Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?

[Patridam]

I asked: Why is Affirmative Action necessary?
You answered: Because of underrepresentation as a result of of racial discrimination.

Yes.

I would like for you to provide evidence backing up that claim that racial discrimination is the cause of cases of underrepresentation. It should not be difficult to understand.

No such claim was made. At fucking all. Not ALL cases of underrepresentation are due to discrimination. Blacks making up 12% of employees in a local business where they make up 14% of the general local population is underrepresentation. That doesn't mean that it's inherently because of racial discrimination.

Well then, prove that racial discrimination is the cause of most or at least a significant portion of cases of underepresentation.

Whites can't benefit from affirmative action, because they are the majority group in the US.

They can, and they do. Especially white females.

How would I, as a white male, stand to benefit from Affirmative Action?

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

No such claim was made. At fucking all. Not ALL cases of underrepresentation are due to discrimination. Blacks making up 12% of employees in a local business where they make up 14% of the general local population is underrepresentation. That doesn't mean that it's inherently because of racial discrimination.

Well then, prove that racial discrimination is the cause of most or at least a significant portion of cases of underepresentation.

Again, not a claim actually fucking made by me. I stated that affirmative action is needed because of underrepresentation as a result of of racial discrimination, meaning that I'm explicitly talking about cases where underrepresentation as a result of racial discrimination. It's not a claim in any way about how much underrepresentation is due to racial discrimination at all.

[Mavorpen]

How would I, as a white male, stand to benefit from Affirmative Action?

So which groups don't benefit from affirmative action overall, besides White males?

None, as every group benefits from it. The gains from higher diversity are well known, and it's why most businesses and universities recognize the vetted interest in increasing it.

Mind you, it probably won't work nearly as well if you just plain hate being around minorities.

[Patridam]

Well then, prove that racial discrimination is the cause of most or at least a significant portion of cases of underepresentation.

Again, not a claim actually fucking made by me. I stated that affirmative action is needed because of underrepresentation as a result of of racial discrimination, meaning that I'm explicitly talking about cases where underrepresentation as a result of racial discrimination. It's not a claim in any way about how much underrepresentation is due to racial discrimination at all.

I didn't say that you said it was most/a significant portion. But for me to believe AA is necessary, it has actually be helping more than a handful of people.

Well, how much of underrepresentation is caused by racial discrimination, would you say? A tenth? A percent?

[Greed and Death]

How would I, as a white male, stand to benefit from Affirmative Action?

None, as every group benefits from it. The gains from higher diversity are well known, and it's why most businesses and universities recognize the vetted interest in increasing it.

Mind you, it probably won't work nearly as well if you just plain hate being around minorities.

A lot of the highest paying professions like law and finance are dominated by old white men. If diversity were so good shouldn't the diverse professions be paying more?

[Mavorpen]

I didn't say that you said it was most/a significant portion. But for me to believe AA is necessary, it has actually be helping more than a handful of people.

Good for you, I suppose.

Well, how much of underrepresentation is caused by racial discrimination?

How the hell would I know?

[Patridam]

I didn't say that you said it was most/a significant portion. But for me to believe AA is necessary, it has actually be helping more than a handful of people.

Good for you, I suppose.

Well, how much of underrepresentation is caused by racial discrimination?

How the hell would I know?

If you don't know how much of it is caused by racial discrimination, how do you know ANY of it is caused by racial discrimination?

[Mavorpen]

Good for you, I suppose.

How the hell would I know?

If you don't know how much of it is caused by racial discrimination, how do you know ANY of it is caused by racial discrimination?

Uh... what? Want to be more specific?

[Patridam]

If you don't know how much of it is caused by racial discrimination, how do you know ANY of it is caused by racial discrimination?

Uh... what? Want to be more specific?

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

[Mavorpen]

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

Again, be more specific. What type of underrepresentation are you talking about?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

The problem is that this is inherently nonsensical. I don't have evidence "as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination" because that's way too broad to even measure. That's something that is measured on a case by case basis. That's why you desperately need to be more specific here.

[Atlanticatia]

Uh... what? Want to be more specific?

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

There's no logical explanation for high underrepresentation of minorities, except for institutionalised racism. I can understand there being a small difference in representation, but a large one?
It can't be just by chance that white people have higher incomes, higher test scores, higher representation in government and business, that men have higher incomes, higher representation in management, governance, etc. White males aren't naturally wealthier, smarter, or better at handling power.
It's because of privilege held by white males. There's absolutely no reason for there not to be a relatively equal amount of representation, unless you believe in racial or gender superiority..

[Patridam]

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

Again, be more specific. What type of underrepresentation are you talking about?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

The problem is that this is inherently nonsensical. I don't have evidence "as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination" because that's way too broad to even measure. That's something that is measured on a case by case basis. That's why you desperately need to be more specific here.

I want you to prove to me, and the other opponents here, that affirmative action is necessary.
How you do that is up to you.

[Seriong]

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

There's no logical explanation for high underrepresentation of minorities, except for institutionalised racism. I can understand there being a small difference in representation, but a large one?
It can't be just by chance that white people have higher incomes, higher test scores, higher representation in government and business, that men have higher incomes, higher representation in management, governance, etc. White males aren't naturally wealthier, smarter, or better at handling power.
It's because of privilege held by white males. There's absolutely no reason for there not to be a relatively equal amount of representation, unless you believe in racial or gender superiority..

It's perfectly possible for there to be a difference in demographics between the general population, and a non-general population.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

No. You get rewards based on merit and your character, not the color of your skin. (In theory)

[Mavorpen]

Again, be more specific. What type of underrepresentation are you talking about?

The problem is that this is inherently nonsensical. I don't have evidence "as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination" because that's way too broad to even measure. That's something that is measured on a case by case basis. That's why you desperately need to be more specific here.

I want you to prove to me, and the other opponents here, that affirmative action is necessary.
How you do that is up to you.

...Why? Frankly I think that's a waste of my time. I'd be gladly to address concerns about it though.

[Fanosolia]

If you cannot find evidence as to what portion of modern underepresenation is caused by racial discrimination, which you can't (or won't), what evidence do you have that racial discrimination is a cause of underrepresentation at all?

I apologize if this is confusing, but cannot think of a way to put it simpler.

There's no logical explanation for high underrepresentation of minorities, except for institutionalised racism. I can understand there being a small difference in representation, but a large one?
It can't be just by chance that white people have higher incomes, higher test scores, higher representation in government and business, that men have higher incomes, higher representation in management, governance, etc. White males aren't naturally wealthier, smarter, or better at handling power.
It's because of privilege held by white males. There's absolutely no reason for there not to be a relatively equal amount of representation, unless you believe in racial or gender superiority..

Agreed, institutional racism is a problem. In what ways can we change that other than AA, in your opinion? (only because AA is a thing already.)

[Mavorpen]

There's no logical explanation for high underrepresentation of minorities, except for institutionalised racism. I can understand there being a small difference in representation, but a large one?
It can't be just by chance that white people have higher incomes, higher test scores, higher representation in government and business, that men have higher incomes, higher representation in management, governance, etc. White males aren't naturally wealthier, smarter, or better at handling power.
It's because of privilege held by white males. There's absolutely no reason for there not to be a relatively equal amount of representation, unless you believe in racial or gender superiority..

Agreed, institutional racism is a problem. In what ways can we change that other than AA, in your opinion? (only because AA is a thing already.)

Addresses a lot of the root issues like segregation and make college more accessible to the poor in general.

[Fanosolia]

Agreed, institutional racism is a problem. In what ways can we change that other than AA, in your opinion? (only because AA is a thing already.)

Addresses a lot of the root issues like segregation and make college more accessible to the poor in general.

Now that we can deffiantly agree on. *gives all the welfare in general*

[Patridam]

I want you to prove to me, and the other opponents here, that affirmative action is necessary.
How you do that is up to you.

...Why? Frankly I think that's a waste of my time. I'd be gladly to address concerns about it though.

Without any sort of evidence indicating that affirmative action is necessary, there is no sensible reason for AA to exist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, SOMEONE has to make Bs and Cs. Ds? You will pass your classes, but then again, the college admissions process doesn't look at that. It looks at a candidate and asks the question: Can he do the work?

Grades are important to determine whether a student will be able to remain in a good status within the college. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or that only A-Tier kids should be able to get into college.

Even in the highest-tier colleges, grades are not the only consideration. Community service, admissions essays, the SAT, and sometimes even interviews enter into the decisions. Those are all designed to consider whether the student merits admissions to that college in particular. Although a D student would certainly have difficulty getting into Harvard, a community college would most likely still admit them, so more or less everyone has a decent chance of going to a college, if not the best ones.

Anyway, that's a bit of a digression. I still stand by the point that race should not enter into the decision process of whether or not a student merits admission.

Race is a factor of a factor of a factor of a factor. You won't see it being used as the sole criteria, which is what AA says they shouldn't, but they still use it as a minute factor in their admission programs. In other words, if AA wouldn't be there then race And gender WOULD be considered as a factor

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Translation: I have no argument, and I'll run away while pretending I won anyway, WEEEEE!

I take it you are familiar with California's Proposition 209?
It was passed in 1996, amending the state constitution to prohibit the consideration of race, sex, and ethnicity in (public) college admissions and (public) employment.

Before it was passed, public colleges in the state considered race as a factor when deciding what students would be admitted. Sometimes, a desire to remain "representative" of ethnicity (that is, having a proportion of whites to blacks etc. representative of the state's population) became a more important criterion in the admissions process than actual merit (that would be grades, SAT/ACT scores, admissions essays, and extracurricular history).

Now, these colleges still use "socioeconomic affirmative action"; that is, giving extra "points" towards poorer applicants, in their admissions processes, but they are required to be race blind. And they are seemingly going to stay that way after 500 Chinese-Americans protested outside the office of a senator who wanted to repeal 209.

Depending on the year or on the source, accusations can be made the the black populations of UC Berkely and UCLA have dropped after the law was passed. But if a student cannot get into a college with a race blind admissions process, they simply don't deserve to be at that college! Do I complain that the NBA is 78% black in a country that is 72% white? No, since making something "racially proportional" should not be anyone's priority when they are choosing applicants (to a team, to a school, to a job; whatever). The qualifications of the applicant should be not just the main consideration, but in my mind, the only consideration. But considering qualifications and wealth is still a step forward from qualifications, wealth, and race.

Sources:
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/08/11/affi ... udy-shows/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... stand.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_e ... in_the_NBA

Sure, if you want to piss all over what college is all about you can go ahead and think that.

The problem with the meritocratic model is this: that wealth and better resources determine the power of the individual. The kids who go to private schools would have better opportunities than the kids who go to public schools that are not so great to begin with. Merit is only good for the business world, where it is presumed to be a deathmatch for the best jobs and skills. Colleges do not have an interest in it because they are in the business of educating the student body, not in providing the student body with a job.

You can cry meritocrats are right on this, if only to show your disdain at the humanist ideals of education and replace it in its stead for a system that will toss geniuses against geniuses and that you will end up seeing ruthless competition, all for the sake of being The Best (tm)

[Saiwania]

You can cry meritocrats are right on this, if only to show your disdain at the humanist ideals of education and replace it in its stead for a system that will toss geniuses against geniuses and that you will end up seeing ruthless competition, all for the sake of being The Best (tm)

Well, can it be shown that schools have to take the humanist approach? Or that it is infallible and inherently better at providing for education than the meritocratic model? No Child Left Behind for example, pushed the K-12 system slightly into the meritocratic model in mandating standardized testing and the reallocation of money towards succeeding schools rather than propping up failing ones as before.

[Margno]

Affirmative action has always seemed unfair to me. It's not my fault I was born white and I don't see why a black or Hispanic (although many Hispanics are actually white) person's college application should be treated with preference over mine. The injustices of the past are not mine to pay. I know I will be called a racist by so many people on here but I just want to express my opinion and see what others have to say about it.

Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?

Why or why not?

Also, if you're not from the U.S. does your country have its own version of Affirmative Action?

It's not about the injustices of the past, its about trying to rectify a present advantage. It's performing a particularly sensitive surgery with a machete and a running start, but it's better than leaving the gangrenous toe of racial discrimination clinging to the foot of the people, spreading its infection about.

[Rephesus]

You can cry meritocrats are right on this, if only to show your disdain at the humanist ideals of education and replace it in its stead for a system that will toss geniuses against geniuses and that you will end up seeing ruthless competition, all for the sake of being The Best (tm)

Well, can it be shown that schools have to take the humanist approach? Or that it is infallible and inherently better at providing for education than the meritocratic model? No Child Left Behind for example, pushed the K-12 system slightly into the meritocratic model in mandating standardized testing and the reallocation of money towards succeeding schools rather than propping up failing ones as before.

You want to give more money to successful schools and less to failing ones? That makes about as much sense as taxing the bottom 10% to pay for Welfare for the top 10%. The schools that are failing need money, not because they are 'lazy' and 'incompetent', it's circumstantial. Feeding more money into high-income areas and taking it away where the dropout rates are high is probably the worst thing you can do for the already inefficient school system. The fact is that with enough investment in these 'failing schools' hopefully more students can be successful and thus benefit the greater economy (rather than a small but privileged minority), discrimination happens, in some cases by race/sex (which is why I believe AA benefits society) and often by socio-economic standing, which directly correlates with school success. School boards shift their funding to benefit the more privileged schools and neglect the schools which need the money for things like adequate facilities, modern textbooks, and extra-cirriculars.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can cry meritocrats are right on this, if only to show your disdain at the humanist ideals of education and replace it in its stead for a system that will toss geniuses against geniuses and that you will end up seeing ruthless competition, all for the sake of being The Best (tm)

Well, can it be shown that schools have to take the humanist approach? Or that it is infallible and inherently better at providing for education than the meritocratic model? No Child Left Behind for example, pushed the K-12 system slightly into the meritocratic model in mandating standardized testing and the reallocation of money towards succeeding schools rather than propping up failing ones as before.

Can it be shown that schools aren't for the sake of learning, but for the sake of competition?

No Child Left Behind didn't push the schools into a meritocratic model as much as it tried to bring standards in high schools and the primary school system. Failing schools receive assistance if it can be shown that the school needs the assistance still, but it doesn't mean it has become more meritocratic as a result.

The education system, via the Individual Educational Plan has become more humanist, in that we can now say we are in a step towards individuality by tailoring the student's education into what we think would benefit him or her.

The institution's goal is to educate children, not to make them compete against one another. Remove the ideal of education and make them compete and you will find yourself with people thinking that people who are poor deserve to be poor because they couldn't "beat the next guy" at being better. That's not what we need in education. Being #1 in academia doesn't mean anything if by doing so you demoralized and put down #2, #3, and #4 and if you cheated your way to the top. That's what a meritocratic approach does to children, because competition is competition, not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of winning.