Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

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?
Unknown means unknown.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by GE Morton »

Eduk wrote:I'm pretty sure you would like to live in a just and fair society the same as the majority of people.
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.
In the UK areas with good schools have increased house prices. Is this fair to all children?
Poor schools are not fair to children. The prices of houses have nothing to do with it.
There are of course unending examples of circumstances which happen to children which I don't think even you would call fair.
"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.

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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

"fair" and "just" do not mean or imply "equal."
I still think you are confused about the terms equality and equity. I'll just copy and paste the first result from google
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
Equality is not the same thing as equity and not the same thing as fair. I agree with that statement.

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.
Poor schools are not fair to children. The prices of houses have nothing to do with it.
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?
Natural inequalities are not a "societal problem" in need of a "fix."
I'm not sure what you are calling natural or not. Is being born into a low socio-economic family natural?

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?
As I said before, humans are NOT equal, in any respect relevant to education, employment, or any other contributor to personal welfare.
Please see my reply to post 20, you make the same assumption on what I meant.

-- Updated August 8th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --
If you force workplaces to higher a percentage of females (for example) then you are in effect attempting to force equity upon the company.
Apologies, meant hire of course :) Also I didn't finish my point, got distracted.

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 :)
Unknown means unknown.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by GE Morton »

Eduk wrote:
"fair" and "just" do not mean or imply "equal."
I still think you are confused about the terms equality and equity. I'll just copy and paste the first result from google
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
Er, no. We don't consult lefty web sites to learn the meanings of words. We consult dictionaries:

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.
If you accept students from highest to lowest marks (until you run out of places) then that is an equal admission policy.
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.
It is fair only to those students who start from the same place and need the same help.
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.
If you force workplaces to higher a percentage of females (for example) then you are in effect attempting to force equity upon the company.
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 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?
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.
I'm not sure what you are calling natural or not. Is being born into a low socio-economic family natural?
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.

* 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.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo »

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?
Socialist agenda within government is who does that and why.

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.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

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.
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.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by LuckyR »

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?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo »

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.
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.

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 --
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?
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).
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by LuckyR »

Razblo wrote:
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.
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.

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 --
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?
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).
You would have a point if the NBA took tax dollars, but alas you are wrong.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo »

LuckyR wrote:

You would have a point if the NBA took tax dollars, but alas you are wrong.
Ok, so the practice of racism is for government only. I got it.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

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?
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?
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo »

Eduk wrote:
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?
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?

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.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

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.
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/
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo »

Eduk wrote:
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.
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/
It should not be what color they are. It should be what they do.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk »

You keep missing the point. I haven't made any claims about what proportion there should be. I simply said white men were legislating against white people.
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?
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021