?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Ok. I get these Kucinich updates every day, and I don't share them… - The Life and Thoughts of Zach

Dec. 13th, 2003

04:13 pm

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:mathuaerknedam
Date:December 14th, 2003 03:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
Kucinich states that "it is absolutely critical that we nurture programs that enhance opportunities for those who have been historically left behind. To do nothing, to abolish affirmative action, is to use de jure means to fall back into the de facto segregation of the past, which made a mockery of democracy, equality, liberty and justice - the very values on which this nation was founded."

What I've read indicated that since AA has been enacted, ethnic minorities have been hurt and only caucasian women have benefited. Is this true? If so, how is this a good thing?Is there no alternative to AA? Why would abolishing it necessitate "doing nothing"? It seems a little disingenuous to that segregation "a mockery of... equality" while implying that AA does not. Segregation does not necessitate inequality or unequal treatment. AA *does* necessitate unequal treatment. It does so in an attempt to produce equality, but it you have to accept the philosophy that "the ends justify the means". That seems to be George W's philosophy in Iraq.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:December 14th, 2003 11:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Could you show me a URL for whatever you read that says AA has hurt minorities? I have seen no such thing. It is CERTAINLY the case that since the enactment of AA there are more minorities in college, more minorities in executive positions, more minorities in law enforcement, etc.

AA does not, in my opinion, necessitate inequality. If you start from the assumption that skin tone has NOTHING to do with intelligence or ability, then it stands to reason that a non-racist organization will have employment/enrollment that is equivalent to the distribution of race within the population (or perhaps more conservatively, within the applicant pool).

AA simply says that you need to strongly question and scrutinize any situation where this is not happening. It does not say "hire unqualified people of color". It says "given a choice between a qualified person of color and a similarly qualified white male, make the choice that ensures that the employment/enrollment pool is as diverse as the general (or applicant) population.

This whole myth of the "unqualified" people getting accepted into top level schools or of "more qualfied" people getting rejected is a bunch of unsubstantiated bunk. AA doesn't trump race over qualification.

In a non-racist society, AA would be invisible. The outcome from a decision made with AA would be identical to the outcome made without AA. As long as we believe that employers would be "freed" to make decisions without AA that they can not make with AA, that is a sign that we still need AA.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:boannan
Date:December 14th, 2003 11:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
local law student popping in to say that (AFAIK) racial distribution in the workplace (legally) has to equal racial distribution in the applicant pool, not in the general population.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:December 14th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
oh, great. thanks!

I knew it was often the applicant pool, I didn't know if it was always the applicant pool. is the same true for college student enrollment (as opposed to employment)?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:boannan
Date:December 14th, 2003 02:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Again AFAIK, the measuring stick is also the applicant pool in the academic environment (here's some info about the University of Michigan's policy, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court):

http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/faqs/legal_sum.html

this makes recruiting efforts important, so you don't end up with a "chilling effect": certain minorities believing there's no way they'll get admitted based on race, therefore not applying, therefore not being part of the applicant pool.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mathuaerknedam
Date:December 15th, 2003 04:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My original source was a book that was summarized in a textbook. I still have the text book and will reread the summary and look for online sources. It's been a few years, so it's certainly possible the I'm misremembering things, especially in my current perpetually sleep-deprived state. If I can't find anything online, I'll put a copy of the summary in campus mail. It might take me a day or two to respond adequately. (Unless I do a point-by-point, which I'm trying to avoid.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)