Berkley students protest affirmatie action with pay by race bake sale

[hush]

Um, if you know anything about racism and all its manifestations in the US (both overt and covert), you would understand that the goal of Affirmative Action is to EVEN the playing field. For example, the strong tendency of universities to give preference to second-generation, third-generation, etc., students, who most often end up being wealthy white people.

It's supposed to fight against a system that is INNATELY UNFAIR, as you put it.

Of course, it barely puts a dent into the issue. Caucasians still have many, many privileges over the vast majority of the other racial constructs here in the US, though they often can't see it, and/or can't admit to it.

 

[Soulful]

This is not meant to be offensive, but those kind of discussions just make me laugh. In an objective sense, there is no such thing as race, unless you mean the human race. There are, however, cultural ethicities. If the question is, "Is Obama a black guy from an American inner city or some racist rural area?" Then the answer is NO. His life simply has a different set of experiences. His election is interesting ONLY in the sense that it shows a change in white middle class american attitudes, that they are no longer going to make electorial decisions based on skin color.

Oh, and I'm fine with disagreeing agreeably. I tend to state my opinions very strong, but they are, after all, just my opinons.

Thanks. I agree with you in theory but to be honest I don't think that argument hods much ground in this context. In an objective sense, no, there is no such thing as race. Unfortunately, the world doesn't operate in an objective sense. Our reality is grounded in an extremely racist history and the present is continually informed by and, to a degree, contained by that history (those histories, actually - the national/local has become global). That's where I'm coming from right now.

 

[hush]

Thanks. I agree with you in theory but to be honest I don't think that argument hods much ground in this context. In an objective sense, no, there is no such thing as race. Unfortunately, the world doesn't operate in an objective sense. Our reality is grounded in an extremely racist history and the present is continually informed by and, to a degree, contained by that history (those histories, actually - the national/local has become global). That's where I'm coming from right now.

Exactly right. Though there are no true races, our constructions of race have had severe consequences on those who have been shoved into little boxes, often meant to strip away their humanity in the process. [MENTION=4576]GracieRuth[/MENTION], please don't laugh (though hearing something like "not black enough" does provoke a response in me, just that it's to find it a bit offensive and rooted in racial stereotypes). There's such a thing as race now because we created it, and we have to deal with the consequences, and how it negatively affects the populace. Race shouldn't exist as it does, but well, it does.

Also, it doesn't matter where you live in the United States, if you're from a subordinated racial group, you're going to face discrimination, looks/stares, nasty remarks, etc., you're going to experience racism firsthand, even if in an "objective sense" race doesn't exist.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You can smile all you want, but your thinking is a bit 1950s. You're assuming that if we got rid of AA that everyone would be treated equally.

No, what I'm telling you is what AA does is the opposite of what it says in the tin.

If I am a wealthy person - which is not really associated with race, or gender but with class! - the fundamental flaw in AA because it penalises those based upon race and gender - then if I'm told my child gains no extra advantage from me getting them advanced education then I can do one of two things...

a) Not give it and tell them do whatever: this is not good for society because the talent of these children are wasted.
b) Set up schemes to highly favour my kids, aka, unpaid internships etc. therefore pricing other peoples kids out of the market.

The solution to the problem, as I've said, is picking out the highly intelligent and capable children regardless of background and siphoning them into superior schooling and then subsidising all of their way through to employment. This is the definition of meritocracy.

It eliminates the flaws of background because they will have been developed to be superior employees and more importantly employers.

To answer your next critique:

This is why I do not support the comprehensive schooling system in the UK and prefer the system my parents endured/enjoyed. In this system my mum went to the dumb school, my dad went to the smart school. People from the smart school were picked regardless of background but based on ability to deliver results or special skills. My mum even though she feels her opportunities were more limited believes it was a much better system for society as a whole and views the current system as a lowest common denominator nightmare that destroys the competence of capable people.

Because this system no longer exists and affirmative action favours females in most of the UK in terms of employment and at school we see the consequences: male drop out is growing very quickly - because attainment has been disincentivised for that group; the rich pay for their kids to get placements in jobs via unpaid internships - because this way the poor can't afford it; business leaders identify that schools/universities are now producing inferior quality graduates because of the lowest common denominator affect.

This is where policies which explicitly target gender/sexist or race/racist negative way will lead - a negative reaction that invalidates the idea. The correct solution is to incentivise what you want - attainment for the best children uniformly regardless of background. A true meritocracy; change the system don't just add crazy externalities management which can be ignored by stepping to the left or the right.

 

[hush]

This is where policies which explicitly target gender/sexist or race/racist negative way will lead - a negative reaction that invalidates the idea. The correct solution is to incentivise what you want - attainment for the best children uniformly regardless of background. A true meritocracy; change the system don't just add crazy externalities management which can be ignored by stepping to the left or the right.

Yes, that would be highly ideal, but even with AA not much has changed in the US. There are still plenty of employers who won't hire if you're female or from a certain race, they just find ways of doing so subtly.

From "Social Welfare Policy and Social Programs," p. 105:

"Questions about the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action policies gained public attention during the mid-1990s. In many areas of employment, affirmative action policies seem to have made a difference. For example, from 1970 to 1990, the number of African-Americans made police officers increased almost threefold, and African-American representation in fire departments rose from 2.5 percent to 11.5 percent (*as in, it actually represented the distribution of race in the US*). In many other areas of employment, however, gains have been minimal. Preferential treatment and quotas have drawn unfavorable public attention to affirmative action. As designed, affirmative action policies are not to set quotas, but rather are meant to require institutions:

'to develop plans enabling them to go beyond business as usual and search for qualified people in places where they did not ordinarily conduct their searches or their business ... The idea of affirmative action is not to force people into positions for which they are unqualified but to encourage institutions to develop realistic criteria for the enterprise at hand and then to find a reasonably diverse mix of people qualified to be engaged in it' (Wilkins, 1995, p.3).​

Although this definition seems clear, the interpretation of affirmative action has varied greatly. Federal regulations developed during the 1970s expanded the use of affirmative action, but conflicts arose during the next decade. Many employers argued that women and minority candidates did not exist.

For example, Harvard Law School made this argument in 1990. In response to demands that the law school practice diversity and hire an African-American woman, the official response was that in order to do so the school would have to, in the words of the dean, 'lower its standards' (Williams, 1991). It seems difficult to believe that a school such as Harvard University did not have the resources, contacts, or know-how to find and recruit one qualified African-American woman to teach in its law school. The assertion that there were absolutely no African-American women qualified to take such a role illustrates precisely the attitude that makes affirmative action policies necessary" (Segal, 2010).

I would love, love, love attainment for those who deserved it (though all children deserve the chance), regardless of background. Unfortunately, not as much has changed in the US as it might seem, and racism and gender inequality still have a major effect on one's prospects.

At the end of the day, programs and policies aren't going to change much of anything. As Daniel Quinn said,

"Here's how old minds think of stopping us. They think of stopping us the way they stopped poverty, the way they stopped drug abuse, the way they stopped crime. With programs. Programs are sticks planted in the mud of a river to impede its flow. The sticks do impede the flow. A little. But they never stop the flow, and they never turn the river aside. That's why I can confidently predict that if the world is saved it won't be because some old minds came up with some new programs. Programs never stop the things they're launched to stop. No program has ever stopped poverty, or drug abuse, or crime, and no program ever will stop them."

Change has to start with the people, and their attitudes and belief systems. Until they're willing to or able to make that change, though, there has to be some sort of a safety net, even if that safety net is flimsy and full of holes.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yes, that would be highly ideal, but even with AA not much has changed in the US. There are still plenty of employers who won't hire if you're female or from a certain race, they just find ways of doing so subtly.

For the reasons I provided above; all it does is disincentivise those who are from the 'blessed' background who don't really have those advantages that people pretend they do just because of the colour of their skin or gender.

 

[arbygil]

The solution to the problem, as I've said, is picking out the highly intelligent and capable children regardless of background and siphoning them into superior schooling and then subsidising all of their way through to employment. This is the definition of meritocracy.

Now, I don't remember you saying that before, but that makes a bit of sense - if it could work. It's not that the idea isn't sound; it's more that we've had similar things in the past in the United States. Magnet schools, "special" classes for the smart set, etc. We have programs that prepare students for adulthood and all kinds of programs with corporate mentors. It could be that there are too many programs, though. The fact remains that if someone doesn't want to hire you, they won't. The other half of the puzzle is for the kids who aren't as intelligent as their peers - where do they go? But that doesn't have much to do with AA; that's a general crisis.

I'm not saying it's impossible or that it can't be tweaked to work, but with as many programs as we have out there in the United States for so many different kids, and yet they're still being discriminated against despite having all the skills? That's patently unfair. I'd equate it to chemical companies or food industries that would not work for the good of the public unless government regulations forced them to. Is it fair for the company? No. Is AA fair or perfect? No. But it can equalize an already skewed playing field for a time.

 

[hush]

For the reasons I provided above; all it does is disincentivise those who are from the 'blessed' background who don't really have those advantages that people pretend they do just because of the colour of their skin or gender.

I'm "white," and AA doesn't disincentivise me. Schooling is different in the US, too, and from what you said in your above post it could be entirely true that it's had a negative effect in the UK - but in the US, I would argue that the effects of racial inequality are more pronounced and require more intervention.

It's not a matter of pretending that they have advantages, in our patriarchal society, they do, as do caucasians. Not as much in the past when females faced extreme harassment (especially sexual) in the workplace, reduced opportunities, an outright denial of being able to work in some fields (and, of course, upper management is still largely male, and you'll find that some sexist employers will put females in positions that allow for no growth, but there'll always be sexist people, obviously), and the inability of their potential employers/employers to view them as confident or able simply because they're a woman.

Did you mean to say that white privilege in the US doesn't exist?

 

[Korg]

I'd quite like to hear what @Korg has in mind; he actually mentioned that he has some possibilities that could create a balance.

Well, this is something I would like to elaborate on when I have more time. At the moment, I simply don't have the bandwidth to outline my political and economic views as they relate to this particular discussion on AA.

But, in short, what I am alluding to is that policy like AA is inherently flawed (in terms of pragmatism) because one is placing the power for change into the very hands of those who have a strong interest in keeping things exactly the same - that is, with certain groups being dis-empowered and dependent on them to determine the highest potential. Because of that, it will never be truly effective. You might as well be asking someone else to tell you how stupid you aren't.

I'm reading a book right now (kind of in tandem with @Sonya B) that has a quote by Frederick Douglas touching upon what I'm saying:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle. ... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..."

AA accomplishes nothing except reinforcing the notion that the powers-that-be have full authority over your advancement (well, that and locks in a voter base for certain political figures). That's pretty much the opposite of what we want.

 

[Nixie]

I'm thinking 10 foot pole isn't long enough....

Edit: Damn! Okay. @Korg is right on many levels. Mainly because the illusion is that one race is subjugated more than others. However, the effect of economic sujugation has had varying degrees of impact along racial lines. The truth is that the wealthy have always had the upper hand in legal and political areas which have resulted in this tiny minority having the strength to determine who gets ahead and who doesn't in many regards. AA is another smoke and mirrors technique to keep everyone worrying about "equal" when "parity" makes more sense.

 

[Korg]

AA is another smoke and mirrors technique to keep everyone worrying about "equal" when "parity" makes more sense.

Right.

 

[InvisibleJim]

when "parity" makes more sense.

Got it in one.

 

[hush]

Well, this is something I would like to elaborate on when I have more time. At the moment, I simply don't have the bandwidth to outline my political and economic views as they relate to this particular discussion on AA.

But, in short, what I am alluding to is that policy like AA is inherently flawed (in terms of pragmatism) because one is placing the power for change into the very hands of those who have a strong interest in keeping things exactly the same - that is, with certain groups being dis-empowered and dependent on them to determine the highest potential. Because of that, it will never be truly effective. You might as well be asking someone else to tell you how stupid you aren't.

I'm reading a book right now (kind of in tandem with @Sonya B) that has a quote by Frederick Douglas touching upon what I'm saying:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle. ... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..."

AA accomplishes nothing except reinforcing the notion that the powers-that-be have full authority over your advancement (well, that and locks in a voter base for certain political figures). That's pretty much the opposite of what we want.

+1

Solid points made.

 

[arbygil]

Well, this is something I would like to elaborate on when I have more time. At the moment, I simply don't have the bandwidth to outline my political and economic views as they relate to this particular discussion on AA.

But, in short, what I am alluding to is that policy like AA is inherently flawed (in terms of pragmatism) because one is placing the power for change into the very hands of those who have a strong interest in keeping things exactly the same - that is, with certain groups being dis-empowered and dependent on them to determine the highest potential. Because of that, it will never be truly effective. You might as well be asking someone else to tell you how stupid you aren't.

I'm reading a book right now (kind of in tandem with @Sonya B) that has a quote by Frederick Douglas touching upon what I'm saying:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle. ... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..."

AA accomplishes nothing except reinforcing the notion that the powers-that-be have full authority over your advancement (well, that and locks in a voter base for certain political figures). That's pretty much the opposite of what we want.

I do agree - there's nothing in there I disagree with, at all (which is the problem with AA). But I can't say the opposite is any better; there has to be a middle ground that respects those with talent, minority or no, and yet also offers equal opportunities to different genders and minorities. In a way I wish we did have the British system, where you actually have to choose the direction of your career path before you leave middle school (or high school). That might help alleviate some of this. And a better education system, of course.

Really, I don't think any answers are forthcoming yet. We just need to keep looking, and salvaging what we have in the meantime.

 

[Gaze]

At the end of the day, many of the thougths so far seem to suggest that we need to just acknowledge that there is still disparity in our society when it comes to educational opportunity and achievement which means we need to find ways to make the system more fair and accountable without continuing current systems which are no longer capable of adequately addressing those concerns without reinforcing some form of discrimination or unfairness in how it applies a criteria assigned to whom should receive those opportunities. AA may not no longer be the best way to get to where we want to be eventually but we can't deny that inequities still exist. Doing away with AA is not going to simply balance things out and suddenly create an equal playfield for everyone. I think we are quite a while away from that. That's what the bakesalers failed to understand or communicate with their bake sale.

 

[Nixie]

Side Note: I would have made out like a mutha though.....
Native Americans 25 cents....
Wonder how many skins made it thru Berkley....hum...

 

[InvisibleJim]

Side Note: I would have made out like a mutha though.....
Native Americans 25 cents....
Wonder how many skins made it thru Berkley....hum...

What they could do is buy the cakes and then sell them to the white kids at a profit.

 

[Nixie]

There were not specifications as to whether you could get a double discount either...otherwise....Native and female....

Uh yea...and we all know how treatying with the White Man worked out for us Indians [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION] Sell a brownie and there goes your reservation or your first born....

 

[InvisibleJim]

Sell a brownie and there goes your reservation or your first born....

So I hear you've got some reservations or first borns for sale. Would you trade them all for a single shiny penny with the kings head on it, a horsie and a boomstick?

 

[Nixie]

That depends: Does the shiny penny have a hole in it so I can string beads around it and decorate myself with it? [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION]