Positive Discrimination

[C1ay]

Positive discrimination is an oxymoron, there is nothing positive about discrimination.

 

Discrimination :

1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

 

To treat any individual differently because the belong to any particular category is prejudicial to all individuals that do not belong to that category. Individuals should be treated with a preference for who they are, not the category they belong to. No individual should suffer any negative preference simply because they belong to a particular category.

[sebbysteiny]

To treat any individual differently because the belong to any particular category is prejudicial to all individuals that do not belong to that category. Individuals should be treated with a preference for who they are, not the category they belong to.

 

So would you say that investing more in education in black areas is 'prejudicial' to those that are not black even though education standards in black communities are almost always worse than their white counterparts. If you say yes, are you not sanctioning aparteid policy which is itself prejudice?

[Racoon]

Positive discrimination is an oxymoron, there is nothing positive about discrimination.

 

 

 

To treat any individual differently because the belong to any particular category is prejudicial to all individuals that do not belong to that category. Individuals should be treated with a preference for who they are, not the category they belong to. No individual should suffer any negative preference simply because they belong to a particular category.

 

Absolutely Clay,

but since there IS discrimination, I believe the point of positive Discrimination is to level the playing field so-to-speak.

 

So, while it may not be/seem right, Its there.

Descrimination occurs. So, is it fair to have Positive Discrimination? or does that perpetuate a divide?

[C1ay]

Absolutely Clay,

but since there IS discrimination, I believe the point of positive Discrimination is to level the playing field so-to-speak.

 

So, while it may not be/seem right, Its there.

Descrimination occurs. So, is it fair to have Positive Discrimination? or does that perpetuate a divide?

That it exists does not make it right. Individuals should be treated for who they are, not for any group they are in.

[C1ay]

So would you say that investing more in education in black areas is 'prejudicial' to those that are not black even though education standards in black communities are almost always worse than their white counterparts. If you say yes, are you not sanctioning aparteid policy which is itself prejudice?

No, you should be free to invest wherever you like. That any individual or group wants to help any other group is not necessarily discrimination, i.e. just because I donate to the Diabetic Association does not mean I am discriminating against the Heart Association.

[TheFaithfulStone]

No individual should suffer any negative preference simply because they belong to a particular category.

 

But individuals already suffer negative preferences because they belong to a specific group. The playing field is not level, and it is not level highly correlated to race, income, and family situation. In order for the situation to be where people are NOT judged based on factors beyond their control, the playing field must be leveled. The execution may be lacking, but the impulse is moral.

 

Affirmative action doesn't give "negatives" to white folks, but additional "positives" to African-Americans.

 

Also, I believe that "positive discrimination" is an idiomatic term (in Britain) for what is referred to in the US as "affirmative action."

[C1ay]

But individuals already suffer negative preferences because they belong to a specific group. The playing field is not level, and it is not level highly correlated to race, income, and family situation. In order for the situation to be where people are NOT judged based on factors beyond their control, the playing field must be leveled. The execution may be lacking, but the impulse is moral.

 

Affirmative action doesn't give "negatives" to white folks, but additional "positives" to African-Americans.

 

Also, I believe that "positive discrimination" is an idiomatic term (in Britain) for what is referred to in the US as "affirmative action."

Two wrongs do not make a right!

[TheFaithfulStone]

Two wrongs do not make a right!

 

And allowing one wrong to stand unchecked is preferable to an (admittedly imperfect) solution?

 

You have to do SOMETHING Clay, and if you have an idea, I would really like to hear it! Obviously, affirmative action does not work - look around. The ghettos are still black, people still cross the street when they see black teenagers coming. The nation is still lily white with the exception of the Army, pro-sports, and entertainment.

 

Besides, from any but a deontological standpoint, you haven't shown affirmative action to be a "wrong."

 

TFS

[C1ay]

You have to do SOMETHING Clay...

No you don't. All that needs to be done is stopping any continuing discrimination. Past wrongs are wrongs. Doing nothing to undo them is not leaving them unchecked, that would be the result of allowing them to continue.

 

Besides, from any but a deontological standpoint, you haven't shown affirmative action to be a "wrong."

Any practices that award a job to an unqualified individual over a qualified indiviudual over some variable that neither has any control over is obviously wrong. People do not choose to be white or black, man or woman, this nationality or that one, etc.. These things should not be held against them and certainly not in some attempt to correct some wrong committed by someone else.

 

The ghettos are still black, people still cross the street when they see black teenagers coming. The nation is still lily white with the exception of the Army, pro-sports, and entertainment.

So. There will always be ghettos. Oppressing others will not change that. There will always be people that cross the street when they see black teenagers coming until there is a time when no black teenagers assault anyone. It is no reason to hold others accountable by discriminating against them. The population is what it is, no one should be entitled to anything because of their color.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Did you read the Danny/Donny problem that Dave posted earlier? You should.

 

I'll summarize. If Danny has every advantage, and Donny has every disadvantage, and Donny scores nearly the same on the SAT as Danny does, then Donny did better on the SAT.

 

That's the real problem. Doing nothing, as you would have, is discriminatory. It punishes people for circumstances they have no control over. Denying this is denying facts of the situation.

 

Let us that your boss has said he will fire the person who is the latest to work in the morning in an effort to combat tardiness.

 

 

You & Bill both live about 20 minutes from work, in opposite directions. You live in a bad neighborhood, Bill lives in a good one.

 

You leave your house at 7:40. Bill leaves his house at 7:49. Normally, Bill's history.

 

But, on the fateful day, you have to stop for a roadblock, or a police raid, or something, I don't know - take your pick. Bill doesn't.

 

You arrive to work 10 minutes late. Bill arrives one minute before you and you lose your job.

 

Is that okay with you?

 

Any practices that award a job to an unqualified individual over a qualified indiviudual over some variable that neither has any control over is obviously wrong. People do not choose to be white or black, man or woman, this nationality or that one, etc.. These things should not be held against them and certainly not in some attempt to correct some wrong committed by someone else.

 

Didn't really address the issue. If I don't accept that actions are wrong solely on their conformation to some external duty, then the statement that it is "obviously wrong" doesn't hold much meaning for me. I find it especially hard to defend when it's stated in such a categorical fashion as you have there.

 

Yes, yes, in a perfect world we would all be judged by our competence, and not by our situations. But our situations make a difference in our competence, and it's ridiculous to think that by ignoring the situation, and ignoring the differences that you make the problem go away.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

So would you say that investing more in education in black areas is 'prejudicial' to those that are not black even though education standards in black communities are almost always worse than their white counterparts. If you say yes, are you not sanctioning aparteid policy which is itself prejudice?

No, you should be free to invest wherever you like. That any individual or group wants to help any other group is not necessarily discrimination, i.e. just because I donate to the Diabetic Association does not mean I am discriminating against the Heart Association.

 

so lets say a state invests [for education] in the white community, and invests in the Jewish community, and the Hindu and the Budhist and everything else but the Muslim community. According to you that's okay, right?

 

Well that's good. Aparthaid South Africa thought the same.

[Zythryn]

Affirmative action is a type of discrimination. By your own words (TFS) it also doesn't work.

 

Fixing what has already been done is not necessarily the solution, or even possible. However, if instead of dealing with the symtoms of discrimination, you deal with the discrimination itself, THEN you are getting somewhere.

 

We all need to teach tolerance to our children and lead by example. Society needs to shun those that do discriminate. We need to, as a society, insure that everyone has similar opportunities. Please note, this last one does not mean any type of decision making based on race, just simply that everyone should have similar opportunities that match their abilities.

 

This goes for race, economic status, sex and age, and religion, and...

 

Well, you get the idea. Now, I don't know how to go about that other than teaching our young. Open to suggestions though.

[sebbysteiny]

Affirmative action is a type of discrimination. By your own words (TFS) it also doesn't work.

 

Fixing what has already been done is not necessarily the solution, or even possible. However, if instead of dealing with the symtoms of discrimination, you deal with the discrimination itself, THEN you are getting somewhere.

 

This is EXACTLY what I have been talking about. Zythryn, though no understanding of racism and anti-racism, has allowed morality to be turned about on its head so that people trying to help stop racism are deamed morrally equivilent to those that solve the problem.

 

Fact, if you try to stop one victimised race from being discriminated against, you will have to, by definition, invest disproportionate resources in that race, which is discrimination against all other races.

 

So what's the difference? One is positive discrimination, which is morally good, and one is racism (negative discrimination), which is morally disgusting.

 

Some of us may think that some METHODS of positive discrimination do not work or are counter productive, but we must surely all agree that such schemes can never be morally equivilient to a far right racist beating up minorities.

 

Lastly, Zythryn, what happens if the existance of imbalance is the root cause of the imbalance (eg an old boys club favouring men over women) so that the ONLY solution is positive discrimination to destroy the atmosphere unfavourable to minorities.

[Zythryn]

I disagree that the "only solution is positive discrimination" and I also disagree that the positive discrimination would be succesful in destroying the atmosphere unfavourable to minorities.

 

I believe a better solution is to teach all that all other humans are equally deserving of human rights. I believe that society needs to look down in pity at those that don't and to try to teach those that are racist.

 

I believe that reversing the tables to give one race an advantage simply adds fuel to the fire. While it will benifit some individuals, it will also instill resentment in others.

 

The base cause is not that some white banker turned down a mortgage application of a young black family (that should normally qualify), it is that the banker feared someone different than themselves and used his power to deny them. The banker needs to be ridiculed, not denying some family of the banker's race just because in the past some banker denied a mortgage to a black family.

[sebbysteiny]

I disagree that the "only solution is positive discrimination" and I also

disagree that the positive discrimination would be succesful in destroying the

atmosphere unfavourable to minorities.

 

I believe a better solution is to teach all that all other humans are equally

deserving of human rights. I believe that society needs to look down in pity at

those that don't and to try to teach those that are racist.

 

This is a complicated point so please read this carefully and try to understand what I'm saying before responding.

 

What you have done is to propose a solution to racism. It is thus, anti-racist.

 

However it is also (positive) discrimination and I'll explain why.

 

The thinking behind your solution is that there is a race (or races) in need that needs protection in society. If there wasn't, then why have this teaching? Therefore, even though your policy is PHRASED without mentioning race (ie race neutral) its purpose is to benifit one race (or races) and not others (to the same degree). And because resources owned by society have been invested specifically for the purpose of protecting one particular race (or races), it descriminates against all other races not chosen for protection as the money (or time) could be invested in other activities that equally benefit all members of society (like a new maths teacher).

 

One could also be more obviously racist by investing extra teaching in areas in which disproportionately successful races are based. This would be an aparteid society even though the policy is phrased race neutral.

 

The really important issue is whether the PURPOSE of the solutions proposed is for the disproportionate benefit of one race (or races). If so, it is discrimination regardless of how the policy is phrased. For that reason, no matter what you do to fight racism, it will always be discrimination, even your suggestion.

 

So your policy is positive discrimination which is why it is obviously morally correct. You are arguing that other types of positive discrimination are not effective. Maybe so, but morally they are entirely different from racism. They are all examples of anti racism actions.

 

Others, for example, could equally argue that your suggestion is too light. The example I gave is one such example where what you are suggesting does not work. In work, one can excell by developing friendships and links with others. You cannot be CEO without getting on with most of your work collegues. If you share a certain culture or perspective, then it very much aids professional development. However, as white people do not understand black culture as well as their own, they will form natural friendships with other whites. Similar with gender. This isn't predjudice; its simple friendship through commonalities. Thus, an organisation with a black / white / male / female bias will produce new recruits with a black / white / male / female bias no matter what predjuces your education policy eliminates. Many women I know have complained that they cannot advance because they cannot join 'football' and other male conversation topics so are left out of the loop (and thus unable to advance).

 

Thus the only way to break this culture gap is by direct positive discrimination. Get women into work places and allow other women to fit in more easily. Get other black people in and allow other black people to fit in more easily.

 

But some could call this policy not merely counter productive, but actually racist. I believe it is essential to distinguish anti racism from racism because of the ease in which morality can (and is right now in the real world) being perversed to encourage well meaning people to support essentially evil causes.

[Zythryn]

I disagree with your specific point: "The thinking behind your solution is that there is a race (or races) in need that needs protection in society."

for this reason:

 

The lessons taught should not focus on any one race, but on humanity. Treat everyone equally, with compassion and generousity regarless of their race. It focuses on no single race over another and so provides a level table for all.

 

However, I agree with many of your other points. Especially the one about the above solution being too slow.

 

I, like most people, want a quick fix. I want it to work the way it should today, not in a generation or two. I also want to fix global warming, our political system, war, disease, starvation TODAY.

 

Affirmative action may actually be helping. I don't think so, but it may. And even if it is just helping a little (and is not harming the situation) we should stick with it.

 

I do understand where you are comming from, and I can see your point on a social level. On a pure philisophical level though can you see why making any decision (good or bad) based on race is discriminatory?

 

On a social level, this is a very complicated issue. And I am afraid I don't have any solutions other than everyone teaching basic respect for other humans to their children, and having society reinforce that respect.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I do understand where you are comming from, and I can see your point on a social level. On a pure philisophical level though can you see why making any decision (good or bad) based on race is discriminatory?

 

Obviously making a decision based on anything people can't help is discriminatory.

 

But I don't think anyone would advocate letting the mentally handicapped become air-traffic controllers.

 

For a less inflammatory example, how about letting white people join an "urban" marketing firm, or become hip-hop record executives.

 

But those are all relevant to the task, you say - it's tough to sell things to a young black audience if you're an old white man.

 

And this is all true - but given the way that we measure (or at least pre-identify) success in many other social dimension (SAT scores, extra-curricular activities, grades) and their correlating factors (income, family, situation, etc.) are also correlated with race, could it not be said that NOT engaging in affirmative action is racist?

 

In other words, if the way in which we allocate success in society is in fact based on factors that are highly race correlated, isn't ignoring the correlation racist?

 

Simply put - it helps to be white. Pretending that isn't true results in a MORE racist system.

 

The fundamental assumption behind affirmative action is that the social success which appears to be race correlated is actually success correlated. Because success is uneven among races due to past discrimination, races with past success will have a disproportionate chance of success in the future. Therefore, it is less bad to give races with past discrimination future "points" to try to even out this disparity.

 

Ignoring the problem (focusing solely on achievement) is in fact racist because it confers an advantage on people who already have a better chance of success because of their race.

 

TFS