Affirmative Action: I would like to hear a logical defense of this system

I would honestly love to hear a well-thought-out explanation that defends this system of Affirmation Action, which (by its very nature) is both racist and sexist. I have heard the same trite responses before, such as, "It corrects for the ills of our society's past" or "It corrects for the inherent racism that lives within all White people." However, none of the responses that I have ever heard can answer these simple questions:

1) What have 17-year-old Asian boys done wrong to deserve being harmed by AA and not get into the college that they rightfully should have gotten into if we had an egalitarian system of judgment?"
2) Why should someone who belongs to an "over-represented" ethnic group be judged any differently than someone who is not part of that same "over-represented" group?
3)What does a White boy, who was born in 1997 and the grandson of European immigrants, have to do with slavery or the Jim Crow laws of the Deep South?


P.S. There was a recent thread on the topic of AA that was shut down due to a plethora of ad hominem attacks, so if you cannot forumlate a response without a personal attack, then please refrain from responding at all.

 

It is in place due to the rights' insistence on sacrificing the end of our war on poverty to the means of our war on drugs on a longitudinal basis.

 

My OP was very specific and straightforward. I merely asked for a "logical defense" of AA that also answers the three simple questions in my OP. Any mention of the "Right [wing]" is off topic, and your statement fails on every level to satisfy as a response.

 

You're right, I can't support it, if for no other reason than getting rid of it would expose the real problems in the education system.
It turns a talented few into supporters of the government while doing nothing to solve education for the races in question.

Online political tests still say I am a leftist, however.

 

I don't really care one way or the other about AA.

But as far as universites go, I think the most reasonable explanation is they are trying to construct a diverse learning environment. Building a culturally diverse staff and student body adds to the depth of the educational experience. It isn't just about facts in a book after all. I can understand that.

Particularly in classes where discussion is encouraged there are advantages to having multiple points of view. Universties should strive for diversity, not just in ethnicity, but in nationality, gender, age, professional backgrounds and any number of other categories.

Being accepted into a college shouldn't just be about rewarding you for past academic performance. It should also be about what new or unique perspective you can bring into the mix.

And for me, none of that has anything to do with blaming somebody for past injustices, evn though I realize that is part of the "official" justification for AA.

 

Is it fair ? No

Is it needed ? I'd say yeah.

 

AA is institutionalized racism, people used to argue we needed other forms of institutionalized racism in the past too like segregated schools. Anyone who supports AA is just as bad.

 

I'm not a fan of it myself, primarily because I don't think it works, but I appreciate the intent enough to play Devil's advocate.

I don't see why they would be if the system works. The aim of AA is to bring the balance of participation that would apply on merit alone. If an Asian boy would get in to college on merit without AA, the system shouldn't impact his chances.

In a perfect world they shouldn't be, but where the under-represented groups are already being treated differently and that can't be addressed directly, the over-represented group is also being treated differently by definition. The imperfection of further different treatment introduced by AA is an attempt to bring about equal outcomes.

Nothing. The fact remains that he lives in a society that is still significantly influenced by that history.

 

How can you logically think that? If there are a finite number of spots in the prestigious universities in our country, and there are people who are accepted into these universities because of AA (e.g. because they are part of an "under-represented" race) then of course overachieving Asian boys, who are part of an "over-represented" ethnic group, will be harmed. There is no doubt about that. It is the same as having a track race and giving certain runners, based on their ethnic background, a substantial head start. Since only 3 people can obtain metals in the end, of course this head start would give an unfair advantage based on skin color.

I am not sure what you mean by this "balance of participation" term that you stated above. "Merit" entails everthing, such as scholastic achievement, athletic achievement, participation in extracurricular activities, accomplishment in a musical instrument or vocal talents, volunteerism, etc. Why exactly would adding judgment based on skin color and gender be useful, when there are so many infinitely more valuable criteria to judge an applicant?

Again, if there are a finite number of spots in a college, and spots are taken away because of AA beneficiaries, then obviously the Asian boy is hurt by AA.

And you are basing this on what exactly? Please explain how they are being treated differently with some convincing data.

How can it be conceivable that a racist system like AA, which forces people of different skin color and gender to be judged by entirely different standards, can possibly be used to bring equal outcomes? The mere fact that students of different races and genders are being judged by separate standards already precludes the possibily of equal outcomes. For example, if a Black female with a 3.3 GPA is accepted to a prestigious school due to AA while an Asian male with a 4.0 GPA is rejected from that same school, then how are "equal outcomes" possible when such an egregious injustice has occurred?

Well at least we agree on this obvious fact.

What influence do the Jim Crow laws, which affected parts of the Deep South over half a century ago, have with American society as a whole today? The answer is absolutely zero. To say that these laws have a "significant influence" is a distortion of reality. Moreover, why should this 16-year-old boy be the one paying for the societal ills of events that happened at least 40 years before his birth and have nothing to do with his family?

 

Nonsense. College isn't a reward it is an opportunity. An opportunity one can only truly benefit from if one is academically prepared. Not everyone is going to be able to deal effectively with the higher accademic standards expected at places like Harvard or Yale or even Stanford. The dirty little secret is that large majorities of these affirmative action kids that go to Harvard and Yale flunk out in the first two years not so much because they are stupid but because they simply aren't able to deal wit the huge increase in the quality of work that is expected of them. Of those that survive the overwhelming majority get shunted into some academic backwater like sociology, or womyn's studies. Whare academic rigor is far lower and based on published articles in the fields more than occasionally nonexistent.

 

Can you defend your viewpoint with a logical argument? Can you answer the questions that I presented in the OP?

 

The OP doesn't seem to understand debate nor affirmative action. Calling it racist and then asking people to defend it is not debate.

 

I honestly used to think AA wasn't really needed anymore until I started posting on these mostly right wing political forums. With all the racism against blacks and Hispanics you see on forums like these, we are going to need AA for a very long time.

 

I understand that. What I fail to understand is that why is this "diversity" (which is based on something so superficial as skin color) such a wonderful thing that it is more important than equality?

Why exactly? If I am in a student in a large lecture hall, then why is it so important if the guy sitting 10 seats to my right is a Black male, or if the girl sitting 10 rows behind me is a Native American, or if the person sitting right next to me is a Filipino transexual? How does all of this benefit me if I am trying to sit down and understand a subject matter during a lecture?

You are changing the topic: Of course college is not all about books. However, the judging process for applicants looking to get into college should be equal and not racist or sexist. Since equality, by definition, precludes a system of racism (e.g. AA), you have a choice to make: Do you want a egaltarian system that is blind to gender and race and judges prospective applicants based upon their hard work and acheivements, or do you want a system that utilizies a standard of racism and sexism to obtain a superficial "diversity?" I will always choose the former.

So only if people are different skin colors can we have different points of view? I hope you don't really believe this. I know that one's life philosphy is definitely not at all connected to the amount of melanin in one's skin. Why can't a room of people with the same skin color have different points of view?

When you speak of "diversity", you should take a deeper look to what this term really means. Diversity means nothing more than segregation of judgment (e.g. Blacks are judged by one criteria and Asians are judged by another criteria). Since I personal abhore racism and segregation, I could not disagree more with your statement above.

Then what is the point for a high school student to work hard and accomplish things if not to help him/her get into college? How else can you fairly judge a potential college applicant if not for their past adademic performance?

Yet these unique perspectives are directly linked to their accomplishments (e.g. playing a musical instrument, speaking several languages, being a national chess champion, etc), rather than their skin color or gender. Thus, I will always fail to see why you put so much weight on the amount of melanin in one's skin or the presence of a single chromosome (e.g. XY vs XX).

 

A system that judges people based on the color of one's skin is, by defintion, racist. I have every right to pose my questions. Similarly, if I posed a similar OP and asked for justification of the Jim Crow Laws, would you have a problem with me calling those laws "racist?"

 

What exactly does the presence of some "right-wingers" on this forum have to do with the systematic system of racism that is Affirmative Action? I'm not seeing the logical link here. I have seen a ton of anti-Semitism on these forums too, as well as anti-White jargon and anti-Asian nonsense, so what exactly is your point?

 

But that is not what Affirmative Action is....

 

I don't think it's fair because it uses skin color as a guide rod , but at the same time I think that black culture will improve through education , and the more we can get into college the better off our nation is as a whole .

 

Because it drums up votes for the democrats. That is the reason they have always without exception championed laws that discriminate based on skin color. They are obsessed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it is. It discriminates based on skin color.

 

They'd only be harmed in as much as they loose an unfair advantage.

Say there is a course with 100 places and on true merit, there would be 10 black students, 5 Asian students and 85 white students - they just happen to be the best 100 candidates. Because of discrimination though, a lot of those black students are discouraged or prevented from getting those places legitimately. Lets say that gives us only two black students. The remaining eight places will be taken by other white or Asian students, ones who wouldn't have gained them on merit. If an AA scheme is used to ring-fence 10 places for black students, the other 90 can still go to the 5 Asian and 85 white students who would naturally get them on merit. The only ones loosing out weren't really good enough to win a place on a balanced playing field (making that work in the real world is a whole different thing of course).

AA assumes that there will be inevitable judgement based on skin colour, negatively impacting some people. It's intent is to balance that with "positive" judgement against the same people in an attempt to neutralise the effects.

I'm not defending the practice. I'm providing a logical argument for the principle, which is what you asked for.

You assume GPA is an equal measure of raw academic ability with no intrinsic discriminatory factors making it easier or harder for some people to get higher results. I'm not saying this is the case (I don't know enough about how GPA is calculated to say) but it's the kind of concepts AA is based upon. That doesn't make it right in practice but does explain the logic behind it.

Those specific laws were a symptom, not a cause. I'm talking about the general history of black people in the Americas and throughout the history of the USA. There is a legitimate discussion as to the nature and scale of the effects today but it would be laughable to deny that history has a significant ongoing influence on US society, everything from demographic geography, social and cultural influences and legal and legislative structures.

That question only applies if you perceive AA as a punishment targeted at white people today which is a gross misrepresentation of what it is actually about.

 

Except that it never works that way in practice. It simply deligitimizes minority success and acheivement, forces minority kids whose educational background, through no fault of their own, is substandard to compete with kids who've had the best education money could buy and then when they fail as most will, because they never had a chance going in, kicks them to the side of the curb with almost no chance for re-entry.

 

Affirmative Action: LBJ "Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man"

AA has helped women, minorities. We still have racism and male chauvinism today. I would only add income levels to AA but AA is still needed in America.

 

No sorry, For every minority person it has helped it has damaged or destroyed a dozen.The problem is that AA doesn't do a damn thing to address those problems LBJ spoke of.

 

Not true. Racist: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another. Programs to correct discrimination of women and minorities is not racist.

 

AA is not just for education. It is also for the workplace. People are still being discriminated in both areas. It would be worst if AA was stopped. AA does address these problems no matter how much racists and male chauvinists disagree.