|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that in the beginning that this could hurt some groups (particularly minorities). But this is really the best way to do it. Quotas only support quanity or quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this could hurt some groups (particularly minorities)
Afraid I must respectfully disagree with that sentence, nagzi. I really can't see how *anyone* is disadvantaged by fair and equal treatment.
But this is really the best way to do it. Absolutely! :-)
The only way to have equality is actually to treat everyone equally.
Discrimination, positive or negative, is still discrimination. 'Positive' discrimination (ie. affirmative action) always creates negative discrimination against someone else.
We do all agree that discrimination is wrong, don't we?
You don't help end discrimination/racism/sexism by creating more of it.
Ragtime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 02, @08:31PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
On a level playing field I agree 100%. But I do not believe that public education serves men and boys at all well. I concede that boys fare well on the SAT. But the SAT is only one factor, and many colleges are de-emphasizing the SAT, and I suspect that they're doing so under pressure from the feminists who see that as one way to get girls admitted over boys. We see from MANY sources that boys are not faring well in school and evaluating solely on grades will clearly give the advantage to girls.
I'm not in favor of affirmative action, but something has to be done to improve education for boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Anonymous User" wrote: On a level playing field I agree 100%.
True. So we must strive for a level playing field: actual equality of opportunity, actual equality before the law.
I'm not in favor of affirmative action, but something has to be done to improve education for boys.
I'm glad to hear you're not in favour of discrimination. Your posting does, however, seem to imply that, because men and boys have been disadvantaged for so long (and we have) we're now entitled to some 'preferential' treatment.
No way. That's feminist thinking that serves only to delay fair and equal treatment. We must NEVER be guilty of doing the things we profess to oppose. We're not feminists; we must not become guilty of their crimes.
We're men, remember -- we're the ones who play fair; who just want an even, honest shot; who OPPOSE discrimination. We don't need and shouldn't *want* special treatment.
We can let the penduluum swing back and forth for a few more generations, or we can stop it right now and work towards securing the same rights, respect, and opportunity for everyone.
Which is the right thing to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a level playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 02, @11:47PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I have some unusual thoughts on affirmative action that I thought I would post.
I'm not generally in favor of AA at the adult job level, but I do think that for many people (and this is particularly true of minorities in urban communities), there is a cycle of underacheivement that needs to be broken. Providing these people with additional educational opportunities and incentives will, IMHO, help to get people out of this cycle who have the will and the potential to do better. I think it's in society's best interests to ensure that as many people fulfull their potential for success as possible.
Let's face it, some people *do* have a harder time in our society due to socioeconomic factors.
And by giving "additional educational opportunities," I'm not talking about lowing standards on exams or giving out more A's. I'm talking about giving young people resources and motivations to do better, such as after school programs, academic and athletic events, and hiring more teachers that act as role models for students (this would include hiring more male teachers, and giving incentives for teachers to be involved in extracurricular and after school programs).
The Upward Bound program is a perfect example of this:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/upbound.htm l
The Big Brother/Big Sister program is another great one to help young people, especially on issues other than academic ones.
We need more programs like this, and they should be focused on minorities and urban students (and white males should not be barred from the programs, either, but would probably have lower representation in them).
Once the student graduates from high school, I think the only AA programs should be to help finance college for at-risk students via scholarships and loans. I think that if the earlier educational programs have done what they're supposed to do, there will be no further need for special benefits for groups after that, especially at the job level.
Basically, I think we should be putting our AA resources into educational programs at public schools. They will be focused primarily on at-risk groups but also give them the resources they need to succeed without the AA programs. That should be the goal from the start.
Hope I didn't repeat myself or babble too much. I'll post this anon for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 03, @06:09AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a different anonymous user than the one posting the original message...
I agree that there may be some limited use to AA type programs, and that they should be in the form of helping the disadvantaged instead of establishing lower standards for them. But most importantly, any AA program should strive to MAKE ITSELF OBSOLETE AND UNNECESSARY. The same applies to all equality commissioners, sexual harrasment officers etc. However, in practice, that seldom seems to be their goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with any AA program is the funding. If it's a publicly funded program, then you're gonna run into a problem. Why should white heterosexual male John Doe be forced to help pay for a program he can't use?
Isn't that ultimately the problem with battered women's shelters? If they receive public taxdollars, then they have no excuse turning men away.
Here in SC, we had the much publicized case of Shannon Faulkner suing the Citadel for the right to attend. Her argument was that they accept taxdollars from women, why shouldn't women be allowed to attend? She was absolutely right.
It's the same with battered women's shelters. If they desire to turn men away, then they shouldn't accept male taxdollars as funding. But that's not how it works. In fact, the very nature of taxation involves a government exercising a certain amount of compulsion over the individual. "Either you pay or we'll arrest you." To compell men to pay for battered women's shelters, only to turn them away if they call for help themselves, is blatantly immoral.
The same for AA. No matter now "noble" and "pure" the goal may be, to force someone to pay for a program, only to turn that same person away if they requested help, is immoral. No amount of "good intentions" will negate the immorality of it.
If an institution wants to fund an AA program, then let them fund it PRIVATELY.
And yes, in case you're speculating, I'm an Ayn Rand worshipping libertarian. :o)
"This is John Galt speaking." -Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 03, @10:56AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Napnip, what do you think about this statement?:
The problem with the public school system is the funding. If it's a publicly funded program, then you're gonna run into a problem. Why should childless people be forced to help pay for a program they can't use?
My argument is, it's in your best interest to have your neighbor's kids educated. People don't live in vacuum.
Likewise, publicly funding programs which fight against the underacheivement of certain at-risk young people has social benefits that affect you, such as lowering instances of crime and violence, improving the economy, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do I think of that statement? I think it hits the nail right on the head.
Are you saying that a person should be compelled, nay forced, to pay for something, then if he/she tries to use that program, turned away? Do you actually think that's a shining example of morality?
So is it your opinion that the Citadel was justified in turning women away while receiving taxdollars from them?
"This is John Galt speaking." -Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 03, @01:00PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that a person should be compelled, nay forced, to pay for something, then if he/she tries to use that program, turned away? Do you actually think that's a shining example of morality?
No, I'm not saying that. The idea is that people who need the program will be allowed to participate in it. That's why I said the educational AA programs shouldn't be 100% focsed on mintorites. For example, there are some white students in inner cities that are just as much locked into the cycle of poverty/underacheivement as other minorities.
But by focusing at these at-risk students, we will essentially be implementing "affirmative action" since minorities disproportionately make up these at-risk groups.
The Citadel is not a primary or secondary educational system - it is more like a job environment, and I'm not advocating that work environments or the military lower their standards. In fact, I'm not advocating that anyone lower their standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the AU of post #3, but computer difficulties caused me to lose my password, temporarily.
No, I don't want special treatment for men in college admissions, but I DO want the school systems of this country to start recognizing that boys are not learning reading as well as girls, in much the same way that they have already recognized that girls do not learn math as well as boys. The "system," then, has leveled half of the palying field, the half where girls need help in math. I want the "system" to level the other half of the playing field, whereby boys need help in reading and language arts.
You could say that I want "special" treatment for boys, but I regard this as just good teaching strategy.
Here's the thing: the supposed advantage that boys have over girls in math and science is now being eroded because the boys cannot read. At any rate, that "advantage" isn't doing anyone much good because boys are just not getting into college. Boys make up something like 46% of college enrollment. This follows a downward trend that is expected to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as paying for things you can't use:
You aren't paying taxes to help yourself now, you are paying taxes for all the things you took advantage of when you were a child.
The argument that taxes should only go to things that are accessible for *everyone* is ludicrous.
I would love to agree with "absolutely no discrimination" and no "Affirmative action" but I just can't see it working. There are cycles that minorities are in that are unlikely that they are broken unless outside assistance is present.
If there were no systems set up to help disadvantaged people, how would you see that as fair? Do these people born into disadvantaged areas deserve no help because "that wouldn't be fair"?
I think we need more help in general, not less help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's all well and good. Now let's see if it can be done without government using force to achieve it.
Because no batter how "noble" and "pure" the intentions, ultimately it boils down to government telling you:
"It doesn't matter if we discriminate against you or not, you're still gonna pay for this service, and we'll use force to MAKE you pay if we have to."
"Oh, but it's ok to use force against an individual and confiscate a portion of his money to pay for a service which he can't use, because it's for a 'good cause'!" someone will undoubtedly respond.
"This is John Galt speaking." -Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there were no systems set up to help disadvantaged people, how would you see that as fair? Do these people born into disadvantaged areas deserve no help because "that wouldn't be fair"?
I think we need more help in general, not less help.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would take high offense at being labeled "disadvantaged" just because I was born a minority.
No matter who you are, you should have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No, there may not be a chicken in every pot, but you have the OPPORTUNITY to create your own circumstances to put your own chicken in your own pot.
We cannot, as a country, allow "disadvantaged" people to become dependant upon everyone else.
"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see a tendency in this discussion to confuse "affirmative action" with "assistance where needed."
They are very different things.
To give assistance to a citizen because they are poor, sick, doing poorly in school, unable to find work, can't exercise their legal rights, etc., is an admirable and worthy goal and should be pursued with all zeal.
To give preferential treatment and privileges to a group because of their skin colour, gender, ethnic background or other non-relevant characteristic is systemic discrimination, and is horribly wrong.
The unescapable effect of affirmative action is to create a group who are *denied* equality solely on the basis of their skin colour, gender, ethnic background, etc.
Resentment, anger, and distrust of the system are the inevitable result when the deprived group sees the preferred group getting special treatment. Who can have faith in a society that boasts of being 'equal' when some groups are obviously 'equal-er' than others?
Because people are led to believe, with good reason, that they are unlikely to be treated fairly, this contributes to the "victim" culture, and the cycle is perpetrated.
When citizens see all the goodies that the preferred group gets, they think, "Hey I wanna be a victim, too! When's it gonna be MY turn?" Victim culture is very seductive -- one no longer needs to be responsible for one's own actions or failings, one no longer even needs even to try to help oneself -- It's Not My Fault because I'm A Victim.
Only when citizens are *actually* treated equally -- they all have the same rights, protections, privileges, and responsibilities -- and only when the system is, and is *seen* to be, unwaveringly strict and fair in ensuring that equality, will citizens start to believe that they are equals.
When we're equals, we're not 'victims.'
The system won't be fixed until citizens believe they will treated equally and fairly. Citizens would have both faith and pride in a system that is truly colour/gender blind.
Affirmative action serves only to perpetrate inequally. It does not make the path to attaining actual equality shorter -- it makes it *longer.*
Helping individual citizens in need is crucial and must be done without regard to the group they belong to.
Ragtime.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
