• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Affirmative Action - Could Justice Alito's Vote Change the Game?

Redress said:
That would be incorrect.
Click to expand...

then you acknowledge bias remains at play and yet you advocate for the end of a program intended to eliminate that unfair bias
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm not dodging. Tet said AA has nothing to do with quotas. You said it does by implying quotas are used to determine under-representation. I let you know that quotas are not used to determine under-representation. Debate solved. Unless you have proof that quotas are used to determine under-representation then we have nothing more to discuss. I'm not interested in whatever new tangent you're on.
Click to expand...

so far you have only said how we don't calculate under-representation.

now explain how we do it, since you are positive I have it wrong.

how do we calculate that a group is underrepresented. explain this to me
 
Meathead said:
It is not the symptom, it is the problem. No amount of affirmative action can undo what nature has done. Not all people are truly born equal, except in law. This I believe is accepted by all. Given all then AA in the world cannot 'correct' a certain order of things mandated by nature. Races have evolved with certain strengths to allow them to flourish in specific environments, not unlike Darwin's observations of the Galapagos Islands.

In order to allow groups to flourish, the natural environment needs to be changed, not the society in which they live. If over 40 years of affirmative action has made nary a dent in this inequality, perhaps a rational-based rethink without PC absurdities may not be out of line.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, if you're implying that certain races are behind in education because of "nature", then you need to read a book.
 
justabubba said:
then you acknowledge bias remains at play and yet you advocate for the end of a program intended to eliminate that unfair bias
Click to expand...

I acknowledge some biases do exist in some places and do not think affirmative action is the correct solution for those problems any more.
 
Redress said:
I acknowledge some biases do exist in some places and do not think affirmative action is the correct solution for those problems any more.
Click to expand...


then how are the biases overcome
 
justabubba said:
then how are the biases overcome
Click to expand...

Part of the answer is here in the thread:

Paschendale said:
Affirmative action was always just treating the symptom of the larger problem of poverty and underfunded school systems in minority neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Working to eliminate the causes of the biases, primarily by improving poor schools and working to encourage people to actually attend those schools.
 
Redress said:
Part of the answer is here in the thread:



Working to eliminate the causes of the biases, primarily by improving poor schools and working to encourage people to actually attend those schools.
Click to expand...

you propose to end the bias by not doing anything to prohibit the ability to exhibit bias
interesting, again
and still wrong
 
Just curious, but do you guys come across longtime unemployed minorities on a regular basis and think to yourself, "Gee, I wonder why THAT person doesn't have a really good job"?
 
ARealConservative said:
so far you have only said how we don't calculate under-representation.

now explain how we do it, since you are positive I have it wrong.

how do we calculate that a group is underrepresented. explain this to me
Click to expand...
Exactly, I've explained that quotas do not determine under representation. Quotas are what people illegally enact AFTER they have calculated under-representation. For example, a college might illegally decide that Asians are required make up 10% of our college population. In other words, quotas are requirements.

Under-representation is determined by looking at the percentage of a population in the workforce or education system and then evaluating whether or not your college or workplace accurate represents that percentage. If your college/workplace has a smaller percentage, then that population is under-represented. You can handle this under-representation is several ways. You can do nothing, you can increase recruitment, consider race as a secondary factor in admissions or you can illegally set quotas among other things.

As you can see, quotas come after determining under-representation - illegally.
 
justabubba said:
you propose to end the bias by not doing anything to prohibit the ability to exhibit bias
interesting, again
and still wrong
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, that is wrong. That is not at all what I have said. Read my words. Don't try and stick your spin into them, but read what they actually say. Then actually address what I say.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Excuse me, if you're implying that certain races are behind in education because of "nature", then you need to read a book.
Click to expand...

maybe nature is a poor choice, but slavery turned natural selection on it's heels. The criteria for a slave to excel was totally different then the criteria for a free person to excel. It will take generations to undue the damage we did, and quota based systems will never be a part of the solution, that is just feel good nonsense.
 
Redress said:
Yes, you are right, that is wrong. That is not at all what I have said. Read my words. Don't try and stick your spin into them, but read what they actually say. Then actually address what I say.
Click to expand...

you acknowledge bias still exists yet you want to end the actions which are intended to eliminate such bias
i understand you
appears to be too well
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Exactly, I've explained that quotas do not determine under representation. Quotas are what people illegally enact AFTER they have calculated under-representation. For example, a college might illegally decide that Asians are required make up 10% of our college population. In other words, quotas are requirements.

Under-representation is determined by looking at the percentage of a population in the workforce or education system and then evaluating whether or not your college or workplace accurate represents that percentage. If your college/workplace has a smaller percentage, then that population is under-represented. You can handle this under-representation is several ways. You can do nothing, you can increase recruitment, consider race as a secondary factor in admissions or you can illegally set quotas among other things.

As you can see, quotas come after determining under-representation - illegally.
Click to expand...

you are so keen to argue about hiring quotas not being used, you fail to acknowledge that the term quota is exactly how we determine representation.

what you just described is a quota. In order to even figure out which groups are underrepresented, we calculate the quota

Quota | Define Quota at Dictionary.com
 
justabubba said:
you acknowledge bias still exists yet you want to end the actions which are intended to eliminate such bias
i understand you
appears to be too well
Click to expand...

Saying that one action is not the solution to the problem is not the same thing as saying take no action. Why is this confusing to you?
 
Redress said:
Saying that one action is not the solution to the problem is not the same thing as saying take no action. Why is this confusing to you?
Click to expand...

you acknowledge bias exists and yet you prefer - make that advocate - for the elimination of the very actions which would serve to eliminate such bias

tell me what i got wrong
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
you are so keen to argue about hiring quotas not being used, you fail to acknowledge that the term quota is exactly how we determine representation.

what you just described is a quota. In order to even figure out which groups are underrepresented, we calculate the quota

Quota | Define Quota at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Quotas are illegal. The court specifically ruled there cannot be a quota system.
 
ARealConservative said:
you are so keen to argue about hiring quotas not being used, you fail to acknowledge that the term quota is exactly how we determine representation.

what you just described is a quota. In order to even figure out which groups are underrepresented, we calculate the quota

Quota | Define Quota at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand what quota systems are when they are referred to in college admissions and employment decisions. A quota is a requirement set by a college or a workplace. Those are illegal. Moreover, if used, they can only be set AFTER under-representation is determined. This is not difficult. And you didn't need to link to the definition, I've already explained the definition several times to you. It's a REQUIREMENT. Determining under-representation has nothing to do with requirements, it has to do with what actually exists.
 
Boo Radley said:
Quotas are illegal. The court specifically ruled there cannot be a quota system.
Click to expand...

hiring quotas are sometimes ruled illegal (colleges find ways around the law), but the term quota is exactly how we determine which groups are underrepresented.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, you don't understand what quota systems are when they are referred to in college admissions and employment decisions. A quota is a requirement set by a college or a workplace. Those are illegal. Moreover, if used, they can only be set AFTER under-representation is determined. This is not difficult. And you didn't need to link to the definition, I've already explained the definition several times to you. It's a REQUIREMENT. Determining under-representation has nothing to do with requirements, it has to do with what actually exists.
Click to expand...

you are talking about hiring quotas.

I am taking about using quotas to determine representation
 
Boo Radley said:
Your link expresses more doubt than you do. However, for clarity, lets say there is a bases for it. What do you think that means in the real world?
Click to expand...
It means nothing more than it says. It is not just this link but a standard which whose findings are repressed because of their nature. The publication of research like this is a sacrifice at the alter of political correctness. It is none-the-less true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom