Affirmative Action Poll

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[BlooInBloo]

1. Aaahhh - a wonderful opportunity for white folks to establish their....

"it's not race it's class" bonafides!

Woot! I love white unity threads!

[crankychatter]

21. lmmfao @ "white unity threads"

u crack me up

:-)

[Buzz Clik]

29. No kidding. This thread is pure dung.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. Ugh. I agree. I hate these threads.

[woolldog]

2. There's an option missing:

Shouldn't exist at all

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. That Is Not A Realistic Option With The Raging Inequalities We Have

Like Lyndon Johnson said, you can't have a fair race when one of the competitors arrives with a ball and chain attached to his legs...

I'm just saying having broke parents can be as much as a detriment as anything...

[woolldog]

4. I voted "some mixture"

But to accurately capture the range of feelings people have on this issue, I think it's important to include all choices, even the ones we disagree with.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. There isn't always two sides to every issue.

This is democraticunderground, not conservative nutjob racist underground.

You don't need to bring up Creationism every time you have a discussion on evolution.

[woolldog]

18. Are you saying that if you're against AA you're a

conservative nutjob racist?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Well... yeah.

Pretty much.

Or just plain stupid.

[woolldog]

39. pathetic.

no argument, no reasoning, just call those who disagree with you stupid. that speaks volumes about your intelligence, sir.

[EffieBlack]

6. But it is a reality in America that being broke AND black is a greater detriment

Yes, income and class play a role, but race is still a critical factor that cannot be ignored.

[Indenturedebtor]

48. Yes but why not even out the advantages, rather than providing a disadvantage

For people who come from wealthier families? How about focusing on "affirmative" education, and "affirmative" small business/student loans, etc.

[locker13]

5. true

also what about AA based on geography (zip code)

[EffieBlack]

7. We have all sorts of "Affirmative Action" in America - including geographic preferences

that most colleges use in their admissions. But for some reason, the only ones that some folks complain about are the ones that they believe gives an advantage to racial minorities.

[woolldog]

8. I just wonder whether AA, for all it's benefits, is counterproductive, effie

It perpetuates this idea of minorities as less capable.

[EffieBlack]

13. I'm sorry, but that argument is bullshit

Anyone who believes that minorities are "less capable" does not need Affirmative Action as an excuse to hold such views - they would believe this even if Affirmative Action did not exist.

White males have benefitted from society's built-in Affirmative Action for centuries, yet they don't seem to worry about being thought of as "less capable" because they have had advantages - and they certainly don't run away from or decline such advantages bestowed upon them by virtue of their race and gender out of fear that someone might think ill of them. George W. Bush is probably the most obvious beneficiary of this kind of affirmative action, yet I have never once heard anyone suggest that the fact that he got where he is purely because of the grossest kind of preferential treatment bestowed in this country - treatment that is far beyond any acceptable Affirmative Action measure - in any way perpetuates the notion that other white males are "less capable."

Moreover, white women have benefitted from Affirmative Action as much as if not more than minorities, yet I never hear it argued that Affirmative Action somehow makes white women seem "less capable."

Only minorities are told, "Hey, Affirmative Action will hurt YOU since white people will think you're inferior." Why do you think Affirmative Action is even necessary? Because too many white people still think that blacks are
"less capable" and, unless affirmative steps are taken to ensure that blacks have as much of an opportunity to compete as whites, blacks will continue to fight an uphill battle.

I'm sorry, but that argument really sticks in my craw. Not only is it paternalistic, it is just plain spurious.

[Frank Booth]

46. This may be the most cogent response I've ever seen to that argument.

:thumbsup:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. Just like giving the fellow runner you clubed in the kneecap a head start would perpetuate the idea

that he is less capable as a runner.

[LordJFT]

44. I agree with you there though I'd be open to class-based affirmative action

I think AA in its current form is counterproductive. But I think this may be a losing argument for us on this messageboard.

[EffieBlack]

56. What is it about "AA in its current form" that is counterproductive?

I'm really curious to know what you think is problematic about existing affirmative action.

[ej510]

9. I'm against affirmative action. I believe that we need self-reliance.

That is the main issue that I have kept from my days as a member of the Nation Of Islam. Don't say it. Just do it. I am also against legacies the original version of affirmative action.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. On Some Issues The NOI Is Very Conservative As You Know

~

[ej510]

20. You are so right.

[Doityourself]

36. 'I am also against legacies the original version of affirmative action.'

And there you go..speaking truth.. Legacies are exactly that as is..the "old boys network!"

[Breeze54]

47. 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps — if you can afford the boots...'

Spoken like a true Republican!! Well done, ej510! :sarcasm: :silly:

Nailing the frames of the Republican National Convention

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/01_lakoff_gop2.shtml

By George Lakoff | 1 September 2004

How compassionate conservatism and its programs differ from Democrats' can be summarized by two sentences taken from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's speech: "Our opponents have a way of confusing compassion with dependency. We believe true compassion encourages and empowers Americans to be responsible and take control of their own lives."

This sentiment - and the many others like it expressed - come straight out of the strict-father model I described in "Moral Politics." In short: in the conservative worldview, the world is and always will be a dangerous and difficult place, a competitive environment in which there will always be winners and losers. The father's job, and by extension the government's, is to protect and support the family, and it is his moral duty to teach his children right from wrong, using physical discipline when necessary, so that they will gain the internal discipline to do right rather than just "what feels good." Such discipline also allows people to pursue their self-interest to become self-reliant and prosperous.

Morality and prosperity are thus linked through discipline. This focus on discipline is seen as a form of love- "tough love." Without such discipline you can be neither prosperous nor moral, and hence if you don't prosper, it's your own fault. Thus there is a natural hierarchy of morality linked with prosperity. The prosperous are the good, and therefore should rule. "Compassion" is helping disciplined people make it, or at least keeping the government from getting in their way.

Let's break down the major framing elements bit by bit.

Michael Steele, Maryland lieutenant governor: "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and incentive. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they should do for themselves."

The first four sentences are code for lower taxes. They invoke the old stereotype of liberals as socialists out to redistribute wealth through class warfare. The implication is that liberals want to rescue the weak (the poor) by sabotaging the hard work of the strong (the rich)

The Steele quotation's last two sentences are basically a strict-father lecture about the importance of doing it yourself. It's immoral to accept help or to help people because then (as Frist declared), they might get dependent. What about people who work hard and play by the rules, but simply because of the structure of the economy, can't make it? They're not in the frame. The 40 million Americans who work hard but still have no health care and can thus be bankrupted by a major illness are not in the frame. In this economy, an enormous amount of work doesn't pay enough to live on. For this economy to function, somebody has to do such work and get paid too little. A quarter of the American work force is outside the Republican frame.

To summarize: The basic assumption of conservatism is that there is a hierarchy of merit, and that merit is based on whether you are disciplined enough to succeed. So, social programs are immoral because they give people things that they haven't earned and therefore make them dependent. If you don't make it, it's your own fault; the idea of cycles of poverty does not exist. Only people who can make it are in the frame - people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California: If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican!

There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people, and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"

These principles hold only for cases that fit the conservative frame that is being built up here. Let's parse this Republican rallying cry sentence by sentence.

Government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government: Now, he doesn't really mean that Dick Cheney should be accountable to the people, say, by revealing the notes of his secret conferences about energy policy. What Schwarzenegger is invoking is the traditional conservative preference for smaller government, less regulation . except, that is, when the strict-father world view requires bigger government, as in a larger military and a new Department of Homeland Security, and more regulation, like the Patriot Act. The principle holds for the cases that fit conservative values.

more...

Rethugs are sic, greedy, stingy, motha fockers! :grr:

[LittleBlue]

30. I disagree with the current affirmative action

It should be based on economic condition. College admission should be based on scholastic and community excellence, as well as diversity of background. Not race.

[Breeze54]

49. AA involves much more than college admissions.... and we need to keep it! n/t

[newmajority]

11. The most blatant inequality in this country is of an economic nature

..and the policies of the last 28 years (reverse Robin Hood) have only made it worse. Of course it's also a fact that many of the poorest communities are also predominately non-caucasian.

[crankychatter]

12. of course opportunities need to be made available to low income whites

especially the disabled

but economic based transformation of AA is a back door to eliminating Affirmative Action altogether...

and YOU can bet, it won't be supplanted with jack shit

I'm a busted up old white guy and I can walk into any predominately white area in america almost... and get a job...

ONLY because I'm white

AA MUST STAY

[EffieBlack]

14. Thank you -

You may be "busted up" but you are beautiful to me. :hug:

[crankychatter]

16. don't be nice to me.... I'll fall in love and you'll have to get a restraining order - nt

:-)

[Doityourself]

37. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[Sparkly]

22. I agree -- two different things.

Opportunity for people with low incomes is important, as well, but it shouldn't get into the mix with affirmative action. The issues addressed (and redressed) are different.

[ecstatic]

15. If Obama were not famous, he would face the same discrimination that

other blacks face when applying for jobs (even jobs they are overqualified for). He would have it even worse due to his name. So income based Aff.Act. alone doesn't address disparities--it's a good start as far as taking into account poor educational systems, etc., but it doesn't take into account the same discrimination that we're witnessing on a nationwide scale when it comes to accepting people who are "different."

[LordJFT]

45. that is true when you're talking about jobs

however college admissions have the ability to be colorblind

[ecstatic]

53. fair enough, but, it should be based on the high school's ranking

because many black students in middle/upper class neighborhoods attend under-performing schools (that's often the case when really nice areas are alongside poor areas).

[Empowerer]

57. College admissions are not colorblind

Unfortuunately, many people believe the fallacy that, absent race-based affirmative action, college admissions would be an objective process, that GPA and test scores are the only determinant for admission, and are only veered away from in affirmative action. That just isn't true. All sorts of subjective factors go into determining who is and isn't admitted. I've served on an admissions committee and been very involved in these processes, so I know this first-hand.

For example, faced with two students with identical GPAs and test scores, we must look at many other subjective factors. For example, what classes did the students take? Did one student score a 3.5 by taking "gut" courses while the other had taken extremely difficult ones? Did one student work or play sports or engage in community service while the other did no extra-curricular activities? What were the students' backgrounds? What were their goals and career objectives?

We looked at a number of things in addition to these. Where were the students from? Did they come from a part of the country that was underrepresented at the school? Did they have a particular talent or interest that was particularly compelling (a special musical gift, an ability to speak several languages by virtue of having grown up in many countries, etc.)?

And, yes, legacy, connections and financial wherewithal were a big part of the process for many of the decisionmakers. Did they have a relative who had gone to the school? Did they come from a family with big bucks that could bestow largesse upon the school? Did they have a family or other close connection to a powerful member of the state legislature or U.S. Congress who could be helpful to the school down the road? Etc., etc. Almost exclusively, these considerations overwhelmingly benefitted white applicants.

It is impossible for a successful and meaningful admissions process to be completely objective. Schools would end up with a bunch of students with high GPAs and high test scores and no life skills, no ability to contribute to the school or society. The admissions process necessarily considers a wide range of factors of racial background and diversity are but a small part.

Sadly, many have distorted the facts and - partly in an effort to demagogue the issue for their own ends - convinced people that affirmative action is some kind of an anomaly that gives black students an unfair advantage and unfairly disadvantages whites. But that's just not borne out by the facts. We could eliminate affirmative action tomorrow, and there would STILL be all manner of advantages provided to applicants - unfortunately, those advantages would be stacked in favor of whites (mostly white males) and would merely perpetuate the problems that affirmative action was designed to - and does - alleviate in a very careful, targeted and measured way.

[Adelante]

17. Income nt

[hokies4ever]

23. Where's Tim Wise when you need him?

He'd blow this poll to bits. :rofl:

[sniffa]

24. I voted race or gender

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5065371

[cbc5g]

25. Affirmative action should help all those in need whatever race or gender they are

Don't forget what Jim Webb said about why Appalachian folk have a hard time voting for liberals. It's partly because Appalachian people feel that they are left out from affirmative action opportunities. They are left out and they are stuck in poverty with no where to go. Should they be ignored just because they are poor and white?

[EffieBlack]

38. Most affirmative action programs target "underserved" or "underrepresented" people - in some

instances, that would be Appalachians.

For example, the University of Michigan affirmative action program that so many people tried to attack because they thought it only benefitted racial minorities actually benefitted people of varying backgrounds, depending upon the circumstances. For example, men who wanted to enter into traditionally female occupations (e.g., nursing) were given additional points. White students who attended predominantly black high schools were given points. Whites who lived in certain areas of the country that were underrepresented in the school - including Appalachia - were given points.

Of course, we heard very little about these areas of "preference." The only beneficiaries that people complained about and that were subjected to legal attack were African Americans.

And, let's not forget that plenty of those Appalachians are white women - who have been the single largest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

Affirmative Action isn't only for black people, notwithstanding the false arguments that are constantly given to justify undermining it. And the sooner we stop allowing our politicians to play the zero sum game and scaring white people to death by trying to convince them of the fallacy that black people are getting all of the breaks and they are being kicked to the curb, the better off we will ALL be.

[Yukari Yakumo]

26. Option 4

Affirmative Action should be outlawed.

What good does it do now? It's an outdated concept that's outlived its usefulness.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

35. Yes. Racial and Gender equality reigns all over America.

[Yukari Yakumo]

42. Problem is you can't legislate it.

Affirmative Action only creates an artificial equality. The underlying inequality still remains, you only apply a band-aid solution to it.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. .

I merely asked a question... I didn't even allow for right wing response in my poll options. I do not deserve this kind of abuse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. .

I merely asked a question... I didn't even allow for right wing response in my poll options. I do not deserve this kind of abuse.

[slackmaster]

31. Other Other - A combination of THREE factors...

Race, socioeconomic status (not simply income), and intelligence.

[anonymous171]

40. All three.

[Colobo]

41. Base AA on income only- poor people regardless of color

are the ones who truly suffer in this country.

[EFerrari]

43. Maybe you're too young to remember when no amount of money

could buy a non-Anglo kid into a good school or a host of other places. :)

[Breeze54]

50. AA is to INCREASE the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and

Affirmative Action

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

First published Fri Dec 28, 2001; substantive revision Fri Mar 4, 2005

“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas
of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve
preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.

more..... at the link.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Until the primary education system is cleaned up and rendered equal

Affirmative Action should remain in particular in higher education.

Primary Schools are funded for the most part based on property tax revenues. The better the neighborhood, the higher the values of the homes, the more money the schools in those areas get and the more resources are spent on those kids. It isn't a level playing field, and until it is more equitable starting with early and primary education, Affirmative Action helps those young people who got a bad start through no fault of their own. I do believe that income should be worked in tantum though...

Also, Affirmative Action is not just for Black folks; it is for all minorities.

In California, they got rid of it, and you know what happened? Minority enrollment at most State colleges and Universities went down drastically. Know why? Because the kids who have a better foundation end up with a better score on their SATs. You know which minorities still got accepted though? The athletes. Weird how Black Athletes still getting into schools like UCLA, USC and UC Berkeley....while the academically gifted minorities are left to compete without regard of their possible original circumstances.

There are a lot of Affirmative Action/Legacy situations that don't get discussed. I know that the "Alumni" legacy is alive and active and no one complaints about that one much. I wonder how many admission slots are taken up by the sons and daughters of those who were priviledged enough to attend certain universities going back a few generations? Where's the "discussion" and "polls" on that one? :shrug:

[EffieBlack]

58. Thank you!

There are countless affirmative action "programs" for whites (especially white males), but the only ones people seem to object to - and poll on - are the tiny handful that are viewed as benefitting minorities.

It is interesting that, despite affirmative action programs, whites STILL have most of the privileges in this society and still get the lion's share of the jobs, college slots, etc., that far exceed their proportion of the population. Yet no one says a peep about that. An applicant who didn't get in to the University of Michigan looked around the class and saw about 90% of the admitted students were white. She raised no question about how those white students got there. She didn't demand to know whether any of those students were less "qualified" than she was. She didn't insist that one of the large group of white students admitted had filled a seat that she had earned. No - instead, she targeted the black students who got in and sued, claiming that one of THEM had taken HER spot.

In other words, to many people, affirmative action for other white people is fine and if one of those white affirmative action admissions slips in ahead of them, no big deal - after all, life's not fair. They have no problem with a system that gives clearly less qualified white people an advantage over them. But there something TERRIBLY wrong with a system that lets BLACK PEOPLE in ahead of them, even if there's no evidence that those black people were less qualified.

When it comes to opposition to affirmative action, the bottom line for many people is based purely on a sense of entitlement that is still all too prevalent today - a sense that it's ok and even expected to fall below some white people on the Great American Totem Pole, but it's never, never ok to fall below black folk.

[ellisonz]

52. Why is this GDP?