Jump to content

Diversity in Education


Mils

Recommended Posts

Here in Michigan, Proposition 2 was recently passed, essentially bringing to an end the practice of Affirmative Action. The wording dictates that there can be no more preferential treatment in considering race, sex, color, or national origin for public education, public employment, or public contracting.

I can see both sides of the discussion here, and I'm curious what everybody thinks. Hopefully there can be a debate without a whole lot of written yelling and screaming.

In my opinion, the arguments might go something like this:

In favor of Affirmative Action:

"It provides, in concrete terms, the guarantee that people of all ethnicities will be given the opportunity to achieve in education, employment, and business. This is necessary to counter-act some of the still-present biases and discriminatory treatment that continue in our society. It's unfortunate, but there needs to be a system in place to guarantee that people of all races and all national origins are assured opportunity."

Against Affirmative Action:

"The way to fight bias and discrimination is not to reverse the discrimination. Affirmative action just builds resentment between races because whites feel that they are unfairly denied opportunities in the name of equality. It's also a hand-out and undermines the credibility of all minorities in higher education because many people will assume, 'That person just got in because of affirmative action' and that will haunt minority individuals throughout their lives. A system put in place to promote equality actually maintains the status quo and supports negative stereotypes."

One interesting side note: In the princeton review college guide several years ago, Howard University (An historically black institution) had 97% African Americans in their student body. The Princeton Review gave them a diversity rating of 99/100. Meanwhile, schools that were 80-90% white got diversity scores between 20-30.

Is that an accurate portrayal? Not accurate? Should the Princeton Review have given either Howard University or the other schools a different rating? Did they rate the diversity properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tricky issue. Biggest problem I have with affirmative action is having quotas. I'm fine with a school or business making sure they have some diversity, but forcing it down throats by mandating how many they have is absolutely wrong. Jobs, scholarships, etc. should go to those individuals who deserve the job the most. If two people are equally qualified, giving thejob to a minority is one thing. But when lesser qualified people are benifitting simply because of race, it's no worse than racism.

As for the Princeton Review, it doesn't really surprise me. When minorities do things that exclude others, it is so often seen as them celebrating their heritage. But when white people do anything that is exlcusive to whites, it's racism. Big double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It provides, in concrete terms, the guarantee that people of all ethnicities will be given the opportunity to achieve in education, employment, and business. This is necessary to counter-act some of the still-present biases and discriminatory treatment that continue in our society. It's unfortunate, but there needs to be a system in place to guarantee that people of all races and all national origins are assured opportunity."

I am for affirmative action. There is a reason why we have it here. Because our national history shows we still and will continue to judge people by race.

Just look at whats going on here. Fulton County Georgia is ready to split into two because the white suburbs are tired of paying for mainly black city. Segregation of Atlanta.

Affirmative action tells us the evil truth about us. We are racist to the core and will go by race, so in order for things to be fair we have to have an 'unfair' law to some for the greater good of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone could put up a truly defensible argument against affirmative action. It just seems kind of iffy. After all, the US is the most powerful nation on earth for one reason and one reason only - most of its infrastructure was built on the back of free labour (read: slavery). It just seems appropriate that there would be some form of reparation. Same goes for the Natives too - it is their land after all.

I think the true argument lies in whether or not affirmative action actually works. Can you displace generations of cultural behaviours with a few financial incentives or opportunities? A look at the native reserves in Canada, inner city areas in the US or the prison population in general and I'm not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem with affirmative action is that it isn't used correctly. The whole point is to help minorities get opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. That isn't how it usually works. I went to a predominantly white high school, probably 15% black. But it was a private school and most everyone grew up with the same opportunities as everyone else. But when it came time for college scholarships, well off black kids were getting full rides with lesser credentials than I had. That's a problem. Affirmative action should be helping inner city minorities in crappy school systems have a shot at college. It shouldn't be used to pay for the tuition of a black person who has the same opportunities as any white suburbanite.

On a side note, we often hear of how some people think the US owes reparations to blacks for slavery. I don't mean to make light of the evils of slavery or anything, but why not also demand reparations from the African countries and tribes who sold them to whites in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone could put up a truly defensible argument against affirmative action. It just seems kind of iffy.

I disagree with the first sentence, and agree with the second. I can come up with several reasons why affirmative action doesn't serve the purposes it purports to, (maybe these aren't arguments against affirmative action, but these arguments certainly don't support it.) but I can also come up with a response to each of those claims, so it's difficult.

It'd be nice if we could trust colleges and corporations with sort of an "honor code" where there weren't any black-letter laws (sorry, no pun intended) telling people how to include diversity and who they had to interview and hire. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream. As PTG correctly pointed out, we are still a country with biases based on skin color.

I also agree with Fanpuck that the idea is good, but the way it's carried out may be flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All ideas work until put into practice.

As benevolent and altruistic as affirmative action is in its design, it often is not in its implementation. As was pointed out earlier, for those it works for, it does provide an opportunity for them to improve their economic and social environment. For those it works against, it provides a somewhat reasonable reinforcement of their racist attitudes towards minorities, if not establishing them.

At some point, it is hoped that the need for affirmative action will no longer exist, but just how do you judge when that time has arrived? When institutionalized racism no longer exists? There are no segregation laws in existence any more, so that date has long passed. What about when racism itself no longer exists? That time may never arrive, because of its deep roots within certain regions of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tricky issue. Biggest problem I have with affirmative action is having quotas. I'm fine with a school or business making sure they have some diversity, but forcing it down throats by mandating how many they have is absolutely wrong. Jobs, scholarships, etc. should go to those individuals who deserve the job the most. If two people are equally qualified, giving thejob to a minority is one thing. But when lesser qualified people are benifitting simply because of race, it's no worse than racism.

As for the Princeton Review, it doesn't really surprise me. When minorities do things that exclude others, it is so often seen as them celebrating their heritage. But when white people do anything that is exlcusive to whites, it's racism. Big double standard.

I agree 100% with you. Here in Canada we seem to have a similar issue with the First Nations...and then there's the whole feminism thing too. But really, no matter what the system is, there will be some sort of unfairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tricky issue. Biggest problem I have with affirmative action is having quotas. I'm fine with a school or business making sure they have some diversity, but forcing it down throats by mandating how many they have is absolutely wrong. Jobs, scholarships, etc. should go to those individuals who deserve the job the most. If two people are equally qualified, giving thejob to a minority is one thing. But when lesser qualified people are benifitting simply because of race, it's no worse than racism.

As for the Princeton Review, it doesn't really surprise me. When minorities do things that exclude others, it is so often seen as them celebrating their heritage. But when white people do anything that is exlcusive to whites, it's racism. Big double standard.

Yeah, I agree with you too ... very surprised. Perhaps it is my conservative side coming out.

One addendum: We all know that North America has a history of being a rich white boys club ... and so Affirmitive Action was meant to counter that type of discrimination. It should be noted that AA is not the best solution, however, it is not the case of the medicine being worse than the disease ... I think that there is a better solution to the problem of discrimination, and that reverse discrimination is not it. What is it ... well I'll leave that for the pundits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a (near) victim of affirmative action, I have strong views about this.

When I got my current job 15 years ago there were 5 candidates under consideration. As I later found out (how is a different story) I was ranked in a two-way tie for first based upon the interviews. The 3 and 4 ranked

candidates were also considered similar to one another but definitely weaker than the top two.

However, the third ranked candidate was a woman. There was a lot of pressure to hire her for affirmative action reasons. I was lucky that I ended up being offered the job.

My point is that I was discriminated against because of affirmative action. It's fine to talk in the abstract about AA but what it means is that real people will be discriminated against. Discrimination is bad. It hurts real people and should be stamped out everywhere. It should not be promoted even for lofty goals.

I like to ask people who support AA why they don't quit their jobs in order to increase opportunites for minorities. They always seem to have some reason or other. Almost no one is in favour of AA unless its applied to other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...