Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (78341)	10/26/2003 10:36:36 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Nice follow up. Thanks for posting that. And it's a really great point.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78341)	10/28/2003 2:00:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

White men are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action this country has ever seen. I disagree with Pitts when he says this. It probably was true in the past, and maybe still is in certain places and contexts but not in medical schools. Slots for academic admission, for employment and promotion, for bank loans and for public office have routinely been set aside for white men. Elected office is sort of a special case, people should be able to elect who they want to. As much as I might wish racial considerations to be less important in this area I would strongly oppose any legal attempt to push people to vote for minorities or to give minorities free extra votes (or perhaps give white people running in minority districts extra votes). As for academic admission white people are clearly discriminated against today. Bank loans are a more complex question. While I'm sure individual minorities are discriminated against the overall statistical evidence shows no discrimination. One big piece of evidence is that the default rate for loans to black people is higher then the rate for loans to white people. Bank loans are made or not made based on risk. If black borrowers where given a disadvantage and only those with the best credit histories got loans then their default rate should be lower then that of white people. It is not coincidence, happenstance or evidence of their intellectual, physical or moral superiority that white guys dominate virtually every field of endeavor worth dominating. It is, rather, a sign that the proverbial playing field is not level and never has been. If the playing field was not level in the past then one "team" may have racked up a lot of "points", that doesn't mean the playing field is not level now, esp. in medical schools (where it is actually probably titled the other way). Of course a case could be made that reversing the advantage is fair now so that both "teams" have a chance. The problem is we are not talking about teams, we are talking about a lot of individuals. The fact that a white person may have had a major unfair advantage over a black person in medical school 30 years ago, or in some other area the day before yesterday, doesn't mean it is fair to penalize a different white person by giving an unfair advantage to a different black person today. The fact that white people on the average make more money and are in other measurable ways in a superior position doesn't mean that most people are discriminating in favor of white people, it reflects on the fact that on the average they where less likely to come from poverty, from single parent households and from areas where the schools are terrible. Those advantages may largely be the result of previous real discrimination in favor of whites (or against black people or other races), but they are not evidence of current discrimination. I'm not saying that unfair discrimination doesn't exist any more, but now it exists in all directions. Also discrimination in favor of white people is usually illegal and almost always socially disapproved of. Discrimination in favor of minorities under AA programs is officially sanctioned by, and at times even imposed by the government. Which is IMO a greater injustice, and also one that is easier to remove. Discrimination in favor of white people is more subtle and hidden. It can not be removed by law or the political process. Its been fading away and will probably continue to fade away. AA just gets in the way of this "fading away", because AA heightens racial consciousness and encourages the idea of classifying and treating people by their skin color rather then according to their character or ability. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (78341)	10/28/2003 2:48:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

White men are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action this country has ever seen. First of all, while the general principle he's apparently trying to make--that white men have benefited from societal structure more than other people--may at one point have been true, though of course affirmative action as a principle didn't exist then, it isn't true today. Quite the opposite. I know of no program today which gives preferences to white men. But you and I could both name dozens which give preference to non-whites and women. Second, affirmative action is by its very name an affirmative program, and by its structure is government imposed or at least supported. True, there were such programs half a century ago in governmentally imposed segregated schools, to give just one example. But they have long disappeared. Third, it hasn't been all white men by any manner of means. In fact, there are few if any classes of white men who have been favored at all times in history. Fourth, Pitts once again ducks the issue by spewing smoke. The issue is whether, given that certain of the black medical staff who might have treated his wife were admitted to medical school on the basis of affirmative action with substantially lower average grades than the white staff who might have treated for his wife, is the position taken by the man irrational? And, it would be very interesting to know whether Pitts himself goes to black doctors or white doctors, wouldn't it?