Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
White males are over represented purely in terms of statistics in the general population. So in a way it is white males who are discriminating against white and Asian students.
Why would they do that?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Yes, I would. But as I suggested, "fair" and "just" do not mean or imply "equal." All persons (with some exceptions) have equal status as moral agents, and therefore the same (natural) rights, but they are not equal in any material or functional dimension, and neither justice nor fairness requires that they made so, or treated as though they are.Eduk wrote:I'm pretty sure you would like to live in a just and fair society the same as the majority of people.
Poor schools are not fair to children. The prices of houses have nothing to do with it.In the UK areas with good schools have increased house prices. Is this fair to all children?
"Fairnness," like "justice," is a moral term. It applies to the actions of moral agents. It does not apply to "acts of God," or the workings of natural laws, or even to the results of luck. If a tornado destroys my house but leaves my neighbor's intact, the event is unfortunate for me, but there is no "unfairness" involved. Likewise, if you win a lottery and I don't, there is no unfairness involved --- unless the game had been rigged to improve your odds of winning and reduce mine.There are of course unending examples of circumstances which happen to children which I don't think even you would call fair.
Rawls called the natural distribution of advantages and disadvantages a "natural lottery." The results of that lottery, he said, are "neither fair nor unfair. They are just natural facts. It is how we deal with those facts that is fair or unfair." He goes on to claim that "fairness" obliges us to mitigate or eliminate them. But (as many have pointed out) it is not clear how "fairness" can require altering an outcome he admits is not itself unfair.
Despite that admission he proceeds as though the "natural distribution of advantages and disadvantages" IS unfair --- because he assumes that "fair" implies "equal." Which it does not.
Natural inequalities are not a "societal problem" in need of a "fix." Private universities may adopt any admissions policy they wish. Public universities, at least in the US, are bound by the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. On its face that precludes using race, ethnicity, or sex as admissions factors.Of course you could argue that its not the role of university admission to help to fix societal problems and that they should be fixed elsewhere.
As I said before, humans are NOT equal, in any respect relevant to education, employment, or any other contributor to personal welfare. Nor are any other animals. And, no, I see no value in diversity "for its own sake," i.e., in factors not relevant to academic or professional competence and success.For example I'm not sure if you value diversity in general or not. If every child had the same upbringing do you think universities would be naturally diverse. Or do you believe humans are not generally equal?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
I still think you are confused about the terms equality and equity. I'll just copy and paste the first result from google"fair" and "just" do not mean or imply "equal."
Equality is not the same thing as equity and not the same thing as fair. I agree with that statement.Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help
If you accept students from highest to lowest marks (until you run out of places) then that is an equal admission policy. But not necessarily an equitable admission policy. It is fair only to those students who start from the same place and need the same help.
If you force workplaces to higher a percentage of females (for example) then you are in effect attempting to force equity upon the company.
House price is a factor, you fail to see the bigger picture. The problem is that those who can afford the higher costs move into the areas with the good schools. This is what drives the cost up. This advantages children who happen to have been born into better off families. Those children out perform the poorer children because they have a better education. Is it fair to be born into a well off family? Is that equal? Is it possible that poor children can do also do well in exams if giving the opportunity. What effect does removing that opportunity have? If you are born into an unequal position and then perform very slightly less well than someone born into a better position would you believe it fair and just that you didn't make the grade?Poor schools are not fair to children. The prices of houses have nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure what you are calling natural or not. Is being born into a low socio-economic family natural?Natural inequalities are not a "societal problem" in need of a "fix."
Also if my home were destroyed by a tornado then I would hope to get special treatment and help from school. I can't work out what your point is here?
Please see my reply to post 20, you make the same assumption on what I meant.As I said before, humans are NOT equal, in any respect relevant to education, employment, or any other contributor to personal welfare.
-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --
Apologies, meant hire of course Also I didn't finish my point, got distracted.If you force workplaces to higher a percentage of females (for example) then you are in effect attempting to force equity upon the company.
I was going to say that I'm necessarily a fan of the above. I think companies can easily pretend to be equitable while not being equitable. For example you can hire your percentage of females but not integrate in a meaningful way which would likely exacerbate any issues.
Having said that I do believe inequality is a real issue. I am not sure how to fix it though, perhaps the above is better than nothing, perhaps it is worse than nothing, I am not sure.
-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 12:53 pm to add the following --
darn it, I'm tired, I meant 'not necessarily a fan'. I'm jet lagged, should stop typing now
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Er, no. We don't consult lefty web sites to learn the meanings of words. We consult dictionaries:Eduk wrote:I still think you are confused about the terms equality and equity. I'll just copy and paste the first result from google"fair" and "just" do not mean or imply "equal."
Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help
1
a : justice according to natural law or right; specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b : something that is equitable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity
1.
the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality:
the equity of Solomon.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equity
Equity has nothing to do with giving anyone anything, and nothing to do with anyone's being successful. The author of your quote is indulging in Newspeak.
No, it manifestly is not. It is an impartial (and thus equitable) admissions policy. It applies the same criteria to all applicants. It does not assume all applicants are equal, and admit them all.If you accept students from highest to lowest marks (until you run out of places) then that is an equal admission policy.
It is fair to all students. Fairness consists in "playing by the rules," and applying the same rules to everyone. You continue to equate fairness, or equity, with equality, i.e., that it demands that natural inequalities be mitigated. Fairness does not mean, or entail, or require, equality, except in the sense that the (impartial) rules apply equally to everyone.It is fair only to those students who start from the same place and need the same help.
You're doing no such thing. You are forcing them to act inequitably, by forbidding them to act impartially (and, of course, violating their property rights and their natural right of free association).*If you force workplaces to higher a percentage of females (for example) then you are in effect attempting to force equity upon the company.
As Rawls said, it is neither fair nor unfair. It is simply a natural fact. As I said, terms such as "fair" and "just" are moral terms, applicable only to the acts of moral agents. They are not applicable to natural phenomena.If you are born into an unequal position and then perform very slightly less well than someone born into a better position would you believe it fair and just that you didn't make the grade?
Yes. Virtually all measurable traits of living species manifest along a bell curve. Among humans that includes the various traits that contribute to personal prosperity. Bell curves have two tails, and it is as natural that some people fall into the low tail as that some fall into the high tail.I'm not sure what you are calling natural or not. Is being born into a low socio-economic family natural?
* The right of free association is the right right of every person to enter into any desired relationship with any other willing person without interference from any third party.
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Socialist agenda within government is who does that and why.Eduk wrote:Yes but who makes up the government. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... diversity/
White males are over represented purely in terms of statistics in the general population. So in a way it is white males who are discriminating against white and Asian students.
Why would they do that?
White "males" are "over" represented in the general population? Ah, no. Have you heard of the existence of females?
So maybe 'affirmative action' should also address white people population numbers generally. What do you suggest? Gas chambers?
'Affirmative action' also implies white people are predominantly racist. In effect, a presumption of guilt merely for skin color.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
GE Morton. Good so you don't understand what equity means. So what is being 'fair and impartial'. Please Google 'equity equality'. You will see a picture of three boys standing behind a wall looking at a game. They have one box each. The boys are three heights such that the tallest could see without a box. The middle can see with one box and the shortest needs two boxes to see. Now it is equal if they have a box each. But it is not equitable.
When talking about morals this is the standard definition of equity and equality.
Also please stop using 'lefty' as an insult. It's painful to me. Being left or right or in the middle isn't an insult it's a political label. It's unlikely to represent all beliefs of any human and it equally says nothing about whether those beliefs are wrong or right.
By using a label as an insult. And by believing you can label you are engaging in simplification and closed mindedness. It is stopping you from engaging in beliefs which counter to your own. And this is damaging, mostly to yourself.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Ah because that is what you wrote, and yeah, it was a bizarre comment you wrote. I don't want to make assumptions about people I don't know and so I didn't know why you wrote that.Eduk wrote:Razblo you misunderstand me. White males are over represented in government compared with their representation in the general population. Read the link. And please think harder, why would I say white males are over represented generally? That is a pretty bizarre comment.
So to your now corrected point, should there be some sort of solution to this "over representation of white people generally"?
You seem to speak of this scale of representation, the mere scale of existence of white people generally, as a problem. Is it a problem? If so, why?
-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 3:01 am to add the following --
Another consideration is the "over representation" of tall black men in major league basketball. It's about time there was some 'affirmative action' in basketball to perhaps accommodate white dwarfs (or just short people generally).LuckyR wrote:Of course, I take it for granted that everyone agrees that children of alumni, children of large donors and athletes should lose their preferential admissions status, right?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
You would have a point if the NBA took tax dollars, but alas you are wrong.Razblo wrote:Ah because that is what you wrote, and yeah, it was a bizarre comment you wrote. I don't want to make assumptions about people I don't know and so I didn't know why you wrote that.Eduk wrote:Razblo you misunderstand me. White males are over represented in government compared with their representation in the general population. Read the link. And please think harder, why would I say white males are over represented generally? That is a pretty bizarre comment.
So to your now corrected point, should there be some sort of solution to this "over representation of white people generally"?
You seem to speak of this scale of representation, the mere scale of existence of white people generally, as a problem. Is it a problem? If so, why?
-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 3:01 am to add the following --
Another consideration is the "over representation" of tall black men in major league basketball. It's about time there was some 'affirmative action' in basketball to perhaps accommodate white dwarfs (or just short people generally).LuckyR wrote:Of course, I take it for granted that everyone agrees that children of alumni, children of large donors and athletes should lose their preferential admissions status, right?
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Ok, so the practice of racism is for government only. I got it.LuckyR wrote:
You would have a point if the NBA took tax dollars, but alas you are wrong.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
No that was not my point at all. The point I was making was a question. Why are powerful white men legislating against white people?You seem to speak of this scale of representation, the mere scale of existence of white people generally, as a problem. Is it a problem? If so, why?
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
Eduk wrote:No that was not my point at all. The point I was making was a question. Why are powerful white men legislating against white people?You seem to speak of this scale of representation, the mere scale of existence of white people generally, as a problem. Is it a problem? If so, why?
I answered that question. It's socialist agenda. It's a control tactic. It's like Saul Alinsky ideology.
"Powerful" white people "legislating" is somewhat an oxymoron. Legislators by definition hold particular power.
However, you used the term "over" represented. This suggests "too many".
The proportion of black people in the US is apparently around 13%. Consequently the percentage of white is far greater and will therefore be represented more generally across the board in institutions.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
All you need to do is read the link I sent. That's why I sent it. Here it is again http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... diversity/The proportion of black people in the US is apparently around 13%. Consequently the percentage of white is far greater and will therefore be represented more generally across the board in institutions.
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
It should not be what color they are. It should be what they do.Eduk wrote:All you need to do is read the link I sent. That's why I sent it. Here it is again http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... diversity/The proportion of black people in the US is apparently around 13%. Consequently the percentage of white is far greater and will therefore be represented more generally across the board in institutions.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions
You replied it's a control tactic. That's an answer to my question, you don't need to put questions I didn't ask into my mouth.
How is it a control tactic? Do you think it's a fair control tactic? Why would they use this control tactic? These seem to me to be quite important questions deserving of more than a sentence longs worth of answer. Doesn't it trouble you? Wouldn't you like them to stop doing that?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023