Affirmative Action in the USA.

Alright Mods...not sure if this is too hot a topic to discuss here or not, if it is please feel free to delete or lock the thread.

My personal views on Affirmative action in the US are that they are just a different kind of discrimination at best and harmful. So I found a blog entry by Jonah Goldberg kind of interesting. Im looking for some other peoples views to see what they think about what Jonah points out.



Friday, June 25, 2004

BLACKS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET [Jonah Goldberg ]

I didn't get a chance to comment on this yesterday, but I think this story is fascinating. Harvard -- like a lot of schools, I'm certain -- is going oversees to get many of its black students. Lani Guinier and Henry Gates find the trend troubling and for not entirely illegitimate reasons. If affirmative action was intended to even the playing field for the descendants of slaves, then importing blacks from Bali or Niger doesn't really do that.

But that's what is so delicious about this story! Folks like Guinier have set up a system of bean counting and quotas so as to get more "blacks" into colleges and elsewhere. Now it turns out that maybe they are the wrong kind of blacks. I should note that it's not just immigrant blacks that are "troubling" but the kids from mixed race marriages are disproportionately getting in as blacks.

Anyway, the problem is that in order to sustain, defend and expand the racial spoils system liberals have had to argue that affirmative action is no longer a "remedy" so much as an educational benefit in itself, i.e. "diversity." So now Lee Bollinger the former President of the University of Michigan whose case was decided in the Supreme Court last year, must now defend diversity as educational tool and not as a remedy. "I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education," said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. "The issue is not origin, but social practices," he told the Times. "It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action."

But one of the numerous ironies here is that the diversity fixation has created a market for qualified blacks that -- despite the protestations of Guinier & Co -- cannot be satisfied with the domestic supply. So, in the era of globalization there is a flight to quality. I think it's all just really, really interesting.



Edit: I believe that all applications for schools, jobs and or Government service should not have any entries for Race, Sex or Religious information on them.

[ 06-25-2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by MagiK: Edit: I believe that all applications for schools, jobs and or Government service should not have any entries for Race, Sex or Religious information on them.

I agree totally. It should be based on merit alone.

[ 06-25-2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Aerich]

Originally posted by pritchke: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Edit: I believe that all applications for schools, jobs and or Government service should not have any entries for Race, Sex or Religious information on them.

I agree totally. It should be based on merit alone. [/QUOTE]I'm conflicted about this subject. Merit has to be the primary consideration, of course, but what if two candidates are exactly equal except in racial/ethnic background?

I think affirmative action is a good tool to help correct imbalances, but it loses its effectiveness and rationality if it is not race that is the determining factor, but merit. That is to say, if the inequality is based on race (e.g. blacks prevented or discouraged from attending a private school based on their race, but have the grades to do so), affirmitive action is a positive thing. However, it is negative when meeting racial quotas is more important than the merits of the candidate.

Affirmative action is mostly a surface solution. The real (and very difficult) way to deal with the problem is provide more education and opportunities to those in the ghettoes.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Aerich: Merit has to be the primary consideration, of course, but what if two candidates are exactly equal except in racial/ethnic background?

You flip a coin. [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

Seriously, that is why personal interviews exist. An in-depth interview will also have the candidate meet several current students and teachers (if a school is involved) or current employees (for businesses), to see how the current people and the candidate react to one another.

To be truly fair, applications should proceed through a double-blind system. Human resources person A accepts the applications, put the qualifications on a standard form, assigns the form a number, and passes the standard forms on to human resouces person B. Person B reviews the forms and chooses candidate numbers for interviews.
In reality, though, affirmative action is not needed. Equal opportunity already exists, thus is doesn't need to be enforced.

In the end, the only color that makes people equal, at least from an economic point of view, is green--money.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Aerich: I'm conflicted about this subject. Merit has to be the primary consideration, of course, but what if two candidates are exactly equal except in racial/ethnic background?

Pistols at 20 paces?

[Djinn Raffo]

I never thought of Balinese people as black as the author of the rant in the original post apparently does.

Wow, the students who got in must be thanking their lucky stars eh?

[Djinn Raffo]

Ah I never it noticed it was Jonah Goldberg at first.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Ah I never it noticed it was Jonah Goldberg at first.

And exactly WHAT has this got to do with anything? The person pointing out the practice has no bearing at all...and I do believe he said they were seeking BLACK candidates from Bali...not Black Balinese...or is it your contention there are no black people in Bali?

Edit: and while I am at it...would it be too much to ask for you to actually comment on the subject at hand? rather than to complain about the source that brought it up?

[ 06-27-2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Aerich]

Hold up a minute, Magik. It's not necessarily a bad thing to consider what perspective the source is coming from.

That said, Djinn Raffo, it would be helpful if you would expand a little on how you think this particular author's "slant" influenced the article. I personally know nothing about Jonah Goldberg, and didn't read anything in the article that I would characterize as racist or demeaning. Instead, I would say that he brought up a legitimate point about the failure of affirmative action to address the root of the societal imbalances that it was originally designed to combat.

Aerich Jonah is a well known "Right Wing Conservative" Author...so the lefties aroundhere automaticly just discount anything they write....rather than actually read it..and if they do read it..it is just to criticize the author rather than to address the issue....actually it's kind of standard fare here. (some times it does work the other way too with the right wing knocking a left wing person...such as Michael Moore)....but usually the substance of Left wing publishers articles get involved...not so much so in the reverse.


Edit: Wait let me say it before someone else says it... Pot, Kettle....black!

[ 06-27-2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]