Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305054524' post='2239730']
Again, we're not really arguing for affirmative action so much as arguing against the things that it sets out to rectify.

*Edit: sorry changed my mind about what to post.
[/quote]


I don't think it needs to be addressed by the state at all. On a personal level it should be addressed via the Church and good old fashion Christian witness.

[Amppax]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305055928' post='2239739']
Today, there is fear of going to a black doctor for fear of them being 'affirmative action' candidates. On the other hand, if there was no affirmative action, and there was a black doctor, you could have just as much confidence as with any other doctor. In an even more extreme situation, if you know that there *is* bigotry against a particular 'type' then you should seek out the members of that group because you know that they are likely to be *better* than average.
[/quote]

Well, i'm going to stick by everything i've previously said: there are definitely some problems with affirmative action, but in my view, it seems like one of the few active things that are at least trying to address racial equality (by this i'm referring to the fact that minorities are as a whole disadvantaged to begin with in our society). Believe me, I really, really don't like the idea of affirmative action, but it seems to me to be better then nothing. Again, if anyone has a better solution I am more than willing to listen.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305057013' post='2239750']
Well, i'm going to stick by everything i've previously said: there are definitely some problems with affirmative action, but in my view, it seems like one of the few active things that are at least trying to address racial equality (by this i'm referring to the fact that minorities are as a whole disadvantaged to begin with in our society). Believe me, I really, really don't like the idea of affirmative action, but it seems to me to be better then nothing. Again, if anyone has a better solution I am more than willing to listen.
[/quote]


So again I ask. Why does this need to be adressed at all?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305057219' post='2239753']
So again I ask. Why does this need to be adressed at all?
[/quote]

You don't think that some segments of our population are disadvantaged by their race?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305057605' post='2239760']
You don't think that some segments of our population are disadvantaged by their race?
[/quote]


I do not think that the states role is to fix all the problems of our population. The state should have never told people where they could live, or work, or eat, or go potty, suchis not the states role. That the state once violated its role is not an excuse to violate it now.

I have been discriminated against for being white, right up to and including people threatening my life. I have been passed over for promotion and lost jobs to less qualified people becuase I amwhite and male.... so what, it is not the states role to chnge those peoples hearts.

Public institutions and corporations should be required by law to be race and gender nuetral. Private persons should be allowed to dispose of their own property and jobs in anyway they see fit.

Racism will never be fixed by government fiat.

And you still didn't answer the question.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305058325' post='2239769']
I do not think that the states role is to fix all the problems of our population. The state should have never told people where they could live, or work, or eat, or go potty, suchis not the states role. That the state once violated its role is not an excuse to violate it now.

I have been discriminated against for being white, right up to and including people threatening my life. I have been passed over for promotion and lost jobs to less qualified people becuase I amwhite and male.... so what, it is not the states role to chnge those peoples hearts.

Public institutions and corporations should be required by law to be race and gender nuetral. Private persons should be allowed to dispose of their own property and jobs in anyway they see fit.

Racism will never be fixed by government fiat.

And you still didn't answer the question.
[/quote]


Well i really don't think that i could honestly give a good answer to your question right now... I'm going to have to get back to you on it when i can better formulate my ideas. Sorry, it's exam week.

*Edit: sorry if that seems like a copout, it's not, i just really don't have the time or the energy to fully articulate my view of why the problem needs to be solved, as I imagine it will take much explaining and writing, and would have to cover a lot more then the few simple lines that i have time for right now.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Amppax

[Amppax]

The simple answer would be that I think that it is not right to condone leaving a problem unsolved, and condoning injustice... but my full answer would have to be much more in depth then this.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305059160' post='2239777']
The simple answer would be that I think that it is not right to condone leaving a problem unsolved, and condoning injustice... but my full answer would have to be much more in depth then this.
[/quote]
whose condoning anything? Lack of approval does not mean that the state should try and fix it.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305060186' post='2239786']
whose condoning anything? Lack of approval does not mean that the state should try and fix it.
[/quote]

By leaving the problem unfixed, you are naturally condoning it by your lack of action in fixing the injustice.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305060821' post='2239790']
By leaving the problem unfixed, you are naturally condoning it by your lack of action in fixing the injustice.
[/quote]


Bull.


What you are talking about, taken to its logical conclusion is total state domination. The liberal-Democratic ideal that the state can fix everything has been tried, and has failed. That aside the attempt to do so is in itself evil and violates the basic human dignaty of those within said state.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305061196' post='2239792']
Bull.


What you are talking about, taken to its logical conclusion is total state domination. The liberal-Democratic ideal that the state can fix everything has been tried, and has failed. That aside the attempt to do so is in itself evil and violates the basic human dignaty of those within said state.
[/quote]

Ok, so your contention is that the state shouldn't fix the problem. fine. So how does it get fixed? Or do you think that we should just tolerate injustice?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305061498' post='2239793']
Ok, so your contention is that the state shouldn't fix the problem. fine. So how does it get fixed? Or do you think that we should just tolerate injustice?
[/quote]

I already answered that through the Church and Christain witness.

I reject the notion that lack of an equality of outcome is in itself unjust. If there is an unjust cause that should be treated as above?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305061196' post='2239792']
What you are talking about, taken to its logical conclusion is total state domination. The liberal-Democratic ideal that the state can fix everything has been tried, and has failed. That aside the attempt to do so is in itself evil and violates the basic human dignaty of those within said state.
[/quote]

No, [b]that [/b]is bs. I'm not advocating total state domination. All i'm trying to say is that we, as a society, should address injustice. If addressing injustice involves the state, fine, if it doesn't fine. If we don't address the injustice in our society, then we aren't doing something right.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305062043' post='2239798']
I already answered that through the Church and Christain witness.

I reject the notion that lack of an equality of outcome is in itself unjust. If there is an unjust cause that should be treated as above?
[/quote]

i'm not arguing for equality of outcome, i'm arguing for equality of opportunity.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305062309' post='2239803']
i'm not arguing for equality of outcome, i'm arguing for equality of opportunity.
[/quote]


But your evidence is all based on outcome.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305062196' post='2239801']
No, [b]that [/b]is bs. I'm not advocating total state domination. All i'm trying to say is that we, as a society, should address injustice. If addressing injustice involves the state, fine, if it doesn't fine. If we don't address the injustice in our society, then we aren't doing something right.
[/quote]


Yes you are, you are saying that the state should discriminate against people based on race, in order to change outcomes and to slowly, magically, alter peoples views on other races. This is subtle thought control, but thought control nontheless.

How exactly is a rule of race and gender neutrality unjust?


How exactly is it just to, by law, require private citizens to depose of their own property in a particular way?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

No,whatyour talking about is control of the moral order by the state... if that isn't total state domination what is?

[MithLuin]

Um....what is the purpose of rule of law if not to enforce certain behaviors and put consequences on people's failure to live up to these standards?

Yes, I don't want the gov't breathing down my neck and watching my every action. No, I don't want to legislate morality to the point that it's illegal to refuse to help my neighbor (like in Tolkien's 'Leaf by Niggle'). There are limits, and people ultimately have the freedom to act regardless of what the law states. You can (for instance) not pay your taxes, stockpile illegal weapons, and shoot anyone who tries to come onto your property. The law doesn't [i]stop[/i] that from happening...though there are some pretty severe consequences if you choose to go that route.

I'm perfectly fine with the state decreeing that it's not okay for me to kill someone. I'm also fine with them setting consequences if I choose to drive while impaired and kill someone through my own negligence and stupidity. I'm not okay with someone exacting the death penalty for drunk driving. That's...disproportionate. So, yes, I'm okay with their being laws to address racism. I'm not sure that our current laws do the most good, but I am saying that I want to replace them with something better, not necessarily start from scratch.

Earlier in this thread I twice outlined the evolution of Jesuit efforts to address inner city poverty and lack of education in the past 40 years. I think that the current programs are light years better than the original ones, and -- not surprisingly -- it's the current programs that are growing like wildfire while the originals sputtered out or were completely revamped as time went on. They learned, and improved, and weren't afraid to try new things.

I'm hardly going to insist that the method of addressing racism in hiring practices in the 1970s should be in place - unchanged - today. That wouldn't make any sense. But I'm also not going to say that the gov't shouldn't set rules for itself when hiring gov't contractors. After all, if the gov't doesn't make the effort to stamp out institutionalized racism as paid for by tax dollars, then that would be a major step backwards.

[Don John of Austria]

I can't respond now, I will come back later.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304979348' post='2239301']
I was limiting my comments to my own university, which had a top 10 chemistry program. They didn't lower the bar, and the professor vouched for that. My experience was that the people who went into engineering (or science) for the paycheck didn't stick it out. You had to really like the field, be good at it, and put in tons of hours to keep your head above water.
[/quote]

She's right -- you won't be a successful engineer if you enter it simply because of money. I've seen it a lot.

And also as a woman in a male dominated field -- you end up having to work harder to get farther. Definitely. And I want to bet that I get paid less than my male counterparts.

And as a latina -- here's a story. I'm 100% fluent in english, and I speak english with a regional accent (not with a spanish accent). About 2 years into my career, my boss had to stop management from sending me to a training class. What class was it? English as a Second Language. They had picked me out of the group simply because of my spanish surname. Yet I was already proven at work to be one of the best writers, and the person in management had no clue as to who I was. They made an assumption that was WRONG -- especially considering where I was born, the schooling I had, and that I had graduated from one of the top engineering schools in the US.

So yes I'm all for affirmative action if it helps to equalize the disparity. When the disparity stops -- then affirmative action can go.