My personal opinion part 4- Affirmative Action

[Derek McGowan]

What do I think about Affirmative Action? That is the question, but to answer it we have to look at a few things I believe and how that leads to my conclusions on the subject at hand.

First and foremost- competition is paramount.

I believe that deeply. I played cards for money, chess for money and basketball for money. I grew up in arcades playing side by side with strangers on competitive fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. I'm all for competition and I'm for talking trash. When a challenge is accepted, I'm for crushing the opponent, literally, into tears. Seriously. This isn't isolated to fighting games and sports, this is in life itself.

I believe that competition makes us (as a group) much better. Better products, better service, better everything. There may be those who don't agree with me (such as my wife) when I state that competition is the basic heart of all progress in this world but it's how I see things. Competition among others, competition between groups or competition with yourself, it's what drives you forward. It's growth, anything less is stagnation. So with that being said, it would go without further explanation that I think that affirmative action has NO place in the job market. It has NO place in the competition among firms for government projects (or any other projects) Giving someone a job specifically because they are of a certain color disrupts the competition and it does nothing for growth.

Its important to note that I didn't say that it's unfair to give someone a job because of their race. That has happened throughout history AGAINST minorities and women so I'm not saying that it isn't unfair and I'm not saying that it does or doesn't happen, but I'm not here to discuss the fairness of the past. My focus, again, is on the current competition and making us all better, moving forward.

A funny thing about competition though, it actually does require a element of fairness. We call it an "even playing field." And if competition is axiomatic to how I see development in the world, then fairness is axiomatic in the competition. I don't mean that everyone has to somehow be the same before competition can take place. Yaron Brooks loves to use the (problematic in my opinion) analogy of him playing basketball against Micheal Jordan. No, they aren't the same and yes, if they both know how to play the game and agree to the house rules, they can compete and yes Brook would lose horribly but that's because Jordan is more skilled NOT because the competition was unfair. It fair because they both, physically could play, knew how to play, they both agreed to play and they both followed the rules. It would be unfair if one of the players showed up to the game with a machete, hacked the others arm off and forced them to keep playing. It would also be unfair if one player actually didn't know that the ball needs to go through the hoop and the other player took advantage of that.

There has to be rules to keep competitions fair, and there has to be a base level of parity as well. It would be unfair (in an official bout) for a heavyweight boxer to enter a lightweight boxing division (the base parity is not met and the fighter is not following the rules) Also it would be unfair for one boxer to put a roll of quarters into his boxing gloves (the fighter is adding an element that removes the base parity and he is not following the rules)

In chess, which I think of as one of the most, if not the most, transparent forms of competition, the players have the exact same pieces. The winner comes to down to who understands the positions better. Its perfectly fair... but what if one player was playing without a bishop (and he/she didn't agree to that loss of parity) then it's not fair. Also if one player only knows how half the pieces move and they were forced to play a chess death-match against someone well versed in the game, the results (death!) wouldn't be fair either.

If you can agree with the two major points that I have made, that competition and fairness in such competition is axiomatic, then we can move on to what I find to be a logical conclusion.

I believe that affirmative action should exist in education, specifically college. How does that tie with my previous statements?

Competition must be allowed and promoted in the jobs sphere but that competition requires fairness. Someone of a disadvantaged educational (and I here mean college) background won't have much to show on their resume. Even if they could do the job, their competition went to distinguished college X, therefore the competition stops at the application, if it makes it to the interview. But I don't want to talk about those who can somehow do the job without the proper educational training, I want to focus on those who can't even get the proper training because of their prior education (and here I'm taking about K-12) background. They are unable to even get into the proper college because they went to ghetto school x, followed by ghetto school y.

Now hold on. I'm not here to cry tears for those individuals and I'm certainly not here to say that because your previous schooling sucked, that now you deserve to go to Harvard. You are going to have to sit with me a bit longer to see were my logic has taken me. Back to competition...

Competition makes us better, I've stated that before, but what I didn't state is that the skill level of that competing group has much to do with how much better the winners become after they've spent time in the furnace. What do I mean? Those of you who play chess know exactly what I mean. Being the best in your neighborhood means little to nothing when we talk about your absolute skill level. We had plenty of guys here in the Baltimore scene who thought they were good. Because they could beat up on some old guys down at the barber shop they just knew they were hot stuff. That is until we took them to Dupont Circle in D.C. or to Washington Square Park in NYC. Its there that they realize that even the lowest ranked patzer could take their money. Its not that our home-grown guy doesn't have the potential, its that their circle of competitors have a lower general strength than those who grow up competing in New York. The stronger you competitors are, even if you don't end up being a winner, the stronger you are in general. Bobby Fischer was good but if he didn't have master and GM level competition around him on a daily basis then his full potential would not have been realized (perhaps it would still be realized today with the embrace of chess over the internet)

And that brings us back to the education thing. The schools in many black communities are lack-luster at best. This means that those who grow up in them are actually held back by their competition.

Allow me a quick sidebar on competitive fairness in the educational field. Its not that black students weren't allowed into white schools (boo hoo hoo for those who use that as a chief compliant) its that those black schools were actually systematically and generationally disadvantaged. We aren't talking about an unfair advantage of white schools being given resources that black schools didn't get, no, we are talking about black schools NOT getting a base level of parity when it comes to resources. We are talking about black schools being unable to get proper textbooks. We are talking no money for teachers to buy the things needed to make history, science and math come alive for the students. We are talking about no money for teacher salaries or school expansions which lead to 30 plus students for one teacher. We are talking no resources for basic maintenance. And yes I'm talking about the past. But what that past has done is create an environment that lives on to this day of a mental disillusionment with academic achievement. Now, because of that past, we have an establishment of low achieving schools. Schools which are unable to provide the students with the rules of the game. That is unfair to the students. Children of today have nothing to do with the past and yet they are immediately disadvantaged by that past. Then when they walk into their first competition (college) they don't even know that they don't know.

But let me get back to my thing on their competitive peer group. Someone can only rise a little above their competition and if their competition is garbage then the winner is probably, on an absolute skill level, garbage too. Now let me say loud and clear, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE POTENTIAL. They very possibly could have done better in a better environment. That also doesn't mean that all slackers have some great hidden academic potential (some folks truly don't care) and in my community, where doing well academically to many means (in a derogatory way) "acting white", well, my view on those who believe that, is that they can continue to live in squalor as slackers. I have no kindness for them. But what about those who do work hard and graduate in the top 1% of their school. They ignore the downward pressure from others, they study hard and the teachers are so proud of them BUT... because the general level of competition around them is low, their great achievement means nothing on the world stage. What if you have a student whose SAT scores are 25% higher than the next student and 40% higher than the school body at large but the school body at large only has a combined score of 700. This person is heads and shoulders above the rest until you realize that 40% higher than 700 is still a sub 1000 score on a test that goes up to 1600. How can it be fair for this student to still be locked into a low achieving life because with that score they are only accepted at the community college where their peer group is still bottom of the barrel.

Students like these, and I'm only advocating for students like these- the top 2 to 3% of graduating classes, need something that will even the playing field for them. They need access to colleges that will take their potential to the next level. Then after graduating they can rise or fall in the jobs market through skilled, blood, sweat, tears, and trash talking competition.

p.s. yes, I realize that some folks will just fail once they have been accepted into these colleges but they deserve the chance.

Yes, I realize that accepting some of a minority group into a school cuts a slot for someone else. That may not be fair from an individual point of view but I think that it is fair from a group point of view when we take into account that one group was systematically and generationally disenfranchised and disabled. Besides, there are lots of colleges out there for the white students to choose from. So what they don't get to go to their first choice (boo hoo)

No, I would not advocate for busing in K-12, but I don't know if I am necessarily against it either. No official position.

Lastly, this is my opinion and it is where my logic leads me, not my emotions.

Have fun shredding me, cheers : )

[Wolf DeVoon]

Nothing to shred. Made sense to me. Slight problem with government paying for it, that's all I have to add.

[dldelancey]

I've only had a chance to skim, Derek, but like Wolf, I don't see any glaring things to disagree with. There may be some details that I will quibble with when I have time to read you thoroughly. Stay tuned.

Thanks for coming back to this topic, by the way!

[Francisco Ferrer]

I've never understood the conservative-libertarian objection to affirmative action in public colleges. Their critique is essentially that select minority groups should not have the advantage in gaining access to tax-funded education. But what about students with poor grades and low scores on admissions tests? They too are kept out of elite state university classrooms. The fact is, tax-funded goods are not infinitely expandable. Obviously, some citizens will reap the spoils and some will not. There will be net tax beneficiaries and net tax losers. Selecting the beneficiaries through a color-blind process does not erase the fact that there is still an involuntary transfer of wealth being performed. The injustice is not that an African-American kid gets a first class education while a better qualified white boy does not. The injustice is that money is spent in ways that its rightful owners did not personally authorize.

[Samson Corwell]

Even as someone with a liberal background, affirmative action always seemed stupid to me. Not sure how competition relates to this.

[Derek McGowan]

First Samson, I love the Thanos avatar, secondly I thought I was pretty thourough in connecting fairness in competition to this? I guess not...

[dldelancey]

Derek, my disagreements with you are really about the education system, and not affirmative action. I believe there are much better ways than affirmative action to address the issues you've brought up. However, I'm not sure you want this discussion to go in that direction?

[Derek McGowan]

What would you propose in changes to the system ?

[Samson Corwell]

Derek, competition certainly factors in in that sense, but it's like saying math is about rockets because it's used by NASA or that all rights are property rights because we interact with things we consider "property".

[Derek McGowan]

Samson, One of the reasons I'm using education in a competitive sense is that a application/resume with certain credentials on it (distinguished college) is better in the employers eye than one that doesn't have it. Affirmative action for those that deserve it, would allow them to have those credentials on their resumes.

Also an education in certain colleges will produce a better employee because that employee had time to compete with other elites as a student

[Derek McGowan]

But Samson, I'm willing to say that I possibly don't really understand your point. Please restate it using some of my points.

[Selene]

Tax supported funds for affirmative action which is defined as:

[quote

]Affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special

rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that

minority.

is immoral and unethical.

Additionally, affirmative action:

...refers to concrete steps that are taken not only to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to attempt to redress the effects of past

discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal

opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities.

There is no rational basis for penalizing an individual student's achievements today,

for a perceived discrimination of other individuals from the past.

All Federal and State statutes that enforce Affirmative Action rules are unjust and violate the

individual citizens achievements.

A...

[Derek McGowan]

Selene, I feel like you didn't read my opening post...

[Selene]

Selene, I feel like you didn't read my opening post...

Derek:

The probability of me not reading your opening post is >0 oops 0<.

Did I not "understand" your position, is a valid question.

Could you be specific?

A...

[DallasCowboys]

First, let me say nothing beats Mortal Kombat arcade fighting, and I am pumped for Mortal Kombat X. Second, I do have a problem with what you said. In your opening, you said you are all for crushing the competition. I am more in favor of what Ayn Rand once said "Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."- Ayn Rand

Thanks,

David C.

[Derek McGowan]

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."- Ayn Rand

Well thats how she interprets it. I also wrote that many times you have competition with yourself, which to me translates as a desire to achieve more.

TOASTY!!

[Derek McGowan]

The probability of me not reading your opening post is >0.

Could you be specific?

the probability is greater than zero?

Ok, so we both agree that who ever achieves the greatest results should get the accolades, the job, the title, whatever. I think maybe what I am focused on is those individuals who have great potential but are never able to get into competition form because they belong to a group that has been shortshrifted on the resources. Lets take the chess thing. Suppose you went to ten official FIDE chess tournaments in a year. At these tournaments you see various grandmasters, who you recognize from Chess Life, win the tournaments (various GMs but always from the same goup of 4 players). While you are there you see also observe another group of players, lets say that they are black, who even though the tournament directors have removed a bishop from them at the start of their games, are playing their hearts out and doing the best they can with a piece less than their opponents. At no point in any of the tournaments does a black player reach the winners circle. Would you say that "Hey, the black guys don't win, then they don't get say that they have potential. In fact as poorly as they've done (at bishop odds) they can't even complain. Maybe they should do something else." Would you perhaps say, "Remember back in '96 when that one black player (also playing at bishop odds) won that won major tournament? That shows that it's possible for them to win and they should just work harder" Would you say that? Would you think that it is fair?

I think that if you have a group that has had its training regimes reduced to a pauper level by another group on the outside, then that group or at least the members of that group that show potential, now that we live in an era of enlightenment (!) should be given access to better training facilities so that when they do show up to the competition (jobs space) then they can actually compete in a fair manner.

It's like Rocky vs Drago. Yes, I know Rocky won, but that was because he was written in to win and also because single individuals can actually succeed against great odds. But for the vast majority, having a training deficit as enormous as Rocky (in a barnyard) had vs Drago (top scientists, proper sparring partners, advanced equipment) would be too much and really its not very fair.

Again, I'm only speaking of those who have shown potential, but even when looking at that reduced number--the top 3-4% of black high school graduates-- the overall number of blacks who would then go to top colleges would dwarf the numbers today and the percentage of those who made it through would add greatly to our number of black engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, mathematicians, etc

Or we could keep with the status quo that says that only the 0.1% geniuses, who are capable of achieving perfect scores on SATs even while attending schools where the teachers were themselves on academic probation and the school structure itself is falling apart, and the downward pressure from the peer group is staggering, should be allowed to compete fairly against other racial groups in the jobs market.

[jts]

Government should not be in the business of education. Period.

[Derek McGowan]

Also, there have been three people who have said that they are against the government paying for affirmative action. I would be against them paying as well. In my version, the government just writes the mandate. They simply make the law that says to universities "accept" those blacks who have shown potential.

Those students would still need to figure out there own financials

[Derek McGowan]

JTS, please read my opening post and then read my response to Selene and explain to me what should happen with these students?

[Selene]

Derek:

My mathematical symbolically challenged brain made a mistake in post # 14 supra.

So, you can redo your response if you choose to.

A...

[jts]

JTS, please read my opening post and then read my response to Selene and explain to me what should happen with these students?

There should be a total disconnect between government and education. Government should not finance education, should not decide what is taught, should not decide how it is taught, should not decide who gets a diploma or a degree.

ABC School is racist. They don't allow any ^%$#@ niggers. They lose business, get a bad reputation, and probably fold.

DEF School uses aptitude tests. They prefer students who have potential and will make the school look good. They don't give a rat's ass what color the students are.

GHI School specializes in gifted people. They hold to a theory that gifted people need a specially high quality education to achieve their full potential.

JKL School specializes in intellectually challenged people. They hold to a theory that these people can become productive at their level.

MNO School caters to rich people. They have the most expensive teachers and everything about them is quality and high priced.

PQR School caters to poor people. You can't afford an education? They will impress you with the relevance and completeness of their courses and low prices and clever ways to earn as you learn.

STU School says you don't need nine tenth of what the other schools teach. They teach what's important.

VWX School says why go to school? Use modern technology and the internet; learn at home.

Schools spring up like Linux distros, each trying to outcompete the others. Each has its own angle on the market, like Linux distros. You gotta problem, they gotta solution.

300 Linux distros, all in fierce cut-throat competition

Debian goes on the theory that bigger is better. So Debian is BIG BIG BIG.

Damn Small goes on the theory that smaller is better. Like you can put the whole thing on a floppy or whatever and have everything you need.

Ubuntu is a takeoff from Debian. And it splits into several buntus.

Xubuntu (which I use) is much the same as Ubuntu but is light weight, easy on computer resources, good on older computers, and has the virtue of simplicity.

Some of them try to be user friendly for people who are familar with Windows but not Linux.

Everybody tries to find a way to be better than everybody else. It is capitalist competition run rampant. Schools could be the same way.

[Wolf DeVoon]

VWX School says why go to school? Use modern technology and the internet; learn at home.

Univ of Missouri -- good textbooks, courses and tests online. That's how my daughter did 6th grade, supplemented by Khan Academy, simple science equipment, $15 microscope, experiments at home, aviation ground school, public library, writing, and cartoon art.

Mizzou has middle grades all the way through high school online. Core subjects, no religion, no goofy "enrichment" crap, affordable.

For 7th grade we moved to an upscale district, paying an extra $400 a month rent for safe, high quality public school. That makes eight schools on four continents, plus private tutors for violin, piano, and music composition, dance, horse riding, gymnastics, pottery, science lab at a museum in one town, pioneer history and crafts in another. Some stuff was expensive, but most of it was affordable. I don't think price is a big barrier. What are you going to spend money on? -- a new car, or $200 for piano lessons and $100 for a Yamaha keyboard in the kid's bedroom? I have an old car and my wife drives an old truck. We don't party, live simply. It's harder to make ends meet with more kids, but that's another dimension of rational choice, like staying married, come hell or high water, because that's what kids really need instead of fancy sports shoes and three closets full of junk from Macy's and Toys 'R Us. There is no intrinsic virtue in spending money in restaurants, liquor stores, or jewelers.

County libraries have annual book sales (Encyclopedia Britannica 30-volume set $20, oodles of classics $1 each). Goodwill and Salvation Army have huge shelves of used books and classic Disney videos, VHS players, TV sets. Grocery stores have cellphones for $10. I have a Grundig shortwave radio I picked up in a pawn shop for $20 ten years ago, works fine: Australia, Hilversum, Moscow, local AM and FM.

For higher ed, you can't beat a year or two in community college and then a state university, which the kid can pay for by working. I don't know anything more valuable and important educationally than the school of hard knocks, supporting yourself by getting a job.

[anthony]

Second, I do have a problem with what you said. In your opening, you said you are all for crushing the competition. I am more in favor of what Ayn Rand once said "Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."- Ayn Rand

Thanks,

David C.

David, I am also in favour of what you are in favor of. Rand had that balance exactly right, imo. It can be that one finds oneself in direct competition with others, but only for a while, I think - nevertheless, competition for the sake of competition should not be the point for each individual. Top down, it does so happen that competition brings out the best for the supply and costs of goods and services in a society, but it's a secondary consequence.

'Competitiveness' as the embedded instinct in individuals (to a greater or lesser degree) is beneficial for giving a person that extra motivational "edge" at times, but like any instinct it must be handled with care.

When an instinct becomes the major rationale for business and capitalism by the very capitalists themselves, one can't be surprised to find anti-capitalists demeaning it as "dog-eat-dog" and so forth.

The ultimate point is that the market under laissez-faire is big enough and expandable for all-comers (as long as they demonstrate creativity and originality).

Also, beating others for its own sake makes others the standard, rather than one's self. Your rational self interest involves more than the profit motive.

[dldelancey]

Derek,

Sorry, but I've been crazy busy and have had hardly any time to visit here, much less put together a thoughtful response. Both jts and Wolf have brought up points with which I can totally get on board regarding education. Also:

• In one of your posts you mention the common practice of an employer choosing candidates based on their college credentials. You see those employers as doing a disservice to the people who don't have elite university educations on their resumes. I would argue that those employers do no one a disservice except themselves. There doesn't need to be any change in education in this respect. There needs to be a change in the minds and practices of those who are hiring and those who are looking to be hired. The notion that every job and every person requires a university education is recent and unfounded, and even a bit collectivist.
• Allowing parents to choose the K-12 schools their child attends would go a long way to addressing the lack of competition issue you bring up. You don't think your child has enough competition at school? Fine, send them to a different one. You don't even have to privatize education to make that happen.
• Charter schools, magnet schools, and the like. When the community supports them, they work. And they look great on a resume for the next school the child wants to attend.

Louisiana is doing some really forward-thinking stuff with education (their adoption of Common Core notwithstanding). I don't have time at the moment to go looking for links, but you might google a bit to see what you can find.