 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:32
|
|
Well, I have no use for Mosley Braun, and I'm not going to defend her here.
But AA doesn't shut people out, at least any more than anything else does. AA is not the same as quotas; it's a decision that some demographic factors may be taken in to account in university admissions. And every decision to admit someone shuts someone else out. Let me use myself and my friends as an example. As an undergrad, I attended an Ivy League school; I was from suburban Chicago, and my two closest friends at school were from suburban Detroit and Iowa. All three of us knew that we were "Geos" -- students admitted to add to the geographic diversity of the place, to keep it from being completely populated by kids from the Eastern seaboard. Did we "shut out" three New Yorkers? On the one hand, probably-- if by that you mean that there were 3 New Yorkers somewhere who had higher GPA's or better SAT scores than us, but didn't get in. But on the other hand, probably not -- if you consider instead that, above a certain level of achievement, geographic diversity was more important to the school than GPA or SAT numbers. It's the university's call.
For me, the key phrase in what I just said is "above a certain level of achievement." When AA results in unqualified students being admitted, I can't support that (especially since I've had to teach those kids). But if a university decides that, in general, it wants to take kids with SATs of at least 1200 and GPAs of at least 3.3, and then decides that they'd rather have a black kid with a 1250/3.4 over a white kid with a 1400/4.0, because diversity matters, too, well that's just fine.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:32
|
|
i don't like affirmative action. by definition, it's supposed to help minorities.
asians are right now one of the smallest minorities, but we never get aa. we get everything else, including the glass ceiling, but... no aa. we're too "successful".
if we keep affirmative action the way it is, then call it what it is. get rid of this purported "it's for the minorities" bullshit if you're not going to give it to all the minorities. it's a benefits program for blacks, hispanics, and women--in short, minorities with powerful lobbies.
that said, even if they did give asians affirmative action, i'd despise it because it was race-based. if you're going to try to do something to create a colorblind society, you don't do it by focusing on color.
affirmative action based on economic strata would work far better. that way, a genius white kid who lives in a trailer park in podunk, alabama, would be allowed into a school which he'd never be able to afford, rather than some rich black kid who's merely average who lives in the posh suburbs of new york.
race-based affirmative action sucks.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Space05us
|
|
quote: i don't like affirmative action. by definition, it's supposed to help minorities.
asians are right now one of the smallest minorities, but we never get aa. we get everything else, including the glass ceiling, but... no aa. we're too "successful". |
everyone thinks white people and asians are the same thing, we're all super smart and always succesful regardless of our position in life.
You can be a dumb redneck who struggled through high school but you tried your damndest and got straight A's so you could go to Harvard or Yale but you didnt get in because the black kid is black.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:32
|
|
not even that. you could be a dumb redneck who can't afford any other school than community college, even if your mind is ivy-caliber.
furthermore, there are asian ghettos. most of the asians you see being successful aren't the ones that live in those ghettos--those are predominantly populated by recent immigrants who need all the help they can get. at least most of them are willing to learn english to get a job~ and work their asses off. what do they get in return? nothing, because asians succeed in everything so well that they don't need any help, unlike the poor african-americans or hispanics, who are constantly kept down by the man, or need help because of past injustices...
boy do i sound pissed off. and in a way, i am. if affirmative action is to be race-based, there is no reason to exclude some races because they "don't need it". that's assuming we need such a condescending program in the first place--for society to be colorblind, we have to make color and race not matter. race-based affirmative action focuses primarily on color, and it makes the assumption that some groups are just so incapable of doing anything on their own that they need a helping hand from those in power so those in power can go home, pat themselves on the backs, and feel good about themselves while those they "helped" have few of their real circumstances changed.
how insulting is that? minorities are not dogs who need to be thrown a bone. we're people too.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Space05us
|
|
quote: how insulting is that? minorities are not dogs who need to be thrown a bone. we're people too. |
at least you can have the same pride as us white folk knowing that what you do in life is out of your own doing and not becuase some liberal took pity on your poor soul. Ive talked with succesful black people who say they resent the fact that they get hand outs because of thier race, and Ive talked to unsuccesful black people who intentionaly try to use the system to get all they can from it because they can.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by rah
RAH
I believe no person should unfairly benefit from their sex and race. Ability should always be used to judge. ESPECIALLY for white males. |
Why ESPECIALLY for white males? Either you think all people should be judged on their ability or you don't.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
I saw this program...I think it was 60 Minutes or something like that...and they sent these people on job interviews hooked up with a hidden camera. For each job interview they would send one good-looking candidate and one average/ugly candidate. Both would have the same qualifications, actually in some cases the ugly one would have better qualifications. In all cases the better-looking candidate got the job.
So...why not have AA for ugly people? They are probably more discriminated against than any particular race.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:32
|
|
quote: So I don't want to hear white males claiming to be victims. |
The fact does remain, though, that AA can victimize some SPECIFIC white males, although you are right in that white males, AS A GROUP, tend to have certain advantages.
From my perspective, though, penalizing certain individuals just because they are a member of a certain group is wrong, even if everyone else in the group has succeeded because of that membership.
That's poorly worded, but the point is this: White males as individuals can be victimized by affirmitive action. "White males", as a group, are probably not really victimized by it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:32
|
|
And my only point is that I agree white males, as a group, do have some advantages, however, individual white males can still be treated unfairly by AA. Surely that much is clear.
For example, you and I are both white males, but you probably have some advantages I do not - namely, better connections. As a potential result, I can be more easily victimized by AA than you can.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:32
|
|
Which still doesn't justify the victimization.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:32
|
|
Affirmitive Action. Giving, say, black people jobs because they are black.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy
Whats AA? |
Despite what Floyd says, AA is a policy which says you cannot exclude a qualified applicant just because he or she is a member of a racial minority or a woman or a member of a particular religious group. Up until recently, and even still today, this was the case in universities and businesses in the U.S. It also gives people who feel they've been discriminated against legal remmedies to persue.
In order to show that they are complying with AA (and thus protect themelves from a lawsuit), some universities and companies have gone a little further in the other direction than they should have. Setting quotas, for example.
By far and away the biggest benficeries of AA are whites, because of the increased opportunities that have been opened for white women. As a result, white family incomes have increased in real dollars over the past 30 years, even if individual incomes have dropped.
Diversity is not the same as AA, though having a diverse student body or workforce cuold be considered a defense against charges of discrimination. Universities persue diversity because for the same reason that they require people to take an art class, because they want people to become well-rounded individuals, and so they give women and minorities a boost into schools, which, until recently, were still largely dominated by white men. These days, women are more likely to go to school.
But in the upper eschalons of society, it is still overwhelmingly, white, Anglo-Saxon, male, and Protestant. Whether you're looking at CEOs, corporate boards, university faculty and administration, or the governemnt, the view is always the same: white men. And it's not because we earned it.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 19-11-2003 at 01:57
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:32
|
|
No, Che's definition of AA is actually just basic non-discrimination laws (which, by the way, I oppose when the government applies them to private businesses). That may be what AA was INTENDED to do, but the actual effect of it is closer to what I described - that is, black (or minority, whatever) applicants getting the job over equally or better qualified white applicants, simply on the basis of their race.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|