Why Affirmative Action is Justified

[FossilJ]

That only works if you redefine your terms. You can call that racism if you want to and that’s the way our language is starting to shift, but the original meaning of the term, and the one I find most honest is belief based. We have other ways of conveying what you just said in English, you don’t need to redefine racism as a requiring a component of power.

You speak of language as if it's some mythical edifice that we can just chip chunks out of and say, "Hey, look, this is exactly what X and Y mean!"

It doesn't work that way.  First, there is no "original meaning" of a term.  Second, even if there is, then where the hell are you drawing it from, and what is it?

Thank you for providing this information.  Welcome to the 21st century.  I know you hate those post-structuralists, but dammit, they were right!

[thorc954]

That only works if you redefine your terms. You can call that racism if you want to and that’s the way our language is starting to shift, but the original meaning of the term, and the one I find most honest is belief based. We have other ways of conveying what you just said in English, you don’t need to redefine racism as a requiring a component of power.
[/quote]


Ive finally gotten to my computer to respond. Sorry about the delay. Anyway, what seperates racism from prejudice is power. Racism is acting on prejudices. My definition of racism and that all whites are racist is complicated.  I believe that everyone has prejudices. It is simply a matter of life.  Blacks stereotype whites, whites stereotype blacks, it happens.  I know I roll my eyes when I see gothic kids on the streets. It is simply a fact of life. Not something I endorse, but something that happens.  Anyway, these are simply prejudices. What makes it racism is when the prejudice have a causal relationship and one side benefits at the degredation of the other.  Now, institutional "racism" systematical discriminates against blacks and provides whites with "white privelege." Anyway, this means that although everyone is has prejudice beliefs, the whites are benefiting from this discrimination. Therefore, whites are racist.  You may not notice the discrimination, but even among blue collar and working poor jobs, whites are given presidence over blacks.  Anyway, this is my definition. We all have our prejudices, but whites recieve the advantages in the system of oppression.  Does this justify AA? Im not entirely sure that it does as I dont see a reason at the graduate level that a minority would not have recieved an adequate enough education that if fully taken advantage of could place them on an even playing field.  Anyway, my point was simply that if the brains of the URMs quoted by red prevented them from achieving equal levels of success on standardized test because of a self profilling prophecy, then they may not be prepared for law school.  Confidence plays a big role in success.

Anyway, I was a math major so ignore the poor usage of grammar and the frequent misspellings and judge my opinions soley on content.  Spell check will catch this on my law school papers as it has in the past.

[FossilJ]

I can ignore some things, but poor logic is more difficult to look beyond.

By your terms, all Germans are Nazis.  It's ridiculous.

I see where you're going with it, but you make an unjustified leap when you go from the fact that prejudice put in practice by those in power is racism (reasonable, and, dare I say, sounds correct) to making an entire demographic not only ethically culpable of a systemic practice beyond their control by extension (sort of reasonable, if you're following Jaspers's line of thinking), but rather directly responsible for such a practice, each and every individual (entirely unreasonable).

It's ironic, because it's the same sort of generalized demarcation that sparks racism in the first place.  It labels the individual without regards to who and what she actually is.

[thorc954]

My comments never suggested that all Germans were nazis... Obviously, Jews, Gays, Catholics, the disabled, and the other groups persecuted during WWII would not fall under the group Nazi. However, those not being persecuted during the war would be considered racists. I know it is a hard concept to grasp, but that doesnt necessarily make it poor logic. Oh, and I am part German and have a german grandmother. Our family left before WWII, I swear that evil woman is a Nazi.

The fact is that if you benefit from a system of racisms then you are by default a racist.  I swear Ill break out some soc. books and get more indepth after work tonight...

[jer]

The fact is that if you benefit from a system of racisms then you are by default a racist.  I swear Ill break out some soc. books and get more indepth after work tonight...

isn't AA a product of a 'system of racisms'?
and who benefits from it?
which, by your definition makes them racist.

/head asplode

//the logic in this thread has gone downhill since page 8

///fun while it lasted

[BPM]

that seems overly complicated.  prejudice is to prejudge.  racism is simply prejudice based on race.  Power comes into play when one is looking at the damages of prejudice or racism, however it isn't an essential element, but is more applicable to institutional inequity, which isn't synonymous with racism.  Is a black lender who denies a mortgage to a black applicant a racist?  Probalby no more than the white lender, when considering intent.  At an aggregate level however, the effect certainly perpetuates inequities, but individuals acting in a racist or prejudicial manner aren't an essential element.

[John Galt]

that seems overly complicated.  prejudice is to prejudge.  racism is simply prejudice based on race.  Power comes into play when one is looking at the damages of prejudice or racism, however it isn't an essential element, but is more applicable to institutional inequity, which isn't synonymous with racism.  Is a black lender who denies a mortgage to a black applicant a racist?  Probalby no more than the white lender, when considering intent.  At an aggregate level however, the effect certainly perpetuates inequities, but individuals acting in a racist or prejudicial manner aren't an essential element.

No, the power element needs to be there. I can make a bunch of racial slurs against white folks and I would rightfully be considered a racist. I would not be engaged in racism because I have not done anything to adversely affect the white person  or caucasians as a group because of their race.

[BPM]

that seems overly complicated.  prejudice is to prejudge.  racism is simply prejudice based on race.  Power comes into play when one is looking at the damages of prejudice or racism, however it isn't an essential element, but is more applicable to institutional inequity, which isn't synonymous with racism.  Is a black lender who denies a mortgage to a black applicant a racist?  Probalby no more than the white lender, when considering intent.  At an aggregate level however, the effect certainly perpetuates inequities, but individuals acting in a racist or prejudicial manner aren't an essential element.

No, the power element needs to be there. I can make a bunch of racial slurs against white folks and I would rightfully be considered a racist. I would not be engaged in racism because I have not done anything to adversely affect the white person  or caucasians as a group because of their race.

hmm... that was the distinction I was making.  Power is an essential element of inequity, but not racism.  Obviously the combination of both power and racism is more damning.  I'd agree with your statement per institutional racism, but not for indivdiual racism.  the question is the degree that individual racism leads to institutional racism, or if the two should be treated as separate categories with their own causes/effects. 

I tend to take the latter view in that it's difficult to label someone a racist when there is no intent, but it's easy to discern institutional racism despite lacking intent/cause and focuse on the effect.

[FossilJ]

My comments never suggested that all Germans were nazis... Obviously, Jews, Gays, Catholics, the disabled, and the other groups persecuted during WWII would not fall under the group Nazi. However, those not being persecuted during the war would be considered racists. I know it is a hard concept to grasp, but that doesnt necessarily make it poor logic. Oh, and I am part German and have a german grandmother. Our family left before WWII, I swear that evil woman is a Nazi.

The fact is that if you benefit from a system of racisms then you are by default a racist.  I swear Ill break out some soc. books and get more indepth after work tonight...

I don't put credit in sociology.  It often does, as a field of study, exactly what you're doing here.

I'm telling you, the error in your reasoning is that you make the illogical leap from making beneficiaries of racism all racists.  You don't provide a definition of racism that allows you to do this.  You don't explain the philosophical underpinnings of your drastic leap thoroughly enough.

Like I said, if you're talking about collective guilt along the lines of Jaspers's thinking, I'd probably still let this slide.  Jaspers argued that the passivity of Germans in general made them all, in some form, culpable of Nazism.  However, that did not make them all Nazis.  The difference here is between a passive and an active attribution.

Calling all white people racist means you're ascribing an active contribution to the practice to them.  I'm okay with reasoning that claims that all white people are involved in upholding the foundation of racism (whether actively or passively; this also explains their collective guilt); I'm not okay with reasoning that claims all white people are racists.

It's simply not true.

[thorc954]

I don't put credit in sociology.  It often does, as a field of study, exactly what you're doing here.


Calling all white people racist means you're ascribing an active contribution to the practice to them.  I'm okay with reasoning that claims that all white people are involved in upholding the foundation of racism (whether actively or passively; this also explains their collective guilt); I'm not okay with reasoning that claims all white people are racists.

It's simply not true.

[/quote]

well, as for the first comment, im not much of a fan of sociology either, which is why I studied math as well. I feel it often attributes individual problems to the collective whole.  However, your last comment proves my point about racism.  You agree that all white people are involved in upholding the foundation of racism.  Now, by upholding this foundation, they are allowing it to continue and thus reaping the benefits of institutional racism. Once they gain unequal access to the benefits of the system they uphold, they become racists.  We all allow the system of inequality to continue.  The difference is that white people are more often then not in the position of power. We benefit from the system and set its rules. Therefore, we are the racists.  WE have the power to change things yet we dont.  Therefore, I believe this suggests that we openly allow discrimination. However, if a black person openly hates a white man, beyond simply committing a hate crime, he has little recourse in our society.  That was my point.