[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985.

I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985.

I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification?

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985.

I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification?

If you mean as a hiring preference, then I'd be opposed to it. I'm not opposed to outreach/job fair type of stuff where you try to attract more applicants from underrepresented groups, or make them aware of opportunities, but I'm opposed to preferring one candidate to another based on race.

[cherdanno]

So you are even against affirmative action when it is in the employer's own interests to increase the diversity among its employee's? I.e. the employer cannot hire who is the most useful person in the job, but has to hire someone "most qualified" according to an abstract color-blind standard?

[Lobowolf]

Yes, I don't believe that the employer's desired racial makeup of the workforce as a whole is enough of a justification for racial discrimination against a particular applicant.

[luke warm]

affirmative action (wiki) - The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. The principle of affirmative action stipulates --- to treat unequals as equals is to perpetuate inequality.

definition – noun
the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, esp. in employment.

my view is that anyone who is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, age, & etc. should have protection against such discrimination under the law... to do otherwise belays the words "[...]We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal [...]I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character[...]"

i was a junior in high school in jackson, ms in june of 1966 during dr. king's march... i put king at the top of my 'greatest americans who ever lived' list... it is a short list - 3 founding fathers and king

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

... I.e. the employer cannot hire who is the most useful person in the job, but has to hire someone "most qualified" according to an abstract color-blind standard?

i believe king lived and died for such a "color-blind standard" although "most qualified" should not be, and usually is not, the main criterion

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

So you are even against affirmative action when it is in the employer's own interests to increase the diversity among its employee's? I.e. the employer cannot hire who is the most useful person in the job, but has to hire someone "most qualified" according to an abstract color-blind standard?

My turn.

Let's say a particular campus (UCLA, for example) would like to have a more diverse campus. And let's say that Asian-American students are "overrepresented" in the school's demographics. If two applicants are being considered for the last admissions spot, and an Asian-American student is regarded as slightly better than an African-American candiate by objective criteria (LSAT, grades), and even by color-blind subjective criteria (reading their essays without knowing the races of the applicants), and they grew up in the same socio-economic stratum and attended the same schools, would you favor a public school's being able to reject the Asian-American student solely on the basis of race, to create a more diverse campus?

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

If two applicants are being considered for the last admissions spot...

UCLA is almost full. Room for only one more.

[mike777]

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

As for judges, there are numerous judgeships open that go unfilled for years. No doubt we need even more positions to handle the caseload.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

If two applicants are being considered for the last admissions spot...

UCLA is almost full. Room for only one more.

There's always a last one accepted, and a first one rejected.

[cherdanno]

I don't think your example is analogous at all. It is evidently desirable for a school in a diverse district to have a diverse teacher body. If you don't agree with that then we probably don't have any basis for a discussion.
I still shouldn't dodge your question, but it really depends on the context, of which I don't know enough. But I disagree with your implication that two students from different racial background, but same socio-economic status and having attended the same school necessarily have the equal opportunities. For example, if that school had an all white-and-Asian teacher body, and there was evidence for implicit discrimination by the teachers against black students, then yes there would be reason to give preference to a Black candidate from that school. Vice versa if there was discrimination against Asian students.
Of course, in the individual case, we do not know of such discrimination. I suppose one of the thing you are arguing against is the presumption of discrimination in the individual case "just" because discrimination exists in the society in general. Well, we will have to disagree on that one.

(Nevertheless, I agree that affirmative action based on socio-economic background and schools is a better start than based on race.)

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

I don't think your example is analogous at all. It is evidently desirable for a school in a diverse district to have a diverse teacher body. If you don't agree with that then we probably don't have any basis for a discussion.

In one of the big affirmative action cases that pertained to college admissions, it was posited, similarly, that it's desirable to have a diverse student body. The position advanced was to the effect that it was good for the other students to have wider exposure to differerent viewpoints and backgrounds in the classroom discussions.

If you don't agree that a school has an interest in promoting a racially diverse student body, then it probably is a poor analogy.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

I don't think your example is analogous at all. It is evidently desirable for a school in a diverse district to have a diverse teacher body. If you don't agree with that then we probably don't have any basis for a discussion.

In one of the big affirmative action cases that pertained to college admissions, it was posited, similarly, that it's desirable to have a diverse student body. The position advanced was to the effect that it was good for the other students to have wider exposure to differerent viewpoints and backgrounds in the classroom discussions.

If you don't agree that a school has an interest in promoting a racially diverse student body, then it probably is a poor analogy.

As far as college admission, again I would prefer that we focus on increasing the supply of education rather than demand which raises costs.

Here is one idea for college admission methods for schools that get taxpayer dollars:

1) Each school sets mimimum objective requirements, example 2.5 GPA and 600SAT or whatever you prefer.
2) Set a cut off date for accepting admission requests.
3) If you have too many requests for open slots use a lottery.


If you are unhappy with the minimum requirements, change them next year.

edit: I would add this is for Freshman students, you can give applicants a second shot by setting up some new minimum objective standards and doing the same thing for transfering in students in later years.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

you're right.. do you have any such ideas?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

you're right.. do you have any such ideas?

The government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on various projects would certainly create a lot of jobs.

[mike777]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

you're right.. do you have any such ideas?

Here is one idea.

You may have a better one.


http://online.wsj.co...2014535347.html

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

you're right.. do you have any such ideas?

The government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on various projects would certainly create a lot of jobs.

Hopefully so, and I pray it does, just not sure about three issues:
1) The cost per new job?
2) How many jobs are simply redistributed rather than newly created?
3) Where does the moneycome from?

[jdonn]

1. $37,892.64 on average. Seriously even if you could measure it would not account for the benefits of ___ project being completed anyway.
2. I am only talking about how many jobs would be created. If others would be 'stolen' I really do not care either way.
3. A combination of income tax revenue from these people who now have jobs, savings on unemployment for these people who no longer need it (as well as perhaps their spouses), and our poor starving cheated future generations who will be unfairly saddled with the debt of paying for the roads they will also be driving on.

[kenberg]

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 30 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 30 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985.

I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification?

Although this is an ongoing interchange between Lobo and Cher, I want to comment.

The firefighter's case is real. The diverse (with the usual coded meaning of the word) high school with all white teachers is hypothetical. Let's look at a real system.

Until I moved some four years ago I lived for several years in Prince George's County in Maryland. The schools system is county run and is frequently referred to as the wealthiest majority black school district in the nation. If this hypothetical problem of excessive whiteness in the teaching force with a diverse student body were to arise, PG would be a likely place.

In fact what happens is that they have a great deal of difficulty attracting strong teachers. In the spring they announce that they will be hiring only fully qualified teachers. As the summer wears on reality sets in and they hire whomever they can get. They would be happy to have good teachers, be they black, white or heliotrope. If they had a qualified white candidate and a qualified black candidate I am sure they would hire them both and probably send out for champaigne.

It's better to stick with the case of the firefighters. They are real.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately this issue comes up when discussing how to divide up a fixed sized pie, rather than trying to grow the pie. Needless to say politics will override everything in who gets the last position.

I much rather increase supply rather than focus on demand.

Hope to see more ideas on how to grow the supply of education or number of jobs.

you're right.. do you have any such ideas?

The government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on various projects would certainly create a lot of jobs.

i can't say i disagree since i'd probably do the same, if i were dictator... doing something about bridges and highways crumbling is something that falls within the fed gov'ts purview, imo