Law School Discussion

OMFG

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2006, 08:38:21 AM »
i think AA probably does less harm than good, but that's just depending on how big the backlash is.

it does do harm in the sense of reinforcing racial identities, if you consider that a harm.  personally it's okay with me.

Gotcha.

are you agreeing with me or dismissing me?

I don't think that strengthened racial, cultural, whatever identity is in itself a bad thing. You seem to have said the same, although I had thought that you were using that as a piller for an argument as to why AA might be bad. the other pillar, i thought, was going to be that AA causes a hierarchy effect that dominates its benefits, but you're not claiming that either.

So, I guess we agree? right?

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2006, 08:44:15 AM »
actually, what i was saying was that AA (in terms of admissions at least) results in small increase in group identification, which opens up increased potential for hierarchy effect, as well as a small increase in the hierarchy effect.  i think that both are probably outweighed by benefits, but they do exist as effects that would be negative if we don't want a hierarchy.

I believe the same thing.

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2006, 08:46:42 AM »

margee's hypothetical contractor, for one.  But taking the wider view you recommended, does AA not do more good than harm and therefore should one not support it?

Wait. you think that the general contractor is the only entity involved in margee's transaction? is the minroty firm not a factor in the cost-benefit calculus? Why?

See quote below.

Do you support AA as national policy?  Why?

I think an argument in favor of AA might (generally) be: it does more good than harm.

I would ask to whom does it do more harm?


I'm not sure what you meant be "more" harm.  I'm saying AA does more good.  If you just meant who does it harm, then I'm referring to that contractor. 

And yes, both contractors, as well as the overall +/- affects on society factor into the cost benefit.

I have no idea what you're saying (or asking). honest.


redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2006, 08:50:12 AM »
good, then we agree.

as an aside, what we do disagree on is the potential for race categories without hierarchy.  this i believe is due to you having more faith in people than i do.  would you accept that as an explanation?

People's nature is not fixed: it is created by the culture that they live in. I don't necessarily have more faith in people than you do, i just believe that if we create a culture that incrementally creates an atmosphere were diversity and equality are increasingky respected, future generations will come to think of this as natural. Think of the difference between women's status and men's over th last hundred years, or of the status of Italian-Americans over the same time period.

12(e)

  • *****
  • 5627
  • Where's your towel?
    • View Profile
Re: OMFG
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2006, 08:53:59 AM »
How about we just talk about this single transaction.  My position was clearly framed in the context of the specific, I have made no assertions about public policy.

The client is not clearly the government.  In fact, I was thinking about several such clients that my company deals with on a regular basis, clients that are very much not the government.

The contract is not necessarily cost+fee, though I'm not sure how you think this is germane.
The reason given for AA is to give opportunity so that the WAMOB can be competitive.
However, company 2 (and other similar companies) are already just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications.  The ONLY distinction is that they are owned by a minority.  As stated before, we're not dealing with the government. 

Well your argument is looking a bit shaky, even though it's still early.  :D

1. You say the Co. 2 is "just as competitive", even though your hypo states that it underperforms.

2. You say that this transaction is racist - thereby placing it frmly within a pattern - but you're not willing to examine the pattern, and want to stay narrowly focused on a single transaction.

3. the whole rationale of minority set-asides is that they are (intended) as a blunt instrument to counteract a pattern. Right?

4. if the client is a private entity, and their purpose is to advertise the fact that they're contracting out to minority groups so that they earn goodwill points, why not characterise this as a commercial reason for the set aside program, rather than as racism?


1. no, I say it's "just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications."  Meaning, it is just as competitive as a third company that has a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and has only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.

2. I'm sorry, I thought that we had accepted the premise that racism is wrong.  I didn't realize there were exceptions.  You were trying to get me to talk about public policy, which I'm not interested in doing, and which was not part of my question.  If you have a question about what I mean by "racism" then we can talk about that, but my beef lies in the implementation of AA in specific instances.  I'm not interested in cost/benefit analysis for the greater good.  I'm interested in whether or not it's ok in this instance.  If you're not interested in answering my question, then just say so.

3.  Probably, but this is a greater good kind of argument.  Hurt a couple of people so that we can benefit the masses.  As stated before, I'm not interested in that, and that's not what my question was.

4.  Yes, why not?  But what if the client was contracting out to only whites to earn goodwill points from the locals who are primarily white supremacists?  Sure, you can put a spin on it.  You can look at it from different angles.  It's all about what matters more to you.  If giving an advantage to minorities is more important to you than giving equal opportunity to all, then yes, go ahead and look at it that way.  But whatever you call it, whether you say it's "a commercial reason for the set aside program" or not, it's still giving preferential treatment to one person and creating a disadvantage for another based solely on race.

5. I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race. 

6. Therefore, I do not support the application of AA in this instance.

7. Do you think that my position or my reasoning behind that position is racist?

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2006, 08:55:37 AM »

Fair enough.  I'll start from scratch.

Are there are examples of ideas that are held by racists for racist reasons that are also held by non-racists for legitimate non-racist reasons?

Earlier you said this was possible.  I'm trying to see how much stronger, if any, this claim can be.  ie, can someone oppose AA and not be a racist?

Sure it's possible. I just haven't seen it done yet. Didn't I say this before?

Also, prejudice more broadly, is more my focus of interest;  racism is only interesting to me as an example of the broader category.

cob

  • ****
  • 151
  • 3.54/167
    • View Profile
Re: OMFG
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2006, 08:56:50 AM »
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2006, 08:57:43 AM »
i'm sure you dislike the idea of homogenization?

I dislike the idea of forced homogeneization. People should be free to define themselves in any way that they'd like - and difference should be as valid a choice as assimilation.

redemption

Re: OMFG
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2006, 08:58:20 AM »
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.

This is not an AA thread. i'm sure it looks like one, but it's not.

cob

  • ****
  • 151
  • 3.54/167
    • View Profile
Re: OMFG
« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2006, 09:03:15 AM »
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.

This is not an AA thread. i'm sure it looks like one, but it's not.

Sorry about that. I will not peruse it any further then.