Actually, they do and they explained why.
I explained why their explanation was faulty.
But it isn't faulty.
But if you want more detail -
"For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White
workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991)"
That is an example of treating employees of any race equally. In this case seniority is considered a merit. If you want to argue that it should not be considered a merit I am open to that, but you can get rid of seniority benefits without implementing AA.
But you miss the point completely.........since whites have been the dominant race for all of this country's history, whites dominant everything including seniority. So it doesn't matter if you eliminate seniority as a criteria when laying off people; in a world without AA, there will mostly be white male supervisors and white male supervisors are prone to first lay off women and minorities.
Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages.
Again an example of the college treating the races equally. Allowing them in based on their preparation to deal with the level or work and learning required by the college. If black people tend to not be sufficiently ready for college the answer is not to put them in a top college anyway, the answer is to prepare them better. Don't lower the bar for them, help them jump over the bar where it is.
No one said to lower the bar.....all AA does is give them an edge with their white counterpart if all other things are equal.
Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it.
People start off at different places and have different skills. Treating them justly and fairly means the results that you get will not be the same. Enforcing equal results is racial injustice. Giving someone a bonus and someone else a negative mark based on their race is racial injustice. Affirmative action is what does not correct racial injustice, it is racial injustice.
You seem to want to ignore this issue no matter how many times its presented but before AA, people were rarely treated "justly and fairly". So if people mostly were not treated "justly and fairly", how were women or minorities supposed to get into the hierarchy in the first place?
The only way to resolve this inequity is find a way that makes possible for women and minorities to have a fighting chance.
If by "lose out" you mean received reduced consideration for positions, and if "a large percentage" doesn't have to mean a majority then it isn't a myth at all.
I know of no factual evidence that supports your argument. Do you?
The factual information would be the existence of affirmative action programs that include quotas or bonus points or other ways of discriminating against certain groups such as White people or sometimes Asians or others. UM is a good example of this but it is not the only one.
If you want to argue that such programs are very very rare then we would have to conclude that AA did very little for blacks or any other group it was supposed to favor. To give advantage to one group you have to give a disadvantage to another. If there is no significant disadvantage to one group there is no significant advantage to another.
The evidence that AA is working is that for the first time women and minorities are closing the income gap with their white and Asian counterparts.
Secondly the advancements you are so
quick to proclaim did not start in earnest until after AA was put in place.
Not true. Black people where slowly catching up even before the civil rights laws. Affirmative action was not widespread until the 70s.
What are you talking about? In the 60's they were still trying to integrate the coffee shops. I don't think they even had blacks in commercials until the 80's. Income wise, blacks have only started catching up since AA. Even so as of 1995, 31% of all blacks were under the poverty line vs 9% of whites.
Conservative whites have never complained about that form of AA so why are they so adamant about this one?
Some of them have complained about the "good old boy network". Also it was not an example of official racism. It established criteria and treated all races fairly according to that criteria. It might have had the practical effect of reducing black participation, and maybe that practical effect is a good reason to junk it, but the practical effect does not amount to racial discrimination unlike AA.
This is impossible.......the good ole boy network was the very empitome of racism and discrimination. Its the very reason why AA was needed. It was evil, all inclusive and it kept women and minorities in their place. White men had a lock on everything and kept a good portion of our society from entry. More than 50% of our population was not contributing to its advancement. How many Einsteins, Edisons etc were not allow to fulfill their destiny because of this incredibly arbitrary hierarchy that preferenced white males.
I am assuming this need to rewrite history is so you can negate the effectiveness of AA. But just because you have that need does not mean history has actually changed. Under AA, the world is a much better place than it was before.....women and minorities are contributing in much more positive ways to the well being of this society. I don't want to go backwards even if you do.
ted |
