• 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!

Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

Read the question and respond accordingly.

  • Yes, this os unfair to white students

    Votes: 29 76.3%
  • No, this is fair to whites since it is additional enrollment

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Maybe. I can see the arguments for both sides, it's not clear cut

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Total voters
    38
How is affirmative action discrimination? It results in lowering structural discrimination. If past discrimination is making it very hard for a minority to find its way into universities, simply freezing the status quo is resulting in discrimination to that minority. What is the difference to a person if past discrimination has made it impossible to get into a university or if a case of deliberate racial discrimination makes it impossible? The hypothetical in the OP I may not agree with since it sets a strict quota, but I don't think the principle is wrong.

There are hundreds of thousands of black college graduates. Most of them did not make it into school on affirmative action. Blacks do not need institutional racism in order to suceed.

Saying that they do makes your views on racial equality suspect.
 
There are hundreds of thousands of black college graduates. Most of them did not make it into school on affirmative action. Blacks do not need institutional racism in order to suceed.

Saying that they do makes your views on racial equality suspect.

Not all have used affirmative action to get in, of course. I believe you are comitting the fallicy of composition however, since it can be statistically shown that minority groups still trail whites in educational attainment. Blacks have gained considerable ground, as have other minorities, but some structural discrimination still exists. I believe hispancis now have the largest gap for minority groups.
 
Not all have used affirmative action to get in, of course. I believe you are comitting the fallicy of composition however, since it can be statistically shown that minority groups still trail whites in educational attainment. Blacks have gained considerable ground, as have other minorities, but some structural discrimination still exists. I believe hispancis now have the largest gap for minority groups.

So because statistics show blacks trailing whites in educational attainment that MUST equal "structural discrimination"???

Can you give direct proof of this claim?
 
So because statistics show blacks trailing whites in educational attainment that MUST equal "structural discrimination"???

Can you give direct proof of this claim?

Stuctural discrimination is defined as:

The intractable social and economic patters of american society, created by generations of injustice, through which poorer education, lower expectations, and instinctive and unacknowleged prejudice ensure that race continuos to be a dominant, pervasive factor affecting the lifetime prospects of individual citizens. -Ronald Dworkin, Freedoms Law

A trailing education attainment would be contributing to structural discrimination.
 
of course it violates Title VII since white students are excluded from those spots by virtue of their color.

Can you imagine if a fire department said it was going to add 100 additional spots and only blacks could apply?

Fairness is a concern, which is why I disagree with the OP since it sets a strict quota for getting certain minorities into the univeristy. The principle behind affirmative action is sound though.
 
Last edited:
Stuctural discrimination is defined as:



A trailing education attainment would be contributing to structural discrimination.

That doesn't prove jack.
You have to actually prove it, not use some quote from some guy that blames past discrimination for the problems of school aged kids today.
 
I do not understand why some people actually think this would be a good idea.

There are so many problems and negative aspects to it that I simply am unable to fathom how they reach that conclusion.

So - Please explain.
 
That doesn't prove jack.
You have to actually prove it, not use some quote from some guy that blames past discrimination for the problems of school aged kids today.

Actually that is the definition of structural discrimination. Some people don't think it is an issue we should deal with though, and that is fine. I'm just saying it exists still to this day.
 
Actually that is the definition of structural discrimination. Some people don't think it is an issue we should deal with though, and that is fine. I'm just saying it exists still to this day.
IMO, this "structural discrimination" is just BS made up for the express purpose of creating a reason to have more discrimination in the form of "affirmative action".

That said, it is true (IMO) that past discrimination has caused some minorities to be at least slightly behind where they would be had no discrimination occurred.

But more discrimination is NOT the proper way to correct any such perceived imbalance.

In fact, the very act of you or I or anyone else classifying people as minorities is a form of discrimination, in and of itself.

Better, by far, to address the causes of such imbalances – than to create a artificial imbalance to balance out the imbalance…:doh
 
IMO, this "structural discrimination" is just BS made up for the express purpose of creating a reason to have more discrimination in the form of "affirmative action".

That said, it is true (IMO) that past discrimination has caused some minorities to be at least slightly behind where they would be had no discrimination occurred.

But more discrimination is NOT the proper way to correct any such perceived imbalance.

In fact, the very act of you or I or anyone else classifying people as minorities is a form of discrimination, in and of itself.

Better, by far, to address the causes of such imbalances – than to create a artificial imbalance to balance out the imbalance…:doh

Exactly. This discrimination in the form of "fair" (reverse discriminatory) policies only breeds more resentment between races of people.

Level the playing field, let everyone earn their own success, and the level of fairness and self-respect will rise.
 
IMO, this "structural discrimination" is just BS made up for the express purpose of creating a reason to have more discrimination in the form of "affirmative action".

That said, it is true (IMO) that past discrimination has caused some minorities to be at least slightly behind where they would be had no discrimination occurred.

But more discrimination is NOT the proper way to correct any such perceived imbalance.

In fact, the very act of you or I or anyone else classifying people as minorities is a form of discrimination, in and of itself.

Better, by far, to address the causes of such imbalances – than to create a artificial imbalance to balance out the imbalance…:doh

How is simply classifying people as a part of a group a form of discrimination? How do we adress the causes of structural discrimination which you have accepted as affecting some minorities?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. This discrimination in the form of "fair" (reverse discriminatory) policies only breeds more resentment between races of people.

Level the playing field, let everyone earn their own success, and the level of fairness and self-respect will rise.

Leveling the playing field would mean removing structural discrimination. Look at the definition. Fairness is different on the other hand. Which is why we have placed quite a few restrictions on affirmative action. Like the ones turtledude pointed out.
 
How is simply classifying people as a part of a group a form of discrimination?
Because it does not include them in the rest of the population.
That they are part of a smaller group and separate from everyone else, with their own issues and problems.
That they need special assistance because they are part of this smaller group arbitrarily created.
That their issues need to be addressed separately from the rest of the population for some unknown reason.
How is it NOT discrimination?


How do we address the causes of structural discrimination which you have accepted as affecting some minorities?
It is impossible to address the causes of "structural discrimination", because as your own definition of it stated, they are in the past.

We can address the actual problems that effect those who are (or supposedly are) effected by "structural discrimination".

Like:

Poor education.

Low job availability.

These and others are the true reason that some people have less chance of entering and succeeding in college, or a trade.

And, IMO, the proper way to address both above mentioned issues (and several others) is to streamline, revamp, and otherwise remodel the entire public education system (as those most effected by the current education issues are those who cannot afford private education anyway).

That said, parental involvement is a key part of education and child development.

And issues with it are part of the reason for the education issues.

Not sure of the exact reasons.
 
Because it does not include them in the rest of the population.
That they are part of a smaller group and separate from everyone else, with their own issues and problems.
That they need special assistance because they are part of this smaller group arbitrarily created.
That their issues need to be addressed separately from the rest of the population for some unknown reason.
How is it NOT discrimination?

So are we discriminating when we seperate people into groups by age for public education, or Social Security?
What about boy or girl?
Employmeny status?
Are we discriminating when we decide to provide welfare, since they are means tested and only apply to those with low incomes?
The reasons are not unknown if we accept that some structural discrimination exists.
It is impossible to address the causes of "structural discrimination", because as your own definition of it stated, they are in the past.

We can address the actual problems that effect those who are (or supposedly are) effected by "structural discrimination".

Like:

Poor education.

Low job availability.

These and others are the true reason that some people have less chance of entering and succeeding in college, or a trade.

And, IMO, the proper way to address both above mentioned issues (and several others) is to streamline, revamp, and otherwise remodel the entire public education system (as those most effected by the current education issues are those who cannot afford private education anyway).

That said, parental involvement is a key part of education and child development.

And issues with it are part of the reason for the education issues.

Not sure of the exact reasons.

I can agree with that, but in the mean time we should continue to pursue affirmative action since these injustes at the present time exist.
 
Leveling the playing field would mean removing structural discrimination. Look at the definition. Fairness is different on the other hand. Which is why we have placed quite a few restrictions on affirmative action. Like the ones turtledude pointed out.

You've still failed to show a modern day example of 'structural discrimination'.
Statistics do NOT point to the problem. They point to statistics. There could be a number of problems unrelated to being discriminated against that contribute to the problem.

Show me where there is structural racism please.
 
So are we discriminating when we seperate people into groups by age for public education, or Social Security?
What about boy or girl?
Employmeny status?
Are we discriminating when we decide to provide welfare, since they are means tested and only apply to those with low incomes?
The reasons are not unknown if we accept that some structural discrimination exists.
Welfare does not give anyone an incentive to get out there and work.
And by your last sentence you are basically saying that since we don't know what the problem is, we will blame it on discrimination, and then discriminate in order to fix a problem that we don't know the answer to?



I can agree with that, but in the mean time we should continue to pursue affirmative action since these injustes at the present time exist.
Show me an example of these injustices that Affirmative Action is the answer to.
 
So are we discriminating when we separate people into groups by age for public education, or Social Security?
Yes.

What about boy or girl?
Yes.

Employment status?
Yes.

Are we discriminating when we decide to provide welfare, since they are means tested and only apply to those with low incomes?
Yes.

The reasons are not unknown if we accept that some structural discrimination exists.
True, but I have yet to accept such.


I can agree with that, but in the mean time we should continue to pursue affirmative action since these injustice at the present time exist.
I completely disagree.


I think AA causes more issues that in solves.

Far more.

Damned edit box scroll issues.
 
Welfare does not give anyone an incentive to get out there and work.
And by your last sentence you are basically saying that since we don't know what the problem is, we will blame it on discrimination, and then discriminate in order to fix a problem that we don't know the answer to?




Show me an example of these injustices that Affirmative Action is the answer to.

I am extremely confused. Why should I have to find a specific case of discrimination to prove a more general form of injustice? I am sure you would agree some discrimination exists today.

I have shown you that minorities trail in educational attainment. Why else would a specific minority be falling behind? Do you think some minorities are simply not as smart, or bad at making money? I know you don't, I have heard you say it yourself.
 
How does using discrimination based on race to try and correct (after the fact) past discrimination based on race equal anything good?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Last edited:
I am extremely confused. Why should I have to find a specific case of discrimination to prove a more general form of injustice? I am sure you would agree some discrimination exists today.

I have shown you that minorities trail in educational attainment. Why else would a specific minority be falling behind? Do you think some minorities are simply not as smart, or bad at making money? I know you don't, I have heard you say it yourself.

So, you have shown me that minorities trail in educational attainment.....

You have failed to show that has anything to do with discrimination.
 
So, you have shown me that minorities trail in educational attainment.....

You have failed to show that has anything to do with discrimination.

What do you want me to do? In 1996 john smith was not allowed to go to school because of race, because of this his kids never grew up in the same way everyone Else's did. Why do I need to find a specific example? Why does it have to be the result of subjective discrimination?

Why else would educational attainment be decided by what race someone is? The structure of society is contributing to this injustice. It has nothing to do with deliberate, subjective discrimination today. The statistics show that the injustice is happening.

That be like saying:

Statistics show that the handicapped don't have enough handicapped parking spots. This is a form of structural discrimination. We should make more handicapped parking spots for the handicapped.

Why should we care why they don't have enough parking spots? I don't need to prove why they don't have enough parking spots to prove they don't have enough parking spots. Am I discriminating, maybe, is it wrong in this case, I don't think so.
 
What do you want me to do? In 1996 john smith was not allowed to go to school because of race, because of this his kids never grew up in the same way everyone Else's did. Why do I need to find a specific example? Why does it have to be the result of subjective discrimination?

Why else would educational attainment be decided by what race someone is? The structure of society is contributing to this injustice. It has nothing to do with deliberate, subjective discrimination today. The statistics show that the injustice is happening.

That be like saying:

Statistics show that the handicapped don't have enough handicapped parking spots. This is a form of structural discrimination. We should make more handicapped parking spots for the handicapped.

Why should we care why they don't have enough parking spots? I don't need to prove why they don't have enough parking spots to prove they don't have enough parking spots. Am I discriminating, maybe, is it wrong in this case, I don't think so.

Because showing that minorities are behind in educational attainment does not equal discrimination.
Discrimination is an entirely seperate act that you must prove. You cant just look at statistics and ASSume that discrimination is the problem. Which is what you are doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom