It's white people taking the wrap for something we didn't do, that's all affirmative action is.lowing wrote:
It would appear that not enough black candidates could pass the entrance exam for the Dayton police force, so what is the logical thing to do? Why lower the score required to pass of course!!! So the next time one of you liberals wanna bitch about the quality of the police force. You need look no further than your affirmative action incentives for the answer.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/day … 03409.html
Can anyone name one?Poseidon wrote:
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who believes affirmative action is a good thing.
Ken Jenning is in support of some measures. As am I. I'll be posting a wall of text in a minute.Spark wrote:
Can anyone name one?Poseidon wrote:
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who believes affirmative action is a good thing.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-03-14 22:39:21)
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.htmlPaul Krugman of the NYT re: Glenn Loury wrote:
He was willing to give American society the benefit of the doubt, to assume that in the future, racism--direct economic discrimination--would no longer be a major force holding African-Americans back. But he argued that this probably would not be enough, and therein lay the dilemma.
On one hand, we all believe that individuals deserve to be judged on their own merits, not by who their parents were or what group they belong to. On the other hand, anyone who imagines that a child growing up in the South Bronx has the same chance to make it as an equally talented child growing up in Scarsdale is living in a fantasy world. So merely eliminating current racial discrimination might very well fail to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Indeed, Loury argued persuasively that even a world of "equal opportunity" might "perpetuate into the indefinite future the consequences of ethically unacceptable historical practices." If you find that prospect unacceptable, you must support some form of social engineering--which ultimately, no matter how you package it, means giving some people special consideration based on the color of their skin as well as on the content of their character.
The assumption I'm operating on is that most people in the world and on this forum never read more on the issue than a single news article and would rather make a gut reaction than think deeply about it.Spark wrote:
Obviously you shouldn't throw a giant blanket over everything, but as a general philosophy I would think most lean against it.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-03-14 22:48:35)
Can you give a single example, safety related or otherwise, where "lowering the bar" is a good and positive thing? Where opportunity SHOULD be gauged by race over qualification, or education? Teacher? Lawyer? Computer Programmer? What profession is it ok to accept mediocrity over the best possible candidate for the job that the 2 are applying for?Macbeth wrote:
There was a good argument by Glenn Loury, black intellectual, who at one point was this close to being appointed to a position in the Reagan administration.http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.htmlPaul Krugman of the NYT re: Glenn Loury wrote:
He was willing to give American society the benefit of the doubt, to assume that in the future, racism--direct economic discrimination--would no longer be a major force holding African-Americans back. But he argued that this probably would not be enough, and therein lay the dilemma.
On one hand, we all believe that individuals deserve to be judged on their own merits, not by who their parents were or what group they belong to. On the other hand, anyone who imagines that a child growing up in the South Bronx has the same chance to make it as an equally talented child growing up in Scarsdale is living in a fantasy world. So merely eliminating current racial discrimination might very well fail to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Indeed, Loury argued persuasively that even a world of "equal opportunity" might "perpetuate into the indefinite future the consequences of ethically unacceptable historical practices." If you find that prospect unacceptable, you must support some form of social engineering--which ultimately, no matter how you package it, means giving some people special consideration based on the color of their skin as well as on the content of their character.
So yes, lowering the bar is wrong especially when it comes to something like public safety. I don't agree with what was done in this case but I wouldn't say all AA measures are wrong or stupid.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-15 02:39:15)
What does the highlighted portion have to do with race? The square root of fuckall, that's what.Macbeth wrote:
There was a good argument by Glenn Loury, black intellectual, who at one point was this close to being appointed to a position in the Reagan administration.http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.htmlPaul Krugman of the NYT re: Glenn Loury wrote:
He was willing to give American society the benefit of the doubt, to assume that in the future, racism--direct economic discrimination--would no longer be a major force holding African-Americans back. But he argued that this probably would not be enough, and therein lay the dilemma.
On one hand, we all believe that individuals deserve to be judged on their own merits, not by who their parents were or what group they belong to. On the other hand, anyone who imagines that a child growing up in the South Bronx has the same chance to make it as an equally talented child growing up in Scarsdale is living in a fantasy world. So merely eliminating current racial discrimination might very well fail to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Indeed, Loury argued persuasively that even a world of "equal opportunity" might "perpetuate into the indefinite future the consequences of ethically unacceptable historical practices." If you find that prospect unacceptable, you must support some form of social engineering--which ultimately, no matter how you package it, means giving some people special consideration based on the color of their skin as well as on the content of their character.
So yes, lowering the bar is wrong especially when it comes to something like public safety. I don't agree with what was done in this case but I wouldn't say all AA measures are wrong or stupid.
Not it CAN have the opposite intended effect, it DOES have the opposite intended effect. When you play by all the rules you are told you need to in order to succeed, people tend to get frustrated when they are torpedoed by a less qualified person who just happens to be the right color. Be it black or white.Kmar wrote:
By setting the bar for a particular group lower you end up treating that group of adults like children. It's like saying "you're black, we don't expect you to do well". Also, AA can have the opposite intended effect, by generating resentment and thus inciting racism.
Yes that is pretty much what I am saying. One of the worst things you can do to a man is give him an undeserved break.lowing wrote:
Not it CAN have the opposite intended effect, it DOES have the opposite intended effect. When you play by all the rules you are told you need to in order to succeed, people tend to get frustrated when they are torpedoed by a less qualified person who just happens to be the right color. Be it black or white.Kmar wrote:
By setting the bar for a particular group lower you end up treating that group of adults like children. It's like saying "you're black, we don't expect you to do well". Also, AA can have the opposite intended effect, by generating resentment and thus inciting racism.
I understand the black communities frustration from generations past, but the answer is equality not discrimination all over again.
I agree with his sentiment, but how is that relevant to race? Plenty of white people don't grow up in "Scarsdale". I guess they're SOL. It's a little brash to say "AA is necessary to help the poor and downtrodden" because it doesn't in fact help the poor or downtrodden, it helps members of a race.Macbeth wrote:
There was a good argument by Glenn Loury, black intellectual, who at one point was this close to being appointed to a position in the Reagan administration.http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.htmlPaul Krugman of the NYT re: Glenn Loury wrote:
He was willing to give American society the benefit of the doubt, to assume that in the future, racism--direct economic discrimination--would no longer be a major force holding African-Americans back. But he argued that this probably would not be enough, and therein lay the dilemma.
On one hand, we all believe that individuals deserve to be judged on their own merits, not by who their parents were or what group they belong to. On the other hand, anyone who imagines that a child growing up in the South Bronx has the same chance to make it as an equally talented child growing up in Scarsdale is living in a fantasy world. So merely eliminating current racial discrimination might very well fail to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Indeed, Loury argued persuasively that even a world of "equal opportunity" might "perpetuate into the indefinite future the consequences of ethically unacceptable historical practices." If you find that prospect unacceptable, you must support some form of social engineering--which ultimately, no matter how you package it, means giving some people special consideration based on the color of their skin as well as on the content of their character.
So yes, lowering the bar is wrong especially when it comes to something like public safety. I don't agree with what was done in this case but I wouldn't say all AA measures are wrong or stupid.
we are the minority.....well almosteleven bravo wrote:
white people, always getting the raw end of the deal
that is so untrue its almost not funny.11 Bravo wrote:
we are the minority.....well almosteleven bravo wrote:
white people, always getting the raw end of the deal
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-03-15 08:57:57)
