Controversy erupts over Campus Republicans bake sale plans

[NonServiam]

There is nothing wrong with discriminating, but discriminating based on “race, creed or color” is wrong.

As I was indicating, ignoring inequities in the system and pretending as if they don’t exist is discriminating based on race because it tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked.

It’s similar to a lie of omission. I can lie by not telling the entire true. Everything I say may be true, but my statement can still ultimately be a lie because it’s incomplete in such a way as to give a false impression. In a similar way, one can commit a discrimination of omission. Everything you do might look “fair,” if you’re just myopically looking at that one small situation, but because your “fairness” doesn’t take the whole picture – with its inequities – into account, you end up committing discrimination on a broad, societal level.

As I said, discrimination based on race is going to happen, no matter what we do. We have to decide which kind of discrimination based on race we want: is it the discrimination that tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked? Or is it the discrimination that seeks to address these inequities?

To reject one of these options “because it’s discrimination!” is not a sufficient reason, because both involve discrimination based on race.

 

[vz71]

As I was indicating, ignoring inequities in the system and pretending as if they don’t exist is discriminating based on race because it tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked.

This is not supported by facts.

It can be just as easily argued that ignoring skin color in spite of past iniquities allows every opportunity to better themselves as they are free to exceed where they could not in the past. That in fact, leaving the playing field even helps.

And it would go along with what people already know to be true, that if you give someone a playing field that is artificially in their favor, that they are ill-equiped once they make their way to a real playing field. And it sets everyone up for failure.

 

[rlg94086]

As I was indicating, ignoring inequities in the system and pretending as if they don’t exist is discriminating based on race because it tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked.

It’s similar to a lie of omission. I can lie by not telling the entire true. Everything I say may be true, but my statement can still ultimately be a lie because it’s incomplete in such a way as to give a false impression. In a similar way, one can commit a discrimination of omission. Everything you do might look “fair,” if you’re just myopically looking at that one small situation, but because your “fairness” doesn’t take the whole picture – with its inequities – into account, you end up committing discrimination on a broad, societal level.

As I said, discrimination based on race is going to happen, no matter what we do. We have to decide which kind of discrimination based on race we want: is it the discrimination that tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked? Or is it the discrimination that seeks to address these inequities?

To reject one of these options “because it’s discrimination!” is not a sufficient reason, because both involve discrimination based on race.

Fixing racial inequities in universities by discriminating based on race is ludicrous. It would be no different than setting a lower bar for prosecution of white defendants, so we can equal out the inequities in the prison population.

You fix the inequities by going to the root of the problem.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You have offered no evidence at all that AA does not discriminate on these factors (skin color, gender, etc.), and actually affirmed it in at least one post.

How exactly can we read this any other way then you support skin color based discrimination?

I wasn’t trying to provide you with evidence that AA is not discriminatory.

Do read NonServiam’s posts. He is doing a better job than I can explaining why discrimination on the basis of a number of societal factors is beneficial in helping to eliminate inequities in opportunity that failing to use AA would perpetuate.

 

[stinkcat_14]

As I was indicating, ignoring inequities in the system and pretending as if they don’t exist is discriminating based on race because it tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked.

There are inequities in the system, but the question is what are they based on? Are they based on race and gender, or are there other factors? How about income? People who grow up in families with less income have less opportunities, people with more income have more opportunities. This is independent of race and gender. If you are going to have affirmative action you have to base it on the correct variable.

Consider, for example the problem of “white flight” that happened in large cities after the 60s. People blamed it on racism, but if you look at Detroit, you see the exact same thing going on just the skin color of the participants have changed.

 

[vz71]

Do read NonServiam’s posts. He is doing a better job than I can explaining why discrimination on the basis of a number of societal factors is beneficial in helping to eliminate inequities in opportunity that failing to use AA would perpetuate.

You are missing the point.
ANY skin color based discrimination is wrong.

Approval and support of AA lends support to this despicable form of discrimination.
How can we read your support for AA as anything but support for skin based discrimination?
I am sure that your support is based on what you believe to be an ideal for society and perhaps you believe the benefit worth the evil.
But it is still an evil that you approve of.

 

[rlg94086]

As I was indicating, ignoring inequities in the system and pretending as if they don’t exist is discriminating based on race because it tacitly allows inequities to continue unchecked.

Btw…classic Straw Man.

 

[NonServiam]

It can be just as easily argued that ignoring skin color in spite of past iniquities allows every opportunity to better themselves as they are free to exceed where they could not in the past. That in fact, leaving the playing field even helps.

It indeed can be just as easily argued, but it cannot be just as easily correct.

 

[vz71]

It indeed can be just as easily argued, but it cannot be just as easily correct.

Without facts either way…
It is just another straw man.

 

[NonServiam]

Btw…classic Straw Man.

Treating everyone as if they have the same advantages and opportunities – when they do not – is precisely ignoring inequities.

I’m not trying to claim that people on the other side of this debate never think about the inequities: I’m saying that functionally the action of treating everyone as if they have the same advantages and opportunities is predicated on an ignoring of reality.

 

[rlg94086]

Treating everyone as if they have the same advantages and opportunities – when they do not – is precisely ignoring inequities.

I’m not trying to claim that people on the other side of this debate never think about the inequities: I’m saying that functionally the action of treating everyone as if they have the same advantages and opportunities is predicated on an ignoring of reality.

All you just did was reword your Straw Man.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are missing the point.
ANY skin color based discrimination is wrong.

You consider it an evil - an awfully strong term - I do not. I believe that taking into account factors such as race, sex, poverty level, past and present discrimination and lack of opportunity are overall worthwhile in moving forward to opening educational and job opportunities to deprived citizens that woud otherwise be denied them.

 

[vz71]

You consider it an evil - an awfully strong term - I do not. I believe that taking into account factors such as race, sex, poverty level, past and present discrimination and lack of opportunity are overall worthwhile in moving forward to opening educational and job opportunities to deprived citizens that woud otherwise be denied them.

Well at least you admit that you approve of skin based discrimination.
Few that support AA are so honest.

Now we need to work on that evil part…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Do read NonServiam’s posts. He is doing a better job than I can explaining why discrimination on the basis of a number of societal factors is beneficial in helping to eliminate inequities in opportunity that failing to use AA would perpetuate.

So the question is, what do we as a society owe to the person who is discriminated against under affirmative action? Do we just tolerate that injustice, or do we as a society have an obligation to try and correct that injustice?

 

[NonServiam]

There are inequities in the system, but the question is what are they based on? Are they based on race and gender, or are there other factors? How about income? People who grow up in families with less income have less opportunities, people with more income have more opportunities. This is independent of race and gender. If you are going to have affirmative action you have to base it on the correct variable.

As I said (much) earlier in this thread, there are always multiple causes for any societal issue you want to mention. But the issue we’re trying to address with affirmative action isn’t poverty – it’s race. We looked at society and noticed a vast, vast discrepency between whites and minorities. Part of the problem is poverty, but there are a whole host of other factors, shaped by historical forces acting long before any of us were born.

So here we are with these inequities.

We looked at this and said, “Here’s something in society that we don’t like, so we’re going to address it. Therefore, we’re going to come up with a policy that says that schools should take race – and the difference in opportunity afforded to the majority of people of some races – into account when making their decisions. Certainly, this policy won’t make everything better. There will still be plenty of unfairness and, in some cases, there might even be people hindered by this policy. But overall, the longterm effects will be more minorities getting more opportunities than ever before.”

We said something along those lines.

Now look, throwing your hands up and frothing at the mouth and going into a hissy-fit just because there’s race involved isn’t helpful here. You just need to look at the situation: there were inequities, and we decided that schools should take inequities into account when making their decisions. That’s it.

You can try to label and relabel that and spin it a million different ways, but when you boil it down to its essential points, it’s hard to take issue with a policy that just wants flaws in the system taken into consideration when decisions are made.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Well at least you admit that you approve of skin based discrimination.
Few that support AA are so honest.

You think that we are basically dishonest? Are you trying to continue a conversation or shut it down?

 

[rlg94086]

. Part of the problem is poverty, but there are a **whole host of other factors, **shaped by historical forces acting long before any of us were born.

Name the factors, so we can have an intelligent conversation, rather than accusing people of “frothing at the mouth” and “going into hissy fits.”

1. Poverty

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Name the factors, so we can have an intelligent conversation, rather than accusing people of “frothing at the mouth” and “going into hissy fits.”

1. Poverty

1. Racial discrimination
2. Lack of a home environment conducive to success in school or at job acquisition

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Name the factors, so we can have an intelligent conversation, rather than accusing people of “frothing at the mouth” and “going into hissy fits.”

That cuts both ways. One poster notably called me a racist, and others have called me prejudiced, so the use of inflammatory language isn’t just a pro-AA attribute.

 

[rlg94086]

That cuts both ways. One poster notably called me a racist, and others have called me prejudiced, so the use of inflammatory language isn’t just a pro-AA attribute.

Sure. So, let’s get the list going, so we can have intelligent conversation. I was addressing NonServiam’s inflammatory language. If your defense of him is “well the other guys did it,” then so be it.