Racist Bake sale - pretty cool idea...

[Gepetto]

My faith in people's capacity to understand is restored.

I'm touched

Get a room!

 

[Deadbeat]

Why is it "so far removed from consideration"? Was the situation in newly independent Zimbabwe referred to as "Positive Discrimination" and "Affirmative Action"?

Yes, they likely were. This still doesn't put Zimbabwe in the same league as UC Berkeley's bake sale, does it? Or, more to the point, the decision to forcibly diversify the university's population. White people are not having their dorm rooms raided, nor are they being beaten out of University to make room for black, Asian or native American students. In my opinion, they're bowing to PC pressure - selecting from amongst the most suitable candidates a balanced ethnic make-up as a means to appease popular opinion. I disagree with this - as mentioned, placement should be allocated on academic merit, not skin colour - but there's no evidence to suggest that ethnicity will become the dominant factor in university placement, let alone that ethnicity will supercede academic accomplishment.

Regardless, it's not really the point at hand - I believe (though I forget, maybe I lost track of things a little bit) Castiel was referring to more generalised policies regarding positive discrimination. In that, I think people are perfectly entitled to approve of some policies and not others.

So, perhaps you can explain to me, in words of one syllable of course, as I only have half a brain and need an assistant to wipe dribble off my chin, why you think my comments about "cake and "eat it" are inappropriate? Given my above question, that is.

Just because the Zimbabwean reallocation of arable land was called positive discrimination or affirmative action, doesn't mean it was. Still, it serves to illustrate the point quite well. Redistributing the 75% of arable land that was held by the white 1% of the country's population amongst the native Zimbabweans was right, but the methods employed to go about it were not. You seem to be suggesting that either people are all in (Redistribute the land by force of arms! Kill the white oppressors!") or all out ("Leave the land with the oppressors! In a few hundred years, it'll probably come back to us anyway!).

Why is it wrong to support the idea of correcting the balance, but object to the methods used? If it's not wrong, isn't that what you're calling "having your cake and eating it"? The MP you voted for in the last elections - did you agree with every single one of his/her policies? If not, were you not trying to have your cake and eat it when you voted for him/her? I just don't understand why favouring some policies and not others is 'having your cake and eating it', nor can I really understand how you're involving Zimbabwe in this.

 

[Pudney]

I don't watch South Park.

Which is why I explained it for you

 

[Castiel]

Regardless, it's not really the point at hand - I believe (though I forget, maybe I lost track of things a little bit) Castiel was referring to more generalised policies regarding positive discrimination. In that, I think people are perfectly entitled to approve of some policies and not others.

You are correct, if some had read my first post on this I made it clear that I do not support higher education selection by anything other than merit, however I do accept that there is a place, especially in American Society for affirmative action particularly in employment and primary and secondary state education.

However, this must be balanced and with careful consideration to the adverse effects it may have on other groups so that it advocates equality and bridging the gaps to achieve that equality without creating an opposing inequality in other demographics.

No to Quotas and Point Allocations, yes to Outreach Campaigns and Employee Support Programs.

All affirmative action programs should be by definition short term measures designed to tackle the disadvantages some groups have because of historical discrimination, they should not be used to create reverse discrimination but to advocate and encourage a level equal playing field regardless of ethnic or gender background.

 

[Gepetto]

Yes, they likely were. This still doesn't put Zimbabwe in the same league as UC Berkeley's bake sale, does it? Or, more to the point, the decision to forcibly diversify the university's population. White people are not having their dorm rooms raided, nor are they being beaten out of University to make room for black, Asian or native American students. In my opinion, they're bowing to PC pressure - selecting from amongst the most suitable candidates a balanced ethnic make-up as a means to appease popular opinion. I disagree with this - as mentioned, placement should be allocated on academic merit, not skin colour - but there's no evidence to suggest that ethnicity will become the dominant factor in university placement, let alone that ethnicity will supercede academic accomplishment.

Regardless, it's not really the point at hand - I believe (though I forget, maybe I lost track of things a little bit) Castiel was referring to more generalised policies regarding positive discrimination. In that, I think people are perfectly entitled to approve of some policies and not others.

Just because the Zimbabwean reallocation of arable land was called positive discrimination or affirmative action, doesn't mean it was. Still, it serves to illustrate the point quite well. Redistributing the 75% of arable land that was held by the white 1% of the country's population amongst the native Zimbabweans was right, but the methods employed to go about it were not. You seem to be suggesting that either people are all in (Redistribute the land by force of arms! Kill the white oppressors!") or all out ("Leave the land with the oppressors! In a few hundred years, it'll probably come back to us anyway!).

Why is it wrong to support the idea of correcting the balance, but object to the methods used? If it's not wrong, isn't that what you're calling "having your cake and eating it"? The MP you voted for in the last elections - did you agree with every single one of his/her policies? If not, were you not trying to have your cake and eat it when you voted for him/her? I just don't understand why favouring some policies and not others is 'having your cake and eating it', nor can I really understand how you're involving Zimbabwe in this.

Well written, and perhaps valid, but maybe slightly idealistic, in that you haven't answered my question as to who would you trust to administer the "correction"? I don't think it is possible without resentment. For the record I am opposed to "Positive Discrimination/Affirmative Action" in any way, shape or form, as it is simply still discrimination. I believe in the merit approach. People who say they believe in both aren't credible (in my opinion).

I mention Zimbabwe as it is possibly the most negative portrayal of your idealistic scheme, but it serves to illustrate the nature of the beast. I also have no idea whether a "properly run" programme of "Positive Discrimination" will work, as the only pogrom I have first hand knowledge of is the Zimbabwean one.

 

[Castiel]

I believe in the merit approach. People who say they believe in both aren't credible.

Just because you do not understand something outside of it's general sweeping terminology doesn't mean it has no credibility.

I also have no idea whether a "properly run" programme of "Positive Discrimination" will work, as the only pogrom I have first hand knowledge of is the Zimbabwean one.

The fact that you think a pogrom and Affirmative Action are even related shows you clearly do not understand the term.

 

[Stretch]

Why don't they make it means tested. Contrary to popular belief not all white people were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and not blacks are the descendants of oppressed slaves.

 

[Deadbeat]

Well written, and perhaps valid, but maybe slightly idealistic, in that you haven't answered my question as to who would you trust to administer the "correction"? I don't think it is possible without resentment. For the record I am opposed to "Positive Discrimination/Affirmative Action" in any way, shape or form, as it is simply still discrimination. I believe in the merit approach. People who say they believe in both aren't credible (in my opinion).

You're right, I am an idealist - then again, I believe starting froman idealism and extrapolating back until it intersects potential reality is the best way of dealing with large-scale issues. As to who would be best to manage such a progression, I'm not the right person to ask that sort of question. I'm a huge mysanthropist and have enough trouble trusting people to tie their shoelaces properly and speak without spitting on me.

I mention Zimbabwe as it is possibly the most negative portrayal of your idealistic scheme, but it serves to illustrate the nature of the beast. I also have no idea whether a "properly run" programme of "Positive Discrimination" will work, as the only pogrom I have first hand knowledge of is the Zimbabwean one.

Indeed, it does - the point yet stands that it is an example of affirmative action gone as thoroughly and repugnantly wrong as can be imagined, which is why I highlighted the comparison as completely inappropriate. Positive discrimination has a great deal of negative association with it, and for the most part it's richly deserved. That shouldn't stop someone from being impartial when such a scheme is labelled thus out of linguistic accuracy and with an academic disregard for the connotations it may recall to the ignorant.

 

[Pate]

I find things like positive discrimination as being absolutely unacceptable. It's unfair and breeds the very resentment it was meant to eliminate.

Things should be on a merit basis. Does the candidate meet the requirements? If so, entry is granted. Not on a quota of what is deemed to be needed.

 

[Castiel]

I find things like positive discrimination as being absolutely unacceptable. It's unfair and breeds the very resentment it was meant to eliminate.

Things should be on a merit basis. Does the candidate meet the requirements? If so, entry is granted. Not on a quota of what is deemed to be needed.

In a society where the opportunity to receive the same primary and secondary education to achieve that merit then you would be right, however this is not the case in the United States, dismissing affirmative action across the board ignores the part that programs to encourage and support those from disasvantaged backgrounds, be they ethnic or otherwise play in helping to create the level basis whereas opportunity via merit alone is not discriminatory in itself.


You need to first create a system whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve, without that then you are still discriminating against those who cannot compete, not because they do not have the ability or potential, but because they do not have the opportunity to show that ability or fulfil that potential.

Quotas and point systems do nothing to help disadvantaged groups fulfil their potential, they simply increase statistics, which is why they are wrong. However that doesn't mean that all affirmative action is wrong or promotes inequality or discrimination, each program must be judged on it's own merit and sweeping generalisations simply are not objective or constructive.

 

[Stretch]

I find things like positive discrimination as being absolutely unacceptable. It's unfair and breeds the very resentment it was meant to eliminate.

Things should be on a merit basis. Does the candidate meet the requirements? If so, entry is granted. Not on a quota of what is deemed to be needed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not done on merit. All they are saying is if you merit a place and you're black, asian etc you don't pay as much.

 

[Yas786]

Come back when you know what you are actually talking about CmJared, because you clearly have no idea about discrimination against Native Americans and African Americans in the US education system.

+1..

 

[Pate]

In a society where the opportunity to receive the same primary and secondary education to achieve that merit then you would be right, however this is not the case in the United States, dismissing affirmative action across the board ignores the part that programs to encourage and support those from disasvantaged backgrounds, be they ethnic or otherwise play in helping to create the level basis whereas opportunity via merit alone is not discriminatory in itself.

You need to first create a system whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve, without that then you are still discriminating against those who cannot compete, not because they do not have the ability or potential, but because they do not have the opportunity to show that ability or fulfil that potential.

America has still not fully escaped it's past, even in 2011. Agreed. However, it's a problem that will be healed with time, not with acts which continue the inequality, albeit in a difference sense.

Equality is the natural equilibrium that will come naturally if it not's forced, obviously imo!

I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not done on merit. All they are saying is if you merit a place and you're black, asian etc you don't pay as much.

Are there no poor white people? So two people on the same terrace street in povertycentral could be paying radically different prices based on skin colour? Sounds like times of old to me.

 

[CrispyOtter]

Sigh... Wandered in expecting to see a jokey thread about an idea to set up a bake sale selling 'racist' cakes such as white fruit cake, black magic cake or brown sugar spice cake... Instead I get a news article and 4 pages of people hitting each other with the Daily Mail... Life is too short.

 

[Castiel]

America has still not fully escaped it's past, even in 2011. Agreed. However, it's a problem that will be healed with time, not with acts which continue the inequality, albeit in a difference sense.

Equality is the natural equilibrium that will come naturally if it not's forced, obviously imo!.

how long should people be the victims of discrimination? This isn't about creating more inequality, it is about endorsing, encouraging and in some cases enforcing equal opportunities for all, it only becomes reverse discrimination if the action has a disproportionate adverse effect on other groups, be they the Protected group or not.

Simply having a neutral equality policy doesn't mean it is not discriminatory if one or more groups begin at a significant disadvantage to begin with.

 

[Gepetto]

Just because you do not understand something outside of it's general sweeping terminology doesn't mean it has no credibility.

What is incredible is someone saying they believe in promotion through merit yet also believe in promotion through skin colour.

The fact that you think a pogrom and Affirmative Action are even related shows you clearly do not understand the term.

I understand the term perfectly well thanks. You have no idea where I'm from, or what I have experienced, yet you seem to believe you are the only one with valid opinions. Which is, of course, your right. Here in the UK at least.

 

[Stretch]

Are there no poor white people? So two people on the same terrace street in povertycentral could be paying radically different prices based on skin colour? Sounds like times of old to me.

My earlier post

Why don't they make it means tested. Contrary to popular belief not all white people were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and not blacks are the descendants of oppressed slaves.

 

[Castiel]

What is incredible is someone saying they believe in promotion through merit yet also believe in promotion through skin colour.

What is incredible is that you cannot seem to understand that it depends on the specific application and nature of the action taken and not based on a sweeping generalisation, even when it has been explained numerous times. It isn't promotion by skin colour either, it is promotion of disadvantaged groups to enable them to have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential and ability, the fact that the disadvantaged groups are thus disadvantaged because of their colour or sex or economic situation is moot, it is the disadvantage they endure that needs redress.

I understand the term perfectly well thanks. You have no idea where I'm from, or what I have experienced, yet you seem to believe you are the only one with valid opinions. Which is, of course, your right. Here in the UK at least.

Clearly you do not, and yes I realise you are a White Zimbawean and have valid issue with the Mugabe regime and his policies, nonetheless that doesn't mean that you understand the difference between promoting equal opportunities by positive action and a racial pogrom because clearly you do not if you think the civil rights movement in the United States in any way compares to Robert Mugabe's policies against the White population in Zimbabwe.

 

[Gepetto]

You're right, I am an idealist - then again, I believe starting froman idealism and extrapolating back until it intersects potential reality is the best way of dealing with large-scale issues. As to who would be best to manage such a progression, I'm not the right person to ask that sort of question. I'm a huge mysanthropist and have enough trouble trusting people to tie their shoelaces properly and speak without spitting on me.

I share your pain. Between having to have my assistant wipe my chin that is.

Indeed, it does - the point yet stands that it is an example of affirmative action gone as thoroughly and repugnantly wrong as can be imagined, which is why I highlighted the comparison as completely inappropriate.

Still with the "inappropriate"? I direct you back to your very next observation.

Positive discrimination has a great deal of negative association with it, and for the most part it's richly deserved.

Ergo, quite appropriate, I thought.

That shouldn't stop someone from being impartial when such a scheme is labelled thus out of linguistic accuracy and with an academic disregard for the connotations it may recall to the ignorant.

Sorry (actually, no, I'm not. Instinctive manners, and all that), but I'm (simply) not going to be impartial when faced with a discriminatory scenario, whether it be linguistically, or factually, accurate.

I don't understand the second part of your sentence though.

 

[Redz]

a member of the Pomo Tribe.

I had to read that part twice, I read it wrong the first time.