7 ms·

> I am 100% against affirmative action on the basis of race. The problem with your statement is that affirmative actions is not based solely on race, so it app

by Tozen 4y ago

> I am 100% against affirmative action on the basis of race. The problem with your statement is that affirmative actions is not based solely on race, so it appears that you are attempting to or have mistakenly fallen into perpetuating an offensive myth that the main beneficiaries of it are Black/Hispanic. The group that has benefited the most from affirmative action are White/Non-Hispanic women. White Women and Affirmative Action https://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/white-women-affirmative-action/ https://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/white-women-aff... White women benefit most from affirmative action https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-... > My wife and I came to this country with a few hundred dollars... That's a great story, how you came up, after immigrating to America from India and were able to take advantage of the opportunity. However, very important points that you have glossed over is the history of slavery, redlining, Jim Crow (and other laws), voting suppression, etc... of Black Americans who are the descendants of slaves. They (and other ethnic groups) were being shut out of opportunities, and the courts were attempting to alleviate this in some way. The original purpose of affirmative action, was to help those that were being actively and consistently discriminated against. As a more recent immigrant, you are benefiting from laws and polices, which are the result of historical issues, court battles, and actual battles in America. Many Americans fought, died, and were jailed to get laws changed. The context of why affirmative action was created, should not be skipped over, as if it applies simply to one person's situation and benefit. That you don't need something, is great for your situation, but that doesn't mean that's true for other ethnic groups and their situations. "Affirmative action laws are policies instituted by the government to help level the playing field for those historically disadvantaged due to factors such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These laws typically pertain to equal opportunities in employment, education, and business." What is Affirmative Action and Why Was it Created? https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-affirmative-action-and-why-was-it-created-31524 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-affirmative-action... > For my son, keeping everything else the same but simply changing his race from Asian to Black/Hispanic increases his chances... That's gaming the system, for personal benefits, and contrary to the purposes for which affirmative action was created. That would be like a guy saying that if he writes down he's a different gender, he can now cheat his way into getting something he should not (by pretending to be female). If anything, you should arguably be against people falsifying documents or trying to present themselves as something they are not.

RigelKentaurus 4y ago
We agree on the big picture but not the details. Instead of race, why not look at economic position? I think the white family living in poverty in rural Appalachia is probably more deserving of AA than the middle-class Black family in Atlanta today. If there's a kid with a lower GPA/SAT than my son, but he's worked throughout HS, didn't have the same resources we have, he deserves acknowledgement and assistance. Colleges should definitely consider that as a factor. But that is irrespective of race.
- Tozen 4y ago
  I don't think you are seeing the historical context. Race is very much a part of it. America had to overcome slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, etc... These were based on race, not economic position. Affirmative action is an attempt to rectify the long standing American issues of discrimination based on race and other attributes (sex, color, etc...). Economic position or being at an economic disadvantage is a different argument than what you had originally presented and the attack on affirmative action. America did not develop as, and still is not, a society blind to race, color, or sex. Better that you had made that argument, which would possibly be along the lines of better loans, scholarships, free education, etc...
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    From what I understood of your comment, a black person in a rich neighbourhood should get preferential treatment over a white person in a poor one? Because historically black people were mistreated? What if white people are, in the future, treated as second class citizens, should AA then be for white ones? IMO using racist policy to fight racism is just not going to end well.
    - soco 4y ago
      Ideally yes, the economic situation should be taken into account as well. But what's the use of enforcing this at college level, when for underprivileged kids (any kind - wrong race, low class, bad neighborhood) the ship of chances sailed away already when they couldn't get through a proper primary school? The OP situation will happen again and again, kids with lower scores will get pushed ahead so the average "smartness" of that school will decrease. Because what is good for one individual can be detrimental in general, and what is positive in general can be detrimental for one individual. Just about any policy will have holes through some people will fall, and even if I propose a quality education starting from grade 1, I'm sure some people will point out somebody getting a hit from it.

by Tozen 4y ago

RigelKentaurus 4y ago

We agree on the big picture but not the details. Instead of race, why not look at economic position? I think the white family living in poverty in rural Appalachia is probably more deserving of AA than the middle-class Black family in Atlanta today. If there's a kid with a lower GPA/SAT than my son, but he's worked throughout HS, didn't have the same resources we have, he deserves acknowledgement and assistance. Colleges should definitely consider that as a factor. But that is irrespective of race.

Tozen 4y ago
I don't think you are seeing the historical context. Race is very much a part of it. America had to overcome slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, etc... These were based on race, not economic position. Affirmative action is an attempt to rectify the long standing American issues of discrimination based on race and other attributes (sex, color, etc...). Economic position or being at an economic disadvantage is a different argument than what you had originally presented and the attack on affirmative action. America did not develop as, and still is not, a society blind to race, color, or sex. Better that you had made that argument, which would possibly be along the lines of better loans, scholarships, free education, etc...
- Akronymus 4y ago
  From what I understood of your comment, a black person in a rich neighbourhood should get preferential treatment over a white person in a poor one? Because historically black people were mistreated? What if white people are, in the future, treated as second class citizens, should AA then be for white ones? IMO using racist policy to fight racism is just not going to end well.
  - soco 4y ago
    Ideally yes, the economic situation should be taken into account as well. But what's the use of enforcing this at college level, when for underprivileged kids (any kind - wrong race, low class, bad neighborhood) the ship of chances sailed away already when they couldn't get through a proper primary school? The OP situation will happen again and again, kids with lower scores will get pushed ahead so the average "smartness" of that school will decrease. Because what is good for one individual can be detrimental in general, and what is positive in general can be detrimental for one individual. Just about any policy will have holes through some people will fall, and even if I propose a quality education starting from grade 1, I'm sure some people will point out somebody getting a hit from it.