Talk:Affirmative action/Archive 1

I moved this one off the page:

A common misconception is that affirmative action is automatically synomous with benefits for minorities. However, majority groups have been afforded affirmative-action advantages, such as for the Fijians in Fiji, and the Malays in Malaysia.

That seems counter to the very definition of affirmative action. By this criterion, the anti-Jewish laws in early Nazi Germany were affirmative action, as were the Catholic penal laws in England in the 18th century?

I don't think so. Affirmative action is action to improve representation of an under-representative class. I do not know anything about the Malay situation, but in Fiji many high positions and political posts were held by ethnic Indians, who were in the minority but privileged. I think that the criteria for affirmative action are:

1. The recipients of the affirmative action are under-represented.
2. The action aims to achieve equality, not to go beyond it and favour the recipient group.

-- Chris Q 07:43 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Political correctness

There's some content in political correctness that may be better off here. For example:

One central issue in the culture wars surrounding political correctness concerns what has come to be called affirmative action. Critics point out that the racism inherent in any such benefit based on race is counter to modern values. The defenders of affirmative action argue that affirmative action is necessary in order to redress problems of discrimination at a broader level. Others suggest that affirmative action for one group (such as women) can in the same 'subtle' way be detrimental to less popular groups (such as black men), and that the strength of politically correct ideology tends to stifle an open and rational analysis of such situations in the popular media. Clearly this is a subject of some debate.

I'm going to be doing a massive re-write of that page soon (it's having NPOV problems), so if you want to grab that material after I've done so, go back in the history to the 7 March 2004 version.

--zandperl 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it's very important to point out that affirmative action does not receive popular support from the public. In many polls, the general public overwhelmingly agrees that race based reward schemes are wrong. These types of policies have been forced onto the public by the legislative action of judges (and/or those who've got the judges in their back pocket) who don't seem to care for the democratic process. This policy is a race-based solution to what it's proponents claim to be an issue of financial means. Financial-based solutions are easily applicable, yet do not receive consideration from the legislative bodies.

"only racists consider race"

Regards, DMG

---

added paragraph to end of purpose section

which by the by the way indirectly address above comment (made by DMG)

"ignoring issues of race and class does not make them go away"

-- LegCircus

after my edit there was an additional edit that basically says affirmative action history is illogical

I don't know how to refute this without disrupting the page and turning it into a blog, and I'm loathe to just delete a contribution.

-- LegCircus

POV in Purpose section

The Purpose section ends with the following two paragraphs:

In the US, affirmative action was originally designed by the civil rights movement to correct the history of oppression against all working and low-income people. Though the civil rights movement is associated with racial equality, the original scope of affirmative action was not limited to race. Conservative opponents of affirmative action successfully framed the policy in terms of race in order to inspire opposition in an important part of their constituency: low-income white men. By excluding a portion of those the policy was designed to help, conservative opposition was then able to criticize using the idea of reverse discrimination. This rhetoric would have made little impact if coming only from those in obviously advantaged social segment.

The preceding argument appears insensible, however, in light of the overwhelming emphasis on race that took shape in the legislation. It is folly to contend that opponents of affirmative action would craft affirmative action legislation at all, let alone legislation which would create preferential status for non-whites, thereby alienating and disenfranchising this "important constituency" of low-income white men. An electorate which antagonizes its constituency does not get re-elected, and so the paragraph above does not stand to reason, and may be regarded as revisionist history with a communist/socialist agenda.

These are both POV, coming from opposite sides. You don't correct POV with more POV. :p I'll take a crack at fixing it.

- Korpios 22:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I left in the part about the American civil rights movement's original intentions, and otherwise killed the remaining parts outright. They're dripping with both POV and allegations badly in need of being backed up. Anyone else should feel free to try to work more criticisms/counter-criticisms into the article, but please use the above as an example of how not to do it. :) - Korpios 22:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Perceived"

LegCircus was kind enough to explain via email their change to their following paragraph:

Though affirmative action in the US is primarily associated with racial equality, the American civil rights movement originally intended it to correct the perceived history of oppression against all working-class and low-income people.

LegCircus removed "perceived" from the preceding paragraph, under the rationale that no one disagrees with that these groups have been "oppressed". I must disagree here; oppression is an inherently POV concept, with dictionary definitions including subjective qualifiers such as "cruel", "severe", and "unjust". Furthermore, I will offer myself as an example of one who disagrees (not to start an argument, but merely to make the case that it's a POV concept).

I won't change it back just yet; I'm willing to hear arguments first. :)

- Korpios 15:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To offer a rebuttal to my own post... *lol*... I just ran this by a friend on the phone, and she offered yet another angle: "perceived" is redundant, since "oppression" here is merely an objective descriptor of the subjective feelings of various people. Under this reasoning, it's NPOV to talk about people being "oppressed" because all it means to "be oppressed" is to feel oppressed; tacking on "perceived" may give the impression that a person's feelings aren't legitimate, which certainly isn't the intention here. I found this sufficiently persuasive to give me pause... thoughts? - Korpios 16:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

While I think in general that the feeling of being oppressed is a good indication of oppression, oppression is not a feeling. Oppression is a situation in which one individual or group uses another individual or group to the detriment of the used party. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives a pretty solid diagnostic to identify oppression.

-- LegCircus

Since you linked to oppression, I'll quote from there:

"Oppression is the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power."

"Cruel" is absolutely subjective (because suffering itself is subjective), and "arbitrary" isn't too far behind.

The definition you give is subjective as well: what constitutes "uses" depends on the observer, unless it's held to be so vague as to include all interaction on any level whatsoever, and "detriment" is subjective from the perspective of the party being, as you put it, "oppressed".

Don't even get me started on the UN; IMHO, they're a bunch of annoying loonies the United States would do well to walk away from.

Anyway, what this basically comes down to is that we have a difference of opinion (which is fine and good at Wikipedia!), and this should be reflected as much as possible in NPOV wording of articles.

I'm interested in input from others as well — anyone want to jump in here?

- Korpios 20:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit of Intro

changed

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or positive discrimination (British English), is action affording, to groups considered by some to be victims of social discrimination, "preferential" or "equal" (depending on one's point of view) access to an environment or benefits, such as education, employment, health care or social welfare.

to

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or positive discrimination (British English), is specific consideration given to groups considered by some to be victims of social discrimination. This may consist of preferential access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare.

-- LegCircus

RV Wars

Several people have been reverting the article back and forth. Let's get the discussion over it here, rather than going around reverting it all the time. Firstly, what are the reasons for the two versions, let's call them the RoseParks and the SamSpade version. Clearly, the bunny rabbit article was unnecessary, and meant by Spleeman to illustrate that it is perfectly appropriate to delete large blocks of text if they do not belong in the article, suggesting that the SamSpade block (originally contributed anonymously, correct?) did not belong. Allegations by SamSpade and myself are that it is strongly POV, uses weasel terms to thinly veil racist opinions, and isnot only biased but wholly an opinion piece, and is therefore impossible to simply NPOV the text, necessitating its removal. I would appreciate comments on this before anyone goes around RVing again. -- Yitzhak 11:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

change of criticisms

changed

It can also be argued that with lower university entrance standards for minority members, those from the minority who do get in may be less able to complete the course, leading to a higher drop out rate and a greater public perception that they are not up to it, defeating the stated aim. In fact the very notion that minorities need lower entrance standards reflect a unconscious racism that still is prevalent in society.

to

It can also be argued that with lower university entrance standards for minority members, those from the minority who do get in may be less able to complete the course, leading to a higher drop out rate. Evidence for this argument is wanting.

justification:

I know of no hard evidence for higher drop out rate argument. As for "unconscious racism" this states an uncommon opinion as a fact.

--LegCircus

The opinion is far from uncommon, and is in fact a central basis for reverse racism charges. I think this article has big issues. Sam [Spade] 18:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No it is not the basis for reverse racism charges. The basis for reverse racism charges is an idea that the dominant party (in America, whites) becomes victim to the same oppression they are being charged with. Two wrongs don't make a right, similar to the idea that the criminal justice system should not kill folks to teach other folks that killing folks is wrong.

The "unconscious racism" idea is that affirmative action actually hurts those it is supposed to help. That, while it may also be reverse racism, affirmative action propagates racism by setting a lower bar for some. This idea is not wide-spread because a) it's incorrect, affirmative action does not set a lower bar, b) most people do not think that giving specific attention to a candidate hurts that candidate (on its face it is contradictory), and c) most folks recognize, in one form or another, a historical disadvantage that persists to this day. --LegCircus

---

This is hogwash. Since when is an active proponent of a legal system overwhelmingly disapproved by the population of the country it exists in a fair judge of opposing POV?? If you advocate, you are *NOT* "non-partisan" in any meaningful way. This writer is clearly a proponent. If you want to promote your pet system, do so openly rather than under cover of NPOV. Neutrality requires a presentation of both pro and con, even though the "pro"s believe there is no valid "con". Simple suppression of an opposing viewpoint is just not a good thing in an "open" system, as wikipedia purports to be.

The issue of definition of "white" and "dominant pary" is very, very much in question whether you comprehend that or not. That is a major reason "quotas" as seen as "unfair". After all, if you examine the ruling elites in American Universities, large corporations, the legal system, and the Congress you will clearly see that not all identifiable "white" groups are equally represented. If propotionality were required via quotas, over-represented groups currently in power would have to surrender that power. They do not want to do that. So we lump many different ethnic and economic groups into the category "white" and pretend money, influence, and control are evenly distributed among them. Is it not far more simple to hand the bill to the least powerful members of that group? Of course it is. It is also, shockingly, more convenient.

Let's have a bit more light on the subject of "affirmative action", shall we?

milesgl

who decides?

who decides when a page is protected?

and who arbitrates the dispute and make the final decision?

--LegCircus 8/21/04

Self-Moderated Contributions

Why don't we self-moderate a little better? We could put contributions on the talk page, allow people to discuss them, and then gauge whether it's worth including or not. It makes sense to work by consensus, since anyone can just go and RV, we should find something that all can agree to. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how acceptable/practical/effective this may be, but I think it's worth a shot. But as long as the page is protected, we might as well give it a shot. In this spirit, I submit something to add to Criticism (usual rules about not editing what someone has put into talk obviously don't apply, so feel free to edit as much as is beneficial):

Your ideas are good. I made an edit to your text below to show my support for, and cooperation with your proposal. Sam [Spade] 21:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

Opponents of affirmative action differ widely in background and criticism. While most critics are members of the majority and see themselves as being subject to reverse racism by affirmative action, there are also members of the minorities that affirmative action is intended to help who reject it for a variety of reasons.

Some members of the minority who are favored by affirmative action claim that this reduces credence in their own abilities, as it suggests that without government intervention, they could not achieve on their own merits. They fear that affirmative action will cause others to view their own accomplishments merely as an effect of affirmative action, and sometimes argue further that this could lead to increased resentment.

Rewriting part of the criticisms section

This is currently a part of the criticisms section.

It could also be argued that affirmative action robs members of the non-benefiting groups of the fruits of their labor, and rewards those who are less capable and have accomplished less. Take for instace the U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and Brown in the 1970's. The Asian student population rose to around 10%-15% on these campuses. These colleges soon began to put restrictions on the number of Asian students allowed to be admitted. They began turning down qualified Asian students for less qualified Black and Latino students. Asian-Americans are a minority in the US, but in spite of this they are over represented in American colleges. It could be said that they too have had to fight racism and racist polices but they still have rose to numbers that challenge the majority population in some fields. One could argue from this example that minorities that have rose to meet or surpass disadvantages in education and employment are robbed of their achievements by affirmative action.

Another argument against affirmative action states simply that the minorities who are under represented are not as capable as the dominate groups. Proponates of this arguement point out that even though affirmative action polices have been in place for 30 years the number of Black and Latino college students remains below the level that would be expected from their population. They also argue that by addmitting less qualified students and forcing employers to hire potentially less qualified employees they are hurting businesses, colleges and society as a whole.

There are some suggestions that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are the wealthier members of minority groups; critics ask what justification on "equal opportunities" grounds would justify selecting a middle-class minority group member over a better qualified working-class member from the majority group.

As a group, libertarians do not object to affirmative action on a voluntary basis any more than they object to any form of discrimination that individual people may freely decide, but they do object to state imposed requirements for affirmative action. They suggest that any form of unjustified discrimination is likely to lead to inefficiencies, and that a rational person would therefore be unlikely to seek to discriminate one way or another and should therefore be free to decide who to select.

I propose changing it to this: (which certainly needs more editing)

I have undertaken some of that needed editing -- Yitzhak 00:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is sometimes argued that affirmative action has a negative effect on members of the non-benefiting groups, and rewards those who are less capable and have accomplished less. The U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and Brown in the 1970's are cited as examples, when the Asian student population rose to around 10%-15% on these campuses. These universities soon began to put restrictions on the number of Asian students admitted. They began turning down qualified Asian students for less qualified Black and Latino students. The proportion of Asian Americans at institutions of higher learning are greater than their percentage of the population, which is often used to contrast with other minorities, suggesting it as evidence that no affirmative action is needed, but rather that minorities have the capacity to excel on their own. Proponents of affirmative action often point to the fact that the different minority groups have different histories, which can result in a systemic disadvantage for some but not for others.

Another very controversial argument against affirmative action states that the minorities who are under-represented are not as capable as the dominant groups. Proponents of this argument point out that even though affirmative action polices have been in place for 30 years the number of Black and Latino college students remains below the level that would be expected from their population. A similar argument states that by admitting less qualified students and forcing employers to hire potentially less qualified employees they are hurting businesses, colleges and society as a whole. The rebuttal to such arguments generally cites economic and educational demographics as the reasons behind this discrepancy, hence the need for affirmitive action remaining.

Another criticism of affirmitive action claims that possible economic discrimination being overlooked in favor of affirmitive action. It claims that the beneficiaries of affirmative action would be wealthier members of minority groups; critics ask how equal-opportunities proponants would justify selecting a middle-class minority group member over a better qualified working-class member from the majority group. An effect of this is resentment towards the minorty among those overlooked because they are in the majority. This problem is present in some college admission programs, especially as they adopt need blind admissions policies.

===Libertarian view===

As a group, libertarians do not object to affirmative action on a voluntary basis any more than they object to any form of discrimination that individual people may freely choose to support, but they do object to state imposed requirements for affirmative action. They suggest that any form of unjustified discrimination is likely to lead to inefficiencies, and that a rational person would therefore be unlikely to seek to discriminate one way or another and should therefore be free to decide who to select.

I hope this helps to remove a some POV wording and statements and fixes other problems. —siroχo 20:27, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Does this work for people? If the page is unprotected, can we start from these changes and move forward with the article now? --Michael Snow 17:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At first glance, I'm okay with this. I'm very much in favor of returning the page to unprotected status. --LegCircus

Criticism of criticism section

• neglects to mention the most obvious objection to affirmative action, that it humiliates those who it is ment to benefit by showing them to be incapable of succeeding without governmental assistance.

• Govt. sanctioned racism of this type also promotes feelings of anger and resentment among those not benefitting from these policies (poor white males for example).

• The argument used by the universities that affirmative action improves the learning process by providing a diversae student body is easilly contested by the fact that a african american student who has spent his life in the community in which the university resides clearly provides less diversity to the educational environs than a swedish student, or even a european american student from another state (perhaps an appalacian or cajun?).

• the affirmative action law promotes one of the ugliest forms of state sponsored racism, the "one drop law", wherein a person w a single african reletive at any point along their family tree is deemed to be african american, despite the fact that many (perhaps most) "african americans" have more european blood than african.

• why are libertarians being mentioned here at all?

** Libertarians are being mentioned because we generally oppose race laws and coercion in general. We also generally believe in freedom of association, which is fundamentally in conflict with Affirmative Action. Let Sam Spade talk. He is interesting. I believe his writing will provoke thought about this subject in the minds of readers who do not already know everything about it. Let them make up their own minds. -- milesgl

All of that said, there seems to be enough community involvement and concensus that the article needs improved that I concur with suggestions the article be unprotected. Clearly a large amount of edits are going to be made, so lets all try very hard to work together, and not against one another. Sam [Spade] 20:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have now addressed your second point with the sentence added above "An effect of this is resentment towards the minorty among those overlooked because they are in the majority." Your first point is addressed somewhat in the article (not in this section on the talk page, but second paragraph of the article's criticism section), but might need expanding. The third point seems a bit irrelevent, as this article is not addressing "diversity" per se. I'm not that familiar with the 4th point, but historically those with few african ancestors were discriminated against just as much as those with only african ancestors, and that statement should be included as a rebuttal to the criticism. [[User:Siroxo|—siroχo

—siroχo]] 21:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

Okay, I've unprotected since there seems to be agreement that we can make progress again. Please edit carefully and continue to discuss any major changes before they happen. --Michael Snow 22:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

social discrimination

Is social discrimination a concept distinct from discrimination?

-- LegCircus

"Positive action" and "positive discrimination"

I've added a sentence on the UK situation which permits "positive action" but not "positive discrimination". This could be greatly expanded, based for instance on [1] and [2]. --195.11.216.59 12:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can I get specific objections to this sentence?

Folk repeatedly try to delete this sentence. Is it really that unbelievable? Can someone please tell me that I am not the only person living in the wikiworld that believes MLK and other civil rights leaders were concerned about class?

"Though affirmative action in the US is primarily associated with racial equality, the American civil rights movement originally intended it to correct the history of oppression against all working-class and low-income people."

--LegCircus 07:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I personally object to the statement "affirmative action in the US is primarily associated with racial equality". Affirmative action / positive discrimination are by definition state sponsored racism. Sam [Spade] 23:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my new version of the sentence. Sam [Spade] 00:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Big Revert

Apologies in advance if my revert of User:Rep. Mark B. Cohen was done in haste. However, the edits really messed up the article. Since the user was brand new and not active on this page, I felt it was easier to revert than to try to fix all the errors. Fuzheado | Talk 09:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal in "Purpose" section

I wanted to move what I cut from "Purpose" to talk, since its a little long, it seemed like the wrong place to introduce such an example, howeer it may belong somewhere in this article or wikipedia.

(for example, in the UK there are fewer Asian people in the police than might be expected given the proportion of Asians in the population in general)

—siroχo 10:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

POV in Criticism section

This section is not the place to insert advocacy or apologies for Affirmative Action. Please stop adding pro passages in the anti section. I deleted this:

Proponents counter that prejudice against the groups affirmative action benefits is still so ingrained in society that taking no direct measures against it amounts to willful blindness.

Where would this fit? It seems to me this article, and perhaps all controversial political articles, should have a descriptive, neutral section, a "pro" section, and an "anti" section. A major problem with this article is its inclusion of arguments *FOR* "affirmative action" in the descriptive section, as well as in the *CRITICISM* section. Is wikipedia a place for us to push a single POV? I think not. Provide information and let the reader think about it.

Re-formulated Criticism section

I have edited the criticism section, trying to weed out the advocacy statements and to clear up the syntax of the remaining stuff. I would appreciate comments from others familiar with the cases made against Affirmative Action. I think the sense is still there post-edit, but clearer, and more forthrightly stated. Anyone want to take on trying to assemble a "pro" section to balance the criticism section?? Or perhaps cleaning up the description section of pro or con tilt?

Unattributed Comments

A number of comments toward the end here are mine, and were not attributed. I have no excuse other than ignorance of convention, and (of course) passionate views on the subject.

Milesgl 20:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)