the eye of Nova&#39;s mind

I hate to say it, but if the probability of black students getting admitted is THAT dependent on unfair advantages, there SHOULD be less of them there. If their scores don't match the scores of those they're competing against, why should they win? Affirmative action had its uses in the sixties, but I think that time's passed. In particular, I think that continuing to have a race-based advantage system in place basically tells black students two things: you aren't good enough to do it on your own, and you don't HAVE to be good enough to do it on your own. I have a problem with both statements. Equal treatment doesn't mean just equal privileges; equal responsibilities, equal challenges, equal expectations are also part of it. I've said that in the male/female privilege discussion, and I feel the same about the black/white case.

That said, I'm still in favor of programs that try to get minority students into science/engineering fields, mainly through targeted programs at the jr. high and high school level. I worked on a program targeted at getting high school girls interested in micromachining a few summers ago, and the results were fairly cool. I just don't think that, should they apply to, say, UM Engineering school, that they should get "extra points" for being female. They should have to compete on equal footing once they get to the game! But getting them interested, that's a different story.

From:

They don't get "extra points." That has been addressed, as pointed out earlier in the article.

The playing field is not yet level, and to want to dismantle a program whose aim is equal opportunity just because you (the general you, not the personal you) want to feel as though it is, well, is turning a blind eye to reality.

if the probability of black students getting admitted is THAT dependent on unfair advantages

And it comes down to whether (and what) you consider to be "unfair advantages." I could go on and on about what I consider to be unfair advantages, but I suspect I would sound like I were comparing apples and xylophones.

From:

magicmaiden.livejournal.com

They do not get in with lower standards, it is set up so if all is the same...same grades etc and it is a toss up, the minority gets in to get balance.

I think it would be wonderful if businesses and such did all this on their own...but...so far, that is still not the case. Until the powers that be start playing fair..then there need to be ways to make up for that.

From:

...it is set up so if all is the same...same grades etc and it is a toss up, the minority gets in to get balance.

That in itself IS an unfair advantage based solely on the color of their skin. You call that a "level" playing field?

From:

It's called levelling the playing field. You are assuming the field was level to begin with. It was not.

From:

No, I'm saying that the playing field will NEVER be level if you keep slanting it in favor of one side. My argument from above still stands. Giving an advantage to minority students (of whatever kind) by saying "all things equal, you get in" is STILL saying "we'll help you as much as we can, because you need it". It emphasizes differences rather than smoothing them over, it keeps in the minds of minority students that they're somehow lesser than the majority, and it says they don't need to be better or smarter because the laws will always lend a helping hand.

Here's an example. In undergrad a guy I knew was on a full scholarship, but did absolutely nothing with it. He was a waste of space. Why did he get this scholarship? Because he was 1/16th Cherokee. He didn't deserve it, I don't think he had pressing financial need above and beyond that of other, more qualified students, and he wasted the chance. Why should he have had it when better students than he needed it more and would have used it better?

Using race (or gender) as a criterion for ANYTHING shouldn't be allowed, not on the pro side or the con side. If you weren't hired for something because you are a woman, you'd be pissed, right? What about the guy who's not hired because he's male? "All things being equal, we prefer women." Yeah, that's sexism. "All things being equal, we'll let in the black student." That's racism. Same thing as "We don't let them darkies in here." It's using race as a deciding factor, and it's bullshit.

From:

You are neglecting to take into account 1) the historical ramifications of racism (and sexism, since you want to throw that in) and 2) the relationship between the -ism and the power structures that support it. If a black man calls a white man "honkey," yes, the term is racist. However, when a white man calls a black man "nigger," not only is that racist, but it calls into mind the entirety of the history of power imbalance between whites and blacks in America. Similarly, if a woman calls a man a "player," that does not have the same ramifications as if a man calls a woman a "slut."

What about the guy who's not hired because he's male?

How often has this occurred compared to the times a woman was not hired because she happened to be female? To me, your question smacks of when someone brings up the epidemic of rape, and someone pipes up, "Well, men are raped, too. What about them?" Yes, male rape happens, but the situations attending it are so compellingly different that that is an issue that needs to be addressed through different means and with different resources.

Historically, to get back to racism, not only have minorities been shut out of the prevailing power structure but they had little if any recourse to demand a redress of their grievances. That is what affirmative action was designed to do: to alleviate the corrosive effects of decades or centuries of disproportionate harm suffered by those who were systematically denied opportunities. I have yet to read about whites, particularly white men, who have been systematically kept from economic, social, educational, and legal opportunities based solely on their race or their sex.

So I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that "All things being equal, we'll let in the black student" is the same thing as "We don't let them darkies in here." The latter is a perpetuation of a systematic denial of services and opportunities, while the former is a correction for past inequities. If you persist in equating the two, then I don't think there is anything I can say or do to make you understand. (Personally, I think this is due to the fact that you admitted earlier that you did not feel that you had ever been the victim of discrimination. I think that if you had a sense of that, you would be more sympathetic.)

From:

See, this is where we disagree, and where we'll always disagree. You want to "calls into mind the entirety of the history of power imbalance" where I say who cares about history when we're trying to change things NOW? Did whites treat blacks atrociously in the past? Sure. But you know what? I DON'T CARE! I wasn't alive at the time, and my ancestors on BOTH sides weren't even in this country. I have nothing to pay reparations for, to be sorry for, or to be treated worse to make up for. Neither do many, if not most, people in this country. It's true that in the past I've not been a victim of discrimination, but neither have I been on the other side of the coin.

Continually saying "You owe us for the past misdeeds of your ancestors" not only is bullshit (my mother grew up in a concentration camp!), but it just keeps the differences in mind. Minorities are never, ever, going to be treated equally so long as they keep beating the drum of "we're different, we've been wronged by you, you owe us, and oh, yes, have we mentioned we're different?" Equal treatment starts now. It can't start in the past.

From:

The past informs the present, especially socioeconomically speaking.

Did whites treat blacks atrociously in the past? Sure. But you know what? I DON'T CARE!

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

From:

Informs the present, sure, but it shouldn't dominate it entirely the way AA makes it do. Learning the lessons of the past to improve the future is great, but continually bringing up past injustices just keeps them alive long past their time.

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

You know what? I don't know. I'm done.

From:

Because she has an opinion about this proposal that she would like to express. She just doesn't care about what happened to whom 100 years ago.

From:

He, not she. And if you want to believe that things that happened not just 100 years ago--maybe just a few decades--do not influence how things not only stand today but actually operate, then again I say that you have a blind eye turned to reality.

Fair housing laws came into existence only in the '50s and '60s. In fact, it has been shown that

The federal government played a significant role in perpetuating segregated housing. The predecessor to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) established the practice of “red-lining” in the 1930s. This was a practice in which housing values were rated on the basis of, among other things, the age and condition of the properties and the ethnicity of the residents of the neighborhood. Properties in racially mixed or all-black neighborhoods were assigned the lowest rating and were ineligible for loans. On maps, a red line was drawn around the perimeters of these areas. In addition to redlining for government insured loans, locations for federally financed public housing developments were selected on the basis of the racial composition of neighborhoods. Developments were located in all-black or all-white areas.

When suburbanization occurred on an unprecedented scale in the years following World War II, African-Americans were excluded as a result of a combination of private
discrimination as well as the policies of the Veterans Administration and FHA, federal agencies whose underwriting guidelines, until 1950, required restrictive covenants on properties with government insured mortgages. As a consequence, African-Americans were locked out of one of the most significant wealth-producing programs in American history. White families that were able to take advantage of the federal government’s policies encouraging and assisting home ownership in the 1940s and 50s benefited from decades of property appreciation, which researchers estimate at billions of dollars (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). During the same period, African-American veterans and others who desired, and were able, to afford homes were confined by discriminatory practices to central-city communities that tended to deteriorate and lose value (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). The federal government’s discriminatory policies prevented minority homeowners from accumulating wealth through home ownership and it deprived their children and grandchildren of a valuable asset they would have inherited.

Brown v. Board of Education was also only ruled in the '50s. To say that these practices do not continue to affect the substantive reality of today is to not understand the effect of history.

From:

He. My apologies.

Why are you commenting to me about someone else's comment? *I* never said *I* didn't care about what happened in the past. Perhaps I flippantly said "100 years" when the point I was making is that it was in the past, and before I was born.

My point is simply this: "I'm saying that the playing field will NEVER be level if you keep slanting it in favor of one side." as he said previously.

From:

You might also want to address

gwendally's comment in the previous AA discussion. I think she makes salient points.

From:

magicmaiden.livejournal.com

Basically, if you din't do something about it when the majority passes over a person based on gender, color, or something other than their qualifications....then, why bitch now?

Why is it suddenly an issue now that white males get passed over in favor of a minority...AN EQUALLY QUALIFIED MINORITY at that.

That isn't what was happening..or is happening in the majority of the cases now. Minorities that are MORE QUALIFIED still get passed up on promotions based on gender and color.

Bitch about that and fix it....make the need for affirmative action go away...and affirmative action will go away.

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

From:

I want you to be very, very clear here: what, EXACTLY, are you accusing me of? Because if you don't have a specific charge, then YOU are the problem. YOU are the one who's creating conflict where none need be.

I actually don't KNOW anyone who's been "passed up on promotions based on gender and color". So far as I can see there's nothing to keep fighting about. When I started my PhD program there were about 60% women. Now it's about 50% because of graduations and so on. At conferences I go to, it's between 40-60%. About 2/3 of our department are chinese, indian, black, middle-eastern, etc. You'll probably just say, "See, AA is working!" but my response is that these are highly qualified people who can and should get in on their own merits. They don't NEED AA to succeed, and having it there as a crutch is an insult to them.

What I'm saying here is that the need for affirmative action HAS gone away, and it's time for AA to go away with it. Keeping that dinosaur around any longer just emphasizes the very differences it was meant to smooth out, keeps people thinking in terms of gender and color and quotas and disadvantage. Let people be people and be judged by who they are, and stop coddling one group over another. Reverse racism is still racism.

From:

bonerici.livejournal.com

if black student admissions are cut in half, but black average graduation rate doubles . . . seems good to me!

From:

sarahmichigan.livejournal.com

P. and I are going to be canceling out each other's votes on Prop 2, but I do agree with him on one point: we need to start addressing inequality well before people get to college.

We need to start encouraging discriminated-against minorities to get into science, engineering etc. earlier, address inequality of school funding at the elementary and high school level, etc.

On a side note, I'm more concerned about affirmative action as regards race, not gender, since there are more women in college than men at this point.

From:

I just wanted to take a minute to say thank you for debating with me in a civilized and adult fashion. After several comments between myself and others, and solely among others, it has become apparent to me that there are people out there who insist on attacking people and telling them they're wrong at the same time. <sarcasm>What better way to get someone to agree with you than to attack their credibility and assert their stupidity?</sarcasm>

While you and I agree on many things, we disagree on some. And we both respect each other, through it all.

Thank you.

From:

*smile* Civility is the cornerstone of debate, as far as I'm concerned. When you're talking about issues, the only thing you can do is to keep backing up what you say with what facts you have.

I'm not trying to denigrate you. We simply have a difference of opinion. Certain issues have the propensity to bring out enflamed opinion, definitely. That's when civility and supporting evidence become even more important.

(Of course, I say this after the testy exchange that

simianpower and I had above.)

From:

Testy exchanges happen. They're best among friends who know the other isn't attacking their credibility. When you get into heated discussions with people who don't know you, and also don't know basic human courtesy, but claim to be students of sociology, you have to wonder whether or not they are, in fact, idiots.

For the record, I have spoken with

chucknoblet, and we've cleared the air.

From:

I'm curious as to where else you've been discussing this issue.

From: