This is a touchy subject, but my main problem with affirmative action is that I don't think it's the most effective solution. You want to increase the number of blacks, latinos, pacific islanders, etc in college? How about reforming K-12 so that all of the children, regardless of income, have access to a quality education and support? How about setting up GUIDANCE for first gen college students, since they can often run into trouble from simply not having anyone to help them through the intricate bureaucracy of college? Fixing wage and living standards so that kids don't have to miss school to help support their families? Healthcare to help keep kids in school and parents healthy at work? Affordable childcare so that parents can leave their children in a safe, fun, learning environment? A good public transportation system so that the poor (or those that can't afford a car) aren't stranded in an area where there are no jobs or opportunities? Rant complete.
+lalamelol So, essentially, give these communities what they have been intentionally deprived of in the past? Sounds fair to me. Only when that is accomplished should we get rid of AA, though.
the sad truth is that to many children do not attend school having mother's that don't wake up and get the kids off to school or parents that tell you "I didn't go to school so why should my kids" ...
This is not just a socio-economic issue bcause even if you are white and poor you are not subject to overcome certain obstacles that people of color were forced to both historically and currently. America's history of systemic and institutionalized racism in the executive legislative and judicial branches of government as well as in the private sector have led to Injustices that have intentionally affected the ability for people of color to enroll in- gain acceptance to- and afford higher education institutions. Yes I did mention socioeconomic disadvantages. The difference is the disadvantages experienced by people of color were usually not caused by personal fault. Things like redlining, the Chinese exclusion Act, Jim Crow laws, segregation did not have a negative effect on the prospects of achieving higher education for white Americans. To put it bluntly if the average 13 year old white American is reading below standard it's safe to assume that it's not because the government forced his family to live in a ghetto and then defunded the public schools in that area solely based race. We like to think everybody has equal opportunity but that is not the case. We're not saying that a white child does not have struggles (of course white people can be homeless, jobless, hungry, and uneducated) - we're saying that people of color may endure those struggles amplified by racial injustice in addition to having to endear struggles unique to race. we're saying that there is a difference between equality and equity. We're saying that the black experience should be taken into account when reviewing college applications. If everyone is so mad at affirmative action and the principles of equity why not ensure equality for all. Regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, status and religion. why don't we fund all public schools equally. Ensure uniform class size, employ equally qualified teachers, implement a standard curriculum, offer the same standard electives at every school, provide quality school facilities. Equally fund extracurricular activities and clubs, special needs assistance programs, and provide the same amount of instruction time and recreational time in every school. Once all children have an equal opportunity to achieve educational success then we can dismantle affirmative action.
One thing I don't get. Why don't we base affirmative action on socioeconomic class. I mean affirmative action in the first place is to give equal opportunity to groups that are disadvantaged, who is more disadvantaged than those in poverty.
KT Doty It’s not equal opportunity if you’re not getting it rightfully. I don’t have the right to even be in the employers office at Tesla just because they wanted “Gender Diversity”. This is ludicrousy
It's still rather discriminatory. To stop those less socioeconomically developed being discriminated against by tough entry requirements, we're gonna discriminate against people on the basis of their socioeconomic status, or that of their family. Primarily, tough entry requirements aren't actually discrimination, whereas affirmative action is. Secondly, poverty is defined against the average and is therefore arbitrary. You just have to be a certain percentage worse off than the average person to be in poverty. Hence the poverty rate in the UK is 21%, by technicality I've lived in poverty most of my life. I haven't really lived in poverty, neither has the majority of people within that 21%. My point here is people with no real basis to need a leg up would have it. Thirdly, giving offers to those who are underqualified to take on that degree tends to end up with a lot of them failing, as with affirmative action. A good chunk will dropout because they weren't smart enough to handle the course they got into leaving them with debt they can't pay and no better off. Similarly, you'd also end up with underqualified workforces.
@@aurora3067 AA isn't based on "deserving" or "rightfully" per se. If that's the case, one must then argue why would a man or a white person have more "right" to the spot. It's based on qualified candidates being prohibited access to jobs, housing, education, healthcare, etc based on a specific factor being race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It doesn't mean that any unqualified person could apply to a doctor's position in a hospital and be hired simply because they're black or a woman. It's discouraging discrimination and fostering inclusion when you have two candidates(1 white 1 black) who has both graduated from med school and is applying for the same job with comparable application. So it's, why not hire the female who has over 5+yrs on a dealership sales floor, owns a tesla, and knows her way around an engine?
Yurrah Al-Hadi You’re missing the underlying argument. A corporation would logically be hiring the best and brightest, so the fact that they would take anything other than credentials into consideration is problematic.
Not too long ago Harvard University was accused of setting quotas to keep the number of Asian-Americans lower than the quality of their application merits because there were too many qualified Asian candidates. What bullshit. These students work extremely hard, many of them being from poor families who moved to America for a better education. Poor immigrant Asians are just as disadvantaged as other minorities. They work their asses off every day, instilled with the mindset it will bring them success. But guess what? Because they look a certain way, they can go to hell.
+Jenny Doe That's because Harvard and other Ivy Leagues are really designed to be a incubator of elite WASP talent. Too many Asians does nothing for them because C-Class jobs are still white male dominated and that's their desire.
+Obsidian SeventyOne except Harvard and other universities doing it where doing it so that they could keep to the quotas (white, black and Latino). Aka they were keeping towards affirmative action and other such diversity quotas. But nice that you found a way to blame it on white people. If only you could blame republicans as well.
+schlab73 I believe that affirmative action should be based on ability to afford college rather than the color of skin and/or cultural background. And what makes it more tragic is that disadvantaged white citizens (rural or poor) do not count as culturally diverse even though I would say they definitely are. Affirmative action has its place, but I believe it may be overstepping its bounds today.
I know I shouldn't try to bring up intelligent discussion in youtube comments, but can we discuss the effect of AA on Asians, especially when it comes to top tier university enrollment?
It sucks for Asians. If you're asian and legitimately better than the next white, Hispanic, or black you deserve to get into whatever you're trying to get into. The fact that other people that look like you get in frequently shouldn't affect you in any way.
Terrell Allen That was a problem *for me*, hence the reason I wanted to start the discussion. I got cast out from Harvard and Princeton because of AA and got pushed to Dartmouth. Now, I'm extremely thankful to Dartmouth for accepting me, but it looks like Dartmouth really doesn't like asians nor internationals much, either. It's a sad feeling to be unwanted.
Why so many dislikes? This video was informative and to the point. There did not seem to be any bias in this video. If you do not like the video, or how it was made, or what messages it conveyed but then dislike it. If you do not like affirmative action then that is another thing.
+KAMMCE Estell I've been wading through the comments for entirely too long trying to find criticisms of the video. I found two "you didn't mention asians" and one "you used the word problematic", but that's out of 70 comments. The dislike bar on this one is totally baffling.
+KAMMCE Estell Because Crash course isn't objective in its view points. It has a default leftist bias. On the surface they do try to appear unbiased but in very subtle ways they imply the fact that the left's solution is the right one, or that AA is necessary overall in this case.
+KAMMCE Estell I personally disliked this video because it almost purposely ignored the many problems with affirmative action including its general lack of effectiveness in achieving it's only goal.
1:58 Here's the bias. The race metaphor is what he preferred. It was a horrible metaphor. Why? Because it doesn't just put some ahead based on their race, it pushes someone back. You tear someone down to lift another up which is why the scale metaphor is more appropriate.
If you want a true meritocracy you cannot lower standards for some individuals and not for others. If you want to deal with the issue of equality of opportunity, you should provide greater access and improved quality of education for all and certainly not by lowering standards for some minorities. Having affirmative action in the name of meeting arbitrary diversity quotas rewards mediocrity over merit.
+Andy Feng I thought that affirmative action is used to give black people a chance to get into good universities - so exactly what you are demanding: Providing better access to education for poor people.
+REMagic42 First off, if it is truly to give poor people a better chance, then why not make it based off of income, not race, not that that's any better when applied. Second off, a college education should be free anyway. Thirdly, if Bernie Sanders gets elected and he makes it free, would you be willing to get rid of affirmative action since income would no longer be a factor?
+Andy Feng The discriminatory policies are effecting people until now poverty is a loop. also if you don't help those get to the level of the rest of society they will be their they won't disappear they might need to do crimes to survive! and even they accept being at low level jobs eventually they will revolt against the rich sometime revolting can be costly for a society.
+REMagic42 Not all black families are poor and not all white families are rich. The issue of equal opportunity is more closely aligned with socioeconomic status, not racial minority status. To base public benefits on race is discrimination. To base it on socioeconomic status is not.
This is my problem with affirmative action : it's a short term solution to a long term problem. Instead of fixing a broken system and giving equal quality education to everyone through secondary school, we just give lowered standards to those in poor situations. As well, I cannot support a system that might skip over a better student in exchange for a lesser qualified minority just to fill a quota.
By giving a minority a slight advantage, you will make sure the highest of that minority make it in at the expense of the lowest of the majority, i.e. rich blacks getting in at the expense of poor whites. This isn't solving the problem because you only really help the members of that minority who were already fairly well off. What you should do is class based affirmative action. By giving all poor people a leg up, you will inherently help minorities at a disproportionate rate any way because they are more likely to be poor in the first place, and in the process you will also helps poor members of the majority.
+William Stockhecker even that is a little iffy. If you are "middle class" colleges shut their doors before you can blink. Somehow middle class translates to able to spend thousands of dollars with ease. Although since this already happens having only this would be preferable.
+dhodz hoddy Right...because the fanciest laptop and fanciest after-school program and fanciest gymnasium swimming pool is going to make poor kids magically better in school.
Anyways... I really admire everyone at crash course for doing a video and staying neutral on the subject. It was informational and allowed their watchers to form their own opinion.
What this video didn't mention is that the University of Michigan law school had to dramatically lower it's admission standard just to achieve a certain percentage of black admits. In highly selective schools, standards have to be lowered to the point that it is unfair for everyone else.
saquist I read the Supreme Court decision and followed the testimony as it happened. You have Google. If you want to know, look it up yourself. Don't order me to fetch information for you; I don't work for you.
CaliforniaArchitect Your previous statement was too general for my first search. I can't make you source your declarations, nor do I require you to fetch anything for me. I'm sorry if you thought I was being confrontational but I don't see a need to be belligerent. Good day.
Ok, really touchy subject, but using the excuse of "making up for historical injustices" doesn't cut it for me. Slavery is not an excuse, nobody you know, or ever knew, in this day and age, experienced institutionalized slavery. And as the years go on, chances are higher that that also applies to people who experienced institutionalized discrimination. Hell, in order to have been alive while the Jim Crow laws were still around, you would have to be at least 51, and in order to have been alive and actually have been AFFECTED by the Jim Crow laws, chances are you're approaching retirement age, so giving preference for employment is not a valid idea because the people you are hiring DID NOT EXPERIENCE IT. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but getting benefits from things anyone older than your grandparents, or even your parents, did is not right. Everybody should get a clean slate. Keep the past in the past and focus on the future.
that's why the courts don't like that rationale. They prefer to focus on making up for current injustices (which often happen to stem from past injustices). When taking into account that those who lived thru Jim Crow and their children (who learned bad stuff from the former) are perfectly old enough to run a college, it makes some sense to put rules in place as a safeguard against whatever biases/prejudices they may, even subconsciously, have
+Suitaloo Did it ever cross your tiny head that those people affected by racism had a much harder time progressing in life which meant a much harder time to try to provide their children with education? I'm not black, but I was born into a poor family with low education. This made it much harder for me to achieve greater goals like finally becoming an engineer. All because my parents lacked education. I've had to learn many things on my own. But at least I was born in a place with a nice neighborhood. Imagine when you're surrounded by poor people with low education. If you think that just because you're born in the same country in the same year that you have the same opportunities then you're very naive or borderline retarded. Sorry to put it bluntly.
+Suitaloo There is a reason why the median income levels of blacks and whites are so different today. Historical injustices may not affect someone directly, but they sure as hell affect the current situation we're in. Blacks aren't poorer and less likely to get jobs simply because they don't work as hard or don't want it as much. Institutional racism and the remnants of Jim Crow still exist in a significant capacity.
+Suitaloo Those years of slavery caused the families of the children of those slaves to have a harder time achieving success. Being poor means you have less access to things like education (and jobs, by extension). This compounds over time and you end up with blacks being disproportionately poor compared to whites. The issue with affirmative action is that it is discriminatory. It needs to exist, but it should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.
+Suitaloo Affirmative Action benefits white women more than anyone else, actually. ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
+Dinesh RP There's a difference between the "ivory tower" belief that everyone is equal vs the real world hiring biases. They've been trying to bring equality for a long long long time. Still not here, and won't be here for a long long long time. In the meanwhile affirmative action is a tiny attempt to somewhat help. In other words, the boat is leaking. It's been leaking since the beginning of humanity. People are trying to fix it, but it won't be fixed for a long time. So let's try to plug up a few of the holes so it leaks a little less.
+Dinesh RP It's all very peculiar to me. When I was younger I had a friend who was rather progressive. He always told me how it's about treating everyone equally regardless of their race, sex, or anything else besides their abilities. That it shouldn't matter what you look like or where you come from. Especially feminism he advertised as being about abolishing stereotypes and such. Turned out that in reality it seems to be quite the opposite...
Rififi50 Don't you think that government, employment, education policies that ignore race/gender/sexuality are ill-fitted to a society where a kid grows up being influenced to believe certain things about themselves in terms of beauty, privilege, intelligence, income, heritage/historical roots, etc from tv, movies, music, internet, social media, peers, school? Basically government, employment, and education doors of opportunity that ignore that some children and adults have more privileges than others is a good thing?
Hircine Affirmative action isn't meant to solve inequality. Using the leaking boat analogy, it's meant to slightly reduce the amount of water leaking into the boat. Because the boat won't be able to be fixed for a long time. The wealth and infrastructure of the southern U.S. and some northern was built on slave labor and quasi-slave labor. As it was in other countries, for hundreds of years. The effects and repercussions are still entwined in our social interactions, in culture, economics, business, media, etc. Saying that "everyone is equal now" doesn't make it so in the real world.
Affirmative action should be for poor people. People who have been affected by discrimination are usually poor. White immigrants too were once hated depending on where they came from, their families might have been denied opportunities and they are with other lower class people today still in the same boat. Basing it on the wealth would still help more minorities since they and their families have been denied opportunities more often - but excluding poor people from other races only increases resentment from them, no access to better education not only will keep them poor but also hateful of those who are offered opportunities. It's not only important to change affirmative action to be more fair, it will keep the peace inside our society.
Minyaw it should be by race not for poor people. Poverty is a state of mind and there will always be poor people but there won't always be opportunities for race
Being a part of a disenfranchised group does not inherently mean an individual deserves special treatment to make up for the history of that group. If they stopped treating people as groups and started treating them as individuals then it might be a bit more plausible, but the way it is now everyone in a given group is given the same classification despite wildly varying circumstances from individual to individual. There are some very well off minorities, do they need additional support? There are plenty of people within the majority who could use similar support but are denied because they aren't part of a minority group. People are individuals, they are not groups and no single label of victim or privileged will ever fit every person.
+13ullseye Any sociologist would tell you that yes grouping people together does create over simplifications and allows for stereotypes and other biases to be employed. However, analyzing people individually requires a significant amount of resources aka MONEY. I believe the foundation of Affirmative action from a leadership and sociological perspective is about ensuring efficiency of allocation of resources while understanding at minimum the one thing that unites this group of people. For African Americans, it is more than the color of our skin, it is the history, values, traditions, and culture that we all identify with today.
+13ullseye I completely agree. In fact I'd be pretty offended at the suggestion that my own skill was insufficient to get in to university or get the job I want. From what I've seen affirmative action can actually cause further discrimination against minorities by propagating the idea that they only got in to university because of their race. For many of them this is not true, but affirmative action means that for some it will be.
+13ullseye Positive discrimination is the is simply a counterbalancing measure to one of the ills of pure democrazy that Plato outlined thousands of years ago, Mob and Majority absolute rule. It was one of the central problems of the roman empire. Imagine of we removed weight classes from combat sports like MMA. All that would be left to watch is fat and roided up heavy and super heavyweights doing faux sumo. It would be the death of the sport. Honestly, the only people that benefit from, Positive discrimination, is the current hegemony. Minorities, which are minorities by sheer population numbers as well as socioeconomic disadvantage btw, would have to either segregate themselves from the greater (white) society altogether or make direct efforts to muscle white people out of their traditional seats of power once their hold starts to wane through willful ignorance. The former would mean the fracturing of society and the breakdown of democracy itself and the later would mean the reincarnation of a brown skinned Alaric I marching through the traditional halls of power to establish a new _hegemony_.
+13ullseye Jim Crow however there are people living today affected by, especially considering the issue of college-education and class affecting the education-level of ones children
+HotSkull You are using weight class as an example, but it highlights a serious problem. People of a higher weight class have an advantage for simply being a higher weight class. Unless you are saying white people are genetically superior to black people, this comparison does not work well. You try to associate race with socioeconomic status, but why not cut the middle man and go straight to the socioeconomic status of the person? Economic power among races would change, but poor will be poor because by definition they are poor.
Malinda Uboh. How do they benefit the most. If you look up statistics you can see that the my are one of the groups that are actually hurt the most by affirmative action since diversity is seen as a having the most minorities.
Just create a community where people actually care about education. Why do Asians attend college more per capita than any other demographic and earn more than every other demographic in the US (per capita), is it because of affirmative action or their value for education?
+ChillsandThrills I agree. Universities and admission to them should be based solely off of merit. It's counter productive and stymies the advancement of mankind to admit the pitiful over the competent. If AA is going to exist, it should at least be based off low income rather than race.
Are you serious? you're saying it still benefits white men more than minorities because it benefits people that sometimes marry them? Assuming that white women have no choice? also assuming that they put all of their money into white men? Not to mention your statistics pulled straight out of your ass with very little evidence. How can you make such claims without any studies to back them up?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
My other issue with Affirmative Action is this idea of forced diversity. Yes segregation is bad and yes I would love to see more representation of minorities. But I want it to happen naturally. And it should happen naturally. I don't mind a little push in the right direction but I feel like overtime it's gonna do more harm than good to force people to integrate.
We learned in the previous episode that Asians were also historically discriminated against. Does that mean that affirmative action also makes special efforts to provide Asians with access to education and employment opportunities?
+AutismPersonified Nope, Asians are in fact the only group penalized in university admissions (-50). Blacks (+230) and Hispanics (+185) gets bonus points while Whites gets nothing added or subtracted (0).
I really dont understand about american universities...If you want equality of opportunity when trying to access university, you should just do the same as in Spain (at least in 2010 when I applied, there have been changes and i dont really follow them that closely): In Spain you do exams on various basic subjects (and a few chosen by each student depending on their electives in the last two years of high school) at the end of high school, you get an average score. Then, each university has a minimum average for each career you need to get to get in (that is based on how many seats they have available for each career) and places are assigned by score; which means the seats go to the people with better grades, regardless of any other characteristic. Another thing that assures equality is that in those tests that decide your average, you dont sign your name, you get stickers with a code, and the people grading those exams dont know you at all, so they cant give special treatment (good or bad) to anyone, cause they dont even know who they are grading! There, no need for affirmative accion controversy... Cause the people that get in actually deserve to be there because of their academic prowess, and they are not just there to fill a quota... Cause when you put a quota you are actually discriminating against the people who arent in those special groups, and thats NOT equality, thats trying to turn the tables around...
Although I am not black myself, I know a lot of black people at my university that struggle constantly with the idea that they are only at the school because they are black. This is vice versa as other students will look at the black students and automatically assumed they were less qualified. My black friends also constantly battle with the idea that the people around them are smarter. Because of affirmative action, people aren't sure if the black person next to them got in because they were placed there in the name of diversity or because they were actually qualified. It's not all about getting into the best rank schools but finding the one that suits you the most. If you were been possibly misplaced, think about the affects that would do to you. Affirmative action has good intentions but, in reality, hurts minorities.
0:37 : Definition of Affirmative action; 1:06 : The Controversies surrounding Affirmative Action; 1:37 : The base of Affirmative Actions 2:06 : The historical background of Affirmative Action in the US; 3:32 : The application of Affirmative Actions in the U.S since 1970's; 5:09 : The current measures surronding Affirmative action; 5:46 : People's response to Affirmative actions
Personally, I think a better way of ensuring diversity at universities is for them to take into account the socioeconomic backgrounds of their applicants. That way, minorities like hispanics and blacks (who tend to be more poor than their white and asian counterparts), can have a fair shot without the need for racial discrimination.
Mario And Wes Well that implies it was made to immediately discriminate against white people. It was made to help minorities which for centuries have been disproportionately discriminated against. Your saying as if Affirmative Action is a Jim Crow Law. I understand your concern over it but to say that it itself is discrimination sounds a bit of an over reaction to me.
+StephySon It's an unfair shit show all around. It's a temporary fix until society becomes less bias. Once minority communities see equal employment opportunities, access to a better education system and a steep decline in poverty we wont need to worry about affirmative action because minorities will then have an equal opportunity to succeed in schooling and other relevant fields.
DaCamponTwee Exactly! Thats exactly how I feel and even how the video presented it. But sadly for now, in 2015 with things still improving but not there yet its a necessary thing in some ways. One day it will become obsolete but I don't believe now is that time.
I'm an American. I'm against affirmative action of all sorts. At the same time, however, I believe that if a government is in the business of taxing its people, that taxation should be for the good of all citizens, as well as the benefit of those who are less fortunate (within good reason). Every disadvantaged person should be allowed an equal opportunity in life. The correct way to help disadvantaged people of all races in this country is to acknowledge their collective suffering, and then treat them equally. Playing favorites will only breed contempt and prolong racial tensions.
Should the son or daughter of Jessie Jackson (who is worth in the millions) get preference in an university admission and even have his scores bumped up in points over some European American or Asian American in a position that comes from a background that's far poorer than Jessie Jackson. That's racism!
I think we need to redefine affirmative action as trying to adjust for the discrimination that currently exists. Ex: In many studies, resumes that have names that aren't typically associated with white people have a higher chance of being turned down, even when controlling for all other variables. The people reviewing the resumes may be able to give a race neutral justification for each resume, but the pattern exists broadly. In this example, affirmative action can be seen as an attempt to combat subconscious discrimination.
I'm very critical of affirmative action and withheld all youtube opinions until I watched this whole video. I was not disappointed. This was a fantastic and unbiased explanation on affirmative action and I feel it had something for everyone.
I hate how people dislike a video because they don't agree with the topic discussed. This guy gives a non biased view on the topic and people make war on the video instead of the topic itself.
People in the comments are making the point that AA is wrong because its based on past events; that slavery and Jim Crow laws no longer exist. This may be the case, but the *effects* of these laws and systems are still alive today. If indeed the past remains in the past, then why is the South, which defended slavery to the death, still the most notorious region in the USA for racism? Why did Mississippi only ratify the 13th amendment in 2013, *148 years after the abolition of slavery*? Until the Civil Rights period, schools were still segregated after a century following the abolition of slavery. A lot of people in the comments section are ignoring the fact that *history is ever flowing, that past events echo in present times*. Craig made the note that we may not need AA in the future. This seems likely but that is only possible because of the successes of AA in the past and the continued successes in the present!
+Tamal Paul True. However, Affirmative Action assumes that every black person who walks through an employer's door are worse off than every white person who walks through that door. This is not true. Giving a helping hand to someone who does not need it and ignoring another person who does, purely based off their skin colour, is racism. Whether they are part of an historically (and sadly, currently) discriminated group is not relevant. What IS relevant is the individual. IF the employer does not hire a person BECAUSE of their race and no other reason, then they should certainly be held accountable. Affirmative Action is merely trying to combat racism with racism.
+PlowerRanger Yes, but that was a mistake from 1995. The vote for ratifying the 13th only took place in 1995. It was outright rejected in 1865 by the Mississippi legislature. abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/mississippi-officially-abolishes-slavery-ratifies-13th-amendment/ This proves my point, that the establishment of a law does not eliminate the history of what it means to fix. Outlawing slavery did NOT eliminate social inequality. As you said, the south has the highest percentages of blacks but is the most racially divided. In any other parts of the country with large black populations (like New York City or LA) black population have much more relative equality and less discrimination. Why is this the case? Its because, once again, laws do not erase social previous social norms. The Supreme Court indicated that all homosexuals are protected under the constitution regarding marriage. This does not stop people such as Kim Davis from openly defying a federal law, the same way it does not stop the south from defying the abolition of slavery, the civil rights act, voter equality laws, etc. And this is where AA comes in. And I repeat, Craig stated AA will not be necessary in the future. This is precisely due to the accomplishments of AA in the past/present. Also, note that the government uses AA all time time, not just with people. The government passes Environmental Protection laws; companies skirt the laws. So what it does it offer tax rebates to companies that do it. It is effectively AA'ing clean energy. This is done to promote change in the social norms which laws are not able to do alone.
+Tamal Paul Have a sense of individualism why don't you. My Grandmother grew up in the depression, had more miscarriages than she can remember, lost her husband and became a hoarder. My Father was hurt immensely by all of this but despite it he became the first person in his family to get a college degree and has led a good life even if he spent the first ten years out of college working low paying jobs just to make ends meet. If you want something get it because no one gets whatever they want just because their life is hard because all our lives are hard.
He didn't say that. He said there is no correlation. Meaning that success can be achieved WITH and WITHOUT hardwork. (i.e. being born into wealth). You said the job should be about the person 'most qualified' for the position, yet even after 2 centuries after slavery women and minorities had their gender and race as preliminary points. Why weren't blacks immediately open to all the jobs white men where? Or all the education white men had? Clearly, from your logic, racial inequality wasnt a factor. Furthermore, that same segregation applied to Universities, further limiting access to train to BECOME 'most qualified'. The government had to take an active role to equalize society. Clearly it wasn't happening on its own. The 'most qualified' argument is a cover for simply 'we have a significant advantage because of an unfair past, and we should be able to keep it way'. You started a race, had a huge advantage in it, and are refusing to let the others catch up under the guise of 'unfairness'. AA is simply trying to restablish a neutral ground from which the 'most qualified' TRULY is the only factor, because despite what you believe and hope for, it is DEFINITELY not the case. Cities like NYC (where I am from) and LA are able to focus on that 'most qualified' aspect PRECISELY BECAUSE OF decades of AA. To even mention race or gender during an interview as a relevant point is grounds for serious legal action.
Facts. This is not just a socio-economic issue bcause even if you are white and poor you are not subject to overcome certain obstacles that people of color were forced to both historically and currently. America's history of systemic and institutionalized racism in the executive legislative and judicial branches of government as well as in the private sector have led to Injustices that have intentionally affected the ability for people of color to enroll in- gain acceptance to- and afford higher education institutions. Yes I did mention socioeconomic disadvantages. The difference is the disadvantages experienced by people of color were usually not caused by personal fault. Things like redlining, the Chinese exclusion Act, Jim Crow laws, segregation did not have a negative effect on the prospects of achieving higher education for white Americans. To put it bluntly if the average 13 year old white American is reading below standard it's safe to assume that it's not because the government forced his family to live in a ghetto and then defunded the public schools in that area solely based race. We like to think everybody has equal opportunity but that is not the case. We're not saying that a white child does not have struggles (of course white people can be homeless, jobless, hungry, and uneducated) - we're saying that people of color may endure those struggles amplified by racial Injustice has in addition to having to endear struggles unique to race. we're saying that there is a difference between equality and equity. We're saying that the black experience should be taken into account when reviewing college applications. If everyone is so mad at affirmative action and the principles of equity why not ensure equality for all. Regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, status and religion. why don't we fund all public schools equally. Ensure uniform class size, employ equally qualified teachers, implement a standard curriculum, offer the same standard electives at every school, provide quality school facilities for all children asking with funding for extracurricular activities and clubs, and equal educational instruction time and recreational time in every schools. Once all children have an equal opportunity at success then we can dismantle affirmative action.
I just wanted to say i think it´s great that you make videos like this, because i think a lot of people don´t really know what it is they´re talking about, but still seem to have such a strong opinion. I´m a student from germany and your videos have helped me with tests and just in general understanding a lot of topics that i see are being discussed in america and also other places in the world and i think it´s awesome that you give people like me the oppertunity to learn new things and understand what´s going on in the world. Thank you and greetings from germany (:
My issue with affirmative action is when there is a standards drop to achieve it. Its one thing to implement hiring policies to diversify when all else is relatively equal. Its another thing entirely to hire base upon race/diversity quotas if you’re choosing a clearly inferior candidate relative to other applicants based on their skills/merit/
Righting historical wrongs is, in an indirect way, a good thing. It's not about giving minorities guilt money. It's about recognizing that the systems in place for employment, due process, and education are poorly balanced. What the majority will view as a hand-out is really a compensating action to rebalance the opportunities in the system. It then becomes an (empirical) question of whether current people of color (for example) are systematically denied opportunities. If they are, we should take measure to ensure equality of opportunity. If they are not, then AA is creating inequality. Metaphor (assuming POC are oppressed): In a foot race, POC have only one leg, due to cultural and historical features of the society. They can move a bit, but it's not a fair race against two-legged white people. The government gives the POC some prosthetic legs to ensure equal opportunity. The white people complain that they aren't given any special legs. It's so unequal to give POC fancy things like that! But if you are in favor of equal opportunity, there may need to be some measures taken to ensure it.
Interestingly enough in california after prop 209 passed the proportion of asian students in california schools skyrocketed, while the numbers of african american and latino students remained relatively constant, and the number of white students went down, at least in public colleges for which the proposition applied
Something a lot of people overlook with "opportunity" is just how important family history is. We are still living in the aftermath of the sins of previous generations. Here is an illustrative example using my own life as a reference: My great grandparents were poor. The "build a house with your bare hands and try not to die in the war" kind of poor. Still, they were white Christians and by no account faced any racial or cultural discrimination (unless you count the French Canadian side, but I digress.) My grandparents worked hard from that level of borderline poverty and saved up enough money to help pay for schooling for my parents. My parents were then able to focus on education and get good careers because of the boost the previous generations' foresight gave them. Neither of them had to drop out of school to support children or take a low paying job just to make ends meet; they had a safety net. By the time we get to my generation, there is a clear advantage. I don't personally have to work for what I get in life, and that is largely due to the actions of people long before I was born. I still have to make an effort, yes, but it's only fair to acknowledge that plenty of people put in more effort and get less out of it simply because of historical inequality. Opportunity accumulates over generations and grows exponentially. Had my grandparents been disadvantaged, I would likely not have the education, connections, options, etc, that I do. I wish more people would admit that.
In a country where one group of minorities blacks, which make up just 13% of the population, and have been historical subjected to practices sought to keep poor folks regardless of color in their respective class. I find it hard to believe that people dont even understand the continued need for a law such as affirmative action. Tuskegee experiments, Tulsa Oklahoma 1921, Jim crow, MOVE bombing and the list goes on. Affirmative action just says that universities and employers should hold seats to make their instituation more reflective of the current population not lower the bar for those seats.
Raynell Holmes Additionally, as a sort of related but not really point, my (Asian) brother was extended a job offer by Google, which he accepted. And then they rejected him during the hiring process without citing any reason.
Imagine you have 2 little league football coaches. Coach A takes on a team that is 2 - 12, and at the end of the season brings this team to a record of 8-6. Coach B takes on a team that is 7-7 and at the end of the season brings the team to 10-4. I want to hire the best little league coach. If I simply take the guy with the best record, I would take coach B. Is that the correct choice? The point of AA programs is to say that we shouldn't look at end results such as test scores in a vacuum. We should consider where the students starting position was. In my view, kids with poor families, destroyed neighborhoods and broken schools should have those handicaps factored in. While I'm not in favor of AA for other reasons, I don't like people saying that they are letting dumber or less intelligent people in. Those kids ARE smart enough, they just got unlucky when it came to their upbringing. They're starting way further back.
So basically what he's saying is that Affirmative Action was at the height of its imprtance for use in the Civil Rights Era. This policy which was good and effective for the time had also set itself up for a need for its own form of a check and balance just in case hiccups in its system occur. I stand strong by affirmative action oldschool style. But at the same time in 2017 I wouldn't want to be hired by an employer just because I'm black. If you hire me just because I'm black you may have overlooked the reality of the worth in what I put into my work ethic as an employee. As an employer I myself would keep this in mind. Today is a different time and I don't want to feel as if they're catering to me or to a quota, because that could possibly overlook my value to the company or lacktherof. But again, much love and respect to the Affirmative Action era. Keep on brotha
great job ! There's so much emotionally charged disinformation out there on this subject (on both sides.) You did a great job of presenting the reality of affirmative action.
This was... actually a much more impartial, reasonable, and objective view of Affirmative Action than I expected to hear, especially given PBS Digital Studios' involvement (I mean, just look at the PBS Idea Channels and how cancerous they are.) Good on you, Crash Course team.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Affirmative action for the Whites bred affirmative action for the 'others.' Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but let's look at AA as a lesson well earned to not discriminate.
Looks like people who are against AA feel discriminated against, but absolutely lack the understanding that that actually applies to minorities and less to them. What they don't understand: equality of opportunity is a myth - it does not apply in the US being able to just simply 'determine' who is the best for a job or for university is also a myth - you can't just 'see' the best, everyone brings different skill sets with them, it's not a situation where you simply have "good" candidate and "bad" candidate, it's where you have two "good" candidates, and you probably won't see another black one for some time It would be good to take a step back and realize that AA is not designed for individuals. It's for communities and minorities as a whole, because in the past they were thrown down a pit and kept there and many of them still need a hand in getting out *today*.
The Federal Aviation Administration won't hire me as a highly qualified and experienced (10+ years) Air Traffic Controller, because I'm Asian and they have "too many Asian employees" . Thanks affirmative action.
I believe affirmative action will start making sense to more Americans when we choose to accept the fact that racism still exists in many parts of the country and we still need to recompense for it in every way we can, rather than ignore it.
Can someone explain to me how diversity is a strength in and of itself? The only reasons I've been able to find are nebulous platitudes with no real content.
@@yuenkwai I think he refers to diversity of surface characteristics, like skin color or gender, rather than diversity of thought. Diversity of thought certainly is a strength, but do the surface values really matter?
Japanese Americans were discriminated more directly in terms of economics during WWII. They literally had everything taken away, put into camps, and then released after the war, with ZERO REPAYMENT. But rather than give the Affirmative Action that "minorities" receive, Japanese must actually earn HIGHER admissions test scores compared to those individuals who benefit from Affirmative Action. They have generally bounced back in less than half of a century. Meanwhile, the minority communities have generally decreased in socioeconomic conditions over a LONGER time period. The disparity in how the government treats Japanese vs minorities brings up two major ideas: 1) The government accepts that Japanese are inherently superior to minorities when comparing the two groups and has taken action to compensate AND 2) Since the Civil Rights Act and MLK occurred around the same time period (1940-60), we can easily analyze the current state of these communities in terms of what happens when government intervenes versus when it leaves communities alone. Looks like all the tax-funded "help" is NOT actually helping.
First time I was actually disappointed by one of these videos. I think it would have been important to note that, in many spaces, and generally, the group that has benefitted most from Affirmative Action is women. Gender equality in numbers (but clearly not in pay) has advanced much further than it has for some racial/ethnic minorities. It's odd to me that race was the only issue discussed in examples.
Why do you fail to mention Asians. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese Internment during WWII, Angel Island? Do these not count as severe discrimination.
For college and university admissions when it comes to considering race as a factor. SCOTUS ruled that colleges and universities cannot consider race in the admissions process, but they can still consider gender and other non-racial factors. Affirmative action based on race is still in effect for things like employment.
The easy reason why affirmative action is unpopular is that it isn't designed to help disenfranchised people but people of certain races. The result is that people who already have a considerably good class background, who are of a group defined a priori as disenfranchised, get advantages which aren't necessary to help them. The group of African Americans that profit most from AA are African Americans already in the middle class and above, thus mocking concepts like "historical disadvantages", which are used to justify AA. It has other disadvantages because it sets people up to fail. By granting people who did not have the merits to visit a certain academic institution access to that institution, the probability for them to fall into low groups of academic achievement rise. So in an example you have people who perform at a level of the 75th percentile academically sent to an institution where students operate at the 99th percentile. Without AA they would have sent to a less prestigeous college, that might have put more emphasize on supporting it's students. Now they are in an environment in which doesn't offer support of the same level to it's students and their academic carreer is at risk.
All it basically does is enforce quotas to have certain segments of the population be x percent of workers, or students because they couldn't get in on their own merit, and so they botched about racist, or sexism instead of their own lack of dedication, and skill.
I love how no one ever talks about how this also Negatively effects east Asians, a minority, one that was used to build the rail roads on slave labor, but uh we gotta reserve the quotas for those poor blacks.
Affirmative Action promotes collective demographic benefit at the expense of individual liberty. It is discrimination of the highest degree: when you discriminate in favor of one group, you discriminate against every other group.
This is probably the best video I've seen discuss Affirmative Action while maintaining a sense of neutrality. And if you feel that Affirmative Action has cost you some kind of opportunity then you just weren't good enough to be at the front of the line.
+Inorganic Vegan It's more like whining when your football team loses on a bad call. If they really wanted to win they should have put more points on the board so the call wouldn't effect the outcome of the game. But since you resort to slurs and insults i'm sure this will be lost on your minimal thinking skills.
+Inorganic Vegan Did you miss the part of the video about redressing past injustices? While some segments of the white population like Irish and Italian immigrants were discriminated against it was nothing in scale compared to how marginalized the black community has been treated since being brought to this country against their will.
I'm a member of a minority group but AA is counter productive because it creates a stigma. I think a good middle ground is income based preference as it still helps disenfranchised groups without being considered an affirmative action hire
Heide Knight I'm a member of the Board of Education in my home town. One of the most important statistics which the clerks and the scientists repeat every time is that the most important factor which explains a student's results in school is their socio-economic background. If their parents are relatively wealthy and themselves educated, then the children will have far better chances of succeeding in school. If the parents are poor and/or loweducated, the children will be more likely to have lower results in school. So you see, it's not just about hard work, it's also about inequalities. Also, you are not "suffering" if you earn a lot and live a decent life and have to be a part in reducing inequalities. You are contributing to a more functioning society which works better for all its members. That is something to be proud of.
roseslikemusic But black does not inherently equal poor, there are poor black kids, but that just means AA should be done on Socioeconomic level, not a racial one.
Heide Knight I was never talking about race, I was talking about socioeconomics. If we want equality of opportunity for all, then economic inequality across all citizens regardless of group belongings must be diminished. Not perfect equality of course, socialism does not work, but low levels of inequality.
roseslikemusic you understand that socialism doesn't work, but you have a problem with inequality? Here's a productive experiment, Take all the countries will the least inequality financially and put them against countries with more inequality, Not only are the countries richer as a whole, the average citizen is wealthier and has a better quality of life, socialism is the product of trying to fight inequality and pulling the middle class down creating an echo-chamber around the elite. More financial diversification means that we can pay our employees more and intern increase wealth. Inequality will not be solved threw economics, Man is greedy and selfish, inequality will be achieved threw scientific minds.
Inequality with egalitarian intentions. I understand why some might think affirmative action is nessicary, and I'm sympathetic towards that, but it continues to get more problematic as it continues. You can't ever rectify the hate and suffering of the past. It will never go away.
Well I think the argument can be made that affirmative action should be based on school systems instead of race/gender/wealth when it comes to university and it shouldn't exist in the private sector of jobs. The girls at my school which were relatively wealthy got special treatment on applications when really they were at no disadvantage compared to guys. Same went for black students in my school system. Basing it off school systems makes more since because those with the highest scores/grades had to overcome their situations so they put in more effort than a student from a better system. I think the government shouldn't be involved in deciding who a business hires, this means if a business only employees the most qualified that is fine or if they want to be racially diverse and not always pick the most qualified. This also means a racist business owner could hire only whites or even only blacks if they wanted to.
+MSW From Luskin for the record I am super liberal on nearly any issue (but i don't blindly go left). so my rationale against it was that I feel it undermines the accomplishment of say me getting accepted into UCLA (I'm poor and latino) because it feels more like I was given a handicap card. as opposed to the federal & local governments implementing policies to ensure that I match or surpass the white privileged kid in terms of GPA and Exam scores. so I feel it just puts a bandaid on huge cut. my other point against it is that it hurts the Asian community, even the poor Asians.
Bodacious Bruin - Bless you but y'know they're going to refuse to acknowledge or straight up deny the value of the goals you've identified. The 'powerful' and the privileged will always cling to their advantage whilst angrily and noisily denying it's existence. Anyway, in these times it is so good to find positive comments and a kind soul amongst all this denial, projection and hatred. Thank you
As far as college admission black schools are not given as much funding that is fact that's part of the reason black people who usually come from black
White kids can get scholarships. By trying to not make it not a race thing and giving poor whites college admission you would basically just make 90% of white Americans upper middle class or better. Whites are given more grants and scholarships than other races despite what people think. The majority of black children are not privileged so this argument is a rare situation anyway. The average Black families makes $43,300 and 45.8 percent of black children under age 6 lived in poverty. Whites average household income was $71,300. For educated whites it was 106,000.
I heard tell there was one school that at one point decided to get rid of all questions related to race on their application materials; in effect, race played no part whatsoever on who was and wasn't admitted. What they found when the application was truly "color blind" was that enrollment among minorities dropped dramatically. Does anyone remember hearing that story and could you maybe provide information about what school and year that was? I heard that afterwards, that school DID put its affirmative action programs back in place.
Everyone should have Affirmative action because employers discriminate against you based on so many factors beyond your control that they have been trained to falsely believe is within your control or a sign of something else. Their opinions on your life shouldn't determine employment as it's clearly not a fair basis to do so as this is subject to ideology and warped world views. We need to reinvent the work for money system and guarantee that anyone who wants a job can have a job, at least in their town or city employment. That's not to say everyone gets paid the same - of course not, that wouldn't work in our current model. However - if someone graduates with a degree from a university than that is proof positive that they are qualified to at least learn the higher level jobs. If it doesn't mean that then close the fraudulent universities as their diplomas prove nothing and they are ripping people off. If the university can't stand behind every single diploma with their name and reputation then it's a scam and supported by the state. If people can't get good college level jobs, even outside their major, then its pointless. Companies have relieved themselves of the responsibility of training thus requiring specific skill sets which actually act as the grounds for discrimination when you consider that they are willing to train some people.
But affirmative action does not counter this perceived discrimination; it only balances the measured outcome of said discrimination by introducing yet more discrimination. For example, a company may have discriminatory hiring practices which result in less qualified white people getting jobs over more qualified black people, thus resulting in an over representation of white people. Affirmative action redresses this imbalance by introducing discriminatory hiring policies which prefer less qualified black people getting jobs over more qualified white people, thereby bringing the balance of white vs black people to a level that superficially suggests no discrimination. But this is an illusion. The company is now discriminating against both black and white people, resulting in more qualified individuals of all colours losing out on jobs that should rightfully be theirs. The company is also losing out because they now have a less qualified workforce overall.
hpesoj00 Right - it's correcting discrimination with more of the same. That's why I say the whole process needs to be rethought. Discrimination can't be a possibility in the first place. Not even a possibility. But these are big ideas and big things to rethink. However, I know it's more than possible.
So the NBA should have quotas for white people since historically they have been the minorities in basket ball, even if there are better black players? gg m8...
wtblack5 - comparing a fantasy athletic job to a regular schmoe job is just nonsense. Leave those fantasy jobs out of it . They are undeniably based on ability and they are locked up with UNIONS that treat people fairly already in regards to pay as a portion of profit. You can't fake your qualifications for that job - you can't get it with a favor and you can't train for it while there because people are willing to help you, like you can an ordinary job. Because as soon as you hit the court, you will be found out real quick. Unlike so many other jobs that don't have defined qualifications that can be measured fairly against someone else. Example: Nursing has ridiculous numbers of people flocking to it and are graduating from nursing programs with universal standards. They all have equal qualifications. However - when going to try and get a hospital job as a new nurse, they are not taking you on or hiring you by simply measuring you against someone else with measurable and factual criteria. No - they are basing it on intangible differences that change from manager to manager. "She's not caring enough" or "she won't fit in with the team" or "she seems lazy" etc... Intangible things that set the stage quite well for discrimination and that was just a super simple example of how that works. Nursing is much more fair than the private sector in general.
+mantonio121773 well, A. The argument still stands, weakened? Yes, but it still stands. B. I'm talking about the AA to make 50% white 50% black, when it should be about 87.5% white, 12.5% black. C. If you were having your gun being fixed, who would you rather have doing it? A white who got the job for being good at it, and having a reliable gun, or a black who got the job because of AA, and your gun blows up in your hands, severing 8 fingers and breaking your wrist? (Ok that may be a little extreme, but the idea's the same...) and D. Would you really be ok if you worked hard and got great grades, and another kid doesn't and gets meh grades, and he gets into Yale, or Stanford, or MIT because he has the disability of having ancestors who were oppressed?
I have a new boss at work. She earned her position..... NOT BY AFFIRMITIVE ACTION. But by HER actions. She worked hard She set the standards on the department. She was the best at what she did She desired to be the manager. She learned her trade She developed her skills She earned it. LIBERAL GOVERNMENT DIDNT DO THIS FOR HER. She did it for herself. END ALL DISCRIMINATION. how can Liberals use A A to fix Black people from having 70% single mothers. How many black children have 2 black parents in the same house? HOW ARE THOSE PROBLEMS Caused by so called WHITE PRIVILEGE?????? ITS NOT!!!!! Its called foolish selfish culture. WHITE PEOPLE HAVE THAT PROBLEM TOO.
Two cents. It may be interesting to point out that in countries other than the US the academic performance of AA graduate students has been measured to be... average or slightly better than average in most courses. It's generally thought to be due to just taking college more seriously: a conscious effort to make up for a supposedly worse high and middle school education, or just holding on to their best-ever shot at improving their standards of living (and their family's).
I find discussions of equal opportunity (usually merit based) interesting given recent studies on application assessments. The same application (like literally identical) with different names were given to varying professors and hiring committees and the panels were asked who they would hire for a position. Basically the result of the study is that the application with the white sounding male name got the job offer while the black sounding names and women names were not evaluated as being as good as the other application, even those they were literally identical. Basically, merit and evaluation are influenced by bias. How equal non-precise things can be then is questionable. Whether this is an argument for affirmative action or not I will leave to others to conclude.
Affirmative action is still needed especially in the south. Maybe not as prominent, but it is still needed. Me as a black teen in the top 5% of her high school class of 850... I've have been denied of many opportunities when those chosen are less qualified than me. People who say discrimination doesn't exist need to walk a day in my shoes. I worry if I will get into the schools I want just because of my race. In then end if some blacks get affirmative action, when they apply for jobs in real life they will probably get picked over by white anyways. In a way it kinda balances out.
I feel like some white people are not understanding the core point of affirmative action, a concept hard to swallow in a society as individualistic ours. For many people it's difficult for them to see how they as an individual benefited from the collective work of others. Many people feel because they didn't have anything to do with the discrimination back then when it was happening, they therefore, feel that they're not entitled to sacrifice even an inkling for the injustices that they're ancestors committed. But I got news for you poor, poor, poor souls, by your very existence you've benefited from the injustices that your ancestors did for you. Kicking native Americans, off land they've inhabited for generations were done for you. Making sure that blacks didn't get the same education and job opportunities that whites got, in order to make space for more white people, were all made for you their offspring and so on so forth. People never can understand how other people's actions, either past or present, can affect them in certain outcomes in life. In the end, no one likes to accept the wrongs there ancestors made, only the rights. We as Americans need to stop being so proud of our damn past and learn to deal with the shame and guilt that is also in it, into a positive and constructive outcome.
This is a touchy subject, but my main problem with affirmative action is that I don't think it's the most effective solution. You want to increase the number of blacks, latinos, pacific islanders, etc in college? How about reforming K-12 so that all of the children, regardless of income, have access to a quality education and support? How about setting up GUIDANCE for first gen college students, since they can often run into trouble from simply not having anyone to help them through the intricate bureaucracy of college? Fixing wage and living standards so that kids don't have to miss school to help support their families? Healthcare to help keep kids in school and parents healthy at work? Affordable childcare so that parents can leave their children in a safe, fun, learning environment? A good public transportation system so that the poor (or those that can't afford a car) aren't stranded in an area where there are no jobs or opportunities?
Rant complete.
+lalamelol So, essentially, give these communities what they have been intentionally deprived of in the past? Sounds fair to me. Only when that is accomplished should we get rid of AA, though.
the sad truth is that to many children do not attend school having mother's that don't wake up and get the kids off to school or parents that tell you "I didn't go to school so why should my kids" ...
This is not just a socio-economic issue bcause even if you are white and poor you are not subject to overcome certain obstacles that people of color were forced to both historically and currently. America's history of systemic and institutionalized racism in the executive legislative and judicial branches of government as well as in the private sector have led to Injustices that have intentionally affected the ability for people of color to enroll in- gain acceptance to- and afford higher education institutions. Yes I did mention socioeconomic disadvantages. The difference is the disadvantages experienced by people of color were usually not caused by personal fault. Things like redlining, the Chinese exclusion Act, Jim Crow laws, segregation did not have a negative effect on the prospects of achieving higher education for white Americans. To put it bluntly if the average 13 year old white American is reading below standard it's safe to assume that it's not because the government forced his family to live in a ghetto and then defunded the public schools in that area solely based race. We like to think everybody has equal opportunity but that is not the case. We're not saying that a white child does not have struggles (of course white people can be homeless, jobless, hungry, and uneducated) - we're saying that people of color may endure those struggles amplified by racial injustice in addition to having to endear struggles unique to race. we're saying that there is a difference between equality and equity. We're saying that the black experience should be taken into account when reviewing college applications. If everyone is so mad at affirmative action and the principles of equity why not ensure equality for all. Regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, status and religion. why don't we fund all public schools equally. Ensure uniform class size, employ equally qualified teachers, implement a standard curriculum, offer the same standard electives at every school, provide quality school facilities. Equally fund extracurricular activities and clubs, special needs assistance programs, and provide the same amount of instruction time and recreational time in every school. Once all children have an equal opportunity to achieve educational success then we can dismantle affirmative action.
I agree.
Excelent idea with one problem, that costs money alternative action does not
One thing I don't get. Why don't we base affirmative action on socioeconomic class. I mean affirmative action in the first place is to give equal opportunity to groups that are disadvantaged, who is more disadvantaged than those in poverty.
KT Doty
It’s not equal opportunity if you’re not getting it rightfully.
I don’t have the right to even be in the employers office at Tesla just because they wanted “Gender Diversity”.
This is ludicrousy
Yes based on socioeconomic conditions make sense.
It's still rather discriminatory. To stop those less socioeconomically developed being discriminated against by tough entry requirements, we're gonna discriminate against people on the basis of their socioeconomic status, or that of their family. Primarily, tough entry requirements aren't actually discrimination, whereas affirmative action is. Secondly, poverty is defined against the average and is therefore arbitrary. You just have to be a certain percentage worse off than the average person to be in poverty. Hence the poverty rate in the UK is 21%, by technicality I've lived in poverty most of my life. I haven't really lived in poverty, neither has the majority of people within that 21%. My point here is people with no real basis to need a leg up would have it. Thirdly, giving offers to those who are underqualified to take on that degree tends to end up with a lot of them failing, as with affirmative action. A good chunk will dropout because they weren't smart enough to handle the course they got into leaving them with debt they can't pay and no better off. Similarly, you'd also end up with underqualified workforces.
@@aurora3067 AA isn't based on "deserving" or "rightfully" per se. If that's the case, one must then argue why would a man or a white person have more "right" to the spot. It's based on qualified candidates being prohibited access to jobs, housing, education, healthcare, etc based on a specific factor being race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It doesn't mean that any unqualified person could apply to a doctor's position in a hospital and be hired simply because they're black or a woman. It's discouraging discrimination and fostering inclusion when you have two candidates(1 white 1 black) who has both graduated from med school and is applying for the same job with comparable application. So it's, why not hire the female who has over 5+yrs on a dealership sales floor, owns a tesla, and knows her way around an engine?
Yurrah Al-Hadi
You’re missing the underlying argument.
A corporation would logically be hiring the best and brightest, so the fact that they would take anything other than credentials into consideration is problematic.
Not too long ago Harvard University was accused of setting quotas to keep the number of Asian-Americans lower than the quality of their application merits because there were too many qualified Asian candidates. What bullshit. These students work extremely hard, many of them being from poor families who moved to America for a better education. Poor immigrant Asians are just as disadvantaged as other minorities. They work their asses off every day, instilled with the mindset it will bring them success. But guess what? Because they look a certain way, they can go to hell.
+Jenny Doe That's because Harvard and other Ivy Leagues are really designed to be a incubator of elite WASP talent. Too many Asians does nothing for them because C-Class jobs are still white male dominated and that's their desire.
+Obsidian SeventyOne lol
+Obsidian SeventyOne except Harvard and other universities doing it where doing it so that they could keep to the quotas (white, black and Latino). Aka they were keeping towards affirmative action and other such diversity quotas. But nice that you found a way to blame it on white people. If only you could blame republicans as well.
+Obsidian SeventyOne *zionists
+Obsidian SeventyOne No, it's because of Affirmative Action. Stop looking for a boogey man.
Discrimination is immoral, the ends do not justify the means.
+schlab73 When you don't let Non-citizens vote in your elections, you are discriminating against foreigners. Is that immoral?
+schlab73 I believe that affirmative action should be based on ability to afford college rather than the color of skin and/or cultural background. And what makes it more tragic is that disadvantaged white citizens (rural or poor) do not count as culturally diverse even though I would say they definitely are. Affirmative action has its place, but I believe it may be overstepping its bounds today.
+REMagic42 false analogy.
Austin Anderson no
REMagic42 nope. You said it yourself. NON citizens.
I know I shouldn't try to bring up intelligent discussion in youtube comments, but can we discuss the effect of AA on Asians, especially when it comes to top tier university enrollment?
It sucks for Asians. If you're asian and legitimately better than the next white, Hispanic, or black you deserve to get into whatever you're trying to get into. The fact that other people that look like you get in frequently shouldn't affect you in any way.
+ItsmeJamesAJ I blame the SATs.
+RevucumberTechUSA Black athletes generate more money for many Universities. Why should they care about being fair they got $$$ to make.
+ItsmeJamesAJ I honestly had no idea that was a problem.
Terrell Allen That was a problem *for me*, hence the reason I wanted to start the discussion. I got cast out from Harvard and Princeton because of AA and got pushed to Dartmouth. Now, I'm extremely thankful to Dartmouth for accepting me, but it looks like Dartmouth really doesn't like asians nor internationals much, either. It's a sad feeling to be unwanted.
Why so many dislikes? This video was informative and to the point. There did not seem to be any bias in this video. If you do not like the video, or how it was made, or what messages it conveyed but then dislike it. If you do not like affirmative action then that is another thing.
+KAMMCE Estell I've been wading through the comments for entirely too long trying to find criticisms of the video. I found two "you didn't mention asians" and one "you used the word problematic", but that's out of 70 comments. The dislike bar on this one is totally baffling.
+KAMMCE Estell Because Crash course isn't objective in its view points. It has a default leftist bias. On the surface they do try to appear unbiased but in very subtle ways they imply the fact that the left's solution is the right one, or that AA is necessary overall in this case.
+KAMMCE Estell I personally disliked this video because it almost purposely ignored the many problems with affirmative action including its general lack of effectiveness in achieving it's only goal.
1:58
Here's the bias. The race metaphor is what he preferred. It was a horrible metaphor. Why? Because it doesn't just put some ahead based on their race, it pushes someone back. You tear someone down to lift another up which is why the scale metaphor is more appropriate.
If you want a true meritocracy you cannot lower standards for some individuals and not for others. If you want to deal with the issue of equality of opportunity, you should provide greater access and improved quality of education for all and certainly not by lowering standards for some minorities. Having affirmative action in the name of meeting arbitrary diversity quotas rewards mediocrity over merit.
+Andy Feng I thought that affirmative action is used to give black people a chance to get into good universities - so exactly what you are demanding: Providing better access to education for poor people.
+REMagic42 I think he's asking for affirmative action in a way for the lower class and not on a racial basis.
+REMagic42 First off, if it is truly to give poor people a better chance, then why not make it based off of income, not race, not that that's any better when applied. Second off, a college education should be free anyway. Thirdly, if Bernie Sanders gets elected and he makes it free, would you be willing to get rid of affirmative action since income would no longer be a factor?
+Andy Feng The discriminatory policies are effecting people until now poverty is a loop. also if you don't help those get to the level of the rest of society they will be their they won't disappear they might need to do crimes to survive! and even they accept being at low level jobs eventually they will revolt against the rich sometime revolting can be costly for a society.
+REMagic42 Not all black families are poor and not all white families are rich. The issue of equal opportunity is more closely aligned with socioeconomic status, not racial minority status. To base public benefits on race is discrimination. To base it on socioeconomic status is not.
Everyone is here arguing about AA, but I am here for my AP grade
Lol you're doing this for AP I have to do it for regular Problems of democracy/government
Lol I just wanted to see the wars play out in the comments section
This is my problem with affirmative action : it's a short term solution to a long term problem. Instead of fixing a broken system and giving equal quality education to everyone through secondary school, we just give lowered standards to those in poor situations. As well, I cannot support a system that might skip over a better student in exchange for a lesser qualified minority just to fill a quota.
By giving a minority a slight advantage, you will make sure the highest of that minority make it in at the expense of the lowest of the majority, i.e. rich blacks getting in at the expense of poor whites. This isn't solving the problem because you only really help the members of that minority who were already fairly well off. What you should do is class based affirmative action. By giving all poor people a leg up, you will inherently help minorities at a disproportionate rate any way because they are more likely to be poor in the first place, and in the process you will also helps poor members of the majority.
+William Stockhecker I agree. If you want to help someone because they're disadvantaged, do it for a fair reason.
+William Stockhecker even that is a little iffy. If you are "middle class" colleges shut their doors before you can blink. Somehow middle class translates to able to spend thousands of dollars with ease. Although since this already happens having only this would be preferable.
+dhodz hoddy Right...because the fanciest laptop and fanciest after-school program and fanciest gymnasium swimming pool is going to make poor kids magically better in school.
You shouldn't get discriminated against for being successful. It should be based on qualifications alone.
James Frost but it does make it a lot easier.
Happy to see the criticism of AA in the comments.
Anyways... I really admire everyone at crash course for doing a video and staying neutral on the subject. It was informational and allowed their watchers to form their own opinion.
What this video didn't mention is that the University of Michigan law school had to dramatically lower it's admission standard just to achieve a certain percentage of black admits. In highly selective schools, standards have to be lowered to the point that it is unfair for everyone else.
+CaliforniaArchitect Which is one of the reasons why it didn't pass scrutiny.
+Obsidian SeventyOne this one gets it.
+CaliforniaArchitect Prove the standards were lowered
saquist I read the Supreme Court decision and followed the testimony as it happened. You have Google. If you want to know, look it up yourself. Don't order me to fetch information for you; I don't work for you.
CaliforniaArchitect Your previous statement was too general for my first search. I can't make you source your declarations, nor do I require you to fetch anything for me. I'm sorry if you thought I was being confrontational but I don't see a need to be belligerent. Good day.
Ok, really touchy subject, but using the excuse of "making up for historical injustices" doesn't cut it for me. Slavery is not an excuse, nobody you know, or ever knew, in this day and age, experienced institutionalized slavery. And as the years go on, chances are higher that that also applies to people who experienced institutionalized discrimination. Hell, in order to have been alive while the Jim Crow laws were still around, you would have to be at least 51, and in order to have been alive and actually have been AFFECTED by the Jim Crow laws, chances are you're approaching retirement age, so giving preference for employment is not a valid idea because the people you are hiring DID NOT EXPERIENCE IT. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but getting benefits from things anyone older than your grandparents, or even your parents, did is not right. Everybody should get a clean slate. Keep the past in the past and focus on the future.
that's why the courts don't like that rationale. They prefer to focus on making up for current injustices (which often happen to stem from past injustices). When taking into account that those who lived thru Jim Crow and their children (who learned bad stuff from the former) are perfectly old enough to run a college, it makes some sense to put rules in place as a safeguard against whatever biases/prejudices they may, even subconsciously, have
+Suitaloo Did it ever cross your tiny head that those people affected by racism had a much harder time progressing in life which meant a much harder time to try to provide their children with education? I'm not black, but I was born into a poor family with low education. This made it much harder for me to achieve greater goals like finally becoming an engineer. All because my parents lacked education. I've had to learn many things on my own. But at least I was born in a place with a nice neighborhood. Imagine when you're surrounded by poor people with low education. If you think that just because you're born in the same country in the same year that you have the same opportunities then you're very naive or borderline retarded. Sorry to put it bluntly.
+Suitaloo There is a reason why the median income levels of blacks and whites are so different today. Historical injustices may not affect someone directly, but they sure as hell affect the current situation we're in. Blacks aren't poorer and less likely to get jobs simply because they don't work as hard or don't want it as much. Institutional racism and the remnants of Jim Crow still exist in a significant capacity.
+Suitaloo Those years of slavery caused the families of the children of those slaves to have a harder time achieving success. Being poor means you have less access to things like education (and jobs, by extension). This compounds over time and you end up with blacks being disproportionately poor compared to whites. The issue with affirmative action is that it is discriminatory. It needs to exist, but it should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.
+Suitaloo Affirmative Action benefits white women more than anyone else, actually. ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
Whatever happened to "everyone is equal" ?? Are they trying to bring equality using inequality ??
+Dinesh RP There's a difference between the "ivory tower" belief that everyone is equal vs the real world hiring biases. They've been trying to bring equality for a long long long time. Still not here, and won't be here for a long long long time. In the meanwhile affirmative action is a tiny attempt to somewhat help.
In other words, the boat is leaking. It's been leaking since the beginning of humanity. People are trying to fix it, but it won't be fixed for a long time. So let's try to plug up a few of the holes so it leaks a little less.
+Dinesh RP
It's all very peculiar to me. When I was younger I had a friend who was rather progressive. He always told me how it's about treating everyone equally regardless of their race, sex, or anything else besides their abilities. That it shouldn't matter what you look like or where you come from. Especially feminism he advertised as being about abolishing stereotypes and such. Turned out that in reality it seems to be quite the opposite...
Rififi50 Don't you think that government, employment, education policies that ignore race/gender/sexuality are ill-fitted to a society where a kid grows up being influenced to believe certain things about themselves in terms of beauty, privilege, intelligence, income, heritage/historical roots, etc from tv, movies, music, internet, social media, peers, school?
Basically government, employment, and education doors of opportunity that ignore that some children and adults have more privileges than others is a good thing?
+Hircine lmao
Hircine Affirmative action isn't meant to solve inequality. Using the leaking boat analogy, it's meant to slightly reduce the amount of water leaking into the boat. Because the boat won't be able to be fixed for a long time.
The wealth and infrastructure of the southern U.S. and some northern was built on slave labor and quasi-slave labor. As it was in other countries, for hundreds of years. The effects and repercussions are still entwined in our social interactions, in culture, economics, business, media, etc. Saying that "everyone is equal now" doesn't make it so in the real world.
Affirmative action should be for poor people.
People who have been affected by discrimination are usually poor. White immigrants too were once hated depending on where they came from, their families might have been denied opportunities and they are with other lower class people today still in the same boat. Basing it on the wealth would still help more minorities since they and their families have been denied opportunities more often - but excluding poor people from other races only increases resentment from them, no access to better education not only will keep them poor but also hateful of those who are offered opportunities. It's not only important to change affirmative action to be more fair, it will keep the peace inside our society.
Minyaw smartest comment on the internet
Minyaw GTFOH White immigrants are doing good
Minyaw it should be by race not for poor people. Poverty is a state of mind and there will always be poor people but there won't always be opportunities for race
Being a part of a disenfranchised group does not inherently mean an individual deserves special treatment to make up for the history of that group. If they stopped treating people as groups and started treating them as individuals then it might be a bit more plausible, but the way it is now everyone in a given group is given the same classification despite wildly varying circumstances from individual to individual.
There are some very well off minorities, do they need additional support? There are plenty of people within the majority who could use similar support but are denied because they aren't part of a minority group. People are individuals, they are not groups and no single label of victim or privileged will ever fit every person.
+13ullseye Any sociologist would tell you that yes grouping people together does create over simplifications and allows for stereotypes and other biases to be employed. However, analyzing people individually requires a significant amount of resources aka MONEY. I believe the foundation of Affirmative action from a leadership and sociological perspective is about ensuring efficiency of allocation of resources while understanding at minimum the one thing that unites this group of people. For African Americans, it is more than the color of our skin, it is the history, values, traditions, and culture that we all identify with today.
+13ullseye I completely agree. In fact I'd be pretty offended at the suggestion that my own skill was insufficient to get in to university or get the job I want. From what I've seen affirmative action can actually cause further discrimination against minorities by propagating the idea that they only got in to university because of their race. For many of them this is not true, but affirmative action means that for some it will be.
+13ullseye Positive discrimination is the is simply a counterbalancing measure to one of the ills of pure democrazy that Plato outlined thousands of years ago, Mob and Majority absolute rule. It was one of the central problems of the roman empire. Imagine of we removed weight classes from combat sports like MMA. All that would be left to watch is fat and roided up heavy and super heavyweights doing faux sumo. It would be the death of the sport.
Honestly, the only people that benefit from, Positive discrimination, is the current hegemony.
Minorities, which are minorities by sheer population numbers as well as socioeconomic disadvantage btw, would have to either segregate themselves from the greater (white) society altogether or make direct efforts to muscle white people out of their traditional seats of power once their hold starts to wane through willful ignorance. The former would mean the fracturing of society and the breakdown of democracy itself and the later would mean the reincarnation of a brown skinned Alaric I marching through the traditional halls of power to establish a new _hegemony_.
+13ullseye Jim Crow however there are people living today affected by, especially considering the issue of college-education and class affecting the education-level of ones children
+HotSkull You are using weight class as an example, but it highlights a serious problem. People of a higher weight class have an advantage for simply being a higher weight class. Unless you are saying white people are genetically superior to black people, this comparison does not work well.
You try to associate race with socioeconomic status, but why not cut the middle man and go straight to the socioeconomic status of the person? Economic power among races would change, but poor will be poor because by definition they are poor.
So grades are replaced with skin color all in the name of love. What a kind way to be racist.
Landon Aaron Hell you can even f*** a goat if you say love knows no limits.
You didn’t watch the video lol
This is a brilliant statement, lol.
Grades replaced with skin color? White people benefit most from this but go off
Malinda Uboh. How do they benefit the most. If you look up statistics you can see that the my are one of the groups that are actually hurt the most by affirmative action since diversity is seen as a having the most minorities.
"Looks like eventually it will disappear" July 2023
Shame about the percentage of dislikes; I don't think the topic could have been handled better. Props to CC and Craig.
Just create a community where people actually care about education. Why do Asians attend college more per capita than any other demographic and earn more than every other demographic in the US (per capita), is it because of affirmative action or their value for education?
+ChillsandThrills There would be more of us if there was no AA. Colleges subtract SAT points from Asians. Better to put "Other" or say you're a mix.
***** I know but that's why I think university education should be funded by the state like in Germany. Tuition is free.
+ChillsandThrills I agree. Universities and admission to them should be based solely off of merit. It's counter productive and stymies the advancement of mankind to admit the pitiful over the competent. If AA is going to exist, it should at least be based off low income rather than race.
TheMightyByron it is in countries like Romania
+Chao Feng Do you think i give a fuck?
AA: milking the white guilt for decades......
+The muslim Atheist White people benefit from AA the most.
+GoSu MonSteR Please explain i don't understand.
+The muslim Atheist Asians have it the worse lol.
That's only white women. That is not the entirety of the white race.
Are you serious? you're saying it still benefits white men more than minorities because it benefits people that sometimes marry them?
Assuming that white women have no choice? also assuming that they put all of their money into white men?
Not to mention your statistics pulled straight out of your ass with very little evidence. How can you make such claims without any studies to back them up?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Congratulations you copy and pasted a Martin Luther King quote
My other issue with Affirmative Action is this idea of forced diversity. Yes segregation is bad and yes I would love to see more representation of minorities. But I want it to happen naturally. And it should happen naturally. I don't mind a little push in the right direction but I feel like overtime it's gonna do more harm than good to force people to integrate.
We learned in the previous episode that Asians were also historically discriminated against. Does that mean that affirmative action also makes special efforts to provide Asians with access to education and employment opportunities?
+AutismPersonified Nope, Asians are in fact the only group penalized in university admissions (-50). Blacks (+230) and Hispanics (+185) gets bonus points while Whites gets nothing added or subtracted (0).
I really dont understand about american universities...If you want equality of opportunity when trying to access university, you should just do the same as in Spain (at least in 2010 when I applied, there have been changes and i dont really follow them that closely): In Spain you do exams on various basic subjects (and a few chosen by each student depending on their electives in the last two years of high school) at the end of high school, you get an average score. Then, each university has a minimum average for each career you need to get to get in (that is based on how many seats they have available for each career) and places are assigned by score; which means the seats go to the people with better grades, regardless of any other characteristic. Another thing that assures equality is that in those tests that decide your average, you dont sign your name, you get stickers with a code, and the people grading those exams dont know you at all, so they cant give special treatment (good or bad) to anyone, cause they dont even know who they are grading!
There, no need for affirmative accion controversy... Cause the people that get in actually deserve to be there because of their academic prowess, and they are not just there to fill a quota... Cause when you put a quota you are actually discriminating against the people who arent in those special groups, and thats NOT equality, thats trying to turn the tables around...
Although I am not black myself, I know a lot of black people at my university that struggle constantly with the idea that they are only at the school because they are black. This is vice versa as other students will look at the black students and automatically assumed they were less qualified. My black friends also constantly battle with the idea that the people around them are smarter. Because of affirmative action, people aren't sure if the black person next to them got in because they were placed there in the name of diversity or because they were actually qualified. It's not all about getting into the best rank schools but finding the one that suits you the most.
If you were been possibly misplaced, think about the affects that would do to you. Affirmative action has good intentions but, in reality, hurts minorities.
Athena Zhang but why only blacks and not white women
0:37 : Definition of Affirmative action; 1:06 : The Controversies surrounding Affirmative Action; 1:37 : The base of Affirmative Actions 2:06 : The historical background of Affirmative Action in the US; 3:32 : The application of Affirmative Actions in the U.S since 1970's; 5:09 : The current measures surronding Affirmative action; 5:46 : People's response to Affirmative actions
Personally, I think a better way of ensuring diversity at universities is for them to take into account the socioeconomic backgrounds of their applicants. That way, minorities like hispanics and blacks (who tend to be more poor than their white and asian counterparts), can have a fair shot without the need for racial discrimination.
Affirmative action is just horrible.
+wolflink9000 How?
It's discrimination in itself.
Mario And Wes Well that implies it was made to immediately discriminate against white people. It was made to help minorities which for centuries have been disproportionately discriminated against. Your saying as if Affirmative Action is a Jim Crow Law. I understand your concern over it but to say that it itself is discrimination sounds a bit of an over reaction to me.
+StephySon It's an unfair shit show all around. It's a temporary fix until society becomes less bias. Once minority communities see equal employment opportunities, access to a better education system and a steep decline in poverty we wont need to worry about affirmative action because minorities will then have an equal opportunity to succeed in schooling and other relevant fields.
DaCamponTwee Exactly! Thats exactly how I feel and even how the video presented it. But sadly for now, in 2015 with things still improving but not there yet its a necessary thing in some ways. One day it will become obsolete but I don't believe now is that time.
I'm an American. I'm against affirmative action of all sorts. At the same time, however, I believe that if a government is in the business of taxing its people, that taxation should be for the good of all citizens, as well as the benefit of those who are less fortunate (within good reason).
Every disadvantaged person should be allowed an equal opportunity in life. The correct way to help disadvantaged people of all races in this country is to acknowledge their collective suffering, and then treat them equally. Playing favorites will only breed contempt and prolong racial tensions.
XHellXGeistX I agree!
Should the son or daughter of Jessie Jackson (who is worth in the millions) get preference in an university admission and even have his scores bumped up in points over some European American or Asian American in a position that comes from a background that's far poorer than Jessie Jackson. That's racism!
I think we need to redefine affirmative action as trying to adjust for the discrimination that currently exists. Ex: In many studies, resumes that have names that aren't typically associated with white people have a higher chance of being turned down, even when controlling for all other variables. The people reviewing the resumes may be able to give a race neutral justification for each resume, but the pattern exists broadly. In this example, affirmative action can be seen as an attempt to combat subconscious discrimination.
I'm very critical of affirmative action and withheld all youtube opinions until I watched this whole video.
I was not disappointed.
This was a fantastic and unbiased explanation on affirmative action and I feel it had something for everyone.
I hate how people dislike a video because they don't agree with the topic discussed. This guy gives a non biased view on the topic and people make war on the video instead of the topic itself.
You took affirmative action on that eagle's face!
Maybe we should call PETA!
People in the comments are making the point that AA is wrong because its based on past events; that slavery and Jim Crow laws no longer exist. This may be the case, but the *effects* of these laws and systems are still alive today. If indeed the past remains in the past, then why is the South, which defended slavery to the death, still the most notorious region in the USA for racism? Why did Mississippi only ratify the 13th amendment in 2013, *148 years after the abolition of slavery*? Until the Civil Rights period, schools were still segregated after a century following the abolition of slavery. A lot of people in the comments section are ignoring the fact that *history is ever flowing, that past events echo in present times*. Craig made the note that we may not need AA in the future. This seems likely but that is only possible because of the successes of AA in the past and the continued successes in the present!
+Tamal Paul
True. However, Affirmative Action assumes that every black person who walks through an employer's door are worse off than every white person who walks through that door. This is not true. Giving a helping hand to someone who does not need it and ignoring another person who does, purely based off their skin colour, is racism. Whether they are part of an historically (and sadly, currently) discriminated group is not relevant. What IS relevant is the individual. IF the employer does not hire a person BECAUSE of their race and no other reason, then they should certainly be held accountable.
Affirmative Action is merely trying to combat racism with racism.
+PlowerRanger
Yes, but that was a mistake from 1995. The vote for ratifying the 13th only took place in 1995. It was outright rejected in 1865 by the Mississippi legislature.
abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/mississippi-officially-abolishes-slavery-ratifies-13th-amendment/
This proves my point, that the establishment of a law does not eliminate the history of what it means to fix. Outlawing slavery did NOT eliminate social inequality.
As you said, the south has the highest percentages of blacks but is the most racially divided. In any other parts of the country with large black populations (like New York City or LA) black population have much more relative equality and less discrimination. Why is this the case? Its because, once again, laws do not erase social previous social norms.
The Supreme Court indicated that all homosexuals are protected under the constitution regarding marriage. This does not stop people such as Kim Davis from openly defying a federal law, the same way it does not stop the south from defying the abolition of slavery, the civil rights act, voter equality laws, etc.
And this is where AA comes in. And I repeat, Craig stated AA will not be necessary in the future. This is precisely due to the accomplishments of AA in the past/present.
Also, note that the government uses AA all time time, not just with people. The government passes Environmental Protection laws; companies skirt the laws. So what it does it offer tax rebates to companies that do it. It is effectively AA'ing clean energy. This is done to promote change in the social norms which laws are not able to do alone.
+Tamal Paul Have a sense of individualism why don't you. My Grandmother grew up in the depression, had more miscarriages than she can remember, lost her husband and became a hoarder. My Father was hurt immensely by all of this but despite it he became the first person in his family to get a college degree and has led a good life even if he spent the first ten years out of college working low paying jobs just to make ends meet. If you want something get it because no one gets whatever they want just because their life is hard because all our lives are hard.
He didn't say that. He said there is no correlation. Meaning that success can be achieved WITH and WITHOUT hardwork. (i.e. being born into wealth). You said the job should be about the person 'most qualified' for the position, yet even after 2 centuries after slavery women and minorities had their gender and race as preliminary points. Why weren't blacks immediately open to all the jobs white men where? Or all the education white men had? Clearly, from your logic, racial inequality wasnt a factor. Furthermore, that same segregation applied to Universities, further limiting access to train to BECOME 'most qualified'. The government had to take an active role to equalize society. Clearly it wasn't happening on its own. The 'most qualified' argument is a cover for simply 'we have a significant advantage because of an unfair past, and we should be able to keep it way'. You started a race, had a huge advantage in it, and are refusing to let the others catch up under the guise of 'unfairness'. AA is simply trying to restablish a neutral ground from which the 'most qualified' TRULY is the only factor, because despite what you believe and hope for, it is DEFINITELY not the case. Cities like NYC (where I am from) and LA are able to focus on that 'most qualified' aspect PRECISELY BECAUSE OF decades of AA. To even mention race or gender during an interview as a relevant point is grounds for serious legal action.
Facts. This is not just a socio-economic issue bcause even if you are white and poor you are not subject to overcome certain obstacles that people of color were forced to both historically and currently. America's history of systemic and institutionalized racism in the executive legislative and judicial branches of government as well as in the private sector have led to Injustices that have intentionally affected the ability for people of color to enroll in- gain acceptance to- and afford higher education institutions. Yes I did mention socioeconomic disadvantages. The difference is the disadvantages experienced by people of color were usually not caused by personal fault. Things like redlining, the Chinese exclusion Act, Jim Crow laws, segregation did not have a negative effect on the prospects of achieving higher education for white Americans. To put it bluntly if the average 13 year old white American is reading below standard it's safe to assume that it's not because the government forced his family to live in a ghetto and then defunded the public schools in that area solely based race. We like to think everybody has equal opportunity but that is not the case. We're not saying that a white child does not have struggles (of course white people can be homeless, jobless, hungry, and uneducated) - we're saying that people of color may endure those struggles amplified by racial Injustice has in addition to having to endear struggles unique to race. we're saying that there is a difference between equality and equity. We're saying that the black experience should be taken into account when reviewing college applications. If everyone is so mad at affirmative action and the principles of equity why not ensure equality for all. Regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, status and religion. why don't we fund all public schools equally. Ensure uniform class size, employ equally qualified teachers, implement a standard curriculum, offer the same standard electives at every school, provide quality school facilities for all children asking with funding for extracurricular activities and clubs, and equal educational instruction time and recreational time in every schools. Once all children have an equal opportunity at success then we can dismantle affirmative action.
I just wanted to say i think it´s great that you make videos like this, because i think a lot of people don´t really know what it is they´re talking about, but still seem to have such a strong opinion.
I´m a student from germany and your videos have helped me with tests and just in general understanding a lot of topics that i see are being discussed in america and also other places in the world and i think it´s awesome that you give people like me the oppertunity to learn new things and understand what´s going on in the world.
Thank you and greetings from germany (:
My issue with affirmative action is when there is a standards drop to achieve it. Its one thing to implement hiring policies to diversify when all else is relatively equal. Its another thing entirely to hire base upon race/diversity quotas if you’re choosing a clearly inferior candidate relative to other applicants based on their skills/merit/
Righting historical wrongs is, in an indirect way, a good thing. It's not about giving minorities guilt money. It's about recognizing that the systems in place for employment, due process, and education are poorly balanced. What the majority will view as a hand-out is really a compensating action to rebalance the opportunities in the system. It then becomes an (empirical) question of whether current people of color (for example) are systematically denied opportunities. If they are, we should take measure to ensure equality of opportunity. If they are not, then AA is creating inequality.
Metaphor (assuming POC are oppressed): In a foot race, POC have only one leg, due to cultural and historical features of the society. They can move a bit, but it's not a fair race against two-legged white people. The government gives the POC some prosthetic legs to ensure equal opportunity. The white people complain that they aren't given any special legs. It's so unequal to give POC fancy things like that!
But if you are in favor of equal opportunity, there may need to be some measures taken to ensure it.
Interestingly enough in california after prop 209 passed the proportion of asian students in california schools skyrocketed, while the numbers of african american and latino students remained relatively constant, and the number of white students went down, at least in public colleges for which the proposition applied
Something a lot of people overlook with "opportunity" is just how important family history is. We are still living in the aftermath of the sins of previous generations.
Here is an illustrative example using my own life as a reference:
My great grandparents were poor. The "build a house with your bare hands and try not to die in the war" kind of poor. Still, they were white Christians and by no account faced any racial or cultural discrimination (unless you count the French Canadian side, but I digress.) My grandparents worked hard from that level of borderline poverty and saved up enough money to help pay for schooling for my parents.
My parents were then able to focus on education and get good careers because of the boost the previous generations' foresight gave them. Neither of them had to drop out of school to support children or take a low paying job just to make ends meet; they had a safety net.
By the time we get to my generation, there is a clear advantage. I don't personally have to work for what I get in life, and that is largely due to the actions of people long before I was born. I still have to make an effort, yes, but it's only fair to acknowledge that plenty of people put in more effort and get less out of it simply because of historical inequality. Opportunity accumulates over generations and grows exponentially. Had my grandparents been disadvantaged, I would likely not have the education, connections, options, etc, that I do. I wish more people would admit that.
As of today. It doesn’t exist anymore 😅
In a country where one group of minorities blacks, which make up just 13% of the population, and have been historical subjected to practices sought to keep poor folks regardless of color in their respective class. I find it hard to believe that people dont even understand the continued need for a law such as affirmative action. Tuskegee experiments, Tulsa Oklahoma 1921, Jim crow, MOVE bombing and the list goes on. Affirmative action just says that universities and employers should hold seats to make their instituation more reflective of the current population not lower the bar for those seats.
I can see that, but the problem arises when they DO lower the bar, and the fact is they do.
Starfleet Officer
What evidence do you have of that?
Raynell Holmes
Just look it up.
Raynell Holmes
Additionally, as a sort of related but not really point, my (Asian) brother was extended a job offer by Google, which he accepted. And then they rejected him during the hiring process without citing any reason.
Imagine you have 2 little league football coaches. Coach A takes on a team that is 2 - 12, and at the end of the season brings this team to a record of 8-6. Coach B takes on a team that is 7-7 and at the end of the season brings the team to 10-4. I want to hire the best little league coach.
If I simply take the guy with the best record, I would take coach B. Is that the correct choice? The point of AA programs is to say that we shouldn't look at end results such as test scores in a vacuum. We should consider where the students starting position was. In my view, kids with poor families, destroyed neighborhoods and broken schools should have those handicaps factored in. While I'm not in favor of AA for other reasons, I don't like people saying that they are letting dumber or less intelligent people in. Those kids ARE smart enough, they just got unlucky when it came to their upbringing. They're starting way further back.
So basically what he's saying is that Affirmative Action was at the height of its imprtance for use in the Civil Rights Era. This policy which was good and effective for the time had also set itself up for a need for its own form of a check and balance just in case hiccups in its system occur. I stand strong by affirmative action oldschool style. But at the same time in 2017 I wouldn't want to be hired by an employer just because I'm black. If you hire me just because I'm black you may have overlooked the reality of the worth in what I put into my work ethic as an employee. As an employer I myself would keep this in mind. Today is a different time and I don't want to feel as if they're catering to me or to a quota, because that could possibly overlook my value to the company or lacktherof. But again, much love and respect to the Affirmative Action era. Keep on brotha
This was a very fair and balanced video. You kept mostly to the facts and didn't take a radical stance. I think you did a very good job.
I really appreciate this episode. Never knew that affirmative action was this! Makes so much more sense now.
great job ! There's so much emotionally charged disinformation out there on this subject (on both sides.) You did a great job of presenting the reality of affirmative action.
This was... actually a much more impartial, reasonable, and objective view of Affirmative Action than I expected to hear, especially given PBS Digital Studios' involvement (I mean, just look at the PBS Idea Channels and how cancerous they are.) Good on you, Crash Course team.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Affirmative action for the Whites bred affirmative action for the 'others.' Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but let's look at AA as a lesson well earned to not discriminate.
Looks like people who are against AA feel discriminated against, but absolutely lack the understanding that that actually applies to minorities and less to them.
What they don't understand:
equality of opportunity is a myth - it does not apply in the US
being able to just simply 'determine' who is the best for a job or for university is also a myth - you can't just 'see' the best, everyone brings different skill sets with them, it's not a situation where you simply have "good" candidate and "bad" candidate, it's where you have two "good" candidates, and you probably won't see another black one for some time
It would be good to take a step back and realize that AA is not designed for individuals. It's for communities and minorities as a whole, because in the past they were thrown down a pit and kept there and many of them still need a hand in getting out *today*.
2015. Throwing shade at Trump before it was cool.
The Federal Aviation Administration won't hire me as a highly qualified and experienced (10+ years) Air Traffic Controller, because I'm Asian and they have "too many Asian employees" . Thanks affirmative action.
I find more often than not, in practice, affirmative action achieves exactly the opposite of what it was trying to...
I believe affirmative action will start making sense to more Americans when we choose to accept the fact that racism still exists in many parts of the country and we still need to recompense for it in every way we can, rather than ignore it.
Mariah Garcia
A country so racist that it twice elected a black man for president eh?
Anyway, you don't fight discrimination with MORE discrimination!
Can someone explain to me how diversity is a strength in and of itself? The only reasons I've been able to find are nebulous platitudes with no real content.
Wow, that's a good point. I never thought of that.
If everything is the same there is no progress.
@@yuenkwai
I think he refers to diversity of surface characteristics, like skin color or gender, rather than diversity of thought.
Diversity of thought certainly is a strength, but do the surface values really matter?
@@zenlexon they absolutely do not
@@VestigialCode
Exactly. I rest my case.
I love your explanations , they help me to understand the topics.
Watching in 2023
Japanese Americans were discriminated more directly in terms of economics during WWII. They literally had everything taken away, put into camps, and then released after the war, with ZERO REPAYMENT.
But rather than give the Affirmative Action that "minorities" receive, Japanese must actually earn HIGHER admissions test scores compared to those individuals who benefit from Affirmative Action. They have generally bounced back in less than half of a century. Meanwhile, the minority communities have generally decreased in socioeconomic conditions over a LONGER time period.
The disparity in how the government treats Japanese vs minorities brings up two major ideas: 1) The government accepts that Japanese are inherently superior to minorities when comparing the two groups and has taken action to compensate AND 2) Since the Civil Rights Act and MLK occurred around the same time period (1940-60), we can easily analyze the current state of these communities in terms of what happens when government intervenes versus when it leaves communities alone.
Looks like all the tax-funded "help" is NOT actually helping.
Great video
+LittlePolarBear lol
+LittlePolarBear fucking liar.
Im The Firs Bitches !! Ow Yeahh
+LittlePolarBear why
Rather than solely relying on race to make the right to education equal, we should focus on income, circumstances and economic disadvantages.
I take sociology and we have been talking about affirmative action for the past 3 days. It's great discussing the pros and cons of these issues
First time I was actually disappointed by one of these videos. I think it would have been important to note that, in many spaces, and generally, the group that has benefitted most from Affirmative Action is women. Gender equality in numbers (but clearly not in pay) has advanced much further than it has for some racial/ethnic minorities. It's odd to me that race was the only issue discussed in examples.
Why do you fail to mention Asians. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese Internment during WWII, Angel Island? Do these not count as severe discrimination.
This is a great topic for a formal debate!
Thanks well affirmative action is gone now
For college and university admissions when it comes to considering race as a factor. SCOTUS ruled that colleges and universities cannot consider race in the admissions process, but they can still consider gender and other non-racial factors. Affirmative action based on race is still in effect for things like employment.
The easy reason why affirmative action is unpopular is that it isn't designed to help disenfranchised people but people of certain races. The result is that people who already have a considerably good class background, who are of a group defined a priori as disenfranchised, get advantages which aren't necessary to help them. The group of African Americans that profit most from AA are African Americans already in the middle class and above, thus mocking concepts like "historical disadvantages", which are used to justify AA.
It has other disadvantages because it sets people up to fail. By granting people who did not have the merits to visit a certain academic institution access to that institution, the probability for them to fall into low groups of academic achievement rise. So in an example you have people who perform at a level of the 75th percentile academically sent to an institution where students operate at the 99th percentile. Without AA they would have sent to a less prestigeous college, that might have put more emphasize on supporting it's students. Now they are in an environment in which doesn't offer support of the same level to it's students and their academic carreer is at risk.
All it basically does is enforce quotas to have certain segments of the population be x percent of workers, or students because they couldn't get in on their own merit, and so they botched about racist, or sexism instead of their own lack of dedication, and skill.
I love how no one ever talks about how this also Negatively effects east Asians, a minority, one that was used to build the rail roads on slave labor, but uh we gotta reserve the quotas for those poor blacks.
+Alex xeon You didn't watch the video. Quotas were outlawed in Bakke vs California likely before you were born.
Affirmative Action promotes collective demographic benefit at the expense of individual liberty. It is discrimination of the highest degree: when you discriminate in favor of one group, you discriminate against every other group.
This is probably the best video I've seen discuss Affirmative Action while maintaining a sense of neutrality.
And if you feel that Affirmative Action has cost you some kind of opportunity then you just weren't good enough to be at the front of the line.
+Trench Reynolds Basically. Elite students are going to get what they want.
+Inorganic Vegan It's more like whining when your football team loses on a bad call. If they really wanted to win they should have put more points on the board so the call wouldn't effect the outcome of the game. But since you resort to slurs and insults i'm sure this will be lost on your minimal thinking skills.
+Inorganic Vegan Go to a school in the richest part of town then go to a school in the hood and then tell me what's fair
+Inorganic Vegan Did you miss the part of the video about redressing past injustices? While some segments of the white population like Irish and Italian immigrants were discriminated against it was nothing in scale compared to how marginalized the black community has been treated since being brought to this country against their will.
+Inorganic Vegan So you're seriously trying to tell me that black students have just as many opportunities to succeed as white students?
I'm a member of a minority group but AA is counter productive because it creates a stigma. I think a good middle ground is income based preference as it still helps disenfranchised groups without being considered an affirmative action hire
"seeing that classes represent diverse viewpoints"
LMAO. Nowhere will you find more uniformity in views than in universities.
on the recent test the only questions I missed were about affirmative action so it's necessary that I watch this
Equality of opportunity is not possible without low economic inequality and fairly equal educational results.
Everyone goes to the same schooling system. Just because someone doesn't try as hard doesn't mean I should suffer.
Heide Knight I'm a member of the Board of Education in my home town. One of the most important statistics which the clerks and the scientists repeat every time is that the most important factor which explains a student's results in school is their socio-economic background. If their parents are relatively wealthy and themselves educated, then the children will have far better chances of succeeding in school. If the parents are poor and/or loweducated, the children will be more likely to have lower results in school. So you see, it's not just about hard work, it's also about inequalities.
Also, you are not "suffering" if you earn a lot and live a decent life and have to be a part in reducing inequalities. You are contributing to a more functioning society which works better for all its members. That is something to be proud of.
roseslikemusic But black does not inherently equal poor, there are poor black kids, but that just means AA should be done on Socioeconomic level, not a racial one.
Heide Knight I was never talking about race, I was talking about socioeconomics. If we want equality of opportunity for all, then economic inequality across all citizens regardless of group belongings must be diminished. Not perfect equality of course, socialism does not work, but low levels of inequality.
roseslikemusic you understand that socialism doesn't work, but you have a problem with inequality? Here's a productive experiment, Take all the countries will the least inequality financially and put them against countries with more inequality, Not only are the countries richer as a whole, the average citizen is wealthier and has a better quality of life, socialism is the product of trying to fight inequality and pulling the middle class down creating an echo-chamber around the elite. More financial diversification means that we can pay our employees more and intern increase wealth. Inequality will not be solved threw economics, Man is greedy and selfish, inequality will be achieved threw scientific minds.
Inequality with egalitarian intentions. I understand why some might think affirmative action is nessicary, and I'm sympathetic towards that, but it continues to get more problematic as it continues. You can't ever rectify the hate and suffering of the past. It will never go away.
What about the Mixed race people, where do they fit in?
What if you are Half White Caucasian and Half Mexican American?
there's a crash course for everything! thank you CC!!
I'm conflicted on if I approve or disapprove affirmative action anyone have a good for or against argument ? (based on facts)
Well I think the argument can be made that affirmative action should be based on school systems instead of race/gender/wealth when it comes to university and it shouldn't exist in the private sector of jobs. The girls at my school which were relatively wealthy got special treatment on applications when really they were at no disadvantage compared to guys. Same went for black students in my school system. Basing it off school systems makes more since because those with the highest scores/grades had to overcome their situations so they put in more effort than a student from a better system. I think the government shouldn't be involved in deciding who a business hires, this means if a business only employees the most qualified that is fine or if they want to be racially diverse and not always pick the most qualified. This also means a racist business owner could hire only whites or even only blacks if they wanted to.
+MSW From Luskin for the record I am super liberal on nearly any issue (but i don't blindly go left). so my rationale against it was that I feel it undermines the accomplishment of say me getting accepted into UCLA (I'm poor and latino) because it feels more like I was given a handicap card. as opposed to the federal & local governments implementing policies to ensure that I match or surpass the white privileged kid in terms of GPA and Exam scores. so I feel it just puts a bandaid on huge cut. my other point against it is that it hurts the Asian community, even the poor Asians.
Bodacious Bruin - Bless you but y'know they're going to refuse to acknowledge or straight up deny the value of the goals you've identified. The 'powerful' and the privileged will always cling to their advantage whilst angrily and noisily denying it's existence.
Anyway, in these times it is so good to find positive comments and a kind soul amongst all this denial, projection and hatred. Thank you
As far as college admission black schools are not given as much funding that is fact that's part of the reason black people who usually come from black
White kids can get scholarships. By trying to not make it not a race thing and giving poor whites college admission you would basically just make 90% of white Americans upper middle class or better. Whites are given more grants and scholarships than other races despite what people think. The majority of black children are not privileged so this argument is a rare situation anyway. The average Black families makes $43,300 and 45.8 percent of black children under age 6 lived in poverty. Whites average household income was $71,300. For educated whites it was 106,000.
I heard tell there was one school that at one point decided to get rid of all questions related to race on their application materials; in effect, race played no part whatsoever on who was and wasn't admitted. What they found when the application was truly "color blind" was that enrollment among minorities dropped dramatically. Does anyone remember hearing that story and could you maybe provide information about what school and year that was? I heard that afterwards, that school DID put its affirmative action programs back in place.
your smart , take my sociology final for me haha
I just want to say that the eagle punching is the best part of these videos
Everyone should have Affirmative action because employers discriminate against you based on so many factors beyond your control that they have been trained to falsely believe is within your control or a sign of something else. Their opinions on your life shouldn't determine employment as it's clearly not a fair basis to do so as this is subject to ideology and warped world views.
We need to reinvent the work for money system and guarantee that anyone who wants a job can have a job, at least in their town or city employment. That's not to say everyone gets paid the same - of course not, that wouldn't work in our current model.
However - if someone graduates with a degree from a university than that is proof positive that they are qualified to at least learn the higher level jobs. If it doesn't mean that then close the fraudulent universities as their diplomas prove nothing and they are ripping people off. If the university can't stand behind every single diploma with their name and reputation then it's a scam and supported by the state. If people can't get good college level jobs, even outside their major, then its pointless. Companies have relieved themselves of the responsibility of training thus requiring specific skill sets which actually act as the grounds for discrimination when you consider that they are willing to train some people.
But affirmative action does not counter this perceived discrimination; it only balances the measured outcome of said discrimination by introducing yet more discrimination.
For example, a company may have discriminatory hiring practices which result in less qualified white people getting jobs over more qualified black people, thus resulting in an over representation of white people. Affirmative action redresses this imbalance by introducing discriminatory hiring policies which prefer less qualified black people getting jobs over more qualified white people, thereby bringing the balance of white vs black people to a level that superficially suggests no discrimination. But this is an illusion. The company is now discriminating against both black and white people, resulting in more qualified individuals of all colours losing out on jobs that should rightfully be theirs. The company is also losing out because they now have a less qualified workforce overall.
hpesoj00
Right - it's correcting discrimination with more of the same. That's why I say the whole process needs to be rethought. Discrimination can't be a possibility in the first place. Not even a possibility. But these are big ideas and big things to rethink.
However, I know it's more than possible.
So the NBA should have quotas for white people since historically they have been the minorities in basket ball, even if there are better black players? gg m8...
wtblack5
- comparing a fantasy athletic job to a regular schmoe job is just nonsense. Leave those fantasy jobs out of it . They are undeniably based on ability and they are locked up with UNIONS that treat people fairly already in regards to pay as a portion of profit.
You can't fake your qualifications for that job - you can't get it with a favor and you can't train for it while there because people are willing to help you, like you can an ordinary job.
Because as soon as you hit the court, you will be found out real quick. Unlike so many other jobs that don't have defined qualifications that can be measured fairly against someone else.
Example: Nursing has ridiculous numbers of people flocking to it and are graduating from nursing programs with universal standards. They all have equal qualifications. However - when going to try and get a hospital job as a new nurse, they are not taking you on or hiring you by simply measuring you against someone else with measurable and factual criteria. No - they are basing it on intangible differences that change from manager to manager. "She's not caring enough" or "she won't fit in with the team" or "she seems lazy" etc... Intangible things that set the stage quite well for discrimination and that was just a super simple example of how that works. Nursing is much more fair than the private sector in general.
+mantonio121773 well, A. The argument still stands, weakened? Yes, but it still stands. B. I'm talking about the AA to make 50% white 50% black, when it should be about 87.5% white, 12.5% black. C. If you were having your gun being fixed, who would you rather have doing it? A white who got the job for being good at it, and having a reliable gun, or a black who got the job because of AA, and your gun blows up in your hands, severing 8 fingers and breaking your wrist? (Ok that may be a little extreme, but the idea's the same...) and D. Would you really be ok if you worked hard and got great grades, and another kid doesn't and gets meh grades, and he gets into Yale, or Stanford, or MIT because he has the disability of having ancestors who were oppressed?
54 seconds in and i know what is it, why thank you crash course
Wow, look at those comments! Can we try affirmative action for our comment selection?
Okay, okay... I kid, I kid.
Greatest name given to an idea since "The Final Solution"😀
1:27 oof that aged poorly
Today 06/29/23 the supreme court ruled in favor of ending affirmative action, Race can no longer be a factor for being accepted into college
TLDR: How to give people advantages based on factors of little and/or no merit.
Equality of opportunity is brilliant but equality of outcome is completely ridiculous and cannot work.
This is the first cc government I've watched, can someone explain to me why he keeps punching that eagle
Affirmative action is based on the philosophy of generalization of groups and that outcome is greater than opportunity.
You can't stop racism with racism.
it all comes down to whether you prefer positive or negative freedom and to what extent the state should promote equality of opportunity.
I have a new boss at work.
She earned her position.....
NOT BY AFFIRMITIVE ACTION.
But by HER actions.
She worked hard
She set the standards on the department.
She was the best at what she did
She desired to be the manager.
She learned her trade
She developed her skills
She earned it.
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT DIDNT DO THIS FOR HER.
She did it for herself.
END ALL DISCRIMINATION.
how can Liberals use A A to fix
Black people from having 70% single mothers.
How many black children have 2 black parents in the same house?
HOW ARE THOSE PROBLEMS
Caused by so called WHITE PRIVILEGE??????
ITS NOT!!!!!
Its called foolish selfish culture.
WHITE PEOPLE HAVE THAT PROBLEM TOO.
Two cents. It may be interesting to point out that in countries other than the US the academic performance of AA graduate students has been measured to be... average or slightly better than average in most courses. It's generally thought to be due to just taking college more seriously: a conscious effort to make up for a supposedly worse high and middle school education, or just holding on to their best-ever shot at improving their standards of living (and their family's).
I find discussions of equal opportunity (usually merit based) interesting given recent studies on application assessments. The same application (like literally identical) with different names were given to varying professors and hiring committees and the panels were asked who they would hire for a position. Basically the result of the study is that the application with the white sounding male name got the job offer while the black sounding names and women names were not evaluated as being as good as the other application, even those they were literally identical. Basically, merit and evaluation are influenced by bias. How equal non-precise things can be then is questionable. Whether this is an argument for affirmative action or not I will leave to others to conclude.
Affirmative action is still needed especially in the south. Maybe not as prominent, but it is still needed. Me as a black teen in the top 5% of her high school class of 850... I've have been denied of many opportunities when those chosen are less qualified than me. People who say discrimination doesn't exist need to walk a day in my shoes. I worry if I will get into the schools I want just because of my race. In then end if some blacks get affirmative action, when they apply for jobs in real life they will probably get picked over by white anyways. In a way it kinda balances out.
I feel like some white people are not understanding the core point of affirmative action, a concept hard to swallow in a society as individualistic ours. For many people it's difficult for them to see how they as an individual benefited from the collective work of others. Many people feel because they didn't have anything to do with the discrimination back then when it was happening, they therefore, feel that they're not entitled to sacrifice even an inkling for the injustices that they're ancestors committed. But I got news for you poor, poor, poor souls, by your very existence you've benefited from the injustices that your ancestors did for you. Kicking native Americans, off land they've inhabited for generations were done for you. Making sure that blacks didn't get the same education and job opportunities that whites got, in order to make space for more white people, were all made for you their offspring and so on so forth. People never can understand how other people's actions, either past or present, can affect them in certain outcomes in life. In the end, no one likes to accept the wrongs there ancestors made, only the rights. We as Americans need to stop being so proud of our damn past and learn to deal with the shame and guilt that is also in it, into a positive and constructive outcome.
Anyone else trying to cram in as many of these videos before the politics exam tomorrow?