BF2S Forums Gotta love affirmative action.

11 Bravo wrote:

in miami i am

edit:  wow its closer than i thought when you look at the numbers.  i was just playing but lol.

Blue Herring wrote:

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.

Paul 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.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.html

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.

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.

Though, in reality, there are a lot things in place to help anyone of any demographic have a fair shot. Of course, someone like those who grow up in places like that are never going to get the exact same advantages, after all, parents and family will always pass down their success to their children, and those children won't have to work as hard, but that will be a reality regardless of what programs are in place in a system which people own their enterprises.

DrunkFace wrote:

Don't gotta love it. Was only last week (International women's day) that they (can't remember who) were talking about how it should be legislated that at least 30% of parliament has to be women, which is a load of total crap.

lowing wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

now do you agree that hiring soley by skin color is a good idea?

notice the lack of a direct answer to a direct question?

eleven bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

white people, always getting the raw end of the deal

we are the minority.....well almost

that is so untrue its almost not funny.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Did they actually say that with proof, that not enough blacks were passing so they had to lower the score or is it just an assumption made by everyone. If it's real that's embarrassing, just for everyone involved.