6 ms·

The issue is that we've (we as in humanity) committed some great injustices that have left certain groups at a major disadvantage. The only viable solution, fo

The issue is that we've (we as in humanity) committed some great injustices that have left certain groups at a major disadvantage. The only viable solution, for now, is to give those groups an unfair advantage at the cost of some efficiency, lost opportunities, "white discrimination" and so on. Hopefully, this strategy may one day level the field enough that it's not needed. Anyway, it's still probably statistically better to be a white male who went to a "less than Harvard" college than a minority from Harvard.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Could you explain your moral philosophy in a bit more detail? Specifically, individuals in group A performed injustices back in the 60's and earlier against individuals in group B. Therefore, different individual members of group A (and other unrelated groups [1]) should be discriminated against in favor of different individual members of group B (all of whom were born after the 60's)? So following this logic, should we discriminate against the children/relatives of criminals in favor of the children of crime victims? What if group C disproportionately commits crimes today. Should non-criminal members of group C be discriminated against? Does it matter how group C is defined? I.e., is the statement true if group C is {x : x.race = REFERENCE_RACE}, but false if C is { x : x.ssn % 100 == 3 || x.isCriminal }? I guess my fundamental question is this. You seem to implicitly hold some conception of group rights, and believe that certain groups are worthy of moral consideration. I doubt you believe that all 2^(6 billion) subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration, however. So how do you determine which subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration? [1] I.e., asians should be discriminated against because whites were mean to blacks (and asians) in the past.
- king_jester 14y ago
  First of all, it should noted that institutional racism and oppression exists and is executed today against people of color, esp. black folks, in the US. Therefore, any examination of policies that seek to address race imbalances need to be considered in this context. Second, crime and race are related in a major way, esp. in regards to institutional systems that keep black folks economically depressed and include them as prison population component of the industrial-prison-complex the US currently runs. I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. Instead, it is much easier to talk about the actual reality minorities in the US face in regards to political and social systems and how those systems affect their existence. Such systems and policies that continue to keep economic opportunity and education out of the hands of people of color need to be addressed, and a race related policy like affirmative action is just one such tool to address those problems. > I doubt you believe that all 2^(6 billion) subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration, however. So how do you determine which subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration? All members of the human race deserve moral and ethical treatment and consideration. However, many different groups of people in the US are not treated in such a way, both on personal levels and systemically. As a society, different approaches and tools must be employed to correct that mistreatment, and yes that means the most disadvantaged and screwed over people will need tools that empower them and help them to no longer be considered a second- or third-class status in society.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. The fact is, the post I argued against was implicitly assuming that certain subsets of humanity are morally entitled to harm certain individuals, based on acts done by other individuals to other members of the same subset. Until you can explain to me why your grouping of humanity carries moral validity, I can't see any reason to take such arguments seriously, particularly when the exact same arguments lead to ridiculous results when they are applied to slightly different groupings of humanity. I'm beginning to think that many proponents of AA haven't really thought things through.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying that you feel policies like affirmative action harm some people? If so, what kind of harm are you talking about? Ultimately no group of people is entitled to harm others, but it helps to be a bit more specific when talking about the flaws of existing or proposed policy.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        The harm is that more qualified people are passed over.
        king_jester 14y ago
        This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either take race or gender into account for 1) equally qualified candidates (scores and qualifications are the same are almost exactly the same) or 2) qualified candidates where one candidate may perform slightly worse than another (say a student that has a few dozen fewer points on an SAT score compared to another). Affirmative action policies in which an unqualified candidate be selected over a qualified candidate are very rare, if not outright illegal in many places. Keep in mind the limitations of calling an individual qualified or not. In some scenarios, the metrics of qualification do not match the goal of the organization looking to hire or admit a candidate, or the metrics fail to measure other factors that are relevant to a given job or a seat for a student. Generally speaking, affirmative action recognizes these shortcomings, esp. as they originate from systemic problems in society that keep certain groups excluded or in minimal participation in such jobs and schools. Further, most of the issues that affect those that do not get additional consideration due to affirmative action come from outside of affirmative action policies: economic inequality, reduced access to funds to attend school, outsourcing and economic downturns, increasing job automation, the loss of some kinds of consuming manufacturing jobs, de-unionization efforts, etc. Suffice it to say affirmative action policies are useful and are not the overriding problem in keeping people out of work or unable to continue their education. Rather, affirmative action policies are a kind of band aid policy that can be ended when larger social inequalities are reduced or fixed entirely.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >Specifically, individuals in group A performed injustices back in the 60's and earlier against individuals in group B. No, it has nothing to do with that. This isn't about punishing people for wrong doing, it's about correcting a the fallout from previous mistakes. Further down you talk about "punishing" people. We aren't talking about punishing people, we're talking about giving a push to groups that are at a disadvantage as fallout to our previous behavior. No, I don't hold anyone today accountable for what our forefathers did. However, what they did caused a spiral of disadvantage to certain groups and the only way we know to counter act this is to give these groups an "unfair" advantage. Realize that just doing nothing is going to leave the same groups disportionately poor indefinitely. If you know a better way than AA (should be doable) then go for it. But we have to do something.
btilly 14y ago
You are making the major assumption that getting into a school that you are not really qualified for is better than not getting into it. This assumption has been studied. Evidence says that getting into a school you are not prepared for results in worse outcomes than getting into a worse school that you are prepared for. Read http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-Universities/dp/0465029965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352311995&sr=8-1&keywords=mismatch http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended... if you want to see some of that evidence. The question that I have is whether getting underprepared by highly able students into a good school AND giving sufficient assistance would result in better outcomes still. But at present there is no question that universities are not doing this. And therefore affirmative action programs are generally hurting the very people that they are trying to help.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Could you explain your moral philosophy in a bit more detail? Specifically, individuals in group A performed injustices back in the 60's and earlier against individuals in group B. Therefore, different individual members of group A (and other unrelated groups [1]) should be discriminated against in favor of different individual members of group B (all of whom were born after the 60's)? So following this logic, should we discriminate against the children/relatives of criminals in favor of the children of crime victims? What if group C disproportionately commits crimes today. Should non-criminal members of group C be discriminated against? Does it matter how group C is defined? I.e., is the statement true if group C is {x : x.race = REFERENCE_RACE}, but false if C is { x : x.ssn % 100 == 3 || x.isCriminal }? I guess my fundamental question is this. You seem to implicitly hold some conception of group rights, and believe that certain groups are worthy of moral consideration. I doubt you believe that all 2^(6 billion) subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration, however. So how do you determine which subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration? [1] I.e., asians should be discriminated against because whites were mean to blacks (and asians) in the past.

king_jester 14y ago
First of all, it should noted that institutional racism and oppression exists and is executed today against people of color, esp. black folks, in the US. Therefore, any examination of policies that seek to address race imbalances need to be considered in this context. Second, crime and race are related in a major way, esp. in regards to institutional systems that keep black folks economically depressed and include them as prison population component of the industrial-prison-complex the US currently runs. I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. Instead, it is much easier to talk about the actual reality minorities in the US face in regards to political and social systems and how those systems affect their existence. Such systems and policies that continue to keep economic opportunity and education out of the hands of people of color need to be addressed, and a race related policy like affirmative action is just one such tool to address those problems. > I doubt you believe that all 2^(6 billion) subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration, however. So how do you determine which subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration? All members of the human race deserve moral and ethical treatment and consideration. However, many different groups of people in the US are not treated in such a way, both on personal levels and systemically. As a society, different approaches and tools must be employed to correct that mistreatment, and yes that means the most disadvantaged and screwed over people will need tools that empower them and help them to no longer be considered a second- or third-class status in society.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. The fact is, the post I argued against was implicitly assuming that certain subsets of humanity are morally entitled to harm certain individuals, based on acts done by other individuals to other members of the same subset. Until you can explain to me why your grouping of humanity carries moral validity, I can't see any reason to take such arguments seriously, particularly when the exact same arguments lead to ridiculous results when they are applied to slightly different groupings of humanity. I'm beginning to think that many proponents of AA haven't really thought things through.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying that you feel policies like affirmative action harm some people? If so, what kind of harm are you talking about? Ultimately no group of people is entitled to harm others, but it helps to be a bit more specific when talking about the flaws of existing or proposed policy.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      The harm is that more qualified people are passed over.
      - king_jester 14y ago
        This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either take race or gender into account for 1) equally qualified candidates (scores and qualifications are the same are almost exactly the same) or 2) qualified candidates where one candidate may perform slightly worse than another (say a student that has a few dozen fewer points on an SAT score compared to another). Affirmative action policies in which an unqualified candidate be selected over a qualified candidate are very rare, if not outright illegal in many places. Keep in mind the limitations of calling an individual qualified or not. In some scenarios, the metrics of qualification do not match the goal of the organization looking to hire or admit a candidate, or the metrics fail to measure other factors that are relevant to a given job or a seat for a student. Generally speaking, affirmative action recognizes these shortcomings, esp. as they originate from systemic problems in society that keep certain groups excluded or in minimal participation in such jobs and schools. Further, most of the issues that affect those that do not get additional consideration due to affirmative action come from outside of affirmative action policies: economic inequality, reduced access to funds to attend school, outsourcing and economic downturns, increasing job automation, the loss of some kinds of consuming manufacturing jobs, de-unionization efforts, etc. Suffice it to say affirmative action policies are useful and are not the overriding problem in keeping people out of work or unable to continue their education. Rather, affirmative action policies are a kind of band aid policy that can be ended when larger social inequalities are reduced or fixed entirely.
flyinRyan 14y ago
>Specifically, individuals in group A performed injustices back in the 60's and earlier against individuals in group B. No, it has nothing to do with that. This isn't about punishing people for wrong doing, it's about correcting a the fallout from previous mistakes. Further down you talk about "punishing" people. We aren't talking about punishing people, we're talking about giving a push to groups that are at a disadvantage as fallout to our previous behavior. No, I don't hold anyone today accountable for what our forefathers did. However, what they did caused a spiral of disadvantage to certain groups and the only way we know to counter act this is to give these groups an "unfair" advantage. Realize that just doing nothing is going to leave the same groups disportionately poor indefinitely. If you know a better way than AA (should be doable) then go for it. But we have to do something.

btilly 14y ago

You are making the major assumption that getting into a school that you are not really qualified for is better than not getting into it. This assumption has been studied. Evidence says that getting into a school you are not prepared for results in worse outcomes than getting into a worse school that you are prepared for. Read http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-Universities/dp/0465029965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352311995&sr=8-1&keywords=mismatch http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended... if you want to see some of that evidence. The question that I have is whether getting underprepared by highly able students into a good school AND giving sufficient assistance would result in better outcomes still. But at present there is no question that universities are not doing this. And therefore affirmative action programs are generally hurting the very people that they are trying to help.