Berkley students protest affirmatie action with pay by race bake sale

Korg said:
meritocracy > racism
Click to expand...

Which would be absolutely AMAZING...if folks actually went by it. I would love to have a true meritocracy, where talent and ability are prized. But there's always the possibility that despite how talented you are, you won't get through the glass ceiling of racism and sexism at some companies. And I don't like the idea of being chosen just because of my skin color. Both are equally bad.

But how do you equalize it, so it's fair and not random, and how do you create a system that allows for talent alone without prejudicial assumptions? That is a hard one; I don't think there's a great answer for it.
 
arbygil said:
But how do you equalize it, so it's fair and not random, and how do you create a system that allows for talent alone without prejudicial assumptions? That is a hard one; I don't think there's a great answer for it.
Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you what the answer isn't: affirmative action.
 
Korg said:
Well, I can tell you what the answer isn't: affirmative action.
Click to expand...

That's the ultimate question, though - there has to be something to replace it. AA is probably the lesser of two evils, as long as it's done properly. I don't think it's the best answer either, but it's only game in town. Either with or without it, there probably will be companies that don't hire qualified candidates, but at least with AA in place people can have precedence to sue.

I wish there was a better system in place. I honestly do.
 
arbygil said:
I can quote you, but I don't want to do that because it's private information. But I can send your exact quote to your email.
Click to expand...

It would be more tactful for you to suggest sending it to my pm box instead of my email. Boundaries are important for a reason. Now you've reminded me that I need to change my email address.

Korg said:
Well, I can tell you what the answer isn't: affirmative action.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed that people really don't consider that giving preference to someone simply because they are female or not white is not sexist or racist.

It's like... 1 + 1 = 3. Personally I think they know these well enough but have alternative motives, that being anything but equality.
 
InvisibleJim said:


It would be more tactful for you to suggest sending it to my pm box instead of my email. Boundaries are important for a reason. Now you've reminded me that I need to change my email address.
Click to expand...

Sweets, you can have any way you want. I used email as an example. Just let me know.



I'm always amazed that people really don't consider that giving preference to someone simply because they are female or not white is not sexist or racist.

It's like... 1 + 1 = 3. Personally I think they know these well enough but have alternative motives, that being anything but equality.
Click to expand...

But what is equal? Let me see if I'm hearing you correctly: Are you saying a middle-class White male has fewer privileges and opportunities than other genders or races? That sounds like what you're saying, but feel free to elaborate.
 
arbygil said:
That's the ultimate question, though - there has to be something to replace it. AA is probably the lesser of two evils, as long as it's done properly. I don't think it's the best answer either, but it's only game in town. Either with or without it, there probably will be companies that don't hire qualified candidates, but at least with AA in place people can have precedence to sue.

I wish there was a better system in place. I honestly do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can discuss this more in depth when I have the time - but for now, let me suggest that the problem lies with attempting to eliminate racial bias from a system where competition (based on greed and a profit motive) is the guiding principle. You're asking someone to help you win a game that can only be played when it is rigged against you.

So while I support the theory of AA, I reject it in application. It simply isn't practical. The best bet for anyone (which includes a large number of us at this point - regardless of race) is to stand up and kick the game off the table and re-write the rules. Cause I think we can come up with a better strategy than asking someone to help us lick their ass better than the next guy.

Think about it.
 
Korg said:
Perhaps we can discuss this more in depth when I have the time - but for now, let me suggest that the problem lies with attempting to eliminate racial bias from a system where competition (based on greed and a profit motive) is the guiding principle. You're asking someone to help you win a game that can only be played when it is rigged against you.

So while I support the theory of AA, I reject it in application. It simply isn't practical. The best bet for anyone (which includes a large number of us at this point - regardless of race) is to stand up and kick the game off the table and re-write the rules. Cause I think we can come up with a better strategy than asking someone to help us lick their ass better than the next guy.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

Heh. I think I'd prefer that philosophy. My only concern is with people; absolute power and corruption, and all that. I can't foresee a system that someone can't/won't try to manipulate, and when dealing with personal issues it's easy to come up with "good reasons" why someone shouldn't be hired. But then, I suppose that's a Catch-22 as well.

I'm interested in hearing your ideas, though. It could foster some good, thought-provoking, philosophical discussions.
 
arbygil said:
But what is equal? Let me see if I'm hearing you correctly: Are you saying a middle-class White male has fewer privileges and opportunities than other genders or races? That sounds like what you're saying, but feel free to elaborate.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there are no middle-class white males who have had fewer opportunities than other genders or races?

I find it amazing that you haven't considered the inverse argument.

Even if affirmative action is justified just because someone was lucky - which I don't agree with on the principle that it is simply bizarre to tell people 'don't succeed or your children will be punished' - it's still marginalizing a large sector of society who weren't born to go to Harvard.

Do you see what it is yet pumpkin?
 
InvisibleJim said:
Are you saying that there are no middle-class white males who have had fewer opportunities than other genders or races?

Do you see what it is yet pumpkin?
Click to expand...

Of course, apple-baby, but I think you're mixing ideas here. :) Sure, there are middle-class white males who have had fewer opportunities. But the majority of White males have more opportunities - that's why they're not minority citizens. Maybe it's different in Scotland. But in the States, we do have some deep racial divides, and statistically speaking White males here have far more privileges than any other gender or race in the United States.
 
arbygil said:
Of course, apple-baby, but I think you're mixing ideas here. :) Sure, there are middle-class white males who have had fewer opportunities. But the majority of White males have more opportunities - that's why they're not minority citizens. Maybe it's different in Scotland. But in the States, we do have some deep racial divides, and statistically speaking White males here have far more privileges than any other gender or race in the United States.
Click to expand...

You see sugerplum, here you are pretending the problem is microcosm instead of grasping the truth of the situation and how it interrelates to the ethics of a society itself and how 'counter-racism' is still defacto racism.. The problem is not a stand alone issue.

In Sweden the supreme court ruled that even "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. According to the supreme court, the requirements for the intake should have been the same for all. The Justice Chancellor said that the decision left no room for suspicions.

That is the least racist or discriminatory policy and I salute their good judgement.
 
Hmm...sweetcakes. Sweden, eh? Surely a microcosm of great diversity there! Not to knock on Sweden, but I don't see how you can really compare that nation to the United States. They don't have the same problems because it's not rooted in their culture. I'm not saying that counter-racism isn't still a problem, but it's apples and oranges. You have a group who has all the freedom in the world with no restrictions, and you have groups with restrictions they can't change. It's not a fair practice or comparison.

I think I grasp the truth just fine, baby (ooh, you do know how to talk dirty to me...) but it's truly a difference. It's easy to make a judgment on racial issues if you don't have the same problems. I think it would work for Sweden, but it I don't see it working for the US. Not with our court system.
 
Racial divides are strong and prevalent in the United States. Many try to avoid playing into the game, and I'm lucky enough to live in an incredibly diverse community (and have my entire life), but popular culture generally perpetuates the myths and stereotypes many of the more "sheltered" Americans hold. Discrimination against age/sex/race/ability/everything-else can be found at almost every level of education and employment in the United States. However, I am against AA, and for different reasons than what have been expressed here.

1.) It does little to combat what I see as the cause of the misunderstandings/stereotyping. Generally it ignores scocial-economic disparity in the US. Sure, such things are recognized in the process, but the outcome does little to combat the root cause, and thus "need", for AA. It helps those who most likely would have already "succeeded" even without AA, although perhaps at a slightly less high level (not so prestigious school)

2.) It devalues the achievements of minorities. A 4.0 =/= a 4.0 anymore when one gets a 3.75 fudged to a 4.0 Those who earn their 4.0 are looked at as if they were "helped" because of their differences.

3.) Minorities are again exploited to teach the dominant culture. The expectation is that the minority will teach the majority so everyone can become more "cultured". However, only the majority are advantaged by such a thing. The minority is already highly aware of the dominant culture, and thus become expected to be "educators" of their cute little culture so the majority, the already advantaged, can become even more well-rounded citizens.


AA comes from the right place, but does very little in my opinion, and can actually cause more harm than good in some situations. It's a horribly misguided practice in equality that does very little, if anything at all, to produce equality.
 
Crumble cake, you are now complaining that the reason you must be racist is because of a broken system thus adding to net racism, I call this making excuses. I suggest fixing the broken system first munchkin then the inherent double standards don't exist for anyone.

Also consider this diagram before talking down Sweden:

immigration.jpg


Not everything is what it appears on first glance, 17% aren't born in Sweden. By comparison about 12% of American's aren't born in America. ;)

I'm amazed you fell for that one snugglepoo.
 
bamf said:
Racial divides are strong and prevalent in the United States. Many try to avoid playing into the game, and I'm lucky enough to live in an incredibly diverse community (and have my entire life), but popular culture generally perpetuates the myths and stereotypes many of the more "sheltered" Americans hold. Discrimination against age/sex/race/ability/everything-else can be found at almost every level of education and employment in the United States. However, I am against AA, and for different reasons than what have been expressed here.

1.) It does little to combat what I see as the cause of the misunderstandings/stereotyping. Generally it ignores scocial-economic disparity in the US. Sure, such things are recognized in the process, but the outcome does little to combat the root cause, and thus "need", for AA. It helps those who most likely would have already "succeeded" even without AA, although perhaps at a slightly less high level (not so prestigious school)

2.) It devalues the achievements of minorities. A 4.0 =/= a 4.0 anymore when one gets a 3.75 fudged to a 4.0 Those who earn their 4.0 are looked at as if they were "helped" because of their differences.

3.) Minorities are again exploited to teach the dominant culture. The expectation is that the minority will teach the majority so everyone can become more "cultured". However, only the majority are advantaged by such a thing. The minority is already highly aware of the dominant culture, and thus become expected to be "educators" of their cute little culture so the majority, the already advantaged, can become even more well-rounded citizens.


AA comes from the right place, but does very little in my opinion, and can actually cause more harm than good in some situations. It's a horribly misguided practice in equality that does very little, if anything at all, to produce equality.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree with all of this. I just wish there were another option than what we have. No one should be belittled, but if we completely erased it I don't know if it would be better or worse than what we have. It's a tricky situation. Honestly I'm neither for it nor against it; but I don't see anything better to take AA's place.
 
InvisibleJim said:
Crumble cake, you are now complaining that the reason you must be racist is because of a broken system thus adding to net racism, I call this making excuses. I suggest fixing the broken system first munchkin then the inherent double standards don't exist for anyone.

Also consider this diagram before talking down Sweden:

immigration.jpg


Not everything is what it appears on first glance, 17% aren't born in Sweden. By comparison about 12% of American's aren't born in America. ;)

I'm amazed you fell for that one snugglepoo.
Click to expand...
Cool graph. Does very little to show actual racial differences by percentage in the countries. Considering somewhere around 75% of our country can only trace back their nativeness a few hundred years (if that), and somewhere around 13% come from a population forcibly relocated here, current immigration pales in comparison to our actual ethnic make-up.
 
InvisibleJim said:
Crumble cake, you are now complaining that the reason you must be racist is because of a broken system thus adding to net racism, I call this making excuses. I suggest fixing the broken system first munchkin then the inherent double standards don't exist for anyone.

Also consider this diagram before talking down Sweden:

immigration.jpg


Not everything is what it appears on first glance.
Click to expand...

Peachie-pie, immigration, yes. That happens. But Sweden hasn't had diversity all of the time - they've probably had recent immigration issues, but unless that lovely record includes everything back through the 1950s, I still don't see their data as completely relevant. If you can show me that Sweden and the United States are equal in all senses (population, culture, population growth, etc) then it might be an equal scale. But you're talking about a country that's about the size of California, compared to the United States as a whole. There cannot be an equal representation between the two nations. But you're right my little Slytherin; the system does need to be fixed - but calling people out for their color ain't the way to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top