What's wrong with Affirmative Action?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I support the concept of affirmative action. Various ethnic groups, and woman as a group, HAVE been discriminated against. And the result of such discrimination, often leads to poverty and a culture of poverty. Native Americans, Blacks, and Latinos, as ethnic groups, have been denied opportunities that were available to “respectable” Whites. Woman, are treated like brain dead cretins and denied opportunities available to men.

But saying all this, I absolutely oppose “race” based affirmative action. Poverty is now the main reason Blacks cannot get ahead, and poverty knows no race. While I believe that it is fair to help Blacks, an affirmative action program based on INCOME would help Blacks as well as the many Whites who are trapped in poverty.

The famous governor of Louisiana, Huey Long, known for his racism and fascist ideas, instituted many programs aimed at helping the White poor. When one of his racist constituents complained that Blacks were being helped as well, he answered, "You cannot help poor whites without also helping poor Blacks.

And that’s the bottom line here. Why should a person from My background of poverty be shunted aside to help someone who comes from the same neighborhood and same income bracket, but happens to be Black?

The biggest cause of the continuation of racism directed against Black people is this artificial division of the poor into Black and White. Who advocates this? Mostly well off White Liberals, who regard poor Blacks as “deserving,” and yet look at poor whites as “Trailer Trash,” or just plain “White trash.”

Well, I support the struggle against racism, which so fragments working people in the United States - But the answer is not a program defined only by race, but rather one defined by income. Some White person from Appalachia, or other parts of rural, or even urban America, is just as trapped as a Black person in the ghetto.

An affirmative action program based on income would have to help poor Blacks and poor woman - As well as poor Whites. And instead of the justified outrage of poor White people, who see themselves denied basic opportunities, simply because they are white, there would be an incentive for poor and working people of any color or sex to stand together.

Dave

2

I don’t think it’s true that liberals ignore white poverty. There have been programs for poor white people. Since the New deal at least. Just fairly recently a program to bring indoor plumbing to every household Appalachia, which is mostly white, has been completed.

Of course, it brought indoor plumbing to people who didn’t necessarily want it, but that’s liberalism for you.

3

To start with it undermines the whole concept of opportunity. Forcing or granting opportunities to people who have done nothing to achieve it will cause moral bankruptcy.

Race, economical statues or sex is irrelevant when dealing with opportunity. Opportunities are created by the individual through character, morals and internal fortitude. Simply giving away opportunities or creating opportunities for those lacking these qualities diminishes the moral concept of opportunity.

4

I have nothing against real Liberals. Roosevelts many programs helped everyone who was poor, but took no consideration of Institutional Racism.

The legal barrriers but not the legacy of racism have not been dealt with. Not has the legacy of poverty. When I was a kid, New York City was the only place in the country where you could get a free quality higher education. Such is no longer the case. Not even in the City.

The affirmitive action program was devised by those who simply didn’t feel that poor whites didn’t have their poverty coming to them. You have no idea how often I hear the expression “White Trash” to describe people of my background.

Dave

5

I take it you oppose the existing affirmative action for rich people? You know, where John Kerry and George Bush both got into school as “Legacies?” Poor babies, thank God they were spared actually having to take admission tests.

And when they go for a job and their resume says Yale, no doubt they will be rejected compared to the guy who went to a Community college? Or maybe not, because even Communitiy colleges now cost money.

But I know, I know, what’s three thousand dollars for someone who makes a whopping ten grand a year? Certainly nothing to George Bush or Kerry… :smiley:

Dave

6

Vacuous responses are not an argument. Unless you are attempting to direct the context of the discussion to the ideology of equality. If so, you must present plausible arguments to support such a stance. Or is it a tenet that we all must accept?

7

I agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling about universities, because universtities can demonstrate a value to diversity itself. Here, it is not the value of education to the students, but the value of a diverse student body to the schools.

The value of AA in society at large must be, I think, argued for in the same way. I think the failed arguments for AA are the ones that focus on the individuals or groups that have been allegedly discriminated against. In other words, rights-based arguments. Rights-based arguments are extremely complex, and it is difficult to reconcile divergent and contradictory rights - everybody thesadays claims a lot of rights.

In general, I oppose forced AA programs for private employers. No one forced the U of Mich (I think it was) to use an AA program - they wanted one. So the issue cuts both ways. Employers who wish to use AA criteria are regularly sued. Maybe we should start by preventing those lawsuits, before we move on to forcing employers to utilise AA.

8

I mostly agree with you about private employers, although clearly some employers wouldn’t hire a Black Einstein to pick up garbage, if there was a White man available. But this isn’t a question of AA, rather one of discrimination.

The wealthy in fact have a built in AA program and they are certainly not ashamed of using it. A bright appalachian White kid, or a bright Urban Black kid, cannot get into these schools without a rigourous exam, that doesn’t reflect the fact that they are competing with those who attended preparatory, schools, private tutoring, and finally, if THAT all fails, they get in as “Legacies.”

And this extends to employment, since resumes have to be built in order to be used. If you’re wealthy, it’s no problem to get Junior a job at the top. George Bush had his entire career handed to him - And I’m not saying this because of his politics. Kerry, got into school as a legacy, and if he ever had to work for a living, I suspect there wouldn’t be much problem.

Affirmitive action based on income, is not going to deprive the wealthy of THEIR affirmative action - Already safely in place; but will open doors to all the poor, who are institutionalised out of opportunity.

More than that, it will restore hope and return the poor of ALL colors, back into mainstream society.

And the most important part from my point of view is that it will end the hostile compitition between poor Blacks and Whites, which keeps racism alive and well.

Dave

9

Let me ask you a question, Chato. Do legacy students get scholarships, or do they pay? Very few (domestic) students pay the full freight at these prestigious colleges. Do the legacy students’ parents get tapped for “voluntary” contributions? Do their parents tend to give these donations anyway? I think legacy students have some “value” generally, if you know what I mean.

Nither Kerry nor Bush ever had to work for a living. They didn’t prevent anyone else from attending Yale. It’s just a non-issue. Neither man needed to go to Yale. It’s not a zero-sum game. That rich kids go to these schools may actually help subsidise less wealthy kids. The rich kids would still find their way. Bush, in particular, used family connections (and still mostly failed) that he would have had in any event.

Poor blacks and whites now have poor Central Americans to hate. I think the issue you raise is a bit outdated. Even in the South, where now it’s likely to be a black man doing nothing while supervising a crew of hardworking mexicans.

10

My point, is not to do away with legacy students - We live in a Capitalist Society, and short of getting rid of Capitalism, “wealth has its privledges.” :smiley:

My point is to recognise it for what it is - Affirmative Action for the wealthy. This on top of the other advantages that the wealthy have in preparing for college.

According to this link, 10 to 15 percent of Ivy League school admissions are Legacies. So yes, they do prevent others from getting in.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

I have no doubt that this is true. Not so much because they are immigrants, but because they are illegal immigrants and will work for nothing without being able to complain.

But it’s not really an answer Faust, you’re just moving the goal line. The wealthy have advantages that are inherent. The question of survival would never occur to a wealthy person. Trust me, it occurs to everyone who lives from pay check to pay check. Affirmitive action is a GOOD idea, my problem with it, is that it is aimed at ONLY one ethnic group, and one sex.

Coming from a poor background, with a family which cannot afford the proper atmosphere for learning, nor a proper environment on the larger scale of where you live, and the nature of your school, tends to insitutionalise poverty - And insitutionalised poverty breeds it’s own kind of fulfillment. That poor Whites are even left out of AA, tells me much about their hatred of those who at least have the Appearance of opportunities, denied to them.

I see AA as a way of helping minority groups - but not at the expense of those who are also poor, but happen to be White.

I was lucky to come from a family that valued education. I was unlucky that I had to support them, and could not afford to go to a college. Most poor people in this country are in fact White, something that most people forget.

NB. I’ve traveled all over America, and in places like Peensylvania, almost the entire South, and yes even in New York City or Chicago, are White people who are poor and come from backgrounds that hinder their ability to get ahead, just as profoundly as it affects Black people.

Racism against Black People is first on my list of things to combat in our country. Rich, so called liberals, do more to propogate racism than any other group. As I said in my first post on this topic, Huey Long recognised that you can’t help poor Whites without helping poor Blacks - Wealthy Liberals don’t have a clue. They’ve figured out a way to help poor blacks without helping poor whites. And aside from anything else, this is just plain Wrong.

Dave
Addendum (edited in)

For that matter, on a related subject, why didn’t conservatives oppose these twisted electoral districts that assure that a Black or Latino will be the victor of an election? It had support from liberals, and conservatives let it go through. Just as some conservatives support AA for minorities, but would NEVER support AA based in income…

11

You’re missing my point, Chato. I think that legacy students don’t really get a free ride. I think their daddies pony up the dough. I think that’s the reason for legacy students. I think it helps the school, and therefore all the students, more than it helps the rich kids. If there were no legacy students, there would still be Princeton, after all.

They don’t prevent other students from getting in. These schools can accommodate any number of students. There is no strictly numerical limit. Harvard is the most heavily endowed institution in the world, and I think Yale is second. It is not a zero-sum situation.

The wealthy have advantages, yes. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the notion that those advantages are always to the disadvantage of others.

But I don’t think you are talking about liberals - but about Democrats. White trash don’t vote - and when they do, they vote Republican - mostly becasue they all belong to the NRA. Both parties gerrymander, when they get the chance. Most gerrymandering is corrected only by court order.

The problem with income-based AA is that you can’t change your race, but you can change your economic class. You can always lower it, anyway.

12

Sure they pony up the dough. For the life of me I don’t get you’re point. I’m NOT calling for the end of legacies.

It is if you can’t prepare for these schools.

I’m talking about “so called Liberals,” and yes many of them are Democrats… :smiley:

A real Liberal, or a radical like myself does not oppose racism by propogating racism.

That’s MY point. Once you aren’t poor, Black OR White, you don’t need Affirmative Action. I don’t know the statistics, but I would bet that some fairly wealthy Black People, and fairly wealthy woman, take advantage of Affirmative Action.

Dave

13

I’m white and poor. I get sick of people who say, “if I was black I could go to college, but they don’t have all that stuff for white people”. What bullshit. The government has been paying my way for years.

14

Um, Chato - what is the connection between someone’s inability to prepare for college and legacy students? How does the latter affect the former?

Who actually uses AA? I mean, except voluntarily? If private company uses it, so what? it’s a private company. Why can’t they just hire who they want? The postal exam gives extra points to veterans. Is that AA? I’m just not sure which actual, living, real people you’re upset with.

15

Do you mean like people who inherit money?

Many opportunities are created and/or taken advantage of because of character and morals, but not necessarily good ones. I’m not convinced that success and morality are closely connected. Opportunistic has a negative connotation that wasn’t invented by me. This American Heritage Dictionary says … usu. with little regard for consequences or moral principals.

AA wouldn’t be an issue with …

16

stephenstillwell, are you a philosopher or propagandist? I have no desire to discuss anything with the later.

17

Well, I can’t complain about affirmative action programs, because without it we would not have such a fine employer. She owns and runs the company and he assists. They make darn good money and pay darn good wages. They found a loophole in the system and used it to their advantage. That is so American it makes your eyes tear up with patriotism. White,black and brown males have no problem having a female boss, or a supervisor that is female or the other females that work around them. If they have problems they wait til Friday then look at their nice fat check. It shuts them up quickly. Its amazing that they actually keep their employees by just simply paying a really nice living wage. Few leave. Out in the real world it would be hard.

So why does she insist on making sure it trickles down? Because she knows how hard it is to make a decent living. You work hard for her, she makes sure you are well compensated. Have any of you ever thought about working for a minority owned company? Hers is not the only one that believes in paying good wages. Minorities seem to understand hardship in general.

18

:smiley: :smiley:

Broadly - I oppose affirmative action (or positive discrimination, as it’s called over here) because it’s a half measure that at best is hypocritical and stupid and at worst is intentionally designed to exacerbate racial tensions under the guise of forcing society to ‘work through’ them.

Yes, people have been oppressed (and still are). But almost everyone who isn’t a descendant of the aristocracy has ancestors who were oppressed. If you compare in real terms the economic and political liberty of the average African American slave and that of the average European agricultural worker in, say, 1780, you won’t see a huge amount of difference. And of course, the blacks were imported precisely because the indigenous population of North America (and central and Southern, for that matter) refused to be enslaved and so the invading European colonists slaughtered the vast majority of them and imported slaves to take their place. Yet the enslavement of black West Africans (mainly) in North America ranks so much higher in the liberal version of history than the genocide of Native Americans. What’s worse, being a slave or being dead? Interesting question, but not one you’ll find many liberals are prepared to try and answer.

The point is not that this oppression is irrelevant, far from it. But it is not a sufficient reason for taking money off everyone and giving it to a select minority, and such an act of ‘charity’ goes little way to compensating a bunch of people who’ve been dead for a century or more. The two simply don’t correlate historically, and thus fail the most basic political or ethical test.

Of course, the principle at stake, that money should be redistributed from rich to poor, is communist, or at least socialist. That’s what I mean by a half measure - it doesn’t go far enough, and is going too far, at the same time. Either go through with the policy of redistributing wealth from rich to poor, or don’t. Doing it partially as a vote-winning exercise is just pathetic.

19

Excellently-reasoned position, Siatd.

I have no problem with an AA program that is voluntarily undertaken by a private company - that is mostly public relations, anyway. And, as I stated, I see the value in AA for college admissions. Beyond those details, I heartily agree with your position.

Very nice post.

20

I’m neither, just mentally defective poor white trash. I got a pretty good education though.

I think so too, that is why I advocate an even distribution of new fiat capital to everyone, without discrimination.