Reply With Quote
What's wrong with affirmative action? It got dubya into Yale and Harvard.
What's wrong with affirmative action? It got dubya into Yale and Harvard.
lol...I think the name "Bush" did more for that cause.
It seems to be working in the NFL.
Well that wasn't biased at all.
Where was the argument about the understandable skepticism of black surgeons?
I just want to know where it says in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that government cannot discriminate on the basis of race unless you're White or Asian.
I remember that but, also, remember the argument that Justice Thomas and Condoleeza Rice only achieved their success because of Affirmative Action? Implying, of course, that they were stupid and were only chosen for their position because of their race.
The soft bigotry of low expectations was ins utionalized by Affirmative Action.
Or the choice of any particular individual to buy into "soft bigotry."
the hard bigotry is that blacks are genetically/mentally inferior and can't do the work at school or job.
See how hard bigotry worked with pro quarterbacks and complex play books these past few years.
It is soft bigotry. , it's out and out racism.
Saying a person needs an unfair advantage because of an accident of birth says they aren't capable of achieving on their own.
I live in an affirmative action world, but I don't choose to believe that blacks' achievements are founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program.
At bottom, Affirmative Action is about affording opportunities; it does not mandate the achievement that is required to become a professional in any discipline. Getting in is one thing; getting through is something else altogether. That's true in education; it's true in business; it's true in anything. And the root problem that anti-discrimination programs were meant to solve was the lack of opportunity.
The choice to, for example, believe that black surgeons are somehow inferior to their white counterparts -- despite the fact that upon being given an opportunity to attend medical school, each must have met the required achievement thresholds necessary to become surgeons -- is the bigotry, to me at least.
Good for you. I don't think your view is the dominant one.
No, at bottom it is about affording opportunities to one while, at the same time, denying that opportunity to another.
It does mandate you give one person and unfair advantage simply due to an accident of birth.
Not getting in because an Affirmative Action candidate was advanced over you doesn't allow you to get through at all.
And, in doing so, they reduced the opportunities for someone else who had no part in the original offense the anti-discrimination program was intended to rectify.
Those that hold those views would argue, there are "threshholds" and there is excellence. If a medical doctor relied on Affirmative Action to gain entrance to medical school it follows that it was because his achievements, to that point, weren't good enough to gain them admittance on achievement alone. Thus follows the thinking they were at the bottom of the class to begin with.
I don't know about you but, I want the #1 graduate poking around in my brain not the #325th...and, I don't care what race is the #1.
If the #1 got in through Affirmative Action, would that make any difference to you?
I meant to make one other point on this.
If, as you believe, "black's achievements are [not] founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program," then, it's too insignificant for society to allow it to continue because racial discrimination, even against whites, is wrong and not insignificant.
#1 doesn't need Affirmative Action.
#1 when they go in doesn't necessarily translate into #1 when they get out.
You didn't answer the question either... if the #1 going out got in through Affirmative Action, would you have a problem then?
Nope, wouldn't have a problem.
This is where you apparently differ from Wile E Coyote...
Let's look at a real-world example, the NFL's Rooney Rule.
The rule, by most accounts, did what it set out to do, which was to increase diversity in NFL coaches.
Do you think that there were suddenly a great deal more qualified minority candidates for head coaching after the rule got passed? Or did that rule help elevate worthy minorities to the position?
Why do NFL Teams, privately owned businesses, have to be diverse. And, the objective of a football team isn't diversity, it's winning.
I'm not sure why it matters. The NFL is a private enterprise.
The NFL chose to implement that rule themselves, not the government.
And you failed to answer the question. Did the Rooney Rule succeed in increasing diversity in head coaches? If so, why do you think that is? Do you think a number of qualified minority coaches suddenly became available after that rule was passed?
Because of all the liberal ing and moaning.
Now you hear the jokes about how the owner did the "obligatory" minority interviews before hiring who he really wanted.
Sure, did it improve the coaching of the teams? Who knows?
Because of the Rooney Rule.
It's a pretty exclusive group as it is. I would imagine the Rooney Rule encouraged some to apply who, before, wouldn't because they have the confidence their talent alone would carry them.
Tony Dungy would have been a Super Bowl coach with or without the Rooney Rule.
The win/loss record of minorities is pretty decent. And two of them won a Super Bowl. (Dungy/Tomlin.) And another got there. (Caldwell.)
So you think that the only thing that was holding back diversity in NFL head coaches was that they didn't have the confidence to apply for the job. Seems a bit naive, don't you think?
Especially when that thought process is extrapolated out to the population at large.
NFL is big time racist towards white people. If a team doesn't want to interview a white guy for the coaching gig they don't have to but a black guy is mandatory. The league has about 65-70 percent black people in it, maybe more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
