[Excelsior]

(10-21-2012 11:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Are we a nation of equals or are we not?

We're not. Getting rid of AA will not change that.

Quote:

Affirmative action is contradictory with equality.

American realities are consistently contradictory to equality. Again, getting rid of AA will not change that.

Quote:

Athlone, you posted this link: http://hlrecord.org/?p=15323

It presents a strong case against AA:

No, it presents a strong case for it by calling completely into the question one of the primary grounds for attacking AA: that it harms whites, and is therefore a form of "reverse discrimination". The numbers presented clearly contradict that, and even display a mild benefit for white males (often the most vocal opponents of the policies).
Again, his displaying this benefit of AA to whites is actually a strong argument for the policy, not against it, because it undermines one of the pillars of the opposition.

His argument following the establishment of all this is that, because whites are in fact major beneficiaries of AA (contrary to their own popular belief), AA is therefore not the best solution. The last portion of his argument is as follows, where he proposes a solution:

Quote:

Meritocracy gives minority groups the chance to excel in, and sometimes dominate, new fields. In the 1940s, basketball was a predominantly white sport—as a 1946 photo of the New York Knicks might easily attest. But today in the 21st century, African-Americans represent over 75 percent of NBA players. As writer Dinesh D’Souza notes, “Presumably […] it is merit that is producing this racially disproportionate result. If coaches are picking the best dribblers and passers and shooters, then who cares if one group has more players and another group has less?”

In contrast, had the NBA maintained a “diversity” policy similar to what some colleges have today, basketball teams would probably be mainly white, with only a “critical mass” of Asians, Latinos, and African-Americans. In that case, would the NBA still have superstars like LeBron James and Jeremy Lin?

The use of a game as an analogy is foolish enough (proponents of diversity are looking for far more substantive progress than that gained in the fields of running/throwing balls around), but the argument for the "meritocracy" (which doesn't exist) is about as naive as you can get.

He continues:

Quote:

Meritocracy, not affirmative action, is probably the more practical approach for promoting racial equality. Society should increase funding for reading programs, summer camps, pre-college preparation, and other educational opportunities that give minorities opportunities to work with whites on an equal basis. While affirmative action often results (ironically) in the entrenchment of white majorities, meritocracy offers minorities real opportunities to achieve real equality.

This shows that he actually isn't as well versed in the topic of AA with regards to under-represented minorities as he should be, even if the rest of his analysis has some merit. This is a very weak argument against AA, for reasons I pointed out above-it assumes equality where it doesn't actually exist, and presumes that AA is a cause (and not merely a symptom) of said inequality.
This inability to recognize the reality of the problem and its fundamentals prevents the promotion of any valid solution.

Quote:

This article argues that without AA white majorities would no longer be a majority, and therefore AA is racist.

The article argues that by ensuring the presence of a white majority or (at least) a white plurality, AA is therefore rendered counter-productive and/or ineffective for minorities. Aside from what I mentioned above (that this argument strongly aids AA proponents by attacking a pillar of the opposition who often claim "disadvantage" because of AA), the reality is that the maintenance of a white plurality (or even a slight majority) as a result of AA is not considered a major problem. The goal of AA is the maintenance of diversity, not the exclusion of whites.

Most AA proponents have no issues with the notion of a white plurality or slight majority, especially in a nation in which they are a majority and (even after losing majority status in about 30 years) will remain a plurality for a very long time to come.
The presence of said plurality =/= racism. He'd have a more effective case if AA proponents did make that conclusion, but they do not. Most AA proponents aren't too hard up about some white males/females gaining some benefit from AA.

We only get a bit worked up when said whites fail to acknowledge this benefit, and attempt to play the victim.