Affirmative Action

[Crazy Weavile]

Is it helping a minority get back on its feet or racism? Debate here.


Personally, I think the goal is admirable, and it does function... to a degree. The problem is that it doesn't fix the underlying cause of the minority's troubles- in fact, it can even breed resentment among other groups. I believe it's the wrong way to go about fixing the problem, but I do believe the problem needs fixed.

 

[Vyraura]

The problem is you have unqualified minorities getting in to works/schools over qualified white people because the school/work needs to have a certain number. The idea only works if there's plenty of willing minorities to work hard and not waste space.

 

[Crazy Weavile]

That's what breeds resentment. The law should be colorblind and genderblind.

 

[Ruby]

Without affirmative action there are unqualified majorities getting into schools and universities instead of qualified minorities.

Of course, affirmative action is only part of a larger solution.

 

[Crazy Weavile]

Without affirmative action, there is an opening for discrimination. That is a problem. However, affirmative action doesn't close that opening. It filters it, and the things that would ordinarily get through that we don't want build up on the other side until it breaks.

 

[Eevee]

Without affirmative action there are unqualified majorities getting into schools and universities instead of qualified minorities.

Only if the people in charge of applications are racially biased.

On the other hand, with AA, minorities get in instead regardless of whether they are qualified -- or, more problematically, more qualified than whatever majorities are getting bumped.

How exactly is enforced racism better?

 

[Ruby]

Well, first, affirmative action hasn't always to do with race. Second, you're right: there should be some statistical evidence of bias to warrant affirmative action. Bias is ubiquitous. Third, affirmative action needn't involve underqualified people.

For instance the problem of the University of Cambridge. There are more people who want to go to Cambridge than places there. There are more well-qualified people who want to go to Cambridge than places. Yet a disproportionately high number of students at Cambridge have attended public (private) schools. The best way to remedy Cambridge's problem is to force it to accept more students from other backgrounds.

Affirmative action is a way of cancelling out, not perpetuating, inherent bias.

 

[Alexi]

The law should be colorblind and genderblind.

I agree with this, but...Really, it'll never happen unless everyone really is blind. D:

 

[Ruby]

People see affirmative action as a way of persecuting the innocent majority. It isn't. As I see it affirmative action is a crude but effective way of putting the majority in its fair and proper place. The majority has an inherent unfair advantage that it doesn't want to recognize.

In fact, majority is perhaps the wrong word: neither public school boys nor men are in a majority.

 

[Icalasari]

For instance the problem of the University of Cambridge. There are more people who want to go to Cambridge than places there. There are more well-qualified people who want to go to Cambridge than places. Yet a disproportionately high number of students at Cambridge have attended public (private) schools. The best way to remedy Cambridge's problem is to force it to accept more students from other backgrounds.

Yes, but if you think about it, by going to private schools (as I assume you mean in that case... correct me if I'm wrong), those people are getting more one-on-one help and a higher quality education. As such, it makes sense that more of them are being accepted because they are more likely (and hopefully are) to be qualified. It isn't racism if they take the most qualified people, after all =/

I can't really give a solid opinion. Is AA essentially another way of saying Political Correctness? If not, then please explain what it is =/

 

[surskitty]

I can't really give a solid opinion. Is AA essentially another way of saying Political Correctness? If not, then please explain what it is =/

Go look it up.

 

[Icalasari]

Ah, so it IS Political Correctness!

In which case...

Yeah, it is kind of stupid. Sure, everybody* wants everybody else to be equal. Doesn't help when you cut down the majority and hire/accept people based on race or gender =/

*Examples of people who defy this explanation are probably found somewhere in your town

 

[Harlequin]

The state versus public school problem is a big problem. More public school students go to Cambridge than state students which is a problem - an A is an A is an A, after all. Some might even argue that it's better to get an A from an under-funded and low-ranking school because it means you're intelligent or something but the point is that if I'm more qualified than Person A but Person A went to public school and I didn't but Person A is admitted and I'm not it isn't right.

Affirmative action shouldn't be the answer but I guess in some cases it's needed. Unless, of course, the school which you come from is kept secret on the UCAS applications. If the percentage of public school students is still higher than state school students [notable higher, I mean] then I guess the problem isn't a public versus state bias.

 

[Ruby]

Yes, but if you think about it, by going to private schools (as I assume you mean in that case... correct me if I'm wrong), those people are getting more one-on-one help and a higher quality education. As such, it makes sense that more of them are being accepted because they are more likely (and hopefully are) to be qualified. It isn't racism if they take the most qualified people, after all =/

You are dismissing the possibility of bias' exisiting at all. Your whole argument is predicated on there being no such thing as bias. Bias is more common than imparitality; and in some cases affirmative action is the only way to prevent bias. Most private school students have qualifications that are similar to the qualifications of state grammar school students. There is a surplus of properly qualified students in both the private and state sectors.

Affirmative action shouldn't be the answer but I guess in some cases it's needed. Unless, of course, the school which you come from is kept secret on the UCAS applications. If the percentage of public school students is still higher than state school students [notable higher, I mean] then I guess the problem isn't a public versus state bias.

Secrecy is often impossible. Most good universities hold interviews.

 

[Harlequin]

Yes, I know how the process works. It's quite hard to eliminate bias of any kind but I don't think affirmative action should be the answer.

 

[Ruby]

I don't think affirmative action should be the answer.

Why?

 

[Eevee]

There are more well-qualified people who want to go to Cambridge than places. Yet a disproportionately high number of students at Cambridge have attended public (private) schools. The best way to remedy Cambridge's problem is to force it to accept more students from other backgrounds.

Why is this a problem? Cambridge wants the best students. The best students went to the best schools. They shouldn't get shafted because someone wants a pie chart to look better.

As I see it affirmative action is a crude but effective way of putting the majority in its fair and proper place.

No, it's a crude way of making things appear fair on paper by deciding what "fair" means beforehand and then forcing everyone else to adhere to it.

In fact, majority is perhaps the wrong word: neither public school boys nor men are in a majority.

So some group that's in the minority but academically better for whatever reason should be put more in the minority because it's not fair that people who deserve to go to better schools get to go to better schools.

What?



Here, by the way, AA is largely touted as a way to "fix" any racism in the student selection process. It is almost exclusively a white-vs-black(-and-sometimes-asian) thing. We're going to come out of the Dark Ages anytime now.

 

[Butterfree]

For affirmative action to actually help against bias, you'd need to know exactly the weighting you need to put on each individual to balance out the bias precisely. It should be obvious that this is impossible; you'll always end up over- or underestimating exactly how much bias there is, and end up not making the problem any better (often worse). What with it propagating grudges between groups, it really, really does not pay.

 

[Ruby]

Eevee I'm typing on a mobile phone, so I can't cut your post into a seperate quotations.

But you too seem to be denying that anyone is biased. It's not true that private school boys in Britain are the best students: in league tables et cetera the best state schools tend to do better than the best private schools. And you have to understand that almost everyone who bothers to apply to Cambridge has the same grades (three or four As), regardless of his school.

I cannot entirely understand your second paragraph.

To your third paragraph: private school boys and men are not better qualified.

 

[Ruby]

Butterfree, affirmative action is imprecise and imperfect, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be good. If bias is underestimated, affirmative action can prevent some but not all of it. There's nothing wrong with that. An overestimation would have to be very large to create more bias than that which existed originally. Besides, things like university applications are quantifiable. The effect of affirmative action can be measured.