The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative action?

[BigRob]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

So I graduated third in my graduating class of 800, I've logged over 350 hours of community service, scored a 2280 on the SAT, I'm an Eagle Scout (and Senior Patrol Leader of a troop of over 100), and did a ton of extracurricular activities to boot.

Rejected from Stanford and two other top private schools that practice some form of affirmative action. (I'm white.)

In many cases your ability to pay the cost of going to school also comes into play. For example, if you were in need of scholarships to attend these schools, it could have had a negative impact on your acceptance.

Not trying to justify it either way, just pointing out another issue.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

I must have struck a nerve by picking on Progressives... If indeed you are a progressive, then its sweet irony that an ideology you support has bitten you in the college admissions.

You pick the same old arguments that the supporters of Socialism always pick... No doubt drummed into your head, and reinforced, by every teacher you've ever had:

A good progressive idea? How about The United States Postal Service?

The Post office was NOT a Progressive idea. Created in 1775, before we were even a nation, the Post office offers a service that all Americans have equal access to, no matter what your race, gender or income level.

And that doesn't even require any tax money; it's all nonprofit and altruistic!

The cost of a postage stamp doesn't begin to cover their costs. The post office is bankrupt and operates in deficits, 2007 alone saw a deficit of 5.4 billion dollars... Post office deficits are covered by tax money from the general fund so you're wrong about it not requiring tax money to operate.

UPS and Fed Ex operate FOR profit and while they may appear more expensive than their USPS counterpart, once you factor in the taxes necessary to fund the USPS operations, the private mail delivery operates far more efficiently and at a lower cost than the USPS.

Or, take for example, public roads.

You picked a terrible but common example. Roads too were not created as a result of the Progressive ideology... Funding for road projects comes from the states in which the roads are built and the funding comes from state taxes, such as the gas tax which differs from state to state (same with schools, they are paid for by local and state taxes, not federal taxes). The federal government provides very little revenue to road projects.

Like the Post Office, our roads are equally open to anyone, at any time and they are a necessity for commerce and Capitalism to function. If the Roads were to become private property, they could be built and maintained through the use of advertisements (billboards that you see on the highway now) and/or through tolls.

Or think of money the government has given to scientific research.

I take it you don't care about the constitutionality of anything the government does, so long as its done with good intentions and there is the possibility of a positive outcome. You should have mentioned the Military (which is a constitutional expenditure) or Space exploration, far more benefits to society have been achieved through those expenditures than through scientific research.

Some of that money was used well and has benefited us all much more than had the money been kept by citizens and put back into the economy via (likely mostly high end) consumerism.

You have a perverted sense of what Capitalism is and how it operates, such misconceptions are likely a product of our wonderful education system. The profit motive has provided you with 99% of what you enjoy as the benefits of an industrialized and advanced society.

Perhaps the end of slavery, some of which was inspired by altruism, could be called an altruistic act.

The Emancipation Proclamation was used to destabilize the south during the civil war, because the majority of their economy depended on slave labor.

Many have said that the causes of the current economic crisis were greedy banks, which I think also were counting on getting bailouts were their bets to be off the mark.

I love how people equate Capitalism with Anarchy and Rational Self Interest as Greed or Hedonism...

"The mind does not easily unlearn what it has been long in learning." -- Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

Were the banks slightly more "progressive," or altruistic, perhaps they wouldn't have made so many risky loans that risked (and made fall) our entire economy.

But if they had been "Progressive" and operated on the same Non-Profit principle as the Post office, they would have failed long ago. Had they operated on a more "Progressive" plane, they would have offered even more risky loans because Altruism dictates they act in the best interest of others and not in their own best interest.

Whoever Tyler was, he must have made the quote, because De Tocqueville would most definitely not have made a statement so pessimistic and critical of democracy.

The statement is still true no matter who said it... One need only look at the current state of politics in America to understand that the party offering the greatest handouts from the public trough does the best in the polls. Republicans are seen as greedy for not wanting to redistribute wealth and the Democrats are heralded as modern day Robin Hoods for promising to "Spread the wealth around".

You must not have read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America and if you did, you didn't understand what he was saying. The book warns of how we would lose our Democratic Republic and the dangers inherent to any democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville:
The majority has become more and more absolute, but has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; those great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and although the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nation may be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the pursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout the country.

This is no longer the case as we have seen since the rise of Progressivism in America and the abrogation of Individual rights and liberty to the concept of the Common or Greater Good.

Alexis de Tocqueville:
America has no great capital city, whose direct or indirect control of the majority of the nation, will be independent of the town population and able to repress its excesses.

To subject the provinces to the metropolis is therefore to place the destiny of the empire not only in the hands of a portion of the community, which is unjust, but in the hands of a populace carrying out its own impulses, which is very dangerous. The preponderance of capital cities is therefore a serious injury to the representative system; and it exposes modern republics to the same defect as the republics of antiquity, which all perished from not having known this system.

This to is no longer the case as we do have Washington. The power of the States has been stripped and overly centralized into that one metropolis... a situation that De Tocqueville points out as causing the demise of republics throughout history.

Place a stack of quarters in front of you. That stack represents all liberty. Now take one quarter off that stack and place it next to the original stack, that new stack represents Government. As we grow government, we have to take from our liberties to do so. This is why its so imperative to understand the lessons the founders had applied when founding this country: "That government is best which governs least" -- Thomas Paine

Our once proud and functioning Federalist system has been shifting power from the people, and from the states, to Washington where Central Planning and top down bureaucracy has been flourishing for more than a century. As their power grows, our liberties are diminished. One doesn't have to be a psychic to understand where this leads us as a nation.

 

[asur]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

CN - You are young and this was a wake up call, if what you say is true.

If you are unhappy about racial discrimination than you will not support
the democratic party. They are in bed with Liberal Colleges and Universities and
often judge people by the color of their skin. For example look at their
pick of the racist SOTOMAYER, discussed in another thread and other positions
they support.
.

Of course, you probably understand this and already are inclined to support Republicans
or colorblind candidates.

By the way, liberal colleges or administrators sometimes have dislike for the Boy Scouts.
So keep that in mind. An Eagle Scout rank should
be worth alot of points, but then some don't see it that way.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

In many cases your ability to pay the cost of going to school also comes into play. For example, if you were in need of scholarships to attend these schools, it could have had a negative impact on your acceptance.

Not trying to justify it either way, just pointing out another issue.

thats the point I was getting at, its not just as simple as it must be I am white...it could possibly play a part, but there are countless things that can play a part

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

CN - You are young and this was a wake up call, if what you say is true.

If you are unhappy about racial discrimination than you will not support
the democratic party. They are in bed with Liberal Colleges and Universities and
often judge people by the color of their skin. For example look at their
pick of the racist SOTOMAYER, discussed in another thread and other positions
they support.
.

Of course, you probably understand this and already are inclined to support Republicans
or colorblind candidates.

By the way, liberal colleges or administrators sometimes have dislike for the Boy Scouts.
So keep that in mind. An Eagle Scout rank should
be worth alot of points, but then some don't see it that way.

thank you for sharing who someone should support...as they are clearly unaware of what party or leaning they must have....

 

[PLC1]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

So I graduated third in my graduating class of 800, I've logged over 350 hours of community service, scored a 2280 on the SAT, I'm an Eagle Scout (and Senior Patrol Leader of a troop of over 100), and did a ton of extracurricular activities to boot.

Rejected from Stanford and two other top private schools that practice some form of affirmative action. (I'm white.)

Yet one of my close friends, an African-American, with a somewhat underwhelming record (under 80th percentile gradewise, no outside activities to put on a resume aside from band) got into all three. What the heck is this? Do we, as a culture, really need to have equality of outcome for all races, rather than simply equality of opportunity? Should universities (and employers and other organizations) really be so pressured to appear politically correct that they slip into reverse discrimination?

I may be inferring too much from too little information, but I don't that's likely, given the fact that a ~13% admission rate to the power of 3 schools is less than a forth of one percent.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are all very serious problems in America (see the Presidential election..), but how is affirmative action or anything like it ethical or just? Both racism and affirmative action (intentional or not) influence someone's judgment on the basis of prejudice, that minorities should be given extreme abnormal disdain or privilege. Instead of fighting prejudice with prejudice, wouldn't it be better to address the root causes of the problem? That is, address harmful internet sites, inadequate education leading people to mis-infer that correlation implies causation, certain environments and subcultures that encourage children growing up to become racist (certain small Southern towns), and of course ensuring equality of opportunity for as many people as possible.

But enforcing diversity for diversity's sake behind force of law, institutional ruling, or simply underlying prejudice is wrong, for the same reason that enforcing a single "pure race" behind the KKK or a Hitler is wrong; diversity or non-diversity are not underlying principles that should be appealed to. Rather, justice, and individual merits, skills, accomplishments, and talents are what should be taken into consideration.

Otherwise, if we as a culture continue to judge people based just on what group they can be classified into, we will just become ever more divided, which will further unjust prejudice, to the detriment of the nation.

Welcome to the real world, CNHander.

Yes, of course affirmative action is fighting prejudice with prejudice, and no, it's not logical, nor just, nor will it work in the end. What it does is cause us to wonder whether that minority person in a high position got there due to merit, or due to affirmative action. Even if it is the former, the doubt is still there, to the detriment of those who made it by merit.

We will not achieve Martin Luther King's dream until we quit pigeonholing people as this race or that ethnicity and judge people on the content of their character.

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

I must have struck a nerve by picking on Progressives... If indeed you are a progressive, then its sweet irony that an ideology you support has bitten you in the college admissions.

I definitely do not support any ideology, or anything of the sort. Sticking with your original definition of "progressive" as "Altruist, Collectivist, Statist," I would only consider myself altruistic, but only marginally so. I consider myself an independent, although I generally lean more to the left than to the right. Important exceptions include the economy and the free market, generally, and cultural issues.

You pick the same old arguments that the supporters of Socialism always pick... No doubt drummed into your head, and reinforced, by every teacher you've ever had.

No, all of these examples I came up with myself, strictly in response to your question, in light of your avatar. I don't think ANY of my teachers have ever said anything remotely related about the postal service or even public roads; I got the idea from reviewing the constitution. And despite what you may think, I definitely do not support socialism; the free market is nearly always better.

The Post office was NOT a Progressive idea. Created in 1775, before we were even a nation, the Post office offers a service that all Americans have equal access to, no matter what your race, gender or income level.

But it was created on a premise of altruism, "the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest," which, by your own definition, would be progressive.

The cost of a postage stamp doesn't begin to cover their costs. The post office is bankrupt and operates in deficits, 2007 alone saw a deficit of 5.4 billion dollars... Post office deficits are covered by tax money from the general fund so you're wrong about it not requiring tax money to operate.

Yes, there are deficits sometime (probably a lot in the future tbh), but my point was that its goal is completely nonprofit with no government interference.

You picked a terrible but common example. Roads too were not created as a result of the Progressive ideology... Funding for road projects comes from the states in which the roads are built and the funding comes from state taxes, such as the gas tax which differs from state to state (same with schools, they are paid for by local and state taxes, not federal taxes). The federal government provides very little revenue to road projects.

Of course, I never said otherwise. Still, it's still tax money being spent for an altruistic purpose, to help people move themselves and their things around for whatever reason they wish, which, using your definition, would be called progressive.

I take it you don't care about the constitutionality of anything the government does, so long as its done with good intentions and there is the possibility of a positive outcome. You should have mentioned the Military (which is a constitutional expenditure) or Space exploration, far more benefits to society have been achieved through those expenditures than through scientific research.

Of course I care if something is constitutional or not. I happen to think that a great, GREAT many programs today are massively unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the 10th amendment? But I'm not so sure that great expenses spent on space exploration nor the military is a good idea.

You have a perverted sense of what Capitalism is and how it operates, such misconceptions are likely a product of our wonderful education system. The profit motive has provided you with 99% of what you enjoy as the benefits of an industrialized and advanced society.

Now when did I ever diss capitalism as a whole? I have great faith in free markets, and think that the vast majority of the time, they operate much better than anything else possible. They also provide us with all the stuff we have today, as you said.

The Emancipation Proclamation was used to destabilize the south during the civil war, because the majority of their economy depended on slave labor.

But the actual ending of slavery also had some altruistic intentions to it, wouldn't you think? People weren't THAT callous back then.

Many have said that the causes of the current economic crisis were greedy banks, which I think also were counting on getting bailouts were their bets to be off the mark.

I love how people equate Capitalism with Anarchy and Rational Self Interest as Greed or Hedonism...
"The mind does not easily unlearn what it has been long in learning." -- Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're too funny. Oh wait, you're serious?

Wow.

Well, then try reading my post again. Without the bank's trust of the government to provide bailouts, and without the government's willingness to do bailouts, the economic crisis would likely have been much less severe. I don't blame the banks much; I blame much more the people that agreed to the loans they couldn't pay off, and the government for being willing to bail out the banks.

Rational self interest is something that many people lack, unfortunately, and for some reason, people try to make others lose their rational self interest. Even worse when it's tried to be legislated away.

Don't tell me I don't care for rational self-interest, because I do.

Were the banks slightly more "progressive," or altruistic, perhaps they wouldn't have made so many risky loans that risked (and made fall) our entire economy.

But if they had been "Progressive" and operated on the same Non-Profit principle as the Post office, they would have failed long ago. Had they operated on a more "Progressive" plane, they would have offered even more risky loans because Altruism dictates they act in the best interest of others and not in their own best interest.

Please don't deliberately misinterpret my words. I said "SLIGHTLY" more altrustic, that is, not willing to risk the entire economy. I didn't say nonprofit, because that would obviously be a contradiction.

The statement is still true no matter who said it... One need only look at the current state of politics in America to understand that the party offering the greatest handouts from the public trough does the best in the polls. Republicans are seen as greedy for not wanting to redistribute wealth and the Democrats are heralded as modern day Robin Hoods for promising to "Spread the wealth around".

Completely in agreement, except that people occasionally don't act in their economic self-interest, for weird reasons, especially in politics. Things like "personal philosophies" or like stuff often gets in the way.

You must not have read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America and if you did, you didn't understand what he was saying. The book warns of how we would lose our Democratic Republic and the dangers inherent to any democracy.

I have read it, actually, but he never sounded so critical and pessimistic as that quote you gave in the pages I read. I could be mistaken, but I still think it was that Tyler guy instead.

If you are unhappy about racial discrimination than you will not support the democratic party. They are in bed with Liberal Colleges and Universities and often judge people by the color of their skin. For example look at their pick of the racist SOTOMAYER, discussed in another thread and other positions
they support.

That's seriously all you can come up with? I disagree with the Democrats on one issue, therefore I should not support the Democratic party? Then you bring up a whole new topic and call the Supreme Court nominee a racist?

..

By the way, liberal colleges or administrators sometimes have dislike for the Boy Scouts. So keep that in mind. An Eagle Scout rank should be worth alot of points, but then some don't see it that way.

Do you have any idea why this would be so? Why would a Boy Scout be a disadvantage? Perhaps because they are more often alligned with conservative political philosophies?

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

Crap, I forgot to mention this: other important components of an application are recommendations and the "creative essays." Some of it might be explained by my not doing that well on those. It's hard to make something "creative" when there isn't really a concrete topic or known concrete expectations... at least, that's how it is for me. That's why I like forums or regular assignments much better. But my personal experience doesn't matter; my point is that affirmative action is not right.

 

[top gun]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

If you are going to connect this to slavery, then keep in mind that slavery was finished close to 150 years ago. I understand, accept, and am disappointed that unjust discrimination on the basis of race happens in the US today, and that it is one of the causes of poverty among African-Americans. How much of a cause it is for their poverty today I am unsure of, but I'm sure it was very significant cause of their historical poverty, which (through social class permanence) has continued to today for unlucky ones.

Slavery was only the beginning and the most horrendous. But that created the many long term systemic problems I listed... much more recently segregation, institutionalized racism, voter suppression & poverty. Had affirmative action not been implemented allowing many Blacks the opportunity for higher education hence raising the family status and income potentials up poverty in the Black community would be indisputably higher.

This isn't a welfare check we're speaking of... this is the opportunity to work at school and be a productive tax paying citizen.

The problem I see with this analogy is that it has been a very long time since slavery happened, and a somewhat shorter time since the civil rights movement; but still, both were multiple decades ago. All that remains of the slaves are their decendants. To make your above analogy more accurate, it would be as if the paralyzed person was my great-grandfather, who did not receive any reparations for the crash. But you can't fix what happened to him now; he's dead. Now, you COULD have the great-grandson of the drunk driver ordered to pay me money, or something of the sort, but how would (1) his great grandson be at fault for anything, or (2) I be justified in taking his money, having suffered very little personally as a result of his great-grandfather's actions?

I was more trying to help you to see the misguided depth & scope of your original premise of, "Well slavery and all the other abuses have been stopped, that's enough, they should not get any help like affirmative action to go to school". Broken down all that is saying is "tough luck on all that abuse & injustice"... and that my friend is simply not a reasonable scenario. And to be perfectly honest we all know that major racial discrimination in the wok place & housing and many other things did not stop at the Civil Rights act. They for years were just undercover and not as out in the open.

But I'll work with the grandfather premise you presented. It's more like your grandfather was found guilty of some major injustice where he was ordered to pay a huge judgment in payments to his victims. Your grandfather dies. His estate would still be liable for his debt.

Affirmative action was the legal avenue chosen by White's to help right a wrong. We could have chosen many different ways. But directing Blacks to higher education where they would in the end contribute even more to society seems very smart indeed to me... and I attended and played basketball with many at an expensive private college and also attended a huge state college. So I understand the dynamic well.

The moral abominations of slavery happened in the past, and there is no way to help those who were wronged as a result of it...

The wrongs have been crystalized in time, and cannot be rectified, unfortunately...

I'd have to respectfully disagree. We have done things that without any doubt have helped and affirmative action is indisputably one of them. What you're saying in a nice way is, "We waited the exact generation of slaves out... we dragged out racial equality rulings for as long as we possibly could... by that time it was too late to address the original wrongs." I highly dispute that. There is not a statute of limitations on a historical problem such as this. It's more akin to something like a war crime.

But like I said from the start I do believe we are quickly arriving at a place where enough has been done to say the wrongs have been adequately addressed. Electing our first Black President has went a long way to convincing me of this.

If all you say about yourself is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, you will find that being a White man is not the terrible burden you seem to believe it is because of affirmative action. You will be able to achieve and excel just fine, excellently, wonderfully in a great highly ranked & prestigious college. Just because you didn't get into your top pick isn't the end of your world, trust me.

I'd use it as a motivator and not dwell on it as being victimized. And I'm saying that in a constructive way. Try to look at it in real perspective and think how it must of felt to have the Governor of your state stand with armed police officers in full riot gear and barking German Shepard police dogs at the front door of your school and block you... maybe even you and your little sister, from even entering the building.

You'll be fine.

 

[Andy]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

Slavery was only the beginning and the most horrendous. But that created the many long term systemic problems I listed... much more recently segregation, institutionalized racism, voter suppression & poverty. Had affirmative action not been implemented allowing many Blacks the opportunity for higher education hence raising the family status and income potentials up poverty in the Black community would be indisputably higher.

This isn't a welfare check we're speaking of... this is the opportunity to work at school and be a productive tax paying citizen.

Actually, in his book Black Rednecks, and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell points out that the status and income potential of blacks in America was much higher in the 1940-50s than after the 60s civil rights movement and implementation of affirmative action policies.

Further, he details how black poverty levels have increased dramatically since the 1960s.

Other researchers have discovered that in many cases affirmative action policies have in a sense caused the very reverse of their intentions, by causing people in those situations to believe they can't succeed without government help, and thus do not try to change the situation themselves. As a result they languish in stagnation, resulting in poverty.

Even worse, affirmative action gives people the sense they are entitled to more than they have, and actually refuse to put any effort towards improving their situation. Why put effort towards something you believe is an inherent right?

In short, there is no evidence that affirmative action has helped at all.

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

Slavery was only the beginning and the most horrendous. But that created the many long term systemic problems I listed... much more recently segregation, institutionalized racism, voter suppression & poverty. Had affirmative action not been implemented allowing many Blacks the opportunity for higher education hence raising the family status and income potentials up poverty in the Black community would be indisputably higher.

That's for sure! I'm just a little worried that the actual differences, had slavery not happened, are a little difficult to precisely ascertain, because there are vast differences in class even within the African-American community. This doesn't really matter though.

This isn't a welfare check we're speaking of... this is the opportunity to work at school and be a productive tax paying citizen.

It may not be a welfare check, but it is not all that much more permanent than a welfare check; as I said, affirmative action is treating the symptoms of the disease (lower qualifications for jobs) rather than the cause of the disease (lower educational potential).

It is also too much of an oversimplification to define affirmative action as "the opportunity to work at school and be a productive tax paying citizen," because that makes it seem like there is no downside to it, even though there is, for the other citizens that are hurt as a result of AA.

I was more trying to help you to see the misguided depth & scope of your original premise of, "Well slavery and all the other abuses have been stopped, that's enough, they should not get any help like affirmative action to go to school".

Oh god no I'm not saying that! Come now!

Didn't you even read the other parts of my post? I said, very clearly, "I suggest that, rather than treating the symptom through affirmative action, we treat the disease itself." and then I listed three (3) specific ways in which we could directly treat the disease. If you equate those 3 specific ways, minus affirmative action, as "We've stopped abusing them, we don't need to do anything more to help them," well then.......

Hopefully this is now more clear to you.....

Broken down all that is saying is "tough luck on all that abuse & injustice"...

Which is a complete misinterpretation of my post, as I showed above.

And to be perfectly honest we all know that major racial discrimination in the wok place & housing and many other things did not stop at the Civil Rights act. They for years were just undercover and not as out in the open.

And those "years" are continuing even to this day, unfortunately, for blacks, but also for whites, to a lesser extent.

It's more like your grandfather was found guilty of some major injustice where he was ordered to pay a huge judgment in payments to his victims. Your grandfather dies. His estate would still be liable for his debt.

Of course, that would make complete sense legally, and the similar situation that happened in our past is what made financial reparations for slavery possible (possible to be considered), but it's still not treating the cause of what is making them permanently disadvantaged; it's only treating the symptom.

Affirmative action was the legal avenue chosen by White's to help right a wrong. We could have chosen many different ways. But directing Blacks to higher education where they would in the end contribute even more to society seems very smart indeed to me... and I attended and played basketball with many at an expensive private college and also attended a huge state college. So I understand the dynamic well. [/COLOR]

But if affirmative action does indeed play a part in the decision to accept them to a college (pushes them over the edge to acceptance), that would mean that he/she is less academically qualified than the school would accept otherwise, which makes it much more likely that he/she would not be able to keep up, and makes it much more likely that he/she would drop out and not be able to fully take advantage of the education available (whereas a more qualified student would be more likely to). Again, this is treating the symptom instead of the disease itself, and is too temporary, for the injustice inflicted on others.

Of course I'm not against directing them to higher education. If you read my last post to you, you'll see that I listed 3 concrete ways African-Americans could be more directed to education, not by artificially inflating their resumes, but by actually trying to help them achieve the necessary qualifications for a high university education.

The moral abominations of slavery happened in the past, and there is no way to help those who were wronged as a result of it...

The wrongs have been crystalized in time, and cannot be rectified, unfortunately...

I'd have to respectfully disagree. We have done things that without any doubt have helped and affirmative action is indisputably one of them. What you're saying in a nice way is, "We waited the exact generation of slaves out... we dragged out racial equality rulings for as long as we possibly could... by that time it was too late to address the original wrongs." I highly dispute that. There is not a statute of limitations on a historical problem such as this. It's more akin to something like a war crime.

You aren't understanding me; by saying that the wrongs are permanent, I mean that the slaves and their decendants were wronged horribly, and those the wrongs inflicted on them were never righted; they continued to be discriminated against until their deaths, it was very likely. Now they're dead. We did not, and now cannot, apologize to them, or give them the money robbed from them through the years of their life, or anything. They're already gone.

How could we possibly rectify the original wrongs? Do you think the NAACP would ever say that it would be possible to fix the wrongs done by slavery? That would be like a Jew saying that it would be possible to fix the wrongs caused by the Holocaust. It's simply not possible.

But like I said from the start I do believe we are quickly arriving at a place where enough has been done to say the wrongs have been adequately addressed. Electing our first Black President has went a long way to convincing me of this.

I'm not convinced. Look at the statistics, you can easily see that African-Americans are greatly lagging behing America's averages. Look at the "one standard deviation behind" widely documented. It will likely take decades to achieve a semblance of normalcy. Why? Partially because things like affirmative action are temporary and do not do anything to address the root of the problem.

You will find that being a White man is not the terrible burden you seem to believe it is because of affirmative action.

I never said it was a "terrible burden." All I am saying is that affirmative action is wrong; I did not say that it has all that much of an effect in the grand scheme of things. It would be better were there no AA, but to classify it as a "terrible burden" is definitely an overexaggeration.

I'd use it as a motivator and not dwell on it as being victimized. And I'm saying that in a constructive way. Try to look at it in real perspective and think how it must of felt to have the Governor of your state stand with armed police officers in full riot gear and barking German Shepard police dogs at the front door of your school and block you... maybe even you and your little sister, from even entering the building

That was obviously unjust, was it not? Now think if a school had other policies legally instituted which would then unjustly restrict others from entering, simply because of their race. That's the kind of thing happening to me.

Two wrongs do not make a right, Top Gun. Affirmative action IS racial discrimination, discrimination simply on the basis of race and nothing else; just as racial discrimination against blacks and for whites is unjust, no matter what the circumstances are, so is racial discrimination against whites and for blacks unjust, no matter what the circumstances are.

Since you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said before, I'll say it again: AA tries to correct the results (poor job prospects, etc) rather than the causes (poor educational potential), and so is very temporary and will not help fix the problem in the long run. The other 3 options I mentioned to help correct racial inequality would have a much more permanent effect; we should focus on programs like those, rather than on AA.

Andy: You say "researchers have discovered" it causes African-Americans "to believe they can't succeed without government help;" I seriously doubt that. Do you know how hard it is simply to find cause and effect through research? It is even harder to scientifically determine what, exactly, people believe. Surveys are unreliable, especially in racially sensitive matters such as these.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

I definitely do not support any ideology, or anything of the sort.

That's impossible... Your views fit into one or more categories of philosophy/ideology.

Sticking with your original definition of "progressive" as "Altruist, Collectivist, Statist," I would only consider myself altruistic, but only marginally so.
Either you're a altruist or you're not. If you think concerning yourself with the needs of others is a moral obligation or social duty, then you are an altruist. If you concern yourself with the needs of others but feel no obligation to do so, then you're not.

I consider myself an independent, although I generally lean more to the left than to the right. Important exceptions include the economy and the free market, generally, and cultural issues.
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal?

No, all of these examples I came up with myself, strictly in response to your question, in light of your avatar.
Well they are popular examples cited to argue for Socialism in the US. The General Welfare clause does allow for certain "Altruistic, Collectivist" programs but the critical litmus test is the universality it offers the public: Roads benefit everyone equally and there are no restrictions on who can use them, Military benefits all Americans equally by protecting the rights of all Americans equally, same with police and fire.

My avatar? Yes I'm a fan of Rand.

I definitely do not support socialism; the free market is nearly always better.
Nearly? When is Socialism better?

But it was created on a premise of altruism, "the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest," which, by your own definition, would be progressive.
Altruism was just one part of the definition I offered. 99% of people who are religious are altruists, but they are not all progressives. Its a fallacy of sampling to reach the conclusion you did.

Yes, there are deficits sometime (probably a lot in the future tbh), but my point was that its goal is completely nonprofit with no government interference.
Sometimes? They have a deficit every year... No government interference? Well I guess when you are owned and operated by the government its not interference.

Still, it's still tax money being spent for an altruistic purpose, to help people move themselves and their things around for whatever reason they wish, which, using your definition, would be called progressive.
Again the sampling fallacy.

But I'm not so sure that great expenses spent on space exploration nor the military is a good idea.
Military is a constitutional expense, whether or not we need to spend as much as we do is certainly open for debate but the benefits to all of society, especially in the area of medicine, is not debatable.

I have a soft spot for space exploration so that's one program I am a hypocrite for supporting because its not constitutional but it does provide advancements in science and technology.

Now when did I ever diss capitalism as a whole?
Was just the sense I was getting from the responses.

But the actual ending of slavery also had some altruistic intentions to it, wouldn't you think? People weren't THAT callous back then.
Had the emancipation proclomation hurt the north more so than the south in the midst of the civil war, do you really think Lincoln would have passed it? Any good intentions were strictly a side benefit that would have been trumped if the act stood to hurt the north in its time of civil war.

Without the bank's trust of the government to provide bailouts, and without the government's willingness to do bailouts, the economic crisis would likely have been much less severe.
I agree....

I don't blame the banks much; I blame much more the people that agreed to the loans they couldn't pay off, and the government for being willing to bail out the banks.
...And the government for sueing banks over redlining, instituting the CRA and for using Fannie and Freddie as an Enron style warehouse for CDS's.

Even worse when it's tried to be legislated away.
I consider it tyranny but some consider that language too strong.

Don't tell me I don't care for rational self-interest, because I do.
Wasn't my intent.

Please don't deliberately misinterpret my words. I said "SLIGHTLY" more altrustic, that is, not willing to risk the entire economy. I didn't say nonprofit, because that would obviously be a contradiction.
Again, wasn't my intent to misinterpret your words. ANY progressivism is too much in my book, especially when we're talking about business and/or politics.

 

[top gun]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

.... Even worse, affirmative action gives people the sense they are entitled to more than they have, and actually refuse to put any effort towards improving their situation. Why put effort towards something you believe is an inherent right?

Having obviously never been to college you miss a sorta important key fact here Andy. We could place anyone in college... but if they don't work and get the grades they don't stay. So the whole there's no effort for them in college is for lack of a better word... simply a lie.

In short, there is no evidence that affirmative action has helped at all.

Affirmative action has indisputably helped Blacks get into college... that's exactly what you're complaining about after all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

We really are NOT equal. There is a reason why Whites reigned supreme over the world for so long. The fact there even is an 'affirmative action' proves this to be truth. Do you think China and India suddenly went from basketcases to economic monsters overnight? No, it was the White man who pulled them up from their status as poverty-stricken ****holes, Check their history, and learn who it REALLY was that provided them all with jobs. China was an absolute ****hole until the Jews and Chinese pressured Clinton, who ended up giving China 'most-favoured nation' trading status. Why every American I have ever communicated with does not know this is obvious. Do you people honestly believe that China went from a nation who placed commercials on our televisions BEGGING for money, to an economic superpower overnight on their own? The money China used to help start up their industry came from the Jews, and at high interest rates. The Jews now own BOTH the USA and China.

You forgot your logo:

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

So I graduated third in my graduating class of 800, I've logged over 350 hours of community service, scored a 2280 on the SAT, I'm an Eagle Scout (and Senior Patrol Leader of a troop of over 100), and did a ton of extracurricular activities to boot.

Rejected from Stanford and two other top private schools that practice some form of affirmative action. (I'm white.)

Yet one of my close friends, an African-American, with a somewhat underwhelming record (under 80th percentile gradewise, no outside activities to put on a resume aside from band) got into all three.

Sounds like BS, to me.

I guess you forgot to attach any .pdfs, as proof.

​