affirmative action

[SurlyPIG]

1) family of alumni get special considerations, thus my flawed Bush example. This is legal in the US.

2) Children in poor neighborhoods(also correlates to high percentage of minorities) go to poor, crowded schools and get a worse education even though they take the same standardized tests. There is no law in the US that says everyone gets the same education. It is obviously not true.

1. What context are you referring to? Are you saying this applies to the workplace or just educational institutions? There are all kinds of laws and regulations aimed at keeping the workplace field level, and do you seriously think that white people alone uniformly benefit in any measurable amount from preferential alumni treatment? I seriously doubt that. Like it or not, Bush had the grades to meet Yale standards and then Harvard. Was he the smartest one? No not even close. Did he excel there? No his marks were barely standard but he still made the grade and got his degrees. But he still met all requirements they had.

I understand that these issues may occur to a lesser degree, or not at all in Canada. This may account for some misunderstanding between us.

It's a district thing in some places. The nusrsing school I told you about was from a small city in Saskatchewan. Before the AA-type changes, they required a minimum 2.8 GPA for acceptance into the school. When they implimented the changes, it became 3.0 minimum for whites and 2.0 minimum for minorities (which, in this area, was almost entirely native). Now I think that is a) insulting to natives and b) discriminatory to white people. How would you feel if you were the nurse-hopeful with the 2.8 or 2.9 GPA? I don't think AA is written into law where I live as there aren't the same problems here. In my area, ethnic minorities actually earn higher grades, earn more money and out-perform white people. But you don't see me complaining...

[Birdfolly]

I was referring to the context of secondary educational institutions. Of course white people aren't the only alumni, thanks in part to AA. Preferrential alumni treatment works to give more to those who already have, at the expense of others. Are you actually defending preferential alumni treatment??? What happened to everyone being judged by their own merits and accomplishments, not who their parents are?

To answer your second comment, I wasn't be thrilled to be passed over or given less aid for college because of AA. AA isn't the best solution. I liked the solution that you mentioned earlier about improving city schools a lot better but it's just not happening yet. Until it does, programs like AA are one of the few ways out of poverty.

[Phage]

Affirmitive action ias based on a double-standard. Most supporters I know of admit this.

However they then argue that AA(affirmitive action) is still necessary because blacks are historically at a disadvantage. They are facing an uphill battle of unfairness, and for them to have the same chances as a white they need extra help. The ends justifies the means.

Now I agree the ends can justify the means but I still have problems with the entire program:

1) The entire program seems patch-work. It seems very short-sighted and more like a way of looking like you are help the disadvantaged then actually helping them.

You can get a black man into college faster, and into a job easier. But that doesn't teach them how to work or how to get a job.

Lets say a company needs 10 more black men, well that can be 10 black janitors. Either that or they accept someone unqualified and lose profit.

Yeah a black man can now get in college, but he may get in unqualified, be overwhelmed and drop out. In fact affirmitive action, when implemented does little to negate the huge drop out rate effecting african americans and other poor minorities.

I believe we should look into discrimination and punish schools for it if its proven by solid means. AA says it does this but its standards are so loose that they demand unqualified personel get in. (Basically the current AA standard examines what percentage of a given minority are there vs how much of that group is in the community.) A better test would be to see if there are any qualified black people that were not chosen selected while unqualified whites were.Then the school can be sued or charged, not demanded to accept a certain percentage of minorities.

Also programs should be made to help disadvantaged via funding or government training programs, to help them improve themselves and get qualified if they are truly poor and at a disadvantage. Not simply get into a job or college easier.

2) The AA approach is simplistic, misguided and ignores certain contingencies when determining which group is disadvantaged. It assumes that racial minority automatically equals disadvantaged. But that isn't necessarily so.

Yes a black or chinese man's ancestors may have been slaves/rail road workers and not have many oppurtunies. But if the guys dad is now a millionare CEO that disadvantage means nil.

Yes some white guy's great grandfather may have had a better chance of getting into school or college then his black peers. But now, if the man is poor and living in a trailer, he has far less opurtunities then a rich black man in a mansion.

Hence if AA is really meant to help the disadvantaged, they should help people who are poor, regardless of color. Not just rich people based merely in race. For rich people, ragardless of color, don't really need help. They have a huge advantage over the poor as it is.

Also this help shouldn't merely be based on hand-outs but improvement as well. Poor people should get extra funding and training, not just a percentage of representation.

If I was poor I'd in fact prefer a helpful service, like a cheap medical-care facility, tutor or some extra funding. Not a percentage of representation.

That makes it so we help them get qualified instead of simply giving them more representation.

3) Americans value fairness. Perhaps for some this value can merely be tossed out as a means to an end, but to many it's simply unfair and wrong. This has a negative effect of harming one of our core values and secondly of incurring resentment from those unfairly displaced by unqualified personel.

Americans want equal opporutunity, a chance for people to better themselves and earn a place based on their own ability. At least I do, as do those with meritocratic sentiments. I and I believe many americans don't want handouts and priveledge. Which is what affirmitive actions is currently based around, not helping to improve the individual if he or she is at a disadvantage, or giving them extra aid in order ot improve themselves/give them equal acess based on ability, but on giving them a percentage.

Hence I disagree with affirmitive action because it is unfair, patch-work and simplistic/misguided.

[nemafakei]

"nema & schrinlord, my comments are based on extensive personal history with knowing the character and nature of ACE and Zamboe"

I think this sums up a lot of this thread.

If there are any more instances of ignorance of what people are saying, but instead attacking their 'character', then the thread will go to the dungeon, go directly to the dingeon, without passing Gob, nor collecting 200 more spam messages.

[Acriku]

I just found this quite appropriate...

You can lead a boy to college but you can't make him think. - Elbert Hubbard

[TMA_1]

lol as much as it kills me, that is an awesome quote acriku.hehe