Attacks on AA

[novapsyche]

I 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!"

Comments

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"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."

Respectfully disagree. It can be to say that affirmative action is not the most effective and efficient strategy to remedy inequality.

"Secondly, as an affluent white male, he really has no idea what it means to actually need affirmative action programs. " This is really silly. I'm an affluent white male. This has no bearing on my grasp of social inequities, and the matrix of race and poverty (which is a wonderful phrase, btw). Don't fall for the foolishness that if someone hasn't experienced it, they have not idea what it means.

re: points vs. quotas. True, there are differences, but at some point, because there are a finite number of seats, some people may be denied one of those seats, specifically because they are of the wrong race. (For the record, I'd be happier if "alumni affiliation" fell out of the formula as well.)

[empiress.livejournal.com]

It can be to say that affirmative action is not the most effective and efficient strategy to remedy inequality.

This can be said, but let those who are the recipients of affirmative action be the ones to judge it's effectiveness, not the dominant class/race/gender, etc.

I'm an affluent white male. This has no bearing on my grasp of social inequities, and the matrix of race and poverty (which is a wonderful phrase, btw). Don't fall for the foolishness that if someone hasn't experienced it, they have not idea what it means.

While someone outside that context may intellectually understand these ideas, it is again the place of those who live and experience them daily who ought to be deferred to in informing our understanding. And honestly, I do not believe those who have never experienced something in a personal deep way can ever appreciate fully all that is involved and at stake for those who do. I never understood poverty truly until I experienced it. I never understood gender discrimination truly until I experienced it. While I intellectually grasped these ideas and was against them, I was missing a lot. It is very easy for liberal intellectuals to THINK they understand all the issues when they don't, even if their opinions are "enlightened."

True, there are differences, but at some point, because there are a finite number of seats, some people may be denied one of those seats, specifically because they are of the wrong race.

Yes, there are also a finite amount of resources in our world and at some point, being the "wrong" race as a minority or the "wrong" economic level will disqualify you from benefitting from those resources. The knife cuts both ways in society; affirmative action seeks to make the playing ground a little more equal.

[waxphallusophic.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. I've been irked recently myself by the talk of those goings on.

I mean - as a pointer to the fact that culture does not change speedily, it has been over a century since the emancipation proclimation, and we're still arguing about it.

And, in my opinion, those whites in office really need to stop coming up with their grand solutions and patting themselves on the back for being such good, open-hearted descendents of slave traders. It just seems to conflagerate the dividing lines that are already there.

I don't have an answer myself, I'd never take my ego to the extent of saying I know how to fix a cultural problem. However, I suspect that the unfortunate reality of the situation is that it is still going to take generations to sort itself out. [despite my wishing it was simpler, easier and quicker than that]. All I can offer is awareness and communication. My thoughts that people ought to keep their eyes clear enough to take a long look at current reality, as well as take into account the entire history of the industrio-capitalist accent into power - we really are dealing with more than just a single country's history; and while looking at this - there has to be open communication, without shame or fear, about it. Perhaps that would facilitate a wider understanding of all the tendrils that reach out from these sorts of issues, and good progress on solutions can be started.

As it is now, it seems to me that for the most part it is almost solely a matter of what looks good on the balot, and what looks good to the current slave masters who provide campaign dollars.

[ah, the joys of living still in a glorified oligarchy.]

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"This can be said, but let those who are the recipients of affirmative action be the ones to judge it's effectiveness, not the dominant class/race/gender, etc. "

Um, no. The judgement of efficiency and effectiveness of X government program is not the sole purvue of those who receive it's benefits. This is why tax programs benefiting the rich come under broad criticism, and the judgement of their efficacy is not reserved to only those receiving the benefit.

With regards to your second point, again, you don't need to *feel* the effects of X to understand and make good judgements about X. I'm not saying that those experiences are not valid or real, just that they are not the criteria to decide whether your judgement should drive policy. I don't need to be a woman to know that gender discrimination is bad, and when the vote on policy issue X decreasing the legality of gender discrimination Y comes up, my 1 vote = your 1 vote. If you're making the point that perceiving something firsthand is different than perceiving something secondhand, I agree. If you're saying that the only valid opinions are those who's experience was firsthand, I disagree.

I completely agree that AA has sought to level the playing field. I haven't seen reliable studies that AA has done so. I don't believe that higher numbers of minorities in higher education is a sufficient leveling of the playing field. I haven't seen data that says those minorities have taken money back into urban core's. If you can find some, I would genuinely welcome it.

[gbdances.livejournal.com]

The real problem is that the playing field is NEVER going to be leveled at the university level. The problem is that like it or not, BLACK children have less opportunity to attend elementary, junior and high schools taught by teachers who are as qualified as teachers in white schools, funded by tax dollars from neighborhoods that can afford good textbooks, with a higher percentage of educated parents. The bottom line is that test scores, grades and other academic measurements AUTOMATICALLY exclude poor children of ANY race, because they statistically do worse in school because their schools SUCK. In New Orleans, for example, a 75% non-white city, only ONE public school is above "unacceptable" compared to national standards. There is NO WAY that a child educated in New Orleans in private school has a snowball's chance in HELL of getting a merit scholarship.

Solving the problem at the college level doesn't even address the problem. It just throws a little balm on the wound. This country was founded on public schools. And we also want lower taxes. Well, you can't have both. You get what you pay for. And those who can't afford to pay, don't get educated. So the cycle perpetuates itself. And it starts with first grade, not freshman college.

Sorry to rant, but I believe in education. For everyone. That's just one white man's opinion.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

"Secondly, as an affluent white male, he really has no idea what it means to actually need affirmative action programs." This is really silly. I'm an affluent white male. This has no bearing on my grasp of social inequities, and the matrix of race and poverty.... Don't fall for the foolishness that if someone hasn't experienced it, they have not idea what it means.

I don't mean to be foolish, and I recognize that I was ranting more than anything else.

At the same time, it is nigh impossible for a white man to understand what a day in the life of a black man (or another minority) is like, much less the life of a woman, or a black woman. The further one goes down the line of minority groups, the further one's sense of understanding is from one's particular point of departure. I don't know what it's like to be a white male. I admit this. I have an idea, because the dominant worldview in this country is that of white society, and for the most part Western civilization has been voiced by white men. So, I have a broad window into what it might be like to be white. However, few whites have similar windows into what it might be like to be a minority.

(Like I said in a reply to a recent post, I went to an extremely liberal liberal arts college. You'll have to forgive my left bent.)

I think race is a silly construct to begin with. Science agrees that race is not a genetic marker (there was a study of Brazilians in the last month or so that made this point). As a social scientist at heart, I sincerely believe that race is a completely social construct and could, theoretically, be dismissed or discarded. But the sad fact is that the construct does have bearing on real life. How to manage that is the problem.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

re: foolishness and ranting - fair enough, and I apologize that I didn't recognize this - sometimes I'm itching for a fight on this one. :) I have been told many, many times that my opinions aren't valid because I have not had direct experience.

Where did you go to college, btw - I saw the mention, but didn't know what specific school?

Yep - as you say, race is a socal construct and could be dismissed, but I doubt that we'll get to a point where it will be. I'm not even sure that it should be dismissed - there's some extraordinarily powerful and useful relationships based on race that I think are necessary ad positive. (Specifically, those in the intersubjective cultural realm.) The trick is what is the baby and what is the bathwater.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Very well put. Thank you.

[waxphallusophic.livejournal.com]

Yes! Thank you.

Open, honest, "good" education is one of the few things I am adamant about, and see hope in for fostering years down the road some kind of civilization that manages to rise above the barbarism of history.

[prema.livejournal.com]

from a totally different perspective :

i live in Malaysia. My race accounts for less than 5% of the population. I am Malaysian Indian. There are two other major races in the country - Malay and Chinese. Sometime in 70s, our prime minister (and he's still our PM now) introduced a program which gave Malays (who were called Bumiputeras - translated it means Princes of the Earth) more seats in universities and colleges, greater discounts when buying houses or land, more chance in receiving shares/stocks when they make applications, cheaper cars - just to name a few. Only for the Malays. They are the MAJORITY of our population. Among the reasons given for this is that at the time the Malays were less affluent than the other races (namely Chinese, the Indians were and still are the poorest). 30 years later and the program is still ongoing. But you don't find many Malays have benefited from it. You still see a higher percentage of Indians and Chinese gradutaing with honours compared to Malays who attended uni.

Why? Because although we don't have any program that helps us up the socio economic ladder, there is an attitude among the minorities here that to get anywhere we have to work that little bit harder. And it works. We don't complain. We get even. To be honest, I don't see that attitude very often among minority groups in America. Another observation is that Malaysia has had only one race riot (in the 1960s) since its declaration as an independent country. There are hardly any race issues in our country - although there is an affirmative action program and quota systems in place for the MAJORITY RACE in the population.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Oh, you don't have to apologize. I like a fight as much as the next person. :) In print, it's harder to discern what's ranting from what's normal conversation. :)

Honestly, though. Affirmative action is such a touchy subject, at least in mainstream culture; but in the African-American community it is seen as just as much of a cultural given as abortion is to women. That is to say, it means just as much to them.

Now, before people think I'm doing injustice with such an analogy, let me try to expand that. I'm speaking as a feminist here. Affirmative action is not as much of a right as abortion is seen to be a right of women. However, in the black community, affirmative action is so emotional that it has the same force politically.

I'm not even sure that it should be dismissed - there's some extraordinarily powerful and useful relationships based on race that I think are necessary ad positive.

I'm not baiting you; I'm honestly intellectually interested. Could you list some examples?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Then I have to say that Malaysia is closer to being a meritocracy than America is. At the same time, the situation over there is also very unfair at the outset. The playing field is still uneven.

I appreciate your perspective. It does give me something to think about; such reversed roles.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I too believe in the power of education.

By luck, by happenstance, I ended up on the "good" side of the system. My hometown's school system was desegregated in the sixties: it split six ways, absorbed by surrounding school systems. After Head Start (which I remember enjoying thoroughly), I ended up in a predominantly white school. My school system wasn't top-notch--an old friend of mine said just last week she's mad that our high school put us on a track they had the nerve to call "college prep"--but it was good. I went to a good public school. They exist! And black people do attend them! I just don't know how many had experiences similar to mine.

I fear cities, I honestly do. My father grew up in Detroit, and I have no idea how he did it. I do not have any answers as to how to help inner-city schools. They have problems I've never personally witnessed; thus my solutions would be hunches in the dark. How do you rescue such a sinking ship?

Yes, this country was founded on public education. I wish more people would realize this, so that public funds could be distributed accordingly. Investment in public education is a good thing; throwing money at this just might fix the problem! More schools, smaller classes, more teachers, higher median incomes for teachers.

(Yep, I'm definitely a liberal.)

[empiress.livejournal.com]

E said: "This can be said, but let those who are the recipients of affirmative action be the ones to judge it's effectiveness, not the dominant class/race/gender, etc. "

blorky said: Um, no. The judgement of efficiency and effectiveness of X government program is not the sole purvue of those who receive it's benefits. This is why tax programs benefiting the rich come under broad criticism, and the judgement of their efficacy is not reserved to only those receiving the benefit.

You are mistaking a philosophical statement for a statement of political fact. Your description is one describing how our legal system currently works on a variety of issues. My statement was one stating a philosophical opinion about AA in particular, eg the philosophical underpinnings behind AA. My a priori belief in dealing with laws that aid minorities and the underpriveleged is that they are the ones best suited to judge whether such laws are effective or not. The same cannot be said for laws that aid the majority class/priveledged, etc. If you disagree with this point, the argument is primarily philosophical in nature.

If you're making the point that perceiving something firsthand is different than perceiving something secondhand, I agree. If you're saying that the only valid opinions are those who's experience was firsthand, I disagree.

Then we agree. My distinction was between intellectual understanding and experiential understanding. One is a fuller and/or deeper understanding than the other, but neither are 'invalid' in and of themselves.

I haven't seen reliable studies that AA has done so. I don't believe that higher numbers of minorities in higher education is a sufficient leveling of the playing field. I haven't seen data that says those minorities have taken money back into urban core's. If you can find some, I would genuinely welcome it.

I am not sure what criteria you consider to be "reliable" in the case of studies on affirmative action. However, my opinion stems primarily from those I know who have personally benefitted from affirmative action and the positive effects it has had on their lives in terms of having access to higher education and resources they would not otherwise have had. What kind of evidence would you consider "reliable" in demonstrating whether AA is acheiving its stated goal of "levelling the playing field"? Perhaps if I knew that, I could try to provide you the information you're looking for. That said, it is a complex issue and not easily measured in any precise way.

Thanks.
~E

[empiress.livejournal.com]

Just a question for clarification. I agree that we cannot ever fully "level the playing ground" because the factors that create such inequities are far too deep. But does that mean we ought not try? Does that mean AA should not be implemented in your opinion?

And if not, what do you suggest as an alternative?

Thanks,
~E

Mail this to every publication in the US.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

As if it would change the huge Republican wall one bit...
He really is a dangerous man isn't he.
IMO Condaleeza Rice strikes me as what I have heard referred to as an "Oreo".
Must be fun to have ALL the power.

This thread delights me.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Hrm - I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying. Effectiveness is a judgement about what a program is intended to do vs. what it actually acomplishes. If the goal of AA is to make people feel good, sure, only people who are direct beneficiaries can make the judgement. If the point is to correct social inequities, many people can make the judgement. Why would judgements about the effectiveness of laws depend on who's benefiting? What about laws that benefit both rich and poor?

re: levelling the playing field - I'm of the opinion that the social inequities aren't going to be addressed at the level of higher education. The most brutal inequities are manifest in the socioeconomic group that never even gets a shot at college - gbdances stated the point more eloquently. re: criteria or data. Income stats, # of AA beneficiaries who open businesses in their home communities *over and above* the rate of non-AA beneficiaries, # of AA Beneficiaries who finish college over and above the rate of non AA minorities who got in on merit.

To answer the question you asked gbdances, and would fairly be directed at me:"But does that mean we ought not try?" Of course not. But not every plan is a good one. "Does that mean AA should not be implemented in your opinion?" I disagree with all race based quota and points systems. The just don't work. If they worked, and the societal inequities that they were hoped to have addressed were being affected, I would be in favor. But at present, I've not seen it. "And if not, what do you suggest as an alternative?" Single biggest thing to address the foundation of issues for minorities in the US: revise the tax laws so that education isn't funded out of property taxes. It will guarantee that poor districts stay poor. Second, merit testing for teachers. It may take breaking the teachers union, but there's no way around it. Third, a HUGE increase in Head Start funds.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Sure - cultural ritual based on race (the social construct) is a tremendously valuable for passing on shared values, and a sense of belonging that extends beyond immediate family. I think of it as a set of concentric circles - earliest loyalties are to yourself/mom (indistinguishable at a very early age), then a differentiated self and Mom, then immediate family, then extended family/tribe, then (often) the foundation for loyalty for "people like me but not me" is religious, then (hopefully) a worldcentric outlook - "I need to be loyal and compassionate for people who are NOTHING like me, and whom I've never met.". But the jump from compassion for family to compassion /loyalty to tribe/culture is huge. It's the first step of being identified with a group, regardless of whether their actions benefit you directly. Of course you shouldn't stop there - that's the foundation of racism. But without the sense that my race/culture is a distinct thing, with shared values/history/ritual, it's very hard to extend one's compassion beyond immediate family, or beyond the mechanistic "Should I treat them well? Only if it will be good for me.".

Of course, you can then make judgements about the quality of cultural values being passed along, but that's kind of a different discussion.

re: AA being seen as a cultural given. Sure - I understand that, and don't disagree. I was trying to pursue the point that I don't think that means that AA programs are efficient and effective.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

whoops - I'd like to modify my list. Radically changin the WOD, so that minor pot violations don't result in jail time would help immensely. This would address social inequity across the board, regardless of race.

Thank you for the ongoing discussion.

Re: Mail this to every publication in the US.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm an Oreo too. :)

Really. I actually had several friends admit to me, for example, that they were surprised when my father came to campus to pick me up between semesters. "Your dad is black!" my friend Tony joked.

I went to predominantly white schools, attended a predominantly white church. The majority of my friends are white. For the last ten years, I've only dated white men (and one white woman). Culturally, I identify as white; it's only racially that I'm black. (I have to admit that since moving back to Michigan, I'm picking up urban markers, and that might make me seem more black [if that makes any sense] to more people.)

Re:

[gbdances.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying the playing field can never be leveled. What I'm saying is that we need, as a society, to stop trying to convince ourselves that the haves and the have-nots (for lack of better terms) are even playing the same sport. Further, if we as a nation are truly interested in education, then we need to insist that those who represent us have the guts to tell us "no taxes, no services". Finally, although it is obvious that the agenda of big business since the Vietnam war is the dumbing down of the American people (so that no generation of young people will ever have the intelligence or initiative to be so bold as to protest a war fought over commercial interests), if people are truly interested in education, it must be accomplished at an individual level - because NOTHING was ever created or resolved by committee. It is the imperative of the individual to encourage others to be educated, to assist where possible, and to provide an example, as Malcolm X suggested, not that tells others their glass of water is dirty, but simply stands quietly nearby and sips slowly on a clean glass of sparkling clear, cool water, and waits for them to want a glass of their own. Maybe that doesn't make sense to everyone. But every social revolution begins with the private revolution. You have to change yourself, first.

Re: This thread delights me.

[empiress.livejournal.com]

Just a few thoughts that may clarify....I don't believe AA is the end all be all answer to correcting social inequities. Recall that this discussion was initiated purely in the context of AA as implemented by the U of M's admission policies. My point: when it comes to higher education, it is highly desirable to implement AA for minorities and lower classes. I believe having opportunities for and access to higher education for all people who apply to college regardless of social factors is the goal and final "result" of AA, because by its nature, AA has a limited scope. IF having greater access to higher education for a wider cross section of socioeconomic college applicants is a step in the direction of levelling the playground, then AA is achieving its goals to some extent statistically. If one disagrees and does not see receiving higher education as one of the many factors in "levelling the playground" then AA will never be seen as a step in that direction and the disagreement is a much deeper one regarding the place of education. Additionally, AA has never been seen as a "permanent" solution. AA within higher education has always been viewed merely as a temporary solution to particular problems that exist within the current admissions processes at universities until the root of socio-economic inequities are solved.

As to making judgments on the effectiveness of AA: It is not enough to base our opinions on the analysis of "statistics on social inequality" by wealthy white males and their preconcieved opinions of what that should/would look like to determine AA's "effectiveness." Sorry. The fundamental issue here is one of empowerment for the lower/minority classes in being able to speak for themselves rather than being told what is good for them by others. They must have a voice because their voice has been taken away by the majority classes/groups. 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.

We are in a very different situation if we are discussing laws that benefits (or even hinder) the dominant classes/groups because they -already- have a voice and power. Observation of statistics by their own and their own dominant opinions is ALREADY heeded in a fairly reliable way in our legal system, so the way things currently work in our legal system for -those groups- is fine.

I'm of the opinion that the social inequities aren't going to be addressed at the level of higher education. The most brutal inequities are manifest in the socioeconomic group that never even gets a shot at college

I agree that higher education is not at the root of social inequities, however, it is one important peice in the matrix, particularly those who are applying to college, therefore it ought not be ignored or disregarded. It seems the argument being used here is that since AA in higher education does not solve all social inequities, it is worthless. That seems like a large jump in logic that I don't follow. Let's limit the discussion to whether AA is of tangible benefit in the context of higher education, then maybe can get somewhere.

I disagree with all race based quota and points systems.

Just a point of clarification, I do not support quota systems and I see them as quite distinct and different from point systems as utilized by many AA universities. I don't support many of the point factors used however (like alumni affiliation).

Re: This thread delights me.

[empiress.livejournal.com]

Ran out of room!

Single biggest thing to address the foundation of issues for minorities in the US: revise the tax laws so that education isn't funded out of property taxes. It will guarantee that poor districts stay poor. Second, merit testing for teachers. It may take breaking the teachers union, but there's no way around it. Third, a HUGE increase in Head Start funds.


Some of these proposals may help the problem but I do not agree that they will totally solve social inequities because again, the problem goes deeper than even funding and teaching. However, even if we somehow raised all the funding needed to implement these solutions today, we are still stuck with the time it will take for these programs to take effect. What about the kids applying to college today and over the next several years who come from underpriveledged groups? AA, as the temporary solution in terms of higher education can still have a positive effect for these groups, therefore it ought to continue.

Thanks for the discussion,
~E

[empiress.livejournal.com]

Novapsyche said:
You'll have to forgive my left bent

Never apologize for being a liberal, wear it proudly! ;)

Affirmative action is not as much of a right as abortion is seen to be a right of women. However, in the black community, affirmative action is so emotional that it has the same force politically.

I would have to agree with you. From what I've seen, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have the same emotional and political force as abortion for women. Both are of huge significance to one's basic rights, livilihood, and personal well being.

Re: Mail this to every publication in the US.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

You sound like you look sexy...

Re: This thread delights me.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"It is not enough to base our opinions on the analysis of "statistics on social inequality" by wealthy white males and their preconcieved opinions of what that should/would look like to determine AA's "effectiveness."

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.

[empiress.livejournal.com]

Then how would you evaluate AA's effectiveness? What's the formula?

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.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Sorry for taking so long to respond - work and life have skittered towards frantically busy.

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