3 ms·

i always get lost here. we specifically targeted and kept down people based on race with government policy. why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that and try an

i always get lost here. we specifically targeted and kept down people based on race with government policy. why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that and try and fix it? are we so naïve as to thunk it’s all fair now? where the 1960s long enough ago that the impact of prior rade based policy is legitimately gone?

adwn 4y ago
> why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that and try and fix it? I think the main objection against this kind of affirmative action is that you can't make up for discrimination against one group by discriminating against another group: None of the young, white (and Asian) students that are given a disadvantage today were responsible for the discrimination against black people decades ago – they weren't even around back then. That's the ethical argument. There's also possibly [1] the economic argument, that this kind of affirmative action is inefficient, i.e., it doesn't fix systemic discrimination, or that all in all it creates more harm than good. [1] I don't know if that argument is true, but I could see someone making this point.
- csunbird 4y ago
  (warning: unpopular opinion) I would like to point out that, affirmative action does create harm, as it tarnishes the image of people legitimately got selected and got in to the college/program, as there will always be the question in the air: "Did they got in because they are qualified or because of color of their skin?". Also, people who weren't selected because they are not in the affirmative action group will always have the doubt that they weren't selected because of their race/skin color and this always will fuel racist thoughts. Fixing discrimination with discrimination is not a good idea: two wrongs should not add up to a right. We should fix the systemic issues that cause people in to be in the situation where they are discriminated against, even although it is going to be slow.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    Are these harms, substantial or not is up for debate, outweighed by the benefits of fueling social mobility for a historically oppressed class of people?
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      Are you claiming that Asian people are not also a historically oppressed class of people in the US? c.f. Chinese Exclusion Act, internment, school segregation in California...
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        Nah, I didn't make any claims about Asian people. I was just referring to affirmative action as it benefits underrepresented black and brown people in the US. Frankly I haven't given it much thought outside of that context. Maybe the overarching goal should be to achieve a demographic that is roughly representative of the US population as a whole?
virgildotcodes 4y ago
We're running an endless race around a track. For hundreds of years, one member of the race was shackled in chains, causing them to fall behind. Some people seem to believe that now that those shackles have been removed (debatable), the race is fair. I think it's just a lack of serious education on these issues. If you're born into being watching the race after all this has come to pass, without a deep understanding of the historical context and its effects upon the current state of the race, and you see us suddenly pulling up a golf cart next to that disadvantaged runner, and driving them up ahead to compensate for the gap that was created by those shackles, you may think "wow how unfair, why does he get to ride in a golf cart??" Even more likely if this is in fact a relay race, and you are having the baton passed on to you by an advantaged runner. You have extra incentive to protect your lead and find anger at anyone else getting help.

adwn 4y ago

> why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that and try and fix it? I think the main objection against this kind of affirmative action is that you can't make up for discrimination against one group by discriminating against another group: None of the young, white (and Asian) students that are given a disadvantage today were responsible for the discrimination against black people decades ago – they weren't even around back then. That's the ethical argument. There's also possibly [1] the economic argument, that this kind of affirmative action is inefficient, i.e., it doesn't fix systemic discrimination, or that all in all it creates more harm than good. [1] I don't know if that argument is true, but I could see someone making this point.

csunbird 4y ago
(warning: unpopular opinion) I would like to point out that, affirmative action does create harm, as it tarnishes the image of people legitimately got selected and got in to the college/program, as there will always be the question in the air: "Did they got in because they are qualified or because of color of their skin?". Also, people who weren't selected because they are not in the affirmative action group will always have the doubt that they weren't selected because of their race/skin color and this always will fuel racist thoughts. Fixing discrimination with discrimination is not a good idea: two wrongs should not add up to a right. We should fix the systemic issues that cause people in to be in the situation where they are discriminated against, even although it is going to be slow.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  Are these harms, substantial or not is up for debate, outweighed by the benefits of fueling social mobility for a historically oppressed class of people?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Are you claiming that Asian people are not also a historically oppressed class of people in the US? c.f. Chinese Exclusion Act, internment, school segregation in California...
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      Nah, I didn't make any claims about Asian people. I was just referring to affirmative action as it benefits underrepresented black and brown people in the US. Frankly I haven't given it much thought outside of that context. Maybe the overarching goal should be to achieve a demographic that is roughly representative of the US population as a whole?

virgildotcodes 4y ago

We're running an endless race around a track. For hundreds of years, one member of the race was shackled in chains, causing them to fall behind. Some people seem to believe that now that those shackles have been removed (debatable), the race is fair. I think it's just a lack of serious education on these issues. If you're born into being watching the race after all this has come to pass, without a deep understanding of the historical context and its effects upon the current state of the race, and you see us suddenly pulling up a golf cart next to that disadvantaged runner, and driving them up ahead to compensate for the gap that was created by those shackles, you may think "wow how unfair, why does he get to ride in a golf cart??" Even more likely if this is in fact a relay race, and you are having the baton passed on to you by an advantaged runner. You have extra incentive to protect your lead and find anger at anyone else getting help.