The case against affirmative action

[Aimless]

So two men with the same or similar qualifications apply for a job, and 9 out of 10 times the man with the black-sounding name (or, in Sweden, the foreign-sounding name) doesn't even get a call. Given this, affirmative action is clearly useless and wasteful.

[Nessus]

Well, what benefit does society gain from educating the black-sounding named ones (ugh) if their education will be wasted among the unemployed masses?

[Aimless]

Exactly, every single one of those uni spots that goes to a black guy instead of a white guy potentially takes us a little further away from the solution to global warming.

[Nessus]

The solution to "global warming" will necessarily be hatched in the hallowed halls of academia, where gods be my witness all sorts of fucking aberrations are welcome, so the black guy could help as much as the white one. The voter's question, the dumb fuck who cares only about his bottom line and nothing else (average US person), he will resent spending TAX MONEY on a nigger who will be unemployable because he is a nigger. Niggers can work at McDee's instead. Only not cooking stuff, because ew. And so it goes.

[Dreadnaught]

Didn't we basically invent the modern concept of affirmative action? Affirmative action has a place in a diverse society and a recent legacy of institutionalized discrimination.

The tricky thing is the preference itself has to be somewhat vague so as to not be exclusive of the majority. Which in turn means it's hard to come up with an actual "goal", which means it's tough to know when affirmative action in a particular institution has completed its "mission".

But what's with you two?

[Aimless]

why shouldn't it exclude the majority? and do you reckon the mission has been completed successfully if black people are at such a disadvantage?

[Dreadnaught]

It depends on how you define disadvantage. For example, disadvantage of circumstances or of opportunities? The debates can be endless.

Not sure what you mean about excluding the majority...

[Aimless]

It depends on how you define disadvantage. For example, disadvantage of circumstances or of opportunities? The debates can be endless.

I mean a disadvantage like being 90% less likely to get a call after applying for a job.

Not sure what you mean about excluding the majority...

You said it, what did YOU mean?

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, but it's hard to quantify that on a broad basis. And if the industry being applied-for happens to have a reasonable amount of non-majority folks, it suggests there may not be a problem. Unless all those people are in lower-level fields, in which case affirmative action almost becomes like a recursive calculation.

I think my broader point is affirmative action has great potential benefits, but it's really really tough to quantify. When an institution engages in an affirmative action program, it's probably necessary to keep the goals and parameters somewhat vague.

My point about exclusive to the majority is that affirmative action can't be portrayed as a kind of quota or explicit leg-up for certain applicants. That is exclusive to the majority because it reframes the institution in question as engaging in sort of a zero-sum game where there must be a certain proportion of people with a certain background. In reality, affirmative action is trying to prioritize getting certain people into the institution because there is a strong believe those people can benefit the institution.

[GGT]

Name bias......it's been around forever. Remember the thread at Atard about girl's names? That LaShonda or Kaneesha had less success in school and work than Carol or Susan?

(Can't recall the exact girl's names, but there was a long-term study done on name bias.)

[Nessus]

Yes, but it's hard to quantify that on a broad basis. And if the industry being applied-for happens to have a reasonable amount of non-majority folks, it suggests there may not be a problem. Unless all those people are in lower-level fields, in which case affirmative action almost becomes like a recursive calculation.

I think my broader point is affirmative action has great potential benefits, but it's really really tough to quantify. When an institution engages in an affirmative action program, it's probably necessary to keep the goals and parameters somewhat vague.

My point about exclusive to the majority is that affirmative action can't be portrayed as a kind of quota or explicit leg-up for certain applicants. That is exclusive to the majority because it reframes the institution in question as engaging in sort of a zero-sum game where there must be a certain proportion of people with a certain background. In reality, affirmative action is trying to prioritize getting certain people into the institution because there is a strong believe those people can benefit the institution.

On any given year, school admissions are by definition zero-sum.

[Dreadnaught]

There are a limited number of slots, but I think we should discourage students from thinking that someone else's acceptance is their loss. IE no one in the majority should think that the existence of minority students/workers at an institution comes at their expense.

The reality is a well-run affirmative action program admits people based on both hard and soft metrics. The decision is usually holistic from applicant to applicant. Contrary to the nightmares of some white folk, they don't simply line-up similarly-qualified applicants of different by race and start picking based on race alone.

Getting specific about what happens over here, our courts have specifically stated that a university can't assign a metric value of "points" to a candidate of a certain race. I think that's the right call.

[LittleFuzzy]

On any given year, school admissions are by definition zero-sum.

Often not. A number public school systems *California's among them* established universal acceptance requirements and declared anyone meeting those requirements was going to get a spot. A policy which has led to significant overcrowding and is in part responsible for the systems continuing budget woes, but was certainly not zero-sum.

[Nessus]

Oh. Well fuck, score one for the democrats

[Lebanese Dragon]

It would be nice to address the social problems through education of our youth, and future generation. Instead of government playing some sort of watchdog, which I feel is a role it doesn't need to play. There are social perks to making people be moral, and just in situations like these. It has always been my preference if people want to be racist then let them racist as long as it's privately owned. If it's publically owned then that's a different situation.

In the long run if we keep using this crutch to try to encourage people to not be racist, it can hurt us and perhaps draw out ignorant racist views and undertones within society.

On the topic of school... reform is needed badly, and we need to learn from the poorer nations on how to be efficient and focus on perfecting the fundamental tools of teaching instead of these gadgets. And doubling up our teaching with life lessons, and applicable life lessons while teaching each branch. In math use real examples to illustrate things.. in english teach english by analysing historical texts, so you learn the english rules and about history.