Quotas and Affirmative Action Discussion Thread

[chess-z]

lol no one understands that these stereotypes are because of affirmative action.

for a claim like that any reasonable debater would require severeal studies, please provide them

 

[Navin]

Maybe I've missed something, but it sounds like you want to use affirmative action, a system which factors race and gender in the hiring process, to combat negative stereotypes about people only getting jobs because race and gender are in the hiring process. Wouldn't that enforce the stereotypes rather than harm them?

It's more of creating a diverse, representative body, especially in certain professional sectors, such as medicine as I touched on above.

Really though, it is becoming a question of whether or not a level-playing field is still needed at this time. I'd prefer to see it shift over from race to assisting anyone (of any background) who is legitimately 'Disadvantaged'/Lower SES who may not had the resources to succeed.

 

[00swms]

Because right now that's just a dumb meme from the other side to make them look worse? If anything it's a tiny vocal minority there.



At least 1 inf 5 women get raped in college. Telling them it's their fault they got raped and not a problem of a bigger systemic issue probably is very traumatic, as rape tends to be.

Actually I was not planning even commenting on the thread, but I'm going let you the 'At least 1 inf 5 women get raped in college.' is nonfactual or at best inaccurate. In the case of ' 'At least 1 inf 5 women get raped in college.'', based a online survey first how do we take this seriously if we are not able verify the claims, oddly worded question, and small sample size brings in the question integrity of the research. The more accurate numbers are from Bureau of Justice Statistics, sexual assault and rape on women on a college campus over 17 year period is about 1 in 40, but if look at the years between 2010 to 2013 it 1 in 52 meaning it has gone down over the years, and as a side note these numbers are estimates. Also I have put links to all my sources below.

Mathematical Process

17 Years

9.2 + 7.8 + 6 + 7.1 + 8.8 + 8.9 + 7.6 + 6.5 + 4.7 + 5.4 + 5.5 +5.2 +3.7 + 4.1 + 4.6 + 5.9 + 4.4= 105.4

105.4 / 17 = 6.2

1000 / 6.2 = 161.29

161.29 / 4 = 40.32

1 in 40 females sexual assault and rape

2010-2013

4.1 + 4.6 + 5.9 + 4.4 = 19

19 / 4 = 4.75

1000 / 4.75 = 210.53

210.53 / 4 = 52.63

1 in 52 females sexual assault and rape

If you're in doubt of any of my math calculation just to page 17 of 'RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMIZATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGE FEMALES' for BJS.


Sources

The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA)
Study


Rape and Sexual Assault
Victimization Among College-Age
Females, 1995–2013

 

[bobjr]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/

It's been noticed that the numbers have been consistent over the years. It even mentions that self surveys are more important because of how little attention rape and sexual assault charges can get. Yeah if you say only rapes that get reported to police count sure, but so many rape and sexual assaults don't because a lot of times it ends up even worse for the women.

It does say that more work needs to be done to get better results, but to throw all data out over something hard to quantify outright seems silly to me.

 

[Navin]

Fairly certain the "1 in 5 college women get raped" has been debunked. However, I imagine if you include all forms of reported sexual assault (unwanted groping [one girl at uni reported someone for giving free hugs on the Diag], kissing, etc), harassment, discomfort, stalking, etc, then I wouldn't be surprised if it's something around 1 in 6 or 7. <-- That being said, I would expect men to have a fairly high statistic with those loosely defined boundaries as well.

 

[bobjr]

It's been "debunked" in the sense that it's hard to quantify in a specific amount so more research is being done, like with most studies. The big point is it happens enough that there's a serious problem people feel aren't being properly addressed.

 

[Ereshkigal]

It's been "debunked" in the sense that it's hard to quantify in a specific amount so more research is being done, like with most studies. The big point is it happens enough that there's a serious problem people feel aren't being properly addressed.

I actually think the fact we're having such problems with it is part of a bigger issue that's worse than we think it is.

There are very few crimes in America that are this hard to quantify, and most of those don't have nearly the same amount of data. The fact this one does tells me that rape victims are treated badly enough by the system that we're having a very hard time getting anything close to accurate information.

Part of what I think would help with that is Affirmative Action. If we have far more women involved in handling these cases, I am willing to bet we will see improvement. Add in a complete overhaul of police oversight, media anonymity for both accuser and accused so the accuser doesn't have any reason to believe they will face reprisal, and training reforms and I believe we'll see things massively improve and we'll be able to finally get an idea of what the real ratio is.

And then we'll finally be able to reduce that ratio.

 

[GhostAnime]

Because there is absolutely no need for the gap to be zero.

Part of it is societal pressure, and that is what we need to fix (women who want to be engineers but are discouraged from doing so), but part of it is also men and women make different choices.

If they want to study psychology, so be it. There is no reason to force them from doing what they want just to close some arbitrary statistic of median wage. Any women has exactly the same opportunity to become rich as a man.

There is no reason to give Jane the job over Jack simply because Mary chose to be a counselling psychologist and pulled down the median wage. That is unfair af.

I think you guys are thinking about money as the sole issue. Women enjoy spending time with their kids, and usually are willing to make less to live a more balanced life. That's probably why women in general are happier than men.

@Pikachu: the pay raise is (probably) due to men being more aggressive and demanding. Employers want to pay people the least.

People won't be penalized, but if they work less hours (and have a less flexible schedule) you are less likely to be promoted. You can't change that.

this just in: science shows that white men are quick to use science as a cover for sexism.

 

[U.N. Owen]

I think we discussed gender, but I don't think we discussed race too much. After all, that's AA's other side.

 

[Ereshkigal]

I think we discussed gender, but I don't think we discussed race too much. After all, that's AA's other side.

That gets into equality vs. equity, which no one really wants to talk about.

Equality means everyone has the same chance, but almost never results in the same outcomes for everyone. In part because the people in power are not the white race as a whole, but a select group of sociopaths within the white race and normally, when people discuss equality, they're discussing equality with those sociopaths and not the poor whites who are typically trampled on by them. Most people typically don't realize there is a massive difference between the two groups or why it is equality requires more sacrifices than it gives benefits or how much it is actually terrible when you examine it objectively.

If you want to see equality in action, take one good look at America. We achieved it on both the race axis and sex axis. The problem is, as everyone is learning, it only holds benefits for the people who were already in power to begin with. Which is why I hold such thinkers as King as being not only inherently flawed, but outright dangerous to the very groups they are trying to help.

Equity, on the other hand, is everyone having the same outcome. This often means actually increasing inequality, as you're going to have to give more benefits to the disadvantaged than you give to the advantaged. This is often mislabeled equality, which is why it's often challenged as being self-defeating in the area of increasing equality... because, really, it's actually decreasing equality. But the point is the sameness of outcome. And this is what everyone really wants.

AA is an example of an equity program. If we want to increase equality, affirmative action would have to be one of the first things on the chopping block. But if we want the races to end up with the same ending, with the same ratios of rich to poor and same societal power, then we're going to need affirmative action and similar equity programs... even as much as we'll have to admit they're actually destroying equality simply by existing.

Maybe once the equity programs have run their course, we can focus on equality. But unfortunately, America put the cart before the horse and now is dealing with everyone wondering why the goods haven't arrived yet... and now we have to fix that, and start by accepting we made a mistake by seeking equality before seeking equity.

Edit: To expand on the above... Equity would naturally also require a lot of work on equality if we had started going after it first. For example, we can't have African American or women Presidents if African Americans and women can't participate in politics. We can't have everyone making the same ratio of incomes if one race or sex is confined only to certain careers. We would likely have made most of the same advances in society that we made in real life, but I suspect we would have made other advances that would have left us in a far better position to transition to equality. As things stand, it's increasingly obvious we have to transition fully from equality to equity if we are going to do away with a lot of lingering societal discrimination, which is going to be a step backwards no matter what.

 

[chess-z]

Thank you Ereshkigal. This is what I've been trying (and probably failing) to get across, but you nailed it. Good job, seriously.

 

[Genaller]

It's more of creating a diverse, representative body, especially in certain professional sectors, such as medicine as I touched on above.

Really though, it is becoming a question of whether or not a level-playing field is still needed at this time. I'd prefer to see it shift over from race to assisting anyone (of any background) who is legitimately 'Disadvantaged'/Lower SES who may not had the resources to succeed.

Well should these quotas be used to deliberately force representation parallel to that of the populous? Also correct me but wouldn't med schools be far more concerned with who'd meritocratically most likely be the best doctor/diagnostician/surgeon rather than diversity. There's nothing wrong with diversity but the scientific principles of medicine aren't going to change regardless of who you are so deliberately selecting for diversity for the sake of diversity seems unnecessary. In short, if a particular batch of med school students happens to be really diverse; great!, but if they're not, then that's fine too as long as those students were the most meritocratically deserving among their pool of applicants. Meritocracy should be especially important for medicine considering the potential consequences of incompetency.

I agree. Circumstances should be looked at at the individual lvl to determine if a given applicant has been genuinely disadvantaged or hasn't had access to resources that most others have had rather than determining how disadvantaged someone is automatically through broad labels such as race, gender, nationality, religion etc...

 

[GhostAnime]

When you suggest (or imply) that focusing on diversity somehow decreases the talent pool, you do understand that you also infer that a potential population is just genetically/naturally superior at being nurses/doctors than another based on... what?

Like if we suddenly saw more women doctors, will our health somehow be done worse nationwide? And we'd be able to attribute it to that fact alone? If we somehow had more non-white doctors?

 

[Genaller]

When you suggest (or imply) that focusing on diversity somehow decreases the talent pool, you do understand that you also infer that a potential population is just genetically/naturally superior at being nurses/doctors than another based on... what?

Like if we suddenly saw more women doctors, will our health somehow be done worse nationwide? And we'd be able to attribute it to that fact alone? If we somehow had more non-white doctors?

Please try actually reading my statements. For a scientific profession like medicine; diversity is IRRELEVANT. If it so happens that in a SPECIFIC pool of applicants, those most meritocratically qualified are all black/(insert race here), homosexual/(insert orientation here), females/(insert gender here); then some of them shouldn't not be admitted on the basis of diversity across race, gender and orientation. If a given batch of med school students happens to be diverse; great! If not, then that's fine too as long as everyone in the batch is meritocratically deserving.

 

[bobjr]

Don't talk down to people in every post, it's getting annoying.

Also modern affirmative action seeks to take steps before that point. After school programs that help the affected people, special programs in undergrad to help them be prepared. You act like they just take unqualified people just to be diverse but that's really not the case at all.

 

[Genaller]

Don't talk down to people in every post, it's getting annoying.

Also modern affirmative action seeks to take steps before that point. After school programs that help the affected people, special programs in undergrad to help them be prepared. You act like they just take unqualified people just to be diverse but that's really not the case at all.

Great! That doesn't mean you should deliberately strive to have each batch be an accurate representative of the populous. For example let's say that Asians and Hispanics make-up most of the most qualified for a given med school application cycle; does that mean some of them should not be admitted in favor of whites and blacks for the sole sake of diversity and accurate representation?

EDIT: Also I didn't talk down "atleast" (being used mathematically) in my response to MAL, so your claim regarding this is incorrect.

 

[bobjr]

Well you missed my last post saying that it's not how that goes and it's more about making them qualified in the first place instead of putting unqualified people in, but I appreciate the attempt to strawman me.

A lower population participating in something could mean there's a systematic thing working against them, and it should be looked at and improved if possible.

 

[U.N. Owen]

A lower population participating in something could mean there's a systematic thing working against them, and it should be looked at and improved if possible.

Or it's that different cultures place values on certain fields. I grew up in an Asian household and was pressured to go into STEM fields as were all my Asian neighbors. Most of my robotics team in all four years of high school were Asians and Indians. It's a stereotype of Asians, but there are always truths in lies.

 

[bobjr]

So different races and cultures intentionally aim for lower class fields? Positive discrimination is still a thing, but a lot of families don't get the time and money for these extracurricular activities that'll boost their skills without help.

 

[U.N. Owen]

So different races and cultures intentionally aim for lower class fields? Positive discrimination is still a thing, but a lot of families don't get the time and money for these extracurricular activities that'll boost their skills without help.

If a parent pushes for a child to be a teacher, then that child won't exactly get paid much in the future. I once tutored a poor family's only daughter and they wanted her to go into teaching because that job actually made more money than both of their yearly salaries. The parents in question were always the first to be cut when it came to downsizing and lay-off. I'm just saying that the values and visions parents and culture inspire plays a vital role in career.