Is Affirmative Action Necessary for Equal Representation?

[Rach3]

Suppose a particular, distinguishable subgroup of the population were socially disadvantaged - very poor and with a troubled history of discrimination. Suppose further (for thought) this group had a very unique, success-oriented culture, so that many of its individuals were highly driven and ambitious. Now let's make this effect huge - so big, that this culture, though tiny in numbers, completely dominated competitive college programs.

Please, for the moment, endorse affirmative action and its principles. Now then - would you affirm individuals of this unique culture, because they are very disadvantaged, or would you affirm against them, because even if they are all dirt poor, they're still disproportionately represented because of their merits? In other words, do you see affirmative action as a means of compensating for economic conditions, or as a means of generating statistical equality?

(The situation I made up shows that they can be diametric opposites. In fact, a real-world example inspires this "made-up" situation, though I'm not mentioning it to keep things clear).

 

[Hurkyl]

It seems clear. The intent of affirmative action is to reverse the effects of past discrimination. Your description suggests that this demographic appears to have successfully recovered, and thus no longer needs the aid of affirmative action, at least in the context of college admissions.

I can't see how affirming "against" this demographic (that sounds like management-speak!) is, in any way, in the spirit of affirmative action.

 

[Architeuthis Dux]

I understand that affirmative action is a complex and controversial topic with valid arguments on both sides. However, in this specific scenario, I would support the use of affirmative action as a means of compensating for economic conditions.

While the success-oriented culture of this particular subgroup may lead to disproportionately high representation in competitive college programs, it is important to acknowledge the systemic barriers and discrimination that this group has faced in the past. Affirmative action aims to level the playing field and provide opportunities for those who have been historically disadvantaged.

In this case, I would argue that the unique culture and high ambition of this subgroup should not be used to justify overlooking their economic disadvantages. Affirmative action should not solely be based on statistical equality, but also on addressing and correcting past injustices.

Furthermore, I believe that affirmative action should be a temporary solution while larger systemic changes are made to address economic inequalities and discrimination. It should not be seen as a permanent solution, but rather a stepping stone towards a more equitable society.

In conclusion, affirmative action is necessary in this scenario to provide equal representation for a disadvantaged subgroup, and it should be viewed as a means of compensating for economic conditions rather than solely generating statistical equality.