> Everyone is better off if we live in a society where you can do well and be rewarded for it, which is what affirmative action supports
Affirmative action is sins of they father by another name. It's judging people, and sending the message that it is okay--even righteous--to judge people not on who they are, but on from whom they are born.
It also creates justified racial animus between ethnic groups anew, and does so in a motivating way: by harming, or even just creating the perception of harming, their children.
> Why would you want to make education more elite?
Because we're defining an elite based on a mangled construction, where the kids of an Angolan dictator are given precedence over those of a refugee in the name of fairness. That's the construct of race. Meanwhile, the descendants of the slave owners get admitted on legacy.
The fact that you think the source of the racial discrimination is college admissions and not centuries of violence and hatred is sad, but unsurprising.
You are not immune to history, what happened before you were born does matter, and it effects/hurts people all the time. Affirmative Actions is just one way we can try and figure out how to heal that immense damage. It's not the only thing we can do, but it is something, and it can be done in a way that helps everyone.
> the source of the racial discrimination is college admissions and not centuries of violence and hatred is sad
They're both acts of prejudice on the basis of race. There's a view that there is some dimension of racism where racism in "one" direction can be negated by racism in the "other" direction. But this relies on a stable concept of race across time and space, which doesn't exist, because people mix and move and change how they identify.
> what happened before you were born does matter
I wasn't born in America. Neither were my Asian friends. Isn't it convenient that they're asked to bear the burden of America's heritage of slavery?
You're not bearing any burden, as there are a lot of schools who aren't Yale that will accept you. This isn't the case for those who are benefiting from Affirmative Action.
For some, Yale is their only shot, due to the inherently racist nature of American society. Those people should get priority over people for whom this isn't the case.
If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the racists in American society that make these programs necessary. If it weren't for the objective fact that many minority groups in the US suffer on nearly every level when compared to others, these programs wouldn't be needed, but they do so they are.
> not bearing any burden, as there are a lot of schools who aren't Yale that will accept you. This isn't the case for those who are benefiting from Affirmative Action.
I went to a state school on a merit scholarship, so I'm pretty far outside direct impact from these decisions.
If someone thinks their only chance of going to college is Yale, they're wrong. Fixing that lack of institutional knowledge makes more sense than twisting the scales to fit a race-based ideology. (To the degree I bear indirect burden, it's in living in a society that seeks to create a racial hierarchy. Also, being young enough that the obviously predictable backlash will be a problem in my lifetime.)
We have a legacy of wrongs against Black Americans. It's on all of us, including those who didn't commit the atrocities but benefit from the system built on them, to address that. Creating racial pools in college admissions is not the way.
> If someone thinks their only chance of going to college is Yale, they're wrong.
They're not wrong, that's literally the lived experience of many, many folks. This is exactly the problem; you're not taking the perspective of people who actually are discriminated against in America.
And I didn't say "of going to college". This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person's life. Yale doesn't represent "college" it represents "prestigious college that will open doors for the rest of their life".
Some folks get one of those shots. Yale doesn't represent that to you, but it represents that to some folks, and if they're qualified for admittance, it makes perfect sense to prefer them over people who will get other shots at a highly successful life.
> This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person's life. Yale doesn't represent "college" it represents "prestigious college that will open doors for the rest of their life".
Why is Yale the only shot for the child of a wealthy, well-connected person of one race but not the poor, unconnected child of another?
> makes perfect sense to prefer them over people who will get other shots at a highly successful life
This is the assumption that rightfully grinds people. Why do we assume because someone is Asian they will not face those barriers? And again, how convenient that the actual descendants of slave traders have reserved seats, too, at these prestigious institutions.
Yale is often the only shot at a high level of success for poorer, less educated racial groups. I'm not sure you're understanding me if you believe what I'm saying is designed to support wealthy, well-connected people generally.
And there is no assumption about Asian success, there's cold, hard data about the comparative lack of discrimination in academia and in life outcomes.
But it does sound like you're laser focusing here on Asian kids, and ignoring the many white kids who are also being bumped out of these programs. Odd...
> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race
I read your entire comment, and understand that it contains more nuance than the first statement - but that does not diminish the fact that this position is explicitly racist.
You can either want people to be treated without regard for their race, or you can try to use racist policies to "push the needle the other direction". They are mutually exclusive perspectives.
It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another.
A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue.
The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place.
The position you quoted is explicitly antiracist, because it suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences.
The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief.
Discriminating based on race is a racist action.
Fixing an inequity is not racist, the racism is the creation of the inequity.
This is like saying it's unfair to help someone with a broken leg because it takes time away from people with other injuries. The problem is that someone broke the person's leg, not that their leg needs attention from a doctor.
They're both racist!
What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world.
Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racist.
They're not both racist, and no; giving a qualified person a spot at a prestigious university is not "breaking the leg" of "some other guy", when that "other guy" has many, many other opportunities to excel in their life, whereas the qualified student being admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.
Going to Yale is not the focus here, it's "being granted chances to excel in life."
You continue to ignore the actual problem here (that minorities are disproportionately failing to excel academically and in society), and I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing...
You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone else.
> I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing
I can absolutely say that Yale being the only opportunity for some folks makes this bigger than “going to Yale”, in fact that’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time. For the affirmative action kids, Yale is a big deal, for the kids AA bumps out, Yale is not nearly as big of a deal.
And yes, we’re dealing in aggregate. Trying to cite specific counterexamples to the statistics is a waste of time because the whole point is that it’s, overall, better. Nobody is arguing that it’s strictly better 100% of the time… but you knew that, and made your argument anyway.
Fundamentally, do you care that certain minorities are massively underrepresented in many aspects of prosperity or not? There’s nothing self defeating about wondering if you’re one of the many people on the Internet who don’t care. You’re acting a lot like you don’t care, so the question is valid.
> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race, if a racist's perception of their race has been the cause of centuries of disadvantage already.
I do not agree, although there is also the consideration if the centuries of disadvantage continues even today, or not. If it does continue today, then it should be worth to mitigate such disadvantages, in order that such a disadvantage should soon be stopped, but that is not necessarily meaning that you should need to gain more advantages too.
Even so there is different way to be grouping, by race, by what language(s) you can speak/write, etc. But, you are individual person too. Don't be forced or group into something if you did not do it just because someone else does (e.g. people who have the same name as you, or with similar skin colours than you, or religions than you, etc).
They should have diversity, but the method for doing so should not be to force it, or to require certain quotas, etc. But, they should let them in. After that is happening, then you can see what is the result, I suppose.
You should not judge something that you do not know, before it is done; otherwise the judgment cannot be possible. This is the case whether it is racist or not. Unfortunately they too often ignore you because it is something that is not as they say is "normal". Sometimes this is legitimate but not always and so you should not make the early judgment, instead the late judgment is going to be better.
They say that "diversity encourages students to question their own assumptions, to test received truths, and to appreciate the complexity of the modern world", and yes this is necessary too; you can question anything. It is true if you have diversity or not, but being diversity can be helpful. However, you will have diversity whether or not they are visibly difference by race, etc, although that is one thing being diversity too it is not the only thing.
But, if Yale wants to accept certain people, they can do so, as long as it is not a monopoly then they can be accepted into other universities hopefully. (Whether or not they should reject certain people is a different question, though, than if they can be allowed to do so.) If nobody will accept them, then it is a real problem. If course materials can be copied, then it is helpful then you should not need to be accepted everywhere if you can read them anyways; but, unfortunately there is too much copyright and other thing, which can also be a problem.
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist.
Yes I agree, it is not inherently racist. But, that does not necessarily mean that none of the methods for doing so might be racist.
> What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe.
Do you have the citation about it (as someone else asked, too)?
> More people, overall, get elevated to the highest levels of academia as a result of these programs.
OK, then that will be good, but does it result in any excluding people? It should not exclude someone for reasons that are no good, though.
You say "for the kids who get bumped out of Yale, many other doors remain open". If that work, if there are enough other university in that area, which are of a good quality (for the specific kind of courses they wish to take), then it is good, but as I mention above, such things as copyright can still be the problem too.
The statistics also must be considered properly. You must consider the correlations, including the variables you know and those that you do not know. The reason why they result certain things also should be considered, like any good scientific experiment ought to do.
Some people in other comment suggested other policies, e.g. dramatically reduce homework, it can help black people too. Well, if too many homework is not helpful (actually, from my experience in school, I agree that too many homework is not helpful) then I do think that it would be helpful to be reduced, whether it specifically helps black people or not; as long as it is not harming black people (or other people).
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist. What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe.
Note that in this case they are allegedly "former KKK". But, whether they are KKK or not, it is not the criteria to evaluate how good any of their proposed policies are (or the quality of art, music, mathematics, books, etc); they should be evaluated by themself instead.
They say, "My bill only says that in cases when you hire or promote someone, you have to do so on the basis of their ability." It seems good to me, but there are other considerations that must be made, including all of the extra details that the bill might say. Sometimes they try to hide things, but even non-hidden things must be considered properly. For example, how do they intend to enforce it? Even, should it be enforced, anyways? (Maybe, or maybe not.) Some methods of trying to enforce it are not going to be good, regardless of what your intention is, I think. But, enforcement is not only issue, there are other things, too. The statement seems to be simple, but such things are rarely that simple. Note that they mention promotion as well as hiring. If you promote someone they should be competent for the job they are being promoted to, rather than for their current job.
If we're using association with the KKK, then note that your favored organization the ACLU also has backed the Nazis and KKK on many occasions [0]. It's almost as if association with the KKK is not enough to impugn a policy.
It is 404 error. However, I added a few letters on the end of the URL and then it works.
They defend their right of freedom of speech, and I agree that they should have the right of freedom of speech, regardless of if I or whoever else agrees or disagrees with the some or all of statements that they will say.
Like they say, you must defend free speech of everyone (whether you agree with them or not), instead of risking the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.
(It is like the quotation misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.")
