An Analogy

[keilexandra]

If affirmative action is a band-aid over a bleeding wound, then the collateral casualties (whites and often Asians) must be the nerve cells of the healthy skin around the wound. Is it important to staunch the bleeding before healing can begin? YES.

But I refuse to believe that the bleeding requires a band-aid to be continually ripped off and replaced, when a piece of gauze and an Ace bandage would suffice.

Comments

[keilexandra]

Er... Let me quote the definition of affirmative action you gave me.

"Any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, that permits the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability, along with other criteria and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified individuals who have either historically or actually been denied those opportunities and/or to prevent the recurrence of discrimination in the future."

What part of that definition am I contradicting? Outreach = encouraging more PoC/women to apply, for instance by recruiting in inner-city schools or starting female-focused engineering summer programs. It does not use a protected class as a criteria for consideration in admissions/hiring. TASS is a great example of how to promote outreach without being discriminatory. On the flip side, some colleges have multicultural-focused pre-orientation programming both mixed and separate (the latter, a new opt-in program directed specifically at domestic white students, has generated quite a bit of controversy).

I'm not sure really sure of what context you are specifically pointing out in your many links. Could you explain/summarize your point there?

Quotas are illegal, as are "point" systems. I don't know whether they have ever been implemented, although I'm wary of the thin line between "goal" and "mandate." Regardless, watch your language in my journal.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

*Sigh* Affirmative action includes the outreach that you are straining so hard to define out of it so that you can continue to cling to your view of teh world. And you claimed that at its extreme end affirmative action includes quotas. Which my link advised you was untrue. And my many links demonstrate the context of choosing a woman or other minority all other things being equal is the fact that women and minorities are not going to be hired otherwise. Period. Until employers stop being bigoted asses, that fact will remain, no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

Interestingly, I wonder why is that while sparky and I have offered tons of links to back up our assertions, you have continued to make your own assertions without any citations whatever? At the moment I am getting the impression that you have made up your mind based on anecdata, which as we all know, is NOT data.

[keilexandra]

Quotas do not exist, yes, I know--but have de facto quotas ever existed? I don't know and I don't think that is provable either way.

I still don't understand how affirmative action includes outreach, by the definition you have given me, but let us accept that it does. I object, then, to the part of the policy that advocates direct consideration of race/gender/etc. I have no problem with outreach and indeed I advocate the use of outreach instead of direct criteria. And I remain optimistic that someone really smart will come up with an effective way of prodding employers away from bigotry--without compromising basic ethics. Because I do view the idea of nondiscrimination--no matter the result or intent of any discrimination--as basic ethics.

Since I am not making assertions but presenting my personal opinion, I'm not sure what I would be citing. I did cite examples of outreach that I find acceptable as "affirmative action" (although I don't consider it affirmative action, but in any case, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition). Please point out what lacks citations and I will try to rectify the situation, or admit my fault, whichever is the case.