This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should the U.S. continue to employ Affirmative Action, or should private schools be allowed to discriminate?
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. (Wikipedia definition). In the U.S., these policies have led to an increasingly difficult situation for students applying to college; both types of universities (public and private) are being subjected to these outlandish policies which, in my opinion, represent the government overstepping its boundaries.
By definition, a private university is PRIVATE; it exists thanks to the donations of private investors, not thanks to government grants. These types of schools should not be subject to the same principles as public schools, since they are not government-run. Just like every individual is born with certain inalienable rights, so to are corporations or groups formed inside a free society. A private group should be able to discriminate if it so chooses.
Further, affirmative action attempts to make up for past wrongs by committing the same deed. By giving favor to minorities, one is still separating them from the rest of the population, and ultimately is discriminating against those not of the minority groups. Some people call this positive discrimination, but in my book discrimination is discrimination and should be stopped.
chad manderscheid 10+
Jordan Stella
I agree with a truly color blind admittance as you said. The color of one's skin does not factor into one's intelligence.
Ryan Lawrence
the reason you don't understand the human element you are missing is because you just don't understand /that/ you don't understand it.
That's fine, nobody is born with a profound understanding of the complexities of human nature or enough experience with other cultures or environments to truly understand until and/or if they find themselves in that environment so i don't expect that to change.
But here's the deal.. this is TED, this is not some political blog site or youth group where you can argue about things you barely understand in an attempt to learn from others. The majority of the people here are well past that point in life and the purpose of TED is to improve the world in terms of safety, security, technology, education, and overall happiness. Denying anyone an education or arguing that education should be harder to obtain for anyone, for any reason.. is exactly what the entire TED community is here to stop in society.
And for the record, the reason the government has the right to make these rules is they are the ones bankrolling almost every single "private" college out there. Almost every single student aid loan in the united states is guaranteed by the federal government that if you don't or can not pay for it, they will. Do you really think Chase or Bank of America would give you $80,000 in unsecured money when you have no source of income, no credit history? they wouldn't loan you $100 without a guarantee or a co signer. No more than 1-2% of students in any school could afford it without financing and neither could their parents if they parents are willing to pay for it. Do you really think colleges would stay in business if they lost 98% of their students?
Oh, and here's the kicker. If you were to run a truly private university with absolutely no government backed student loans you aren't required to follow affirmative action anyway, thus your entire argument is invalid.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jordan Stella
And may I ask where you get your statistics from? "Almost every single student aid loan". What kind of a statistic is that? Show me a good hard number. There are plenty of people like me who took out loans with cosigners that have nothing to do with the U.S. government. If the government didn't back loans, I believe that responsible parents would. Yes, they are taking a chance, because if their kid defaults their name is on it too, but still. You asked, would colleges stay in business if they lost 98% of their students? I ask you this: do you honestly believe that they would lose 98% of them? People found ways to pay for education in the past, the government isn't the only way.
Jordan Stella
"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."
I ask this, does this view of government not provide for free, rational discourse between equal individuals?
Leila Oicles
I also remember the 3 most important words to the constitution "We the People". It doesn't say "We The US governement", it says "We the People of the United States". I was then reminded of a quote in a speech by JFK "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
So many of us, myself incuded, have become dependent and even expectant of the government to solve our problems on various levels. The government isn't really taking away our freedom and liberties, we, in essence are giving it up. Some feel its the governments job is to serve us, however it is suppose to be a governemt run by the people and for the people.
I have just watched some amazing ways people are getting together in their communities to make a difference. Dave Eggers (check out his wish and talk Once Upon a School), sought to find a solution to help children in his community. He did not protest nor fight against a lacking education system. He did not engange in debates on how education should be reformed and what the role of government should be. Instead, he was looking towards a solution, which engaged many other individuals in his community....which upon its success spread to countless other communities. From there more became involved and active within school systems.
This is our country and we DO have the power to make positive changes without the debates, or the fights, or dependency upon the government to do it for us. I suppose the government had to get more involved when we chose not to.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/697/the_role_of_government.html
it is closed already, so no new comments, but maybe interesting to read
Juan Ortiz
Jordan Stella
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Michael M 30+
Jordan Stella
I was not implying that anyone should be "weeded out", I was just saying that the government should not decide who to help and who not to help. Ok, so you want to help underprivileged children, that's fine, but the government should not be the ones funding it.
Who gets to decide who is underprivileged? At least the colleges I applied to had financial aid brackets set in so if your combined family income is less than $65,000 then you pay nothing for college, since you are underprivileged. How is it fair to just say anyone below that is free, above it you have to pay? I don't believe anyone has the right to label people as underprivileged, privileged, in need, or not in need.
Helen Hupe 30+
Helen
Jordan Stella
Helen Hupe 30+
Michael M 30+
I do believe private institutions should have some leeway here, but don't they really need the cultural value of plurality, real plurality as one of their basic assumptions about education? Isn't that idea of exclusivism, whether it is in Mississippi against blacks, Texas against Hispanics, or New England against "non-intellectual" southerners really wrong and really blocking our educational system?
The social good, does outweigh the individual harm in this case. We are not atomistic individuals but a society where sometimes the greater good is not individually based.
Jordan Stella
I will concede that affirmative action does little harm to the students; however, on principle, the government has no right to interfere with private institutions.
Michael M 30+
I think Debra is correct. Sometimes it takes a voice and one with authority, to speak out on behalf of those who cannot.
Is a private institution though the same legally or morally as a private individual?
Leila Oicles
We do not have very different ideologies really. I believe in these priciples. However I tend to see it from a larger perspective that extends beyond just the individual. The original quote by the way is as follows...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No where did it say "the pursuit of his own happiness". ALL men, all human beings have the right to these pursuits. My point, is not in taking away these rights, but it is the fact that in order to make these rights available to all that have this right, we must make some sacrifices, individual sacrifices, to protect not just my right, but your, his, hers, and all others.
Jordan Stella
I never said that the Constitution says "his own happiness", that is merely the way I interpret the wording.
Since no government has ever truly given its citizens complete freedom, and likely never will, it seems we will never really know whether or not the system would work. There are those (like myself) that believe that it would function superbly and would lead to a free, prosperous society. Then there are those that disagree (such as yourself). Who is actually right, we will never know.
I must ask though, why do you believe that in order for these rights to be available to everyone, we must make sacrifices? What sacrifices must we make? and for what reason?
Michael M 30+
Jordan Stella
I'll say it again, I don't believe the government should exist to interfere with its citizens. The only time government interference is justified, is when they are protecting the rights of the individual.
Leila Oicles
I will respond with a basic answer where government had to get involved with private institutions, families and business in order to protect these rights for the whole...when Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. In the constitution it says ALL men are created equal. Yet families and plantation owners bought and sold slaves. The reason behind Lincoln's decsion may not have been completely moral, as his decision would most definately effect the south's economy during a time of civil war. The plantation owners depended heavily on slaves. This was their private business, and perhaps their belief that blacks were not equals.
In order to give slaves their due freedom and equal rights, the governemnt must get involved. It does not mean that they needed to change their beliefs, but they most certainly had to change their system in business and abide by a law imposed on by the government. Sacrifices have to be made in order to protect rights of the whole. A shift in many areas had to be made.
Now even though blacks were now free, were they truly free? Did not ideoligies of those that did not believe blacks were equal find loop holes? Making sure not to give another a job out of discrimination. Not being allowed to attend public schools with whites. Having separate water fountains, being told where you're allowed to sit, etc. .
I believe we do have an obligation to our larger human family, because in protecting others rights, we also protect our own in the grand scheme of it all. There are times we must sacrifice some of our own personal beliefs in order to protect the rights of the whole.
Leila Oicles
It is easy to just say on paper that all are created equal and have the same rights, but people always find a way to be unjust and it would not be illegal for how do you proove it?
I don't think it is just about making up for past mistakes, I feel it is a way to break barriers of racism and discrimination that still exists today...even in businesses and schools.
I am open to any other solutions. i'm just not sure what they are right now...
Leila Oicles
What I was trying to point out here in this analogy is that even though I do not agree with affirmative action, nor do I believe in war or murder, but in some instances it may be necessary for the betterment of the whole or the innocent.
To me, the children are the innocent. To me, if we didn't engage in war, then we probably would no longer be the United states. Sometimes we need to make sacrifices for the betterment of the whole.
As far as govenments not being able to get involved with private institutions, well, they do and have to! Even private schools have to adhere to certain standards, they can't just do anything they please. Corporations can't monopolize. You can't nor are allowed to give false information to consumers. There are principles and laws that yes even privately funded institutions and business and corporations must abide by. And why? To protect others, not just an individuals right to do and say as they believe and choose.
if the government was put in place to soley protect the indivdual rights and freedom of the individual, then it shows that in order to that, well, there will be laws imposed that not everyone will agree with. That is our sacrifice in a free society. This is a growing and changing governemt, as it should be.
Jordan Stella
I believe our biggest disagreement here is rooted in our polar ideologies. I do not at all believe we should ever have to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of others. I believe only in the right of an individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. As such, my political, moral, intellectual values stem from this principle.
Leila Oicles
I understand that what you are standing for is not to harm others, nor are you against giving youth a better environment and education. I know that you are standing to take the bad with the good for the sake of free choice and freedom itself. For if we just allowed the government to get involved in every aspect of our lives and how we should live it or what we should believe in, then we risk our personal freedom of choice as an individual. As I said before, the question is probably about where we draw the line.
In the supreme court where the people vs. Larry Flint, he won, and not because anyone believes Larry Flint to be a moral person nor is what he contributes is probably what is best for society, but in giving him his freedom, also protects other individual rights to believe and speak as they choose.
But lets suppose I am a person that believes the act of pedophilia is natural. Or I believe it is my right to beat a child. That I believe in giving drugs to my children, or force them into gangs, because well, thats my freedom of choice. It is MY child,not yours or the governments, MINE. I should have the right to do and raise as I choose right? So why do we have all these laws to protect the safety of a child? Why all these government programs to try and better the environment and lives of at risk youth? According to you they are not your obligation and should have the right to choose which you stand for and which you do not. The truth is we dont.
I don't think the founding principles of this government were at all selfishly based as you proposed. I also feel it was in the ideal of being an individual within a united whole. Society, our structure is our obligation, and individuals happen to be apart of it.
So to my original question, what IS the solution in a free society? Even the founders sought a solution for the whole.
Jordan Stella
I did not say that the founding principles of our government were selfish. I solely believe that a government exists solely for the sake of protecting individual rights. A democratic government only exists based upon the consent of the governed. We are not obligated to pay any debt to society. We are all apart of society, but we have no debt to pay to it.
I don't believe I understand your question. The solution to a free society is a truly democratic government with a pure form of laissez-faire capitalism. This form of society would ensure the protection of individual rights and provide for the free exchange of goods and ideas between individuals.
Nicole Lough
Jordan Stella
Michael M 30+
Jordan Stella
The word discrimination comes with a very negative connotation, but in my opinion discrimination is discrimination.
Here's the definition of discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
I ask you, how is affirmative action not discriminating? It is taking consideration of a person based on their racial group or sex. How is that not the same moral wrongdoing?
Nicole Lough
But we do still need it. Especially in my state Arizona. I have plenty of illegal immigrant friends that deserve to go to college and cannot. Its usually because their parents came here when they were very young and America has always been there home. With affirmative action, they can get scholarships and not add to the dropout population.
Without things such as the dream act, affirmative action is the only buffer they have.
Don't get me wrong, affirmative action is completely not fair. Applying for college was almost impossible. I was able to get no scholarships mostly because I am a white girl not going into engineering or have a military family. And, I have excellent grades too; top 17% in my school. But cannot afford university with just this, and i received no financial aid.
But, I wonder what would happen if it disappeared.
As I said, its a very tricky question.
Jordan Stella
Helen Hupe 30+
Jason Hinchliffe
Now, by lowering standards for certain groups, or by creating quotas that take these (clearly racist) factors into account, I believe you are essentially giving people fish. There are a myriad of problems with this concept, and I think any mildly intelligent person can figure most of them out.
Of course, it's a much bigger investement to teach someone to fish. First, you have to take the time to teach them. Then, they still don't get to eat right away, as they have to go and catch themselves a fish now. That isn't even guaranteed, as it may turn out they're a lousy fisherman. But in the end, you'll have a whole bunch more people with the skill to feed themselves, who aren't looking for a handout, unless they really need one.
And to your point about "should business be allowed to discriminate". The answer is "absolutely". In fact, I dare them to. Go ahead and openly discriminate, see what happens. In this day and age, social networks would eat their soul.
Jordan Stella
I agree completely with you. I believe our government is way too soft on people these days, as is shown with the so called "socially progressive" programs like Social Security, unemployment pay, affirmative action, etc. Our government needs to allow people to try for themselves. If one tries and fails, they are a better person for it.
I also agree completely with you that in this modern world if a business or organization chooses to discriminate, they would be condemned by people thanks to social media. That is an excellent point that has yet to be brought up in this conversation thus far.
Jason Hinchliffe
Jordan Stella
Jason Hinchliffe
Anything can be taken away from you. That's why rights are paired with responsibilites. If we choose to fashion a society in which we deem certain rights to be "inalienable" then we must also take on the responsibility to safeguard these rights. None of us should ever forget that, because I think for the last 10 years that's exactly what many of us have done.
Jordan Stella
What do you mean with your last statement?
Jason Hinchliffe
But to be honest Jordan, what I find interesting is your statement "I forget there are other places in the world that don't enjoy...". Really? How can you fail to realize that? Furthermore, you seem to not realize that those rights you speak of are only inalienable as long as the document they are enshrined on remains in force. Democracies have become totalitarian in the past, and will in the future. Your rights and freedoms are not inalienable. All it takes is a big enough stressor, and you watch how quickly they are flushed away.
Jordan Stella
As to your second comment, I think you explained it for yourself. I agree with you and I do realize that these inalienable rights which I have are viable only while there is something set in place to protect them; I would say that that is likely why I sometimes neglect to take into account places where people don't have the same rights. I don't believe it is only me either. Many people in the U.S. forget this sometimes.
I apologize for this lack of respect for people in places where their rights aren't guarded as closely as mine are.
I must say I respect your stern attitude. You seem to be a man with a lot of integrity, one who sticks to his convictions and I respect that. It's people like you that I enjoy speaking to and why I love this website.
Nicole Lough
Everyone has the needs for a body and everyone has a brain that will function for those needs and make choices for them - that is what I believe inalienable rights are.
So when country says it will protect your inalienable rights, they mean, giving you an increase range of choice without effecting the health of the state or person and providing an increase standard of living where the body is taken care of.
I hope that made sense. So yes a paper really can protect these rights, but we will always be born with a freewill mind and situation with thousand of choices that we alone can dignify ourselves with.
Jordan Stella
Helen Hupe 30+
Comment deleted
Helen Hupe 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Anything less reflects an outmoded and ill informed version of what 'intelligence' is or of what we should be valuing in people.
Jordan Stella
I am all for a multicultural society. In fact, I believe that that would bring the greatest benefit to the world; however, we cannot forget the basic rights we are all given in our attempt to achieve said society.
Debra Smith 200+
Jordan Stella
Debra Smith 200+
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
TED 10+
Thank You,
TED Conversations Admin
conversations@ted.com
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Comment deleted
Jordan Stella
My political views would be closest to libertarianism, so I believe in freedom without bounds. I believe the underlying larger problem here is not just the simple discrimination that is happening, but the fact that our government is overstepping its bounds. Private corporations (and any individual person) has the right to discriminate if they so choose; I am not advocating that this is a good idea, because it is not. I am strictly against discrimination. I am solely attempting to point out that private entities are not subject to governmental interference.
Leila Oicles
However, I also feel that the demographics and lack of equal opportunity, especially for our children in areas of poverty, where crime and drugs are unsually high, do not get the same opportunities of those children whose parents are those private funders for instance. Is it the child's fault that the parents didn't become wealthy or valued education? So what is the solution for these children, that will in turn become adults, and produce more children who will then become adults and so on?
We can say that there are those excetional few that broke through that cycle, but are you willing to put your child in that environment to see how he or she fairs, or are you going to try and cultivate him in an environment and educational institution where you feel he/she will benefit most?
i feel the point of affirmative action to be spread in the schools is trying to give that equal opportunity. It is perhaps a temporary band aid where if more and more minorities can become better leaders, more educated, and become successful in the workforce, they then can become role models for their minority to suceed. If successful it can chip away at stereotypes embedded in society.
So what is the solution in a free society? A society that both of us are a part of as well as countless others? Do we have an obligation to our larger human family? What is the ideal and progress we are striving for, and are we willing to make some sacrifices in order to get there?
Jordan Stella
I understand that this makes me sound as if I am a blatant egotist, without a care for the world but that is not the case. I solely believe that everyone has the right to do as he or she pleases. If a child is underprivileged, I do not believe that that entitles him to special benefits. Why should it? I understand that a child should not be deprived of opportunities based on his parents' mistakes, but I believe that giving special treatment to these kids is unfair.
Despite my objections to the morality of affirmative action, I am completely fine if the government wants to enforce it in public schools. Private schools, however, are not subject to governmental law and thus cannot be forced to adhere to said laws.
You ask what is the ideal and progress we are striving for? I believe that each person lives to ensure his own happiness, and nothing more. I don't believe that anyone has the right to ask another man to make a sacrifice. You may live to pursue your own happiness, but you do not have the ability to step on the rights of others in achieving it.
Helen Hupe 30+
Jordan Stella
I am speaking strictly about the U.S. here, since I have only lived here and thus I cannot speak for other countries, but in the U.S. we are entitled to selfishness. We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are entitled to the rights granted to us by the Constitution. No where in the text of the Constitution does it say that we are entitled to be our brother's keeper.
I am not saying that one cannot do humanitarian work, but I am merely saying that one is not obligated to pay any debt to society.
Debra Smith 200+
Debra Smith 200+
self·ish /ˈsɛlfɪʃ/ Show Spelled[sel-fish] Show IPA
adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1630–40; self + -ish1
Related forms
self·ish·ly, adverb
self·ish·ness, noun
Synonyms
1. self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.
Jordan Stella
I ask this out of curiosity: are you an American?
Jordan Stella
I was merely interested in your nationality, because it is interesting to see how people, even from such a closely related nation as Canada is to the U.S., can have such varied opinions.
Regardless of your nationality, I implore you to question your premises. How can a free government force its citizens to be responsible for the actions of others?
Helen Hupe 30+
Talking to Jordan sometimes felt like unravelling a ball of thread.
Jordan Stella
Helen Hupe 30+
Apparently you have plenty of whatever it is that makes you happy. Our forefathers fought to establish freedom from and not freedom to. So if you think you can break any law, then you may be surprised that there are consequences. You are right there are no laws against selfishness. One cannot legislate attitude nor respect. If I were dying in front of you and it made you happy to not do anything about it, then I don't know if you could be charged with anything.
Do you have any good friends or just people who agree with you ?
Jordan Stella
Freedom to, freedom from? Are you a Margaret Atwood fan perchance?
I believe our forefathers did not fight solely for freedom from. Our forefathers fought to ensure that we had the freedom to pursue our own happiness, to live our own life; that being said they also fought for freedom from the violation of these rights.
Michael M 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Jordan Stella
I believe that I would. I am by no means someone who has had his life given to him on a platter. I have had to work for my success in life, and by the same token my happiness. I have and always will believe in freedom and man's inalienable rights.
I would save you if you were dying in front of me if I had the means to do so. As I said earlier, I don't disapprove of selfless acts, if one so choices of their own free will. What I don't believe in is force. One should not feel obligated to commit any act; the only obligation we have is to live and to pursue our own happiness, without violating the rights of others.
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
PS Atwood is a Canadian author. i am surprised that Jordan allowed her into the discussion!
Jordan Stella
Leila Oicles
There are laws in place to protect the people and the government is suppose to SERVE the people. If it was just a free for all where anyone can choose and do as they please then there would be know need for law, police, courts, politicians, etc. What would be the point? The government most certainly will get involved when someone steals from another, murders andother, assaults another and why? Because the government has a responsiblity to ensure the safety and welfare of the structure and our larger human family. The government, which by the way is suppose to be run by WE the people and by the people. It isn't here just to protect our freedom of choice, but that that freedom does not inflict harm on others.
I am a citizen of this country and a tax payer, and I personally do care about the welfare of our chilfren and feel I do have, in to some extent an obligation to society and my larger human family. I personally wish to use that money to go towards helping children have a valuable education, but most of it doesn't. I dont get the freedom to choose where my money goes, the government does, which by the way we run. WE, not I, WE.
As for the black and white view about discrimination, being discrimination regardless if it is positive, then what about the concept of murder? If one murders another out of hate and malicious intent, should it be considered the same type of murder that someone commits in defense in order to protect himself or his family? It is still murder. Someone died. Wouldn't one be considered more "positive" than the other?
Jordan Stella
I believe you are wrong when you suggest that if we were free , we would not need government. We would most certainly need government. The government has institutions like the courts and the police in order to guarantee that nobody violates our own personal rights. I agree with you completely that a government should and must get involved when someone steals, murders, assaults, etc. The goal being accomplished by this government intervention is protecting the rights of the individual. Why do you call the police? Because someone has committed a crime and violated your rights. The courts are a continuation of this process which ensures that the rights of both you and the one who violated your rights are both given your due process.
I respect that you feel a moral obligation to society; however, you must understand that I in no way am arguing against that. I feel as if you all have misunderstood me, I meant only to say that no one has the right to force me to help others. It is not a legal obligation, but a moral obligation that some feel. I ask you to recognize that I am not trying to tell you not to feel this way, but to understand that you are not obligated legally to do so, and no one can tell you that you are. If you feel your own personal obligation then that is fine, it is your right to feel that way, but it is also the right of others not to feel so. We are not our brother's keeper.
Jordan Stella
The issue at hand is still this: discrimination is discrimination. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it is the same. One cannot argue that affirmative action is not discrimination because it is.
Michael M 30+
We give the government the right by becoming citizens. You want the freedom, fine, then take the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. Government has every right to speak to you as a citizen, not just "let you be free". What does that word freedom really mean to you?
Helen Hupe 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Helen Hupe 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jordan Stella
Michael M 30+
Jordan Stella
Chris Aldon 20+
Jordan Stella
Chris Aldon 20+
What would be the benefit of discrimination?
Would a school be able to keep its accreditation? Not likely. "The institution has an orderly and ethical program of admission.." *1
I can't imagine it would be a difficult case to prove discrimination based on race, sex, creed is unethical.
Besides schools advertise and sell themselves to students based on their diversity. "The University of Notre Dame is committed to diversity in our University community because it is a moral and intellectual necessity"*2
*1 http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version#standard_six
*2 http://diversity.nd.edu/commitment/