Gurdur

My own bet would be increasing rich/poor discrimination --- with additional racial components.
The libertarian agenda is simply laissez-fairer; we've been there (19th century), we've done that, it was horrific, now a vocal minority want to go back there.
Correct.
A further extension is the "compensation for receiving stolen property" angle.

The people with power in a state profited finacially from discrimination against others.
The analogous legal estate descendents owe compensation to the descendents of those discriminated against.

Plus it's not just about reparations for the past; it's about curing the effects of the past that are still present in the here-and-now.
Fully correct.

BTW, an often-overlooked aspect is day-child-care and good primary schools.
If you really want to drag your population up, put serious money and legislation into those two areas --- the flow-on effects are quite astounding in their scope.

lunachick

Yes. And if you really look, you will see that the effects are still with us.

Yes, yes, yes!!!!

In NZ, we now have Kohanga Reo - they are open to Maori and Pakeha (European) children but specifically targeted at Maori children; and oh what a wonderful difference they make!

Loren Pechtel

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

1) I don't think all efforts at racial equality should be scrapped--merely statistical-based enforcement. I have no problem with going after a company that's found dropping the resumes of black applicants in the trash.

2) I don't think there would be a problem in most of the country. Sure, there are a few KKKers out there but I don't think they are enough of the population to cause a problem anymore.

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).

So we punish people now for the sins of their ancestors?? I wasn't alive in the days of black oppression, I've never hired anybody. How can I be guilty of racism?

pug846

Emphryio said:

I�ve actually argued at length in support of affirmative action programs elsewhere in this forum and nothing in my earlier post would lead an objective reader to conclude that I oppose all affirmative action programs. But reading and processing information that doesn�t fit into your black/white world was never your strength. Pity.

I think taking the position that �well, something needs to be done, so why not affirmative action!� is incredibly na�ve and doesn�t help �the cause� out at all. We want to implement affirmative action programs that are effective and lead to the goals different institutions have set. (As I argued in another thread, this is precisely why I think AA should be left out of the courts and in the hands of the institutions to decide what programs are best fit for their institutional goals, within some bounds.) The Michigan law school case is a good example, imo, of a case that should be litigated in the courts because while I believe each institution should be provided with a fair amount of deference in setting up affirmative action, some institutions have gone too far and their programs are an irrational response to current discrimination. At some point, I believe you run into 14th Amendment problems and the Michigan program does just that.

You have to remember that affirmative action only takes place at the most selective schools in the nation. Michigan is a fantastic law school, and while I don�t remember their ranking, they are a top-8 school. However, you don�t want to provide African Americans who get into Michigan no chance of competing because their scores are simply way too low. This is arguably what happened in the mid 90s at the University of Texas law school, which brought about Hopwood. The choice for the African Americans who do not get admitted into Michigan is not Michigan or bust, but Michigan or a lower ranked law school with classmates who they can be academically competitive with. Being diverse is not going to get you good test scores, so why admit a kid into UC Berkeley where he doesn�t do well and possibly drops out when you can admit the same kid in UC Hastings, still a good school, where he can do really well and build up his confidence.

Ideally, affirmative action would only work at the margins and give kids who are otherwise nearly impossible to distinguish a slight edge because they come from a group that faces discrimination. This would add diversity to the law school and insure the students who were let in were academically competitive. This is not what is happening at Michigan, but probably is happening at Harvard. (Under the table, it is probably what is happening at UT.) The problem with these later programs is they don�t put the number of minorities in top ranked law schools that their administrations would like, but right now, that�s something that can�t be helped until minorities start to receive a better primary education. (Which is what I think, along with relaxing the drug laws, needs to be done to help minorities.) I think providing minority communities with successful role models will provide those communities with more incentive to attempt to reach those Universities on the strength of their test scores alone in the first place.

Lunachick said:

Oh, come on. One-liners like that aren�t going to change anyone�s mind. What do you assume people who are against AA are �afraid� of something? Its mindsets like this why we never get anywhere in debates about affirmative action or abortion. Both sides state the other side is �afraid� or whatever else, and nothing gets talked out.

Gurdur said:

I actually doubt it � if anything, affirmative action helps to increase the differences between the rich and the poor. While AA helps minorities, it doesn�t help poor minorities compete against rich minorities. The black kid whose father is a doctor still has a big advantage of the black kid from the ghetto. Providing good financial aid packages to kids who attend school will help that gap, and most top schools do a good job about that, and doing something to help increase the initial quality of education will help bring up the standard of living of the poor. (I don�t think the gap between the rich and poor should be of primary concern, but simply the standard of living of the poor.)

--
I think talking in black-white terms about affirmative action is a mistake. Different situations are going to warrant different programs. Some situations might warrant no AA program at all. Just because there is a problem does not mean any solution that will help remedy that problem should be used. This is the same type of thinking the current republican administration is using to fight the war on terrorism � there is a problem (terrorism), so any solution that they believe helps decrease the threat of terrorism must be good. The debate should be about what responses are the most effective in remedying the problem since we all agree there is a problem in the first place.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by pug846
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?

Of course we don't care what the KKK itself thinks. I was simply using an indirect way of saying that it would cause anti-black attitudes.

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.

It's at least couched as an attempt to fix the situation. A lot of people don't look deep enough to see the problems. When you force it like this the problems are obvious and the objections will be much stronger.

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.

Correct.

But you then admit that �AA served a useful purpose.� What useful purpose was that except �fighting racism?�

I said it can't fix it. It can reduce it, however. Since AA contains it's own racism it can't reduce racism below the level that it itself contains. Once that level has been reached, AA merely perpetuates the problem and provides no benefit.
I think that point was reached years ago.

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.

I'm talking about affirmative action as implemented--quotas. Sure, the law doesn't say that but it's safer to go with the quota than stick your neck out for the first no-good guy who comes along and decides he wasn't hired because of racism.

Loren Pechtel

Having to work with incompetents, or losing a job opportuntity to them. The reality of AA is incompetents in the workforce.

Koyaanisqatsi

Let me kindly repeat my OP proposal for all those who, apparently, missed it (certain present company excluded ), so that we can discuss only the issues of my OP: all things being equal between two candidates for a position, the minority takes preferrence as a means of reparation for past crimes committed against the particular minority group as a whole for a proscribed period of time (my proposal: equalling one half of the total amount of established--i.e., legally recognized or demonstrated--discrimination).

I'm not advocating a quota system; I'm advocating Nationally mandated, self-terminating guidelines for what to do when you have two candidates of equal abilities; one caucasian and the other non-caucasian. The default is to go to the non-caucasian--officially mandated--until such time (as has been pre-determined) that reparations have been fulfilled.

One purpose is, indeed, to punish the children for their father's crimes, since that is precisely how discrimination is transferred from one generation to the next (and tough titty for us white folk; we caused it, we keep it alive, we deserve it, end of discussion in this thread--my thread--about that, just to make myself crystal clear, in general, to anyone else posting here), but the overall purpose is to freely admit (and officially sanction) National culpability and effect reparation in kind to insure advantages that used to go to white candidates will instead go to minority candidates (all things being equal; a condition no segregationist ever imposed), for a proscribed period of time commensurate in some manner with the amount of time their rights were not legally recognized or enforced.

After that period of time (whatever it is decided to be), the reparations are considered paid in full, so to speak, and the "guidelines" rescinded.

We already have ample precedent for such actions and our courts regularly direct reparations of all kinds to those who have been demonstrated (legally) to have been discriminated against, including minority groups as a whole.

The issues I am directing everyone to address are National culpability, reparations (and how best to insure their fairness; not to whites, since they are irrelevant in this discussion) and an equitable proscribed time period for such reparations to proceed (and end).

No considerations for whites are requested for this discussion. Their (our) guilt is unquestionable and a matter of legal record. If you want to debate that, take it some place else.

So, to be absolutely clear from this post forward, I am only requesting a discussion on how best to officially repair that damage in light of existing programs (e.g., a National mandate) and how those programs can be set up for eventual and equitable (for minority groups) self-termination.

Thank you.

Majestyk

Ignoring the the fact that racism is racism and we only prolong the myth of racial differences be writing it into law, affirmitive action annoy's me because its proponents never seem to be beearing the burden that they place on others.

If however, we must have affirmaitive action, then let the burden be shared by all. Let it extend to our elections as well. Minority candidates only need one vote for every two for a caucasion candidate.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Let me kindly repeat my OP proposal for all those who, apparently, missed it (certain present company excluded ), so that we can discuss only the issues of my OP: all things being equal between two candidates for a position, the minority takes preferrence as a means of reparation for past crimes committed against the particular minority group as a whole for a proscribed period of time (my proposal: equalling one half of the total amount of established--i.e., legally recognized or demonstrated--discrimination).

And since when are two people exactly equal? Either you use a broad definition of equal and this becomes major discrimination, or you use a narrorw definition and this is meaningless.

I'm not advocating a quota system; I'm advocating Nationally mandated, self-terminating guidelines for what to do when you have two candidates of equal abilities; one caucasian and the other non-caucasian. The default is to go to the non-caucasian--officially mandated--until such time (as has been pre-determined) that reparations have been fulfilled.

Quotas aren't in the law, they are the only way to defend yourself against discrimination charges. You have to make yourself an unappealing target for the lawyers.

No considerations for whites are requested for this discussion. Their (our) guilt is unquestionable and a matter of legal record. If you want to debate that, take it some place else.

The guilt of many people in the past is unquestionable. However, most of them are out of the picture by now. The people you are proposing to punish are innocent.
Are you really an agent-provocateur of the KKK?

So, to be absolutely clear from this post forward, I am only requesting a discussion on how best to officially repair that damage in light of existing programs (e.g., a National mandate) and how those programs can be set up for eventual and equitable (for minority groups) self-termination.

The best way is to take such programs out and shoot them.

Buddrow_Wilson

Koy, if it was done your way, very few minorities would be admitted in the top schools anyway. They are often accepted in place of more highly qualified caucasian applicants.

I don't believe allowing "token" minorities into schools or professions is really doing anything to solve the problem. It has to be done at the ground level. People need to have equal opportunities as children if real progress is to be made.

Take some person raised in subpar schooling, who has very minimal qualifications and throw them into a top level school. I would imagine this person would be overwhelmed and have little chance of excelling.