going to notice your potential, and you'll move up. If you're not interested in school, then you'll stay near the bottom of the barrel in academia. If you're not smart, you won't move up. If you don't have potential, then you'll sit where you're at and never reach the surface.

I mean, hell, you hear stories about people who are at the bottom of a ditch, but because of their immense intellectual capacities and abilities to work and progress within the bounds of society, they move up in the world exponentially and burst right out of the problem they were born into in the first place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rags-to-riches-stories-2011-11?op=1

Even if what I've postulated isn't correct with respect to everyone having the tools they need to succeed in academia, think for a minute: why should we make space for people who aren't qualified enough for those schools? Again, not trying to be a **** here, but if someone is trying to get into a school, but they don't have the education for it to make them competitive enough (thus they don't have the qualifications), then that's just how it is. Have them try again next year, or get them to attend a community college first, WHATEVER, but don't give up a slot for someone who isn't as qualified based on their ethnicity.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Bardull, so you are essentially saying that we live in a just world where hard work and dedication pay off all the time?

 

[BarDulL]

I'm saying that if you meet the qualifications for a school and are considered highly competitive for that school, then you're in. If you don't, you don't. Ethnicity has no bearing on this regard.

 

[BarDulL]

Also, I never said the world was just, righteous, and always correct. I get that discrimination is a real thing, but if you aren't as smart as the next guy, then your ethnicity shouldn't act as a saving grace, and that goes for every ethnicity. That's how it should be.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Bardull, what you're basically doing is using your personal anecdotal experience to make a general statement about the necessity of affirmative action. Worse though, by your own admission you don't go out of your way to understand discrimination, but want to dismantle a program designed to combat discrimination.

As I said earlier, I had a bunch of statistics I was going to dump into the thread that outline the continued struggles that blacks face, but I didn't want to do something as lazy and artless as plop down numbers as if they should speak for themselves. However, you seem to be genuinely unaware of the issues that minorities (and blacks specifically) face, so here they are:

-Blacks in America are incarcerated at rates far higher than whites; even though blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population, we comprise 40% of the prison population,, and are the largest group in prison.

-Blacks were more likely to have subprime mortgages and lose their homes during the Great Recession, regardless of credit scores and income.

-Blacks suffer from numerous health related conditions at rates much higher than whites, including, but not limited to: HIV/AIDS, various cancers, and obesity.

-Blacks are far more likely to live in poverty than white (27% versus 9% respectively)

-Unemployment rates are far higher for blacks than whites.

I could go on and on and on, but suffice to say, if you look at any social or economic indicator in America, blacks are behind in almost every one.

All of these issues are not simply the result of people not wanting better lives or lacking intelligence, drive, etc. They are the results of racialized practices, past and present. Affirmative action can't fix all of that, and it's not trying to, but it does acknowledge that blacks have gotten an incredibly crappy deal and need some help. Despite what some (and sometimes it seems many) people think, we didn't do all of this to ourselves, and it's crazy to expect us to fix it all by ourselves.

 

[Ramen King]

Wow I've never seen so much intelligence in a thread (not being sarcastic).

Bardull, I agree that AA should not exist. I also agree that discrimination should not exist. But so long as the latter does exist, at least in a notable amount, then the former should as well, unless a better solution is invented to counter the latter.

The one problem with your perspective is that you're seeing the core purpose for AA as to create equal representation of people of varying skin colors (races). That is not the core purpose of AA. The core purpose of AA is to create equal opportunity for people of varying skin colors (races). It matters not the proportion of skin color that attends a school. What matters is someone not being able to attend a school because of their skin color. You're right, 'race' shouldn't be acknowledged as a legitimate concept, but the fact of the matter is that it is acknowledged as so among some members of the majority "race" and was a concept created by members of the majority "race". AA is a way to dissolve that belief (though probably not the best that can be invented. I don't know if there is a better way).

As Ryker said, there should come a time where AA is no longer applied. It's just not that time at the moment. The "past" is really not that long ago. We were just lucky to be born in a generation in which we didn't have to experience "the past". But there are surely many in the world today who have. As I mentioned in a blog of mine, it was just five years ago that Rosa Parks died. Heck I have even personally met one of Malcolm X' daughters who is surely not even past her 40s. We perceive events such as the Civil Rights Movement and Racism as a thing of the past simply because of the point in time that we were born, and thus have been shielded from the lot of it. In reality, the "past" really does overlap with the present. It is ideal that, though, that the further we move away from the "past" the less and less we will need AA.

I 100% agree with you on the fundamental point that race should not be a factor, but so long as it is a factor, there needs to be counter measures towards its negative aspects.

Note: I refer to "the past" as a time of discrimination and racism.
Note: I refer to "people of varying skin colors" as a humanist way of saying "race".

------------------------------

I haven't read all of the report but before I forget it, keep in mind that there are differences in humans and if that's race, I think that's fine. Cultural (or ethnic) identity is really, really important. I can't stress this enough. We can't have a copy-paste society where we are all of us are the same (On that note, I disagree with the word 'equality' because it implies 'sameness', therefore the word 'equal opportunity' is better) as we, as people absolutely cannot live with no sense of identity and our own legal rules aren't enough to give us that feeling.

Of course I could be mis-reading your words.

See the thing about the term 'ethnicity' is that it combines 'culture' and 'race' into one term. I don't believe ethnicity in that sense is important at all. I can respect the belief that culture is important (which I also don't believe in preserving but I can respect the belief that it needs to), but ethnic identity in the sense of the race/culture combo is a concept that needs to be done away with.

It's possible that people can't live without a sense of identity as you propose, but we have our identity as human beings as well as national identities (in this case I refer to a 'nation' as country-state rather than as a term similar to 'ethnicity' which it can also be used to mean).

 

[Luco]

See the thing about the term 'ethnicity' is that it combines 'culture' and 'race' into one term. I don't believe ethnicity in that sense is important at all. I can respect the belief that culture is important (which I also don't believe in preserving but I can respect the belief that it needs to), but ethnic identity in the sense of the race/culture combo is a concept that needs to be done away with.

It's possible that people can't live without a sense of identity as you propose, but we have our identity as human beings as well as national identities (in this case I refer to a 'nation' as country-state rather than as a term similar to 'ethnicity' which it can also be used to mean).

With 7 billion of us neither national identity, the fact that we're human beings nor anything like a birth certificate can give us any sort of cultural identity that culture can. True enough... Race i'm honestly not sure about. Though race too often merges with national identity for it to be thrown out of the equation at first glance (i'm part Irish... that's both a nationality and I suppose you could say a race as well). The expression 'labels should not be used to describe ourselves' (I know you didn't say that, it's just a common thought... hard to explain. It's basically trying to do away with 'Oh I can't stop it because I am this or that') can be just as harmful as it is beneficial. I also don't see a harm in it if you're happy with it (and presumably others). It's unfortunate in this regard that the word 'race' is as wishy-washy as it is (because of it's merge-ability in to nationality).

Cultural identity... as a person who's mother has stressed to him the importance of cultural identity from the beginning (My mother is an anthropologist, sorry I should have said that before lol) and who has had many experiences himself with different cultures and the effect of a single culture throughout the country, etc... I am 100% sure that cultural identity should not be done away with.

 

[BarDulL]

Bardull, what you're basically doing is using your personal anecdotal experience to make a general statement about the necessity of affirmative action. Worse though, by your own admission you don't go out of your way to understand discrimination, but want to dismantle a program designed to combat discrimination.

As I said earlier, I had a bunch of statistics I was going to dump into the thread that outline the continued struggles that blacks face, but I didn't want to do something as lazy and artless as plop down numbers as if they should speak for themselves. However, you seem to be genuinely unaware of the issues that minorities (and blacks specifically) face, so here they are:

All of these issues are not simply the result of people not wanting better lives or lacking intelligence, drive, etc. They are the results of racialized practices, past and present. Affirmative action can't fix all of that, and it's not trying to, but it does acknowledge that blacks have gotten an incredibly crappy deal and need some help. Despite what some (and sometimes it seems many) people think, we didn't do all of this to ourselves, and it's crazy to expect us to fix it all by ourselves.

I don't like the fact that you're cherry picking my assessment of affirmative action and using my single example as a means to degrade the validity of said assessment. What I'm "basically doing" involves presenting why affirmative action is terrible and shouldn't exist, not just "using personal anecdotal evidence."

As for using personal anecdotal evidence, what I used wasn't anecdotal evidence per se since the conclusion I was drawing from my personal example is that it is possible to learn through the internet how to write at a college level, but it isn't anywhere near a stretch to say that anyone else can do that. Anyone can learn how to solve various complex math equations, learn foreign languages, or learn how to play music (among other things) simply by looking up how to do these things on the internet. Really though, I don't even need to use myself as an example because anyone with a brain can make sense of the idea that the internet is a vast resource with tons of information that can be used to get ahead of the ball game if used correctly. It's not rocket science.

Also, I never said that I "don't go out of my way to understand discrimination." What? I'm fully aware of what discrimination is and how it works. I've visibly seen people treat others differently based on their ethnic backgrounds, and it's deplorable. What I DID say was that I'm reactionary to things because I can't possibly be in the know about EVERYTHING that goes on in the world unless it comes my way. For the record, I was raised in a diverse environment with people of various ethnicities. I've been brought up on tales of MLK, slavery, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the civil war, all that jazz. I think it's all completely absurd and makes me want to vomit.

Affirmative action, as I've postulated, does not serve to combat discrimination in a way that is necessary, it only caters to "minority" ethnicities rather groundlessly. Answer me this: say we remove all specks of information from college applications that indicate what ethnicity each applicant is, what's the problem now? Not only is it fair for all applicants now, but doing this doesn't directly cater to any specific ethnicity during the admission process. On another note, you still haven't given me a reason why we SHOULD give ethnicities more representation in schools, but you can't give me one because any reason you give me is arbitrarily founded. Sure, we want the general populace to not be bat **** ******** in terms of prejudice, but affirmative action is essentially needlessly catering to people of specific ethnicities when there is a more obvious and better way to dismantle discrimination in the admissions process. It's not helping combat discrimination effectively when we can just remove ethnicity from the admissions process, and I've already established that affirmative action is backwards thinking in accordance with societal progression. Smart people come first, kinda smart people come second.

I'm not genuinely unaware of the statistics, lets not put words in my mouth, however I will say this: if you commit a crime/act that goes against the law, you get jail time. If you don't commit a crime/act that goes against the law, then you don't get jail time, simple as that. I guarantee you that at least 90% of the estimated 40% of blacks in jails committed crimes that landed them in there, 10% being the ones that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that's a big number to be giving to the supposed 10%. I don't believe that we have a system that just mindlessly throws people in jail when they didn't do a crime. If it does happen, it's very rare.

Continuing on the topic of your statistics, I'm not sure how this relates to discrimination, amigo:

"-Blacks suffer from numerous health related conditions at rates much higher than whites, including, but not limited to: HIV/AIDS, various cancers, and obesity."

Anyway, those are all interesting statistics, and while I'm not sure if they're all strictly accurate (nor do I know where these statistics came from, nor do I know with certainty if ethnicity is truly a direct correlation with these statistics or merely happenstance), I can say that these statistics aren't an excuse to mindlessly cater to a specific ethnicity. It really isn't. To say it is would be to inadvertently spur the idea that it's ok to cater to specific ethnicities when, really, it isn't. I'm all for the progression of our species, but really, I hate it when people try to racialize and categorize ethnic groups and state "ah mah gawd we need to halp them" when it's just a load of crap. I know several highly intelligent black students, none of which have fallen into these statistics. I even know a handful that came from Inglewood and other various "bad cities," however these students DID NOT fall into the mindset of "ah mah gawd we're discriminated against we can never succeed everyone's oppressing us," they friggin' went to school and did well and now they're off to college with student loans and scholarships like any other bloke of any other ethnicity. Call it anecdotal evidence if you want, but the idea that people don't have the opportunity to change their lives and to progress themselves further than their heritage simply because of their ethnicity is complete ballocks.

 

[BarDulL]

Wow I've never seen so much intelligence in a thread (not being sarcastic).

Bardull, I agree that AA should not exist. I also agree that discrimination should not exist. But so long as the latter does exist, at least in a notable amount, then the former should as well, unless a better solution is invented to counter the latter.

The one problem with your perspective is that you're seeing the core purpose for AA as to create equal representation of people of varying skin colors (races). That is not the core purpose of AA. The core purpose of AA is to create equal opportunity for people of varying skin colors (races). It matters not the proportion of skin color that attends a school. What matters is someone not being able to attend a school because of their skin color. You're right, 'race' shouldn't be acknowledged as a legitimate concept, but the fact of the matter is that it is acknowledged as so among some members of the majority "race" and was a concept created by members of the majority "race". AA is a way to dissolve that belief (though probably not the best that can be invented. I don't know if there is a better way).

As Ryker said, there should come a time where AA is no longer applied. It's just not that time at the moment. The "past" is really not that long ago. We were just lucky to be born in a generation in which we didn't have to experience "the past". But there are surely many in the world today who have. As I mentioned in a blog of mine, it was just five years ago that Rosa Parks died. Heck I have even personally met one of Malcolm X' daughters who is surely not even past her 40s. We perceive events such as the Civil Rights Movement and Racism as a thing of the past simply because of the point in time that we were born, and thus have been shielded from the lot of it. In reality, the "past" really does overlap with the present. It is ideal that, though, that the further we move away from the "past" the less and less we will need AA.

I 100% agree with you on the fundamental point that race should not be a factor, but so long as it is a factor, there needs to be counter measures towards its negative aspects.

Note: I refer to "the past" as a time of discrimination and racism.
Note: I refer to "people of varying skin colors" as a humanist way of saying "race".

------------------------------

See the thing about the term 'ethnicity' is that it combines 'culture' and 'race' into one term. I don't believe ethnicity in that sense is important at all. I can respect the belief that culture is important (which I also don't believe in preserving but I can respect the belief that it needs to), but ethnic identity in the sense of the race/culture combo is a concept that needs to be done away with.

It's possible that people can't live without a sense of identity as you propose, but we have our identity as human beings as well as national identities (in this case I refer to a 'nation' as country-state rather than as a term similar to 'ethnicity' which it can also be used to mean).

I understand the intentions of AA. My proposition was to remove ethnicity as a whole from the admissions process. Remove it from the applications if you have to, isn't that a more effective way to combat discrimination without having to cater to specific ethnicities? It allows us to avoid setting a precedent of "helping" certain ethnicities while remaining fair to the vast majority.

 

[Ramen King]

I was responding to your OP in which you were asking why it should matter if certain races attended the school. But yeah that's not the purpose of AA.

But yes I agree with your solution. In addition, the selection process should be double-blind with regards to the applicant's name (meaning the administrator should be unaware of the persons name). Let's be real. If you see the name's Laquesha, Mohamed, and Jim you know what race each is.

 

[Ramen King]

With 7 billion of us neither national identity, the fact that we're human beings nor anything like a birth certificate can give us any sort of cultural identity that culture can. True enough... Race i'm honestly not sure about. Though race too often merges with national identity for it to be thrown out of the equation at first glance (i'm part Irish... that's both a nationality and I suppose you could say a race as well). The expression 'labels should not be used to describe ourselves' (I know you didn't say that, it's just a common thought... hard to explain. It's basically trying to do away with 'Oh I can't stop it because I am this or that') can be just as harmful as it is beneficial. I also don't see a harm in it if you're happy with it (and presumably others). It's unfortunate in this regard that the word 'race' is as wishy-washy as it is (because of it's merge-ability in to nationality).

Cultural identity... as a person who's mother has stressed to him the importance of cultural identity from the beginning (My mother is an anthropologist, sorry I should have said that before lol) and who has had many experiences himself with different cultures and the effect of a single culture throughout the country, etc... I am 100% sure that cultural identity should not be done away with.

I don't think cultural identity needs to be done away with as I don't believe it causes any problems other than its association with race.

I just personally don't personally believe that culture and tradition is something that needs to be preserved. But I very well do respect the belief that it does as well as each culture in its own.


Edit: Actually on second thought, I don't respect them. **** culture. Paternalism > Respect
You think you can mutilate a females or males genitals because of your culture? **** you
You think you can sacrifice infants that you feel are defective and unworthy because of your culture? **** no
You think that shaving your beard will prevent you from getting into heaven? ****tarded

Edit 2: All cultures will eventually succumb to the might of the west with maybe a bit of eastern values sprinkled in. Then once we do away with religion, we will create a perfect Utopia.

 

[Jam Stunna]

There's alot in your post that I want to respond to, but I think this is the most important.

I'm not genuinely unaware of the statistics, lets not put words in my mouth, however I will say this: if you commit a crime/act that goes against the law, you get jail time. If you don't commit a crime/act that goes against the law, then you don't get jail time, simple as that. I guarantee you that at least 90% of the estimated 40% of blacks in jails committed crimes that landed them in there, 10% being the ones that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that's a big number to be giving to the supposed 10%. I don't believe that we have a system that just mindlessly throws people in jail when they didn't do a crime. If it does happen, it's very rare.

I sat here for about an hour trying to think of a way to respond to this. I found dozens of articles and rewrote this post at least ten times, then decided that I must not be saying the right things. So instead, I talked about it with a friend of mine, and these are his words on the subject (somewhat disjointedly, since it was an AIM conversation):

"The issue with prisons isn't that blacks are or are not committing crimes, it's that the police are disproportionately more likely to suspect, investigate, and imprison black people."

"Send [Bardull] that link to that stop-and-frisk article that's been going around:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video?_r=hpyr"

"It pretty well demonstrates the issue. We live in a prison-industrial system built upon the expectation and need for prisoners to justify itself, which creates a police culture dependent on finding crime and punishing it when it is not apparent.
And it's racialized for the same reasons most unjust systems are: minorities are immediately recognizable as such and lack the resources or social power to resist it."

"If the police profiled and stopped and frisked every young white man they saw, they'd uncover lots of weed and have cause to throw tons of people in jail….by infringing on civil liberties…..but the difference is that the average white man has the resources and capacity to **** their **** up, judicially."

"I've been on a whole "thing" about stop and frisk in new york recently. It's just such a blatant demonstration of institutional racism of the type we're talking about
I don't see how anyone can see it and think it's justified."

"'oh, but if they didn't do anything illegal, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.. that's not even the point. the police are allowed to goad you into "illegal" action, by taunting you and then assaulting you. if you talk back or fight back, they can call it whatever they want, and then they're closer to filling a quota
and it's explicitly about race. there is just no way, if i was walking around williamsburg, a cop would stop me and frisk me at random. it just wouldn't happen."

 

[Luco]

Edit: Actually on second thought, I don't respect them. **** culture. Paternalism > Respect
You think you can mutilate a females or males genitals because of your culture? **** you
You think you can sacrifice infants that you feel are defective and unworthy because of your culture? **** no
You think that shaving your beard will prevent you from getting into heaven? ****tarded

Edit 2: All cultures will eventually succumb to the might of the west with maybe a bit of eastern values sprinkled in. Then once we do away with religion, we will create a perfect Utopia.

Umm, you might be saying that to the wrong person, seeing as i'm jewish... Just sayin'

As for the edit 2, I really do hope you're trolling...

 

[global-wolf]

Bardull, in general it's much harder for people of some minority groups to reach the same level of achievement as white people, because of historical discrimination that continues into today. That's why there's affirmative action.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Here's something to think about: I'm Puerto Rican, but was born here in the United States of America in Springfield, Massachusetts. So with that, I am an American. However, on applications, my ethnicity isn't "American", it's "Hispanic". While yes, I am an American, the color of my skin, and my ancestry is taken into account on applications for pretty much anything. Look at black people; they are all labeled "African-American", while I personally believe they should just be called "American". It could be argued "African-American" is a more dignified way to identify a person by skin color as opposed to just saying "black", but I know of, as well as just plain know people who are "dark" dark in skin color, they can pass for a black person, but speak perfect Spanish, simply because they're not black, and are labeled "Dominican" which falls under the same category as "Hispanic".

My point is that America is a country that looks at the skin color of their own citizens, rather than the birthplace, so without Affirmative Action, racism would still be prevalent in colleges, companies, etc.. I do wish we didn't need to have AA, but at the rate this world is going, it's the only thing we have to make sure people of all ethnicities are as equal as can be. AA isn't perfect, I'm sure, but then one must ask what U.S. society would be like without it today.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Bardull, you believe that anyone can teach themselves to write at a college level, to do complex math problems, and to generally be successful. In your opinion, why don't people do these things?

 

[Teran]

I'm saying that if you meet the qualifications for a school and are considered highly competitive for that school, then you're in. If you don't, you don't. Ethnicity has no bearing on this regard.

I dunno man I'm not gonna lie, if I were a university interviewer and the candidate was some jivin' ghetto soldier I'd be pretty tempted to turn him down.

It's not about race, it's about the cultures that a lot of minorities come from that clash with the culture of those in power.

Like you ever notice how a Carlton Banks like character would have something like this said about him by snobby white people? "He may be black but he's pretty cool". It's not about the colour of skin these days, not for anyone outside of like the KKK or something, it's about culture/socio-economic background/class. Sadly minorities generally tend to fall in the lower rungs of the class system because of years of marginalisation, but that doesn't change the fact that such cultures produce people that the upper crust generally find intolerable.

It's not a just world, but there we are.

Also women are far more socially conscious and thus female members of minority groups are usually much better at facilitating their progress. Seeing a lot more black women in higher education these days which is great, the way to shut the white man up is to be more knowledgeable and needed in society than they are. Trust me white people are the biggest of all sycophants if you ever manage to drag yourself above them in status.

Of course it's hard what with discrimination and all, but I think part of it is on people allowing slang and all sorts of stuff actually dominate their formal speech. I have as foul and jibberish ridden vocabulary as you can get, but in a formal situation like an interview or talking to someone I don't know, my English is creeping almost towards Queen's English level, and I only don't go that far because that would actually just be laying it on, plus the fact that I'm not nobility. xD

I don't even know where I'm going with this, but honestly in some ways I feel affirmative action is the government's way of allowing minorities access to education and wealth, the two key elements to dragging yourself out of the plebeian abyss, the idea probably that once they've gained a foothold a couple generations later, affirmative action won't be necessary because minorities WON'T be largely lower class.

So **** man, the minorities had better actually use the golden opportunity.

 

[Evil Eye]

My stance is identical to Medi's. I used to not be for it. Even had some negative anecdotal experiences to influence it. Then I got a little older and wiser, really started thinking about things before forming opinions about them, and came to the conclusion that... yeah. There really just isn't a better solution. Abolishing the whole idea and expecting things to work themselves out because obviously they're just not TRYING enough is silly and will cause a backslide at worst and a plateau at best. And a plateau in this scenario is not good... at all.

I still can't agree with it on a few ideological levels, but the fact remains that it is the best solution thus provided for a problem that demands it be addressed.

With that said, I have never and will never support it, or any similar policies, in the arena of staffing emergency municipal services. For specific illustrations, I'm talking about the outcry among aspiring female firefighters in (I believe) San Francisco, who demanded that the rigorous physical test have reduced standards for women. I would hope my point is self-explanatory here, heh. Similarly, some official police recruiting material in Canadian cities actually cites being female or Aboriginal under the preferred/non-mandatory qualifications list. This is a more gray example, but still one that teeters over a slippery slope.

To boil it down, I suppose what I'm saying is that I support small concessions to reduce inherent inequality in the social fabric. It's easy to say "just treat everyone equal". The fact is it's not going to happen without an incentive to guide us through the next few generations toward an actual, quantifiable change. Open-minded internet liberalism is sadly not the majority hivemind, I don't think.

But, I cannot support the same thinking when you're getting to jobs related to municipal order and public safety. At that point you are playing with lives, not college applications or jobs. I guess when you understand and support AA and similar efforts for women it comes down to what chips you're willing to play with on the table. Emergency services are the sticking point for me.

 

[DtJ Glyphmoney]

****in white people

 

[GreenKirby]

And until convicted white felons are LESS likely to be hired than a person of color who doesn't have a criminal record, I'd say let there be affirmative action.

Also it's a fact that affirmative action helps white women the most. So it's not a racist policy despite what the GOP tries to tell you.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I might be overreacting, but it makes me pretty mad that Bardull's response to the incarceration rate of blacks in America is to imply that it is because blacks commit more crimes. I may be misreading him there, but I'm not sure how else to interpret:

"I guarantee you that at least 90% of the estimated 40% of blacks in jails committed crimes that landed them in there, 10% being the ones that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that's a big number to be giving to the supposed 10%. I don't believe that we have a system that just mindlessly throws people in jail when they didn't do a crime. If it does happen, it's very rare."

It's such a rosy and unrealistic view of society. It takes being in a position of white privilege to say and believe such things. There's a quote I recall that is pretty apt: "Nobody has ever had to explain institutional racism to a black person"

 

[BarDulL]

Bardull, you believe that anyone can teach themselves to write at a college level, to do complex math problems, and to generally be successful. In your opinion, why don't people do these things?

Not anyone can "teach themselves" per se, but the tools are there if they have the intellectual capacities to figure it out for themselves and the interest to pursue those routes. You can't magically accomplish something great if it isn't within your interest to do so. I've learned firsthand that, when I try to do something that isn't within my interest to do, I'll lose interest and turn my attention to something more interesting. It's all about interest and having the capacity to accomplish these things.

@Luigitoleit - You're definitely misreading me. Jam Stunna presented a statistic, to which I replied "if that statistic is true, can you prove that discrimination was definitely the cause and not the crimes those people committed?" He proceeded to infer that yes, discrimination has an impact on the crimes committed (officers goading individuals of the black ethnicity into committing crimes), and I agree that there is such a thing as police discrimination (see: Rodney King.) I never argued that it wasn't. More importantly, Jam Stunna is bringing up statistics that don't have anything directly to do with affirmative action (although he probably intends on saying that affirmative action is a seed that will help root discrimination, thus causing all areas of discrimination to decline.)

I more or less agree with the consensus that stuff still needs to be done to deal with discrimination. If affirmative action serves to desensitize my generation (and after my generation) to varying ethnicities in substantial quantities, then perhaps it really is for the best. I don't want to hear anyone saying however that discrimination in the application process is the cause for affirmative action because, really, there is a solution to solving that problem. It was never about discrimination in the applications process because, if it was, it would have been easy enough to remove any trace of one's ethnicity in a newly formed application process. I myself could edit an application in 10 seconds and subsequently remove any trace of "ethnicity" from said application.

The world Ramen King speaks of is a world that won't be seen for at least a thousand years, but it'll happen. Eventually. It's a shame I won't be there to see it physically, but I can see it now.

@Teran - As far as I know, you wouldn't be aware that you're potentially letting in a "jivin' ghetto soldier," you would only see their resume, test scores, and things of that nature. Nothing more, nothing less. To be truthful, I would allow that kind of person into my school on the grounds that they are competitive enough and intellectually capable enough to handle the course load.

As for what the government is doing with respect to affirmative action, they aren't doing it to give other ethnicities a chance because if that was truly the case, they would just remove "ethnicity" from the application process, not assert affirmative action (because by doing this, students will get in without a chance of discrimination occurring.) I suspect it has more to do with desensitizing my generation to people of varying ethnicities because it is easier to change the minds of the youth than to change the minds of generations that still remain deeply burrowed in prejudice and things of that nature.

 

[Evil Eye]

@anonymous application process:

That's all well and good for universities, but I never got a job in my life without an in-person job interview, and I've had many.

EDIT: You keep talking about AA trying to desensitize the current generation to people of varying creed. I just don't understand how you could draw that conclusion. What logical basis connects those dots? The fact of the matter (yes, fact) is that black people face a cavernous divide at the socioeconomic level between themselves and the white middle class, a divide which is:

1. The fault of white people that dragged their families across the ocean a couple hundred years ago, enslaved them, and then after releasing them proceeded to hold out on any kind of civil rights and equality for as long as humanly possible, making a fight of every minute gain

2. Something that will not change, at all, ever, without specific targeting. And that's exactly what AA is.

It has next to nothing to do with "desensitizing" people. It's about eroding the classist divide too many of them will face (and even many middle class ones will still face through good old fashioned racism). Any increase in the tolerance of John Q. White Privilege is at most a peripheral, incidental concern.

 

[BarDulL]

@anonymous application process:

That's all well and good for universities, but I never got a job in my life without an in-person job interview, and I've had many.

EDIT: You keep talking about AA trying to desensitize the current generation to people of varying creed. I just don't understand how you could draw that conclusion. What logical basis connects those dots? The fact of the matter (yes, fact) is that black people face a cavernous divide at the socioeconomic level between themselves and the white middle class, a divide which is:

1. The fault of white people that dragged their families across the ocean a couple hundred years ago, enslaved them, and then after releasing them proceeded to hold out on any kind of civil rights and equality for as long as humanly possible, making a fight of every minute gain

2. Something that will not change, at all, ever, without specific targeting. And that's exactly what AA is.

It has next to nothing to do with "desensitizing" people. It's about eroding the classist divide too many of them will face (and even many middle class ones will still face through good old fashioned racism). Any increase in the tolerance of John Q. White Privilege is at most a peripheral, incidental concern.

I'm speaking strictly in a manner of education since affirmative action isn't really "combating discrimination" in the school environment when you really think about it. If the application process isn't the problem (which I've proven it isn't), then there really isn't a problem at all (reminder: affirmative action went into effect strictly because of a university intentionally enforcing the AA policy.) Desensitizing our generation seems to make the most sense and is a compelling reason to allow for affirmative action to affect the education spectrum.

Actually, I've been thinking about the idea of our government "desensitizing our generation", and I've noticed that cartoons of my generation such as the magic school bus and captain planet have seemingly intentionally large casts of characters made up of several ethnicities and cultures. I wonder if both of those cartoons were just ploys to put into our brains that we need to help the planet and be accepting of all ethnicities. LOL. 'Course, I'm delving into territory that I could never prove with any sense of certainty, but it does make you wonder.

I mean, I get the idea people are postulating that "black students" have less opportunities to become as "qualified as white students," but I feel like if you actually give a ****, you'll get into a university. Truthfully. A black student from my school named "Paul Gardner III" became "Youth Governor" as a part of the Youth and Government program in California. It more or less looks really tasty on a college application to have that title, and he ended up going to Harvard, all the while growing up in a middle class family living in the suburbs. He actually gave a **** about his education as well as what school he wanted to go to, and he got there. That's why it's so hard for me to just accept this idea that "blacks are screwed" when that's not really true at all.

Employment is another issue entirely...I'm not going to think about it right now and simply go to sleep instead. Probably later.

 

[BarDulL]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ainful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Interesting article. Jam Stunna, you should give this a read.

Actually, everyone advocating AA should give this a read. Giving slots to students that aren't smart enough/qualified enough to take up those slots increases the drop out rate. Why not just place them into schools that they legitimately qualify for? @_@

 

[Teran]

@Teran - As far as I know, you wouldn't be aware that you're potentially letting in a "jivin' ghetto soldier," you would only see their resume, test scores, and things of that nature. Nothing more, nothing less. To be truthful, I would allow that kind of person into my school on the grounds that they are competitive enough and intellectually capable enough to handle the course load.

I was talking about an interview.

Also I wouldn't because I'm not gonna let some dude who will be all "U EYEBALLIN' ME?" when looked at by people and **** like "DAT MO****A NEEDS TO GET GOT" and all that.

Sorry but that's the way it rolls on my ship man, someone like that is sure to be homophobic too, you can draw a lot of conclusions from certain behaviours, and most of the time you will be right!