McCain to lose even more support among women and Hispanics?

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 1:02am

Again, it depends how you present it. As for the data changing, I can’t recall any significant events that would lead people to shift one way or another on the issue.

No, it’s not an issue of right or wrong. I think that Sarkozy best explained what modern day affirmative action is. He said it’s “positive discrimination.” (Older Americans like yourself will ofcourse cringe when they hear the word "discrimination and not “get it.”)

If you think about it, there are two forms of discrimination. There’s discrimination to exclude individuals and there’s discrimination to include individuals. For example, I’m having a birthday party and making the invitations. I decide to not invite you because you are conservative and I only want moderates and liberals at my party. That’s discriminating to exclude. Now, let’s say that you are the only conservative I know and that the rest of my friends are all moderates and liberals. I choose to invite you since you typically have a harder time getting along with everyone else since they are moderates and liberals and as a consequence you rarely get invited to parties. However, I realize that if I invite you I can’t invite one of my other friends. I choose to not invite Joe because even though he’s a liberal, I’m better friends with you. In this case, even though Joe is excluded from my party, I discriminated to include someone who may have been excluded had I not used affirmative action.

The bottomline though is that it’s fair and seems rather arbitrary to most people.

tega · July 28, 2008, 7:55am

I am also black, and I dont agree with any form of race based Affirmative Action. AA only benefits affluent blacks in the suburbs who have the means to attend good k-12 schools, it does not benefit the poor black kid in the inner city who is more likely to drop out of school before he can enjoy AA.

If we want to equalize opportunities for everyone, we ought to fix the deplorable state of schools in minority-dominated neighborhoods. Affirmative Action is just putting a band-aid on a much bigger problem.

Most educated people share Hillarys view on this issue. Poor people of all races should be given a break; Poor Blacks in inner cities, poor Whites in Appalachia, Poor Asians, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans. You get the drift here, the emphasis should be on poor, not race, not gender.

How many females compete for elected positions? If there were fewer women competing, fewer women would be elected. I dont see what can be done about this. There are more women applying to colleges, and more women are being accepted. A couple of years ago, Harvard announced that for the first time in their illustrious history, more females would be enrolling in their undergraduate program. More women would be enrolling because more women applied, they did not go out to make sure that women are equally represented as men to reflect our society.

My insurance does not cover condoms, so why should they cover birth control? [I now that birth control is used for other things, and I think in those circumstances, the insurance company should cover them]

How many women and minorities competed for the government contracts? What was the quality of their bids? Without any of this information, you cant conclude anything from this statistics.

He definitely hasnt lost my vote, we should move to Hillarys position. We ought to fix the k-12 system, you cant build anything on a shaky foundation.

tega · July 28, 2008, 8:04am

Sarzoky talking about race issues? I thought France was supposed to be a race blind society. Did he talk about the deplorable conditions of some of the minorities in France? Most of them can’t even get jobs (even though they are college educated, and they speak perfect french) because they are minorities.

Do you know the number of minorities in Sarkozy’s cabinet? Do you know the number of minorities in France?

marite · July 28, 2008, 8:15am

Well, there are more of them in prominent positions in Sarko’s cabinet than in the US cabinet. But I agree with Tega’s point about minorities being discriminated in France, from the experience of some members of my own family.

I also think we should move from face diversity to economic diversity, so I was disappointed at Obama’s automatic criticism of McCain.

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 11:25am

tega:

Obama and Hillary have the same position on this issue.

The point about female leaders is not about affirmative action. It’s about why diversity is important.

That’s a bit disingenuous. Condoms are dirt cheap. No one needs insurance to purchase condoms.

Anyway, if you think about it, there really isn’t a good reason to not cover contraceptives. It’s in the insurance companies interestest to cover these things because it helps them avoid other health-related costs like OB/GYN visits, prenatal care, etc.

What does that have to do with anything I am talking about? Sarkozy was saying that in order to address these problems they needed “positive discrimation.”

bz2010 · July 28, 2008, 11:25am

nj - your paragraph & analogy about discrimination doesn’t really help your case. Whether, as you say, discrimination is inclusive or exclusiive, it’s discrimination nonetheless. For every person you INCLUDE, there’s someone who’s EXCLUDED. Doesn’t matter the motivation behind it, it’s still discrimination and it’s not right.

I like what Tega had to say, that aid should be distributed based on economic factors (i.e. to the poor) rather than race. THAT’S how the goal of giving everyone equal opportunity can best be met.

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 11:48am

marite and tega:

Why?

You need all types of diversity. No one type of diversity is more important than another. It’s important to have racial/ethnic diversity, socio-economic, gender, geographic, etc. diversity in all groups.

Also, there are glaring problems with socio-economic affirmative action.

1.) Socio-economic affirmative action puts Asians at a disadvantage since Asians are the wealthiest racial/ethnic group in this country. It would also disadvantage Jews since they tend to also be wealthy.

2.) Socio-economic affirmative action would disproportionately help white since, numerically, there are more poor whites than poor blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans.

3.) Socio-economic affirmative action already exists at most schools. Socio-economic affirmative action would just be an ineffective proxy for how good an applicant’s school is and most schools already consider the quality of the applicant’s school. How would you deal with the fact that some families making $50,000 a year decide to send their kids to good private schools while others just send them to public schools?

I agree that socio-economic affirmative action should exist but only as a means of promoting diversity. However, it has to be used in conjunction with today’s affirmative action policy so that we can ensure we maintain racial/ethnic and geographic diversity.

I think that the future of affirmative action is holistic admissions.

tega · July 28, 2008, 11:50am

what is the meaning of this “positive discrimation.” ?

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 11:51am

Motives don’t matter? I don’t think that’s true. Look at our legal system. ;)

I disagree. Socio-economic affirmative action decreases racial/ethnic and geographic diversity so you need something to work against that.

Also, you need to consider the whole person. That’s why I think that holistic admissions is the future of affirmative action.

See my post about discriminating to include versus discriminating to exclude. It’s a similar idea.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 11:56am

Really?

One of the biggest criticism of the AA policies regarding Asians is that, after having helped this subgroup tremendously, the well has dried for the group in general, leaving Cambodians, Hmongs, Laotians, Vietnamese, and other subgroups without the help they still deserve.

Further how do you reconcile that Indians and Chinese In California do report the highest incomes among minorities with the fact that the UC system reports the highest percentage of Pell grantees. Is this because of the cultural differences in the interpretation of earned income and reportable income, or because of the great number of cash only business in … certain communities?

We should applaud all the twists and turns that over-represented minorities invent on a daily basis!

marite · July 28, 2008, 12:01pm

NJ:
I am for all kinds of diversity. My issue is with legislating only certain kinds of diversity and not others. If a company feels that it would better serve its community through having a more diverse staff, it will hire a more diverse staff. 
In our community, schools replaced face diversity with SES diversity to avoid looming legal action. The result has not been hugely different in terms of the composition of the student bodies at various schools. But I think it makes for better discussion of what’s needed to say such & such students are not achieving at grade level because they’re poor than because they’re from a particular ethnic group.

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 1:42pm

It doesn’t matter what the company thinks. It has already been established in the courts that pursuing diversity is a legitimate goal of the state.

Also, it has nothing to do with, “But I think it makes for better discussion of what’s needed to say such & such students are not achieving at grade level because they’re poor than because they’re from a particular ethnic group,” now. Why can’t people get this!?

It’s about promoting diversity.

Addressing underperforming schools, etc. is a completely separate issue! It’s only related if you still think that affirmative action is still used to “level the playing field.”

Even if every ethnic, gender, geographic, socio-economic, etc. group performed the same, we’d still need to take steps to ensure that we create groups that are representative of the diversity within this country. Colleges would still have to take steps to make sure that they get a good number of males and females, minorities and whites, kids from big cities and kids from rural areas, etc. so that they can create a diverse class.

I am getting the impression from your post that you think there are only two remedies: eliminate racial/ethnic affirmative action while implementing socio-economic affirmative action to achieve diversity (but you’re completely ignoring the fact that this results in less geographic and racial/ethnic diversity) or improve K-12 schools.

That’s wrong. Go look up Justice Powell’s opinion on the Bakke case. He says that promoting diversity whether it is racial/ethnic, gender, geographic, socio-economic, etc. is a legitimate goal of the state. Moreover, from my basic understanding of law, socio-economic class can be considered without any sort of affirmative action as long as its not used as a proxy for race.

marite · July 28, 2008, 1:49pm

Promoting diversity is basically refusing to discriminate. And that is what McCain is supporting here.

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 1:49pm

xiggi:

To be honest, I have no idea what the point of your post is.

Anyway, in my opinion, I agree that when it comes to college admissions Asians get screwed over. Partially because “Asian” is too broad of a category and because of the concept of the overrepresented minority–which I think was created to protect whites/legacies from too much Asian competition.

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 1:52pm

That doesn’t make sense. Are you talking about discriminating to include or discriminating to exclude?

I think that you have to be a tad bit more realistic. I think that this is an issue that older Americans are incapable of understanding because they either think discrimination is evil or is okay because that’s how the issue was presented to them when they were younger.

Lastly, I am not saying that I fully support the status quo. Personally, I believe that Harvard’s affirmative action policy should be the standard for all affirmative action policies dealing with college admissions at least. I think that holistic admissions will be the affirmative action of the future. However, in order to truly practice holistic admissions, I think it is important for reviewers to be legally allowed to consider your ethnicity/race, gender, and where you come from in regards to geography.

EDIT:

Honestly, I am a bit disappointed in how confused Americans are on this subject. Everyone seems to be rooted in the extremes. People either believe that race, gender, class, and geography mean everything or they think those things are insignificant. I think that both of these positions are incredibly naive.

marite · July 28, 2008, 2:08pm

nj:

The discussion is not about college admissions. The issue of holistic admissions is not what the policy is about.

We are all naive, uninformed, etc… except you. Fine.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 2:16pm

Well, there is always hope. We can look forward to the wisdom of your opinions to shed much needed light and clarity.

zoosermom · July 28, 2008, 2:18pm

It always amuses me when a poster manages to create disagreements with other posters on all areas of the political spectrum. Xiggi, me, and especially Marite. That about covers the entire range of posters here!

Newjack88 · July 28, 2008, 2:40pm

marite:

When most people talk about affirmative action they’re usually talking about it in regards to admissions.

Xiggi seems rather informed.

Please don’t get sour because I am questioning whether or not you know what you’re talking about. That’s what people do when they have competing opinions.

You said, “I also think we should move from face diversity to economic diversity, so I was disappointed at Obama’s automatic criticism of McCain,” and when I asked you whether you thought certain kinds of diversity were more important than others you said, “I am for all kinds of diversity.”

None of this makes sense.

Your first statement indicates that you think that racial/ethnic and gender diversity are less important than socio-economic diversity. In addition, your calling it “face diversity” clearly belittles its important and suggests that “face diversity” is something you think is insignificant.

You response to my question suggests that you think that all forms of diversity are equally important–if you disagree, look at the question I asked you and look at your response. However, isn’t “face diversity” a form a diversity? Why do you think that racial/ethnic and gender diversity are important yet you belittle them calling them “face diversity?”

Also, your saying that, “My issue is with legislating only certain kinds of diversity and not others,” just isn’t true. Your posts seem to indicate that you think that socio-economic class is something that is not covered by already existing affirmative action policies. This isn’t true. Again, read Justice Powell’s opinion on the Bakke case.

You also said, “If a company feels that it would better serve its community through having a more diverse staff, it will hire a more diverse staff,” which is out of touch with reality. First of all, promoting diversity is considered a societal good and as established by the Bakke case a legitimate goal of the state. Second, a company is not the state. Though it is in society’s interest to promote diversity so that everyone is adequately represented, the company is free to do what they choose as long as they don’t discriminate to exclude certain groups. The company is not the government thus is has no explicit obligation to promote diversity like the goverment does–the goverment is obligated to do what is in the interest of society and since promoting diversity is in the interest of society the government is obligated to promote diversity.

marite · July 28, 2008, 2:39pm

Zmom:
I happen to agree with you on quite a range of issues, you know, and respect you all the time! But Xiggi may be amused to find himself lumped with old fogeys like me:)

McCain to lose even more support among women and Hispanics?

CONNECT WITH US