Who's Running for President?

[andyfox]

Apparently the Bush administration will file a brief opposing affirmative action at the University of Michigan. I'm sure we'll have vigorous discussion of this, but I prefer to wait until they actually file the brief to see what it says.

However, I thought the reactions of Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt were interesting. Here they are, from the AP story:

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle called it "a watershed moment for the administration. They have to decide whether they're for civil rights and diversity or not."

Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, a graduate of the University of Michigan law school who says he'll seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said he planned to file a brief in support of the university's program. "I believe affirmative action is an essential tool in expanding educational opportunities to minorities," he said.

Daschle spoke in generalities, accusations, and political buzzwords. Gephardt spoke his mind clearly and concisely. I imagine they both feel the same way about affirmative action, but what a pleasure to hear Gephardt speak in English as opposed to demo-politicalese.

If I didn't know who was running for president and who was not, I would have guessed that the guy speaking in generalities was running for president, and the guy who spoke in clear English, annunciating an unpopular position, was not.

[HDPM]

Yeah, you make a good point. Anytime somebody uses the word "diversity" I get suspicious. In fact, schools are using that collectivist, tribalist concept to justify their affirmative action programs. And diversity of what? Smart people and dumb people? Conservatives an liberals? (Most assuredly not!) Affirmative action OTOH, can at least be justified because of past discriminatory practices. I tend to favor enhanced educational opportunity, but oppose affirmative action. So I guess that makes me a hopeless idealist, because I admit without affirmative action there would probably be a whole lot more discrimination and less opportunity for those of certain races. One other thing re: "diversity." harvard Law School introduced the concept of "geographic diversity" in admissions back in the day in order to discriminate against New York Jews. Kind of interesting.

[marbles]

I am totally against Bush on this one, and am excited to wear my liberal hat for a while, but for now I gotta go. Will share tomorrow.

[Zeno]

My campagin slogan: Since your vote is a waste, waste it on me.

My platform will be to prove democracy a farce, politics a demagogic morass, and the majority of people as willfully ignorant.

I will do this by explaining everything in rational and scientific terms. I will, therefore; never be in danger of being elected or even considered dangerous enough to be shot. QED for my platform. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

-Zeno

[marbles]

I honestly don't think TD can speak any other language. He could be out of politics altogether and that same drivel would come out of his mouth. Thing is, he does the dem's a real favor by limiting his existence to conservative-bashing. That takes care of a lot of the dirty work for guys like Gephardt et al, who can look like stand-up guys throughout the early stages of their campaigns.

By the way, Bush is nuts to come anywhere near this issue. People on the whole quietly oppose affirmative action, but this is the one area where it does a ton of good. Actually, to call it affirmative action isn't really even fair; all the educational institutions are doing is admitting some kids that might not otherwise make it. Once in the program, the students have to pull their own weight academically. Some will flunk out, some will not, but the initial offer is clear: The individual is given an open door, and open book, and an opportunity to make a success of himself.

Like the tax break, I can't see the harm in this. I really hope the president backs off of this issue.

[andyfox]

I might not have this quote exactly right, but I believe Winston Churchill said anyone who is in favor of democracy has never spent five minutes with the average voter.

BTW, you have my vote. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I just read that Ms. Rice, in an unusual departure from her foreign policy concerns, participated in the internal debate on the issue. She is opposed to affirmative action.

Mr. Powell, on the other hand, is in favor of affirmative action, or at least he was prior to joining the administration. I remember seeing an interview in which he said something to the effect that he didn't see what irreparable harm could come to the country because a few hundred extra black kids had the chance to get a good education.

[Zeno]

Thank you Andy. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Thats one. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[IrishHand]

all the educational institutions are doing is admitting some kids that might not otherwise make it

At the expense of other kids who actually earned the right to be there, but are now denied because of the color of their skin. Yeah...sure sounds like that policy is doing "a ton of good."

[John Cole]

at the expense of other kids who had earned the right to be there

Sorry to be a contrarian, but had they earned the right to be there, they would be there, especially given the point system used by Michigan.

[marbles]

"At the expense of other kids who actually earned the right to be there, but are now denied because of the color of their skin."
--Depends on your point of view. Let's say a system works out so that white kids with a 3.5 GPA get in, and black kids with a 3.2 GPA get in. If a white kid gets a 3.3 GPA, he has not earned his spot, IMHO. Whether or not black kids with lower GPA's get into the program is ENTIRELY irrelevant. And if the white kid doesn't like it, well, he should have studied harder. Plus, there's always DeVry.

[B-Man]

No, it does not depend on your point of view. Marbles, no offense, but that is just absurd. You are advocating for discrimination based on race. You want to exclude the more-qualified student (3.30 GPA) and give that spot to a less qualified student (3.20 GPA) because of the color of their skin. That is immoral.

Students should be admitted to school based on their qualifications. If you exclude a more qualified candidate because of the color of his skin, you are doing EXACTLY what liberals say affirmative action is meant to remedy--you are discriminating on the basis of race. Sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right.

[marbles]

"You want to exclude the more-qualified student (3.30 GPA) and give that spot to a less qualified student (3.20 GPA) because of the color of their skin. That is immoral."
--Apparently, you've never met a college dropout. I'm not "giving" a spot to anyone. When it comes to education, getting in the door is a tiny part of success, followed by years of tests and trials that precede the diploma.

I know I keep harping on this, but I think it's the key difference between this form of AA (which I obviously support) and AA in the workplace (which I agree is immoral). In this particular case, the difference between the credentials of the black applicant and the white applicant at the time of application is miniscule anyway (0.1 GPA point), so I err to the side of diversity. Eventually, the educational process will determine whether or not it was a mistake.

[marbles]

"That is immoral."
--This week, I've supported a conservative view (industry) and a liberal one (AA in education). The only consistency in the arguments is that I've been called immoral in both cases. I must REALLY be a sick son-of-a-... /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[B-Man]

I'm not "giving" a spot to anyone. When it comes to education, getting in the door is a tiny part of success, followed by years of tests and trials that precede the diploma.

Of course getting in the door doesn't guarantee you a diploma, but you can't get a diploma if you don't get in the door. Why should someone be denied the chance to attend because of the color of their skin?

In this particular case, the difference between the credentials of the black applicant and the white applicant at the time of application is miniscule anyway (0.1 GPA point), so I err to the side of diversity.

So now you are saying that discrimination is ok if the difference in qualifications is small? How is that relevant? Either you are dsicriminating or you aren't. (Also, the difference isn't small to the students you are excluding)

Race discrimination is wrong, and it is wrong regardless of which race you are discriminating against. What if the Unviersity of Michigan decided that they were going to give white students, rather than black students, a "plus" based on their race? This would never be accepted, and I very much doubt you would support it.

[John Cole]

B-Man,

"Qualifications" is a fuzzy, often nebulous concept. I could argue--but I won't--that some candidates with a 3.2 GPA are much more "qualified" than candidates with a 3.5 GPA. One friend who works for a large, well-known manufacturing company hires new engineers. Almost immediately, he discards the resumes of those candidates with perfect GPA's. Why? Because, as he says, students with perfect GPA's have often spent their college years focused on one thing--attaining a perfect GPA. He finds the students with lower GPA's much more "qualified."

Also, you are simply begging the question when you state that giving preferences to minority students equals discrimination against white students. This is not so despite the claims of conservatives who are so offended by this practice. A quick tour of Michigan's campus should confirm this.

John

[B-Man]

I agree "qualifications" is a very subjective concept. But I think the discussion centers around racial preferences. I happen to think racial preferences are wrong. Apparently you think they are a good thing (at least when used to exclude white students). I think diversity is great--lets just not exclude the most qualified students in favor of less qualified students.

Also, you are simply begging the question when you state that giving preferences to minority students equals discrimination against white students.

Why is it different? Why is it morally ok to exclude one student on the basis of race in favor of another of a different race? It sure isn't any different to the students involved--whover is excluded is going to be pretty damn unhappy about it, and with good reason.

[marbles]

"So now you are saying that discrimination is ok if the difference in qualifications is small?"

--In a word, YES. The degree of difference (0.1) is tiny, and the reward (admittance with no guarantees of success) is similarly small. OTOH, everyone in the class benefits by having a diverse setting, the economy benefits if that black student becomes a success story in the business world, and society benefits if that black student becomes a strong role model. In poker terms, the decision is extremely +EV overall.

If I have to be the evil discriminator in the process, so be it. I'm already an evil destroyer of the environment anyway.

And by the way, I do know the laundry list of arguments that the liberals use on this subject, and am avoiding them intentionally.

[nicky g]

don't you think there's any merit in lowering the bar for people who are statistically far more likely to come from a disadvantaged background? if it was a purely racial thing, i take your point, and it would be a strange thing to do; but black and minority children often have it much harder than their white college kid counterparts. the point is to try and make up for the disavantages conferrered on the black community by discrimination in the past. personally i think it should work on a class/ecomomic background basis, but the black community is entitled to such minor compensations for decades of mistreatment and exploitation.

[marbles]

"the point is to try and make up for the disavantages conferrered on the black community by discrimination in the past. personally i think it should work on a class/ecomomic background basis, but the black community is entitled to such minor compensations for decades of mistreatment and exploitation."

-I agree with your position, but hugely disagree with your reasoning. IMO, opening doors for minorities should have nothing to do with the past, and everything to do with the future.

[B-Man]

If it was done on an economic and color-blind basis, I would have far less objections. That is probably what the solutions will end up being.

I don't feel that the way to address past racial discrimination is to discriminate in the opposite way in the future. Now you aren't solving anything or helping the people who suffered, you are just creating more victims, and more resentment against the people you are trying to help.

[marbles]

"If it was done on an economic and color-blind basis, I would have far less objections. That is probably what the solutions will end up being."

--Funny thing is, we'd probably end up with very similar results if we did it this way.

"I don't feel that the way to address past racial discrimination is to discriminate in the opposite way in the future."
--Now I'm with you. AA as a form of reparation is flawed logic, and it has no place in my argument.

[nicky g]

well i agree - my point was the the past has created the conditions that make aa neccesary for a fairer future. i mean compensation in the sense of compensating for unfair disadvantages/redressing the balance - not as in rewarding people for having suffered or punishing anyone else.

[andyfox]

All the kids who are admitted are qualified and thus have earned the right to be there.

[marbles]

"my point was the the past has created the conditions that make aa neccesary for a fairer future."
--That's true, to a certain degree. But you have to be really careful when you use words like "the past."

If by "the past," you mean that the minority kid had to grow up in a garbage public school system, then you may have a point. OTOH, I've heard people mention slavery or segregation from the 50's as part of this argument; both are absurdly misapplied here. Of course, they, too, are referring to "the past."

[nicky g]

by the past i mean a continuous history of discrimination, which eventually goes back to segregation and at a stretch, slavery. current conditions obviously have little direct relations to those things, but nor did they come randomly out of the blue.