[485] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: quotas, affirmative action, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prez H. Cannady)
Thu May 3 10:25:00 2001
Message-Id: <200105031424.KAA04707@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:23:04 -0400
To: Wally <wally@sub-zero.mit.edu>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105030855260.2811-100000@sub-zero.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:12 AM 5/3/01 , Wally wrote
>One thing to remember about affirmative action programs is that they're
>not intended to be permanent fixes; the goal is, at some level, to
>overcompensate for a perceived wrong so as to (as quickly as possible)
>bring the racial profile of students and employees up to a more
>'evenhanded' level.
This is really not the goal of affirmative action at all.
It is not a redress, reparation or an apology of any sort.
It is public policy implemented with the goal of racial
equity in mind. As Johnson framed it, affirmative action
was an answer to what he believed to be an unsound notion
that equity could be achieved by the mere removal of
explicit challenges within the legal structure.
Executive Order 10925, which we've heard about time and
time again, did not say "we will redress the wrongs against
colored folk." It said that federally financed projects
would avoid employment practices laced with racial
bias and discrimination.
>The notion is kind of a dialectical one, for all you
>wacky Hegelians out there (or Marxists, for that matter). However, because
>AA disporportionately favors certain groups, the whole process has to be
>distasteful for everyone for a while -- those that 'benefit' do so at the
>expense of a certain security, while those who are (allegedly) robbed of
>supposedly equal opportunity feel shafted (though AA hiring/admissions
>processes are no more arbitrary than their 'unbiased' analogues).
The thesis resides on the premise that there are identifiably
disadvantaged groups within the nation due to racism, and that
these groups suffer because of an inherently racist employment
practice in the nation. Affirmative action assumes that any
employer is susceptable to these biased attitudes, and the
breadth of Civil Rights Act and President Nixon's most
forceful "Philadelphia Order" merely emphasizes that firms
must demonstrate through "affirmative action" that they
are complying with equal opportunity laws.
Therefore, affirmative action is the "practical" application
of the legal code contextualized therein. Its definition,
however, remains unclear -- "affirmative action," regardless
of what you think, resides on a premise that REQUIRES the
official or off-record tracking of quotas.
No, affirmative action is not fair; it was never designed
to be fair. The notion sought to balance out an inequitable
situation and it has done so rather successfully in the realm
of hiring practices for forty years. More importantly,
EEOs are by and large going above and beyond what AA
requires, recognizing the marketabiliy of diversity. As federal
requirements for AA decline in the next ten years, expect
that most firms will not abandoned their EEOs in favor of
returning to a biased system (hence - my main problem with the AA
thesis). In fact, expect the encouragement of colored
network building within firms.
>The fact is, other places need AA programs a hell of a lot more than MIT.
>Especially when so many students here already question their own right to
>attend this school...
It's very easy. I got in, I paid what I owe, and I expect
something back in exchange. The notion that students have
a "right" or no "right" to be here is settled in accordance
to a very elaborate and understandably confusing CAP process,
but nevertheless if you're enrolled you have every right to
be here under and transaction law that I know of.
That anybody would question the righteousness in receiving
services in return for compensation hangs on the pinacle of
absurdity.
>Race-blind admissions free MIT from the problems of
>insecurity and racial bias that go with AA programs.
I sincerely don't thing the argument of insecurity is going
to fly well over here. I'm not sure of the exact figures,
but I don't give a fuck what Professor Joe Cracker or
Susy SIPB think about my personal qualifications. I
got in, I paid up what I owe, and I'll be here until
they graduate my ass or kick me out.
>Simply put, they
>should simply file away the names of the applicants, refer to them by
>number, consider subjective materials (essays, recommendations) only after
>performing as objective as possible an analysis of the entire applicant
>pool, and notify all applicants of all scholarship/cultural opportunities
>(send everyone a women@mit flyer, for instance, and not consider whether
>they should target that information only at incoming female students).
Do you honestly care about the admissions process that much
to go and do it?
>Ignorant but well-meaning,
The heart of liberalism.
Rev Prez
* * *
Presley H. Cannady, Class of 2002, Electrical Engineering
Acting Chairman, College Republicans
CR Website <http://web.mit.edu/republicans/www/>
<Personal>-----------------------<"It's The Militia" - Freddie Foxx>
<revprez@mit.edu>--------<http://web.mit.edu/revprez/www/resume.pdf>
<410 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139>-----------<(617) 225 8420>
<"Reality drops like atomics strapped to gravity bombs" - Rev Prez>
<ThE fLoW>-------<"Word is bond, son....heed the warnin: - Rev Prez>
Platinum Playa Productions------------------<Site Comin Soon, dunnz>
Rev Prez "The G.O.D. Rhymez v.3"--------<http://www.mp3.com/revprez>
<------REMIX and the Central Region Freestylin Alliance------------>
<"You got below average intelligence and poor penmanship" - Canibus>
