Talk:Affirmative action in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affirmative action in the United States article.

Contents

[edit] U.S. Disputes

Few of the disputes in the article are exclusive to the U.S. I'm moving most back to the main article.--Ellissound 02:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the arguements, examples, and evidence in the disputes section are specific to the United States and, so, the disputes section belongs here. -Psychohistorian 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The current disputes section makes no sense. All examples, etc. regarding the US have been moved outside of this article, but some meaningless blurb stripped of all meaningful discussion is left behind?? What's that about? The current disputes section in this article is in need of a rewrite and the most likely way to do it is to bring back the relevant material that was stripped out of it and put in the other article. If you want the drivel that is in this article anywhere, it belongs in the other article (switching the disputes content of the two articles around) as the current content in that article is very US specific and the content in this article is almost all too vague to have any relevance except in the most general sense. I'll wait for the next couple of days for a meaningful counterpoint to be posted here in reply, then, if there isn't one, I'll go ahead and fix this mess. -Psychohistorian 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

"Individual U.S. states e.g., Missouri, California, and Washington also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, and disability status."

Someone commented an earler version contained jargon and was just conjecture. I removed the jargon, but you'll have to decide for yourself if it's conjecture or fact.--Ellissound 02:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have suggested a POV tag for this article, as there is essentially no section that describes the views of those who support affirmative action, while the disputes section is well-developed----the article is unbalanced. Kemet 12:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The goal of the disputes section is to describe the disputes, that is, pro vs. con. Do you believe that the following does not describe the views of those who support affirmative action?
Many supporters of affirmative action charge that those who make this argument are being ethnocentric and are disingenuously trying to deflect or downplay the role of past and current institutional discrimination of minorities. These critics believe that these proponents are trying to shift the blame onto the victim who was discriminated against in the first place in order to justify rolling back government civil rights policies. Furthermore, many critics believe that those who make this argument are being naive, hypocritical, or vague in their quest to 'change the cultural values' of the minority community. Other supporters of affirmative action argue that it benefits society as a whole. They argue that the end goal of AA should not be one culture, but an embrace of all cultural heritages (warts and all) and, by doing so, we increase the quality of the society. This is widely argued in the realm of education. An example of support for this is a study done by Patricia Gurin, who is part of the American Psychological Association. Gurin found that students who are from a more diverse educational setting had better results in tests designed to measure complex thinking, were more motivated to understand other people’s points of view, were more understanding of differences in cultural environments, and were more confident in their intellectual ability...Most proponents of AA believe that eradicating affirmative action would further deepen economic disparity between whites and underrepresented minorities...Those who make this argument, however, also point to the fact that the government gives preferential treatment to veterans and that many organizations give preferential treatment to employees who have worked in the organization in the past. Furthermore, there is 'geographical affirmative action', in which people are more likely to be hired if their application has a local address written on it. All of these examples show ways in which employees are hired based on non-merit criteria...However, proponents of AA reply that quotas are only legal in the US when a judge issues an order for a specific institution to make restitution for past discrimination...Proponents of Affirmative Action respond that such discrepancies that exist are a result of historic segregation. For example, many of the state and city universities had much lower tuition during the time they were primarily for whites, while tuition at such institutions have grown faster than the rate of inflation now that more minorities are attending. Tuition at the City College of New York was free up until the 1960s when the students were primarily Italian and Jewish, but now rival those of state universities now that most of the students are Black or Hispanic. -Psychohistorian 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also would like a POV tag for this article. For example, the statement about men being under-represent in colleges in general -- that is a loaded generalization with no proof provided. The article in general is very one-sided, over-representing the opponents of affirmative action. -Mellowaim10 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal Immigration: Change of venue

There has already been an extensive discussion at Talk:Affirmative action#Illegal Immigration about the following paragraph:

Peter Kirsanow has written that Thomas Sowell, Roger Clegg, and Ed Blum have asserted that illegal immigrants who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens.

Apparently, having met with strong resistance to this paragraph in that article, User:Psychohistorian has chosen to shop it around over here. The objections raised there seem to apply just as much here (with the sole exception that here it is not objectionable that it is specific to the U.S.). Most important, to my thinking, is that Kirsanow merely said in an opinion column that these three authors said this; Kirsanow gives no citations; there is no way to know if this is an accurate reflection of their views or if he took this out of context (or even outright misrepresented them, though I don't imagine he did). The fact that Kirsanow said that someone else holds this view is certainly not, itself, of encyclopedic notability. This is a very weakly cited passage, that can easily be misread as making a much stronger statement than its cited reference can actually sustain. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in the other article, the reason I moved it here was that I wanted the other article to continue having only a stub.

I explained the reason for the inclusion of this line in great detail to you. The fact that Kirsanow claimed this is what is being referenced is more than amply supported. There is a BIG difference between saying "Kirsanow claims that these guys said this" and saying "these guys said this". Please refresh your knowledge of Wiki policies, it seems to be deficient.-Psychohistorian 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Wiki Reliable sources policy: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question...

Looking at Wiki policy guidelines for evaluating reliability, here are some items which I think apply in this case:

  • "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source."
  • "we only report what reliable publications publish"
  • the referenced piece fails to "...cite the original source for an assertion..."
  • "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?"

The assertion can be summarized as follows: a difference in the immigration status of an AA applicate makes no difference as far as AA programs are concerned. What reason is there for believing that material about a difference that makes no difference (relative to AA) is worth including?

To summarize, the given reference does not enable the assertion (what Thomas Sowell, Roger Clegg, and Ed Blum are claimed to have written) to be directly verified via a reliable published source. Combined with the statement's relative unimportance to the topic of this article, the assertion should be removed. -->Wiley 13:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do I need to continually remind you of Wiki policy? Why do you not take a couple of minutes to familiarize yourself with it? This discussion would go a lot smoother if we were already on the same page rather than me having to help you catch up. Wiki policy specifically prohibits you from making determinations as to the validity of claims made by referenced sources. I shouldn't have to point that out again. As for relative importance, it is important in that it is illegal according to Title 8 Section 1623 of the U.S. Code (part of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996). -Psychohistorian 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And I see that this is now basically in the article twice. The second time, many things are stated as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice, again with no citation beyond one opinion piece. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If Psychohistorian insists on keeping this in as adequate citation for this material, I believe we should go to mediation. I believe he has quite misunderstood policy: evaluating sources is precisely what the concept of reliable sources is about. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As for an RfC, I'm open to that. I'm just surprised that you are questioning that the article referenced says that Kirsanow makes this claim. -Psychohistorian 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I cannot tell whether you are being disingenous or you do not understand what I am saying. But let me make sure I understand what you are saying: do I understand correctly that you are rejecting my suggestion that we request a mediator on a no-fault basis, and that the only way to proceed is for me to open an RFC about your conduct? If you insist, that is how I will do this, assuming that someone is willing to join me in that. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"do I understand correctly that you are rejecting my suggestion that we request a mediator on a no-fault basis". No, I'm open to a mediator as well. As for 'my conduct', so far, this has been a content issue, not a personal issue. This is the first time I've seen an issue of 'my conduct' raised. If you think there is a conduct issue, this is a much more grave situation than I realized. -Psychohistorian 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to break this down into two parts. Before I begin, let me preface this with a little background information- I am currently a college student. I am viewing this from the angle of "if this was a paper for a class explaining what Affirmative Action is, how would I edit it?" Okay, now I'll start. First, while the National Review is a credible source, it is considered a biased source. Therefore, there should be at least another source showing that this is not part of the bias, for instance, pieces by the mentioned authors explaining their own beliefs about affirmative action. Sowell is an easy one, you read one thing by him and you get his POV on the matter right away. Think of it this way- this author (his name escapes me at the moment) must have done some research. That information must be out there somewhere that shows these guys expressed this POV. So, where is it? That I don't know. That is for the editor to prove. The second point is that regardless of how credible this information is, the paragraph is out of place. Strangely enough, I happen to agree with the chunk I am fighting to have removed- but anyways. If this was a paper, that paragraph would be crossed out in the first edit. It simply does not flow as it is currently written. If it is deemed appropriate for the article, then write a better transition. This is a fact that needs it. Compare other parts of these two issues. Just to warn, it might still not work, but at least it would fit in better. Perhaps this fact needs to simply reside on the Illegal Immigration page. I don't know the people who are editing over there, but maybe they would be more receptive. As for me, I do not believe that it fits in its current form. So, what this boils down to is this question- do you want time to think it over and rewrite this, or do you want to go into mediation? Personally, I would rewrite it. If you are as impassioned as you seem to be, then go for it. It will be alot easier and less angry than what's currently going down. I will support its removal if you choose to take this to mediation, however, just to let you know.Minidoxigirli 06:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand how to write a college paper (as a grad student at one of the top ten schools in my field, I should). But this isn't a college paper. It is a Wikipedia article. As such, it abides by different standards. For example, a college paper encourages (I'd say it -requires- original research and synthesis of other peoples' work), but that is expressly prohibited in a Wiki article.

I recognize the need for additional sources (both saying "yes he did" and saying "no, this is what he really said") and encourage all of us to work on providing them. However, it is not up to us to judge whether or not a verified statement (and it is definetely verified that Kirsanow states this) is true. Once more (what is this now, the fifth time?), Wikipedia policy prohibits this. As for putting the statement somewhere else in the article, there's nothing stopping you from making such a contribution.-Psychohistorian 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be better suited to rewriting the statement. I was meaning that as a suggestion for what to do if you really want to keep it in there. True, there are differences between a paper and an article. However, the way that it flows is not one of them. As it reads now, it is disjointed. I will repeat my question: Do you want time to think it over and rewrite this, or do you want to go into mediation? It's up to you. I have to go do some reading before my afternoon class, but I'll stop in later and see if there's anything I can do. Minidoxigirli 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding whether or not the content should stay, I'm certain that it does in fact belong. I won't budge on that though I will work with the standard content resolution process. As for how the content should be written so as to allow smoother transition, like I said, I'm open to your suggestions. I'll think about how to achieve that smoother transition as well. -Psychohistorian 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we need mediation here. I gather that WllacerWiley intends to pursue this; if he does not within a week, I will.

Again, Psychohistorian, my belief is that you are totally misunderstanding policy. If Kirsanow were stating an opinion then of course you could simply quote that. But he is not. He is making a statement at two removes about facts. There is nothing notable about his making the statement. What is notable (if true) are the facts, and this several-times-removed statement that other people have made a claim about facts is about as weak a reference for those facts as I can imagine. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And I believe you are totally misunderstanding policy. This is a great place for mediation. In the meantime, since you believe that I am misunderstanding policy, quote policy which supports your claim that third party sources can't be used.-Psychohistorian 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not my claim. I prefer not to try to further engage with you until a mediator enters the picture, because I have already said everything civil that I have to say to you. You are the one whose version has remained in the article pending mediation, so please quit complaining. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been 10 days and Wiley has not yet moved forward on requesting mediation, I've done so: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Affirmative Action in the United States. - Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Intermediate sources: State where you got it

A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page and the web page must be mentioned. The web page itself must therefore be sufficiently reliable i.e. there must be good reason to assume that it cites the reliable source correctly. Your citation might only mention the web page, or you can provide further information like this:

<Web page>, which cites <book>, or <Book>, cited at <web page>. However, you shouldn't cite only the book unless you looked at it yourself. If you checked the book, it is no longer necessary to mention the web page but you can still mention it if that would be useful information for readers. You can do so using a form like this:

<Book> (also see <web page>). [Wikipedia:Citing sources]

So, it is within policy to copy citation information from an intermediate source (as the Kirsanow quote does) as long as its original source is acknowledged (as is done here). -Psychohistorian 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found that these kinds of mediations are often the best, because its obvious that all parties are willing to work together for the benefit of the encyclopedia, even if you are currently in disagreement on how best to do that. I'd like to thank you all in advance for that. To begin, I'd like to try to summarize the situation as I see it to attempt to both make sure I understand the conflict as well as start at a common baseline. If anyone disagrees with my summary of the situation, please let me know:

  • It is AGREED that all parties are working in good faith.
  • It is AGREED that all parties are willing to work through mediation.
  • It is AGREED that the disputed phrase did appear in the National Review.
  • There is DISAGREEMENT that the National Review is a reliable source in this matter.
Other sources found -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • However, it is AGREED that more primary sources of the same material is preferred, if it's available.
  • There is DISAGREEMENT that the material belongs in the article.
  • There is also DISAGREEMENT that the material, as worded, "flows well" with the current material
  • However, it MAY BE AGREED that some rewording of the same material could be acceptable, if it portrays the same information.

In addition, I'll add the following inference, based on what I've seen:

  • Verifiability is NOT CURRENTLY IN DISPUTE. I say this because while the tenet of "verifiability, not truth" has been discussed, no one has really suggested doing additional original research to determine if the claim is true, but rather find additional reliable sources for the same material, which all parties have agreed is desirable. Therefore, it appears all parties AGREE.

As you can see, you more agree than disagree here and the scope of disagreement seems rather small. Please indicate if you agree or disagree with my summary of this dispute. Thanks! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not AGREED that we are all working in good faith. I believe the others are working in good faith, but I have been accused of trying to game the system.-Psychohistorian 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Perhaps we can agree from this point forward that all are working in good faith to the betterment of Wikipedia. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I still think its a basic misunderstanding of policy and not a personal issue. Whether Jmabel, Wiley, and Minidoxigirli can agree that, from this point forward, all are working in good faith is something that they'll have to say. -Psychohistorian 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that by "verificability" you mean "verifiability"; I'd have assumed a typo without remarking on it, but you used it twice. Given that, I agree; I'm willing to grant the assumption of good faith, at least as a working proposition. Given the assumption that Psychohistorian is acting in good faith, then I believe he has misunderstood the interplay of verifiability and notability here. What is (so far) verifiable is not notable; what would potentially be notable is not (so far) verifiable.

Allow me to restate my issue: All that is verifiable so far is that Kirsanow in an opinion column wrote that three other people said that (in Kirsanow's words) "illegal immigrants who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens." My point is that what is verifiable is not notable. It would be notable if we had reasonably reliable citation for the statement "illegal immigrants… who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens." It is not notable that one person claimed (with vague attribution) in an opinion column that three other people say this, and that is really the only fact we've got.

Yes, National Review is a reliable source when it is doing reportage, but generally opinion columns are only citable for opinions, unless they are clear about where they got their facts, which Kirsanow is not. - Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for remarking on my typo. I've fixed it in the above to prevent any further misunderstandings and to keep us from getting wrapped around the wheel on two misplaced letters. Anyway, may I restate the above as a summary to what you said?
  • "It is AGREED that more primary sources of the same material is preferred, if it's available."
  • "There is DISAGREEMENT that the National Review is a reliable source in this matter."
Has anyone actually looked for other sources of this material? It seems to me that if primary sources were found, this issue is essentially resolved. As for notability, it appears that the thrust of the disputed matieral is not that it was mentioned in the National Review by Kirsanow, but more what Sowell, et al. allegedly said in regards to affirmative action. That just makes the National Review a secondary source which must be evaluated as to whether or not it is reliable in this regard. I would encourage us to steer away from the "notability" aspect as I believe it distracts us away from the core issues here. Psychohistorian, would you agree to a rewording of the disputed text to emphasize the core statement of the material and to deemphasize the source (which can be cited in another way)? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not real clear on what you are asking. Provide one or two examples, please. On a general level, I'm for rewording as a means of dispute resolution as long as the core meaning remains.-Psychohistorian 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue seems to be around the fact that the disputed text says that "Columnist A says that Persons B, C, and D say X". I believe what you actually care about is that "Persons B, C, and D say X". There is pushback because of the "Columnist A says" part, even though that's not really the part you care about. So, the question was, "If the 'Columnist A says' part is reduced to a footnote or some other citation, is that acceptable to everyone?" However, please look at my note below as this may avoid the 'Columnist A says' part altogether. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional primary and secondary sources:

Please evaluate these sources and see if these resolve some of the issues for you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that clears up one point. If this is to stay, then we can use these sources. But looking over these, it's talking about a theoretical advantage. Illegal immigrants are not currently covered in affirmative action plans. So, it doesn't make sense to include it here.'''<span style="color: #F53DAB">[[User:minidoxigirli|minidoxigirli<sup> -[[User_talk:Minidoxigirli|talk]]-</sup><sub>-[[Special:Contributions/Minidoxigirli|contribs]]-</sub></span>''']] 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad one of the disagreements has found a resolution. I've scratched it off above. To play a bit of the devil's advocate here, the proposed amnesty program is definately notable and relevant to this subject matter. While the disputed text displays only the "anti" view, with some work to find a bit of NPOV balance, this may be applicable to the article. Any comments? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, looking at Primary Source: Sowell, T. "Bordering on Fraud, part III", Sowell does not make the claim that it was originally suggested he had made. He is saying merely that if there is an amnesty that gives Mexicans who are illegally in the United States same status as other Mexicans who are legally in the United States (quite a hypothetical at the moment) then those people would be able to access the same affirmative action programs as other Mexicans who are legally in the United States. Note that this provides no substantiation for any claim that "illegal immigrants who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens", the claim that the article said Kirsanow attributed to him. Similarly, the Blum article is arguing that "Affirmative action on the basis of race, color, or national origin should not be available to any temporary worker—or any recent immigrant, for that matter." He also gives not the slightest indication of claiming that illegal immigrants have these rights. The Clegg document appears to be about voting; affirmative action is mentioned only once, in passing, in a way that in no way substantiates any of this.

Given Sowell's and Blum's remarks here—both objecting to a possible future advantage given to people who are now illegal aliens if they were amnestied—it would be extremely surprising if either of them also claims that they have that same advantage now. So it is quite likely that Kirsanow has misrepresented them.

So, trying not to get ahead of myself in terms of consequences for the article, I have two questions to both Psychohistorian and Shinmawa:

  1. Do you agree that these citations provide no substantiation that Sowell and Blum hold the views attributed to them by Kirsanow?
  2. Going beyond that, do you agree that these citations actually make it rather unlikely that Sowell and Blum hold the views attributed to them by Kirsanow?

Psychohistorian: given your argument above that "Wiki policy specifically prohibits you from making determinations as to the validity of claims made by referenced sources" and your counting Kirsanow as a reliable source, I don't know if you will consider either of these questions as being to the point. If I read you right—and this is the reason I sought mediation on this rather than going off to do research myself—your argument seems to be that Kirsanow is still citable even if he has misrepresented Sowell and Blum (and maybe Clegg, but we haven't gotten any clear indication of Clegg's views). Do I understand that correctly? If so, then we are still far from resolving this; if so, I suspect we are getting close (although there is still another passage citing Kirsanow that we haven't begun to address). - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe both 1 and 2 are irrelevant. Reason being that whatever Kirsanow may have or may have not said is rather out of scope now. We now have more primary sources making the secondary source utterly deprecated. In other words, "who cares what Kirsanow says when we have the proverbial words from the horses' mouths?" I hope Psychohistorian agrees with me on this, but I've not heard one way or the other.) On a side note, I do think that we have a fair idea of Clegg's views as he co-wrote the article with Blum. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Kirsanow is still citable even if he has misrepresented Sowell and Blum (and maybe Clegg, but we haven't gotten any clear indication of Clegg's views). Do I understand that correctly? " There is no way to know whether he misrepresented Sowell, Blum, or Clegg. It is not up to us to decide whether he did so. Consequently, I see what you are asking as a loaded question. As for the other two questions, I agree with Shinmawa. They are irrelevant. However, in addition to the fact that there are other sources, there is also the fact that they are irrelevant because they presume that we are in a position to judge the veracity of a source. We are not. We simply aren't able to say whether a source is accurate or not. Now, having said that, personally (and our personal viewpoints have nothing to do with the article, but I want you to know where I'm coming from), I do not believe that these articles disprove Kirsanow. For example, we know that illegal immigrants can attend public school as minorities and that minorities can receive affirmative action advantages in being admitted to schools. Sowell doesn't say that the only way for illegal immigrants to receive AA benefits is to become legalized. He simply says that becoming legalized makes them eligible for AA benefits.-Psychohistorian 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but is there any reason to quote Kirsanow at all given we now have citations of the original source? I believe that's the basis of this dispute. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Kirsanow quote and the other quotes are saying different things (though not mutually incompatible things). As such, I don't believe that the fact that we have the other sources has any bearing on whether the quote from Kirsanow should be used. -Psychohistorian 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the main thrust of the Kirsanow quote is to additionally quote three others: Peter Kirsanow has written that Thomas Sowell, Roger Clegg, and Ed Blum have asserted that illegal immigrants who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens. Please explain why it is important to this article that Kirsanow has written this as opposed to the actual views of Sowell, et al. I believe this is the core of the dispute. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The quotes from Sowell et al that you have provided state that *if* illegal aliens become legal immigrants *then* then will receive AA benefits (but does not say whether or not they are already receiving AA benefits). The quote from Kirsanow states (leaving aside that he is referencing the works of the others) that illegal immigrants are *already* receiving AA benefits. Its different content.-Psychohistorian 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Please restate your proposed content for the article, reworded to take the above into account. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the mediation due to a lack of interest and participation. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV (2)

"Many supporters of affirmative action charge that those who make this argument are being ethnocentric and are disingenuously trying to deflect or downplay the role of past and current institutional discrimination of minorities. These critics believe that these proponents are trying to shift the blame onto the victim who was discriminated against in the first place in order to justify rolling back government civil rights policies. Furthermore, many critics believe that those who make this argument are being naive, hypocritical, or vague in their quest to 'change the cultural values' of the minority community. Other supporters of affirmative action argue that it benefits society as a whole. They argue that the end goal of AA should not be one culture, but an embrace of all cultural heritages (warts and all) and, by doing so, we increase the quality of the society. This is widely argued in the realm of education. An example of support for this is a study done by Patricia Gurin, who is part of the American Psychological Association. Gurin found that students who are from a more diverse educational setting had better results in tests designed to measure complex thinking, were more motivated to understand other people’s points of view, were more understanding of differences in cultural environments, and were more confident in their intellectual ability."

Citation? Who are these "many supporters" that "charge those who make this argument are being".. Seems like POV. The rest is ouright POV, looks like a rant with baseless statements. Crud3w4re 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/f/f/Talk%7EAffirmative_action_in_the_United_States_9124.html"