Discussions
Discuss: UNCF? Affirmative Action? Are these not discrimination?
Posted by voodooKobra • 7/05/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Negro_College_Fund
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
(Note: At the time of this posting, Wikipedia's article on Affirmative action is flagged with a neutrality dispute.)
Are the United Negro College Fund and Affirmative Action examples of discrimination? Why or why not?
User Comments
-
What are they?-
The former is a college scholarship only available to "African Americans," and the latter is a policy of requiring businesses and schools to hire/accept a certain quota (percentage) of minorities.
-
-
I'm writing a post about this right now. -
-
Affirmative Action is discrimination. I believe in meritocracy.
From the Wikipedia link:
"Swedish democracy, although very solicitous about minorities' rights and integration, does not allow affirmative action, which is considered almost a kind of discrimination, and although aimed at strengthening workers' rights it is considered unfair. Affirmative action is also regarded as emphasizing minorities' identity as a different, separate body, actually making the weak feel even worse and stigmatizing them, as they are given entitlements on the basis of their ascribed characteristics."
I agree with that. It is simply ignorant to project certain socio-economic circumstances on someone due to their skin colour. Even in South African society, which has a relatively recent history of racial segregation, you can't deduce a person's socio-economic circumstances from their skin colour. By focusing on race instead of on the real issues (lowering taxes to reduce debt, providing education and infrastructure, providing support for entrepreneurial ventures), you will ensure that race remains an issue.
"Black cat or white cat: If it can catch mice, it's a good cat."
And if it can't catch mice, it doesn't deserve mice. Regardless of its colour or socio-economic background.-
3 cheers for flamingpoodle!
-
-
@flamimgpoodle
Well said.
@voodoo
"Even worse, most of these ideas are advocated under the guise of 'promoting equality.' Please."
I could rant at length about the stupidity of affirmative action programs and the results of being bound to them but I won't. Suffice to say I also believe in meritocracy. BTW good article.-
Thanks.
-
-
"Meritocracy" is a lovely idea, but it assumes a level playing field. Take a look at a history of race in America and you'll see people brutally held down, denied education, denied every opportunity.
At the same time, basing this purely on skin-color hasn't worked so well--as it's far more likely to benefit the children of Michael Jordan and Barack Obama than people who have been thrown into a hole that they can't get out of.-
Meritocracy does not assume a level playing field. Meritocracy assumes demonstrated ability and talent. The idea is precisely that despite an uneven playing field (which is inevitable), individuals are trained in order to fulfil their ability and utilise their talents.
In a meritocracy, you don't have the right to a Harvard education. You deserve a Harvard education because you demonstrate the ability to get a Harvard education and the academic talent. This is precisely because you can assume an uneven playing field.
In a meritocracy, Michael Jordan's children will not get a scholarship unless they demonstrate ability and talent. Similarly, person x without famous parents would get a scholarship if they demonstrated ability and talent, regardless of phenotype.
The scenarios you described are oligarchies (privileges based on class) or plutocracies (privileges based on wealth) and not meritocracies. -
and the scenario you describe does not exist. The oligarchy I describe IS what exists.
-
A true meritocracy MUST assume a level playing field--otherwise, merits cannot be accurately assessed. In a system in which those with wealthy parents have the advantages of not having to work during school, having tutors hired specifically to boost the test scores in their weak areas, etc. while others of potentially greater determination and natural ability do not have the same opportunities to prove their merits, it will not be those "most worthy" or "most able" who "get ahead" but those who had the most help getting a foot on the ladder. -
@DrJay1966: Precisely. The scenario you described, ie oligarchy, is being kept in place by affirmative action.
@MadamX: A meritocracy IS a level playing field. The scenarios you describe are a direct result of oligarchy. These scenarios are perpetuating an oligarchy because the whole mentality of 'us vs them' is reinforced.
And it turns into a whole nature vs nurture debate. Truth is, both have their say. I'm inclined to believe nature has the biggest say.
-
-
"In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who demonstrated talent and competence, demonstrated through past actions or by competition."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
Thus you earn wealth, position and social status by demonstrated competence during competition. I believe this would level the playing field.-
Damn, looks like I'm a Meritocrat.
-
Not really. The aristocrats son will have access to tools and training to hone their skills for a Hrvard education that the Janitors daughter does not.
On top of that the former will have access to display their talent and skill that the latter will lack access to.
Meritocracy can operate only in small closed systems where there is indeed a level beginning field. Much like Socialism or Communism it's nice to think about what it would be like in a perfect world, but doesn't fare so well in practical application. -
It works in Singapore. It works in the so-called four Asian Tigers, in other words it works in practice at a very large scale. It also worked for many years in a less pure form in historical, pre-communist China as legalism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Feizi
In other words, it does work in practice and it is not just a pipe dream like communism.
Talent is innate. You have it or you don't. Skills are honed. While someone rich and untalented may have honed skills, they would still be required to compete against someone poor with talent who may not have honed skills. However, in a meritocracy, once such a talent is identified, it is honed. And if someone rich with talent gets their skills honed, where is the harm?
The point is your actual abilities and your actual potential is what matters and not your socio-economic circumstances, your cultural affiliations or your phenotypes like your skin colour. -
Singapore's system actually begins by attempting to level the playing field with devices such as race-based self-help organizations and public housing, thus addressing some of the problems that Dane and I mentioned above. The system also relies heavily on standardized test scores, which rewards only raw ability and does not identify things like work ethic that would be part of any rational determination based on merit. It may be better than what we're dealing with here, but it's certainly not a pure meritocracy in ideological terms.
-
"The Singaporean interpretation places overwhelming emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit."
"Singapore was expelled from neighboring Malaysia in 1965 as a result of the unwillingness of the majority of its population, mostly ethnic Chinese, to accept a "special position" for the self-proclaimed Bumiputra (Malay for "inheritors of the earth")".
"Political leaders in Singapore vehemently protested against this system, arguing instead for the equality of all citizens of Malaysia, with places in universities, government contracts, political appointments, etc., going to the most deserving candidate, rather than to one chosen on the basis of connections or ethnic background."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Singapore
The Singapore you described is a Singapore of the past, before they instilled their meritocracy. In other words, the playing field used to be unequal while they were under Malaysian rule due to demanded ethnic privileges. The majority of Singaporeans opposed this idea and demanded that the playing field be equalled, and did so by instilling their meritocracy.
-
-
It is interesting to me how the focus is always just on one race, and yet the larger benefits of affirmative action in relation to women is totally ignored?
www.fair.org/index.php?page=1442
Ten myths about affirmative action
www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm-
The benefits become negligible once society approaches true equality.
From your latter link:
[Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it.]
Affirmative action is just reinforcing racial injustice on two levels:
1. Ensuring that one group will be treated like second-class citizens.
2. Fanning the flames of racism in the other groups. -
since we don't have true equality yet(unfortunately), I don't see how it is negligible and you are still focusing on race, what about women?
-
Have you ever heard the phrase "female community"? I haven't. The social climate of the area I live in is very... liberal? Is that the word? Anyway, incidents of discrimination based on gender are few and far between where I live.
[since we don't have true equality yet(unfortunately), I don't see how it is negligible]
Then why don't we remedy the problem instead of treating the symptoms? -
Not sure how the social climate of where you live has anything to do with it, I live in a very liberal area too.
The problem is being remedied through affirmative action programs and it seems is still needed because :
"For every dollar earned by men, women on a whole earn 74 cents, African American women earn 63 cents and Latina women earn 57 cents."
"Less than 3% of federal contracts go to women-owned firms. In Washington, less than 10% of state contracts and purchasing dollars go to women-owned firms — even though women own 39% of firms."
www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html
women are not asking to special treatment, they are asking for equal consideration and pay and even with aa it is still a huge hurdle. -
[Not sure how the social climate of where you live has anything to do with it.]
How doesn't it? My writings and opinions are influenced by my environment.
["For every dollar earned by men, women on a whole earn 74 cents, African American women earn 63 cents and Latina women earn 57 cents."]
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Before you attack this, it's a joke. I want to make that clear.)
In all fairness, we should be promoting the education of EVERYONE who demonstrates talent and interest in a profession. Playing the racial/gender segregation game isn't helping anything.
[women are not asking to special treatment, they are asking for equal consideration and pay and even with aa it is still a huge hurdle.]
Most women, you mean. www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=24
[The problem is being remedied through affirmative action programs and it seems is still needed because]
No. The symptoms are being remedied. If you want to solve the problem, you need to eradicate the disadvantages without disadvantaging the advantaged. Don't bring us down, bring EVERYONE up!
-
-
On that note, why don't we apply affirmative action TO the UNCF? As in, they must provide a minimum percentage of scholarships to white students, hispanic students, Native American students, etc.? I know it's a private organization, but the idea is pretty funny.
-
It depends on what you mean by "discrimination". Any choice is discrimination in the strictly dictionary-definition sense of the word. Scholarship funds that only give money to economically disadvantaged students or to student with high GPAs and good test scores discriminate. But I suspect that you meant legal discrimination?
-
Yeah.
-
From a legal perspective, something like UNCF and affirmative action programs are two very different animals.
Unlawful discrimination can occur in one of two ways: there is state action involved (in which case the discrimination is a constitutional issue) or the discrimination violates an existing statute (like the Civil Rights Act or the Fair Housing Act).
Decisions over the past 10 years or so have strictly limited affirmative action programs, but based on the fact that they ran afoul of one of those constitutional or statutory protections. The UNCF, to my knowledge, does not fall within any of those provisions.
There was, however, some fuss several years back about the UNCF possibly losing its tax exempt status based on this issue.
-
-
Well I mean this is a complex area and just talking about the scholarships are only looking at a part of the problem. The issue is what has happened racially in this country. Slavery and other injustices has really caused a major problem that isn't easy to rectify. I think having these scholarships are part of the solution to the problem.
Basically no matter what happens with African Americans they are just screwed historically. They had generation upon generation that wasn't able to build or accumulate wealth. Other immigrants before, during, and after their arrival all kind of had a jump. While Italians, Irish, Chinese, and other races all dealt with racism they were allowed to assimilate into this country and build wealth, education, etc...
African Americans are 4-5 generations behind in being able to do this. Plus you add into the fact that they had a few generations that were unable to improve their lives in any way because of the laws in this country and you have a group of people that have been screwed hard.
Scholarships and things like this are small band aids to the major issue of this disparity. While I get that everyone should be on the same level and playing field when it comes to who earns what the fact of the matter is historically some people aren't on the same playing field and it needs to be corrected in some ways.-
You're focusing on the context of the example and missing the point:
First, everyone wanted equal opportunity. Now, they want affirmative action. Affirmative action is a form of discrimination, and is therefore not equal. It's hypocrisy.
If you want equality, treat everyone equal and help EVERYONE succeed. Don't single out a group because of the color of their skin; help EVERYONE.
Affirmative action is approaching the end of its lifetime of usefulness. All it's doing is causing racial tensions because it IS undeniably a form of discrimination. -
Actually you are missing the point. You need to look at the larger picture of why it is important and needed.
If you want to truly make it equal take a cut of the money from every family that acquired their wealth of off slavery, the people that built their wealth while slavery and segregation was going on, and then give it to the people that were impacted by it. Then start everything from then on based on merit.
Since that is NEVER going to happen programs like these are needed.
The thing is there is no such thing as an equal opportunity. Things are slanted against people in this country and it isn't based on race it is based on wealth. The fact that their race was oppressed for so long hurt their ability to grow wealth and programs need to be put into place to correct it. -
Yes, programs are needed... for now.
Unlike most people, I like to look at the long-term in favor of looking at the short-term.
Yes, affirmative action has good intentions. Yes, affirmative action is temporarily necessary.
But what happens when affirmative action has outlived its usefulness in ten or twenty years? Unless we call it for what it is, it might stick around and cause needless racial tensions in the future.
Not that I never said, "End affirmative action." I criticize it, and I call it for what it is (discrimination). I understand that it's necessary FOR NOW, but it might not be in the future.
We need to move on as a society. This means no more unfair advantages, and no more discrimination. It won't happen overnight, but sometime before I die, racism will be erased from the earth. -
It isn't discrimination it is making up for a massive mistake. Calling it discrimination takes it so far out of context that you perverted the meaning of it.
10-20 years... that is laughable. You are talking about generations here. The economical impact of this has barely been rectified. For someone that wants to look at the long term you are really short sighted.
Racial tensions? Give me a break, if a college scholarship program is causing racial tension there are other underlying bigotry that probably already there. The UNCF/affirmative action is the last culprit for racial tension in this country. -
[It isn't discrimination it is making up for a massive mistake.]
dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
-
-
I am for merit. I understand affirm. action programs are aimed at remedying social injustice, but creating more injustice is not the way to do it. It is a lazy government's shortcut.
As far as the negro college fund, if it's privately funded, I don't see a problem.-
[It is a lazy government's shortcut.]
This is the point I've been trying to make.
[As far as the negro college fund, if it's privately funded, I don't see a problem.]
Yeah, using the UNCF as a straw-man probably doesn't help things much. -
As far as the negro college fund, if it's privately funded, I don't see a problem.
Agreed.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
