After reading this thread, and realizing that most people on this "anti-racist" forum actually support affirmative action, I'd just like to run a hypothetical scenario by you and get your analysis...

John and Steve attend the same high school.

John, who is black, comes from a family with a net income of $200,000/year. His family has been fortunate enough not to be disadvantaged by racism in the past. He is fairly intelligent but tends to coast in school and finishes with a 'B' average.

Steve, who is white, comes from a household with a net income of $15,000/year. His father was killed in a work-related accident when he was two, and his mother struggles to make ends meet working at a pancake house. Steve has poor self esteem, difficulty concentrating, and little time for homework given that he must babysit two younger siblings while his mother is at work. However, he works hard and manages to apply himself at school, eventually graduating with a 'B+' average.

Under many affirmative action policies, John would get into university before Steve purely because of his race, even though Steve, as an individual, has faced far more "disadvantages" in life, and worked much harder to overcome those disadvantages.

Granted, it may be somewhat more likely that the situation would be reversed, and the white kid's family would have a higher income (due to historic discrimination, disadvantage, or whatever you want to call it). But basing government policies on broad generalizations will inevitably result in unjust outcomes (as demonstrated by the above scenario).

Tell me how favouring minorities in university admissions (or job applications, etc.), based on broad generalizations about socio-economic status, is any different from the philosophy of racism, which is based on broad generalizations regarding appearance, culture, perceived intelligence, etc.

Aren't differences between individuals within groups far more relevant than differences between each group's theoretical "average individual?"

As I'm sure you know, your analogy is hopelessly flawed. First of all, I'm not aware of a single Canadian university that has affirmative-action policies based on race. Do you know of any examples? Secondly, I believe, as do many on babble, that post-secondary education is a human right:everyone should have it, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion and economic determination. This means that both your boys should make it into university, into the program they wish, with equal opportunity. As unionist stated in the other thread, 'equality' does not mean 'best'. Everyone should have the right to education, not only the 'best'. Ideally, this means that "John" would get into university, but have to subsidize "Steve's" schooling based on economic position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Jeremy, with respect, I think you're in the wrong forum. But I'll address your question.

As I'm sure you know, your analogy is hopelessly flawed. First of all, I'm not aware of a single Canadian university that has affirmative-action policies based on race. Do you know of any examples? Secondly, I believe, as do many on babble, that post-secondary education is a human right:everyone should have it, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion and economic determination. This means that both your boys should make it into university, into the program they wish, with equal opportunity. As unionist stated in the other thread, 'equality' does not mean 'best'. Everyone should have the right to education, not only the 'best'. Ideally, this means that "John" would get into university, but have to subsidize "Steve's" schooling based on economic position.

Finally, if you are asking about affirmative action as a policy in general, your anecdote cannot apply. AA is meant to correct systematic, institutionalized and deep-seated social prejudice. So when you point to red-herring, one-off examples that deny this entrenched bias, you are ignoring (or obscuring) the power dynamic of racism and race relations. I would encourage you do some further close reading of some threads in the Anti-racism forum to get a better idea of what it means to talk about race in North America. It is not so easy as the response you put in under 'ethnicity' on your college application form.

---

Wrong forum? It's supposed to be an anti-racist forum, and I'm questioning a concept that I believe to be racist. In all fairness, that would make this the right forum.

Do Canadian universities offer affirmative action based on race? I'm not sure of the extent of such policies. I do know that the University of Victoria's law school offers priority to aboriginal students and those with disabilities, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. I'm asking about AA in theory, however, so specific examples aren't particularly relevant.

Should John be required to subsidize Steve's education? Again that's irrelevant (although I would personally say no to such a question, as I'm not a socialist).

You say that I am referring to "one-off examples that deny ... entrenched bias, (and) ignoring (or obscuring) the power dynamic of racism and race relations."

A racist white employer in the U.S. south might have said the same thing in response to the "isolated" example of a very intelligent black man, claiming that blacks as a group are less intelligent than whites, therefore, it isn't advantageous to hire them. (He may be wrong about this, but he believes it just as sincerely as you believe in "systemic discrimination".)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Maddock:

Both his argument and yours would seem pretty laughable to those of us who believe in a colour-blind, individualistic society.

---

A "colour-blind society" is a noble aim, but it cannot be achieved by being blind to colour discrimination.

An "individualistic society" is a rather amusing oxymoron.

Congrats to Catchfire for the patient and eloquent response.

ETA: Now, Jeremy, don't take this personally, because it's not meant that way, but given that you are the author of many sparkling bits of journalism like Brave Employees Take Legal Stand Against Union Bullying, I'm officially required to provide you with my standard caution:

Don't come near my picket line!

Without prejudice.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

John, who is black, comes from a family with a net income of $200,000/year. His family has been fortunate enough not to be disadvantaged by racism in the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

A "colour-blind society" is a noble aim, but it cannot be achieved by being blind to colour discrimination.

An "individualistic society" is a rather amusing oxymoron.

Congrats to Catchfire for the patient and eloquent response.

ETA: Now, Jeremy, don't take this personally, because it's not meant that way, but given that you are the author of many sparkling bits of journalism like Brave Employees Take Legal Stand Against Union Bullying, I'm officially required to provide you with my standard caution:

Don't come near my picket line!

Without prejudice.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

If you'd read the text of the article, you'd understand that I have no desire to interfere with your picket line...

Blogger Too Sense:

quote:

---

In the era of affirmative action, it is almost impossible to get past the sense of white entitlement and racial resentment in the public sphere to point out that little has changed for minorities applying to college. What your mama told you is still true; black people still have to have better records than their white counterparts to get in, and for the purposes of admission, being a connected white kid with abysmal grades is better than being black and brilliant any day of the week.

(snip)

The various myths about affirmative action, such as the idea of hordes of unqualified minorities getting access to jobs and education they don't deserve is actually more accurately applied to privileged white students. But for some reason, the idea of unqualified white people getting into college seems odd; America has so racialized intelligence that the only time it would bother us for an under-qualified student to be admitted for a college based on his background would be if he wasn't white. White women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, but opponents of affirmative action never mention this because it doesn't provoke the same kind of resentment that the idea of "unqualified minorities" do.

---

Too Sense writing in 2007 on AA

And from Peter Schmidt:

quote:

---

Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.

What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.

A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.

---

Peter Schmidt writing for boston.com in 2007

quote:

---

Wrong forum? It's supposed to be an anti-racist forum, and I'm questioning a concept that I believe to be racist. In all fairness, that would make this the right forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Cause everybody knows money saves you from racism. *** sarcasm ***

You're a dick Jeremy. And you're in the wrong place. Read the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

---

The rules I agreed to when I signed up:

quote:

---

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum. Such members may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or banned altogether.

---

By questioning affirmative action, am I really debating the value of "anti-racism?"

As I stated before, I believe affirmative action to be a form of institutionalized racism. The purpose of this thread is to debate whether or not that is the case, not to debate the value of "anti-racism."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

This forum is for "anti-racist news and initiatives" not an open space for Jeremy to sound off about why affirmative action is "racist". Just because you're bitter that you can't get into U of Vic law doesn't mean that we want to hear about why you think that you're oppressed because your white. There are lots of places on the internet where you can convene with other racists and have a good group whine about affirmative action - this isn't one of those places.

---

"Bitter because I can't get into UVic law?" Actually I'm only in second year, and doing very well thank you very much. Haven't applied to UVic law yet, and don't expect to have any problems if/when I do.

I mentioned UVic as an example purely because it was the first that jumped to mind.

Believe me, my political position on this issue is not motivated by self interest.

quote:

---

Racism 101
An ever-expanding list of common understandings we share as anti-racists. Please feel free to submit your own entries.

1. White privilege exists.
2. Sanctuary is not segregation.
3. Flipping the actors does not lend clarity to an issue, nor does it mean that you have created equivalent analogies. See entry under Fallacious Flip.
4. People must own their feelings and expressions. Ventriloquy is not helpful in discussions of racism.
5. Seeking the empowerment of people of color is not the same as disenfranchising white people.
6. Racism is more than individual acts of meanness.
7. Hating white privilege is not the same as hating whitey.
8. Defensive responses to issues voiced by people of color are invocations of privilege.
9. A claim to anti-racism cannot be made based on any variation of the “black friend defense” (Mexican boyfriend, Asian wife, children of color, etc.).
10. Apology means say you’re sorry and then shut up. No rationalization, no long explanation of your intention, no invocation of the black friend defense. And then ask what you can do to make change.
11. The anti-racist focus should be on effect rather than intention.
12. Celebrations of “multiculturalism” do not address racism.
13. People of color are not responsible for the education of white people.
14. It’s not all about you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:I'm waiting anxiously for "libertarian-Conservative" Jeremy's rant against privileged white teens.

---

Okay, you got it. I don't think "connections" or gender should ever be used to justify special privileges either.

University admissions should be based on a simple average of high-school grades, and/or standardized exams.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Whatever, you'll be gone soon enough. Why don't you go play in your natural stomping ground - FreakDumbinion? I'm sure you'd be a perfect fit.

Mods, do we allow white people to come to the anti-racist forum and whine about affirmative action and how poor white guys are so hard done by?

---

FreeDominion is an excellent forum, where multiple views are welcome, as far as I am aware. I've seen the odd liberal/socialist post there, and they haven't been 'disappeared,' only debated with and questioned.

I have generally found other FD members to be quite open minded to multiple points of view.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Jeremy Maddock ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Jeremy: See points 3, 6, 11, 13 and 14. But also read them all.

Resist Racism blog: Racism 101

---

This is probably where I differ from so called "anti-racists". I believe that individual cases do make a difference, and that policies should be crafted out of fairness toward individuals, not the theoretical average individual in each balkanized group.

Incidentally, the University of Victoria does not have an affirmative-action policy for their Law school. Nor do they 'give priority' to FN applicants. They put a priority on increasing First Nation attendance. An important difference. From their website:

quote:

---

The Faculty of Law desires that the number of people of First Nations, Metis and Inuit backgrounds among the ranks of the legal profession increase substantially and, accordingly, encourages inquiries and applications from Aboriginal people.

---

Is there a Babble Hall of Infamy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Maddock:

FreeDominion is an excellent forum, where multiple views are welcome, as far as I am aware. I've seen the odd liberal/socialist post there, and they haven't been 'disappeared,' only debated with and questioned.

I have generally found other FD members to be quite open minded to multiple points of view.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Jeremy Maddock ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Maddock:

This is probably where I differ from so called "anti-racists". I believe that individual cases do make a difference, and that policies should be crafted out of fairness toward individuals, not the theoretical average individual in each balkanized group.

---

It's great that you believe that, but sadly, policies are based on generalizations by population, so, overwhlemingly, based on current policies, all white people are favoured, regardless of merit. Waiting for your outrage over this historical and systemic racist bias towards white people. Sexist bias towards men. Etc.

....

....

... (tumbleweeds)

....

Source.

Jeremy - you're young; you play with ideas; that's normal. If I thought these ideas were your final, worked-out views on life, I'd call you the disgusting names that such ideas richly merit. But maybe your ideological quest and a little life-experience (of which you obviously - clearly - painfully have none) will cure your spirit and set you on the path of righteousness. So I'll hold back for now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
When I said, Jeremy, you were in the 'wrong forum', I meant rabble.ca. How can we argue with someone who simply holds to their mystical belief of 'individualism'? You haven't engaged with any of the philosophical tenets that uphold the points we have made, you've simply stuck to your guns. Believe what you want, I suppose, but if you've already drawn your line, get lost. You won't find much truck here.

Incidentally, the University of Victoria does not have an affirmative-action policy for their Law school. Nor do they 'give priority' to FN applicants. They put a priority on increasing First Nation attendance. An important difference. From their website:

This means that there is a specific application process for FN applicants, tailored to their specific background and needs. An admirable effort, and, in fact, one consonant with your belief that 'individual cases do make a difference, and that policies should be crafted out of fairness toward individuals'.

Would you agree with that? Or are you still operating on white entitlement and a pathological fear that FN are stealing all the law school positions from competent white middle-classers? Fear not: I have great confidence that the white legal establishment will persevere.

---

To be honest, I'm not hung up on any individual policy. I cited UVic law school as having affirmative action policies because I've been told that's the case.

If they're merely seeking to symbolically encourage first nations students without taking from other applicants, however, I don't see the harm in that.

If an intelligent individual (regardless of race) wants to get into any educational program or job, let them succeed as an intelligent individual, not a member of some special class.

I believe that victory is far sweeter for those who succeed on their own merits.

So now that we have a better idea of what we're dealing with, carry on!

Edited to add: with more context from unionist, as well as the usual blistering, concise nugget from bcg--that should about wrap this up, I think.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

You see, your phoney lying hypocritical pretense of "equal treatment" breaks down very quickly when confronted with people who are of a different colour, gender, and cultural background than you.

Ideas like yours have no place in a civilized society.

Renounce that article now, or suffer the consequences. See? I've now given you two warnings. How are we doing?

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:
OOh, threats.... Big man, all threatening and whatnot behind your computer screen (that's made in China by non-unionists. Love the irony)

---