Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

With exceptions for women, minorities, homosexuals... they were often discriminated against without so much as a thought toward their ability.

We did it in spite of discriminating against people.

This is largely irrelevant. There were qualified women, minorities, gays, etc. who were discriminated against. That overt discrimination shouldn't have happened.

 

And such declarations are an article of faith, not of fact.

 

You just pulled a bunch of stuff out of a largely incoherent article.

There was a trend line that suggested the gap would close, then it didn't. Can you speculate on why that happened?

 

The discrimination was obvious. There's no "article of faith" in that.

 

Correct. Not strictly. That's just one example.

 

Absolutely not! That's not the idea behind affirmative action. I'm afraid you got it all wrong. Employers are not required to do anything. But if they have two equally qualified individuals, the incentive by systemic racism to take the white candidate is offset by a different type of incentive. A tax incentive is what I would envision. But even the right to use some sort of "Affirmative Action Certified Business" seal in their publicity, for example, could be an incentive.

 

But we are not discussing singular examples; we are discussing which examples of discrimination can be productive examples and which not.

I argue that discrimination based on income/wealth can be productive; those without means, through no fault of their own, can catch a break. I argue that racial discrimination is almost always harmful; granting and denying access for no reason other than skin color does more harm than good for both parties, IMO.

 

Sorry, no. There are some AA programs that are consistent with that approach. Others have implied quotas, and when there’s a specific diversity target, compromises on merit often must be made.

By way of example, I think the Harvard admissions case addresses a program with implied quotas and caps. The program clearly seeks to deliver a specific number of blacks admitted to Harvard as freshman while tamping down the number of Asians.

 

You're taking both sides of the argument. "Granting and denying". I don't know anything about "denying". I'm talking about "granting".

Positive discrimination (i.e. "granting access") is almost always beneficial.

But we are really really going off-topic here. I'm not blaming you but affirmative action was not the topic of this thread.

 

We're talking about businesses.

The government does not control who is admitted at Harvard. All they do is issue grants and scholarships. Harvard can reject anybody who doesn't qualify.

 

Sorry, that's irrational, and it's ignoring the reality of the situation.

Provided we are discussing opportunities that are limited, e.g. seats in an incoming freshman class, then it is impossible to grant preference based on race without also denying access based on race, even when the applicants are otherwise equal. The black person gets the seat because of his skin color, and the white person is denied the seat because of his skin color. That is a reality, not an opinion.

 

I didn't say we were talking about government. Though in this case we are discussing a business that takes federal subsidies.

 

If employers are required to hire a percentage of their employees from a particular race, ethnicity or gender to get a tax break, they are. For example, just 2% of airline pilots are black. There's no way airlines can find enough blacks to make blacks 13% of their pilot hires.

Will there be tax incentives for women, other racial minorities, ethnic and religious minorities? Poor people?

 

First of all, Harvard can hire professors and build as many campuses as they want. But even if there were some situation in which something is limited, the fact is that racial discrimination EXISTS. And systemic racism means that discrimination is against minorities (specially black people). So discrimination is not created by affirmative action. Affirmative action simply compensates for the advantage that is ALREADY in the system. That is GRANTING access. Not denying.

If... whatever we're talking about, is limited. THAT limitation is what denies access. And if we take no action, that denial is RACIAL against black people. If we DO something, then the denial can be based on factors OTHER than race.

No solution is "perfect". But affirmative action levels the playing field as much as it can be leveled.

 

I'm talking about affirmative action as a government program. If private businesses engage in affirmative action on their own, that's a whole different conversation.

 

That is pure nonsense. Yes, racial discrimination still exists in our society, but that fact does not prove that AA does not racially discriminate.

Again, let's get back to the white applicant who was equally (or more) academically qualified to the black applicant for the lone remaining seat in Harvard's incoming freshman class. That white applicant is sent a rejection letter for only one reason: his skin color. That is, by definition, and act of racial discrimination.

I get the sense you're uncomfortable advocating for a program that discriminates based on race, but if you support AA there's absolutely no way of getting around it.

 

I don't see AA as better or worse in either environment.

More to the point, AA is, by definition, an act of racial discrimination in either environment.

 

Affirmative Action accounts for availability.

I know I spoke about the general population before. But that was in general. Not jobs that require a specialist. Like a pilot. For that, availability is also a factor that goes into the Affirmative Action Plan.

Affirmative action doesn't talk about blacks. Just about minorities, women and any other group that has been discriminated against. They don't receive the tax exemption. The businesses do.

 

I was talking about business being incentivized to hire other minorities, women, gays... we're talking about preferences for three-quarters of the population.

 

"More" is not a factor in affirmative action. "Equally" is. And racial discrimination exists. It's either against the white, or the black. Doing nothing is racial discrimination against the black student.

 

Of course. That's why it's called "Positive Discrimination".

 

Right. That's part of affirmative action.

Not sure how you would test if for gays but... sure. In theory that would be included.

 

Simply not true. Let's take a very famous AA case as an example, the University of Michigan's (emphasis added).

The case regarded the affirmative action policy in place for admissions at the University of Michigan, where on the basis of a points system to admission, minority students received additional points because of their race whereas white students did not. With a maximum of 150 attainable points, one would receive 20 extra points for being part of an underrepresented ethnicity group and would ultimately be granted admission if they met other basic requirements for admission.​

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_at_the_University_of_Michigan​

There is no stipulation that a black candidate must be otherwise equal with a white candidate before being granted 20 extra points. The extra points were granted (or denied) only on the basis of skin color. Therefore, a white student who otherwise scores, say, 10 points higher than a black candidate would be both more academically qualified and denied access based on their skin color.

Sorry, there's no getting around this: you are advocating for a racially discriminatory program. Suggest you take the tack others have and at least acknowledge this truth. You'd have a more credible (though still not convincing, IMO) argument that AA justifiable racial discrimination.

 

Not if you want to be accurate it isn't. The better description would be "racial discrimination that is positive," which still leaves it as racial discrimination.

You're now hiding behind euphemisms. That should tell you something about your argument (as it's no doubt telling others.)

 

What's your solution for people discriminated against when they experience systemic racism--poor K-12 schools, for example? My suggestion is focusing on need and that would also cover even more numerous poor whites who also have lousy schools. Overt racism should be rooted out, but business has no interest in promulgating racism that hurts their bottom line.

If we have affirmative action for women, visible minorities, ethnic groups, religious groups and homosexuals, we could hit 75% of the population.