CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
We have equality now so it should be taken out of our legal system. Because of it, they are actually discriminating against the majorities, while being prejudice against minorities.
However, that being said, it implies that we don't have equality because the government is prejudice against everyone. And the government reflects what the people want - to an extent. So maybe we are prejudice and need affirmative action.
So if we have affirmative action then we have prejudice and without it we have prejudice. Both ways are bad, because America is filled with their prejudices hiding behind the flag of liberalism, which is now the foundation of the country. Who is that says, minorities without the government wouldn't be able to survive? Liberals. Who is it that says minorities can live on their own? Conservatives.
So the answer is not to get rid of affirmative action but to get rid of affirmative action and liberals.
Right, so I confess to confusion. This is what I am getting from you and it is not making much sense to me: we have equality but not really, therefore affirmative action is bad? What makes the "conservative" stance on affirmative action and minorities better?
[It puts me on the record as "support" but for the record I do not - no idea how to change that when just making a clarifying post.]
I don't believe it's an ethical practice. It's nothing more than discrimination against an ethnic majority and a way to meet secret racial quotas. It should have no place in the process of choosing candidates.
Devil's advocate here for the sake of debate. What about the social inequity that causes certain population demographics to be underrepresented in various institutions like colleges or businesses? If there is not equal opportunity and access does society have an obligation to attempt to level the playing field?
I don't believe people would be complaining about social inequity if whites were being underrepresented in a given industry. That is why I have a problem with the INSTITUTION of affirmative action, not the idea of providing social equity and equal opportunity (as long as it isn't achieved at the expense of a certain group).
But if whites are underrepresented in an industry, is it a matter of their choosing not to work in that industry or not having the opportunity? I cannot think of any situation where whites would have less of an opportunity within a particular field than non-whites. It is not just about representation, but about the lack of opportunities that under-representation often signifies. Thoughts?
If you are striving for more equity and equal opportunity (in other words leveling the playing field) then that is always going to come at the expense of those who have more opportunities. Is it really disadvantaging a population to level the playing field if they already have more advantages to begin with?
If non-whites have less opportunity than whites when it comes to being chosen for a program, it is because of discrimination. Affirmative action is discrimination based on someone's ethnic background. It tries to fix discrimination by....discriminating.
That should suffice in explaining why I believe it doesn't help social inequity.
The best way to stop social inequity is to improve education.
Understood. For the record, I'm opposed to Affirmative Action policies now that we have surpassed a social tipping point that one is no longer going to be discriminated against based on race, gender, ect. (although in the beginning or if extreme forms of discrimination could be proven, then I would agree)
What about the social inequity that causes certain population demographics to be underrepresented in various institutions like colleges or businesses? If there is not equal opportunity and access does society have an obligation to attempt to level the playing field?
Yes, I belive society does have an ethical obligation to create a more fair playing field (however it is virtually impossible under our current conditions to get anything near "level").
I will restrict my conversation about Affirmative Action to College acceptance for the purposes of this argument. Note, I have begun to discuss this topic elsewhere and will copy-paste a previous posts of mine with relevant alterations added:
Now, given our current system, everyone has enough opportunity to find a way to attend a College for an Engineering, Statistics, Computer Science, Business, ect. degree that would potentially set them up for at least decent to good paying jobs after graduation. Even a completely poor person has an opportunity for this since there are Government Stafford Loans that everyone qualifies for, regardless of credit history, no co-signer needed, and is enough to first attend a Community College plus apartment (if you work part-time also) and later to a State School program or even to a University of Florida type school (depending on the tuition of the big state school program in one's respective state). From there, PhD programs are free, in fact, they pay you a stipend to attend. This is enough to set someone up for life (if used wisely--and they can ultimately get into nearly any major University by Grad School regardless of what they are confined to/able to attend for Undergraduate degree). Here are important points to note about the University system in the US (in regards to this topic):
1. There is a clear hierarchy in Academia, and it is wise to understand the "Game" in order to best play it
2. No matter what your previous grades/schooling have been like, there are ways you can still get into virtually any level program for your Undergrad still (including the Elite level schools)
3. No matter what Undergrad program you go to, there are ways to go to virtually any Grad School Program
3. Even if your financial resources are limited, there are ways to get into good schools and be able to pay for it all the way up through PhD
4. The level of school you attend is going to greatly effect how difficult the courses are, and thus the GPA you will be able to get
a) Community College will be at a very reasonable level of difficulty as will a Public State School Program
b) A school around the 100-150 level (national rank) will definitely be noticeably more challenging than CC or State School (for the same program)
c) A school around the 50 level will be very challenging and completely different than CC or State School level
d) A school at the Elite level (roughly the top 20) would require one to be at an elite level for that stage in order to pass (top few% or so of people inclined for that technical subject at that level)
5. In the modern era, there are countless resources available that thoroughly teach any given technical subject area for free or a limited fee, and would prove to be an invaluable asset in learning said material (either for formal training/school or self-study)
Now, if a person's true interests lie in Art History however since they are coming from a poor economic background, one would have enough money (if used wisely) to first get a degree in a practical subject (e.g. Business, Engineering, ect.) that would set them up with a decent/good paying job which they could function as a stepping stone and safety net that allows them to go back to College for the subject matter they are truly interested in and pursue that career path henceforth.
This is to say, although the current system is far from optimal and certainly does not have "equality of opportunity" in a strict sense, there currently are ways to reach the highest level outcomes even from the bottom of US society for anyone. Now, Stafford Loans are flawed (in my view) since the amount of money you are eligible to receive is only compatible with a State-School of low college ranking (unless you happen to live in a state such as Florida where the major Public University were only about $7000 tuition per year). However, if Stafford Loans (Government Loans) were expanded to say the Graduate school level of $18,000-20,000 per year (rather than $12,000) than regardless of State one is in, family financial background, ect. ect., any person would be afforded "Equality of Opportunity" as it pertained to going to College as they would have the means to attend a Major University for their Undergrad which opens the door for the highest possibilities after that point (i.e. to follow ones intellectual interests as a career path and/or acquire the credentials needed to land a high paying job--depending on what the individual values more).
Additionally, if a person's scores/grades are noticeably lower than would typically be accepted to a school, than this would suggest that they are not ready for the program. Furthermore, this appears to be supported by the higher drop-out rates associated with Affirmative Action beneficiaries.
Note: I know at points in my response I "skipped steps" and may not have fully established relevance or what I was driving at (since my response as already so long, I did not want to extend it any further than necessary), so by all means please point to areas you would like me to further elaborate on (if any)
For the record, I'm opposed to Affirmative Action policies now that we have surpassed a social tipping point that one is no longer going to be discriminated against based on race, gender, ect. (although in the beginning or if extreme forms of discrimination could be proven, then I would agree)
I'm dubious that there's no longer (going to be) that kind of discrimination, but presuming that were the case this seems reasonable enough (presuming affirmative action is ever desirable, which I might contest if I weren't playing devil's advocate).
Yes, I believe society does have an ethical obligation to create a more fair playing field (however it is virtually impossible under our current conditions to get anything near "level"). [...]
Generally speaking, I don't think I disagree. The most obvious objection to your argument, though, is that not everyone has access to this knowledge. Understanding that there is a game, the nature of the game, and how to play it are all privileged and advantageous knowledge. Do you think that's an issue, and if not why?
I have other concerns with your position, but let's start there.
The most obvious objection to your argument, though, is that not everyone has access to this knowledge. Understanding that there is a game, the nature of the game, and how to play it are all privileged and advantageous knowledge. Do you think that's an issue, and if not why?
Yes, I do think that there is a tremendous issue with that. Furthermore, I agree that this is the "most obvious objection" to my argument. This topic resonates with me deeply on a personal level since I didn't have access to this knowledge due to my upbringing which ultimately made me play "catch-up" big time in order to get closer to where I wanted to be once I "woke up" to it (I have discussed this elsewhere on CD (a brief account of my personal story) and can link you to it if you deem it helpful/useful in this context).
The largest issue (as I see it) is that people who respect intellectualism/independent creativity are in the extreme minority (I'm speaking strictly of adults now--those old enough to have been fully physically matured and have "life experience". One would expect them to have some wisdom to impart once they have been in the world for 3+ decades, although this is often not necessarily the case). Therefore, most people inevitably are not going to be fostered in such a way as to bring about the best in their intellectual/creative capacities while in the bulk of their most formative years (growing up), will lack exposure to areas outside of immediate contact (e.g. how is one going to "realize" they have a passion for and want to pursue Paleontology when all they have ever seen is their father/men watching Football and their mother/women at at minimum being very sympathetic to the father's/men's behavior/worldview?--I know that I am speaking rather generally here, but I think you understand my point). The scenario I described above, concerning the father, is firmly inside of what I often refer to as the Mammal Snow Globe World that most adults inhabit (and have tacitly agreed with each other not to "shake up"). In order to not shake up the Snow Globe, the adults are forced to subject their children to a Perpetual Firehose of Bullsh't or else (if the children found out any deep truths about ourselves and/or the Universe which have been discovered thus far) they would be bound to break free of the confinement.
Now, given this dynamic (if you generally agree with my above statements that is, or else we have more to discuss before moving on) most people (the relevant age range for this discussion being children-young adults) are not going to be taught this absolutely crucial information I stated previously. Now, having said that (and leaving aside for now the minority who are taught--which, you are correct, is privileged and advantageous knowledge), there is still going to be significant variation amongst the population "out of the loop" based on factors such as their economic status, immediate social environment, parental/family influence, type of schools (k-12) they attend, ect. ect.
People who come from poor economic backgrounds will be markedly disadvantaged in this respect for a number of reasons. One, if their parents are poor, that in-it-of-itself suggests that they will be unable to seriously help guide their children toward the correct path (and very likely will lead them down the wrong paths--even if they are well intentioned) since if they knew what the "right path" was, they very likely would have found a way out of their situation by the time their child(ren) were in High School. Two, if you are poor, depending on how sever the poverty is, you may have been subjected to malnutrition growing up which (unfortunately) has been shown to have permanent negative effects on the human brain. Three, poor households are more likely to produce domestic violence and we know that hostile environments at young ages can have serious negative effects on healthy brain development. Four, one likely would be forced to go to a worse school, which may also not even be a safe environment (and when one is in an unsafe environment perpetually, their frontal lobes shut down and enter a psychological "survival mode"). Five, if you were not given the impression that academics were important, than you likely did not give great attention/effort to it, which is digging such a person a whole that they would be forced to climb out of if they ever did become aware of "the game". Six, many adults suggest/recommend to their children to engage in very unhealthy activities for developing bodies (such as binge drinking/alcoholism, ect) which is known to be capable of "derailing" healthy brain development before one's early to mid twenties (it seems to me this would be more prevalent in a poor community). Also, there are many other possible factors that I did not think to list here that are likely relevant.
Now, if one looks at the statistics for race/ethnicity and poverty, you will find for instance that Black people are disproportionately over-represented in poverty. Thus, this is an issue that is more likely to proportionally effect Black people at higher rates (although not exclusive to this community and by no means describes all black people--there are Black people at various levels of the Tax brackets). Furthermore, a counter-point would be the White poor population that would be essentially equally disadvantaged (by the points listed above) and even furthermore by the discrimination that will occur through Affirmative Action policies that work against them based on generalizations of the white population (i.e. a stereotype that does not really apply to them). This is to say, "understanding that there is a game, the nature of the game, and how to play it are all privileged and advantageous knowledge" is not information uniquely taught to one race/ethnicity/gender (over others), and therefore it is difficult to reasonably argue for Affirmative Action on these grounds.
Good answer, and I agree with most of your observations. But I don't think your response fully resolves the objection. Once you allow that knowledge of the game is an unequally distributed resource, then that suggests that there is a social inequity which affirmative action can target. Statistical outliers neither eliminate the general trend(s) nor necessarily make the instrument of affirmative action so imperfect that it is better not to use it at all. Imperfect improvement is still arguably an improvement that's better than its absence.
If we applied your argument elsewhere it would render many (possibly most) policies groundless, since policy makers routinely utilize general statistical information with outliers to guide the policies in question. It's simply not possible to account for every outlier; imperfection like that is just a cost of large scale social organization. So, unless you think we shouldn't use any policies based on statistical outliers, then the question is: what about these statistical outliers makes affirmative action so uniquely flawed we shouldn't use it?
Thanks for sharing your relation to the issue, by the way; it was insightful. I approach affirmative action as someone who could possibly be "benefited" by it and doesn't want to be. I think it's condescending and dis-empowering; I want to get where I get by my own merit and no further. I've had to work harder to get where I am than a lot of people, and I'm actually fine with that. I'm not an egalitarian. I believe that existence is unfair and indifferent, that we make our own power and that what is given to us isn't ours. I shake the snow globe (good analogy, by the way).
Good answer, and I agree with most of your observations. But I don't think your response fully resolves the objection. Once you allow that knowledge of the game is an unequally distributed resource, then that suggests that there is a social inequity which affirmative action can target. Statistical outliers neither eliminate the general trend(s) nor necessarily make the instrument of affirmative action so imperfect that it is better not to use it at all. Imperfect improvement is still arguably an improvement that's better than its absence.
I think I partially addressed this point toward the very end of my post. That is, I agree with you "that knowledge of the game is an unequally distributed resource, then that suggests that there is a social inequity" however the problem with stating "affirmative action can target" this (in my view) lies in the issue being far more complex than simply falling along racial and/or class lines (which I will elaborate on in the following paragraph). More to the point, I do not agree that they are statistical outliers (in a sense that I will explain) even though I do agree that those in poverty do tend be more disadvantaged than others. Thus, if anything, one could make a better case for poverty-based Affirmative Action rather than race/gender based (in my view--although I'm not necessarily endorsing that at the moment, I suppose we can explore that next).
First, do you generally agree with my statements concerning M-F gendered affirmative action being unnecessary at the moment (when keeping with the example of College)? Or do you feel that this social program has yet to outlive it's usefulness (assuming you believe it once (if not still) did serve a legitimate function that is)?
Now, attempting to determine who has acquired knowledge of the game (as well as a generally more well rounded, insightful education) is very difficult. This includes many social factors not least of which their parent/family structure/functionality, their immediate social environment/community influence, class level, school attended (k-12), friends, personal IQ (or equivalency) level, larger cultural/societal influence, ect. ect. It likely has not escaped your notice a number of the factors listed above have higher statistical correlation revealing a disproportionately negative influence on Black children growing up (on average) compared to for example White children. However, as I think I mentioned in the previous post, most/majority children are growing up within a system that does not explicitly give a full picture of the game, neglect to mention it entirely, or possibly even lead them down the wrong path (i.e. provide an alternative 'game' that they claim is more important, which may not in fact be the case--whether non-intentionally or otherwise--Note, I realize this is quite a claim, so if you feel it requires further justification than I will delve into that matter further).
Hence, the problem of lacking knowledge about the game (as well as deeper education that I discussed in my previous post) is not exclusive/unique to any one (or minority number) group(s), whether gender, race, or class and to such an extent that it is typical (although, importantly, children of poor economic backgrounds will very likely/almost definitely be disproportionately negatively effected (for the reasons I specified previously) which statistically is over represented by the American Black population while the upper economic classes children are much more likely to receive this knowledge and thus "play" accordingly.
Thanks for sharing your relation to the issue, by the way; it was insightful. I approach affirmative action as someone who could possibly be "benefited" by it and doesn't want to be. I think it's condescending and dis-empowering; I want to get where I get by my own merit and no further. I've had to work harder to get where I am than a lot of people, and I'm actually fine with that.
Interesting, thank you for sharing as well, as I also found your background insightful. If I may ask a question of you (off topic): Do you have fairly extensive training in Philosophy? I ask this because I have noticed you around the forum now (as I have been here for about 2 1/2 months) and find the structuring/formating of your arguments to be rather advanced as well as the way you approach topics, background information you pull into the conversation, ect. To me, this is highly suggestive of either formal training (i.e. schooling) or strong self-study (as a hobby perhaps(?)).
This is a belated response, so address it or not as you're inclined...
First, do you generally agree with my statements concerning M-F gendered affirmative action being unnecessary at the moment (when keeping with the example of College)? Or do you feel that this social program has yet to outlive it's usefulness (assuming you believe it once (if not still) did serve a legitimate function that is)?
I'm not an advocate in the collegiate context (playing devil's advocate). That said, I think gender inequity remains an issue in various fields (and in some cases with men being underrepresented).
most/majority children are growing up within a system that does not explicitly give a full picture of the game, neglect to mention it entirely, or possibly even lead them down the wrong path (i.e. provide an alternative 'game' that they claim is more important, which may not in fact be the case--whether non-intentionally or otherwise--Note, I realize this is quite a claim, so if you feel it requires further justification than I will delve into that matter further).
It is, but as I understand it I don't think I take issue with it. To be certain, though: is there a demographic that is exempt (e.g. very high-income), or do you think that most children of most demographics are subject to this observation?
Hence, the problem of lacking knowledge about the game (as well as deeper education that I discussed in my previous post) is not exclusive/unique to any one (or minority number) group(s), whether gender, race, or class and to such an extent that it is typical (although, importantly, children of poor economic backgrounds will very likely/almost definitely be disproportionately negatively effected (for the reasons I specified previously) which statistically is over represented by the American Black population while the upper economic classes children are much more likely to receive this knowledge and thus "play" accordingly.
If I understand you, you're saying here that while lack of knowledge of the game is disproportionately spread among some demographics it exists in all of them. Is that a correct understanding?
-----
If I may ask a question of you (off topic): Do you have fairly extensive training in Philosophy?
Caught me! I have a somewhat unconventional but extensive background in philosophy. I've been an independent scholar with strong adjacency to academia for a number of years now. And yourself (if you care to share)?
That said, I think gender inequity remains an issue in various fields (and in some cases with men being underrepresented)
Agreed. For instance, Dental Hygienist programs & jobs are dominated by women (97% female) while there are many labor intensive jobs (that require vocational training) which are dominated by men. Now, my position is not that gender discrimination is non-existent in the USA school/training and jobs departments, rather that it is "soft" enough that although one will likely have to deal with some "off-looks", "whispers", and possible employment discrimination, it is in fact not bad enough that it could actually keep one out who is determined to follow through.
Consider this hypothetical:
I as a male, may well be less likely to find employment as a Dental Hygienist than my female counterparts at any one location however, nobody is going to be able to stop me from enrolling in the program (at school) nor negatively doctor my grades in an effort to stop me from graduating. After graduation (if I were to make it upon my own merit), it may be more difficult to find employment due to gender discrimination, however 3% male is very different than 0% male, suggesting that employment in fact could be found.
Likewise, I take this to be the case with females and traditionally male trades, such as Plumber, Bricklayer, Electrician, ect. ect. As for Engineering, Math, Science, I frankly haven't witnessed any discrimination whatsoever against females in this respect. There are Affirmative Action efforts to get more females involved in STEM, I think this has much more to do with differing choices between the separate genders (much of which has Biological underpinnings, although there is certainly social norms involved as well, that should be considered).
To be certain, though: is there a demographic that is exempt (e.g. very high-income), or do you think that most children of most demographics are subject to this observation?
There is more than one "Game" at work here. As for the American "Monetary Game" and the "Academic Game", children who's parents are of very-high income bracket are much, much more likely to be given very useful information about these respective "Games" (which overlap in some important areas). Now, it doesn't necessarily entail that all children of this group will have been provided with this information, however (I would think) certainly enough to make it statistically stand out significantly compared to other classes (certainly over those in poverty).
Another "Game" at work deals with the Mammal Snow Globe, which is logically connected to a person's true interests and thus path they would desire to pursue (which may in fact be at odds with a purely "Monetary Game" outlook). Lets call this the "Insight Game"--i.e. "insight" into the (true) history of Humanity as we best understand it at the moment, knowledge acquired about Ourselves/the World/Universe, the Arts, ect. ect. Now, I do not necessarily think there is reason to suppose that the very wealthy are passing on information to their children about the "Insight Game" that greatly outnumbers the Middle-Class, for instance. Most adults live in the Snow Globe and inevitably raise their children within the same entrapment due to a lack of awareness (and there are countless poll results that more or less bare this out). Therefore, most children will be led astray in some significant way by their elders and will need to course-correct the tracks on which the train of their life is riding on at some point upon reaching Young Adulthood or beyond less they miss their opportunity/"golden ticket" into the Silver City (or Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory--actually, a better way to characterize this would be "The Giver" story, if you happen to be familiar with it, see Trailer provided if interested or "The Matrix" generally works as well)--where all of their true passions, interests, hobbies, ect. ect. will lie.
It is interesting to see this dynamic play out in some movies (or novels) where the upper-class children, although they are mightily "privileged" in many ways, can't shake the feeling that there must be something "more to life" than wealth, status, ect. ect. Thus, I contend, the dynamic at work is much like the Young Adult novel "The Outsiders" (there is a movie as well) where the children's lives are shown to be "rough all over", whether they were a Greaser or a Soc.
If I understand you, you're saying here that while lack of knowledge of the game is disproportionately spread among some demographics it exists in all of them. Is that a correct understanding?
Yes, and it can be very difficult to determine who has attained what knowledge from where. For instance, East Asian immigrant parents tend to come to America fairly poor, although they tend to give their children excellent information about both the "Academic Game" and the "Monetary Game", which has proven exceptionally useful. Conversely, one could be a White Male of American parents in the middle-upper middle class whose parents do not discuss with them any knowledge of said "Games", therefore putting them at quite a disadvantage after High School that they will have to independently recover from.
Caught me! I have a somewhat unconventional but extensive background in philosophy. I've been an independent scholar with strong adjacency to academia for a number of years now.
Lol. Thought so--it is a pleasure to have you on the Forum.
And yourself (if you care to share)?
Currently, I am a Senior Uni. student scheduled to graduate this summer. My majors are Math & History. Also, I made it half-way into a Physics major which I dropped due to course load of the triple major becoming far too demanding (for me) to stay on top of simultaneously. After summer graduation, I intend enroll at the local Community College for an Engineering A.S. for (mostly) added job/credential purposes (as well as general interest) as I'm only several courses shy at the moment, that will provide a bit of a "safety-net" in order to jump back in to finish my Physics degree starting next Spring through the following Fall. I have actually been considering doubling in Philosophy while going back for the completion of Physics, as I deem it a highly useful area of study (in adding to and sharpening ones intellectual toolkit) that will fit into my scheduling fine (i.e. it wont require me to stay longer whether I single or double majored in those areas)--I'm still mulling it over.
I am currently in my mid-twenties and would be entering my late-twenties by the time this process is complete (about 1.5-2 years from now). From there, I wish to attend Graduate School, likely for Physics or Applied Maths. I am interested in both the Humanities and Sciences, though ultimately, when pressed to "pick a street", my heart most lies with Physics and Maths
I'm dubious that there's no longer (going to be) that kind of discrimination
To be more clear, I am not suggesting that this never happens or is even extremely rare. Rather, that it is the overwhelming minority of cases now, and not the norm (which is what I take to be the relevant factor--i.e. even if it does occur to someone, there will be similar places/positions/ect. that would not behave that way. e.g. If one were denied from Ohio State U because of the applicant review board's prejudice/racism led them toward skepticism/doubting a Hispanic's ability to perform well in a certain major, then this very likely would not happen "across the board" at similar level schools due to measures taken in modern society, and thus would still be accepted somewhere similar).
Side note, I'm currently a Senior STEM major at Uni. in the US, and as for gender (strictly M-F gender that is) discrimination, one would have a very difficult time attempting to demonstrate women/girls being systemically discriminated against at Uni. in these areas (as is often asserted in the media, ect). All of my classes consist of both males and females at similar rates, on exams we (M & F) earn essentially the same grade distribution for the respective classes, both M & F are welcome to speak up/participate in class and are treated with similar respect (in my experience), ect. ect. (I have talked to my female friends/classmates about this and they agree to these basic points-- I know that is anecdotal evidence)
I will say however, in my experience at Uni (as a Math major), my classes consist of majority White and Asian students, while other groups are definitely in the minority by comparison (this may prove a relevant anecdote considering our topic of discussion-- I am a white male btw).