<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>Is “tyranny of the majority” acceptable only when the issue is “diversity?” You dismissed the voters’ choice in Michigan two years ago to forbid racial preferences as “tyranny of the majority,” but you aren’t applying this term to the schools that want to create “diversity.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you would rather have me use the standard definitions, I don’t mind at all. Race-blind becomes race “not considered,” and race-based becomes race “considered,” albeit a very loose “considered.”</p>
<p>In the past, our nation committed many sins against non-whites. Individuals were singled out because they looked different; there was no other reason. If race was the cause of so much pain in the past, why continue its use as a consideration? If the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race, then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.</p>
<p>
I chose that stark, narrow, unrealistic example very much on purpose. If we agree on the principle, we can work on the implementation details.</p>
<p>
Ok, that’s where we disagree.</p>
<p>“If race was the cause of so much pain in the past, why continue its use as a consideration? If the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race, then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”</p>
<p>It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference between (a) the majority discriminating against members of a minority and (b) the majority discriminating in favor of members of a minority, which incidentally harms some members of the majority. In case (a), it’s pretty obvious that the majority is doing this just because it has the power to help its own members. In case (b), there is some other reason for doing it (in this case, to achieve diversity, to make recompense for past invidious discrimination, to effect social change within lagging elements of the economy, or whatever). Opponents of affirmative action tend to discount this difference, which I think is a big mistake.
Analogy: recruiting of athletes is not discrimination “against” the non-athletic. Rather, it is discrimination in favor of a minority group because the majority group likes successful sports teams.</p>
<p>From Walter Benn Michaels’, professor of English at the University of Illinois, Chicago, [url=<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3D81738F932A25757C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1]Diversity’s">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3D81738F932A25757C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1]Diversity’s</a> False Solace<a href=“New%20York%20Times%20Magazine,%204/11/1004”>/url</a>: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>vossron,</p>
<p>You disagree that in the past, our nation committed many sins against non-whites?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have to disagree. Preferential treatment (i.e. discrimination ‘in favor of’) is no less discriminatory than discrimination ‘against.’ In both situations, people are singled out and are treated differently based on their race.</p>
<p>
Sorry, I was ambiguous. I disagree that the “sins” are solely in the past.
Indeed they are. The issue in our college context here is why? What are colleges trying to accomplish? In broad general terms, the betterment of our society, perhaps even the world. I think we differ on the details of working toward such goals.</p>
<p>
It’s not the system that causes the grievances between the two individuals to form, it’s usually prejudiced individuals who do. I think that certain people enjoy making the Affirmative Action debate one about race when in reality it includes race, gender, geography, etc. I mean, how often do you see California kids and Northeast kids up in arms about the kid from South Dakota who gets into Stanford with a lower ACT or SAT score? What bothers me most is that it seems as though these prejudiced individuals enjoy spreading their, usually incorrect, rhetoric about Affirmative Action among high school students. Any time that you hear an older American questioning whether or not Affirmative Action should have been started in the 1960s, remember that these are probably the same Americans, who due to ignorance or prejudice, also fought against creation of various Civil Rights legislation. If it were not for these people, the Affirmative Action debate would have been over by now.</p>
<p>
I think the thing to take from an example like this is that there would probably be more white prep-school kids with a 2310 than black inner-city kids with 2300. So even if you disregard the factors that typically prevent black inner-city kids from scoring that high, the black inner-city kid would still get due to the diversity he would bring with him.</p>
<p>
When you’re talking about top schools though, the average scores are probably more like Asians at 2150, Whites at 2100, African Americans/URMs at 2000. The difference between most Asians, Whites, and URMs, in terms of test scores usually is irrelevant because colleges care more about whether or not an applicant is qualified and don’t take “more qualified” approach even though that’s what many CC’ers think they do or should do.</p>
<p>fabrizio:
The Michigan case clearly was “tyranny of the majority” because it was at the expense of a minority of individuals. Anyways, if you want to continue using pejoratives to make your arguments and call something that is in the interest of the social good “tyranny of the majority,” go ahead. I don’t really care. </p>
<p>Also, have you ever thought that “tyranny of the majority” can be a good thing? I think it’s funny that your argument is the exact same one that pedophiles use to say that the majority, who are are not pedophiles, is persecuting them. You and I both know that allowing people to molest small children is not in the interest of the common good, but, apparently, many pedophiles disagree and believe that they are being “tyrannized by the majority.”</p>
<p>
That reeks of understatement, “sins against non-whites,” “singled out because they looked different.” Anyways, how does this make sense, “If race was the cause of so much pain in the past, why continue its use as a consideration?” Are you arguing about whether or not Affirmative Action should have been created in the first place?</p>
<p>“If the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race, then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That’s not the purpose of Affirmative Action. </p>
<p>Moreover, I would like to point out that you used two different connotations of “discriminate” in your argument. If you take the first to essentially mean on the grounds of promoting racism, while you take the other to mean promoting diversity, then your argument does not make sense.</p>
<p>
Can you please elaborate on that some more? I think that you are wrong because “discrimination” has a different connotation in each scenario and the outcomes of the two scenarios are drastically different.</p>
<p>
I agree with that, but honestly it’s an more of an argument for us to keep Affirmative Action in addition to addressing socio-economic differences. However, I think that the author of that is mistaken because it seems to me that he or she missed the fact that making it possible for more minorities to get a college education will eventually remedy the socio-economic differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every once in a while. I see this kind of comment, sometimes with a joking rather than outraged tone, most often when someone looks at the odds of qualifying for the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad (USAMO) in different states. I see more consistent outrage when people are commenting about qualifying for the National Merit Scholarship semifinalist status from different states, and some outrage when people comment about college admission odds from different states.</p>
<p>“I would have to disagree. Preferential treatment (i.e. discrimination ‘in favor of’) is no less discriminatory than discrimination ‘against.’ In both situations, people are singled out and are treated differently based on their race.”</p>
<p>But I don’t get why you think preferential treatment for the minority by the majority is inherently bad. In other words, I can understand why you think it’s bad for the strong to take from the weak and give to themselves, but why is it wrong for the strong to take from themselves and give to the weak?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I won’t speak for the person you are asking this question, but there is evidence from international policy comparisons that preferential policies of all kinds increase social strife and in the worst cases result in genocide or civil war.</p>
<p>“But I don’t get why you think preferential treatment for the minority by the majority is inherently bad. In other words, I can understand why you think it’s bad for the strong to take from the weak and give to themselves, but why is it wrong for the strong to take from themselves and give to the weak?”</p>
<p>Who is weak here??? The vast majority of America is white (at the moment…) and that’s just how it is. It’s neither bad nor good it just is. And the point is that other then some basic differences solely dealing with appearence all races are the same. And if all races are basically the same why do some need preferential treatment? The giving of preferential treatmen is the only thing separating races today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it isn’t the strong who are taking from themselves and giving to the weak. It’s not as if white high school seniors are all in favor of this policy. Many are against it, yet are forced to give up their spots all the same. And it’s not as if the ones who created the policy in the first place are giving anything up.</p>
<p>Additionally, you can’t generalize and say that caucasians and asians are strong and blacks/latinos are weak. All races field plenty of strong candidates, it’s just that more candidates tend to be white and asian. In my opinion, there is no reason why a latino with a weaker application should be chosen over a white with a weaker application.</p>
<p>
This strikes me as unbelievably naive.</p>
<p>“This strikes me as unbelievably naive.”</p>
<p>Um…Barack Obama is about to be president in a country that is 70% white. And obviously there are still racist people but the point is most people are not.</p>
<p>
Is that really relevant to our discussion? In most cases those Affirmative Action policies were much more controversial than our own. For example, it was and is still the case in some countries that a certain percentage of government officials belong to a particular ethnic group. That example of Affirmative Action is clearly much more controversial than allowing colleges to consider race, gender, geography, etc. when making admissions decisions.</p>
<p>
Anyone who thinks that they own a “spot” at a particular college is mistaken.
What exactly would make such a person believed they were entitled to a “spot?”</p>
<p>
I actually agree with you here. This debate should not have anything to do with “stronger” and “weaker.” As JP_Omnipotence pointed out there are “strong” and “weak” individuals from every race. But again, what does this have to do with how Affirmative Action is practiced today? In some cases it does address socio-economic injustices, but, more often than not, it is used to promote diversity.</p>
<p>
Well, if the college wanted to increase the number of Latinos it had, it would take the Latino.</p>
<p>EDIT:
What!? Wow, way to come out and let the world know you are prejudiced against African Americans/Hispanics/etc. If you are not admitting that you are prejudiced, please clarify what you mean by that statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do indeed, and that is perfectly alright.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>So, as long as something is “in the interest of the social good,” majority support for that something will not be “tyranny of the majority.” Did you ever stop and think that to a majority of the voters of Michigan in 2006, colorblind equal treatment under the law was “in the interest of the social good”?</p>
<p>“Tyranny of the majority” simply refers to mob rule, where on a whim, the rights of those in the minority can be taken away by those in the majority. In the case of pedophiles, they never had a right to sex with minors in the first place. You can’t take away what wasn’t there to begin with.</p>
<p>You do realize that it is no understatement that our nation sinned against non-whites, yes? I hope you don’t believe that blacks and only blacks were discriminated against in the past. Take a look at the Chinese Exclusion Act or Korematsu for examples of sins against non-whites.</p>
<p>Race is responsible for the implementation of segregation and various immigration quotas. I don’t see why anyone would continue to argue that it should be considered when its consideration has caused so many pain in the past.</p>
<p>I think you’re making something more complicated than it is. If the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race, then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. There’s only one meaning of ‘discrimination’ here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, discrimination does not have a different connotation in each scenario. In both situations, people are singled out and are treated differently based on their race. That is discrimination, plain and simple. The “outcomes” do not change the fact that discrimination took place.</p>