Koyaanisqatsi

I just saw Tom Brokaw's piece on the University of Michigan case (and affirmative action in general) and reallized that there was one argument that wasn't presented (and probably couldn't have been presented), so, speaking as one of the whitest, most anglo Americans you'd ever meet (I'm damn near translucent), I thought I would make it here and see what others think.

In the piece they showed President Johnson giving a graduation address, wherein he stated that it wasn't just a matter of removing one's shackles and putting someone in the race and saying, "You're in the race now," but that one needed to remove the shackles, feed and clothe the "athletes," train them for the race in smaller races (I'm paraphrasing, of course) and then they would be on an equal playing field for the race.

In other words, a sense of balancing and reparation for the transgressions (finally admitted) of the past.

So, here's my proposal. Let's say 1776 is the demarkation point, since that's when our country was officially founded. Affirmative Action was implemented in the 60's ('65, I think, with the passing of the equal rights bill), so let's call it 1965. This first example just applies to Americans of African descent, but it can be generated for any minority group, including women or the disabled in different ways.

Anyway, that means America as an insitution/government needs to make up for approximately 189 years of official discrimination. For no good reason other than appeasement, let's then cut that number in half and put into law that Affirmative Action will be in place for 94 years after its initiation (rounding down). Fair enough?

So for at least another sixty years, whenever there is an equal choice of applicants, the African American gets preferrential treatment as compensation (reparation) for America's institutional discrimination in the past (after all, that's what was happening in a much worse way in our past; whites who weren't even of equal standing were given preferential treatment).

Look what we do to countries we destroy by war and you'll see that my solution is nowhere near the cost to pay, but will insure both compensation and a significant period of time to firmly establish diversity so that AA can be removed after time served, because, let's face it, fellow white boys, we owe far more than just this small concession for the manner in which we (yes "we;" the sins of the father clause) treated these citizens for more than two centuries at least.

This way, any minority group with an established (or establishable) grievance will have a proscribed recourse for instiutionalized discrimination in like manner along with a known cutoff point.

Just like with any other social promotion program we have. Unemployment, for example. You know what you'll get and how long you'll get it for (with a chance to appeal if more help is needed).

This grants, by the way, the horrible arrogance of it all and does take into account those out there who don't want any advantages given to them, as it belittles their own achievements and makes them second guess why they were chosen. The point is that all things being equal, we should give preferrential treatment as a means of reparation for past crimes for a "just" peiod of time, like we would have, had we waged war against a nation and devastated it in more direct action.

Reasonable? Offensive? Thoughts?

Loren Pechtel

One word: Backlash.

The KKK would have a field day with this. The average person would probably end up hating the blacks, also.

You can't hope to fix racism by imposing racism. AA served a useful purpose but it done it by now and should be thrown out. There's no way it can fix the last of the racism.

Koyaanisqatsi

Has it "done it by now?" Remove AA tomorrow and what will happen? White discrimination is my bet.

Besides, my point was that it's not about racism; it's about reparation for officially sanctioned (or allowed) crimes against a particular segment of our citizenry (at least my argument is, anyway).

We've treated nations who instigated war against us better than we've treated sections of our own citizenry.

Grad Student Humanist

Until someone comes up with another strategy to address the discrimination and inequities faced by African Americans and other minorities in this country, I support affirmative action.

pug846

Koy said:

It is ridiculous to assume there needs to be some sort of one to one (or one to two) correspondence between time spent discriminating and time spent making up for that discrimination.

You�re also making the leap from �there was discrimination in the past� to �we need Affirmative Action to remedy that discrimination.� Even if we all agree African Americans currently face more obstacles than the average white male, even the translucent ones, it isn�t clear that affirmative action is a good way to respond to that discrimination. The way in which affirmative action was applied to many law schools in the late 80s and early 90s (and still might be applied to schools like Michigan toady) is probably a pretty poor way to remedy discrimination.

Finally, there seems to be something deeply troubling about hinging affirmative action not on any current obstacles people might face, but for discrimination that took place a long time ago. If race based preferences are going to be based on remedying wrongs, I see no reason why they shouldn�t be in place to remedy things that African-Americans and others face today, not what they faced centuries ago. While there is clearly a connection between discrimination in the past and the current climate that minorities face, discrimination in the past is only relevant in so far as it affects today�s climate.

Loren Pechtel said:

Yes, we sure need to worry about offending the KKK. Who cares what the KKK would do with this? Do they have any more of a field day with affirmative action than they did with interracial marriage?

I�m fairly confident that the average person would not end up �hating� blacks because of affirmative action. It has been going on for quite a while now, and I don�t see the �I hate blackie� signs up very often.

Your hyperbole aside, the �blacklash� from affirmative action would certainly need to be taken into account when fashioning any sort of program, I don�t think it would be dispositive of the issue. I doubt most people feel that strongly on the issue and it affects so few people directly.

You�ve managed to completely contradict yourself in three sentences. First, you call affirmative action racism. Then, you say you can�t fix racism by imposing racism. But you then admit that �AA served a useful purpose.� What useful purpose was that except �fighting racism?� So, under your understanding of racism, can affirmative action fight it or can�t it? It did (and does) help combat the affects of racism. I went over this in another thread, but I don�t think affirmative action, properly understood, is what we normally label racism and calling it that is simply inflammatory rhetoric.

Edited because I still, apparently, do not know the difference between "you're" and "your" at age 23.

emphryio

I agree with Grad dude.

Did you have a better idea Pug?
Not that the esteemed Pug feels this way, (gosh I'd never suggest such an insult, the straw would surely fly,) but most people against AA think nothing at all should be done. Except magically, blacks just need to shape up.

everlastingtongue

Removing AA would in no way eliminate anti-discrimination laws already on the books.

AA does not ensure racial equality, but quite the opposite, it ensures racial bias and codifies it into law or procedure.

Proponents of AA always seem to claim that it is simply a �temporary� correction to social injustice. But, if you are in favor of AA then ask yourself: how long should it continue? Until every racial group attains perfect equality? How will that happen? When will the point come that every group: men, women, white, black, asian, american indian, hispanic, arabic, etc. has exactly equal social and economic standing?

Do inequalities exist? Absolutely. Will government sponsored racism/sexism and attempts at social engineering cure this? Absolutely not.
AA flies in the face of this statement, because it supports judging people by race or sex, or anything other than character, or qualifications for the task at hand.

Zimyatin

I support Affirmative Action in some cases. I support it in the Michigan case - but not for some erroneous and dangerous attempt to cure past discrimination by imposing present discrimination. To maintain minority respect in the legal system it's important that not all attorneys and judges are white males.

However, I generally oppose AA because in my view it attacks the problem at the wrong end. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, yes? So instead of placing possibly unqualifed minorities in top schools at the expense of a more qualified candidate, why not invest in our public schools so that every child is given an equal opportunity to learn and achive? A great argument in favor of AA is that the minority student did not receive the same level of secondary education as her white counterpart. Sadly, this is often true. Of course many white students are in impoverished secondary schools too, but that's another discussion.

lunachick

Shit. I had a lengthy reply almost complete, and lost the lot. I'll try to recap.

Why not?

To begin with, I think that "government sponsored racism/sexism" is the wrong way to look at things; much like "you're either with us or against us" is the wrong way of looking at things. "Government sponsored racism/sexism" is a catch cry, a slogan, a phrase that has become popular, but obfuscates what AA really is and what it means to society.

I can only speak of the NZ experience, of course; but I'm sure there are parallels with the American experience.

It was only a generation or two ago that Maori were punished at school for speaking their own language. It wasn't that long ago that Maori were only able to get manual labour at low pay rates. They were marginalised in their own land, and treated disrespectfully. As their pride eroded; their culture diminished; their lives pushed further into the lower socio-economy, they became more and more despondent. After a generation or two, they became what we had made them - no cultural identity, no self-esteem, no hope. This lead to poverty, alcoholism and crime. A difficult life to rise above. No books in homes, like the settlers had; no aspirations because they didn't think any could be realised; pitiful education and career opportunities.

AA changed everything. Maori language is taught in schools and universities with pride, as is much of Maori culture. Hope has returned for many, and many Maori now contribute in very, very positive ways toward life in NZ. Our combined heritage makes our society stronger, not weaker. AA has decreased racism as the next generation comes of age. Same with sexism.

But, there is still some way to go. We are not done yet. These kinds of changes do not happen overnight, they take at least 3 or 4 generations. "Old boys networks" need to grow old and die out, for one thing. Critical mass with regard to social consciousness must be acheived, and this takes a while. But, I believe it is worth it. I very much believe it is worth it, as much today as it was 30 odd years ago.

In fact, I almost have to ask those who are against AA - what are you afraid of?

lunachick

AA, as it stands today, is both prevention and cure. In many ways, it's too late for prevention - the damage has been done. But it can prevent future damage, and in time be completely phased out - but I don't think we're at that stage, yet.