1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Quotas and Affirmative Action Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by U.N. Owen, Mar 8, 2017.

  1. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    That still falls into the "Why don't poor people just work hard so they can make money?" trap where it ignores other factors that keep them down. In general don't parents want their kids to succeed and do well in life?
     
  2. Ereshkigal

    Ereshkigal Well-Known Member

    From what I've seen? Typically, no. Most parents I've met don't want their kids to succeed and do well in life, but actually want their kids molded to fit a specific vision, even if that vision ends up hurting the child's chances of success. This sometimes results in the same societal factors that keep them oppressed being passed down as desired aspects by the parents.

    This is what has led part of the black community to blame their own race for the continuing cycle of oppression, and was one of the major factors why BLM was unpopular for quite awhile. It's also a major reason why, even now, there's a portion of the black community that holds their own race as being equally responsible for the ongoing problem. The crazier ones I've even seen suggest that the whole idea of whites having the majority of power is part of a self-reinforcing system of oppression that keeps whites in power; a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Whether or not they're right, I have no room to speak. But I do find it interesting that the same thing you cite as a trap is an ideology that is becoming more popular within certain segments of the black community as a legitimate strategy for ending the poverty problem that plagues African Americans.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  3. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    There are things in the black community we understand perpetuate poverty and anti-intellectualism in our own community. I feel many black people do their best to address and solve the issues mostly plaguing inner-cities, but some black people take it a bit too far and see addressing racism as a secondary option, instead of a primary one.

    Thing is, even if I become a successful black man in spite of the racist system, that doesn't mean the racist system should still be there because of my success. Some black people (usually men) don't always see it that way though. That's totally up to them, however.

    Coming from me though, I feel like it's their own way of motivating the youth so racism doesn't discourage them. Some actually do believe it doesn't exist but... most black millennials are actually better educated about our own racism than blacks of the past. I don't think you'll have to worry about that cycle any time soon. IIRC BLM is mostly split in the black community on age lines.
     
  4. Ereshkigal

    Ereshkigal Well-Known Member

    I really, really want that like button.
     
    keepitsimple likes this.
  5. golem12

    golem12 Dragon Trainer

    I see this happen in a local political parties in Belgium where they have the quota to get 1/2 men and 1/2 female. Now they even try to make them have one with a migration background. Which I don't mind if it wasn't that those parties already have trouble with the quota 1/2 male and 1/2 female. For example the party I joined got some female members who are active members but each time when election comes they need to search for any women to fill the holes. Doesn't matter if she is qualified or not they just need the female members.

    So I rather see those quotas dissapear and only have qualified people than to get situations like this happen. Imagine that for some reason a person who fits the profile but don't have the qualifications and gets an important place in a bussiness or in governmental institutions. Disaster will follow and I am not saying this directing at race or gender. It is just I rather have the right person on the right place. If this means a powerfull and smart woman so be it. ofcourse there are statistics and numbers which say certain people with a migration background or even just being the wrong gender having more trouble than a man born and raised in his land or nation.
     
  6. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    Nobody's saying that unqualified people have to fill these positions. We're just saying that there needs to be a system in which underrepresented and oppressed groups can have some form of opportunity to find employment.
     
  7. Navin

    Navin MALDREAD

    As I wrote earlier:

    I'm sure other studies would argue otherwise, but I think many would agree that diversity (across both racial and socioeconomic backgrounds) is beneficial in medicine.
     
  8. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    All that really tells me is that those patients by definition are racist. Don't get me wrong; in an ideal case diversity would be achieved without any sacrifice (if not outright improvement) in aggregate meritocracy; however, if the 2 factors happen to vary inversely for a given applicant pool then meritocracy should be given more weight over diversity. What unique perspective would that be? In this day and age it's not that difficult to look up and study medical techniques that were previously only utilized by (a) specific group(s).
     
  9. Navin

    Navin MALDREAD

    Humans by nature like to identify with familiar individuals. It's the reason why most people marry within their own race. There's only so much background competency that can be taught.

    Unless your family is donating a hefty check to a school, medical school acceptance (or admissions to any school) is based on meritocracy at varying levels. I do agree that in this day and age, there should be greater emphasis on lower SES status versus race, which might already be the case, though I also understand the need to at least have a minimum amount of accepted student doctors from different backgrounds.
     
  10. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    Yes I'm all too familiar with humanity's general ingrained sense of tribalism thanks to evolution. Though what you're suggesting would just help to enable such a mentality which would make it more difficult for humans to eventually overcome such notions.

    I completely agree that there's a variance when factoring meritocracy in conjunction with race or SES. The point where we disagree on is to what degree should each factor be weighted when in opposition to eachother (though I do agree with you on the SES part). In the end I'm guessing that both of us want the same thing (the group of doctors that would result in the greatest net improvement of the lives of the greatest number of people).
     
  11. EmphaticPikachu

    EmphaticPikachu A tired little girl~

    I'm just kind of curious here, I have no idea if any of these facts are true but I want to try a thought experiment to see your perspective more clearly. Or more clearly, I don't care what is correct, I just want to set something up to see where your beliefs lie. Argumentative points below are common liberal talking points, but I'm not outwardly stating they're actual facts-just that their facts temporarily for this thought experiment. (Hard for me to express exactly what I mean but I hope you understand.)

    Starting with the assumptions of the argument:
    -Lets say there is a disproportionate amount of whites in a particular field of medicine, as in, way more.

    -And then, this disproportionate amount of whites in the field, along with the societal pressures- discourage black Americans from participating in the field, or sometimes actively prevent it in hiring processes. It is basically proven that this effect is true without a reasonable doubt.

    -And then the white people, being unable to see the effect this is having on the black people because its not "clear" or because of some mess of psychological/social processes, refuse to acknowledge the effect and ignore pleas to reevaluate their hiring process or tendencies.

    -Affirmative action has been proven to level the playing field enough so that over time, these beliefs are lessened, and more blacks are let in that should have been allowed in the first place. A few whites seem to be dis-included that were qualified, but more blacks were allowed in then whites that were lost, which improved the field of medicine as a net benefit, as well as improving the social interactions between whites and blacks over time. Diversity becomes forcibly relevant.

    Would you still oppose it? Even though it has a positive impact?
    I guess the objective here is to see if these points would make you concede, so we who support the AA have a specific goal in mind with regards to what we're researching to prove our point. if not then, I understand, I'm just curious as a bystander I guess.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  12. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    Okay I'll play along.

    For the first premise I don't see anything inherently bad about it by itself since equality of opportunity does not necessarily lead to equality of outcome (I'm far more interested in improving the former).

    The 2nd premise is where the problem begins. Firstly if any given black person who otherwise would have gone into this field chooses not to solely on the basis that this field is primarily comprised of whites, then by definition that would make this person racist and this individual would need to reflect critically in order to eliminate/suppress his/her racism. "societal pressures" in the way you're using it is also very ambiguous. Be specific as to who is causing this societal pressure and exactly what constitutes significant societal pressure for this case. I would be particularly skeptical of the assertion that the vast majority (or even half) of these 21st century white/[insert skin color] medically trained doctors would sincerely have a prejudice against hiring people on the basis of them having more melanin lvls. Frankly such a claim is most likely only vacuously true. Anyway let's say you were somehow able to "prove"/provide overwhelming support for premise 2. and also justify why your methadology should be considered reliable.

    When you say "white people" I'm going to assume you mean white doctors/administrative staff. Well premise 3. seems outright contradictory. If there weren't a significant portion of white people that did believe there was a problem (atleast at some point in time in the past), then affirmative action would have never been a policy in the first place. If I may go on a tangent, there were also a substantial portion of white people who found slavery abhorrent and fought against it for black freedom even when it was common practice yet you don't see enough emphasis placed on this fact in comparison to how racist whites were against blacks throughout history. You're going to also need to clearly define and justify these "social/psychological" processes by which most (or even half of) whites remain supposedly ignorant.

    I do think affirmative action based on race was useful for a period of time in the past though today the emphasis should be placed more on general SES rather than any specific race or ethnicity. Assuming that this case takes place in the present and that there was sincerely a problem preventing blacks (who were meritocratically deserving) from getting in, then I'd be happy with the first part of premise 4. From "A few whites...." onwards is where this premise falls flat. If you're admitting that few (or even any) meritocratically deserving white people are not let in favor of less meritocratically deserving black people for the sole sake of disversity then I vehemently oppose this (of course there's no issue if the blacks in this case were also more meritocratically deserving than the whites who weren't let in). Correlation =\= causation. It's well understood that there's been an exponential increase in the understanding of science and technology over time so you're going to need to rigorously justify that diversity is infact what's allowing this scientific field of medicine to prosper or is atleast providing a significant positive benefit after accounting for all other potential factors. I'm not even sure how 1 would go about accurately measuring "quality of social interactions between whites and blacks".

    So the conclusion is "Diversity becomes forcibly relevant". Let's see how good your argument is when putting it through the ARG conditions.

    Acceptability: Do the premises in your argument necessitate the conclusion you've given? Yes!

    Relevance: Are the premises in your argument relevant to your conclusion? Yes!

    Good Grounds: Do the premises when considered together seem reasonable enough such that the desired conclusion can be rationally accepted? No!

    Essentially this argument horrendously fails the G condition (I'm not trying to be offensive; that's just how it is from a logic standpoint).

    With regards to your initial question (which pertains to the A condition); Yes I would accept the conclusion as true assuming that I accepted all the premises given as true.
     
  13. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    From what I understand about medical school since I had to get the presentation, basically anyone who meets a certain line gets in. The right GPA, MCAT, and everything else. They might not get first choice of school, but very rarely are they just unable to go merit wise. It's when they start taking people who are on the line and slightly below where this stuff comes in, and these people can also try again. But to act like 4.0 super deserving people are somehow just not making it is kinda silly.
     
  14. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    As long as deliberately seeking out greater diversity doesn't result in a decrease in the aggregate meritocracy of accepted candidates, then I have absolutely no issue.
     
  15. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Plus this is anecdotal for sure but since interviews and letters of recommendations matter as well, it's not uncommon for someone with a slightly lower score but better work habits to get in instead.

    And a naturally more diverse class could be a result of these programs working and better preparing those for schooling like this.
     
  16. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    I agree. That's why they call it a holistic process. When I said merit it wasn't exclusive to academic merit.

    Sure. There's no doubt that diversity has naturally increased over the past few decades as a result of better education which is great. I just don't agree with forcing greater diversity for the sake of diversity just because ideal representation isn't being met (again equality of opportunity does not necessarily equate with equality of outcome).
     
  17. EmphaticPikachu

    EmphaticPikachu A tired little girl~

    Aha, okay thanks, I appreciate it. I didn't want it to get to long, but I think I did disinclude important details around the middle that make the issues unreasonably presented. Intentionationally or not I made that mistake, but since it you answered my question I don't really feel the need to go back and fix it.
     
  18. U.N. Owen

    U.N. Owen In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...

    My whole stance on this issue chalks up to this:

    You are hired to do a job. A job requires skills. If a job requires a certain academic merit and and certain skills like public speaking and you not only meet but also master the prerequisites, then you should get the job. In high school, I didn't get a paycheck every week for being the only asian in my department; I received a paycheck because I did my job. Equal outcome and equal opportunity are not the same thing, and we should stop using this toxic outlook. We're not robots; we're flesh and blood.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
  19. Navin

    Navin MALDREAD

    It's not that simple either. I've met many re-applicants on the interview trail.
     
  20. Walterman123

    Walterman123 Member

    Why don't they do it based on class it would be much more accurate than race or gender.
     

Share This Page