Affirmative action..Why it's wrong?
-
What's wrong in University of Michigan admission plan?? Bush on attack over affirmative action[^] In India, we have "reservation policy" for Women and Lower caste people, so that they can get better education and jobs(of course, that policy being misused by others that's a different story) Personally I disagree that policy, but before India's independence they were branded as "untouchables", so Gandhi made that "reservation policy" which is going on for more than 50 years. Kant Sonork-100.28114 Don't :beer: and Drive.
Last night on the radio, a reporter compared Trent Lott's backing of segregation to Bush's attack on Affirmative Action. I was angry because they aren't the same thing. Segregation is a system to keep people down based on their race. Not backing Affirmative Action means that we aren't going to give extra benefits at other's expense based on your race. To say otherwise is similar to saying "stealing $20 from a poor person (segregation) is the same thing as not giving $20 to a poor person (affirmative action)". (And the poor-person analogy has certain flaws - specifically "not all black people are poor" and "some white people are poor", a fact which AA ignores.) I have to agree with Bush's position on Affirmative Action. I think there is a great deal of double-thinking on the issue. Even the Supreme Court can't seem to think of a legitimate way to back Affirmative Action - because all AA ends up hurting some people based on their race (i.e. white). Even worse: while women benefit from AA, they outnumber men in college. So why are we skewing the numbers even further? As far as the political parties are concerned, I read once that, "Republicans see people as individuals - not as part of groups, Democrats see people as part of groups - not as individuals." I thought it held a bit of truth. It's true that people are individuals who are not well defined simply by their group. On the other hand, people are part of groups and are discriminated against on that basis (racism and sexism are proof that people are seen as part of groups). In actuality, people are both individuals and part of groups. I can understand why there is a need to give minorities extra help. Many have (as part of their past, or their ancestor's past) been victims of discrimination. I don't think they should be given "bonus points" for being a minority, however. (I remember a few years ago, Berkeley was adding 250 points to the SAT scores of black students so that they could compete for admissions with other students.) Those "bonus points" are wrong, IMO. On the other hand, I think I could support initiatives to raise academic work for minority students. In the end, all students have to compete on equal footing and on the basis of test scores. If universities are waiting until graduate school (as in the case of the University of Michigan) to give minorities "extra help", then the whole process is rotten. The process has to be initiated much earlier in life and it has to take the form of actually improving test scores - not gi
-
who said 360 degress? so u havnt discriminated against anyone so the world is fine then? forcing the dominant species to give opportunities to the less privieledged IS a way of making people see that color makes no difference to ability sorry but this is exactly the reaction (bleating) i was talking about
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about melauren wrote: who said 360 degress? You go from discriminating against one race to discriminating against another. That seems like a 360 degree turn to me. lauren wrote: so u havnt discriminated against anyone so the world is fine then? No, I never said that. I purely stated that I never discriminated, so I should not be punished for it. lauren wrote: forcing the dominant species..... Just remember, you brought species into this discussion... Looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint, the dominant species should move ahead, that's what makes them dominant. Look around in nature and throughout history… To me AA is just like Unions and several other 'Social Programs' (and yes, I view Unions as a Social Program). They breed an 'entitlement behavior' that sickens me. Anyone that thinks that they are entitled to be given something (money to not work because they made poor life decisions, a break every hour so they don't get tired at work, a job just because their race has a history of oppression) deserves to get nothing more than a good education. What stops a minority from crying discrimination? Nothing? What stops a union worker from crying breech of contract? Nothing? It's all the same... I can see this thread starting to get ugly here so I will stop… Clearly we don’t see eye-to-eye on the subject (probably never will). "A person convinced against their will is of the same mind still"
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
David Chamberlain wrote: Another question is: if you want to achieve diversity, how do you measure it? If you measure diversity by race, then there is no way to achieve diversity without using race as a factor. This where I think we went wrong. Diversity is IMHO a political construct. What realy needs to be achived is equality. A state of affairs where peoples race and gender are never taken into account in hiring practices, credit ratings, collage admission etc... Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: What realy needs to be achived is equality. So how are you going to measure that? Is measuring "equality" any different than measuring "diversity"? If they both relate to race, then they must both use race as a factor. Unfortunately, in history, the result of ignoring race and gender as selection criteria typically leaves those minorities out of the selection, due to lack of opportunity. It's a cause and effect problem in that the causes that make people unable for the selection are the things that make them unable to perform. The correction has been not to help them to perform, but to bias the selection. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
-
Here's another problem: the group of people who promote Affirmative Action as NOT being a quota. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
I have actually heard of it referred to as 'Non Discriminatory Ratio Adjusting' of you can believe that...
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
im not saying "punish" as such but when i hear bleating from the transgressor when they get a taste of their own medicine i think "shut the f**k up and now taste how it sux to be doing what u have been doing ... will u stop it now?" seems thats how we have built our society so why change it just cos the top cats (ie, white hetrosexual christian men) start to get a bit less than top treatment?
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about melauren wrote: im not saying "punish" as such but when i hear bleating from the transgressor when they get a taste of their own medicine i think "shut the f**k up and now taste how it sux to be doing what u have been doing ... will u stop it now?" And there in lies the flaw. Who's a transgressor? I surely have never been, and yet affirmitive action can disqualify me. You are espousing racism and discrimination, wrapped up in fancy paper and a pretty bow. As others have said, address the problem. Instead of affirmative action, let's enforce harsh penalties for those caught discriminating on the basis of race, sex or religious beliefs. William E. Kempf
-
Hey, I just realized that this thread ties into the one below about MS having to include Java now :) Talk about AA... Judge to MS: 'No you screwed Sun for far to long, now you have to included this substandard piece of crap in your OS, take all the support calls when it does not work right, blah, blah, blah...' Who looses? The consumer!
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
I'm not sure that the analogy holds. First, the consumer doesn't really "loose" by having Java included in the OS. If they don't want Java, they don't have to use it. The only case where I can think of "harm to the consumer" is if Microsoft has to ship another CD because including Java required the extra space. In that case, it makes the OS install process more work. Second, the Judge is making Microsoft pay for something it actually did. Affirmative Action is making individuals (white males) pay for something that was done (i.e. segregation and slavery) by other people of the same race and sex (in most cases). Some argue that white males should have to "pay" because of what their ancestors did. (Which would equally implicate white women.) In my case, while I'm an American, my ancesters didn't even come to the US until after slavery ended. Hence, you can't even point to my ancestors as a reason that I have to pay for slavery. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Sheesh... I hope you don't apply logic like this when you program. No one has to admit to being racist (or a thief, or muderer, or...) to be caught and punished. William E. Kempf
-
Shog9 wrote: shog ponders sending US suicide bombers into the middle east... must be some use for all these depressed teenagers...* errrrr ... 250,000 american troops sent to the middle east? arent we doing that already? not all iraqi people had anything to do with sept 11 (if any) but its ok to go bomb them right? *laughs* double standards are very funny
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about me -
Chris Austin wrote: What realy needs to be achived is equality. So how are you going to measure that? Is measuring "equality" any different than measuring "diversity"? If they both relate to race, then they must both use race as a factor. Unfortunately, in history, the result of ignoring race and gender as selection criteria typically leaves those minorities out of the selection, due to lack of opportunity. It's a cause and effect problem in that the causes that make people unable for the selection are the things that make them unable to perform. The correction has been not to help them to perform, but to bias the selection. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
David Chamberlain wrote: So how are you going to measure that? Why does this need to be measured? David Chamberlain wrote: due to lack of opportunity I will have to disagree that there is a lack of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to go to school here(Anyone can get a student loan and go to a state university). It is simply up to them and their parents to take advantage of the opportunity. Once given the inital opportunity it is now their responsibility to further themselves. If someone can't get it done, it is not a question of race or gender, it is a question of personal ethics and values. David Chamberlain wrote: The correction has been not to help them to perform, but to bias the selection. By applying a bias to selection is it not discrimination or racism? Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
David Chamberlain wrote: So how are you going to measure that? Why does this need to be measured? David Chamberlain wrote: due to lack of opportunity I will have to disagree that there is a lack of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to go to school here(Anyone can get a student loan and go to a state university). It is simply up to them and their parents to take advantage of the opportunity. Once given the inital opportunity it is now their responsibility to further themselves. If someone can't get it done, it is not a question of race or gender, it is a question of personal ethics and values. David Chamberlain wrote: The correction has been not to help them to perform, but to bias the selection. By applying a bias to selection is it not discrimination or racism? Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: Why does this need to be measured? How does anyone know that an institution has achieved the desired level of diversity/equality if there is no quantifiable method of assessing that level? If the University of Michigan publicizes their racial makeup, then would not people be able to assess whether they thought racial diversity had been achieved? Chris Austin wrote: Everyone has the opportunity to go to school here*(Anyone can get a student loan and go to a state university). *Not sure where "here" is. Unfortunately, that isn't true, and this is how Affirmative Action got started. It was because not everyone could qualify for entrance, or was able to pay their way, that the opportunity was denied. It also was that a set of people were rejected simply because of their race. Chris Austin wrote: ... it is a question of personal ethics and values. Certainly we would like people to be measured by their performance, and certainly not all performance is equal. Some will do better than others, and natural selection says those that don't cut it get cut. Again, unfortunately, when under-achievers place the blame on the effects of discrimination rather than on their own performance, the problems are worsened. This is caused by the lack of personal ethics and values. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
-
Just out of curiousity, how do you plan to determine that adjustment factor? I don't think it is as simple as -n + n == 0, and even if it is, how do you determine 'n'? I don't quite see how anyone is planning to make this 'equal', so to speak. And what if you mess up and end up with: -2n + n. Since that doesn't equal 0, are we going to then strip out affirmative action and try slavery again to see if we can get back to the 0 point? And who will be the ultimate judge of the amount of injustice done based upon discrimination? A government, a single person, the UN? Matthew chapter 7, verse 1 states: "Judge not, that you may not be judged." Sincerely, Alexander Wiseman Est melior esse quam videri It is better to be than to seem
-
Chris Austin wrote: Why does this need to be measured? How does anyone know that an institution has achieved the desired level of diversity/equality if there is no quantifiable method of assessing that level? If the University of Michigan publicizes their racial makeup, then would not people be able to assess whether they thought racial diversity had been achieved? Chris Austin wrote: Everyone has the opportunity to go to school here*(Anyone can get a student loan and go to a state university). *Not sure where "here" is. Unfortunately, that isn't true, and this is how Affirmative Action got started. It was because not everyone could qualify for entrance, or was able to pay their way, that the opportunity was denied. It also was that a set of people were rejected simply because of their race. Chris Austin wrote: ... it is a question of personal ethics and values. Certainly we would like people to be measured by their performance, and certainly not all performance is equal. Some will do better than others, and natural selection says those that don't cut it get cut. Again, unfortunately, when under-achievers place the blame on the effects of discrimination rather than on their own performance, the problems are worsened. This is caused by the lack of personal ethics and values. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
David Chamberlain wrote: How does anyone know that an institution has achieved the desired level of diversity/equality if there is no quantifiable method of assessing that level? Whats wrong with just setting a requirment and not allowing those who fail to meet the requirements in? Wouldn't this remove all questions of race? If you have a bumper crop of qualified applicants for a given position / session you should be able to temporaly raise the line. If all applicants are judged equaly what needs to be measured? If a person feels slighted because of race arent they entitled to file a grivence? David Chamberlain wrote: *Not sure where "here" is. Here is the US. I grew up in a *very* poor area of West Phoenix were I'd wager the average household income was well below the poverty line and most of the residents were minorty. David Chamberlain wrote: Unfortunately, that isn't true, and this is how Affirmative Action got started I agree that it wasn't always fair. But now if you make the grades in Highschool you can get into a state collage. It is not as if the requirements are hidden or anyone prevents you from studing for or taking the entrance exams. Student loans are given to almost anyone who fills out the application. And, Grants are available to many who come from very poor background. Not to mention there a lots of scholarships available to people willing to work for them. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
lauren wrote: if the people who have been discriminating have to tase their own medicine they may be less willing to dole it out in the future Hmm... what an interesting thought... I wonder where else this "Do unto others what you'd really like them not to do to you" tactic would work out... *shog ponders sending US suicide bombers into the middle east... must be some use for all these depressed teenagers...*
---
Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under
:laugh: J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
-
lauren wrote: no-white non-male non-hetrosexual You're not claiming ALL of these, are you ? :P lauren wrote: do i hear bitching and moaning? Hell, yes. Like trade unionism, sexism has gone the other way. Women are SO better off in our society than men. Just try and deny it. Employers, especially government ones, have quotas they need to meet to *prove* they are equal opportunity. You can get hired just because you're a girl, but not vice versa. Bajillions of dollars are thrown at breast cancer research every year, the prostate just goes it's merry way. There are government offices of womens health, womens rights. There is no office of men, if I suggested there be such a thing, the streets would be lined with angry women. Yes, women were treated badly in the past, by some societies as little more than property. But now the power is in the womens hands, and they also do not use it in equality. Everyone is out for themself, and our society is bigoted against one person only. Me. A white, heterosexual male. Put those three things together, and the assumption is that you've got no problems, you're on your own and your taxes will be taken and given to the 'minorities', who live better than me, have more resources than me, and in every way are treated with favouritism by our society. The big problem, which is exploited by these groups, is that if it's women who are asking, the answer must be yes, because we fear being called sexist. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Ray Cassick wrote: Do you think that a person that knows they make it into a job simply because they filled a quota honestly feels any better? yup if it means s/he can feed their family and do a job they are capable of doing
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about melauren wrote: yup if it means s/he can feed their family and do a job they are capable of doing Gee - the women I know have more self respect. When I went for this job, I did not let the friends who worked here put in a good word for me, because I prefer to go through life on my merits, not favours from friends. I'd feel worse if I got here because of what I had between my legs. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
David Chamberlain wrote: How does anyone know that an institution has achieved the desired level of diversity/equality if there is no quantifiable method of assessing that level? Whats wrong with just setting a requirment and not allowing those who fail to meet the requirements in? Wouldn't this remove all questions of race? If you have a bumper crop of qualified applicants for a given position / session you should be able to temporaly raise the line. If all applicants are judged equaly what needs to be measured? If a person feels slighted because of race arent they entitled to file a grivence? David Chamberlain wrote: *Not sure where "here" is. Here is the US. I grew up in a *very* poor area of West Phoenix were I'd wager the average household income was well below the poverty line and most of the residents were minorty. David Chamberlain wrote: Unfortunately, that isn't true, and this is how Affirmative Action got started I agree that it wasn't always fair. But now if you make the grades in Highschool you can get into a state collage. It is not as if the requirements are hidden or anyone prevents you from studing for or taking the entrance exams. Student loans are given to almost anyone who fills out the application. And, Grants are available to many who come from very poor background. Not to mention there a lots of scholarships available to people willing to work for them. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: Whats wrong with just setting a requirment and not allowing those who fail to meet the requirements in? Left-wing liberal socialist response: "Because that's not fair." Certainly to have everything evaluated on performance is an ideal. No color, no country-of-origin, no height, no weight, no religion, no gender, etc, etc. If this were so, then those that could not qualify would have to complain for some reason other than their own lack of ability. "If I can't have it, then neither should you" becomes the rallying cry of the under-achievers. "If ability can't let me in, then the system must be flawed and it must be because you are discriminating against me!!!" Unsaid and unthought: "It isn't because I am unqualified." Chris Austin wrote: ... arent they entitled to file a grivence? Yes, and now it's wrapped in what is called "discrimination." Chris Austin wrote: lots of scholarships available to people willing to work for them. That is not a way to get something for nothing. Remember, in the world of under-achievment, getting something for nothing with little effort being expended is the goal. Having to work for it? You've got to be kidding. What you are saying is true, there are resources available for those willing to find them. There are opportunities available for those willing to seek them, and there are rewards for those who work hard, pursue their goals, and achieve results. The problem is that there is a growing segment of the U.S. population that either hasn't been educated to know this, or isn't willing to live it. Almost everything we have been talking about is because of that segment, not the segment that does achieve. Dave "You can say that again." -- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
-
Sheesh... I hope you don't apply logic like this when you program. No one has to admit to being racist (or a thief, or muderer, or...) to be caught and punished. William E. Kempf
LOL - the best thing about arguing with people on a programming board is the 'I hope you don't program like this' card. Not taking sides here, I just think it's funny. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
lauren wrote: dont want to start a flame war or nothing Uh. Don't look up the page... :) I'm of the opinion that AA is discriminatory against one set of people, and the status quo is discriminatory against another set. That gives me the feeling that both options are simply applying small bandages on a gaping spurting wound. If we all lived in Jamie-land, rather than trying to bandage the wound, I'd prefer we all try to find the cause and deal with that. I know it sounds all "Heidi of the Swiss Alps" but on first glance, I'd say that if we could eliminate the hatred and distrust of all those "who are not me" we could probably stop a lot of the bleeding. Just a thought. J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
-
I was not stating any issue with your comment. Just the reality of what the current US laws do impose. Take Care. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
So are you saying that doing wrong to one group of people for the bennifit of another group is OK? You don't think this will have dire ramifications in the long run? To me it is just racism pure and simple. The ends can never justify the means. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Well, I'm not racist, I have friends who are black, or jamacan. but their friends say "the white man is bringing me down" let's do something. then they go against me. And to be honest, everyone comes to me when they need help with something. i'm too nice sometimes and i always help out. and seriously i've never done anything against anyone. my great-great grandparents helped get slaves out of the south. and my grandfather died saving the life of a black kid during a race riot. so my point is: why should my family be treated like racists or miss opportunities because someone else believes we shouldn't get them and they should go to some black guy at a college instead. we have done absolutely noothing wrong. so that's racial profiling against me. termed affimative action