Positive Discrimination

[Ferran]

That article is much based on an American context, but except some details we can easily correlate it to the European reality. It's also relevant that the articles I found on this phenomenon inside Europe were almost unexistant, and if there was any, it did just focus on the "gender supremacy". So I ask myself, do people in Europe even know that such practice exists with all normalcy here (with all its implications)?

"Positive Discrimination"
©2000 Gary K. Clabaugh

Does the term "positive discrimination" seem an oxymoron, a self- contradiction? If so, it is particularly pertinent because that is what "affirmative action" is called in the United Kingdom. Is this just a harmless idiomatic difference between British and American English like lorries becoming trucks? Not at all. The U.K. usage quickly gets us to the heart of present-day criticisms of affirmative action -- namely that, even given the best of intentions, discrimination based on ascribed rather than achieved characteristics is unjust.

Ascribed characteristics are traits one is born with and has done nothing to earn. Achieved characteristics are things earned through individual effort. Race, for instance, is an ascribed trait. It requires no individual effort, no pain, no strain, no striving; only that one be born to one set of parents rather than another. That is why it is so terribly unfair to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, age, ethnicity, and so forth. Being held responsible for something one does not control is the height of injustice. In fact, this sort of thing is particularly loathsome because it runs so counter to what America, at its best, is all about. In this America no one is born to a life of inferiority. In this America you are judged by what you can do, not by what you can't control.

Academic achievement requires effort. Admittedly, everyone does not have the requisite talent for scholarship; but excellence still cannot be achieved without effort. Achieved characteristics are like that. They may require acquired talent for true excellence, but great effort is still necessary for real achievement. Consider that remarkably accomplished operatic singer Marion Anderson. No doubt blessed with extraordinary potential, it still took years and years of uncommon effort for her to achieve singular excellence. Nevertheless, in 1939 officials of the Daughters of the American Revolution judged her acquired racial characteristics to be far more important than what she had so laboriously achieved when they forbade her from singing in concert in their Constitution Hall. Happily, Eleanor Roosevelt was outraged by this injustice, publicly resigned her membership in the D.A.R. and used her influence to arrange for Ms. Anderson to deliver an unforgettable performance at the Lincoln Memorial. Unhappily, however, most victims of discrimination never experience such vindication. Their best efforts are instead crushed by unfair burdens assigned at birth.

Little wonder, then, that people who cherish justice would want to repair the injustices created by racism, sexism, ageism, and other discrimination based on acquired characteristics. In fact, the idea behind "positive discrimination" is to undo the lingering effects of just this sort of injustice. But is it effective? And even more important, is it just?

The plan is to continue to discriminate on the basis of acquired characteristics, like race or gender, but with a positive purpose -- namely, establishing greater fairness or justice. The strategy is to select people using the same acquired characteristics that originally brought disadvantage and, by giving them special consideration, turn that acquired characteristic into a compensatory advantage. It is, in effect, using racism to combat racism, sexism to contest sexism. After all, acquired characteristics, such as race, are still the basis for judgment. But what this approach overlooks is that the individuals who suffered the injustice are often not the individuals gaining the compensatory advantage. Nor are those who enjoyed the benefits of past discrimination necessarily the same individuals who pay the costs of compensatory reparation. It is a simple-minded mentality that believes that past injustices are somehow undone by present remedies. Just as easily we end up with two wrongs that don't make a right.

Consider a hypothetical "positive discrimination" college admission policy that assigns preferences based on gender, race and ethnic heritage -- all acquired characteristics. There are more candidates than places at this college, and two candidates are tied with identical cumulative averages and admission test scores for the last opening.

One of these candidates is a Hispanic female, let's call her Juanita. She is Cuban - American from an affluent neighborhood in West Palm Beach, Florida. Her father is an extraordinarily wealthy Florida cigar manufacturer, her mother a physician. Juanita was raised in luxury, traveled the world with her parents on extraordinary vacations, had private dance and music lessons, lived in a home filled with books, magazines, newspapers and original art, enjoyed a circle of friends from similarly sophisticated backgrounds, and so forth. Juanita, however, was unmotivated in school and did not utilize the advantages afforded by her background. In fact, her indifference to school work led to her failing out of two exclusive private schools before her parents angrily placed her in West Palm Beach's very well-funded public high school (the tax base in the district is vast) from which she barely graduated.

The other candidate for the college's last available space is a white male, let's call him Sam. Sam is from Panther Hollow, West Virginia. Sam's father, a laid-off coal miner, died of black lung when Sam was twelve. (It so happens that Juanita's family owns stock in the coal company Sam's dad worked for. It was an attractive investment because of its unusually profitability which the company maintained by dodging coal dust suppression regulations and laying off middle-aged miners.) Sam's home is a battered trailer more filled with overdue bills than books. Sam has never been more than 100 miles away from home. His friends are as poor and unsophisticated as he is. Sam's mother, who had to drop out of school to support her widowed mother, has worked as a waitress in the local diner since her husband died. To help his family while in high school Sam worked 8 hours a day at minimum wages in the same diner busing tables and washing dishes. Despite this burden, Sam did the best he could in his badly underfunded public school (the tax base for Panther Valley School District is meager) and, with great effort studying between bursts of business at the diner, ended up, like Juanita, barely graduating from high school and with an average score on the college's admission test.

Guess who gets into the college's last available space, and figure out how that sets aright some past injustice.



Source: Positive Discrimination

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Ferran

That article is much based on an American context, but except some details we can easily correlate it to the European reality. It's also relevant that the articles I found on this phenomenon inside Europe were almost unexistant, and if there was any, it did just focus on the "gender supremacy". So I ask myself, do people in Europe even know that such practice exists with all normalcy here (with all its implications)?

Rethoric question, I take it. The simple answer is that people don't know. They think that feminism is doing something about some kind of problem, that men cause simply by being what they are. Feminism is an utterly evil movement, since it plays on the very lowest level of subhumanity to achieve femdom. Leading Swedish feminists have said that each man is a potential rapist, and that the only condition required for rape is the opportunity. The leader of a powerful and government sanctioned network also said that men are 'animals', while of course, women are better than that. Their website: Roks Riksorganisationen för kvinnojourer och tjejjourer i Sverige

[Ferran]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Rethoric question, I take it.

Oh well, not that much. There I was grouping all kind of "positive discriminations". Regarding Feminism you're completelly right, we can see that people don't have problems accepting that women "need" preferent treatment because of the alleged "opression", "enslavement", menstruation (which ironically also contains the "men" word) or whatever a commie says they have "suffered" centuries ago. There are even public debates aired on TV about such issue.

But on the other hand, no one admits that immigrants in Europe are getting the economic advantages not even a native disabled widow would get ever, and that, just for their ethnic condition... or more concretely, because certain parties need their votes to perpetuate in power. Of course, many immigrants here are told not to admit publically that they got such house for free or that they don't have to pay taxes. But fortunately, someone spoke too much.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Ferran

Little wonder, then, that people who cherish justice would want to repair the injustices created by racism, sexism, ageism, and other discrimination based on acquired characteristics. In fact, the idea behind "positive discrimination" is to undo the lingering effects of just this sort of injustice. But is it effective? And even more important, is it just?

The plan is to continue to discriminate on the basis of acquired characteristics, like race or gender, but with a positive purpose -- namely, establishing greater fairness or justice. The strategy is to select people using the same acquired characteristics that originally brought disadvantage and, by giving them special consideration, turn that acquired characteristic into a compensatory advantage. It is, in effect, using racism to combat racism, sexism to contest sexism. After all, acquired characteristics, such as race, are still the basis for judgment. But what this approach overlooks is that the individuals who suffered the injustice are often not the individuals gaining the compensatory advantage. Nor are those who enjoyed the benefits of past discrimination necessarily the same individuals who pay the costs of compensatory reparation. It is a simple-minded mentality that believes that past injustices are somehow undone by present remedies. Just as easily we end up with two wrongs that don't make a right.

I do not find the proper words to express fully my absolut againts position to this sort of thinking.

It takes me directly to the MOST ROTTEN of present European society, that part, that will always be praising the social goodness, and doing, in fact, the individual badness.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Ferran

But on the other hand, no one admits that immigrants in Europe are getting the economic advantages not even a native disabled widow would get ever, and that, just for their ethnic condition... or more concretely, because certain parties need their votes to perpetuate in power. Of course, many immigrants here are told not to admit publically that they got such house for free or that they don't have to pay taxes. But fortunately, someone spoke too much.

Actually, I remember and even saved a couple of letters from a reader, a middle-aged woman, published in the local daily newspaper about a month before our last election. She presented a good argument and lots of data about positive discrimination of immigrants, and despite the fact that she was accused of racism for doing so, I think that it was a wake-up call for at least a few people who read it. I even think that her gender and age was a factor speaking for her in a way, making it a lot harder for people to discard her as an evil or immature racist.

I also remember how the social democrats made a pathetic attempt to halt their loss of government power about a week before the election. They said that they would set standards for immigrants, to prevent them from becoming welfare cases. In reality, it meant that they would give an extra economical benefit to those immigrants who passed a Swedish language test.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Leading Swedish feminists have said that each man is a potential rapist, and that the only condition required for rape is the opportunity.

For much less than that I've had one such bitch listening to me enraged and saying how in my family there has never been one single case of a man's violence against a wife or daughter, or other woman for that matter, be it physical or verbal, how I've seen both my grandfathers wishing their lifes to finish after the women who they loved (obviously my grandmathers, their wives) passed away (one of them much especially), ...

... and I've had the bitch listening to me saying how her experience I had no doubt that it had to be different, because she carried the seed of degeneracy on her genes, and that she should consider voluntary sterilisation. But that her grievious mistake was to think that we are all equals when it was so obvious that neither her nor her family could be considered equal to mine.

[Ferran]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I also remember how the social democrats made a pathetic attempt to halt their loss of government power about a week before the election. They said that they would set standards for immigrants, to prevent them from becoming welfare cases. In reality, it meant that they would give an extra economical benefit to those immigrants who passed a Swedish language test.

What a cancer these politicians are.

Besides, it reminded me of another case of "positive discrimination". It has to do with the fact that immigrants here do language tests (those that acknowledge you have an A, B, or C level, a level which is commonly requested for a curriculum) for free, while we must pay 120€ for every single language exam. I did not know about it until one week ago, and sincerely, I'm not sure if I want to know more examples, sometimes is better to remain in the inopy, for health reasons.

By the way, I have checked a little and realized that in Europe, "positive discrimination" practically doesn't exist as such, most use "affirmative action" (similarly in America), which means exactly the same but in a more unsubstantial, politically correct way. That they had to define such cowardly term is enough proof that they believe many people aren't "modern" enough to take it so happily, although most probably they would have succeded whatever it was called anyway.

Well, such is the current situation...