Affirmative Action and positive discrimination
Mar 11 2006 01:53
Admin - split from thread about the group Bring The Ruckus here:
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8397
which began in response to John.'s post here:
John. wrote:
This is what I meant by "liberal" as well. Stuff I've read from Race Traitor - now in BTR - and Komboa Ervin have been supportive of things like Affirmative Action (positive discrimination). I think this is both "liberal", and anti-white racist, because it favours discrimination against whites, and inequality. I think it's harmful because it will breed resentment. The film Crash I think deals with the issue well.
Affirmative Action is not anti-white.
It is designed to cream off a few of the best from the w/c but mainly helps the m/c. Pretty much the same as here.
Mar 8 2006 09:41
#2
The aim of Affirmative action is to provide an outlet for some anger and prevent overt discrimination from creating black unity.
Would you call scholarships anti-rich?
Affimrative action was mainly in the education system was it not? And it was fucked by a law suit a few years back brought by some rich white kids who made the black entry requirements for a big uni, but not the white. (I think it was Harvard but I'm not sure.)
Mar 8 2006 21:20
#3
Quote:
Would you call scholarships anti-rich?
seriously john, this is right. Its about taking the best from the rest.
Mar 9 2006 17:25
#4
Tacks wrote:
Quote:
Would you call scholarships anti-rich?seriously john, this is right. Its about taking the best from the rest.
What does this mean? And how does it fit with this discussion?
Do you think, like Jef, that saying that white people shouldn't be able to get certain jobs (or uni places) that less qualified black people can get doesn't discriminate against whites?
Jef - affirmative action wasn't just about uni places, it was about jobs and also contracts.
So has it defenitely finished then? That's good.
Mar 10 2006 12:38
#5
John. wrote:
Do you think, like Jef, that saying that white people shouldn't be able to get certain jobs (or uni places) that less qualified black people can get doesn't discriminate against whites?
Ceritis Paribus it is descrimination, bit in reality I would have thought that white and black are not on an even playing field. Not that anyone "deserves" a job. But I don't have an opinion on positive action, even if it did find the better person for the job.
Mar 10 2006 14:31
#6
John. wrote:
Do you think, like Jef, that saying that white people shouldn't be able to get certain jobs (or uni places) that less qualified black people can get doesn't discriminate against whites?
I think that positive discrimination against white people can be messy, but positive discrimination for poorer, more underpriveleged sections of the working class is totally justifiable.
But do we really expect the US to say yes we are a soicety based on class division and to remedy this we will try give benefits to the poor to give them more chances to earn a decent wage. No. It's much easier to say that class inequality is due to laziness and the remenants of historical inequalities. And we'll remedy the remenants of history. But does that mean it shouldn't be supported? No, I don't think so.
Mar 10 2006 14:57
#7
georgestapleton wrote:
John. wrote:
Do you think, like Jef, that saying that white people shouldn't be able to get certain jobs (or uni places) that less qualified black people can get doesn't discriminate against whites?I think that positive discrimination against white people can be messy, but positive discrimination for poorer, more underpriveleged sections of the working class is totally justifiable.
But do we really expect the US to say yes we are a soicety based on class division and to remedy this we will try give benefits to the poor to give them more chances to earn a decent wage. No. It's much easier to say that class inequality is due to laziness and the remenants of historical inequalities. And we'll remedy the remenants of history. But does that mean it shouldn't be supported? No, I don't think so.
This isn't about poverty - it's about race. And difference in treatment on the grounds of race is completely wrong and counterproductive, IMO.
Mar 10 2006 16:43
#8
John. wrote:
This isn't about poverty - it's about race. And difference in treatment on the grounds of race is completely wrong and counterproductive, IMO.
Yeah but my badly articulated point was that the US isn't going to acknowledge that poverty is endemic of of class society. But they are willing to acknowledge that poverty can exist as the remenants of a society strutured along racial lines. The point is that positive discrimantion gives chances to black people that they wouldn't otherwise have. African americans are still, as far as I am aware, the poorest ethnic group in america and tends to live in communities that are extremely isolated from and neglected by mainstream american society.
Positive discrimination on racial lines is extremely far from perfect. But it's not anti-white racism.
I'd argue that positive discrimination should be extended to all impoverished groups in american society, including poor whites, and removed from rich people from ethnic minorities rather than arguing straight out against it.
Although I'm not american so maybe i don't know what i'm talking about and am talking shite. But the american anarchists i've talked to have generally been pretty pro-positive discrimination.
Mar 10 2006 17:11
#9
georgestapleton wrote:
John. wrote:
This isn't about poverty - it's about race. And difference in treatment on the grounds of race is completely wrong and counterproductive, IMO.Yeah but my badly articulated point was that the US isn't going to acknowledge that poverty is endemic of of class society. But they are willing to acknowledge that poverty can exist as the remenants of a society strutured along racial lines.
Exactly - the state will offer, divisive, counter-productive solutions that will further divide the working class against itself.
Quote:
The point is that positive discrimantion gives chances to black people that they wouldn't otherwise have. African americans are still, as far as I am aware, the poorest ethnic group in america and tends to live in communities that are extremely isolated from and neglected by mainstream american society.Positive discrimination on racial lines is extremely far from perfect. But it's not anti-white racism.
Would you argue that its opposite would be racism?
What about other groups - like south east asians? Do they count as "black"? Or if they do better than white people should the bar for them be set higher than whites? Or Jews? I think you'll just get tied in knots...
Quote:
I'd argue that positive discrimination should be extended to all impoverished groups in american society, including poor whites, and removed from rich people from ethnic minorities rather than arguing straight out against it.
Hmmm, TBH I think this is such an unachievable demand it's not worth making. Has any labour movement anywhere ever made such a demand?
Quote:
Although I'm not american so maybe i don't know what i'm talking about and am talking shite. But the american anarchists i've talked to have generally been pretty pro-positive discrimination.
So have most of the american anarchists I've spoken to. But a lot of them seem to be white-guilty liberals (even moreso than here).
Mar 10 2006 17:29
#10
John. wrote:
Quote:
Although I'm not american so maybe i don't know what i'm talking about and am talking shite. But the american anarchists i've talked to have generally been pretty pro-positive discrimination.So have most of the american anarchists I've spoken to. But a lot of them seem to be white-guilty liberals (even moreso than here).
i can't emphasize enough how much race/gender/ethnicity dominate the discourse ovah heah; it's almost impossible to get into any discussion of class matters without these other matters being immediately injected (though i am going to an ICC thing tonite, maybe they if anyone can do it. i wonder what they look like.). i don't know any anarchists (we don't have the kind of networking youse seem to have ovah theah - too big a country?) but i would be not at all surprised if they had what i also consider a liberal-guilty mindframe.
Mar 12 2006 00:29
#11
newyawka,
Tell us how the ICC thing went, aiight?
Mar 12 2006 03:20
#12
To be honest, I'm not entirely whether I can believe that I'm seeing people on here defend affirmative action. I'm imagining it, right??
Mar 12 2006 09:31
#13
John. wrote:
And difference in treatment on the grounds of race is completely wrong and counterproductive, IMO.
IMHO is resonable, though it almost sounds like moralising; cf "liberal" or "guilt" too - no-one has explained why liberalism or guilt is so much of a threat that it calls for the sort of redicule you get. Just interested.
I would be genuinely interested why someone who is not anti-racist would oppose PA. Someone tried to tell me it was because looking to change institutions is counterproductive, but sounds a bit desperate (sort of). Like I said no-one's convinced me either way, so.
Mar 12 2006 12:41
#14
lem wrote:
I would be genuinely interested why someone who is not anti-racist would oppose PA.
Huh? Not anti-racist? So you mean why would anyone racist oppose AA? Surely that's obvious?
Mar 12 2006 13:57
#15
I've notice some communists mention not being anti-racist along with snti-fascist (I think riffraff published something) - same kinda thing. Plus I thought that liberal "anti-racism" was called somethinhg else - thugh maybe that is racist.
Mar 12 2006 16:21
#16
lem wrote:
I've notice some communists mention not being anti-racist along with snti-fascist (I think riffraff published something) - same kinda thing. Plus I thought that liberal "anti-racism" was called somethinhg else - thugh maybe that is racist.
Sorry I've not understood either of your last two posts. Am I being stupid?
Mar 12 2006 17:15
#17
yea, is "not anti-racist" the same as racist? if the point of "anti-racist" is that there is a history/social baggage that goes with that phrase, then you can argue that they're not the same. (i'm not arguing that this is what lem meant, however.)
and i think that john. has confused the issue (or perhaps just me) by bringing this up in the context of the state.
hiring and admission practices are not some pure thing that PA will screw up by getting the state more involved in.
i agree that the question of identity (at Least in the states) is over-laden with guilt and confusion, and i try not to have those conversations anymore because they turn stupid so quick, but that doesn't mean that PA is a simple "no."
and yea, newyawka, i'm curious about the ICC report back too...
Mar 12 2006 17:16
#18
And people are now saying PA - what's that? "Positive action"? Who refers to it as that?
Mar 12 2006 17:41
#19
yea, i guess i meant PD (positive discrimination). john, your thing about "bias based on race is always wrong" sounds like too gdmd many "color blind" arguments i have had over the years, whether you mean it that way or not. we do make decisions based on color, and saying that we should not implies that there are no relevant differences, which denies history and current situations. *what* decisions we make based on color, and how easily we let go of those decisions, can be conversations worth having... but not conversations that we can have with the state/policy makers (of course).
Mar 12 2006 17:46
#20
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry if I've been unclear.
John. wrote:
And people are now saying PA - what's that? "Positive action"? Who refers to it as that?
There was a thread on this on the tolling gang where they called it PA.
Duave does say that he is avoids "humanistic anti-racism" on his political level, I assumed at the time I read it that he included current anarchist practices (otherwise why bother pointing it out in the article http://libcom.org/library/fascism-anti-fascism-reply-aufheben-7), whatever they may be, (I'm still "checking anarchism out", but I've made my way through some olf the famous bits!), if Dauve did then sure maybe thats racist. Whether Dauve sugests resisting anti-fascism ec becasue of historical baggage I don't know, but he would have us believe that it is a very real problem now, maybe because of some universal processes.
As an aside (I don't know what you mean by guilt tbh, guilt over what, I may have misunderstood) but I don't get it. Sure tell someone there's no need to feel guilty, but to actually condemn someone for it surely thats unproductive - I mean does "liberal guilt" (as an anarchist motivation) play a counter-revolutionary role? If it doesn't it sounds like moralising - not meeting some kind of standard of "good" whose value only exists for itself. Are people actually trying to make people feel guilt for feeling guilty?? For what purpose.
Good luck reading that
Mar 12 2006 17:47
#21
dot wrote:
yea, i guess i meant PD (positive discrimination). john, your thing about "bias based on race is always wrong" sounds like too gdmd many "color blind" arguments i have had over the years, whether you mean it that way or not.
My point is practical: if you have PD - you will get resentment amongst whites. This will excacerbate racism. Therefore we should oppose it.
Mar 12 2006 17:56
#22
John. wrote:
dot wrote:
yea, i guess i meant PD (positive discrimination). john, your thing about "bias based on race is always wrong" sounds like too gdmd many "color blind" arguments i have had over the years, whether you mean it that way or not.My point is practical: if you have PD - you will get resentment amongst whites. This will excacerbate racism. Therefore we should oppose it.
Any way of telling if that resentment actually divides/weakens though? You'd think it would.
Mar 12 2006 17:57
#23
john., your argument that there will be a backlash is silly. there is no backlash necessary for people to be racist/sexist, et-fucking-cetera. the backlash argument is an argument for never doing anything that doesn't appeal to where everyone is already.
lem - the argument about guilt (at least when i make it) is an argument that guilt is a reactionary response that doesn't challenge the premises of this culture. i have already mentioned christianity once this morning, but i will again. guilt leads to faulty theory.
Mar 12 2006 18:19
#24
lem wrote:
John. wrote:
dot wrote:
yea, i guess i meant PD (positive discrimination). john, your thing about "bias based on race is always wrong" sounds like too gdmd many "color blind" arguments i have had over the years, whether you mean it that way or not.My point is practical: if you have PD - you will get resentment amongst whites. This will excacerbate racism. Therefore we should oppose it.
Any way of telling if that resentment actually divides/weakens though? You'd think it would.
Yeah and I think it does. It allows racist whites to not trust black people in important positions, like say being a doctor or what have you (see curb your enthusiasm the other night), because they don't have to be as good as white ones.
Dot - the backlash idea is sensible, because it's real. A lot of "racist" ideas about PD would even be justified if it were used. For example you you want a black surgeon, if he wasn't necessarily properly qualified? I mean he might be, but how would you know.
PD is a fucking stupid, racist idea.
Mar 12 2006 18:27
#25
Quote:
Yeah and I think it does. It allows racist whites to not trust black people in important positions, like say being a doctor or what have you, because they don't have to be as good as white ones.Dot - the backlash idea is sensible, because it's real. A lot of "racist" ideas about PD would even be justified if it were used. For example you you want a black surgeon, if he wasn't necessarily properly qualified?
you saying it's real doesn't make it so. people will be racist if they're racist. the way you ask the question - would i want a black surgeon if he weren't properly qualified - is inane. i wouldn't want any surgeon if s/he weren't properly qualified. duh. so when all the surgeons were white, we could be sure that they were all qualified?!
there are totally appropriate and interesting arguments to be made against PD, and you're not making any of them. how disappointing.
Mar 12 2006 18:30
#26
John. wrote:
Yeah and I think it does. It allows racist whites to not trust black people in important positions, like say being a doctor or what have you (see curb your enthusiasm the other night), because they don't have to be as good as white ones.
Dot - the backlash idea is sensible, because it's real. A lot of "racist" ideas about PD would even be justified if it were used. For example you you want a black surgeon, if he wasn't necessarily properly qualified? I mean he might be, but how would you know.
PD is a fucking stupid, racist idea.
I agree with most of what you've said there John. but you are presenting an extreme view of the programme. For example at Harvard the GPA for black students was lowered by a tiny amount. Its not a question of giving unqualified people work. The idea is that it is harder for black people, due to societal pressures racism etc to get certain grades. It is much harder for a black man to become a doctor, therefore you could argue that even if a white doctor has done better in his mdical exams he is probably not as hard-working.
Incidentally I disagree with AA/PD because it tends to be exploited by useless middle class people and in the rare cases where working class people get through they are bought off. It is a reactionary measure but it isn't racist because it is not designed to penalise a race. IF anyhing it is egalitarian, it is trying to ensure that black w/c anger is released in the same way as white.
Mar 12 2006 18:52
#27
Jef Costello wrote:
I agree with most of what you've said there John. but you are presenting an extreme view of the programme. For example at Harvard the GPA for black students was lowered by a tiny amount. Its not a question of giving unqualified people work.
Not unqualified, just less qualified. But that is what it's about
Quote:
The idea is that it is harder for black people, due to societal pressures racism etc to get certain grades. It is much harder for a black man to become a doctor, therefore you could argue that even if a white doctor has done better in his mdical exams he is probably not as hard-working.
If someone was operating on you, would you care how "hard-working" he was? Or how good he was?
Quote:
It is a reactionary measure but it isn't racist because it is not designed to penalise a race
Yes it is - white people. It's explicitly about race!
dot wrote:
you saying it's real doesn't make it so. people will be racist if they're racist. the way you ask the question - would i want a black surgeon if he weren't properly qualified - is inane. i wouldn't want any surgeon if s/he weren't properly qualified. duh. XX so when all the surgeons were white, we could be sure that they were all qualified?!
Where I've marked X's is a non-sequitur. Under PD, you would have black surgeons less qualified than white ones. All the white ones you would know were properly qualified - the black ones you wouldn't. This would make non-racist people "racist" by default cos then they would prefer the white surgeons. PD would racialise loads of practical decisions.
You claim you "wouldn't want any surgeon if s/he weren't properly qualified". Under PD, some non-white surgeons wouldn't be properly qualified. As you won't know who's got the job by PD or not, this will mean you would want a white one by default.
Do you see my point now?
Mar 12 2006 19:33
#28
John. wrote:
Jef Costello wrote:
Quote:
It is a reactionary measure but it isn't racist because it is not designed to penalise a raceYes it is - white people. It's explicitly about race!
It is designed to buy off black people, not to penalise white people.
John. wrote:
If someone was operating on you, would you care how "hard-working" he was? Or how good he was?I'd rather have someone good, a rich kid who's had everything handed to him all his life might get better grades but might not have the mental toughness when the going gets tough.
One of the things I noticed about a lot of private schoolies at uni was that they had no imagination. They had no idea what it meant to be faced with an actual problem with consequences and how to get around it. This extended into their entire lives.
It is divisive but mainly because the average person thinks like you do John.
AA/PD does not create equal opportunities but nothing will. Personally I think its pointless but it isn't racist.
Mar 12 2006 19:57
#29
Jef Costello wrote:
John. wrote:
Yes it is - white people. It's explicitly about race!It is designed to buy off black people, not to penalise white people.
What it was designed for is irrelevant. But say a firm which provides contracted services to the public sector with white employees having its contract terminated and replaced by a firm with more black employees (AFAIK this has happened in the US). This has discriminated against white people. And saying whites need higher grades for unis or jobs, how does that not discrimate? If it were the other way round you'd immediately shout "discrimination".
Quote:
John. wrote:
If someone was operating on you, would you care how "hard-working" he was? Or how good he was?I'd rather have someone good, a rich kid who's had everything handed to him all his life might get better grades but might not have the mental toughness when the going gets tough.
Er, what if the black person who got the job was a spoilt rich kid? PD is not about money, it's about your skin colour!
Mar 12 2006 20:10
#30
John. wrote:
Quote:
John. wrote:
If someone was operating on you, would you care how "hard-working" he was? Or how good he was?I'd rather have someone good, a rich kid who's had everything handed to him all his life might get better grades but might not have the mental toughness when the going gets tough.
Er, what if the black person who got the job was a spoilt rich kid? PD is not about money, it's about your skin colour!
Fair point, but my point was in relation to your question, which had different frames of reference.
I have pointed out that AA/PD isn't aimed at helping the w/c.
A guy from uni, son of a multi-millionaire got loads of help from a scheme for helping black and asian youths into higher education.
John wrote:
Jef Costello wrote:
John. wrote:
Yes it is - white people. It's explicitly about race!It is designed to buy off black people, not to penalise white people.
What it was designed for is irrelevant. But say a firm which provides contracted services to the public sector with white employees having its contract terminated and replaced by a firm with more black employees (AFAIK this has happened in the US). This has discriminated against white people. And saying whites need higher grades for unis or jobs, how does that not discrimate? If it were the other way round you'd immediately shout "discrimination".
If it were the other way around it would be an entirely different situation.
The avowed aim is to level the playing field because it is easier for whites to get grades than blacks.
Which ignores class as the reason for the lack of opportunity.
I'll say this one last time, it is an anti-working class measure, not a racist one.
I'd imagine that in cities where they had replaced white firms with black ones there was a black mayor looking for re-election, and also that the black labour was cheaper.
How is setting higher entry requirements for jobs for white people than non-whites not anti-white?
Would you say that setting higher requirements for black people wasn't "anti-black"?