Race-based Affirmative Action

[minionofmidas]

I am very ambivalent about race-based affirmative action.

Ambivalent? Change your avatar to Democrat.

Do you really think the Democrats would want me?
I am just trying to think of the issue in real world, and not doctrinaire, terms.  It's important to look at both sides of the issue, and that's what I've attempted to do.  In sum, I would tolerate reluctantly a limited form of affirmative action for a limited period of time, but I think the real answer to the overall problem of black economic deprivation lies elsewhere.

Indeed you should, your post is far more balanced and reasonable than all those above. (Haven't read below yet.)
I should add that it has also created a situation where Whites claim they were fired or didn't get a job on account of affirmative action, when it was really just their own performance ... AND the decrease in institutional racism caused among other things by affirmative action.

[minionofmidas]

I have come around to believing that parental attitude and involvement is the most important component of education, far more important than the racial composition of a school or the amount of money spent.  A grassroots outreach program to convince parents of at-risk children to support their children's education could produce at least some modest positive results.

The problem is that many of the at-risk children will have similarly (or worse) at-risk parents, and these will be the least responsive...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which will then only be used by the ones it's not supposed to be aimed at, for the above reasons, leaving the schools worse off...then again, maybe better they use a voucher than they leave the neighborhood for good and move to the suburbs...hey, that's a new thought. School Choice to combat Suburbanization. I could live with that result.

[minionofmidas]

Indeed you should, your post is far more balanced and reasonable than all those above. (Haven't read below yet.)
I should add that it has also created a situation where Whites claim they were fired or didn't get a job on account of affirmative action, when it was really just their own performance ... AND the decrease in institutional racism caused among other things by affirmative action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're implying that the Democratic position is inherently more reasonable and balanced than the Republican one.  I don't accept that supposition.  My position is basically a middle way between the extremes on either end. 

I was, sort of. (The supposition is not technically necessary for the "your post is far more reasonable than the ones above" line) Basically I don't consider the White popular Anti-AA  to be primarily based on and appealing to reason.
Then again, the Dem's official position isn't really either, it's just an "I feel your pain" towards Blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm in no position to make or refute claims about frequency - I don't even live in the country we're talking about...

[minionofmidas]

But Philip, you need to understand that in the real world, things are not so black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.  The reality right now is that blacks are severely undereducated relative to whites, and this negatively affects their job prospects and earning potential.

That doesn't warrant hiring someone who's not the best person for the job, though.

The notion that anybody might be able to identify that person beforehand is very much spurious...well, depends on the no. of candidates o/c.

[minionofmidas]

The problem is that many of the at-risk children will have similarly (or worse) at-risk parents, and these will be the least responsive...

I recognize that.  This problem has always been with us, and always will be.  Short of removing the kids from these parents and adopting them out to others, there is no solution.  But I do think that some parents who are not currently adequately supporting their children's education could be brought around to doing so if they recognized the potential benefits.  The issue is really to minimize this problem, not maximize it, as is happening right now through certain anti-education cultural attitudes that currently hold a lot of currency in certain segments of the black community.

Which will then only be used by the ones it's not supposed to be aimed at, for the above reasons, leaving the schools worse off...then again, maybe better they use a voucher than they leave the neighborhood for good and move to the suburbs...hey, that's a new thought. School Choice to combat Suburbanization. I could live with that result.

What you are effectively saying is that the children who are at the better end of performance in horrible schools ought to be forced to stay there, in order to "help" the kids who are effectively destroying their educational potential.  This is the sort of liberal nonsense that has destroyed inner city education, and destroyed the potential of many children who otherwise might have performed well academically, had they been removed from the toxic environment of failing and violent inner city schools.

As to those who are destroying those schools, frankly, they will fail anyway, and it makes no sense to tie the fate of more promising children to these kids.  Yes, removing the better performing kids would bring the schools' average performance numbers down.  But in a school that is failing beyond a certain point, this will not cause those students who are at the bottom to do any worse.  And will immeasurably help those with potential to do a lot better.  I think liberals need to get over this idea that it's wrong for promising poor children to get off a sinking ship, especially when those advocating that they stay on that sinking ship wouldn't dream of putting their own kids on it.

I've highlighted some very important qualifiers here...the task would be to find and institute policies that prevent such a situation to arise in the first place - and, alas, school-choice-with-their-feet is at least one of the reasons. The last "better" kids to get out are in a similar situation to the last investors to sell a troubled stock. Trampled by herd mentality, so to speak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh aye...it's happening even here...the thing is, though, due to the German school system's history (don't ask), it's only really happening in the primary schools. In High School I had quite a couple classmates commuting in from suburbia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Now REAL equality of opportunity would entail taking all kids away from their parents at birth.

[minionofmidas]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Now REAL equality of opportunity would entail taking all kids away from their parents at birth.

Yes.  That was last advocated by whom....the Khmer Rouge, maybe.

Yeah, I'm not advocating it... I just think that "equality of opportunity" was a cheap cold war rhetorical figure (of the centre-left mostly, but others too) that was never supposed to be taken TOO seriously and should be retired.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I'm not advocating it... I just think that "equality of opportunity" was a cheap cold war rhetorical figure (of the centre-left mostly, but others too) that was never supposed to be taken TOO seriously and should be retired.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.  As I see it, you either support (a) discrimination of some type; (b) equality of opportunity; or (c) equality of outcomes.

Many liberals have effectively supported equality of outcomes, through advocacy of programs that would require lower standards for certain classes of people than others.  I think this is wrong, and firmly oppose it, and I don't believe it actually helps those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of it.  Like with many programs that spring from this same type of thinking, this hurts society as a whole, without helping those who are supposed to benefit from it.  So it's a lose-lose.

The fallback position is equality of opportunity.  This concept is amorphous and of course, not absolute.  Equality of opportunity must exist within the limitations of a person's native intelligence as well as family background.  What I have suggested is meant to minimize the negative factors in this area that may be controllable, but I am under no illusion that absolute equality of opportunity can ever fully exist, and I would rather permit a certain level of inequality than go to really extreme measures, which wouldn't work anyway.

I just don't know what you mean by a "cheap cold war rhetorical figure."  What would you propose in place of this concept?

It's not the concept I have a problem with, just the names.
There's that juxtaposition there - "we can't work for equality of outcome like the Soviet Union does as that's a chimaeric goal[of course, that's actually giving the Soviet Union way too much credt], but we're not by any means abandoning the ancient ideall of equality. What we (moderate conservative) have created / (moderate liberal) are creating is equality of opportunity." It's a game with words as the pawns.
It's not really that important to me, so forget about it for all I care; I'm just explaining my "now REAL equality of opportunity" quip.