8 ms·

> undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action d

> undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action does not mean that an unqualified worker replaces a qualified worker because of race. Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible. This has the added benefit of making sure civil servants (ie our government) are more accurately representing the dynamics of the population as a whole. Whether it actually works is a difficult question, and I've only done a little bit of reading on the issue (I have friends who are activists and explained the details to me, but I wasn't able to commit a lot of the specific details and studies to memory). A summary: it's complicated, there's pros and cons, but the pros can outweigh the cons depending on implementation. A quick Google search reveals a few interesting things. A study from Princeton indicated that ending affirmative action would result in a sharp decline in minority students, but it wouldn't actually raise the acceptance rate for non-minority students significantly. But there are also some studies that indicate the opposite (an analysis of law schools, for example, revealed that there would potentially be more black lawyers if affirmative action was not in place). As always, make the evaluation for yourself, but asking someone to validate affirmative action on HN is quite a task, isn't it? But to reframe the discussion a little bit: it's not a question of whether it's just or fair -- it's a question of whether it's an effective approach to inequality. The idea of "reverse racism" is baloney, and I can explain that opinion further if necessary.

Karunamon 14y ago
>The idea of "reverse racism" is baloney, and I can explain that opinion further if necessary. I'd be interested in that explanation. Combatting discrimination by allowing discrimination by or for minorities seems like pushing the pendulum too far back in the other direction. Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race? Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels?
- king_jester 14y ago
  You cannot create institutional and systemic racism against white people. White is the cultural norm in the US: everything is default to white perspective and whiteness is considered the most desireable state. Even if a minority treats an individual white person badly, that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected, nor have that sentiment compounded by society at large every day of their life. Furthermore, policies like affirmative action recognize how badly minorities have been treated both historically and today, so the policy attempts to make a (small) correction for that imbalance. > Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race? Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. People of color are disproportionately affected by the economic and political systems of the US. We live in a state of unfair treatment for people of color right now, eliminating things like affirmative action will not change that reality. > Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels? The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. It is really clear you have no idea how badly native peoples in the US are treated. Native people are much more often victims of violent crime. Most native populations have been wiped out by colonial settlers, and those that survived have been forced from their homelands. Native territories are forbidden from prosecuting criminals under their own laws, leaving them unable to provide legal protection against violent crimes. Racist attitudes towards native peoples are extremely prevalent and popular culture constantly attempts to assimilate native culture as a perpetuation of the colonial settler genocide of native peoples. Giving a native person a job is the least US society could do, when it should be doing things like returning stolen lands and providing permanent economic support for those native nations that still exist.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >..that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people? >Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. Aha. Sounds like the problem is here. The laws we have need to be applied correctly, instead of inventing new and questionable ones. >The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. Any "sentiment" you see is purely of your own invention. I mentioned a fact (namely an ad in a newspaper), and asked how that is not wrong. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of the race of the person doing it. Put another way, the cure to discrimination is not more discrimination, and it's frankly idiotic to assume that it is. I'm beginning to think race discussions are becoming the new religious discussions. People are incapable of discussing it without moralizing, preaching, or talking down.
javert 14y ago
> First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action does not mean that an unqualified worker replaces a qualified worker because of race. Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible. I've never heard of that idea (which means it's interesting, not wrong). But, I also think it's wrong. For example, at my university, where a pretty small proportion of applicants actually get in (it's highly competitive), you can't get a sizeable proportion of blacks using the method you suggest. You have to use the method that you don't suggest, which is what they do. I appreciate your referencing actual reasearch. I think there are tangible but non-quantifiable effects that are not measured by that kind of thing, though. For example, people know that affirmative action (as I have seen it practiced) is ubiquitous and unfair, and that in itself makes it harder for prejudices to be dissolved. This even applies to the people who are supposed to directly benefit from affirmative action.
astine 14y ago
"Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible." Maybe this is what Affirmative Action means to you, but not to everyone. In fact, the University of Texas is currently at court regarding this very issue, where the university intentionally admitted minority students at the expense of white students who were otherwise better qualified in order to meet vague race quotas. The case is currently being argued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas
- shantanubala 14y ago
  This is certainly tricky, and obviously a judge is the one to make the final decision for the US, but I'll stick by my interpretation of the Civil Rights Act for now :-) Obviously, there is always the problem of having a profession where the demand hasn't been met by the supply of skilled workers (like programming!) which takes time before it balances a bit more, and this is where the idea of racial quotas breaks down considerably.

Karunamon 14y ago

>The idea of "reverse racism" is baloney, and I can explain that opinion further if necessary. I'd be interested in that explanation. Combatting discrimination by allowing discrimination by or for minorities seems like pushing the pendulum too far back in the other direction. Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race? Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels?

king_jester 14y ago
You cannot create institutional and systemic racism against white people. White is the cultural norm in the US: everything is default to white perspective and whiteness is considered the most desireable state. Even if a minority treats an individual white person badly, that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected, nor have that sentiment compounded by society at large every day of their life. Furthermore, policies like affirmative action recognize how badly minorities have been treated both historically and today, so the policy attempts to make a (small) correction for that imbalance. > Isn't the idea equality? Having everyone playing by the same rules regardless of race? Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. People of color are disproportionately affected by the economic and political systems of the US. We live in a state of unfair treatment for people of color right now, eliminating things like affirmative action will not change that reality. > Example (in my own home state, no less) For jobs offered on native lands, the advertisements are allowed to say "Indian preference applies" - which means exactly what it sounds like. Isn't this wrong on a number of levels? The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. It is really clear you have no idea how badly native peoples in the US are treated. Native people are much more often victims of violent crime. Most native populations have been wiped out by colonial settlers, and those that survived have been forced from their homelands. Native territories are forbidden from prosecuting criminals under their own laws, leaving them unable to provide legal protection against violent crimes. Racist attitudes towards native peoples are extremely prevalent and popular culture constantly attempts to assimilate native culture as a perpetuation of the colonial settler genocide of native peoples. Giving a native person a job is the least US society could do, when it should be doing things like returning stolen lands and providing permanent economic support for those native nations that still exist.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >..that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people? >Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. Aha. Sounds like the problem is here. The laws we have need to be applied correctly, instead of inventing new and questionable ones. >The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. Any "sentiment" you see is purely of your own invention. I mentioned a fact (namely an ad in a newspaper), and asked how that is not wrong. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of the race of the person doing it. Put another way, the cure to discrimination is not more discrimination, and it's frankly idiotic to assume that it is. I'm beginning to think race discussions are becoming the new religious discussions. People are incapable of discussing it without moralizing, preaching, or talking down.

javert 14y ago

> First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action does not mean that an unqualified worker replaces a qualified worker because of race. Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible. I've never heard of that idea (which means it's interesting, not wrong). But, I also think it's wrong. For example, at my university, where a pretty small proportion of applicants actually get in (it's highly competitive), you can't get a sizeable proportion of blacks using the method you suggest. You have to use the method that you don't suggest, which is what they do. I appreciate your referencing actual reasearch. I think there are tangible but non-quantifiable effects that are not measured by that kind of thing, though. For example, people know that affirmative action (as I have seen it practiced) is ubiquitous and unfair, and that in itself makes it harder for prejudices to be dissolved. This even applies to the people who are supposed to directly benefit from affirmative action.

astine 14y ago

"Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible." Maybe this is what Affirmative Action means to you, but not to everyone. In fact, the University of Texas is currently at court regarding this very issue, where the university intentionally admitted minority students at the expense of white students who were otherwise better qualified in order to meet vague race quotas. The case is currently being argued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas

shantanubala 14y ago
This is certainly tricky, and obviously a judge is the one to make the final decision for the US, but I'll stick by my interpretation of the Civil Rights Act for now :-) Obviously, there is always the problem of having a profession where the demand hasn't been met by the supply of skilled workers (like programming!) which takes time before it balances a bit more, and this is where the idea of racial quotas breaks down considerably.