Affirmative Reaction

Priceless!

It has irritated me for a long time that some people believe in discriminating to counter discrimination.

WTF?!?!?!?

Leaving aside the merits of the argument, on either side, I think one thing is clear. This particular scholarship isn't considered "a stunt" because it gives preference to white students. It's considered a stunt because it's a stunt. The students involved openly admit it's a stunt. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT. They deliberately set out to do this to make a political point. They're "stirring the pot". It's about politics, not helping students.

This isn't some naive attempt to support students being unfairly portrayed as a political stunt designed to make a political point. It's a self confessed political stunt designed to make a political point being described as what it is.

Debate the merits of the point being made. Address the issue from all sides. But don't pretend this is some sort of left-wing media conspiracy to twist a philanthropic act into a political act. This IS a political act. It IS a stunt. That was kinda their whole point.

Sure, it's a stunt. Good on 'em.

I find it heartening that they had big enough balls to pull the stunt in the first place, especially in such close proximity to academia. Politically Correct racism should be attacked at every turn, we need a lot more "stunts" like this!

Seeing as the requirement is that the applicant must be "at least one quarter caucasian", that probably includes most "ethnics".

Racial purity is relatively rare in Canada/U.S. let's face it, we're a world of mongrels.

ABC's headline "Whites Only" is the usual MSM misinformation.

Im a mongrel myself but appear from the outside to be a WASPmiddleagedmale. The least qualified to do any snivel servant job according to the stats........not that I would want one.

Hmmm the "diversity nazis" march on ;-)

Maybe some day they can justify the social turmoil they cause with some desired end result. But from where I sit right now, I see no net benefit to ANY racial criteria being use in legislating or regulating...doing anything on a race based criteria is , in fact, "racist?.

As for racial "diversity" it has never been proven to have any net benefit socially, nationalistically nor in the evolution of western culture or the human species for that matter...diversity of race is really a moot natural and civil phenomina...all that really matters is citizenship and the equal application of rights and process before the law..."diversity" of and by itself has no intrinsic civil value....so what are these diversity witch hunters really after?

Well, if you want to see a different reaction from the MSM, try offering a "whites only" scholarship with a straight face and see what happens.

And the 25% threshold makes it all the funnier. If one were to apply that in reverse, and deny applicants of 25% European heritage access to scholarships directed at "visible minoritites", my guess is that you'd exclude most African Americans and virtually all Native Americans.

Why should it matter if this is a "stunt" or not? Either way the reaction is pretty telling.

WL Mackenzie Redux: ...all that really matters is citizenship and the equal application of rights and process before the law

This is in fact the goal even for proponents of affirmative action. The problem is, the social systems and institutions that mediate those rights and processes are themselves still quite inequitable. It may not be racism of the old-school white sheet & hood sort, but discriminatory practises still exist in many subtle and insidious ways.

...doing anything on a race based criteria is , in fact, "racist".

Not necessarily. Applying race-based criteria makes an action "racial." Whether it is or is not also "racist" depends on its motives and consequences.

Affirmative action programs in the form of targeted scholarships are intended to redress past and present discriminations in the education system specifically, and society generally, that perpetuate--whether consciously or otherwise--achievement disparities for some groups. They do so by providing access to educational opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable due to systemic barriers. Already privileged groups--primarily Whites; in some arenas, Asians as well--do not benefit from these provisions. Indeed, in some cases, these provisions are made at the expense of these privileged groups. Consider it a necessary evil, a deliberative countermeasure against more insidious forms of systemic racial discrimination.

In another SDA thread on income splitting, it was noted that the existing tax structure punished single-income high-earning couples with a stay-at-home spouse. It was also noted that the Tory proposal to allow income-splitting was in essence a tax break for these families, less so for lower-earning couples, and not at all single households. Though objectively "unfair", this was deemed acceptable because the proposal was intended to correct a preexisting bias in the system. A similar logic can be applied to affirmative action, which is also objectively "unfair" in its immediate application, but it is intended to make the broader system more equitable for all in the long-term.

objectively "unfair" in its immediate application, but it is intended to make the broader system more equitable for all in the long-term.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If it is objectively unfair, then that should be enough to end it.

A:

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.
It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy it feels to try to correct past injustice. Remove the injustice and leave the rest alone; attempts to repay yesterdays injustice with more injustice, foistered on the individuals who are innocent of the past injustice, is a slippery slope with no end, once you accept the premise.
"individuals" is the key term. "Collective guilt" is an irrational premise. Think about it.

As "Ed Minchau" says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ed Minchau: If it is objectively unfair, then that should be enough to end it

OK, then how do you propose to end the myriad forms of systemic discrimination that currently exist in our society, which are also objectively unfair but less visible in their causes and consequences?

A:

In a nutshell:
We must encourage the individual affected to make the systemic discrimination visible. Then we can rationally examine the perceived injustice, apply constitutional principles of equality, and remove the injustice. Once again, the key term is "individual".
It's called the "justice system". We need only to strive to make it work, and to not allow justice, equality of opportunity, and freedom to be subsumed by subjective and irrational PC thought. As it has been.

There is no blanket cure, by definition rights are exercised by individuals.

"Affirmative Action" programs and the like should never survive any sort of legal challenge. The fact that they have is the problem. Wishful thinking and socialist illogic encourage us to ignore the basic founding principals of free society, to our peril. Again, the slippery slope...

Mad Mike: ...attempts to repay yesterdays injustice with more injustice, foistered on the individuals who are innocent of the past injustice, is a slippery slope with no end, once you accept the premise.

I don't accept the premise that present individuals who benefit from an unjust system are "innocent" in any absolute sense. They may not consciously persecute others, but to passively accept privileges that are embedded in our shared social systems and to remain silent on the resulting injustices against others is to be complicit in the perpetuation of society-wide discrimination.

We must encourage the individual affected to make the systemic discrimination visible. Then we can rationally examine the perceived injustice, apply constitutional principles of equality, and remove the injustice...

Why should the onus be on the discriminated individual to point out the systemic discrimination that benefits people like you and I? If equality is our overriding ethical principle, then shouldn't we be proactive in rooting out these injustices wherever they exist, even if it comes at the expense of our own (unfairly and undeservedly acquired) privileged status? Why wait for the Rosa Parks of the world to stand up if we already believe that segregation is ethically indefensible?

You're also assuming that the discriminated individual is sufficiently empowered and provided with an appropriate environment in which to make visible such discriminations. As well, given your support for the application of constitutional principles of equality via the justice system, what's your opinion on the dismantling of the Court Challenges Program, whose stated mission is (was?) to "provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution"? Was dismantling the entire program the right approach, or would reform have been a more balanced strategy?

It's called the "justice system."

The justice system is itself one of those many social institutions in which systemic discrimination plays itself out. Plenty of research finds that, for instance, many pro se litigants appear before the courts without representation because they cannot afford it. Other research notes differing prosecution and sentencing rates by race. Still other data notes that both the judiciary and the bar are still disproportionately white and male. Cuts to legal aid, low attorney participation rates in pro bono programs, the inaccessible legalese of statutory and case law, byzantine legal regulations--the list of problems goes on and on. I point all this out only to highlight the extent to which these systemic issues are embedded in normative practises.

Once again, the key term is "individual".There is no blanket cure, by definition rights are exercised by individuals.

Indeed, but if barriers prevent those rights from being exercised by all individuals, then the ethical consequences are felt by both those targeted by discrimination, and those privileged by it (i.e., society). Again, if we are to prioritize ethical principles like individual equality and justice above all else, then arguably it is those individuals who benefit from inequality and injustice who should voluntarily shoulder the greatest ethical burden towards their correction. To do otherwise is to violate our own individual principles.

You appear to endorse an individualist (liberatarian?) perspective on individual/social injustices. Fair enough. Do you support the notion that injustices inflicted on other members of your society are, as a matter of principle, a potential threat to your own liberty as well?

The trick with affirmative action is when do you stop it? If it's supposed to be a stop-gap measure when does it end? Even now we see the negative feedback that comes from the system, as well as the reverse segregation that stems from it.

You get images of negative self worth from those who "benefit" from it, they are not seen as equals as they needed a leg up to get in. And those who rightly got in via their personal merits may not be properly recognized as doing it on their own.

Even if the numbers are now equal, the situation is still not equality. You are split between the "earned it" and the "given it".

Affirmative action MUST be short term in order to achieve it's goals. Turn it on for a short time and then turn it off again and let things normalize.

Gee, I don't understand why leftists think there's something wrong with being born with a light skin tone. Nor do I understand why they think it's necessary to discriminate against/exclude such individuals on that basis alone.

It's very hurtful to discriminate on the basis of skin color, among other things as set out in the Charter. But the left will do it if it wants. And they'll get away with it, thanks to their comrades and fellow travellers in the MSM and in the courts.

Light skinned individuals, amongst other demographics, are, in the view of the left, acceptable to be treated in a discriminatory manner.

Leftists favor some kinds of folks and discriminate against others. We know this, but leftists deny it, no doubt.

I guess leftists are bigots, then. They'll use any excuse and expect us all to automatically accept it without question or argument, and, ironically, call us bigots should we refuse to submit to their fascism.

"I don't accept the premise that present individuals who benefit from an unjust system are "innocent" in any absolute sense. They may not consciously persecute others, but to passively accept privileges that are embedded in our shared social systems and to remain silent on the resulting injustices against others is to be complicit in the perpetuation of society-wide discrimination."

Uhh... sure. In fact, you could even say they're "little Eichmanns," couldn't you?!

considering 'african'-americans collectively and individually have huge amounts of caucasian genes in their cells they should welcome the move.

what I wanna know is why I cant use the n word and 'african'-americans can. dont believe me try it some time and then watch a 'black' try it.

distinguishing permissable language based on RACE is godam DISCRIMINATION.

everybody or nobody.

I do not under stand the reaction to the $250 Caucasian Achievement Fund.Hey there are lots of the same thing, only they are for black only.Do I have a problem with that ;no. So what is the big deal.This gets a little on the idiot side if you can't have a caucasian fund. Affirmative action has always been a crock of sh.. from the begining.But now they call it diversity same crap different word.When you see a employment advertisement for a job and it says we support diversity that means,whites need not apply.It also means they do not have there percentages for every group.So knowledge of the job does not come into play.I call it on the job training for them.Cost is no object.

A few years ago we here in california voted to end AFFIRMATIVE ACTION dispite all the actions taken by JESSIE JACKASSON and his RAINBOW/PUSH bunch and that was a quite a few minorities who voted for it

"A" wrote:

>to passively accept privileges that are embedded
>in our shared social systems and to remain silent
>on the resulting injustices against others is to
>be complicit in the perpetuation of society-wide
>discrimination.

Let's get the definition of "privilege" straight.
If I've been winning (fair) coin tosses 2 out of 3
times, am I privileged?

Tell me what's wrong with this solution: Address
ROOT causes of differences in hiring (and other)
outcomes and don't explicitly interfere with
results.

Else, why not just taking ALL of EVERYONE's income
and ladle it out proportionately to everybody???

"A" wrote:

> both the judiciary and the bar are still disproportionately white and male.

Predominantly male also: inmates, high school / college dropouts, victims of violence, suicides, workplace injuries / deaths, etc etc etc

Is any of this THEIR fault, or are they victims too, and what should the system be doing for them????????

A:

So, it appears others here have carried on the debate in my absence...
A few points:

-If I see an injustice perpetrated on some one else, even to my benefit, I will point it out. But I'm only one individual? No, I'm not. Many feel that way, in spite of years of nanny-state philosophy encouraging abrogation of personal responsibility. Such a rebel, eh?

-Rosa Parks? What a canard. If Rosa were alive today, would she be demanding a law forcing all light-skinned people to sit at the back of the bus, to obstentively "correct" a past injustice?
I think not...But that is what "Affirmative Action" does. Reverse racism is still racism, and indefensible under any circumstances, in my view.
She stood up, made the injustice highly visible, and it was removed. If I was on the bus those many years ago, I would have given her my seat, as an old-fashioned courtesy, not because of skin-tone.

-The Court Challenges Program may have been sold as some sort of glorified government funded legal aid, but if that was the intent, that wasn't the result. That program was largely used by special-interest groups to implement injustice- it had to go.

-Many would certainly agree with your points about the systemic problems in the justice system, myself included. In my view the problem is that the "justice system" has almost completely evolved into the "legal system", consequently leaving it only as a forum for lawyers, justice being secondary or even tertiary. It's something that desperately needs fixing. We could start with a "Plain Language Act", but that's a whole 'nother debate.

-You seem to espouse the view that the priveleged in society must be punished. I disagree. Equality of opportunity must be our firm goal in a just society, attempts to ensure equality of outcome lead to a nightmare. No matter how benign-sounding they may be phrased.

-Personally, I most certainly do believe injustices to other members of society are a threat to my own liberty. In fact, gross discrimination and injustice to any human being concerns me. (I am not a defined Libertarian). Which is why I support our efforts in Afghanistan, for example, and not "Affirmative Action" foolishness.