The case for (and problems with) affirmative action

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by raytri, Mar 12, 2012.

  1. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of posters here feel that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, giving minorities an advantage over similarly qualified whites. They feel it is unjust, a punishment being delivered on people who have never themselves discriminated against minorities.

    They're right.

    But they're also ignoring the broader scope within which affirmative action operates.

    I'd like to construct a metaphor that explains why affirmative action is necessary in some instances, and then finish with an examination of the flaws and limits of current policy.

    THE METAPHOR
    Imagine you're watching a basketball game between two teams.

    It's an unusual game: each team completely switches out its players after each quarter.

    Now imagine that one team is forced to sit on the bench for three quarters while the other team scores points at will.

    Finally, in the fourth quarter, the second team is allowed to take the floor.

    Does anyone here think that's fair? Of course not.

    HOW IT APPLIES
    If you replace one team with whites and the other with minorities, and replace "quarters" with "generations", you get the history of race in this country, and the justification for affirmative action.

    You might point out, correctly, that the white players in the fourth quarter didn't play in the first three, and so did not participate in discrimination directly themselves. But they clearly benefited tremendously from those first three quarters, since they started the fourth quarter with a giant points lead.

    You might try to reject the whole basketball metaphor by saying "The real problem here is that it's about race, when we shouldn't be thinking in groups like that."

    They have a point, which I will address below. But I'll just point out that the original discrimination was all about race, so it's logical for the redress to be race-oriented as well -- to a point.

    THE REDRESS
    If this really were a basketball game, the redress would be obvious: either void the first three quarters of play and start over, or spot the minority team the same number of points as the white team already had.

    Real life is more complicated, of course -- you can't just take away all the white players' wealth. For one thing, even in a fair game, they would have earned at least some points. For another, it would simply be too disruptive and destructive, both economically and in terms of race relations.

    On the other side, though, there are other issues. Because to make the metaphor more accurate, you'd have to say that not only did the white team have the court to themselves for three quarters; they also were allowed to practice extensively, while the minority team was barred from even reading the rules of the game.

    In other words, is it fair to spend centuries systematically undermining the educational, economic and social opportunities of minorities, and then one day say "hey, we're sorry. From now on you can compete like the rest of us. Sure, we've got all the money, connections, education, etc. But at least we're letting you in the door."

    Of course not. Not only do the whites have all the resources, they have the advantages of centuries more practice in competing economically. Heck, they wrote the rules in the first place.

    So that's the point of affirmative action: to *redress* past discrimination, by providing extra opportunities to minorities so they can close the gap that was imposed on them collectively by whites.


    THE PROBLEM WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
    So all of the above explains why affirmative action is necessary. But there are several problems with affirmative action:

    1. It is, in fact, discrimination. It is *minor* discrimination intended to overcome the effects of *gross* discrimination in the past, but it's still discrimination.

    2. Most affirmative action programs have no clear, objective test for when they are no longer needed.

    3. It turns out that the people whose opportunities are lessened in order for minorities to have expanded opportunity are poorer, less-educated whites -- the ones who were the least responsible for the original discrimination.


    THE SOLUTION
    1. Since affirmative action is discrimination, it is only tolerable as long as the harm done by affirmative action is outweighed by the harm it is addressing. You bring the minority team up to parity; you don't give them bonus points.

    2. This requires that affirmative action programs have clearly defined measures that, once reached, mean the end of the program. Otherwise such programs could drag on for decades after they've outlived their purpose, causing more harm than good.

    3. Wherever possible, "affirmative action" programs should be about class, not race. If minorities are disproportionally poor and provided fewer or lower-quality educational opportunities, then any program that provides opportunities to such people should disproportionally help minorities. The less we make it about race, the more we ensure that the opportunities for minorities aren't coming out of the hides of the least-culpable whites. It would also avoid the problem of affluent minorities -- who face little or no real discrimination -- benefiting from affirmative action.

    So that is the twofold conversation we need to be having:

    1. What objective test can we establish so we know when affirmative action programs have achieved their purpose, and we can say "okay, from now on, everyone competes equally"?

    2. How many affirmative action programs can be moved away from a race-based focus and toward a broader class-based focus?

    Affirmative action is necessary in many instances. There is still plenty of discrimination going on. But it needs to be re-focused, and there needs to be a definite endpoint. Because discrimination is discrimination, no matter how small, and we should be trying to get to a point where it is no longer necessary.
     
  2. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no such thing as "reverse racism."
     
  3. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You bring up a good point, as long as it's not misinterpreted.

    It is entirely possible for minorities to be racists. In that sense, "reverse racism" is possible.

    But such racism has essentially zero impact on the economic opportunities of the majority, so it is irrelevant from a policy perspective.

    For example, blacks make up 12% of the population.

    If all blacks decided to suddenly stop doing business with whites, whites would hardly notice: They would still have 88% of their economic opportunities available to them.

    If the reverse happened -- as it did for centuries -- blacks would find it very hard to survive economically. They would be shut out of most of the nation's economic activity.

    That is why policy is interested in discrimation *against* minorities, not discrimination *by* minorities -- the effects are totally disproportional.
     
  4. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's the thing. This basketball game has been over for awhile. The policies of the past such as redlining with the FHA where discrimination was legally done by the government has ended. Policies for all intents and purposes are equal now.

    The playing field has leveled so the opportunity's today are equal among the races. What a long period of racism has left us with is a Black culture that is behind White culture but that is not something that can be addressed by affirmative action.

    You could give every Black a million dollars and it won't change their culture. You could make them all CEO's of corporations and it won't erase over a century of segregation and the inferior culture that it created.

    The playing field is level now so all you can do is wait till new generations are raised in this environment and only read about discrimination in history books. A new culture, one equal with Whites, will slowly develop over time. It is not something you can give to somebody.
     
  5. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well that's the crux of it, isn't it? What measure do you use to determine if that's the case?

    Agreed. Which is why handouts aren't the answer; increased access to educational opportunities and training is. As well as reducing/eliminating practices that lock in generational privilege.

    Again, you assert this without proof. What's your evidence?
     
  6. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The proof is how laws are structured. Race is no longer a determining factor in regards to policies. Blacks have as much opportunity as anyone else now to achieve education. Anyone can go to college on the Federal governments dime.

    All you have to do is figure out the student loan program which is just as hard for whites as everyone else. It is black culture that tells them they cannot afford college and that its pointless to go.

    I would change this possibly. An aggressive campaign to show how easy college is to get into. Any affirmative action program however will not fix any problems.
     
  7. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can they succeed in college if they grew up in neighborhoods with underfunded schools and programs, with parents working two or three jobs to make ends meet?

    How can their parents afford to live in more affluent neighborhoods with better funded schools if they don't have a college degree and a well-paying job?

    It's cyclical. Of course, you'll continue to blame it on the color of their skin.
     
  8. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jim Crow has been dead for a two generations.

    Affirmative Action has outlived its usefulness. Eliminate it.
     
  9. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In Indiana, like many states, the inner-city schools are more lavishly funded than suburban schools. IPS schools get almost 40% higher funding than suburban Carmel.

    This needs to be evened out as well.
     
  10. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you start college you take placement tests. If their previous education was poor than they may have to take lower level classes to start. There is a way though.

    As I stated before, this is a cultural thing and you cannot fix it with a government program, it will take time. Poor education is not just a Black thing either so why would you only address their poor education and not that of other races?

    Not every White kid grows up in affluent neighborhoods you know.
     
  11. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link to proof?
     
  12. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because blacks are inordinately represented in the lower class based on population percentages.

    If you don't have the study skills to succeed in college (not to mention reading levels), no amount of remedial coursework will get you through upper-level classes.
     
  13. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But as I noted in the OP, if that's the case, then class-based remedies will automatically help minorities more than others.

    Which is why I suggest using class-based remedies whenever possible, instead of using race as a poor proxy for class.

    Your general point, though, about the problem beginning long before college entrance exams, is right on.
     
  14. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Understood but once again this is not a race issue. Though blacks are certainly effected by this more than whites, it needs to be addressed as a national issue. Affirmative Action is not what is needed here.

    Many Native Americans, whites, and hispanics are also poorly educated in lower education.
     
  15. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is why many educators (myself included) choose to work in low-income areas. We understand that those are the students who need us the most. However, I cannot blame my peers who chose to avoid jobs that are more likely to be dangerous and low-paying.
     
  16. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You would expect the kids facing the most challenges to require the most resources to meet them.

    A middle-class child of any race, with two parents who are involved in his school life, make him do his homework, have academic expectations of their own, read to him, and provide non-school educational experiences will succeed with minimal help from the school.

    A poor kid from a broken home where the parent works 2 or 3 jobs, never got past high school, has trouble paying rent so is forced to move a lot, etc. will require a lot more help to succeed.

    Insisting that a privileged kid get as much "help" as a kid facing serious obstacles to learning is ludicrous.
     
  17. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What your suggesting looks good on paper but in actuality you can't really judge this. You cannot look at a family and deduce the situation going on in the home. Perhaps that happy middle class family is being rampaged by alcohol or sexual abuse. You can't say this kid is priviledged and this one is not by a cursory glance.

    Basically there is an issue that needs to be addressed with lower education. But Affirmative Action is not the way to do it as it ignores the problem for all except a select group that is being targeted for help.

    The problem is much bigger than just a Black issue.
     
  18. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,478
    Likes Received:
    2,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh ... so now they don't like discrimination ...

    It's amazing once you have someone by the balls, you'll have their undivided attention.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same way a white kid growing up in such circumstances would succeed.
     
  20. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When talking about elementary education, I was no longer talking about affirmative action. In elementary school you would intervene based on test scores and demographics (poverty level, ESL, etc.) not race.

    Inner-city schools aren't given extra resources because they're full of blacks; they're given extra resources because they are in poor neighborhoods with a small tax base and a student body that faces all sorts of obstacles to getting a good education, both at home and in school.
     
  21. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,623
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It depends on what you call "affirmative action."

    Quotas based on race or race preferences have been rightly declared illegal in public institutions. These quotas do not create opportunity for qualified applicants but generally disqualify more qualified applicants based solely on race. Reverse discrimination.

    There is nothing wrong with an organization actively seeking qualified minorities to compete on a level field. A good example of this is the Rooney Rule in the NFL. The rule does not require hiring of any minority but does require teams to interview minorities before hiring. While no one has given specific credit to the rule for any hire the percentage of minority head coaches in the NFL increased from 6% to 25% since the rule's inception.
     
  22. Speeders R Murderers

    Speeders R Murderers Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,889
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no case for affirmative action. It is as evil as anything can be and supported only by racists who want to see whites suffer.
     
  23. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not the role of government to assure equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity.
     
  24. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can we have more thought and fewer bumper stickers?
     
  25. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not bumper stickers. Fundamentals.
     

Share This Page