Affirmative Action

[Arkady]

Word is the Trump administration is preparing to wade into the affirmative action issue by taking a stance against racial preferences by colleges. There are conflicting reports about whether this will be a more generalized effort, or just an effort related to the Harvard case (where some Asians sued about being passed over for lower-scoring applicants based in part on Harvard's effort to create a racially diverse student body).

I'm curious what people here think of this. It's an issue that should, in theory, divide libertarian conservatives from social conservatives. From a libertarian perspective, at least when it comes to private universities like Harvard, the government should butt out. Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. But, for social conservatives --which, let's be honest, is largely a euphemism for white supremacists-- this might look like an opportunity to reduce the number of the less-favored minorities at elite schools, while opening up more slots for white people, so they may be comfortable with the government intervening in the market, in this case.

For my own part, I'm conflicted about race-based affirmative action. On the one hand, if the choice were between race-based affirmative action and no affirmative action, I might come down in favor of it. It's a very blunt tool, but I can still see it serving the goal of making the student body more diverse in a real sense, thereby improving education in some ways, while, on average, lessening injustices more often than exacerbating them. But, I'd rather see class-based affirmative action, which I think accomplishes the same things with greater precision. There's more real diversity represented by having a broad spectrum of class background in a student body than merely having a pretty mix of melanin levels. And if it's about trying to counter historical injustices, you're going to target that a lot better if you give special consideration to those whose personal background actually shows they had more to overcome, rather than people whose race merely makes it statistically more likely that they did.

 

[Capitalist]

Word is the Trump administration is preparing to wade into the affirmative action issue by taking a stance against racial preferences by colleges. There are conflicting reports about whether this will be a more generalized effort, or just an effort related to the Harvard case (where some Asians sued about being passed over for lower-scoring applicants based in part on Harvard's effort to create a racially diverse student body).

I'm curious what people here think of this. It's an issue that should, in theory, divide libertarian conservatives from social conservatives. From a libertarian perspective, at least when it comes to private universities like Harvard, the government should butt out. Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. But, for social conservatives --which, let's be honest, is largely a euphemism for white supremacists-- this might look like an opportunity to reduce the number of the less-favored minorities at elite schools, while opening up more slots for white people, so they may be comfortable with the government intervening in the market, in this case.

For my own part, I'm conflicted about race-based affirmative action. On the one hand, if the choice were between race-based affirmative action and no affirmative action, I might come down in favor of it. It's a very blunt tool, but I can still see it serving the goal of making the student body more diverse in a real sense, thereby improving education in some ways, while, on average, lessening injustices more often than exacerbating them. But, I'd rather see class-based affirmative action, which I think accomplishes the same things with greater precision. There's more real diversity represented by having a broad spectrum of class background in a student body than merely having a pretty mix of melanin levels. And if it's about trying to counter historical injustices, you're going to target that a lot better if you give special consideration to those whose personal background actually shows they had more to overcome, rather than people whose race merely makes it statistically more likely that they did.

What, no stats?

 

[marvin martian]

Word is the Trump administration is preparing to wade into the affirmative action issue by taking a stance against racial preferences by colleges. There are conflicting reports about whether this will be a more generalized effort, or just an effort related to the Harvard case (where some Asians sued about being passed over for lower-scoring applicants based in part on Harvard's effort to create a racially diverse student body).

I'm curious what people here think of this. It's an issue that should, in theory, divide libertarian conservatives from social conservatives. From a libertarian perspective, at least when it comes to private universities like Harvard, the government should butt out. Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. But, for social conservatives --which, let's be honest, is largely a euphemism for white supremacists-- this might look like an opportunity to reduce the number of the less-favored minorities at elite schools, while opening up more slots for white people, so they may be comfortable with the government intervening in the market, in this case.

For my own part, I'm conflicted about race-based affirmative action. On the one hand, if the choice were between race-based affirmative action and no affirmative action, I might come down in favor of it. It's a very blunt tool, but I can still see it serving the goal of making the student body more diverse in a real sense, thereby improving education in some ways, while, on average, lessening injustices more often than exacerbating them. But, I'd rather see class-based affirmative action, which I think accomplishes the same things with greater precision. There's more real diversity represented by having a broad spectrum of class background in a student body than merely having a pretty mix of melanin levels. And if it's about trying to counter historical injustices, you're going to target that a lot better if you give special consideration to those whose personal background actually shows they had more to overcome, rather than people whose race merely makes it statistically more likely that they did.

First off, you need to get over the fact that Harvard didn't want you. Man up.

Second, your equating of social conservatism with white supremacy is one of the reasons why no one here takes you seriously.

Regarding affirmative action, it comes directly from the mindset of people like you, who believe minorities are incapable of achieving on a level playing field. It's a symptom of your virulent racism, and a disgrace to American ideals.

 

[Arkady]

What, no stats?

Would you like some?

 

[Arkady]

First off, you need to get over the fact that Harvard didn't want you. Man up.

What, specifically, made you mis-perceive this to be a reflection of my sentiments with regard to Harvard? Harvard only came up because some reports are that the Trump team is planning to intervene with regard to that case.

As to my own situation, I'd be no better off with regard to getting into a particular university with class-based affirmative action than race-based. The usual ideas for doing class-based affirmative action are to give preference to first-generation college students, or to give preference to applicants whose parents earn significantly below the national median. Neither would have applied to me. My Dad was the first generation college student in our family, having gone to a state school by way of ROTC in the 60s. And by the time I applied to college, my parents were solidly middle-class. So, class-based affirmative action would have been no help to me. I still think it's a good idea, though.

Second, your equating of social conservatism with white supremacy is one of the reasons why no one here takes you seriously.

Yet people here do take me seriously.

Regarding affirmative action, it comes directly from the mindset of people like you, who believe minorities are incapable of achieving on a level playing field.

No. Proponents of affirmative action see it as a way of leveling the playing field, with the idea that minorities will be able to compete just fine if it's more level. You can oppose affirmative action, but have the intellectual courage to do so honestly. There's no need to ascribe false motives to the proponents.

 

[Spamature]

Word is the Trump administration is preparing to wade into the affirmative action issue by taking a stance against racial preferences by colleges. There are conflicting reports about whether this will be a more generalized effort, or just an effort related to the Harvard case (where some Asians sued about being passed over for lower-scoring applicants based in part on Harvard's effort to create a racially diverse student body).

I'm curious what people here think of this. It's an issue that should, in theory, divide libertarian conservatives from social conservatives. From a libertarian perspective, at least when it comes to private universities like Harvard, the government should butt out. Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. But, for social conservatives --which, let's be honest, is largely a euphemism for white supremacists-- this might look like an opportunity to reduce the number of the less-favored minorities at elite schools, while opening up more slots for white people, so they may be comfortable with the government intervening in the market, in this case.

For my own part, I'm conflicted about race-based affirmative action. On the one hand, if the choice were between race-based affirmative action and no affirmative action, I might come down in favor of it. It's a very blunt tool, but I can still see it serving the goal of making the student body more diverse in a real sense, thereby improving education in some ways, while, on average, lessening injustices more often than exacerbating them. But, I'd rather see class-based affirmative action, which I think accomplishes the same things with greater precision. There's more real diversity represented by having a broad spectrum of class background in a student body than merely having a pretty mix of melanin levels. And if it's about trying to counter historical injustices, you're going to target that a lot better if you give special consideration to those whose personal background actually shows they had more to overcome, rather than people whose race merely makes it statistically more likely that they did.

His son in law and top adviser didn't get into Harvard because of merit, that is public knowledge.
He couldn't give them a fresh kill with any of his promises. So he's reaching into the red meat locker of old to feed his 39%ers. It's that simple.

 

[Arkady]

His son in law and top adviser didn't get into Harvard because of merit, that is public knowledge.
He couldn't give them a fresh kill with any of his promises. So he's reaching into the red meat locker of old to feed his 39%ers. It's that simple.

For those who have a principled problem with race-based affirmative action, Trump is just about the worst possible politician they'd want to see lead that charge. He and his whole crime family, and half his cabinet, are examples of affirmative action for the upper class -- piss-poor students who got into elite schools ahead of more qualified applicants because of their families' economic power or social connections. I'm pretty skeptical about race-based affirmative action, but when it's attacked by the likes of Trump, I feel like charging to its defense, simply because of the way it would tend to counteract the preferential admissions of talentless heirs of super-wealthy families.

Ideally, the person you'd want to take the lead in fighting affirmative action is a white or Asian politician, and preferably one from some minority group that doesn't get preferential admissions, despite ongoing social stigma (e.g., a Jew), who came from nothing and had to fight his way up the hard way (someone like Bernie Sanders, for example). Such a person could make a good argument that it's unfair to give preferential admissions to blacks and Latinos who might actually be more privileged than someone like him (and add less to the diversity of the campus in real terms), simply based on skin color.

Anyway, I agree with you that this is just a bone he's throwing to the base. And, to be honest, it's probably a well-calculated move. Your typical Trump supporter is a bitter, under-educated white loser, who wants to find someone else to blame for how little he's been able to do with his life. The affirmative action issue plays well with that racial resentment.

 

[resident_evil]

Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. B

This is the exact argument those photographers and cake makers had about who'd they'd serve when it came to gay weddings. Whose side were you on then?

 

[marvin martian]

What, specifically, made you mis-perceive this to be a reflection of my sentiments with regard to Harvard? Harvard only came up because some reports are that the Trump team is planning to intervene with regard to that case.

As to my own situation, I'd be no better off with regard to getting into a particular university with class-based affirmative action than race-based. The usual ideas for doing class-based affirmative action are to give preference to first-generation college students, or to give preference to applicants whose parents earn significantly below the national median. Neither would have applied to me. My Dad was the first generation college student in our family, having gone to a state school by way of ROTC in the 60s. And by the time I applied to college, my parents were solidly middle-class. So, class-based affirmative action would have been no help to me. I still think it's a good idea, though.



Yet people here do take me seriously.



No. Proponents of affirmative action see it as a way of leveling the playing field, with the idea that minorities will be able to compete just fine if it's more level. You can oppose affirmative action, but have the intellectual courage to do so honestly. There's no need to ascribe false motives to the proponents.

You've mentioned Harvard often, I assure you your bitterness is evident.

Again, there are possibly people here who take you seriously. I suppose @Saladin2 is one of them.

Affirmative action does the opposite of leveling the playing field, it simply tilts it another way. If a candidate for a job, a school, or any program, receives preference based on a factor they have neither control over nor the ability to change, that is by nature discriminatory, not to mention insulting to the person receiving the benefit.

Also, stop editing my posts in your replies, it makes you look like a chickenshit snowflake.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

First off, you need to get over the fact that Harvard didn't want you. Man up.

Second, your equating of social conservatism with white supremacy is one of the reasons why no one here takes you seriously.

Regarding affirmative action, it comes directly from the mindset of people like you, who believe minorities are incapable of achieving on a level playing field. It's a symptom of your virulent racism, and a disgrace to American ideals.

It's called the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and it's rampant in the liberal mindset.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

I couldn't care less what a private business or institution uses as a metric for who it will, and will not do business with. The market will sort that one out pretty well. If you want to cut out a certain percentage of people from your profits, go for it.

But when it comes to government, there should never, ever, be codified racism, sexism or discrimination. Which is exactly what so-called 'Affirmative Action' is. The government is for all the people and should never favor one over the other regardless of minority or majority status.

A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. And all citizens should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as all other citizens in the government's eyes.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I thought it was against the law to discriminate against people based on skin color.

 

[resident_evil]

For those who have a principled problem with race-based affirmative action, Trump is just about the worst possible politician they'd want to see lead that charge. He and his whole crime family, and half his cabinet, are examples of affirmative action for the upper class -- piss-poor students who got into elite schools ahead of more qualified applicants because of their families' economic power or social connections. I'm pretty skeptical about race-based affirmative action, but when it's attacked by the likes of Trump, I feel like charging to its defense, simply because of the way it would tend to counteract the preferential admissions of talentless heirs of super-wealthy families.

Ideally, the person you'd want to take the lead in fighting affirmative action is a white or Asian politician, and preferably one from some minority group that doesn't get preferential admissions, despite ongoing social stigma (e.g., a Jew), who came from nothing and had to fight his way up the hard way (someone like Bernie Sanders, for example). Such a person could make a good argument that it's unfair to give preferential admissions to blacks and Latinos who might actually be more privileged than someone like him (and add less to the diversity of the campus in real terms), simply based on skin color.

Anyway, I agree with you that this is just a bone he's throwing to the base. And, to be honest, it's probably a well-calculated move. Your typical Trump supporter is a bitter, under-educated white loser, who wants to find someone else to blame for how little he's been able to do with his life. The affirmative action issue plays well with that racial resentment.

Piss poor students? ha ha You got their transcripts and compared them to Obama's? ha ha

You can be such a clown.

Affirmative Action must sunset by law in 4 to 8 years for the good of minorities and women.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

This is the exact argument those photographers and cake makers had about who'd they'd serve when it came to gay weddings. Whose side were you on then?

And why were the same liberal trolls silent when a Muslim bakery refused to do a gay wedding cake?

Liberals are the most bigoted people around.

 

[resident_evil]

And why were the same liberal trolls silent when a Muslim bakery refused to do a gay wedding cake?

Liberals are the most bigoted people around.

Gotta link to those Muslim bakers?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Gotta link to those Muslim bakers?

Take your pick, my friend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+bakery+refuses+to+bake+cake+for+gay+wedding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Barbella]

Word is the Trump administration is preparing to wade into the affirmative action issue by taking a stance against racial preferences by colleges. There are conflicting reports about whether this will be a more generalized effort, or just an effort related to the Harvard case (where some Asians sued about being passed over for lower-scoring applicants based in part on Harvard's effort to create a racially diverse student body).

I'm curious what people here think of this. It's an issue that should, in theory, divide libertarian conservatives from social conservatives. From a libertarian perspective, at least when it comes to private universities like Harvard, the government should butt out. Harvard is offering a product, and if they think their product is best situated in the market if what they're offering includes a student body with a fair number of blacks and Latinos, then the government shouldn't overrule them: let the market decide for itself by way of students deciding which colleges to go to. But, for social conservatives --which, let's be honest, is largely a euphemism for white supremacists-- this might look like an opportunity to reduce the number of the less-favored minorities at elite schools, while opening up more slots for white people, so they may be comfortable with the government intervening in the market, in this case.

For my own part, I'm conflicted about race-based affirmative action. On the one hand, if the choice were between race-based affirmative action and no affirmative action, I might come down in favor of it. It's a very blunt tool, but I can still see it serving the goal of making the student body more diverse in a real sense, thereby improving education in some ways, while, on average, lessening injustices more often than exacerbating them. But, I'd rather see class-based affirmative action, which I think accomplishes the same things with greater precision. There's more real diversity represented by having a broad spectrum of class background in a student body than merely having a pretty mix of melanin levels. And if it's about trying to counter historical injustices, you're going to target that a lot better if you give special consideration to those whose personal background actually shows they had more to overcome, rather than people whose race merely makes it statistically more likely that they did.

I'm against federally mandated affirmative action of any kind. Colleges, corporations, businesses, and yes, federal agencies should be free from any coerced diversity.

Let the best man or woman win. Skin color shouldn't enter the equation at all. Period.

 

[Arkady]

This is the exact argument those photographers and cake makers had about who'd they'd serve when it came to gay weddings. Whose side were you on then?

At the time my position was that if you're going to have rules limiting who businesses can discriminate against (e.g., you can't deny service to blacks, Jews, veterans, etc.), it's wrong to deny that protection for an equally vulnerable group, gays, simply to placate religious right-wingers.

 

[Arkady]

You've mentioned Harvard often, I assure you your bitterness is evident.

I feel no bitterness towards Harvard, and mention it as often as it comes up organically in discussions. I'd wager I mention Yale approximately the same amount.

Affirmative action does the opposite of leveling the playing field, it simply tilts it another way.

Tilting a playing field the opposite way as the initial tilt can make it level.

 

[Arkady]

I'm against federally mandated affirmative action of any kind. Colleges, corporations, businesses, and yes, federal agencies should be free from any coerced diversity.

Let the best man or woman win. Skin color shouldn't enter the equation at all. Period.

This isn't about federally mandated affirmative action. It's about whether the federal government should interfere in a private college's admissions in order to halt affirmative action.