Attacks on AA
Jan. 17th, 2003 03:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheI don't usually say things like this, but Bush can kiss my black ass.
As president, he has no right sticking his nose in this issue. It's the province of the Supreme Court. Now, I have no problem with him telling the Justice Department to be ready for a fight. He has every right to direct the JD. But his statement was, in my opinion, an abuse of his office. He used his position and the fact that he commands television and other media time in order to make his own personal opinions known. What do they call that, the bully pulpit?
Secondly, as an affluent white male, he really has no idea what it means to actually need affirmative action programs. I don't say this to be racist. I'm saying that he's ignoring the social complex, the matrix, of race and poverty. Those usually go hand in hand in this country, unfortunately, and education is the best way to lift people out of that poverty. Yes, I'm a liberal; yes, I believe that education is the best way to "level the playing field". As Kwame Kilpatrick said yesterday, in order to do that, there has to be some deliberate shifting of considerations.
I don't support "quota programs" myself. But quotas and point systems--if I'm understanding them correctly--are not the same thing. A quota is, "We need 100 blacks, 50 Hispanics, 20 Native Americans, and 10 international students." They are hard and fast requirements. I completely disagree with that. Under that system, yes, whites have a distinct disadvantage, because there are only so many available spots at a given college, and someone necessarily has to be displaced to keep such spots open. That kind of affirmative action is awful and should be resisted.
All college applications need to be screened with some sort of discrimination in mind. We just happen to have approved types of discrimination: grades, test scores, athletic ability, alumni affliations. None of these are specifically supported by the Constitution; we as a whole have simply consented to these criteria, because we see the benefit of judging by them.
To say that affirmative action is no longer needed in this country is to be blind to the naked facts that confront us every day. People who live in the suburbs or who have a substantial bank account can ignore the grit of reality that the majority of this country has to deal with. Bush is certainly in that group. And the fact that he trots out blacks such as Thomas and Rice, who are first and foremost Republicans, to agree with his position really infuriates me. "Here are my token minorities, reflecting my opinion! See, it must be right!"
As president, he has no right sticking his nose in this issue. It's the province of the Supreme Court. Now, I have no problem with him telling the Justice Department to be ready for a fight. He has every right to direct the JD. But his statement was, in my opinion, an abuse of his office. He used his position and the fact that he commands television and other media time in order to make his own personal opinions known. What do they call that, the bully pulpit?
Secondly, as an affluent white male, he really has no idea what it means to actually need affirmative action programs. I don't say this to be racist. I'm saying that he's ignoring the social complex, the matrix, of race and poverty. Those usually go hand in hand in this country, unfortunately, and education is the best way to lift people out of that poverty. Yes, I'm a liberal; yes, I believe that education is the best way to "level the playing field". As Kwame Kilpatrick said yesterday, in order to do that, there has to be some deliberate shifting of considerations.
I don't support "quota programs" myself. But quotas and point systems--if I'm understanding them correctly--are not the same thing. A quota is, "We need 100 blacks, 50 Hispanics, 20 Native Americans, and 10 international students." They are hard and fast requirements. I completely disagree with that. Under that system, yes, whites have a distinct disadvantage, because there are only so many available spots at a given college, and someone necessarily has to be displaced to keep such spots open. That kind of affirmative action is awful and should be resisted.
All college applications need to be screened with some sort of discrimination in mind. We just happen to have approved types of discrimination: grades, test scores, athletic ability, alumni affliations. None of these are specifically supported by the Constitution; we as a whole have simply consented to these criteria, because we see the benefit of judging by them.
To say that affirmative action is no longer needed in this country is to be blind to the naked facts that confront us every day. People who live in the suburbs or who have a substantial bank account can ignore the grit of reality that the majority of this country has to deal with. Bush is certainly in that group. And the fact that he trots out blacks such as Thomas and Rice, who are first and foremost Republicans, to agree with his position really infuriates me. "Here are my token minorities, reflecting my opinion! See, it must be right!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: This thread delights me.
Date: 2003-01-20 06:41 am (UTC)Then how would you evaluate AA's effectiveness? What's the formula?
" Currently the majority opinion among minorities is that AA is extremely important and necessary in higher education, therefore, we need to listen to that and proceed forward with it."
So if an oppressed minority wants something, they should get it, regardless of whether it makes sense?
"Let's limit the discussion to whether AA is of tangible benefit in the context of higher education, then maybe can get somewhere. " Sure - the only argument that has ever held water for me re: AA is that AA does promote diversity on campus. As to whether that results in any positive outcomes, or changes people's opinions, I'm not sure.
"I don't support many of the point factors used however (like alumni affiliation)." Yes - I'd be MUCH happier if, say, UM got rid of the alumni affiliation points, rather than the racial group points
Re: This thread delights me.
Date: 2003-01-20 03:38 pm (UTC)First and foremost I have to say that AA must continue to be implemented because it is the morally and ethically the correct thing to do. While AA may or may not have an overarching effect on society as a whole, it has an effect on those individuals from underpriveleged groups who aspire to attend these universities and would not be accepted otherwise. As you mentioned, I believe AA is also imperative for increasing the diversity and broadening the dialogue in learning environments. In my mind AA's effectiveness can be measured rather simply...are more minority **college applicants** being given the opportunity to study at the schools of their choice? If yes, then it is contributing in a significantly positive way such that it should not be thrown out.
So if an oppressed minority wants something, they should get it, regardless of whether it makes sense?
When minorities believe they are the victims of immoral and unethical actions then yes, that MUST be addressed. And yes, the people who are the victims of moral injustice are likely the best determinants of whether or not something is "effective" and "makes sense" in correcting it, not those who have oppressed them. Generations have understood the value of AA, this is not some new fangled idea that only a few support; it was implemented BECAUSE it made made sense.
The idea behind AA is that people who have just as much potential to succeed as the next person but have not had the chance to demonstrate it due to socio-economic factors are being given the opportunity to prove themselves by taking away some of the barriers.
Okay...are we making better sense to one another now? I agree with you that AA cannot solve all social inequalities and that it does not effect a large portion of society, but would you agree that for the individuals it does effect, it is a positive thing?
Thanks,
~E
Re: This thread delights me.
Date: 2003-01-23 07:54 am (UTC)Yep - I think that AA is definitely a good thing for the people it affects,and agree that diversity on campus is a very good thing.
I think that our only point of disagreement is how to evaluate the usefullness of AA vs. other programs in a) establishing diversity, and b) whether that diversity helps create a broader equality.
I think that we're EXTREMELY far apart on the statement "And yes, the people who are the victims of moral injustice are likely the best determinants of whether or not something is "effective" and "makes sense" in correcting it, not those who have oppressed them. I find this deeply flawed. Out of curtesy to novapsyche's inbox, if you'd like to follow up w/ this, please feel free to email. I'd welcome a discussion on it, if you have any interest.
Thank you very much, though, for the discussion - I found it rewarding, and it clarified some points for me about this issue.
Be well,
Michael