Skip to comments.At what point does merit supersede affirmative action?
Posted on 12/25/2010 7:33:22 PM PST by Gum Shoe
In my childhhood, I always dreamed of being a professional athelete. I played football and baseball in high school. Though I was recruited to play football at a local college, my true love was basketball, a sport I did not play well in high school. I apparently lacked the requisite skills to play that particular sport and was not invited to play on the school basketball team.
It really was no fault of my own. In fact, some of the factors that made me good at football and baseball were a hinderance in basketball. I was cursed with short legs and a low center of gravity. I simply didn't have the necessary genetic make-up to excel at that sport. As I attended my high school basketball games as a spectator, I watched our basketball stars soar through the air as they slammed the ball home in dramatic form, and thought how unfair life was. Hold that thought.
This past week I attended my daughter's high school Christmas celebration, grateful my children could attend a high school that still allowed the season to be called Christmas. She was a member of the school's choir. As the program advanced, I was struck by the amount of apparent preparation and planning that went into the presenation by both student and faculty. I also noted the presence of three students who were obvious special needs kids. They were on stage participating with the performing artists, and clearly performing well below the mean. Two looked to be having a load of fun wandering around the stage, singing on occasion and clapping their hands with the music, while the third didn't seem to be aware of much of anything. I'm sure their families were having a great time watching them on stage and thought their participation on the program a wonderful thing and good for their kids. For them, as well as some in the audience, no doubt it was all good. Not so much for me.
You may think me an uncaring bigot. I assure you, I'm not. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the families of these kids, believing the over-all performance of the group was hindered by their presence causes me no small degree of guilt. They were distracting to the other kids, had no apprecible music skills to contribute to the performance, and their presence seemed some sort of nod to the surreal that - IMHO - detracted from the general performance. In short, it was like watching me in a Laker uniform.
I clearly understand the differences between a professional basketball team and a high school choir. But the experience brings a question to my mind. I see the above as metaphore that extends beyond the high school stage. At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action? Where is that line? Where can I see it? It seems to be an illusive point moving through politically correct space based solely on the perceptions of intellectual elitists that happen to find themselves in policy-making positions. Unfortunately, those policy makers are quite often our liberal socialists bent on hammering the majority of us into their socialist template where the majority loses their right to excellence to the minority definition of fairness. How unfair life truely is.
According to the race pimps like Rev. Al, JJ et. al.
It's a downward spiral.
80 years ago they had programs to sterilize deformed people and lock up the mentally challenged. Hell, Indiana had a law demanding it. Eugenics. In 80 more years maybe we’ll get another Hitler if we’re still here. Just thinking out loud.
Won't be that much longer.
Conservatives would say that some people will end up winners and some people will end up losers. That's just how it is, because people have differing abilities. Different abilities lead to different outcomes, and that is "fair".
For a Liberal, if everyone is a millionaire, that is "fair". If only some people are millionaires, that is "unfair". Either everyone is a winner, or everyone is a loser. That would appear to be "fair" to a Liberal.
The problem for Liberals is that not everyone can be a winner, and if someone does come out a winner, that seems "unfair" -- so Liberals put a lot of effort into hurting winners and expanding the number of losers -- that's seems to make more "fair" outcomes.
The problem for Conservatives is that although we like it when someone comes out a winner, we still feel bad when someone loses. And so we still fight the notion of anyone ending up a loser, ever. That's called "compassionate conservatism".
By playing that game, by trying to make sure no one really loses the game of life, some Conservatives end up playing the Liberals' game, and set the stage for punishing the winners.
The reality of Conservatism is that some folks are going to get a rotten deal in life. They lack the ability and can never come out on top. It's sad. So -- how many people really want to create that world? The answer is "not many", which is why voters keep electing socialists and their RINO enablers.
“the majority loses their right to excellence to the minority definition of fairness. How unfair life truely is.”
The cost to our society is staggering. We sacrifice a lot of potential for the principle of “equality”, which makes the loss hard to gauge. “Equality” was one of the French Revolution’s principles, not the American Revolution. Ours succeeded, and theirs failed. And yet now we seek to follow the path of theirs.
“At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action?”
At a point beyond the office of the most powerful job on the planet, the President of the United States...
You said it shorter and better than I did.
“The problem for Liberals is that not everyone can be a winner, and if someone does come out a winner, that seems “unfair” — so Liberals put a lot of effort into hurting winners and expanding the number of losers — that’s seems to make more “fair” outcomes.”
That’s the problem for the libs on the ground. For the ruling libs, that’s just pap (propaganda) they spout to the useless idiots. The lib “elites” want to be the winners, and they want to make sure NOONE ELSE CAN BE, too!
I’m afraid our children and grandchildren, both the impaired and the unimpaired will have to suffer this stupidity. It arises from a skewed sense of what is valuable by some teachers and parents that fancy themselves as socially progressive.
It seems to me to be horribly cruel and sadistic to plant the idea in these special needs kids that they can persue everything the others can do. Each one of the special needs kids could strive and excel in a group of their peers, but are doomed to always be looked upon with pity when put in situations with those that don’t have their handicaps.
How much better for both groups if they were allowed to interact with those who have similar problems and abilities.
...depends on how serious your surgery is?.....the experienced surgeon or the one who got his experience because he or she was the top government number allowed.....
Q. “At what point does merit supersede affirmative action?”
A. Merit should ALWAYS supersede affirmative action.
Anything else is discrimination.
This is what is called “mainstreaming”. My wife was responsible for a child with Rett Syndrome, an affliction affecting mainly girls, where they regress to an infantile state of development at an early age. She was placed in a regular classroom with my wife working with her full time.
giving jobs to minorities who are unqualified is just another unfairness....
its open unfairness where as nobody would ever admit that they hired that secretary for her size 38's...at least not in front of decent folk....
IMO, the real question is whether affirmative action should exist at all.
I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Surely you’re not referring to the deputy I hired for her dandy pair of 103038s-—the pride of Smith, Wesson and our entire office?
To illustrate your point, take notice that you NEVER see a beautiful, well-proportioned woman driving a crappy car. NEVER.
You beat me to it. My first thought was exactly that: according to the liberals, PC, and elitists - never. They have this ideal and they are going to try to drive society towards it, no matter how unrealistic their alleged utopia is.
“Harrison Bergeron” ~ story written a long time ago by Kurt Vonnegut. See: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
At what point? Off the books, thats at what point. In the “black” market.
It is the issue of beautiful women that the liberals tried to address with women’s liberation.
They wanted to denigrate beautiful women—because they represent one of the last remaining threats to the egalitarian Utopia.
In a liberal Utopia such women would have their mates determined by a government bureaucracy so that they wouldn’t choose “unfairly”.
Otherwise we will never all be truly equal.
“For a Liberal, if everyone is a millionaire, that is “fair”. If only some people are millionaires, that is “unfair”. Either everyone is a winner, or everyone is a loser. That would appear to be “fair” to a Liberal.”
Sorry, this is where you are incorrect.
For a Liberal, if everyone is a millionaire, that is “fair” as long as they don’t have to participate. Everyone deserves equal healthcare, as long as they are exempt. Everyone has to get paid the same, except them as they keep the trains running.
Liberalism is only good until it becomes institutionalized. Then it is Communism.
Forcing others to agree that a manifestly stupid thing is a wonderful and good thing is a demonstration of power.
Ft. Hood is the present culmination of this manifest stupidity. There are coming others and worse.
Didn’t Rush once say that feminism was invented to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society-?! Look at the lineup of broadcasters on any of the lamestream medias “news” programs, and compare it to that on Fox-!!!
As far as hitability is concerned, just about any woman can tell you that guy's aren't as selective as soon imagine.
I have a friend who is a "one-on-one" for a special needs child in a public school. Each one of the special ed children at my friend's school has his/her own "one-on-one." The parents tend to be extremely demanding. If the mother of my friend's student is ever displeased about anything, the school district panics, fearing a lawsuit, and they call in armies of lawyers for emergency meetings that go on for days. And people wonder why the public schools cost so much.
Some of the special needs kids are classified as SED (severely emotionally disturbed.) Yet they still have to go to the regular school. The regular kids are terrified of these SED kids. Some of the special ed kids will do things like taking all their clothes off in class. It sounds really chaotic sometimes, and it's GOT to affect the education of the non-special-needs students.
When I was a kid, any "SED" or similar kid would have to go to a special school. I listen to my friend's horror stories and it just seems insane to me. Why are we doing this?
As for affirmative action, I don't follow sports, but I do know a lot of Lakers fans. I've never heard one complain that it's "not fair" that most of the Lakers are black males. Nobody is suggesting that the Lakers should be forced to hire women, short people, disabled people, mentally handicapped people, etc. That's because all the fans care about is excellence; they want the Lakers to WIN. Affirmative action will not end until we desire excellence in other areas just the same way we desire it in sports.
Updated: Thursday, 16 Dec 2010, 2:03 PM CST Published : Wednesday, 15 Dec 2010, 7:22 PM CST
By Mike Flannery, FOX Chicago News
Chicago - On Wednesday, Chicago mayoral candidate James Meeks said that only African-Americans should be able to participate in affirmative action programs-- and that Hispanics, Asians, and women should be excluded. Later, he tried to clarify his remarks
I could go for a law requiring sterilization as a condition for receiving public assistance for more than 12 months.
If done properly, "Affirmative Action" would require all capable welfare recipients to earn their benefits by cleaning buildings, public land and streets, shoveling sidewalks and driveways for the disabled/elderly and other socially desirable manual labor tasks.
“I could go for a law”
Yeah, but for liberals in general.
While I don't think I'd be willing to go quite that far, I'd certainly support a requirement for long-term, implanted birth control. A person's circumstances can be reversed; sterilization generally can't (to the best of my knowledge).
“Affirmative action” has replaced “qualified” Gender, color, race essential in job experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.