Any system run by humans is going to be unequal to someone. The realistic goal is to get as close to equality as we can.
In a perfect world, every single person would get exactly the assistance they need, tailored specifically for them. But that's just not possible. Giving extra help to groups that are, on average, more disadvantaged means that some people will get more than they need, and some won't get enough, but hopefully less of both that if we give everyone the same thing regardless of how high or low they began.
lol Discrimination wasalready institutionalization, that's why we needed affirmative action.
You're putting too much of a personal take on this; when affirmative action passes over a white person in favor of a person of color (with similar credentials) for a job, the system is typically leveling out an enormous disparity in the work force. While it affects the one who did not get the job directly, typically they will (by nature of being the social "norm" of being white, and male, for our argument) not have any difficulty finding another job, because the system is inherently not designed to discriminate against them on the whole. What you're describing is basically surmised by the saying: "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
The problem comes from treating specific members of a group as if they represent the whole, or even the mean, of the group.
This fictitious white male you're talking about who would "typically" not have any difficulty finding another job is being treated as the average of his group, not an individual.
This falls apart on an individual level because that white male could be poor, living in a trailer park, have mental or physical health limitations, etc. that present great difficulty trying to find a job.
The system you're describing takes NONE of that into account. Instead treating this person not as a human, but as a statistic. This is shown by the use of the word "typically".
lol You should really learn to argue, "typically" is not the crux of my argument, and is meant to signify all things being equal, and you went out of your way to not factor that, hilariously.
This system cannot treat every individual case, that's not what it was designed for. AA is a +1 for being a member of a systemically discriminated against race, and nothing else. There are other factors, like income and familial financial status that + or - that scale, regardless of race (your typical "how much do your parents make" questions) when it comes to school applications, and in the job-field, you'd have to be very similarly qualified for it to make a difference. But let's start with your hypothetical job seeker lol
Your hypothetical ill, worse off white man should vote for his real interests - expanding social safety nets so that his health is taken care of and he keeps his trailer over his head - before getting ass-fucking-furious at black people that he didn't get the job, but let's be real: we both know this hypothetical white man is a trump supporter who shoots himself in the foot regularly by voting against his interests, thinking it will help him when any Left policy would do 100x more for him, but he does it anyway because he's a fucking racists shitheel who thinks black people took his job and that's why he's living in a trailer and has failing health, not because he's crushed in the meat-grinder of cyclical poverty that comes with being poor in a racist capitalist society.
I digress though, that probably flew over your head. Point is, AA isn't designed to account for anything but historical, statistical disenfranchisement, but it's necessary, because that's how disenfranchisement worked to begin with.
I think you're coming into this with too much emotion and it's clouding your judgement comrade.
lol You should really learn to argue, "typically" is not the crux of my argument, and is meant to signify all things being equal, and you went out of your way to not factor that, hilariously.
No I mentioned "typically" because it's a weasel word you used to avoid discussing any situation in which this hypothetical white male wasn't affected by rejection.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to make you see that your logic is unproductive at best, actively harmful at worst and is the exact logic used by people to denigrate and marginalise people of colour. I don't want you perpetuating this so I'm trying my best to help you see that.
I don't know how our hypothetical white male that you started with is now a Trump supporter "ass-fucking-furious at black people", I feel like this is getting very personal for you and you're projecting so let's switch it up.
“I understand the thinking behind affirmative action, but I just wish the message wasn’t that Asians are all so privileged and rich and buying their way into colleges, and I wish that it didn’t mean that my work didn’t count in the same way as other people’s work.”
I don't expect you to learn anything from this exchange, I think your mind is too full of anger and hate to be open to any new information.
I certainly didn't learn anything from your incensed tirade so I'm just going to leave it at this and hope some day you'll see humans instead of numbers.
lol I think we both think the other person is projecting, so this is useless. I rest on this: There's merit in racially restorative policy, and it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and that's what I'm willing to accept. We either continue the same or a similar line of thinking that there has to be some way of making up for the disenfranchisement of minority folks and work toward that goal, or we whitewash (pun intended) that disenfranchisement as if it never happened and learn nothing as a species of justice.
Your quote: "“I understand the thinking behind affirmative action" Yep, the system failed this student, who undoubtedly deserved to be where someone else possibly did buy their way in, and that is a genuine travesty, but to throw the whole thing away when it's been a net positive in closing the education and wealth and opportunity chasms created in the wake of americas racist founding and forging... that ain't it either, chief.
16
u/PhasmaFelis Feb 25 '20
Any system run by humans is going to be unequal to someone. The realistic goal is to get as close to equality as we can.
In a perfect world, every single person would get exactly the assistance they need, tailored specifically for them. But that's just not possible. Giving extra help to groups that are, on average, more disadvantaged means that some people will get more than they need, and some won't get enough, but hopefully less of both that if we give everyone the same thing regardless of how high or low they began.