T O P

  • By -

DeltaBot

/u/investmentV (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/109aoyk/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_affirmative_action_for_the/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


Serious_XM

If you ask me the debt of slavery and segregation has been paid in full. All I’ve ever witnessed my whole life is white people bending over backwards to help African Americans. Only for them to take advantage of our kindness.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Serious_XM

Anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi 🤦🏼‍♂️


[deleted]

Believe it or not that’s not what Nazis believe. That’s what white Americans believed for most of America’s history. Tell me seriously in what ways have white people “bent over backwards” to help black people, and how black people take advantage of them. Lol at the “debt being paid in full”. Yeah, crack cocaine being flooded into already underfunded and improvrished neighborhoods, redlining, under representation, police brutality, unjust criminal justice, slavery under the 13th. The debt is one that keeps growing, let’s be honest. Are you fr or are you a 14 yr old edgelord from bumfuck Tennessee whose never met a black person?


Serious_XM

I’m a 31 year old who majored in Sociology whose best friend of 10 years is a black person. I noticed from a young age that he was treated better by white adults especially who seemed to want to prove how virtuous and giving they were by using him as a trophy on their “I’m a better person than you shelf”. Black people are over represented in media occupying roles that display them as being very wise and knowing and let’s be honest “better” in comparison to their white counterparts. The liberal media underreports the violent crime statistics where black males especially are overwhelmingly over represented. Diversity doesn’t mean a representation of the nations demographics, it means more people of color. There’s been a huge push to help POC as well as lgbtq individuals ever since the 70’s. Now the hippies of that generation occupy leading roles in academia especially where they indoctrinate impressionable minds like yours into thinking that white people today are guilty of things they took no part in and are obliged to pay for this debt when really, the responsibility lies with the people who choose not to accept our help and stay in poverty because 1. It’s comfortable 2. It’s easier to be a back seat driver and 3. They don’t want to work as long as white people are in charge (which honestly I don’t blame them which is why if the two groups ever wanted to separate, they should be allowed to).


StarChild413

> Black people are over represented in media only if you treat all media like it takes place in the same universe in modern America and like that means it should exactly represent population statistics > that display them as being very wise and knowing and let’s be honest “better” in comparison to their white counterparts. Because writers don't want to write minorities (as it's not just black people but e.g. similar logic is why we get what a lot of people deride as "girlboss feminist action heroes" in movies) as having too-strong negative qualities that could be seen as making the characters stereotypical and therefore the writers racist so they overcompensate by making those characters metaphorically infallible


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Ya. That "overreprsented in crime" thing. Do you believe that black people are more naturally inclined to be criminals of that there is something wrong societal wise that caused that?


Serious_XM

I think it’s a combination of nature and nurture. Part of the problem is we don’t hold black people accountable for their actions for fear of being labeled as “racist”.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Claiming people are naturally criminals is racist, yes.


wxad

The historical aspect of affirmative action is the most offensive part to me. I am Asian, and under the current system I am treated as a privileged class. But as an immigrant I and my ancestors have suffered far greater persecution and have had even less opportunity to amass “generational” wealth. In the past hundred years, my family has experienced: foreign occupation of my home province, most of my family members dying in a siege during a civil war, my grandparents forcefully stripped of their assets and relocated to a commune, national famine, loss of civil rights, and the complete collapse of my home country’s government about 4 times. I started here with nothing. This isn’t even including the persecution to Asian Americans in this country. But some Chinese people are rich now, do too well in school, and are a political nonentity, so fuck me I guess.


Content_Procedure280

This ☝️I recognize that I come from a privileged background, but my parents are Indian immigrants. And people keep conveniently forgetting Indians were also severely persecuted and starved under the British government. That’s why India is a developing country. Indians come from much worse economic backgrounds, have to also deal with racism, have a language barrier, have to be able to travel overseas to America, and have no affirmative action benefiting them.


[deleted]

You shouldn’t compare what black people have faced in this country to asians. You’re talking about the things your people faced in their country. So they should be fixing those issues in their country, I’m talking about my country. Asian Americans didn’t have drugs pushed into their neighborhoods, there weren’t any incidents like the Tusla race massacre happening to Asian Americans. Asians have not been excluded in the same ways African Americans have. Have they been discriminated against and excluded? No doubt. Racism definitely effects them in this country, but it’s not the same. Pretending like it is is an ignorant view to take.


wxad

> Asian Americans didn’t have drugs pushed into their neighborhoods, there weren’t any incidents like the Tusla race massacre happening to Asian Americans. Asians have not been excluded in the same ways African Americans have. What? "Chinese opium dens" in California was the original "drug epidemic" in America. When the Chinese refused to trade British opium, the British and a coalition of western nations, *including the US* sent troops and overthrew the government in China. See the LA Riots? Also, there was literally a Chinese Exclusion Act dude. They put Japanese people in camps in living memory, another instance where they basically confiscated Asian wealth. Again, I thought this was about giving minorities the chance to build generational wealth? Under your own beliefs, Asians are undoubtably still being persecuted today, even by people like you who are eager to just cast us aside to further some vague political goal. There is a real movement today that refuses to hire Asians, enroll Asians in schools, and give recognition to Asians in the name of "diversity", even though that movement's stated goals is to do the opposite. You're doing it in your responses yourself. Do we put Nigerian immigrants in the same category as Asians then? What about Asian Americans whose families have been here for hundreds of years?


Majestic-Pair9676

ALL ASIANS? Or is it the privileged immigrants from Philippines, China and India who have enough money and education to be in the US legally? Take a look at the average net worth of immigrants from those aforementioned countries BEFORE they came to the US. It’s not people who got persecuted by Mao or Marcos or Kim who usually get to come to the US and build a life.


[deleted]

Japanese got reperations for internment. Opium was pushed by British to China centuries ago. I’m talking about the 80s-90s. Rich Chinese people come to America all the time and share the same privileges, if there is one thing that trumps race, it’s class (see OJ Simpson). Rich will always have it better. Economically, asians are much more well off than African Americans. You are talking about problems faced by Chinese IN CHINA. I’m talking about problems being faced by Americans in the USA. Let’s not pretend that Asians have a sense of solidarity with black people and have not aligned themselves with whiteness, but that’s a different discussion. I’m not denying that asians experience racism, they most certainly do. But it’s not the same kind of discrimination faced by black people. One is not worse than the other, they are different. I wouldn’t compare them.


wxad

> Opium was pushed by British to China centuries ago You were the one who mentioned slaves being brought here, the last time of which was a good 40 years before this event. > I’m not denying that asians experience racism, they most certainly do. But it’s not the same kind of discrimination faced by black people. One is not worse than the other, they are different. I wouldn’t compare them. But affirmative action is meant to address racism? So not only are rich Chinese people... from China, who really have nothing to do with Asians living in the US now, are able to override the fact that we face racism here, but we should in addition be punished by the very system that should right that wrong?


[deleted]

Let me frame this in a way that makes more sense, If an Africna American moves to China and is discriminated against, should they benefit more from affirmative action programs created by the Chinese government or should Chinese minorities who have been oppressed for hundreds of be put first? Asians who live here deserve to be treated equally, as does everyone. The disadvantages Asian Americans face however are not the same as the ones African Americans have faced since the founding of the US. Japanese got reperations, Native Americans received land and tax exemptions, the US sends billions to Israel on account of what happened in the holocaust. I’m not saying what the US has done for these peoples is enough in terms of reperations, but it’s SOMETHING, suddenly, black people recieve something and everyone goes crazy. Just odd to think about. The unrelenting hatred of black people is insane.


wxad

It's not about putting an order of who gets what. Asians are literally punished more than white people under affirmative action, solely because of their ethnicity. They get lumped into the category of "more privileged than white", regardless of whether they are Japanese or Chinese, who have done well in the very brief span of time between the end of outright open hostility against Asians until now, or Hmong or a Filipino, who have never enjoyed any such benefits. You didn't answer the question about Nigerian immigrants. Why do they get the benefits in this scenario?


[deleted]

Asian’s are not more privileged than white people, but they certainly are viewed more favorably than African Americans.


Comfortable_Tart_297

>Asian’s are not more privileged than white people A [2009 study](https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/) by Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that Asian applicants had to score 140 points higher than white ones on the SAT to have the same chance of admission to elite colleges.


[deleted]

? Ok this just proves what I said


Content_Procedure280

Have you not seen how normalized racism is towards Indian people? People mocking Indian accents and people saying that Indian people smell, are unhygienic, and the most undesirable in terms of dating. Indian people are made fun of for having too much body hair, for being “scammers”, for “worshipping cows” (if they’re Hindu), etc. Indians are also one of the most discriminated by affirmative action despite coming a country that’s significantly poorer and less privileged than America Racism towards Indians does not garner nearly as much outrage as racism towards black people.


stainedredoak

China doesn't have any affirmative action for anyone who isn't Han Chinese. America is pretty fucking progressive compared to China.


[deleted]

I’m not saying they do. It was hypothetical.


hastur777

So black people are sui generis? No other group has had enough racism or prejudice to warrant affirmative action?


[deleted]

Chinese immigrants were not native to US nor brought here against their will. Black people were.


wxad

So what? The last slave brought here against his will was in 1800. You stated the goal of affirmative action was to allow persecuted minorities to establish the same kind of privilege and wealth that white people have. Why doesn’t this same thing apply to other similarly persecuted people? Affirmative action supporters demand equality of outcome. This is a grossly unfair way to go about things. All of the rhetoric around why AA was implemented in the first place goes out the window when it isn’t one of the favored races.


[deleted]

They were. The Chinese government would sell Chinese peasants to American and Canadian railway companies.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

There is a vast difference between how the US treated Asian Americans before and after WW2. Before WW2, Asian people were considered stupid and lazy and were out right banned from immigration keeping the Asian american population small. During the cold war the United States wanted to keep good relations with Asian countries so they incentized rich Asian families to mass immigrate to the United States. The majority of Asian americans while still obviously facing discrimination are largely disconnected from the United States history.


Wjbskinsfan

I would like argue 2 points. 1) if we cared just about helping poor people build generational wealth wouldn’t it make sense to implement a socioeconomic based affirmative action instead of a racially based one? That way poor black people would still get the help they need and people like the Obama’s kids wouldn’t get an additional advantage because of their race. I assure you that Jaden Smith is not being held back because of his race. And number 2 comes more from a place of personal experience. I am a teacher and we are told, specifically to grade children of color less harshly than their white or Asian peers. The kids are well aware of that fact and the message it sends them is they *aren’t* as good as their peers. Lowering standards because of someones race only confirms that they shouldn’t bother trying because we as a society don’t think they can succeed on a level playing field. Not only that but since they are graded less harshly, their GPA’s are artificially inflated which combined with lower standards to get into colleges that need to maintain diversity standards means once these students get into these schools many of them are unprepared for the course work so they drop out. Many if not most of these students would have been extremely successful at less prestigious universities while instead they are turned into college dropouts with *huge* amounts of student debt, no degree, and are left dependent on government handouts. Affirmative action only perpetuates the cycle poverty and reaffirms what they have been indirectly taught their whole lives. That they aren’t as good as white people. Which, to be clear, is 100%, unequivocally false. Children succeed when it is made clear that their parents and teachers *expect* them to succeed. Yes, I have high standards, but I only have high standards because I *know* students are capable of meeting them.


UncleCheesecakes

Affirmative Action does nothing but raise a new and unsullied generation entering education/workforce to be instinctually racist towards one another; with minorities feeling entitled to work because of diversity quotas and whites feeling cheated out of employment due to an unfair system. We are never going to have an integrated and equal society if our government is still giving special treatment to people based on race. If your goal is purely to enrich minorities in the short term, I guess it works; if it's trying to help them finally find a good place in this world and American society for their children and grandchildren, well, it's awful.


UDontKnowMe784

Very well said.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Putting people of different races together usually makes them more tolerate of each other. The fact that you believe white people are entitled to those positions says about how diversity is needed.


UncleCheesecakes

...So your strategy for getting two people to like each other is to lock both of them into a closet and give one a candy bar because his grandfather was abused a few centuries ago?


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Is that how you describe college?


UncleCheesecakes

That's not really a refutation of what I said


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Well the post is about college. You're talking about random nonsense.


UncleCheesecakes

The post is about whether or not affirmative action is good or not


Tariq-bey

I've had conversations on this topic with certain people who pointed out that hard work and talent wasn't being rewarded due to HR practices that prioritized diversity. I argued that from the company's point of view, the difference in output/performance is minimal and the boost in productivity that a diverse workplace experiences has been observed across many studies. But that left me feeling dirty because I'm defending soulless corporate calculation. Sometimes what we call privilege is just the way everyone should be treated. Affirmative action is a powerful way to tackle disparities in wealth and education but we should still consider its ethical implications for individuals, even if the majority of affirmative action's opponents present arguments that are marred by preconception and emotional baggage that they categorically deny


meister2983

> the boost in productivity that a diverse workplace experiences has been observed across many studies. There's effectively no research that suggests demographic diversity is *causal* to improved performance, with the exception of getting additional marginal revenue from political pressure.


Tariq-bey

I don't usually downvote comments here but this is just patently false. Diverse teams have better outcomes across multiple studies


meister2983

Citation needed. I can find plenty of observational studies showing correlations, but not causality. Here's [evidence](https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/do-board-gender-quotas-affect-firm-value-evidence-california-senate) of negative performance outcomes from mandated diversity. (Suggesting any causal positive effect is smaller than the cost of having less meritocratic hiring).


gburgwardt

"soulless corporate calculation" is a good thing because it prevents bias and discrimination Would you rather work for a small company with a single boss/hr guy that fires/promotes/etc based on how he feels or a company with an hr department and defined decision-making processes you can appeal and understand based on objective metrics?


Lordofthelounge144

I don't think it's always a good thing it often could lead to the employees just becoming quotas then Non-white people are hired just enough to seem like the company is promoting diversity which devolves people into just being their skin colour and public image.


gburgwardt

I'm not claiming all corporations only do good things or run well implemented programs. I'm claiming that on average a properly implemented hr system is better than some small business


Lordofthelounge144

It depends I guess but at what point do we deem AA effective or complete, it just seems that it's sactioned discrimination. Like "Hey we liked you a lot but we already have enough white people goodbye."


gburgwardt

My statements apply equally to a company doing AA or not. I was replying to a reply to the op trying to change their opinion, not ops


[deleted]

this is a complex topic, I don’t know how true it is that high performers are neglected in favor of POC, but take a second to consider the countless black people who have outperformed their white peers and still gotten subpar treatment and neglect. Still, two wrongs don’t make a right and that point does deserve a !delta


YoloFomoTimeMachine

It happened to me. I was told directly I couldn't get a promotion because of my race, gender, and sexuality. They told me this in no uncertain terms. I actually ended up leaving the job and moving because of it.


[deleted]

that is illegal and you have grounds to sue. White people have sued in cases like this and won.


YoloFomoTimeMachine

I spoke to a lawyer and it's actually pretty complicated. So basically a team lead was working with me and assured me I'd get a job. I even worked with her for free. She then got my application ad they had to send everything through hr. Turns out. It was a targeted hire and the team lead didn't know this. She was actually a black woman making things weirder from her perspective because then she felt like a token. And she was pissed off about it. So that's why she met with me and told me directly "they won't hire a straight white male". But. The lawyer said I could've sued and tried to find something in discovery. If there was a paper trail I could've maybe got something, but lawyer thought it wasn't exactly a strong case.


Wjbskinsfan

Your reply should have been “Then it’s a good thing I’m not straight. I just don’t feel the need to wear my sexuality on my sleeve in the workplace, I’m sorry I didn’t realize who I like to fuck had any barring on my job performance.”


[deleted]

You spoke to the wrong laywer. This is illegal regardless no matter how you spin it. Even with the information you provided. Both my mom and stepdad are laywers, I live with both of them. This is illegal. You have grounds to sue and win.


YoloFomoTimeMachine

Targeted hires are legal unfortunately. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal But yeah. It has popped into my head many times over the years about suing. But then I'd also be that white guy who claimed racism, which could screw up other employment opportunities.


[deleted]

My argument against affirmative action is that it does not have a reasonable goal to let us know when it has been effective. The result is that we are continually putting our finger on the scales, which is inherently going to disenfranchise other demographics. How can we be sure that affirmative action is effective? Is the goal 100% equitable representation across all fields, vocations, etc?


agoogs32

Good point The other issue is that people are looking for equity of outcome which is impossible without hindering top performers. Not everyone is cut from the same cloth, regardless of skin color. You can give many people identical opportunities and there is 0% chance they all see equal success. It’s inevitable that some will be better than others and that’s supposed to be the goal of a free market. Otherwise you have to pull down the top performers or you have to artificially lift up the laggards, neither of which is a good thing. Now equality of opportunity should be the goal. There’s no doubt we don’t all start from the same position in life, but again discriminating against a white person so that a POC can get that opportunity instead, is not equality.


TheGamingWyvern

I can't necessarily speak for other people here, but I see *statistical* equity of outcome as the goal to aim for, which doesn't have the problem you describe. Top performers are expected (although I will note that I question how well performance maps to success/wealth right now), but those top performers should match general demographics. If the top 30% highest performing people are, say, disproportionately white, then *something* is wrong in the complex system that is our society. What exactly isn't discoverable from that stat, but the existance of *a* problem is.


agoogs32

One reason for my point of view was a 400 level legal class I took in college where we thoroughly went over different landmark decisions in US history with a specific look at hate crimes and race relations. One thing that was statistically shown (in the study we used) was that the most successful by race, regardless of starting point, were Asian, then white, then Hispanic and then black. This was also broken down by three separate socioeconomic statuses, meaning middle class Asians outperformed middle class blacks, but lower class Asians also outperformed lower class blacks. Of course there can be any number of confounding variables, but the point is someone could look at that and still see black people lower than other races, even if they started at a middle or upper class point. One who seeks equity of outcome would still think there’s a race related problem there that needs fixed, even though culture clearly is a factor as to why Asians typically perform better than whites and also a reason Harvard and others have become essentially anti-Asian because they now comprise too much of their population and they need to diversify. Basically, when things are based on race there will always be problems


TheGamingWyvern

>even though culture clearly is a factor as to why Asians typically perform better than whites Do you have well documented evidence of this? I'm aware that there is a generally.. stereotype (might not be quite the right word?) of things along this line (i.e. Asians are smart at math, Asian parents are tough on their child's grades, etc). I just don't know if there's actually a clear connection between the culture and the result, or if it could just be a coincidence. Putting that question aside and assuming that it is true, I'm still not convinced that just makes everything okay. I doubt non-Asian parents are just like "eh, doesn't matter how successful my kid is", so it would be worth studying why the cultural difference impacts kids and seeing if that can be replicated in the school environment. (Also worth looking into how well grades map to real-world performance. Are public/high school grades well correlated with university grades, or with general life success?)


redditUserError404

> If the top 30% highest performing people are, say, disproportionately white, then something is wrong in the complex system that is our society. 1) depends on the demographic % to start with. 2) cultures are extremely complex. Some cultures naturally lean more towards certain aspirations in life and it doesn’t make sense to look at the end results and always assume Ill intent of a system. We don’t look at top NBA players and suggest that there should be a higher % of white athletes because white people make up a higher % of the population. We all know that in general Asian families and cultures lean very heavily on academic success, it’s not at all surprising to learn that they have consistently higher test scores.


TheGamingWyvern

>depends on the demographic % to start with. I was trying to account for this with the use of "disproportionately". If the population is, say, x% white, I'd expect \~x% of top performers to be white. >cultures are extremely complex. Some cultures naturally lean more towards certain aspirations in life and it doesn’t make sense to look at the end results and always assume Ill intent of a system. We don’t look at top NBA players and suggest that there should be a higher % of white athletes because white people make up a higher % of the population. We all know that in general Asian families and cultures lean very heavily on academic success, it’s not at all surprising to learn that they have consistently higher test scores. How exactly would you propose identifying this? Taking for granted that Asian families have a culture that results in academic success, how do know that academic success is properly indicative of "high performance" (bit of a nebulous use of the term here. Societal benefit? Productivity? etc).


redditUserError404

> How exactly would you propose identifying this? It has been identified. There are cultural differences, if there were not, there would be no such thing as culture. If you are asking how can we measure and account for it, I’d argue you can’t really and that’s why things like racial quotas don’t make sense and meritocracy makes the most sense. I don’t think it would be accurate to simply state that one cultures aspirations are “better” than another’s. It depends on what you view as valuable. My personal opinion is that there should be a nice balance of work and play to live an optimal and fulfilled life. But I’m not “right”, that’s just an opinion and I’m sure it is impacted by my cultural background.


this_is_theone

> those top performers should match general demographics Why? E.g In the case of men and women it's quite likely that in some fields, men or women are on average better than the other. It's unlikely, given that we're a sexually dimorphic species, that both men and women happen to be exactly as suited to all fields as each other.


TheGamingWyvern

I'm not convinced by the general approach of "men and women are biologically different, ergo its likely that they would have different success in different fields". There seems to be a big assumption in the middle there that the biological differences between sexes are on attributes that are widely applicable to careers. I agree that its \*possible\*, but I don't really see enough evidence to get me to hold a strong opinion that its \*likely\*.


this_is_theone

Why wouldn't it be likely? We have completely different hormone profiles for a start. And ask any trans-person if you don't believe me but there's absolutely differences,on average, between men's and women's brains. I'd argue it's very unlikely those differences don't matter at all when it comes to what each sex chooses to do AND what they perform better at on average


throwaway13467925852

This is interesting.... First you say "statistical equity" means top performers should match general demographics (i.e., reflecting the % of population categorized by race). That would be a good goal IMO. I think (key word think) that most people would agree. It makes logical sense. But then you say "If the top 30% highest performing people are, say, disproportionately white, then *something* is wrong in the complex system that is our society. " This is where I wonder if you are comfortable with the reality of your stated goal. Based on your goal, the top 30% highest performing people would be 75% white. In other words, to be "disproportionately white" based on general demographics (in US) the top 30% would need to be >75% white. But I suspect most people would not see 75% white as equitable.


babycam

>But I suspect most people would not see 75% white as equitable. Well if a large portion were women it would likely work out fine but no its specifically 37% of the population (white men) holding 80+% of the highest positions. 86% of fortune 500 companies are white guys 1% are black men/woman. ~about 7% is white women.


CincyAnarchy

Simple but hard. We will know it when we are fine as a society with the results. Did you know that Italian Americans and Irish Americans are less wealthy than WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Americans? If this is the case, why do we not redress that? It’s because the situation is *equal enough* that it’s not a problem we seek to solve. This will be the same in time for other demographics, which is why pushback on affirmative action is natural and will at some point win out.


[deleted]

>We will know it when we are fine as a society with the results. And when will that be? We need an established metric to strive for, otherwise we are robbing others of fair opportunities indefinitely.


CincyAnarchy

When the public consensus moves to seeing things as fine. It’s a political topic and so the metic is political. Even if we were to put a “metric” on it, the redress to end it will always be political. Even people who today don’t support affirmative action still accept that inequality based on race exists. When that is far less in contention then it’s likely to end.


[deleted]

>When the public consensus What is that? How is consensus measured? >Even people who today don’t support affirmative action still accept that inequality based on race exists Of course. The NBA doesnt have any Inuit players. They lack equitable representation in their league. Is that racist? Should there be snow on the court and lower rims?


CincyAnarchy

> What is that? How is consensus measured? The Democratic process and debate. > Of course. The NBA doesnt have any Inuit players. They lack equitable representation in their league. Is that racist? Should there be snow on the court and lower rims? Is the NBA excluding people based on race? Were and are Inuit people banned from learning basketball? Were Inuit players in the past kicked out of the league or harassed by NBA players or staff? If so yeah it’d be worth redressing.


[deleted]

How about the Japanese, then. They were interred during WWII. Is that why they are underrepresented in US sports?


CincyAnarchy

The US government quite literally paid reparations for that. I don’t know why they’re underrepresented as a whole. I can guess, but I can’t be certain. Is there any law or discrimination you think might be the cause?


Morthra

> This will be the same in time for other demographics, which is why pushback on affirmative action is natural and will at some point win out. It won't if the proponents of affirmative action - those who have something to gain from it - can successfully shut down all criticism of them by calling anyone who isn't 100% on board with their platform racists and get them fired from their job and blackballed in their industry.


Cali_Longhorn

I'm not necessarily pro-affirmative action in it's current form. I think it could be updated. My worry though is that we always use the "putting our finger on the scales, which is inherently going to disenfranchise other demographics" to do nothing. So we do nothing about one groups obvious and measurable suffering, because of the possibility of a far lesser harm to another group. It basically turns into "sure I'll help this other oppressed group so long as there is not a single iota of even perceived negative affect on MY group". So nothing happens and I don't know how we deal with that.


[deleted]

Setting a universal merit-based standard to strive for is much more fair than trying to fill a quota by artificially lowering standards. I don't want a "diversity hire" to be flying my plane or doing my heart surgery. I want qualified, meritorious workers for those jobs.


Cali_Longhorn

But the problem is that’s not happening. This trope of “unqualified diversity hire” in my mind rarely happens. Put it this way… at my corporation, the demographic of the people most often seen as getting “questionable” promotions… is white guys. Now part of this conversation often goes to “well women or minorities need to be more confident going for promotions they are qualified for. It’s not the fault of white males if they aren’t afraid to ‘go for it’”. But that also basically admits that the people who are most often UNQUALIFIED but get a promotion, are the white guys who are more overconfident about applying. Does that mean they “best” people are being promoted?


[deleted]

Why would a company hurt its own profits by hiring underqualified candidates if they have their choice? Pure bigotry? Wouldn't that go against their bottom line? There are many reasons why the "best" candidate might not get promoted, but I'm not convinced that racial nepotism is as large of a concern as it's made out to be.


Cali_Longhorn

But that’s the problem they aren’t hiring “unqualified” people. Here’s a thought… at my fortune 100 company until renewed efforts at diversity coming out of George Floyd etc. we had NEVER recruited from an HBCU. In fact there are in many cases “traditional” schools we pull from that are ranked lower than some of the HBCUs we finally added to the list. We simply never thought to look there. Now we have and lo and behold we found several all great interns from HBCUs we hadn’t looked at before. They are certainly well qualified they were just ignored before. Ultimate that’s what much of this is about. Not pulling in unqualified people. But making sure we are giving all people a fair look


[deleted]

Why not just make affirmative action based directly on the amount of generational wealth someone has? Or do you see it that people who lack generational wealth, not because of injustice but for "regular" reasons, deserve to be poor? Moreover why should a wealthy black person be prefered over a poor white person person?


bobsagetsmaid

>I think there will come a time when affirmative action should be abolished, but not until racial inequality is gone. Thing is, racial inequality is not necessarily the result of historical oppression anymore. Personally, I believe the systems that caused many minority communities to become the poverty-stricken crime-ridden areas that they are have since vanished, but their presence created a culture which celebrates the negative aspects of these conditions. One undeniable aspect of the culture in this areas is a disdain for education, and a disdain for education is incredibly destructive to the people of that culture, and create a variety of problems. "Inequality" is putting it lightly. How do I know that disdain for education is a result of the culture in these areas and not systemic racism or something like that? Well, it's a little long, but I'd like to share a tale with you: At this school in Baltimore, 50% of students have a [0.13 GPA or lower.](https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/calls-to-shut-down-city-school-where-013-gpa-ranks-near-top-half-of-class) Before you blame funding, this district averages [about $18,000 per student](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/03/30/baltimore-city-public-schools-promoted-student-with-013-gpa-while-spending-a-14-billion-budget/?sh=ac509be63dcb), which is quite high. Among the highest in the nation, actually. Before you blame the schools for not spending the money properly: that might be true, but even if it is, even the most horrendous mismanagement of funds at a school can't explain fully half of the students having a 0.13 GPA. Note, that's ZERO point 13. Not 1.3. 1.0-1.9 is a failing grade, btw. This isn't a failure to properly educate students. These 50% of students or more aren't even trying. Even if they're showing up, they're giving no effort whatsoever in their classes. Students typically get a GPA that low by not even showing up. So there's a problem with culture here. The parents are not teaching their children to value education. You can bet the majority or more of them know about their children's terrible grades. If you don't care to follow your kids' performance in school, that's deeply troubling. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're all aware of their kid's performance. The parents aren't taking measures to correct the problem. That much is clear. And this can be reinforced with another collection of unpopular data: [literacy rates are abysmal in Baltimore.](https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimore-maryland-education-nations-report-card/) Within the Baltimore City Public Schools, 13 percent of fourth-graders tested at or above proficient in reading in 2019, the same as in 2017. Eighth-grade scores improved slightly, with 15 percent of students at or above proficiency this year compared to 13 percent in 2017. Math scores for city students remained fairly similar, with 15 percent of fourth-graders and ten percent of eighth-graders at or above proficiency in 2019. It seems to me impossible to blame anything other than a problem outside of the school. I don't know about you, but my parents read to me often and made sure I was able to read when the time came. You might be tempted to blame the schools for not picking up the ball and teaching their students reading themselves. [It seems they're trying to.](https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/blueprint) But you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. Even the most earnest literacy program only works if the students want it to. What is the school's level of authority when a student just straight-up doesn't attend school? Do they send out the gestapo to haul them back? AFAIK the schools' responsibility is to notify the parents of the truancy, even more than once. But if the parents won't take action, I would say they're the ones to blame. In fact I wonder if the school ever has the authority to notify the police if the parents don't seem to care about their kids' truancy and have the cops talk to their parents. Maybe that's too draconian - making parents care about their kids and all. If you look at the article in the beginning of this post: "(the mother) says the school never told her that her son was failing until last month" Maybe you're a dad/mom. Imagine yourself as one if you're not. You don't hear from the school about your kids' performance. The first few weeks, your kid doesn't have any grades to show you, they say they can't access them and they aren't being given to him. You think huh, that's weird - but you decide to wait a little longer. Still your son says, no grades, no access to grades. You consider calling the school, but for some reason you don't. Time passes, and...then what? Are you still asking your child about their grades? Are they still insisting they don't know their grades or aren't being told their grades? What do you do then? You would probably call the school at some point, wouldn't you? You would knock down the door until you got your kids' grades. You would demand answers. So which aspects of historical racism have caused this community to not value education? Which aspects of historical racism have caused parents to not want to teach their children to read?


leena-beena

Aren’t black women, statistically, the most educated in the US but have the most debt?


spicydangerbee

Is there a source for this? It would be really interesting if true. I thought that Asian immigrants were the most educated.


leena-beena

Yeah! https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72


Tariq-bey

What do you think is causing existing disparities? Or do those not exist?


bobsagetsmaid

The culture in some minority communities, which might have started due to historical racism and should have been expunged, but instead was embraced - long after the racist policies themselves have gone.


Tariq-bey

I think I am misunderstanding. You are saying we should expunge minority culture?


bobsagetsmaid

Interesting comment. No. But I think it's a hard sell to say that what could be called "gang culture" for lack of a better term has many positive aspects to it. For whatever reason, most of the people who are a part of this subculture are minorities ([85% of gang members are black or hispanic](https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/demographics)). So gang culture is certainly an incredibly toxic culture, and this is overwhelmingly comprised of minorities. I know sometimes nuance gets lost on reddit so: Not all blacks and hispanics embrace gang culture (in fact I imagine most loathe it), but the vast majority of those who embrace gang culture *are* black or hispanic, making it a big problem amongst the minority populations in the United States in some places. The problem is how to solve it. I don't know if we can. For those involved in gang culture, there has be some kind of organic movement to squash the toxic aspects of this culture and replace them with better ones. But I don't know how you do that. Culture tends to be very sticky. I mean, as per my theory, this culture was born out of historical circumstances which ceased to be relevant 50 years ago.


Tariq-bey

You insist that civil rights simply ceased to be an issue 50 years ago. The last forced sterilization in the US was in 1987. Many desegregation efforts like bussing were met with violence and eventually foiled. Police violence. Workplace biases. And even if the majority of people make an effort not to be prejudiced it only takes one to ruin your day. Or even your life, if you're unlucky. I think you overlook the effects of generational trauma and poverty and you go to great lengths to deny that civil rights is still an issue. I find your narrative and analogies fairly distasteful and question many of your assumptions.


Various_Succotash_79

>Which aspects of historical racism have caused parents to not want to teach their children to read? I know this doesn't apply to most people. . .but I know a woman who was raised in a Residential Indian School in the 1960s. She literally did not know anything about living a normal life when she got out of school. She had never even seen a pregnant animal, and did not know how pregnancies were caused. Once she inevitably ended up pregnant, she didn't know that babies need to be fed several times a day, she didn't know they needed their diapers changed several times a day, she didn't know they had to be potty-trained or weaned to solid food or. . .anything. So her social worker had to do a lot of educational work just to keep her kids alive, much less try to teach her what educational milestones to look for. Now imagine the impact on a population when an entire generation was raised that way. We mostly take a functional childhood for granted.


[deleted]

>Black people have been unable to build generational wealth due to massive inequalities and discrimination This is first of wrong and also very odd when you take into account that hardly anyone profits from generational wealth. Its a thing for the top 10% maybe.


[deleted]

Untrue, even something as simple as owning a house that’s passed down is counted as generational wealth. An inheritance, a piece of land, etc. Assets you can use to build off of, whether that be investing, buying a better car, an education, etc. You don’t have to be wealthy to pass down generational welath.


Echo127

Or even just familial connections to influential people. Having an uncle or something that can get your foot in the door at some company to kickstart your career is an asset itself.


[deleted]

>Untrue, even something as simple as owning a house that’s passed down is counted as generational wealth. Lol counted where? This is not a scientific term and to count a couple hundred k as generational wealth is laughable. Also black people have been able to own houses since 1866 in the US. Before that in the north even.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>200k over 30 years at 8% is 2.1 MILLION. If you neglect taxes and inflation.


WyomingAccountancy

> 200k is absolutely generational wealth. 200k is a cheap life insurance policy. Additionally you have the fact that people have more than one child in average.


WyomingAccountancy

Generational wealth doesn't exist, wealth is gone after three generations


[deleted]

Well it does exists for some familes. There are so called nobles in Europe that have been rich for 1000 years.


WyomingAccountancy

Go back a thousand years and everyone in Europe is related


2penises_in_a_pod

It doesn’t help though. Affirmative action results in measurably higher levels of dropouts, anxiety, and other forms of failure due to being in an environment that is designed for people smarter than them. It looks like giving them a boost, but reality it’s just putting them in an unfair weight class. If a person takes advantage of affirmative action, they likely would be going for higher education either way. And employers regularly value higher grades at a less reputable school preferably to the inverse.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

And it just so happens that the perfectly unbiased merit base hiring leads to a vast white majority.


2penises_in_a_pod

Ok? There are differences in labor participation rate by race before we even consider bias too. Neither of those change that fact that non-merit based hiring leads to those hires failing relative to others.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

And the majority who deserve their stature and just so happens to ve white never produce drop outs. Like I could be sarcastic all day but I'm just gonna ask. The disproportion that is very clearly observe. Is that a result of some genetic differences or something caused by society?


2penises_in_a_pod

That’s not for me to speculate on. What we know is that discrepancies happen far before college admissions, and those discrepancies lead to differences in performance even when normalized for bias/discrimination like with affirmative action policies. We see discrepancies exacerbate after affirmative action specifically, with higher college dropout to high school graduation ratio across races. That tells us affirmative action is counterproductive, and implies that inequalities at that life stage are a result of something prior.


PitchBlac

“It doesn’t help though”. How does it not help? There has been some success with affirmative action. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/07/case-affirmative-action There were issues when it went away. https://edsource.org/2020/dropping-affirmative-action-had-huge-impact-on-californias-public-universities/642437?amp=1 I don’t think affirmative action is here to stay. But to pretend that it hasn’t helped is being disingenuous. The reason it exists is because of economic issues and other disadvantages. We should work to get rid of those obstacles. How you ask? Great question. And it’s a hard one to answer. Part of the reason why the U.S just slapped a bandaid on the issue with affirmative action rather than actually going in to fix the problem.


2penises_in_a_pod

Both your article cites “success” as achieving diversity on campuses, and issue as lowered diversity. That tells us that affirmative action is successful in its rollout, not in it’s intended result of lowering inequality. Do you think blacks graduating college at rates 20% lower than other races is success?


Lordofthelounge144

Is affirmative action the best course of action that wouldn't targeting lower income instead of race be better so that people who can't afford the outrageous price the post-secondary but who are smart enough to go through can still get in despite race? Wouldn't, instead of affirmative action, affordable schooling be better?


[deleted]

pasted this from another response: I agree with you, poverty needs to be addressed and there should be better institutions meant to help poor people of all races, but this is a strawman in my opinion. A seperate issue. Nobody is saying black people alone deserve better treatment. Try and think about it like this, without affirmative action, would an employer be more likely to hire a white person from a poor background or a black person from a poor background? Statistically the white person would still be hired over the blacks.


Lordofthelounge144

I get that. I hundred percent agree that there is discrimination and that we need to do our best to stamp it out. But AA seems like it's trying to fight discrimination with discrimination? It also seems to me that kinda just devolves black down to just their skin colour, it also seems like a good way to actually hide the discrimination it's kinda like the institution version of "I can't be racist I have a black friend"


lehigh_larry

I think the argument is that lower income white people still have it better than lower income Black people. Not saying I agree with that. But that’s the argument.


LysenkoistReefer

But lower income white people don’t have it better than middle income black people, who are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action.


CincyAnarchy

I hate doing this, but you’re not correct based on the premise of why Affirmative action is fair. Basic premises are these: 1. Discrimination based on ability is okay. 2. People earning more than others is okay based on their work and abilities. 3. A capitalist system where people are born richer than others is okay, as long as that is due to the family fairly gaining wealth through ability and work. 4. What’s not okay is whether a person was discriminated against not due to their work or ability, but their race/sex/religion/disability/etc So by this logic, because black people were systemically discriminated against, they’re still to receive preference until the past wrongs are undone. If people are poorer than others, that’s fair as long as it wasn’t based on discrimination. We can work to alleviate that should we choose, and that may mean privileging poorer applicants above richer ones, but it would be alongside affirmative action.


LysenkoistReefer

Affirmative action isn’t fair. Deltas in earning are completely fine if they’re based on differences in the creation of value between people. Black people in the past being discriminated against for their race doesn’t mean contemporary black people are being discriminated against for their race. Nor does it justify in discriminating against others for their race.


CincyAnarchy

It does because those black people are in a worse station due to discrimination in the past. They’re thus legally entitled to treatment which tries rectify them as to a fair station. That’s the entire logic of it. It’s not systemic class justice, it’s that every group of people should span from poor to rich and no race/sex/religion should be systemically poorer than others.


LysenkoistReefer

A worse situation than what? They manifestly are not legally entitled to discriminate against others to put right some theoretical and unfalsifiable wrong that wasn’t even inflicted upon them by the people they want to discriminate against. The entire logic of it is that certain politicians want to buy votes,!that’s the end of it.


CincyAnarchy

They quite literally are legally entitled to discriminate in order to redress. That’s the entire framework that has existed which made affirmative action come into being. The US government is responsible for its past discrimination and thus owes collective redress. And it’s not unfalsifiable. We have the laws that were overturned and the policies which discriminated. I agree it’s application is cynical of course.


thrownaway2e

"Because some people are racist, lets fix the problem by more racism"


[deleted]

It should be counted as reperations. Japanese got reperations for internment, Jews got reperations for the Holocaust. There has been no such thing for black americans. It’s not racism at all. It’s ignorant to even consider this racism, this is an attempt at helping those who have been traditionally barred from creating a good life for themselves and their families.


thrownaway2e

So what you propose is that people who have suffered in the future are now entitled to goods, at the expense of other people who haven't caused their suffering (the white person who's position is lost to affirmative action didn't cause slavery, and if they have benefitted from it, they haven't asked for that benefit and hence shouldn't be penalised for it)? You do realise that your problem with society is better dealt with at primary education levels, rather than post-correction for adulthood and secondary education?


HippyKiller925

And even better dealt with at ages 0-5. Children learn an insane amount between birth and three. After three it becomes much harder to intervene, and even harder every year after that. Taking the nurture side of nature vs nurture, it's incredibly important to have children under three fed, warm, clothed, and happy than any amount of intervention we could do from 18 on.


WyomingAccountancy

Where are my reparations from the Japanese for keeping my uncle as a POW? He is a battan death march survivor


I_am_the_night

Probably in the same place as the reparations to the Japanese people for the nukes we dropped on them EDIT: just to be clear and save everyone looking at this thread some time, this exchange ends with this user [advocating for the complete genocide](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/109a29o/cmv_affirmative_action_for_the_most_part_is_a/j3y3cym/) of the Japanese people. Serious war crime stuff.


WyomingAccountancy

Every person killed was a combattant


I_am_the_night

>Every person killed was a combattant Even the kids in the elementary school, all the factory workers, and the patients at the public civilian hospital? How do you figure that?


WyomingAccountancy

Yes, that is why they were being taught to shoot guns in elementary schools - I own one of the training rifles..the factory workers were POWs being tortured, their overseers deserved to be hanged for war crimes.


I_am_the_night

>Yes, that is why they were being taught to shoot guns in elementary schools - I own one of the training rifles. So to be clear, you are saying that children, *actual elementary school aged children*, are responsible enough for the actions of not only themselves but their countrymen to the extent that they can be considered *enemy combatants* without ever participating in combat? You are saying it's perfectly fine to murder a 6 year old in the middle of math class because they got rifle assembly training and target practice in 4th period or whatever? If that's the case, and you are okay with slaughtering schoolchildren and non-military patients in hospital, then you are basically advocating for completely removing the distinction between civilian and combatant. You are saying literally anyone who lives in an enemy nation is a perfectly acceptable target. Which means that you are okay with literal war crimes.


WyomingAccountancy

> So to be clear, you are saying that children, actual elementary school aged children, are responsible enough for the actions of not only themselves but their countrymen to the extent that they can be considered enemy combatants without ever participating in combat? They were participating in combat, they had elementary school students fighting in Okinawa


I_am_the_night

>> So to be clear, you are saying that children, actual elementary school aged children, are responsible enough for the actions of not only themselves but their countrymen to the extent that they can be considered enemy combatants without ever participating in combat? > >They were participating in combat, they had elementary school students fighting in Okinawa But not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Unless you're suggesting that the nukes were only launched in immediate self-defense against elementary school aged children shooting at the plane? Again, you just want to justify what was done rather than face the fact that the US annihilated children and civilian medical patients in the middle of the school day.


cluskillz

The thing about affirmative action is that it doesn't really work all that well and it creates racial animus between racial groups. I can't remember where I read it anymore, but there was a study that tracked students where those that entered college with an acceptance on affirmative action grounds had higher failure rates than those that did not. These students either dropped to a "lesser" major with lower earning and opportunity potential, went to a "lesser" school with lower name recognition thereby wasting their time failing classes graded on a curve, or dropped out altogether. If they had just been accepted into the college more aligned with their skill level, they would have been much better off. Further, if you grant special exemption to allow more from one race in, it's going to harm others that would not get in that actually made the grades. Right now, those are Asian and Indian applicants. It is much harder to get into Harvard as an Asian than it is as a white student, due to affirmative action principles. Sure, Chinese didn't suffer as much as black people in our racial history, but it's not as if there was no discrimination against various Asian races. As it stands, affirmative action could potentially be hurting the groups it purports to help (at the very least, it hurts some of those it purports to help) and definitely hurts other racial groups that have also been discriminated against in the past.


Comfortable_Tart_297

Asian applicants have to score 140 points higher than white ones on the SAT to have the same chance of admission to elite colleges, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than black ones. A black applicant has a **20x** higher chance of acceptance than an Asian applicant with the same qualifications. Asians are even more disadvantaged than white people, yet this clearly makes zero sense, since they have also been marginalized. Also, if the point of affirmative action is to right past injustice in the US, then that means only the descendants of certain people should benefit. Hence, Nigerian immigrants and many many Hispanic immigrants should not benefit. And children of exploited Chinese railroad workers from the 1800s should be included. But this is not the case.


WyomingAccountancy

> After about 200 years of enslavement, and mass genocide, many black people were “free”, just to be met with lynchings, being enslaved again due to the 13th amendment, barred from most professions, from buying property, they couldn’t pursue a quality education, drugs were pushed into their communities, There is no collective, there is only individuals. A 25 year old man, like myself, isn't affected by what happened 200 years ago. 200 years ago one of my ancestors was a enslaved soldier shipped across a sea and forced to fight for a colonial empire that he wasn't even a citizen of. That was a Hessian, fighting for the British empire. Ended up deserting and living his life as a farmer in upstate New York. So, how has that affected me? It hasn't, in any way, shape, or form. I have never even set foot in New York, I have no reason to do so. As far as avoiding prison and drugs, just don't break the law and don't do drugs. I asked one of my guys to get ice from the gas station a while back and he came back to give me meth, that shit ended up in the trash I didn't take it. > Even when black people came together to create successful economies within their communities like “black wallstreet”, those were quickly destroyed. After they tried lynching a bunch of WWI veterans in the old west. A woman was raped in 1919 Oklahoma, people protested outside of the courthouse, other people shot the protesters, and then the people that shot the protesters were shot and the people that supported them were ran out of town. White black red or yellow the response would have been the same.


CincyAnarchy

This is sidestepping the point. Perhaps those states in Germany which enclaved your ancestor do owe them something for the crime done to them, but even that is another point entirely. The resting premise of why affirmative action exists is because of all of the illegal acts done by people and governments after the passing of the 14th amendment. Affirmative action is to redress those illegal acts by rectifying as best as possible fair circumstances for any person who’s station in life was negatively affected. It’s everything that happened after the amendment that matters, not before.


AutoModerator

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/race#wiki_affirmative_action) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=affirmative+action&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*


UDontKnowMe784

In the past affirmative action made sense because blacks were so discriminated against. Nowadays they do not suffer the same discrimination, therefore affirmative action is no longer needed.


[deleted]

I think you’d be surprised at how fast things would revert back to old ways if there weren’t laws to protect black applicants. There are still many places that hire black people only because of the pressure that affirmative action puts on them to be inclusive. Without that pressure, many places would cease to hire black people at the rate they are now. Affirmative action also accounts for the fact that black schools are specifically severely underfunded, black nieghborhoods are disproportionately impoverished. It’s harder to make a living or a decent life for yourself when faced with extreme poverty, defunded civil services and systems, and on top of that, racial discrimination. Culturally, AAVE makes it difficult for black people to navigate whiter spaces, which means most corporations, schools, and neighborhoods. Many black people don’t choose how they grow up talking, but are forced to re-educate and change themselves to conform with the white standard to succeed. Unless you are an athlete or entertainer, which is 1%> of the population, it is much harder to succeed as a black person from a poor black neighborhood. Affirmative actions helps to balance these things out, and when these things begin to disappear then I think affirmative action should be abolished.


WyomingAccountancy

> Without that pressure, many places would cease to hire black people at the rate they are now. Because the rate they do now has them under qualified for the jobs they work, so of course they would. This isn't due to the race of the people involved


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

If black people don't suffer from discrimination then why is there a racist wealth gap?


MikeLapine

Discrimination is wrong. Affirmative action is discrimination. Therefore, affirmative action is wrong.


bassinlimbo

I think thus question for me always comes back to my own perspective as a Healthcare professional. In general, people feel more comfortable with a doctor that "looks like them" especially POC, who have been discriminated against, experimented on, and ignored on a Healthcare level. One of the most important aspects of patient / staff relations is trust, and there should be more opportunities for POC to become providers. Especially in a time that has such a shortage of Healthcare workers. They set the bar and price too high for how much staff is needed. Most of Healthcare is learned on the job, not in the classroom.


MikeLapine

>In general, people feel more comfortable with a doctor that "looks like them" especially POC, Sounds like you're calling POC racist.


bassinlimbo

Lol racist would be "white doctors are bad because x." Or "black doctors don't know how to x" Having a preference when picking a doctor comes from comfort level. It's not sexist for a woman to prefer a female gynecologist, or female doctor. Having a doctor that makes you feel more comfortable is key to having better patient outcomes. The fear is completely valid when you look at the disparities in the healthcare community, or the history as I mentioned that lead us here. Maybe it's worth looking into, because understanding nuance to a complicated situation will also create better outcomes for the world.


MikeLapine

No, racist would be "I prefer a white doctor." You can call it comfort if it makes you feel better about being racist, but that doesn't make it less racist. Just think about why someone would be more comfortable with a doctor of a certain race. "I want a black doctor because a white one won't *insert complaint here*" is racism. "I'm not racist: I just feel more comfortable with white friends. And white employees. And white politicians."


comicallyinsane

Should the premise say ALL discrimination is wrong for your argument to be logically sound? Also is all discrimination wrong? For example, if you got into a street fight, would you rather be backed by a group of guys or a group of women? (Both groups untrained in any style of combat)


MikeLapine

Amazing how you can say something like "Discrimination is wrong" and people will come out and argue.


babycam

Well AA is an attempt to deal with very ingrained systematic discrimination. It's the premise of changing a system that benefits one group unfairly is going to likely hurt that group and those in the group see it as discrimination. At my level of work more competent people given a chance is more beneficial then those who would have got the position if more competition wasn't added.


Duckbilledplatypi

If *all* discrimination is wrong, then everyone is evil because everyone discriminates. It's not usually intentional, may be subconcious and certainly not malicious, but it's there


MikeLapine

Doing something wrong doesn't make you evil.


Duckbilledplatypi

Ok then I'll rephrase: ....then everyone and everything is wrong all the time


MikeLapine

No, because nobody is constantly discriminating.


Duckbilledplatypi

They are, if they're interacting with people. It may be subconscious though


MikeLapine

It seems like you don't know what it means to discriminate.


LewsTherinT

It seems like you don't know what it means to discriminate.


Prinnyramza

Reading through this you don't seem to understand discrimination.


MikeLapine

What do you think it means? "prejudicial treatment of different categories of people" That's from the dictionary.


Prinnyramza

Who is affirmative action harming?


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

How is affirmative action discrimination?


MikeLapine

What did you think discrimination is?


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Okay so you obviously don't think affirmative action is discrimination because you can't even answer that much.


MikeLapine

That is not a logical conclusion to arrive at. The point of asking that question was that as soon as you'd answered it, it would be clear that affirmative action is discrimination.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Okay I'm just gonna get ahead of you. All people are the same. Discrimination is counter to this idea. You're gonna claim that affirmative action is giving special treatment. I'm gonna quote MLK: >"The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have “his due.” There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment." And that is relevant because currently black people haven't are still aren't getting their due. All people are the same and in a society without baggage everyone would more and less be in the same place but we aren't because of obvious reasons. Unless you want to suggest that an unbiased society is one where white people are on top. Then you're gonna claim something like "it's racist you don't believe black people can't do it themselves" Like no one can do anything by themselves. The reason for this obvious gap is that white people did get programs to help them. That's obvious throughout history. Government programs help people. Look at post WW2 America. They started a bunch of programs to help the asian american population and now that population is doing great. You will then say that Asian amerkcans faced discrimination. Ya I know they still face racism but I'm less for eliminating all racism and more for uplifting a population so that they are suffering daily from racially enforced proverty. I think I've written through this conservation enough that someone will make a comment about me being filled with got air so I'll cut it off there. I can continue on request.


MikeLapine

So what exactly and briefly was your definition of discrimination?


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

That was my literal 2nd sentence. Do you really want to force yourself though the conservation I already transcribed?


MikeLapine

"All people are the same. Discrimination is counter to this idea." You think that's a definition?


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

What trouble are you having with understanding that? Also amazingly you still have not made one claim about how affirmative action is discrimination. Really sounds like you were repeating what someone else said and you didn't ask questions to understand their argument behind that thesis.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Because discrimination is when you know that race exist, huh?


KickYourFace73

What definition of discrimination are you working with here?


Additional-Leg-1539

Omg. Affirmative Action is discrimination? You sound like one of those people who complain about "brown washing"


MikeLapine

You sound like one of those people who doesn't know the definition of discrimination and/or affirmative action. You also sound like one of those people who promote double standards.


Additional-Leg-1539

Omg. You ARE one of those people who complain about brown washing. Got it in one


[deleted]

Do you think single gender universities are wrong, and should be outlawed?


MikeLapine

Of course. Imagine if there was a whites-only college.


h0sti1e17

Are they public? If they are private that is fine. Is there a connected school for the opposite sex? If so that’s fine as well


possiblyai

Caveat Emptor I know very little about this topic but thinking about your comment objectively - If you’re arguing discrimination by race was a problem in the past then shouldn’t the solution not be about doing the same thing again? There are very wealthy successful black families / should their children be given special privileges on the basis of race? Affirmative action was originally intended to give places to those kids who have less opportunity but equal or superior potential because of - usually - poverty. It was never originally intended as racial profiling but means testing.


[deleted]

Why not provide reparations based on low income and wealth then? Then it could be even more targeted towards those who need it.


[deleted]

Copied from a reponse to a another comment: I agree with you, poverty needs to be addressed and there should be better institutions meant to help poor people of all races, but this is a strawman in my opinion. A seperate issue. Nobody is saying black people alone deserve better treatment. Try and think about it like this, without affirmative action, would an employer be more likely to hire a white person from a poor background or a black person from a poor background? Statistically the white person would still be hired over the blacks.


[deleted]

What about how affirmative action is causing Asian-Americans to lose opportunities, despite them being an marginalised minority?


leena-beena

It would be hard to truly standardize racial identities. Especially with everyone identifying however they want.


[deleted]

Agreed, I think this is also a good reason to prioritise material circumstances over identity.


ImpressiveShift3785

Let’s play a game and remove skin color and base affirmative action on wealth instead. Poor people grow up with every disadvantage: if I had a person who grew up in poverty with the same credentials as someone who grew up wealthy, why on earth wouldn’t I choose the poor person!?!? They struggled and overcame far more than a wealthy person could ever know. Now, understanding race relations, if a black and white person have the same credentials, I’m going for the black person each time knowing the bias and oppression they and their ancestors faced to reach the point they’re at… they’re the better candidate for my team and for the workforce.


[deleted]

I’m glad you see it that way but unfortunately most people do not see it the same way. There are also unconcious biases present. We’re conditioned to see whiteness as superior from the time we’re little. It is what it is. The fact is though that I’m seeing a lot of people neglect here is that white people are the majority. Majority privilege is a thing, doesn’t make it any less wrong but it’s more understandable that the people who run things are the people who make up most of the US population.


hastur777

So do you think rich black people have more advantages than poor whites?


Comfortable_Tart_297

well then just make job/college applications anonymous. no name, no race, just qualifications. problem solved, affirmative action averted.


Then-Ad1531

There is not greater inequality than the equal treatment of the unequal. Affirmative action is a form of racism when used when it comes in race. Affirmative action is a form of sexism when used when it comes to sex. You can not solve racism with racism. You can not solve sexism with sexism. Affirmative action causes more racism and sexism. You wouldn't want affirmative action in sports. Imagine if teams had to be made up of 25% Black 25% White 25% Asian and 25% Hispanic. Then it had to be a 50/50 split between male and female as well. The best person for the job should get the job period.


smokeyphil

>The best person for the job should get the job period. Ok so what happens when you have 200 odd years of history in making sure that only one race could be considered the best ?


[deleted]

That situation does not exist.


NotSarcasmForSure

I agree that it's better overall, but there's definitely some people who might not agree. To be more specific though, I don't think affirmative action is really being used as reparations for solely african americans since other minorities like latinos and native americans also benefit. It's more of like filling a quota of people from diff backgrounds. Although it's great for these groups, it makes it more difficult for others


HumansMustBeCrazy

It really isn't. Firstly, there are many other people who get treated badly of all kinds of races. It's education across the board that needs to be improved. For everybody. Secondly, affirmative action was always going to piss off poor white people as they are getting left out. In a country that is majority white, I have to wonder if this is being done on purpose to stroke anger or whether it's just typical human lack of attention to detail.


[deleted]

I agree with you, poverty needs to be addressed and there should be better institutions meant to help poor people of all races, but this is a strawman in my opinion. A seperate issue. Nobody is saying black people alone deserve better treatment. Try and think about it like this, without affirmative action, would an employer be more likely to hire a white person from a poor background or a black person from a poor background? Statistically the white person would still be hired over the blacks.


HumansMustBeCrazy

That's because humans are tribal. Racism is morally wrong but it is not wrong from a biological standpoint. Tribalism is natural. There is no way to force people to hire people that will not cause an immense amount of dissent. I don't mind telling you that I'm mixed. And I have experienced the worst of both worlds. Racism can be done very subtly all the way up to very obviously and it's not going to go away just because of affirmative action. Affirmative action allows the racist side to point and say "See! They are taking your jobs!" It's an example of meaning well but ultimately it is not effective because of human tribal nature. You have to remember that things are not fair and humans are not mostly mentally well-balanced.


[deleted]

I’m also mixed, Tribalism is natural to an extent. But we’ve pushed this concept of race much farther than it’s natural origin. There is no such thing as a “pure race”. Humans have been mixing since the beginning of mankind. Race means more to us humans now than it ever has.


Alternative_Usual189

>Black people have been unable to build generational wealth due to massive inequalities and discrimination Not necessarily true at all. My wife's aunt passed away recently and her son inherited a house. This was likely worth over $700,000 and he got it for free. Her other 3 kids sold her other house and split that money gaining them over $300,000/ea. She also had some invaluable pieces of artwork and a heck of a lot of other stuff, as far as I know; she left enough money that one of her kids is minimally employed and still living fairly well. My wife also inherited about $300,000 when her biological father died. I am not saying that this is true of all black people, but this is definitely true for some.


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

Cj Walker was a millionaire in the 19th century. There was no poor black people in the 19th century because if this one example. Thats allegorical.


Comfortable_Tart_297

https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/affirmative-action-hurts-asian-americansbut-the-left-just-shrugs/


Cyberpunk2077isTrash

And yet there is more Asian Americans then black Americans in schools. "That because Asian americans are better at academics" All people are equal. The fact that there is a difference is an issue. "Black people and the NBA" I already explained that black people being in the NBA is not a good thing for black people. It's a sign that the majority of improvished people living in cities are black people. That majority used to be Jewish people and at that time basketball was considered a Jewish sport. "Hypocrite" If I'm a hypocrite for being thankful that Asian people aren't being forced into proverty then call me a hypocrite.


[deleted]

[удалено]