Affirmative Action

[surskitty]

The effect of affirmative action can be measured.

Not really, no. It causes further racism by having both groups feel that they are being treated unfairly simply because of someone's race or gender and also fails to actually targetting the biases it is supposedly trying to counteract. The bias still exists; it's just trying to change it so that it is biased against the majority.

 

[Ruby]

Not really, no. It causes further racism by having both groups feel that they are being treated unfairly simply because of someone's race or gender and also fails to actually targetting the biases it is supposedly trying to counteract. The bias still exists; it's just trying to change it so that it is biased against the majority.

Further racism? (I assume you mean racist sentiment toward the beneficiaries of affirmative action.) Well, all of these gay rights laws are just causing more homophobia; we shouldn't have them. I don't think the creation of further racism is a reason not to use affirmative action. Although I'm not sure whether there's much racism that is a direct result of affirmative action at any rate.

You mean it 'fails to target biases' in the sense that it counteracts rather than destroys biases? Well, yes, it counteracts. Affirmative action is not needed in situations in which biases can be destroyed. But biases cannot usually be destroyed.

Biased against the majority? The purpose of affirmative action is to negate bias against the minority. Only when it goes awfully wrong does affirmative action create bias against the majority .

 

[nastypass]

Well, all of these gay rights laws are just causing more homophobia; we shouldn't have them.

That's kinda not the same thing; gay rights laws just give benefits to one group, AA gives some benefits (which they sometimes do not actually deserve) to one group, taking those benefits away from another (which is sometimes more deserving of them). :V

 

[Eevee]

It's not true that private school boys in Britain are the best students

Irrelevant. They could be, and they would get screwed over because AA is building bias into the system.

Well, all of these gay rights laws are just causing more homophobia; we shouldn't have them.

This would be an apt analogy iff gay rights had anything to do with filling a finite number of slots. The gay rights movement wants equality. Affirmative action is all about encouraging inequality that might faintly match how someone thinks reality should be.

Biased against the majority? The purpose of affirmative action is to negate bias against the minority. Only when it goes awfully wrong does affirmative action create bias against the majority.

The very point is to create bias against the majority.

There are only so many students that can go to one university. This is a zero-sum game. If I get in, someone else doesn't. You cannot reduce bias against one group without increasing it against someone else.

That is ultimately my problem with affirmative action. Irrelevant bias is a bad thing no matter who you're targeting. If some group has an advantage that has nothing to do with the actual definition of the group, we should be working to give everyone the same advantage, not run around knocking people down until everyone is roughly equal.

 

[OrangeAipom]

Poor people go to poor schools, then they go to expensive schools where teachers teach nothing. After all, you're smart 'cause you're here, now just read the damn book.

 

[Mirry]

Well, I think of affirmative action this way. Let's say there's only one spot left at a particular university, and there are two applications in front of the admissions officer. Both applicants have the exact same qualifications (I know that this is unlikely, but this is just hypothetical anyway). However, one applicant is white and the other is black. The admissions officer thinks, "Well, what with affirmative action we have to fill a quota and we need another minority". So the black person gets in and the white person is rejected.

I don't think that's a right way to go about thinking of things. They were both equally qualified so it should have been a 50/50 chance for either one, but because of affirmative action the minority gets in just because of his ethnicity.

And maybe without affirmative action the admissions officer would have been biased in favor of the white applicant, which is also bad... but is affirmative action really making it any better? :3 And affirmative action seems to assume that everybody is biased against minorities... but what if the members of the admissions staff ARE minorities, eh? Wouldn't they be biased in favor of minorities then? (Since majorities are biased in favor of majorities.)

 

[Ruby]

That's kinda not the same thing; gay rights laws just give benefits to one group, AA gives some benefits (which they sometimes do not actually deserve) to one group, taking those benefits away from another (which is sometimes more deserving of them). :V

This would be an apt analogy iff gay rights had anything to do with filling a finite number of slots. The gay rights movement wants equality. Affirmative action is all about encouraging inequality that might faintly match how someone thinks reality should be.

It is apt in the context of surskitty's point ('It causes further racism by having both groups feel that they are being treated unfairly simply because of someone's race or gender'); perhaps inapt in the context of the wider debate.

It's not true that private school boys in Britain are the best students

Irrelevant. They could be, and they would get screwed over because AA is building bias into the system.

Cambridge accepts so many private school boys because, you implied, private school boys are the best. My reply quoted above is a relevant contradiction of what you implied and of your saying that 'Cambridge wants the best students'. Cambridge does not want the best students, which is why affirmative action should there be used to make it take them anyway.

The very point is to create bias against the majority.

Affirmative action fights bias with contrary bias of equal strength. Bias against the majority is part of the method but not at all the point: the point, the result, is that the two biases negate each other and create equality.

There are only so many students that can go to one university. This is a zero-sum game. If I get in, someone else doesn't. You cannot reduce bias against one group without increasing it against someone else.

That is ultimately my problem with affirmative action. Irrelevant bias is a bad thing no matter who you're targeting. If some group has an advantage that has nothing to do with the actual definition of the group, we should be working to give everyone the same advantage, not run around knocking people down until everyone is roughly equal.

Well, I think of affirmative action this way. Let's say there's only one spot left at a particular university, and there are two applications in front of the admissions officer. Both applicants have the exact same qualifications (I know that this is unlikely, but this is just hypothetical anyway). However, one applicant is white and the other is black. The admissions officer thinks, "Well, what with affirmative action we have to fill a quota and we need another minority". So the black person gets in and the white person is rejected.

I don't think that's a right way to go about thinking of things. They were both equally qualified so it should have been a 50/50 chance for either one, but because of affirmative action the minority gets in just because of his ethnicity.

And maybe without affirmative action the admissions officer would have been biased in favor of the white applicant, which is also bad... but is affirmative action really making it any better? :3

You are presenting a false choice between unfair advantage for the minority and unfair advantage for the majority. Mirry, in situations such as the one you described, affirmative action is a check on the prejudice of the admissions officer; his decision is modified by both his prejudice and affirmative action, not either one or the other. The effect on the student body as a collective is as though he had treated each student absolutely fairly; as though he had given that fifty-fifty chance.

And affirmative action seems to assume that everybody is biased against minorities... but what if the members of the admissions staff ARE minorities, eh? Wouldn't they be biased in favor of minorities then? (Since majorities are biased in favor of majorities.)

No, affirmative action should only be used when there is evidence of bias. And we are using the words 'minority' and 'majority' extremely loosely.

Poor people go to poor schools, then they go to expensive schools where teachers teach nothing. After all, you're smart 'cause you're here, now just read the damn book.

What?

 

[surskitty]

It is apt in the context of surskitty's point ('It causes further racism by having both groups feel that they are being treated unfairly simply because of someone's race or gender'); perhaps inapt in the context of the wider debate.

Um, what? What does giving someone rights have to do with giving one group benefits at the expense of another? Heterosexual marriage is not impacted by the existence of homosexual marriage.

Affirmative action is never equal. It will end up either overcompensating or undercompensating and neither focus on actually solving the problem.

 

[Ruby]

Um, what? What does giving someone rights have to do with giving one group benefits at the expense of another? Heterosexual marriage is not impacted by the existence of homosexual marriage.

I don't think you understand what I mean.

The extension of gay rights may cause people to resent the gay community. Their resentment should not prevent the extension of gay rights. Why? because their resentment is baseless and unjustified.

You argued that affirmative action may cause people to resent its beneficiaries. In my opinion their resentment should not prevent the use of affirmative action. Why? because in my opinion their resentment is baseless and unjustified. This thread is supposed to determine whether affirmative action is moral, and therefore whether their resentment is justified. You are either (1) arguing that resentment should prevent gay rights and affirmative action, or (2) using your belief, that affirmative action is immoral, to show that your belief is itself correct. On point (2): that is, their resentment is justified by the immorality of affirmative action, and affirmative action is immoral because of their just resentment.

Affirmative action is never equal. It will end up either overcompensating or undercompensating and neither focus on actually solving the problem.

You have now returned to Butterfree's argument. Undercompensation is better than no compensation. In order to be bad, overcompensation has to cause greater bias than the amount of bias begun with. If the bias begun with was noticed, I see no reason why a greater bias shouldn't be.

In certain situations, as at Cambridge, affirmative action is the only solution. In other situations affirmative action is part of the solution. In others still affirmative action is not the solution. Of course affirmative action does not destroy poverty and social deprivation, but affirmative action does not exclude the things that can; and I am not arguing against those things.