Ok, so I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with Pat Buchanan. Not everything he said, mind you, but I do think that Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. I don't think it makes sense to fight discrimination with discrimination. But, I also am not convinced that Sotomayor was nominated based on Affirmative Action, or even if she was, I'm not convinced that she's not fit for the job. So I'm only partially agreeing with Buchanan.
Yeah! Thanks Pat! Now that all the GOP's cards have been played (face up), those of us who laid down our bets years ago that 20th Century Dixiecrats would morph into 21st Century Republicants can collect our winnings and leave the table!
What's Pat saying here?! I mean, yeah, there are problems with AA, but the idea behind it is to create a more fair playing field. Context, Pat. Try it.
I see Sra's point and I tend to have similar thoughts on the matter. Reverse discrimination isn't right either. I'm thinking of the Ricci case here. The thing is, A.A. allows for other groups that have not had a voice to actually have an opportunity to have a voice. I mean, don't we all get access to better quality ideas and work if everyone who is qualified is given a chance? Not everyone who's given a chance performs well, of course. The great thing about A.A. is that it provides that initial opportunity one needs to have a chance at being somebody and helping the collective. Just my two cents.
Also, to me, Sotomayor's hearings weren't that different from John Roberts'. She sounds very well-informed, disciplined, and serious. And as Rachel points out, sure, she might have taken advantage of Affir. Action., but she is the one who managed to get excellent grades in great school.
The thing is, you can't create a fair playing field. There are always going to be people who are disadvantaged due to their circumstances. A lot of these disadvantaged people are minorities, but there are also a lot of disadvantaged white people and a lot of affluent minorities. It would be great if everyone had the same opportunities, but that won't happen in our rather non-utopian society. Also, if the issue is discrimination, it doesn't make sense to fight it with discrimination. What if America decided to right its wrongs regarding gay marriage, and said, "we are now going to allow gay people to marry, but in order to even things out, we will artificially disadvantage straight people by making them adhere to stricter requirements to attain a marriage license." it's not a perfectly apt analogy, but that's kind of what AA seems like to me. It's artificial, discriminatory, and unfair. As a woman, I would not be proud to be awarded a scholarship or some other kind of leg up based on my femaleness. I want equality, and I don't want to get it by being artificially assisted for my female "handicap".
Posts
11 comments:
Wam, bam, thank you, ma'am!
Ok, so I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with Pat Buchanan. Not everything he said, mind you, but I do think that Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. I don't think it makes sense to fight discrimination with discrimination. But, I also am not convinced that Sotomayor was nominated based on Affirmative Action, or even if she was, I'm not convinced that she's not fit for the job. So I'm only partially agreeing with Buchanan.
Yeah! Thanks Pat! Now that all the GOP's cards have been played (face up), those of us who laid down our bets years ago that 20th Century Dixiecrats would morph into 21st Century Republicants can collect our winnings and leave the table!
What's Pat saying here?!
I mean, yeah, there are problems with AA, but the idea behind it is to create a more fair playing field.
Context, Pat. Try it.
I see Sra's point and I tend to have similar thoughts on the matter. Reverse discrimination isn't right either. I'm thinking of the Ricci case here.
The thing is, A.A. allows for other groups that have not had a voice to actually have an opportunity to have a voice.
I mean, don't we all get access to better quality ideas and work if everyone who is qualified is given a chance?
Not everyone who's given a chance performs well, of course. The great thing about A.A. is that it provides that initial opportunity one needs to have a chance at being somebody and helping the collective.
Just my two cents.
Also, to me, Sotomayor's hearings weren't that different from John Roberts'. She sounds very well-informed, disciplined, and serious. And as Rachel points out, sure, she might have taken advantage of Affir. Action., but she is the one who managed to get excellent grades in great school.
Creating a fair field for everyone to compete in hardly sounds unfair.
The thing is, you can't create a fair playing field. There are always going to be people who are disadvantaged due to their circumstances. A lot of these disadvantaged people are minorities, but there are also a lot of disadvantaged white people and a lot of affluent minorities. It would be great if everyone had the same opportunities, but that won't happen in our rather non-utopian society. Also, if the issue is discrimination, it doesn't make sense to fight it with discrimination. What if America decided to right its wrongs regarding gay marriage, and said, "we are now going to allow gay people to marry, but in order to even things out, we will artificially disadvantage straight people by making them adhere to stricter requirements to attain a marriage license." it's not a perfectly apt analogy, but that's kind of what AA seems like to me. It's artificial, discriminatory, and unfair. As a woman, I would not be proud to be awarded a scholarship or some other kind of leg up based on my femaleness. I want equality, and I don't want to get it by being artificially assisted for my female "handicap".
To what degree are women disadvantaged in admissions policies in higher education currently? I mean across disciplines?
To Vigilante: They aren't, currently. But you are missing the point.
My point is that times change.
Post a Comment