PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[GirlySports]

Lets take the affirmative action/quotas example.

1. There are 100 law school spots and only whites can have them.

2. There are 100 spots and anyone can have them.

3. There are 100 spots and 50 of them must go to minorites and 50 to anyone.

Option 3 is the problem. In option 2 there could be 0 white people getting in but there would be no gripe. In option 3 there could be no white people but they will assume the are out because there were only 50 spot even though it wouldnt have mattered.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Lets take the affirmative action/quotas example.

1. There are 100 law school spots and only whites can have them.

2. There are 100 spots and anyone can have them.

3. There are 100 spots and 50 of them must go to minorites and 50 to anyone.

Option 3 is the problem. In option 2 there could be 0 white people getting in but there would be no gripe. In option 3 there could be no white people but they will assume the are out because there were only 50 spot even though it wouldnt have mattered.

Just want to clarify that not all affirmative action involves quotas and is discriminatory in this sense.

A great example of affirmative action done right was with getting women into higher education. This didn't involve quotas, but rather, policies tailored to making it more appealing for women. Just saying women are welcome at our university had a huge impact in their enrollment rates. Today the many scholarships available exclusively for women help ensure that this continues.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Lets take the affirmative action/quotas example.

1. There are 100 law school spots and only whites can have them.

2. There are 100 spots and anyone can have them.

3. There are 100 spots and 50 of them must go to minorites and 50 to anyone.

Option 3 is the problem. In option 2 there could be 0 white people getting in but there would be no gripe. In option 3 there could be no white people but they will assume the are out because there were only 50 spot even though it wouldnt have mattered.

Sure, but this assumes that everyone starts from the same spot (which they don't) and that there isn't an advantage to have diversity in the school.

[Red Slinger]

That's not generally how affirmative action works. They example you gave is an argument from the extreme. A more realistic example is that in scenario 3, that there are 100 spots and 10-20 are reserved for minority candidates that apply. The reason for this is because historically scenario 1 is what was in practice up until the civil rights movement. In some places it was even law. In order to counteract systematic racism inherent either in writing or in practice, quotas were established.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Just want to clarify that not all affirmative action involves quotas and is discriminatory in this sense.

A great example of affirmative action done right was with getting women into higher education. This didn't involve quotas, but rather, policies tailored to making it more appealing for women. Just saying women are welcome at our university had a huge impact in their enrollment rates. Today the many scholarships available exclusively for women help ensure that this continues.

Aren't these the opposite? Making scholarships only available to one sex?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Sure, but this assumes that everyone starts from the same spot (which they don't) and that there isn't an advantage to have diversity in the school.

Yes but if at somepoint everyone does start at the same point say in 50 years would it be PC to remove it?

At some point itll be skewed too far.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes but if at somepoint everyone does start at the same point say in 50 years would it be PC to remove it?

yes

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Sure, but this assumes that everyone starts from the same spot (which they don't) and that there isn't an advantage to have diversity in the school.

That can be the assumption, but doesn't have to be the assumption.

The assumption can also be that the best people shouldn't be held back by having to target studies at people that can't keep up.

For example, if you find that white people and Asians are dominating in terms of getting into competitive programs, you might create a second program that is less competitive, and targeted towards the underlying issues that prevent the other groups from entering the more competitive stream. This benefits both groups. The people starting ahead can continue to maximize their potential and contribute in larger ways as a result, but the other groups also get an education that moves them farther ahead than they would be otherwise, including if they struggled to get through the competitive program that assumed a level of achievement they hadn't attained (even if it's because they are starting from behind the curve due to cultural and discriminatory factors).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

yes

You would get a big argument saying youre going back to the problem. Why undo a good thing?

[GirlySports]

Sworkhard: youd need more profs

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You would get a big argument saying youre going back to the problem. Why undo a good thing?

Are you arguing that we should eliminate affirmative action because in the future when it's done what it set out to do and people are on a level playing field that people won't want to get rid of it because it worked too well?

So, don't do it because it works?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

That can be the assumption, but doesn't have to be the assumption.

The assumption can also be that the best people shouldn't be held back by having to target studies at people that can't keep up.

For example, if you find that white people and Asians are dominating in terms of getting into competitive programs, you might create a second program that is less competitive, and targeted towards the underlying issues that prevent the other groups from entering the more competitive stream. This benefits both groups. The people starting ahead can continue to maximize their potential and contribute in larger ways as a result, but the other groups also get an education that moves them farther ahead than they would be otherwise, including if they struggled to get through the competitive program that assumed a level of achievement they hadn't attained (even if it's because they are starting from behind the curve due to cultural and discriminatory factors).

This sounds like separate but equal.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Aren't these the opposite? Making scholarships only available to one sex?

Not really. Scholarships provide an advantage, but aren't quotas, which is my point. The scholarship doesn't prevent a white man from beating a less qualified black woman for entrance. They are both forms of affirmative action that aren't quotas.

There are also scholarships exclusively available for rural students. There are even scholarships exclusively for white males (See Milo's privilege grants).

These are incentives to encourage applying rather than things that provide uneven competition for entrance.

[GirlySports]

I agree scholarships are better than quotas. My fear it that when the group catches up or surpasses it the quota is still there. It would be racist to remove it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Affirmative action, when it's done properly, isn't about fixing some legacy of oppression or giving handouts to minorities. It's a recognition of the fact that, because not everyone starts out playing on a level playing field, past performance on that playing field isn't always the best way to predict people's future performance.

It's about the potential of people who haven't had the same opportunities in life that others have had, giving them those opportunities, and seeing them thrive once that door is finally opened to them.

[Weitz]

My brother got a scholarship once that was for woman because he was literally the only person who applied, so they gave it to him. I always had a chuckle from that.

[photon]

Also recognizing that there's very often systemic obstacles that discriminate. Most of the men I've worked with in technology aren't sexist at all, however I observe a systemic sexism all the time. Most of the women I've worked faced a lot of discrimination to get where they are.

It's not overt discrimination, but it still exists.

Affirmative action should help overcome or remove those barriers until such barriers aren't around to need to be removed anymore.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This sounds like separate but equal.

Then you need to get your "hearing" fixed. Separate but equal says there inherent differences between the genders so it's reasonable to discriminate based on that. I'm not saying that at all.

Rather, I'm saying starting behind the curve isn't a reason to hold back those that are starting ahead of the curve in terms of education and scholarly ability. I think everyone is better off if those ahead of the curve in this way can compete fairly for the best education for those people, while providing people without those advantages an education that takes into account this fact and fills in the educational gap so that they can compete on more level ground after graduation.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by photon

Also recognizing that there's very often systemic obstacles that discriminate. Most of the men I've worked with in technology aren't sexist at all, however I observe a systemic sexism all the time. Most of the women I've worked faced a lot of discrimination to get where they are.

It's not overt discrimination, but it still exists.

Affirmative action should help overcome or remove those barriers until such barriers aren't around to need to be removed anymore.

How is the barrier measured and when is it passed. Its so subjective. I cant see it removed without it being considered racist.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How is the barrier measured and when is it passes. Its so subjective. I cant see it removed without it being considered racist.

It's going to depend, and yes it'll be somewhat subjective, but if it's being measured to be able to put affirmative action in place in the first place then that's how you'll know when you're getting into the range of not needing it.