Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i've never understood how so many of the same people who deify MLK turn around and revile ward connerly.
My first reaction is, "They're not thinking." But I have to assume that at least some of them are. I think it maybe stems from the victim mentality that people fall into (including myself, sometimes), and they feel like they need the government to protect them from some imaginary boogieman.
People are often afraid of change. For example, a lot of people claim to want freedom and liberty, but if you suggest that we repeal things like drug laws, obscenity laws, etc., they change their tune. Even suggesting that we privatize 3% of social security makes them panic.
Back in the 90's, Texas (not sure if it was ALL public universities in the state or just some) did college admissions by giving every student a certain number of points based on high school grades, SAT scores, activities, AND race and sex. If you were female, you got points simply for that. If you were black, Hispanic, etc., you also got points simply for that. Insane....
Even suggesting that we privatize 3% of social security makes them panic.
the horror!
if i had a nickel for every time someone squalled that republicans were trying to kill off all the old folks by 'taking away' their social security, i could retire this instant.
unfortunately, their minds were made up, and pointing out facts like your 3% figure just infuriated them further.
I'm not too familiar with Affirmative Action, but any program that promotes inequality and preferance of one skin tone over the other is bound to be a failure. If a particular skin tone group is not getting jobs or not getting accepted into Colleges - the reasons why they are not should be evaluated. The only real solution is to empower these people so that they can perform on the level of other groups. Empowering someone is not giving one special treatment. If and only if all things are equal, and one group is favoured over the other, should they be accountable - be it company or educational institution as to why this is the case. In this regard, statistics on this matter should be maintained as is very useful information.
This sounds perfectly reasonable, but the fact of the matter is that no two 'groups' are EVER going to be completely 'equal', and any attempts to make it so, will ONLY succeed if we continually 'tinker' with the system, to get the results we're looking for..and we're going to get those results, only if we continually re-define our premise.
Take ANY two groups you can imagine....
Those 6 ft tall and UNDER, vs those 6'1" and OVER...
Men, vs Women
Those over 35, as opposed to those 35 or younger...
Those with blue eyes, vs those with brown eyes....
Those who are extroverts, vs those who are introverts...
Those who are "good looking", vs those who are "plain"..
In NO case, would your two groups be 'exactly equal' in every way...One would ALWAYS be 'better' than the other, in each and every category.
NOW, imagine that instead of TWO groups, you had six or eight....and instead of your 6 or 8 groups being sorted out as in the examples above, these groups were sorted out by "race"....(whatever that is defined as)...or by "culture" (?)....or by something similar. You'd STILL be up against the fact that NONE of your 6 or 8 groups would be "equal" in every way, nor COULD they be....and the only way you could MAKE them 'equal' is by 'juggling' your terms....'raising' the score of some groups, 'lowering' the score of others..'redefining' terms...or just throwing out all your data and CALLING all groups 'equal'. Otherwise, it won't happen.
People are individuals, and we expect them to perform as individuals. You can NOT seriously track the performance of a "group", because it has no meaning...(and that's even WITHOUT considering those many people who fit into TWO or more 'groups').
ALL such efforts at 'social engineering' require a certain amount of 'ignoring the data' and operating out of 'feelings'. That's the ONLY way you can make a "group" of people exactly equal to another group. Otherwise, ONE is going to be 'better', and one is going to be 'worse'....in each and every way you measure it. And if THAT is something you don't want to hear, then you're going to have to go 'back to the drawing board' until you come up with findings you DO want...no matter how long it takes.
OR..you could just save yourself a lot of hassle, and evaluate people as individuals.
Back in the 90's, Texas (not sure if it was ALL public universities in the state or just some) did college admissions by giving every student a certain number of points based on high school grades, SAT scores, activities, AND race and sex. If you were female, you got points simply for that. If you were black, Hispanic, etc., you also got points simply for that. Insane....
Luckily, the system was ruled unconstitutional.
Wow. And everybody thinks of Texas as being such a Republican state. I would never have guessed that they'd have a system like that.
if i had a nickel for every time someone squalled that republicans were trying to kill off all the old folks by 'taking away' their social security, i could retire this instant.
I know. Even though I mostly support Democrats, I thought it was so obvious that they were using the social security issue for political gains more than for any objective argument. They never mentioned that it would only be 3%. They portrayed it as being a 100% privatization of social security.
I saw a really interesting lecture recently talking about how what a person thinks about himself affects the way one turns out and how much they accomplish. I think affirmative action hurts those it is meant to help. It is damaging to a persons self-esteem to think that the only way they can make it is to have nanny government looking out for them. It is like the government telling them that they are inferior and cannot make it on their own. According to the lecture I saw, this is basically making them less likely to try as hard and think they can succeed. If the government is telling them they will only succeed if the company has to hire them, they will have a wrong idea as to their worth.
OR..you could just save yourself a lot of hassle, and evaluate people as individuals.
What?! Oh my God. And give up our preferred treatment?
A friend of mine (also gay) thinks that in five or ten years, after gay marriage is legal in a bunch of other states, gay rights groups will start pushing for affirmative action and quotas for gays in the workplace and in universities. I wish I could say I disagree with him, but I'm afraid I don't.
I saw a really interesting lecture recently talking about how what a person thinks about himself affects the way one turns out and how much they accomplish. I think affirmative action hurts those it is meant to help. It is damaging to a persons self-esteem to think that the only way they can make it is to have nanny government looking out for them. It is like the government telling them that they are inferior and cannot make it on their own. According to the lecture I saw, this is basically making them less likely to try as hard and think they can succeed. If the government is telling them they will only succeed if the company has to hire them, they will have a wrong idea as to their worth.
Very well said, and those are all points that Ward Connerly made when he pushed to remove affirmative action from California schools and public employee jobs.
I read something interesting the other day, where a father (well-off financially) told his sons that they didn't need to clean their rooms when they were kids because that was "poor people's work", and that they were above having to do chores like that. Apparently, the sons grew up to be quite arrogant, but they also turned out to be very confident and financially successful.
I saw a really interesting lecture recently talking about how what a person thinks about himself affects the way one turns out and how much they accomplish. I think affirmative action hurts those it is meant to help. It is damaging to a persons self-esteem to think that the only way they can make it is to have nanny government looking out for them. It is like the government telling them that they are inferior and cannot make it on their own. According to the lecture I saw, this is basically making them less likely to try as hard and think they can succeed. If the government is telling them they will only succeed if the company has to hire them, they will have a wrong idea as to their worth.
+1, excellent post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
