The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions
sidhaethe
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Before the Strategic Incompetence of Democrats thread gets locked, some infract-lucious dialogue began on Affirmative Action and I'm putting it in its own thread.
I'll pick up right before people started getting infracted, with Modern Man's comments:
Okay, pick it back up here!
I'll pick up right before people started getting infracted, with Modern Man's comments:
Modern Man wrote: »Which had nothing to do with the color of my skin. It had to do with the fact that my dad had a specialized engineering skillset that meant he was attractive enough to an employer in Michigan that they were willing to pay to get a good visa for us.AngelHedgie wrote: »You want a concrete examples, MM? How about the fact that you were able to become a naturalized citizen of the US?My social context is being raised by parents who placed a high value on education and accomplishment due to their desire to better their life over what they had in the old country.Because the social contexts from which you have received those benefits are inseparable with discrimination which has the effect to elevate white people above others.No, of course not. It was paid for by my parents and by way of loans. In that way, I was no different than my non-white classmates.Was your education free?An insider to what? My family were immigrants in both Canada and the US. Very few white people are New England bluebloods.Did your social skills develop from a white culture where you were an insider?Sure. Like my non-white colleagues, I was promoted based on a combination of my work and my personal connections with supervisors.Did the quality and perception of your work depend on who liked you in any way? (I.E. have you ever worked with people?)Nope, you still haven't shown this.If so, then you have been the beneficiary of discrimination.
You've listed a bunch of things (education, promotions at work etc.) that are available to people of all races. There isn't some special white person card that gets handed out and allows you to cruise through life. Unless you're born a Kennedy or Bush, you have to work for everything in life. No one gives you shit based on your race. Well, except jobs in the case of affirmative action.
Sorry- going totally off-topic here
Goumindong wrote: »Which would not have happened if you came from Africa or Mexico.Modern Man wrote: »Which had nothing to do with the color of my skin. It had to do with the fact that my dad had a specialized engineering skillset that meant he was attractive enough to an employer in Michigan that they were willing to pay to get a good visa for us.White culture. White Culture is not New England Blueblood.An insider to what? My family were immigrants in both Canada and the US. Very few white people are New England bluebloods.Sure. Like my non-white colleagues, I was promoted based on a combination of my work and my personal connections with supervisors.
All of which you earned legitimately and had nothing to do with the prejudices (known and unknown) of your supervisors and associates right?Loren Michael wrote:This seems like the problem you were just mentioning though, the problems of seeing it at an individual level. How do we know my specific loans were... this doesn't seem like the right term to use, "racist"?
1) It is more or less a statistical certainty that this will happen at some point
2) Markets effect prices in such a way that if the effect was not widespread you could not find evidence of it(rather the "racist" data would end up as outliers).
3) Markets effect prices in such ways that even if you were not directly discriminated for, you would be a recipient of the general terms and moods which have been molded, by that racism, for your particular area.
Guys, I am all for helping Modern Man understand the concept of privilege, but I'm a little unclear as to what it has to do with The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats. This is the second on-topic warning I've had to make in the last ten pages. There won't be a third.
If some kind soul would like to move this discussion into its own thread, that would be keen.
It's funny, because I was actually about to have a post that would sort of tie it back in
The interesting thing people will note in MM's posts is that he's conceptualizing affirmative action in the context of reward and punishment, as well as individual achievement/individual responsibility. Affirmative action punishes people who have worked hard to earn jobs, mortgages, whatever -- that doesn't seem moral. Why should someone be punished just for being white?
And then of course folded into that was sort of a denial that prejudice exists at all in American society today, and that's sort of tougher to deal with, but that's very common with conservative ideology. Conservative ideology fundamentally lacks a method of addressing subtle discrimination. Open, explicit discrimination they can wrap their heads around, but conservative ideology is built on a myth of individual achievement and responsibility. It's the whole premise upon which their reward/punishment system is built.
Remember my earlier post where I mentioned that their system of reward and punishment hinges on the idea that if you're moral and self-disciplined, you will succeed, and therefore success and failure are fairly-distributed marks of morality -- of your value as a human being. That whole concept is undermined by any notions that people get where they are by other means -- that broad social forces have anything to do with anything. The reason explicit discrimination is understandable as wrong to a conservative is because it's something that can be interpreted and understood within the framework of individual action and responsibility. Once you progress to things that can only be understood in aggregate (like, say, middle-class white norms of communication that most black children never get the chance to learn, and how those norms are privileged over other communication modes), it becomes repugnant to a conservative, because it undermines the very foundation of their reward/punishment system, which in turn is the thing that holds the moral fabric of the nation together.
What's happening right now, in this very thread, is a great example of how Democrats are ineffectual.
MM is approaching this entire topic from a framework that we don't get and in a language that we don't speak, but we're responding to him without providing a clear alternative framework.
Instead of saying it's not about reward and punishment at all, and making that incredibly clear, we're trying to work out an understanding of how, exactly, the calculus works: "yes, it sort of punishes white people but it's very mild and we kind of deserve it because blah blah blah."
That's why affirmative action doesn't exist anymore in nearly any public collegiate system in America, and continues to be removed by legislation (even as private companies and colleges, ironically, often choose to maintain these programs because they recognize the value in them)
Because we got trapped in his framework (even I did!) instead of saying -- it's not about punishing people, it's not about anyone's ancestors.
Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.
But see how hard it is to step back and realize that that's the more compelling message? See how easy it is to get caught in someone else's conceptualization?
It's a difficult task, but it's something that candidates and strategists should be able to figure out, considering it is their job.
Modern Man wrote: »In the context of affirmative action, how would you intend to sell this as being anything other than "Based on your skin color, we're going to put you and your kids at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college and getting a job."Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.
There isn't any way to do so. People aren't going to support an agenda that directly puts them and their families at a disadvantage. Especially in economically dicey times.
Which is why I think affirmative action is dying a slow but sure death in this country. There are very few politicians willing to stick their neck out for such a deeply unpopular policy.
override367 wrote: »SyphonBlue wrote: »Modern Man wrote: »In the context of affirmative action, how would you intend to sell this as being anything other than "Based on your skin color, we're going to put you and your kids at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college and getting a job."Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.
There isn't any way to do so. People aren't going to support an agenda that directly puts them and their families at a disadvantage. Especially in economically dicey times.
Which is why I think affirmative action is dying a slow but sure death in this country. There are very few politicians willing to stick their neck out for such a deeply unpopular policy.
Should just eliminate the "What race are you" question. Just don't even ask it.
Sociologists found in a study in Milwaukee that someone with an "ethnic sounding name" was extremely unlikely to receive a call back for interviews. If your name is Tyrone, it doesn't matter how qualified you are - best not look for work in Milwaukee.
I'm not sure if Wisconsin is particularly racist, but there it is
The thing with AA is that it seems horribly unfair .... if you assume that everyone starts off equal and/or has an equal shot.
And THAT'S one of the Right's biggest victories. Probably their biggest. American Exceptionalism and the American Dream and all that. The idea so many people have that lack of success is 100% a personal failing. The environment has no effect on people's chance at success. It's the one big thing they stole from Ayn Rand and it's a fucking abomination.
And it ties into everything they believe. Low taxes for the Rich? Well, I'll be rich too some day. Cause I'll try hard enough and that's all it takes!
AA creates an injustice on an individual level to create a good on the societal level. It is a very inelegant solution to a real problem, and I'd be in completely in favor of axing it if another solution is found
Okay, pick it back up here!
sidhaethe on
0
Posts
So pretty much anyone willing to weigh in on Affirmative Action is going to have more knowledge on the subject than me. Have at it.
Additionally, the prevalence of individuals not hired or accepted into a school because of affirmative action is largely unprovable, but I suspect greatly over exaggerated.
Saying that X% of an employer's workforce must be black is affirmative action.
Having the HR database automatically remove the names from resumes so they are anonymous on first-pass review is affirmative action.
An employer identifying an unusually low number of qualified black applicants to an unadvertised executive position and discovering upon investigation that the majority of their applicants are informed of the position by word-of-mouth networking which therefore reinforces the demographic makeup of their existing executive staff is also affirmative action.
Some of these forms of affirmative action are more fair than others.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The real rub is, when do you stop? How do you determine that things have equaled out in terms of chance? Clearly Affirmative Action isn't a permanent solution. Now, one answer might be that Affirmative Action should be applied to any minority group, since there cannot be an equal opportunity as long as they are the minority, due to racial segregation.
I think the way to get around that is to try ending racial segregation.
Affirmative Action no longer means quotas. Quotas have been struck down by the courts, and probably rightfully so. The way it works now means advertising for a job must specifically target certain minorities. I see no problem with this in a general sense as long as there is a systemic racism problem.
but they're listening to every word I say
Fair point. It would probably be fair to assume that I have benefitted from such items as blind resume selection. I don't generally fill out the equal opportunity fields, though.
I'm kind of all for getting deep into policy wonkery, though. I mean, that's germane to the subject (unless the mods disapprove, of course).
Oh, me too.
I'd love to see that discussion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yup. There was a story a few weeks ago about some middle school in Mississippi that segregated student council positions, ie one year a black student had to be president and a white student had to be VP and vice versa. I remember watching MSNBC and Rachel Maddow was flipping the fuck out over this injustice.
This was probably a progressive thing way back in the day and no one's been assed to change it or reevaluate the rule. It was a policy inherited by the School Board and the calculation by those in the know was that it would probably garner WRBLGRBL if they tried to repeal it.
I would be interested in hearing AA opponents address the point Feral brought up about stripping names from resumes. Is this type of Affirmative Action acceptable? Perhaps we could try to hammer down the various manifestations of AA and address each type. Quotas, for example, as mentioned, are out or on the way out. I don't know anyone in my family, at least, who has benefited from quotas based on race.
Amusing and still-related aside: I do know that I was heavily recruited in high school to enter engineering as a WOMAN, not as a black person, due to female lack of representation in that career path, and that there were a not-insignificant amount of scholarships available for women in nontraditional fields.
The same thing is happening in the trade I am currently trying to get started in. My test scores, however, are my own. And better than my fiance's
Yeah, but isn't Mississippi the state with that high school that had segregated proms a few years back? And then when they were forced to desegregate it, the parents of the white kids just held their own prom instead that just coincidentally ended up being whites-only?
It's like an alternate reality where people literally get hired based on their credentials instead of after extensive pruning based on cultural preferences. If we could change the hiring culture in America to be more inclusive (along more than just racial lines), I think it would be good for everyone.
One interesting version of AA in CS that I've heard of is teaching CS 101 in an obscure language, usually a functional language.
That is interesting... though the ESL folks I took CS classes with generally did extremely well, language barriers aside (speaking mostly of students of Asian descent). I wonder how this would work with students who speak dialects like Ebonics.
Speaking of Ebonics, I remember this being a pretty charged issue where teachers were supposed to start teaching students in Ebonics and this was shot down pretty heavily. I read a conflicting source, though, that said the reason teachers were learning Ebonics was in order to communicate with students to teach them to speak English properly. The scenario as presented at first is one I was :? about, but the second scenario has me much less opposed, if still a little perplexed.
Again to try to tie this into something I relate to, my parents speak West Indian dialects, or forms of patois. This doesn't mean they can't write or speak accented English as well as the next person, on a college (and post-graduate in my Dad's case) level. So, again in my ignorance, I struggle a bit to understand the need to "dual language" African Americans who speak Ebonics, because while my parents spoke patois at home, it was the Queen's English all the way at school, and they didn't have problems with literacy or comprehension.
On the other side of it, my fiance sometimes encounters students who are the children of illiterate Spanish-speaking immigrants who don't speak any English, and so the children lack fluency in their mother tongue. Then they go to English-speaking school and lack fluency and literacy in English. These kids are extremely difficult to teach because their first language is pretty much Spanglish. In such a case I think I would be in support of classes that approach them on that level in an attempt to coax them into competence in at least one of those languages.
I think he specifically means a functional programming language.
AH, is the idea that students of lower socioeconomic class are less likely to have been exposed to common languages like Java or C++, therefore giving them a disadvantage?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Other types can be a little more tricky because it becomes increasingly difficult to weigh the hardships people go through as a result of their race and background. How much of an advantage has a white person had over a black person? Does it matter if the black person in question is wealthy, or the white person poor?
(personally I think AA should be class/wealth based, which would still overwhelmingly be in favor of minorities, but that's just me).
I could get behind this.
Especially because if a rich person gets turned down for a job or what have you its harder for them to argue it hurt them appreciably, as they are already well off.
I am also for this, but I am interested to see if there's a perspective I'm overlooking.
In fact, the strategy illustrated in that example appeals to me greatly because it directly addresses the cause, not just the symptom of the problem, by eliminating any means of race/sex based discrimination. I've got to think that's better and less objectionable to more people than a utilitarian, "lesser evil" approach.
Of course, it's not an either/or thing. I haven't really formed a firm opinion on how far affirmative action should be taken.
Put the names of all applicants who meet the minimum qualifications into a hat and randomly select a name. Chance is fair.
Its hard to convince people that they have an advantage. Or at least one that their parents or ancestors didnt earn for them. Its also hard to convince people that the specific individual actions of AA are fair. Fair on a large scale is different then fair on that individual level.
If Im a white man, and I am equally or slightly more qualified then a black man, but AA for one way or another causes that black man to be hired. It is very very difficult to convince me that it was fair. It is also very easy for a majority of people to put themselves in that white man's shoes and less so in the black man's.
Another issue is that most Americans dont view themselves as privleged or under-privledged. It goes back to how everyone sees themselves as middle class. Of course if you think you and everyone else is middle class, you dont see a need to even out the playing field.
That sort of goes against the American dream...a lot though. I mean, if I want to bust my ass off so I get rich and can help my kids and grandkids be successful easier, I should be able to. Id be hard pressed to be convinced that discrimination because of class/wealth is to undo some unfair starting point. Some advantages are earned...
For fuck's sake...
Nay. I don't not like AA, because it provides an unfair advantage to presumably disadvantaged minorities. I take offense when I'm asked to complete an AA questionaire, as if I'm somehow too advantageous and therefore unworthy of favoritism. Who deemed that life is easier for white males? We have just as many problems.
Seems horribly inefficient in terms of finding the person best qualified for the job.
If you're that wealthy, you've got plenty of advantages as it is. Like you know, wealth.
*sigh*
Except that frequently the best qualified person is overqualified. We don't really do best qualified, we do 'appropriately qualified + you seem like you'll fit in'.
No, but it will meet the end goal of affirmative action a hell of a lot faster than affirmative action can. After that point, we can discard the system. Or we can plod along with AA for another 70 years.
Don't get me wrong, I fully acknowledge that Mississippi is a backwater shithole that has done and continues to do horrible things. The thing is, I don't think this middle school thing was some evil racist plot so much as a thing that no one who knew about wanted to touch with a ten foot pole.
It's like sodomy laws. Sure it's ridiculous that blow jobs are illegal, but it's a helluva lot easier to ignore it than to be painted as the pro-sodomy guy.
Totally willing to be that guy.
Any programming experience, really. Everyone starts at square one, so the students who have been programming for years are on the same level as the students who ate just starting. It improves retention rates of nontraditional CS students.
Yes, but everyone else has the same fucking problems as white males in addition to the fact that they're disadvantaged by race/gender/disability.
Ok....yes, but not every advantage needs to be compensated for. If I want to work hard to pay for my kids college to get them a better education to have them have an advantage in the job market over some other guys kid who slacked off and spent his money on beer, i should be able to. That's one of the great things about this country.
Admittedly, theres generations of money who havent worked hard in decades who just keep passing the wealth and getting all the advantages. Its hard to tell where its fair and where it isnt. But simply saying we need to even out the playing field between classes of wealth is discouraging people from working hard for their future generations.
Some people like to believe that you work hard to make things easier for your kids. I tend to agree with that. My parents kick ass. My grandpa came from almost nothing and spent 0 to allow my dad to have some advantages. Then my dad took those and busted his ass to let me to go college.
My mom grew up with a single mom and had kids at 15 and busted her ass to support them to eventually get a wonderfully stable home with my dad, working multiple jobs. My half brother, who was her first kid, now has his own wonderful family who he busts his ass to make things better for.
My other brother is lazy and unmotivated and got his degree and did nothing, lives with my parents at 29.
Point is, I do have lots of advantages that some folks didnt get. But to try to even things out with be undermining all the hard work my parents put in. Its also clearly not a gimmee, based on my bro.
Ahhhhh. I get it now. I did think you were referring to a programming language, I just lacked the imagination to see how that really levelled the playing field until it was spelled out for me.
A lot of that is anecdotal. Being very poor puts you at a proven disadvantage in many ways beyond simply not having money. There are social stigmas attached. Yes some people can work hard and get wealthy, but its by no means common.
Social mobility in this country is an absolute joke and the rich have the run of the mill. Affirmative Action for the capable poor would do so much fucking good for this country.
But do you deny that you perhaps benefit in some ways that your parents didn't work for (unless perhaps they changed their last name from DiGiorgnio to Wallace or something), that others don't have access to?
It seems to me that what privilege is about (and AA attempts, perhaps ham-handedly, to address) is that a black guy whose parents worked just as hard as yours, has fewer opportunities than you do just because his skin is black, let alone if he's been blessed with a name like Tyrone, or Jamal, let ALONE if he should have an accent that is identifiable as "African American."
Tyrone/Jamal might have a bum brother, too. But he's still at a disadvantage compared to you that are wholly unrelated to how hard your respective parents worked, or how hard you, respectively are working now.
I'd define it as any policy that takes into consideration a characteristic such as race, gender or religion, rather than pure merit, in determining who should get a certain position, be promoted or receive some other positive benefit.
At its purest, I'd say a system that weighs test scores and grades differently based on race (which is what happened in the University of Michigan case a few years back) is the best example of affirmative action.
Affirmative action can also include emphasis on recruitment of people based on one of these characteristics, rather than a neutral process based on things like test scores.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's probably a good idea anyway to help people unlearn bad habits they'd developed from self-study.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
While it may have the added benefit of improving retention rates (actually across the board if memory serves), this is actually less about affirmative action and more about teaching the little bastards some humility and making them more willing to accept instruction. To wit, the hotshot who took two years of C# or java or cisco certification in highschool has, as a rule, the following
The easiest way to get them to pay attention and learn good habits is to demonstrate to them that they know absolutely nothing. Functional programing languages are a touch more gentle than public humiliation is all.
The level playing field is also beneficial to the instructor, in that it makes teaching WAY easier.
Of course it is. Thats sort of my point about how AA is viewed by people. Its easy for folks who might normally be pretty progressive to say "hey wait a second, in MY situation we had to earn our shit. I dont want my earned shit to count against me or my kids..."
You can also very easily hide your class in most situations. So theres no real obvious bias being applied. The bias comes from the fact you got less opportunities to study or to learn. But sometimes theres advantages that people simply just dont get.
Person A comes from a wealthy family, gets a good education so they acquire skill 1 and 2.
Person B comes from a normal family, but is super smart so they figure it out on their own and acquire skills 1 and 2.
Person C comes from a normal family but isnt that smart so they just acquire skill 1.
Person D is smart, but poor so they just acquire skill 1.
Person E is poor and not smart, they have no skill.
What solutions are fair to "even this out." Why do we say wealth from parents is an unfair advantage, but good genes isnt?
You can throw up your hands and yell about reverse racism against white people but then the question remains, what do we do about the crushing poverty facing minority groups? Without a hand up its never going to get better for the majority of them.