October 18, 2000
10:05 AM   Subscribe

In last night's debate, Bush reassured the American people that he has absolutely no idea what affirmative action is. If you think it's got anything to do with quotas or with hiring less-than-qualified applicants then neither do you. Someone ought to send this info on pertinent Supreme Court decisions along to the Bush campaign for the governor's edification. Yesterday's New York Times carried an op-ed which examines a critical review of 200 scientific studies of affirmative action and concludes that the facts vindicate such policies. In fact, a Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded last week to an economist who developed methods of analysis which, among other things, demonstrated the effectiveness of affirmative action in integrating the textile industry. Little-known fact: the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action has been white women.
posted by sudama (42 comments total)
 
I always have been and will remain opposed to affirmative action. We spent a lot of time discussing in my economics classes exactly what affirmative action is, I've done my own reading, and my opinions have not changed. Pro affirmative action people reason that when you have to employees being interviewed for a position and they have the exact same qualifications, you should hire the minority. How does this not defeat the entire idea of diversity. How can you have two employees who are exactly the same in every way, with no other method of reviewing their differences other than color? In an instance where two employees have very similar qualifications, then an employer is given the responsibility to hire the person who would be a better worker, a more beneficial person to work with, etc... No two people are exactly the same. The same method can be used in reviewing applicants to higher education. No two students, no matter how similar, will have the exact same intelligence, personality, life experience and community involvement down to every detail (all things inferrable from an intelligently and properly filled out application, honest personal statement, essay, etc...). In this case. You don't simply deceide on race. Discrimination goes both ways. If, in any of these cases, the employer or institution is found to be ignoring these factors and judging people based on color, creed, etc.., then they can be help accountable for discrimination, no matter what color they're discriminating against.
posted by tomorama at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2000


Affirmative action sounds an awful lot like discrimination to me.
posted by attitude at 5:09 PM on October 18, 2000


Here's the problem: to end all affirmative action assumes that racial problems have ended. They haven't. That attitude still exists in our world. There must be some way to aid/fix it, I don't know if its affirmative action - but something should be done...
posted by owillis at 5:25 PM on October 18, 2000


And affirmative action assumes that people are inclined to be prejudiced and can't make an unbiased decision w/o government help.
posted by gyc at 5:53 PM on October 18, 2000


Affirmative action is of utmost importance.

As a white, upper class, silver spoon kid, I enjoyed opportunities and benefits that low income black and hispanic children in the projcets couldn't even conceive of.

Ignorant and slothful students from my high school have a far better chance at success than even the most outstanding students from poor, run down schools in the inner city.

This isn't fair.

I was fortunate to be born under the right circumstances, and I've never taken that for granted. Until all individuals - regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation - are given the same opportunities that I've enjoyed, affirmative action is the best weapon we have to combat this glaring inequity.

Bush isn't stupid, he understands this. It's just that he doesn't have much 'compassion' for brown people, black people, womenfolk and queers.


posted by aladfar at 7:34 PM on October 18, 2000


I disagree with the anti-Bush drabble here in this post, and shmeared across Metafilter. Why these thoughtless attacks on Bush? It has been my observation that your personal morality dictates your philosophy, and every response I've seen here has been consistent with that hypothesis. Criticism of Bush for what is construed as his lack of support for some unrealistic expectation (govment support for sexual orientation, right to terminate life as convenience, favoritism to minorities). You have rights to life, liberty, property, privacy with either candidate. Why prefer either? Fact is, both of those guys dished out what they think you want to hear, nothing more or less, cause politicians have this odd tendency to be dishonest. To single one politician out with gross generalizations assumptions about what he is thinking, while supporting another is, in my opinion, pathetic, ignorant, obtuse.
 
As everyones said already, even though this is a law that is well intended, it ends up all too often as reverse discrimination instead of an exercise in diversification and minority protection. Because protection of the individual/minority is constitutional, reverse discrimination isn't, so any laws requiring representation of specific groups shows favoritism, and not protection of each person's right to life liberty and property. But I don't suppose those in favor of affirmative action appreciate consistency with the law. But as previous posts have shown thinking is pretty unpopular. Sacrifice all for compassion, a sense of liberty, peace, whatever feels good: advocate it with gusto.
posted by greyscale at 8:12 PM on October 18, 2000


Silver Spoon? Yer even more of a rich kid than I thought you were. I went to a virtually all black
middle school, and a virtually all Hispanic high school, I am sure the fact that I am white
invalidates any opinion I might put forth, but pretty much everyone with the intention of going to
college did. Maybe not your fancy college, but college nonetheless. You should realize that it is
insulting to propose that your life has been so grand that poor kids could not even comprehend
your world. If you would like, I will be more than happy to chalk up any success you achieve in life
to your background rather than your effort. I would have kicked your ass all around town if you
called my school run down to my face. You mustn't blame me, I was disadvantaged and could not
have been held accountable for my actions.
Last question, why do you live in the whitest, most racist part of town this side of Streeterville
if you feel this way? Afraid of helping gentrify a neighborhood? Not fully recovered from all the
benefits of your youth?
You wrote me a nice letter, and I am sure you are a good guy, but you can be awfully patronizing.
posted by thirteen at 8:28 PM on October 18, 2000


it ends up all too often as reverse discrimination

If over 200 studies and a Nobel Prize aren't enough to convince you that this isn't the case, I suppose there's nothing I can say to change your mind. (You're wrong, of course.)

Any choice between qualified candidates is discriminatory by nature -- if an institution chooses to discriminate in favor of the underrepresented, affirmative action policies provide guidelines for discriminating in an equitable manner. What's the problem with that?
posted by sudama at 9:13 PM on October 18, 2000


Jay Leno's guest on his show tonight said it better than I did. "When you step on a 747 and see a woman in the cockpit, you're concerned with whether or not she aced the flight academy, not the fact that she's a woman. ...We can't be lowering standards, it's not the answer."
posted by tomorama at 9:29 PM on October 18, 2000


I was thinking twice about posting earlier. People usually don't change suppositions regardless of what evidence you pile on top of your argument. It's still uncontitutional and facts don't change constitutionality. Only amendments do. It's kindof like the electoral college thing. Read the case DeFunis v. Odegaard 40LEd2d164(1974). As I recall US sup ct upheld the law by way of its discretion. It either didn't have judiciability or something. Again, can't remember the details. I AM in total agreement with the INTENTIONS of this (these) law(s): to force people to be considerate and responsible and diverse, but on principle DO NOT support it. Just my 2cents. I'm too lazy to lookup any supporting evidence so if considering my perspective doesn't entertain you, continue along your chosen path. The world is falling apart, and no law or well intended comment, argument, or action on my part is going to save it. Note that is a presupposition I hold, and have no intention of changing. Note also that it's not every presupposition I have that impacts my world view, but a big one. You'll probably note that most of my comments reflect this in some way. No law, or forced ethic, peer pressure, or anything is going to force a satisfactory solution for this problem. I was vising a state in the "South" and was shocked to hear the word "nigger" coming from a white person and directed at a black person. My parents are literally afraid to travel there because of their mixed marriage. (We're from Seattle WA) I'm voting for Bush too. But before that gets you upset realize that I live in a state where the electoral college always votes democratic regardless of how their district has voted (need to double check the facts on this....). Man I'm babbling. Back to homework.....
posted by greyscale at 9:29 PM on October 18, 2000


We can't be lowering standards, it's not the answer.

Again, if you're talking about lowering standards, you're not talking about affirmative action. Isn't that a straw man, or something? In affirmative action, you simply decide on the qualifications before you consider any candidates, and choose from among all candidates with the required qualifications. All things being equal, you pick a candidate who will diversify your organization. Again I ask what could possibly be wrong with this process?

posted by sudama at 10:03 PM on October 18, 2000


As an aside I've got to point out that the assumption that a candidate hired through an affirmative action process is going to be underqualified is extremely offensive, and a symptom of a mind polluted by white supremacy and patriarchy.
posted by sudama at 10:06 PM on October 18, 2000


Thirteen: "that it is insulting to propose that your life has been so grand that poor kids could not even comprehend your world."

I used to volunteer with kids who attended school at Jenner Academy in Cabrini Green (talk about gentrification). Almost none of them could read . . .

Students from more affluent public schools had no such difficulties.

By referring to the benefits I experienced growing up with priviledge, I'm merely attempting to point out the great disparity that exists between classes, races, etc. It isn't fair.

Regardless of one's stance on affirmative action, I think most of us can agree with this.

Thirteen: "Last question, why do you live in the whitest, most racist part of town this side of Streeterville if you feel this way? Afraid of helping gentrify a neighborhood? Not fully recovered from all the benefits of your youth?"

For those of you not from Chicago, 13 is pointing out the fact that I live in Lincoln Park - an extremely Yuppie and Starbucks saturated neighborhood.

Being conscious of injustice and wanting to do something about it doesn't mean one has to move into the most poverty stricken of environments. You don't know me 13 - if you choose to stereotype me because of my address, go right ahead.

Of course my accomplishments aren't simply a result of my background. The point is that because of my background I had the ability to work toward goals that equally hard working students in other neighborhoods couldn't. That's why I believe so strongly in affirmative action. It is not my intent to patronize anyone. I'm not ashamed of where I come from, but I'm very much aware of the fact that I owe my family background entirely to chance.

More often than not, those fortunate enough to be born into a pleasant family of moderate wealth (silver spoon was an exaggeration) take that for granted. They can't understand why those with less don't simply 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'. These are the same individuals (like Bush) who speak out against affirmative action.

Greyscale: You're quite right in calling me on that gross statement about GWB - I was simply giving into to the strong anti Bush sentiment that permeates MeFi. As for Gore, I can't say that I support him either. Of the two however, I hold him in much higher regard (which is a VERY relative statement).


posted by aladfar at 10:08 PM on October 18, 2000


I stand by what I said about Bush -- it's borne out by a rudimentary inquiry into the nature of affirmative action programs.
posted by sudama at 10:15 PM on October 18, 2000


Don't make assumptions about people's beleifs; I am by no means any kind of white supremacist, nor do I hold any such similar values."All things being equal, ..."Because if diversity is the key word, why assume that candidates for a position may be equal in all the aspects and qualifications (education, personality, work ethic, how easy they'll be to work with, knowledge, intelligence, experience, etc...)? I personally don't see this situation presenting itself. No two people are completely the same in every way, shape and form. Employers should choose based on the aforementioned qualities, not race.
posted by tomorama at 10:15 PM on October 18, 2000


greyscale: I'm not interested in thoughtlessly attacking Bush. I feel his record as a politician offers more than enough food for thought (and disagreement). I don't care about his (lack of) morality, which I feel is also evident enough in his record not to warrant bandying back and forth over. I don't expect him to support the expectations you listed.

Bush merits -- earns all on his own, without quotas, a "helping hand" or affirmative "access" -- the criticism he draws because of his lack of command of the issues, his reliance on platitudes and attempts at personal charm.

The Constitution's guarantee of protection of the individual vs. the minority notwithstanding, its enforcement is an issue. What affirmative action law requires representation of specific groups? As I understand it, equal opportunity is the aim of the law, not merely a formulaic coordination of the color of an office's employees with the colors of its furnishings.

I appreciate consistency with the law as much as the next person. But the law hasn't been applied fairly during the course of American history, and I'll concede that in some instances it isn't necessarily fairly applied today. I might have been property had I lived 150 years ago, for all it might have mattered to the law.

tomorama: If there's a woman is in the cockpit, I'm already pretty confident in her flying ability. Her gender/sex or the color of her skin isn't bloody likely to be a one-way pass (so to speak) to the front of that plane. Anyone calling it that -- even the guest on Leno last night -- is being simplistic. Against much opposition, the woman's forbears had to fight to earn the opportunity to learn to fly, and then fight for the shot at getting hired to fly the plane (just so she could do the job and do it well -- which is what everyone on that plane hopes she can do well -- rather than hustle drinks up and down its aisle, or hand out boarding passes at airport departure gates on the ground).

greyscale (again): I'm willing to consider your perspective, but disagree with your contention that the world is falling apart, and no law or well-intended comment, argument, or action on your part is going to save it. (And if this is so, why post to MeFi and tackle others' impressions of the world?) A world where your parents (or my wife and I -- also a mixed marriage) don't have to hear the N-word directed at them while traveling or doing anything they please as long as they aren't hurting anybody is one worth wishing and hoping for -- and even fighting for.

Affirmative action doesn't seek to remedy people's hearts. Its intent is to balance outcomes often historically tipped against individuals. Where it fails to do so -- arguably, in the case you mention, and possibly others -- is far better, richer fodder for discussion than simply donning blinders and plodding forward into the future.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 10:26 PM on October 18, 2000


tomorama, I don't suppose you are more of a white supremacist than any of us; we (in the US) live in a white supremacist society and are all deeply shaped by racist ideology like it or not.

The key to affirmative action (as I have already pointed out ?!) is in defining the qualifications ahead of time. Once it's determined what qualifies someone for candidacy, you consider all those that meet the requirements to be equal in that respect.

Sure it's not necessarily the best way to hire for every position; that's not the point. Where & when affirmative action is used, it works (as evidenced by my links above) to fill positions with qualified people who do quality work and results in a more diverse organization. This is a simple truism I'm trying to champion. Why is it so hard for folks to accept?
posted by sudama at 10:26 PM on October 18, 2000


I approve of affirmative action. If you've been down for so long, you just need that extra bit of help. It's like one fat kid stitting on the end of a see saw, getting even fatter, because they can be passed food from the ground, while the other kid sits up in the air, getting skinnier.

You can't just say the see saws level now, just because you say it is, because it's not.
posted by lucien at 10:42 PM on October 18, 2000


For one thing, affirmative action does not help individuals who may need that little bit of extra help. It doesn't deal with individuals, it deals only with groups.

It's wrong.

Anyway, workplaces aren't about being diverse organizations. They're about running a succesful business -- and I can't for the life of me figure out why the color of one's skin can be a factor in that.

Come on, people. This is the 21st century (or maybe not quite yet, but it's definitely close). Let's stop seeing people as black or brown or green already. It's ridiculous.
posted by attitude at 10:53 PM on October 18, 2000


Aladfar: I know the school you are speaking about. I used to work @ the Wards catalogue building
on Chicago Ave., Some employees were paid to "volunteer" their time to help tutor and entertain
kids after school. I was not being generous, I wanted the extra money, which I very much needed.
Perhaps things have gone down hill, but at the time I did not know a single kid who could not read
at least a little bit. The kids who showed up were the ones who were the worst off, and not
representative of the school in general. I believe it is also ranked as the very worst CPS. A
quality education can be had in nearly every school in this city, anyone who wants to learn will.
The schools all receive similar amounts of money, your school was better funded because
additional money was available through property taxes. The poor parents are driven away when
property taxes go up. If you want things to be better, your parent will have to pay a whole lot
more, and you will have to get a whole lot less. So you are right it is not fair, but nothing ever is.
I think parents have right to do well for their kids, even if it gives them an unfair advantage. We
live in a chaotic world, there are no rules. If we compete, and I start out 10 miles behind you it
does not matter, I have to figure out a way to get ahead. If I don't, I lose, and no one will care.
The problem is, if you think these kids have ended up so less educated than you, it is not
unreasonable to think they are not qualified. ie: your school is better than mine, you should get
the job.
I hate your neighborhood. I have no problem with anyone who can afford to live there, I just don't
know why anyone would want to. It used to be really cool, and Berlin used to be a straight bar,
that was a long time ago. Since Lounge Ax closed down, I have not had a single reason to visit the
area. I think it will be a long time before I do. I don't think you have to live in a slum, I wouldn't,
but your passionate words would carry more weight from a different address. It struck me as a
do as I say, not as I do sort of thing. I am unfair by nature.
I have no strong feelings about affirmative action. I believe I came out on the bad side of it once.
I was up for an art director job at Playboy, and it got down to a choice between me and a much
older black woman. She got the job. I knowI would have been great, and I know from other
friends she was a jerk who ended up getting fired. I don't think I was ever upset over the slight,
tho my girlfriend was. And life goes on, no one cares. I fully intend to win the game, i'm saving up
to buy an island when I turn 55. Once I finish saving up, and ex-pat, you guys should feel free to go wild with your tax increases. I will not mind a bit.
posted by thirteen at 11:03 PM on October 18, 2000


Listen to Sudama; he's clearly in command of the facts on this issue. Many of the anti-AA posts (so far) show either an ignorance of what affirmative action is, or else a confused understanding of what constitutes unjust discrimination. For example, the inference from "no two candidates are completely the same" to "no two candidates are similarly qualified" is fallacious. Also, the assessed quality of a candidate's resume has surprisingly little correlation with subsequent job performance. So the notion that you can narrow the selection process down to one "superior candidate" is unfounded. So in most cases you end up with a pool of equally qualified candidates, from which the final selection is alleged to be "random", but is in fact biased in favor of white males on average. The motivation behind AA is to erase that bias, in a perfectly reasonable way and without violating individual rights. And, as has been pointed out, this is exactly what it achieves.

Elizabeth Anderson (U Mich; linked to by sudama above) has written interesting things on this issue.

[Thirteen, not to worry: if taxes don't sink you on your island, global warming will :)]
posted by johnb at 6:04 AM on October 19, 2000


>your passionate words would carry more weight from a different address

Does this mean that wildly successful minorities should choose to live in Cabrini Green instead of Highland Park?

Actually, Jane Byrne tried that once (moving to Cabrini Green). Fat lot of good that did anybody, herself included.

Really, what does one's "address" have to do with what they say at MeFi? If someone says something I don't agree with, and he/she is from Nebraska, my reaction will be "that person said something I don't agree with", not "well, that's how it is in Nebraska, everyone's like that".

Aladfar is entitled to his opinions. As are you, 13. I personally don't care where either of you are writing from, geographically. :-)
posted by ethmar at 6:27 AM on October 19, 2000


actually, as can be seen in the case DeFunis v. Odegaard 40LEd2d164(1974) affirmative action, in its current form, is and has been descriminatory. this is the argument against affirmative action. I don't think any reasonable person is arguing agains AA on any other basis.
posted by greyscale at 7:30 AM on October 19, 2000


The return of JohnB.! Make that a really really tall island. I actually know a guy who owns an island. I think it is pretty big, maybe he will let me live there. I had planned to invite others to live on mine, same diff.
ethmar, you are of course correct that geography means nothing. I never suggested anyone should live in danger or below their means, I would not. I was suggesting that there are many nice, safe parts of this city to live in, and that I found it odd that someone making such sympathetic statements would choose to live in one of the most privileged/racist parts of the city.
Does this mean that wildly successful minorities should choose to live in Cabrini Green instead of Highland Park?
No, but there are a lot of black professionals moving back to Bronzeville, and their presence has created a community where there really wasn't one before. I am not about building community, I want to buy an island remember, so I will always live in the nicest area I can afford. Byrne's move was a attention getting stunt, and therefore was not about doing any good.
I did not have a problem with Aladfar's opinion, I would not have responded if I had not thought it had a patronizing tone. Now all 3 of us have made our opinions known, life is good.
posted by thirteen at 8:04 AM on October 19, 2000


>I found it odd that someone making such sympathetic statements would choose to live in one of the most privileged/racist parts of the city.

Well, that's how things change. If aladfar is as "sympathetic" as we're led to believe he is, then I view this as a good thing, and may help to change the Lincoln Park landscape over time.

Beats "writing off" a neighborhood as priveleged and racist.

But I also agree with you 13. Building communities is important. But not everybody is willing to don the cape of the crusader for the greater good of society.
posted by ethmar at 8:15 AM on October 19, 2000


If someone says something I don't agree with, and he/she is from Nebraska, my reaction will be "that person said something I don't agree with", not "well, that's how it is in Nebraska, everyone's like that".

But that is how everyone is like in Nebraska! :)
posted by daveadams at 9:00 AM on October 19, 2000


attitude:For one thing, affirmative action does not help individuals who may need that little bit of extra help. It doesn't deal with individuals, it deals only with groups.Well, yes, AA deals with groups, but I fail to see how this, a priori, makes it wrong. I am sickened by the idea of the "self-made man/woman" because there is no such creature. Everyone that is born of parents and has any connection at all with other human beings is born of circumstances that, for better or worse, contribute to the accomplishments or failings of a person. AA seeks to bring about not a level playing field for a group that has been wronged in the past, but a means to right those past wrongs so that the problems that have come about as a matter of circumstance can, to some extent, be remedied after the damage has been done. Talk of discrimination against your prototypical WASP has merit, but only if you look at that person as existing in a vacuum, unaided by the benefits that his parents, grandparents, etc., have received solely as a matter of sharing the same ethnicity as the people who held power and created the rules to the game that we are all compelled to play. But, we do not, cannot, and contrary to the claims of Libertarians, must not, live in a vacuum.ethmar: But I also agree with you 13. Building communities is important. But not everybody is willing to don the cape of the crusader for the greater good of society.Building community should not be something that JUST benefits society, but benefits the individual, qua member of society, as well. The moment that we see ourselves as having made a sacrifice to society without realizing the benefit to ourselves and to our children is the moment that we fail to become persons that are able to take advantage of the opportunities that come about because of belonging and being an active member of a group. Building community should not be a heroic exercise.
posted by Avogadro at 9:04 AM on October 19, 2000


There are self made men/women, there are giants walking around, most of us are too small or two scared to give them any credit for being what they are. What could be more frightening than people who exceed us, and don't even have to decency to have needed us.
The moment that we see ourselves as having made a sacrifice to society without realizing the benefit to ourselves and to our children is the moment that we fail to become persons that are able to take advantage of the opportunities that come about because of belonging and being an active member of a group.
That is so wierd, that is the exact same argument my mother used to try and get me to eat beets. As with her attempt, I realized I could decide for myself when I was and was not receiving benefit. Building community can be mutually beneficial, or it can screw the individual for the greater good. When you are getting screwed, you should not be told you have to wear a smile.
posted by thirteen at 9:26 AM on October 19, 2000


When you are getting screwed, you should not be told you have to wear a smile.

That's not what my Lord and Savior Bobby Knight says.


posted by ethmar at 9:50 AM on October 19, 2000


One other reason I don't support affirmative action is that it discriminates against minorites who are over represented (e.g. Asian-Americans). Do Asians not get discriminated against? Plus, you have different groups of Asians who have achieved varying degrees of success (some Southwestern Asians have tended to be worse off than other Asians).
posted by gyc at 9:57 AM on October 19, 2000


Building community can be mutually beneficial, or it can screw the individual for the greater good.No, this doesn't have to be an either/or decision. You are already receiving the benefit of living in a commuunity, through the roads upon which you drive, the police protection that you receive, the internet that you use to say "I don't need anybody.", and eventually, the plane or boat that will eventually deliver you to your island, where you will doubtless still maintain access to the rest of the world via food shipments, satellite access, and occasional visitors (unless you plan on building a raft using no tools except the ones that you make, and no materials, except the ones that you create yourself). You ALREADY benefit from those that preceeded you, as have those "self-made" giants of which you speak. Yes, thirteen, perhaps those giants have done more with what they have received, and they are examples to us all. Should we expect everyone to do the same just to have a tolerable existence?


When you are getting screwed, you should not be told you have to wear a smile.No, when you are getting screwed, you should find out why you are getting screwed, see if others are in the same boat (honestly), then do something about it. Or, you could run to your island. Nobody is telling you to take it and like it.
posted by Avogadro at 11:29 AM on October 19, 2000


actually, as can be seen in the case DeFunis v. Odegaard 40LEd2d164(1974) affirmative action, in its current form, is and has been descriminatory. this is the argument against affirmative action.

No, that is the argument FOR affirmative action.

Of course affirmative action is discriminatory - that's the point. Every decision you make where one choice has to be favoured above others is discriminatory. When you have three qualified applicants and you have to pick one, you are discriminating among them based on some criteria. That is what the word means.

Maybe you have a perfectly rational, colourblind set of criteria; maybe you flip a coin; maybe you have a set of criteria you can't articulate; maybe your criteria include race, and you don't even know it.

The law makes sure your criteria include race, in a way that ensures even distribution. This is necessary, because too many people favour white men - consciously or not. The law doesn't care whether it's conscious or not, the law just tells you to make sure it doesn't happen.

Besides, you're looking at it backwards. Racial diversity is a good thing, so if you have three candidates who are able to do the job, and one belongs to an ethnic group underrepresented in your company, that candidate is thereby MORE QUALIFIED for the position by virtue of adding diversity to your organisation.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:37 AM on October 19, 2000


Avogadro: That was actually a really good response, well done. The first time around I thought you were pushing spiritual/socialist tripe. I understand better now.
You should realize I actually have made most of my own tools, and grow a surprisingly large chunk of my own food (I have been a canning machine this summer). I want to raise bees so bad I am going insane. I am awake 20 hours a day, and I spend most of my time working for money or love. On Thirteen island, I don't expect to import much other than media. I don't have the room for a forge at the moment (other than my tiny electric aluminum one), but I have to be one of the few people in the city proper who is growing wheat. I don't think of my self as a giant in anyway, but I admire the hell out of those who are and want to be like them. I think it is a noble goal to free myself of any need of other people. I do not suffer from any lack of confidence. You are right to an extent, I am still looking around for a doctor friend who might wanna live in my little utopia. Sad 13, still needing people....
Regardless, the only time community creeps up on my street is when the neighbors wanna gang up and tell someone what their business is. Who the electric company should be allowed to sell their building too, should we get permit parking to protect our parking spaces, let's pass a law against mini-malls. The person with the petition never understands why I am laughing at them. I don't think of it as running away, I think of it as escaping.
posted by thirteen at 12:45 PM on October 19, 2000


For some reason I'm confident that in the not-too-distant future, it will be illegal.
posted by attitude at 12:59 PM on October 19, 2000


Well then thirteen, that's your choice. My own experince of community has been very different from yours in that it has been positive, though not without the pain that comes from misunderstandings, conflicts, and just generally living with people. Perhaps if I were in your shoes, I'd do what I could to become unencumbered by people. Also, I think that it is a good thing to live as independently as possible, if only to have a better appreciation of what is involved with making daily life possible. In my case, I believe that I am better because there are others in my life.btw, I believe the socialist/spiritual tripe. I prefer to call it my philosophy.
posted by Avogadro at 1:06 PM on October 19, 2000


For some reason I'm confident that in the not-too-distant future, it will be illegal.

What, the future?
posted by dcehr at 1:50 PM on October 19, 2000


I want to raise bees so bad I am going insane
Me too, my girlfriend thinks the neighbours will mutiny so I'm holding out - take me to your island thirteen and make me your bee-keeper.....
On a more on-topic point, of course affermative action is discriminatory, but not in the 'scary black man takes over the world' way, simply the 'scary black man is not scary, whatever you might think, he's the same as you' way. It discriminates against prejudice - thats pre-judice or judging before the fact. It's equal rights, if we're talking about the woman pilot, what if she were a black woman pilot and affermative action was championed in the aviation industry? Anyone who honestly would wonder if she were less able to land the plane doesn't understand affirmative action.
Oh, I don't know if it's the way racial integration is (slightly) more complete in the UK (though by no means fully) than in the US, but we don't think of affermative action as such a black/white, supremacy/opressed thing, simply as a redression of the balance. Are things so bad in the US?
posted by Markb at 3:33 PM on October 19, 2000


I would be glad to have you Mr.B(ee). It is illegal for me to have a hive in my yard, which is understandable because someone would surely die. You can help out nomadic wandering bees by making bee houses. Drill 1/4" (I am sorry that I do not know the metric equivalent) holes 1" deep in a hunk of 4x4 lumber about a foot long. Make it a slightly upward angle. Mount it someplace dry, or give it a tiny roof. If you have flowers or vegetables nearby some stingless bees will spend the night if not make it their home. It does not seem like it will work, but some bees moved in almost immediately. You do not need more than 20 holes, they don't seem to show up in force. Your garden will thank you. (no honey or wax tho).
The bat house remains empty, stupid bats.
posted by thirteen at 4:06 PM on October 19, 2000


Mars: did you actually read DeFunis v. Odegaard? I've gotta think that you're smarter than to just make some blantant lie, and then expect us all to believe it. Your twisted logic does not in any way support AA. Tell me this: if we're all going to die, what's wrong with your just killing us all right now, when you feel like it? Can't I construe that as an argument in favor of culling the crop of morons making up 70 + percent of the population? You don't actually expect US at MetaFilter to buy into what you're saying do you? Come on. Give us more to chew on than that. Read the case. Think about it. Then give us something worth reading. Being here isn't going to change the world, but it sure makes life more entertaining.
posted by greyscale at 6:01 PM on October 19, 2000


Mars: did you actually read DeFunis v. Odegaard?

I did not. I have no idea where to look to find it, anyway. I'm sorry that quoting your reference to the case suggested I had read it myself; I wasn't trying to imply any such thing.

Your description of affirmative action as discriminatory, as though "discrimination" was of itself some cardinal sin, is what I was arguing against. Just because a thing is discriminatory in some sense does not mean it is unfair or evil.

I've gotta think that you're smarter than to just make some blantant lie, and then expect us all to believe it.

The word "lie" is pretty strong, and implies intent to deceive. My comment may have been factually incorrect or logically flawed, but it wasn't a lie.

Tell me this: if we're all going to die, what's wrong with your just killing us all right now, when you feel like it? Can't I construe that as an argument in favor of culling the crop of morons making up 70 + percent of the population? You don't actually expect US at MetaFilter to buy into what you're saying do you? Come on. Give us more to chew on than that.

I'm sorry, I can't follow your reasoning, nor can I see how it has anything to do with my assertion that the question of whether affirmative action is discriminatory is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a good idea.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:09 PM on October 19, 2000


http://ragingsearch.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%22DeFunis+versus+Odegaard%22

 

http://www.wku.edu/Government/con99syl.htm

can't find it online. may type it up in the next few days if I have time. check out your county law library if your city or local ivory tower doesn't have one. I don't understand how two discriminators make the world a better place. Why should I lose my place in med school to some guy with darker skin (or I choose not to be identified as a minority) if my scores are better? THAT is the problem. You aren't thinking this through. How is giving someone a position because of something they can't change helpful? It's not, what the problem is is NOT giving them a position because of something they can't change. Read the case. By the time DeFunis made it to the us supreme ct (as I recall) he was about to finish school so he didn't have justiciability anymore (no real harm would be done) so they threw the case out. AA is good just like United Way is non-profit and my County EMS Director doesn't have a conflict of interest by mandating that all airlifts provided for 5 states be provided by a company of which he's part owner. To say that discrimination somehow defeats or remedies discrimination, and then to say that this somehow supports the case for it seems flawed, in fact it seemed misleading to me, unless I missed something.
posted by greyscale at 8:23 PM on October 19, 2000


Greyscale : ...if my scores are better?

See, that's not the kind of affirmative action people are talking about here. I got caught up on that too, I don't think "affirmative action" has been clearly defined in this thread. Dropping the requirements for anything to encourage or allow minority participation is something I don't agree with.

For instance, firefighters. There was a huffuffle in my hometown a few years back about dropping the minimum physical requirements for firefighters, which is in my mind a Bad Thing. I don't care what the person looks like, as long as they're able to haul my 6'2", 240-someodd lb. ass out of the burning building I'm trapped in. That's, in my mind at least, a bad kind of affirmative action.

The kind of affirmative action they're talking about here though, is giving up your spot to a visible minority with exactly the same scores as you.

posted by cCranium at 6:27 AM on October 20, 2000


« Older And what would you do with 2 Million dollars?   |   You can have my All-Stars Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments