Thread: What Teachers Make

Originally Posted by ZiggyDeath

What do you think of "Affirmative Action"? At first I thought it was thoroughly racist and was disgusted when it was applied to me: I'm a "visual minority" living in Canada. Now the difference between me and others is that I'm a first/second generation immigrant.

I find the very idea of it hateful. it IS racist. see the following definition for racism:
(not mine)
"Aggression or discriminatory behavior towards members of a certain race or races."

since Affirmative Action allows and disallows institutions to accept people based on their race, it is, by the very definition, racist. racism is racist whether it's directed at a minority or a majority.

the idea that "well, racism went one way a while ago, so we're gonna do it in reverse to make things equal" doesn't promote equality at all, it promotes separation and keeps the hate alive. I really believe we'd all be better if we just wiped the slate clean and started from zero rather than have each generation tell the next that it's cool to have a chip on your shoulder.

Originally Posted by xman

I submit that you are mistaken about why bad educations are received in your country. I believe it is not because precious resources are squandered on the undeserving, but because there is a willful effort on the part of THE STUPID AND UNDESERVING to keep THEMSELVES ignorant and docile. After all, the best education systems in the world are very socialised.
X

fixed that for ya.

but seriously, despite all the brokenness of the public education system in America (and yes, it is VERY busted) I think the real brokenness is people's willingness to learn. see my earlier post about the "culture of stupidity" that permeates American teenagers. (hell, adults, too)

people don't learn because they don't want to. kids, rich poor whatever, if they want to, still have a chance in today's system. they really do. they will have to work their asses off, in some cases, but if they want it bad enough, they've got a shot. the more the system caters to people who DON'T want it, the worse it is on the people who do, I think we can all agree on that. I'm merely advocating a system that rewards the people who place value on their education above those that are just along for the ride.

as to scandinavian schools being superior, I have no knowledge of them one way or another so I can't comment.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

In general, I think we need more vocational higher education institutions (ala DeVry and ITT), where a persons natural talents for a job related skill is enhanced with good academic curricula. This would be great for the kids who want to do as well as learn. Some schools in New York City have switched over to this model - one example being a Culinary High School, where they learn to cook in addition to math, science, etc. The same could even be done for sports...send all the jocks to a few schools - they can play against each other in "the big game", but also learn academic skills that could get them into college and make them a well-rounded person. These schools could even be feeder schools for professional teams' training centers, if college is not one the kid's agenda. It may be great to go to college and get a degree or two, but when you car is sputtering, it's the kid who was looked down upon and not encouraged who will be taking apart your fuel injection system.

The Ford Mechanical Sciences Institute
The Lockeed School for Aeronautical Maintenance
The Lowes School for Construction Management
The Kohler Institute of Plumbing

The National League Academy of Sport Sciences
The NFL Divisional Training Institutes

I think this is exactly what needs to be done to "fix" higher education. We need to go back to requiring job skills not general education in the workplace.

An example: My Father

He failed out of college in the fifties, he was hoping to be a physicist. When he realized he was in over his head and failing he ordered a correspondence course in drafting. With that course he was able to learn all the skills he needed to get a job as a draftsman for Ford motor company. int the thirty+ years up to his retirement he saw Ford begin to require an increasing amount of "education" to get his old job. At his leaving they required a masters degree.

The sad part is when they got new hires with masters degrees they would then have to send them to a six week "orientation" class where they were taught to draft. Interestingly enough six weeks was how long it took my dad to complete his correspondence course thirty years ago.

I think part of the problem is the focus is on going to college, not on getting an education in a career that will allow you to make something of yourself. The system is letting down even the "smart" kids who have worked hard to get past all the roadblocks in their way.

Originally Posted by jockeys

the idea that "well, racism went one way a while ago, so we're gonna do it in reverse to make things equal" doesn't promote equality at all, it promotes separation and keeps the hate alive. I really believe we'd all be better if we just wiped the slate clean and started from zero rather than have each generation tell the next that it's cool to have a chip on your shoulder.

Except you're not working with a clean slate, the economic discrepancy left over from that era still exists. By simply saying let's clean the slate, you're avoiding taking responsibilities for past injustices, while you yourself may not be personally responsible, you may have benefited from it. Wiping the slate clean would be ideal if possible, but then again so would communism wouldn't it? Nothing is ideal though, and affirmative action is definitely not ideal.

I already said it didn't I? Your black veterans from WW2 were screwed out of the ability to own land, land that gains capital over time. In other words they got the shaft in terms of economic edge. Affirmative action, while I agree is distasteful is perhaps a necessary evil: I can certainly see the logic behind it, at the same time I am unable to give a better alternative for it.

Honestly, those definitions are sorely lacking. How about pay equity? Okay, so now that women and men are supposed to make the same money for the same job, let's forget about the backpaid that should be owed? Don't worry that won't leave a chip in their shoulders, everyone should just forget about it.

Here's a slightly more concrete example. During the late 19th and early 20th century there was obviously a huge need for labor in Canada. Afterall it's always quoted that for every mile of railroad in Canada, 4 Chinamen died, or something like that. Well what happened when Canada didn't need anymore of them anymore? They imposed a head tax. It started out low but eventually reached staggering 500$ per head. Recently the Canadian Government has issued apologies as well as paid compensation. Now 500$ in 1900 funds is really not peanuts. According to the Bank of Canada, 500$ in 1914 would be equal to 9400$ today. If you spent that money wisely right now, how much would that be worth to your children or your grandchildren a hundred years from now? It could be argue that it was the price of admission: that being allowed to live a life and have a family in Canada would be worth 10 grand. Except the head tax never hit anyone else.

In anycase, while this is somewhat related to the subject at hand it's clearly a digression. If you would like to continue this discussion, we should probably start a new thread.

The problem with that Ziggy is that it's unfeasible. Where do we draw the line when we decide to pay out reparations? There are so many people that lost out due to some problem or another. I lost out on learning a second language at home because my German great great great grandparents were afraid not to be entirely American, including speaking only English. Where's my money?

My main point though is that all these payouts that come from the government are really coming from us. I didn't do anything wrong, and most people now never experienced any of the wrongdoing, so why should my money go into their pockets?

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

The problem with that Ziggy is that it's unfeasible. Where do we draw the line when we decide to pay out reparations? There are so many people that lost out due to some problem or another. I lost out on learning a second language at home because my German great great great grandparents were afraid not to be entirely American, including speaking only English. Where's my money?

+1

basically every people-group throughout history has been screwed over by every other people-group. when do we draw the line?

in your specific instance, some of the WWII vets got screwed. I am not in any way denying that it happened. it did. but how do you translate that into modern day equality? exactly how much do we have to add and subtract from each side of the equation to make it balance just right? what if it's not enough, or is a bit too much, then aren't we as guilty as those who came before us?

in the end, we are forced to admit that you can't ever make it perfectly alright. at some point, you really do just have to get over it. sometimes, a bad thing happens in history, and you can't ever repair it. sucks, but that's life.

yeah, it'd be cool to start another thread with all this stuff in it, it's an important issue that should be discussed, but I don't think this is the place for it

I really don't want to take this thread further away from its initial topic, but I'm interested in ZiggyDeaths opinion. I come from the viewpoint that positive discrimination is still discrimination. If you discriminate in favour of one person, you are discriminating against another.

Now, I'm a white chap, but I take no offence from your assertion. This is an interesting topic to discuss, and everyone at SRP is a gentleman, so we can discuss heavy issues like this, and, even if we end up disagreeing, still come out of it friends.

ZiggyDeath, in your reply above you say: "You know that after WW2 a lot of subsidized housing was made available for veterans and mortgage/loans, however the visual minorities were left out of this promotion of the vets. What does property net over time? It becomes capital. So here you have white veterans who becomes more and more affluent and rich, and others who served the country who got squat all. How can you measure the economic potential that was deprived to those?

"The lack of property, perhaps not being able to send their children to proper school, these things can adversely affect the potential future income, and thus puts them in a very low margin life where it would be essentially impossible to break free from."


Would positive discrimination, in favour of 'visual minorities', come at the expense of only the direct descendents of those who benefitted fom the original discrimination, ie. the descendents of the white veterans who became wealthy (wealthy white people)?

I may have it wrong, but, as I understand it positive discrimination employs a far wider brush stroke. For example, if two job applicants have the same qualifications and virtues, positive discrimination, as it's currently applied, would favour a 'visual minority' person over a 'visual majority' person?

I feel this is unfair since the majority of the people who form the 'visual majority' probably never benefitted from the original crime. Wealthy white land owners make up a small minority of the white population.

I come from a working class (blue-collar) family, as do most of my social circle. None of us has benefitted from dubious swindles pulled by our ancestor, yet, if it's employed, being a part of the 'visual majority', positive discrimination would affect me, regardless of my heritage. Applied to the above job-interview example, the fact that I am not from a minority would not detract from the fact that I have as much need to house and feed my family as anyone else.

I feel the same when it comes to positive discrimination based on gendre. The only way to make things work is to leave the past to history, and to ensure that everything is as fair as can be for everyone right now. Rather than positive discrimination, we need to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and create a level playing field. Well, I'm sure everyone here will agree that that's a pretty obvious statement, and probably just a pipe dream, but recklessly inventing new forms of discrimination to redress the failings of past generations is not the way to go. This is a broad, crude policy that does not address the shortcomings of the present day, but will actually harm society. Things are probably never going to be perfect, but making them worse is not going to get us any closer.

Love and respect, Leon.

I agree Leon. It's a sad truth here that many qualified individuals are not employed in places because the business has to meet their affirmative action quota. It doesn't help anyone to give out free rides based on your ancestry or skin color. In my view, you either qualify for the job and fit in with the company or you don't, end of story.

What's funny in an ironic way is that many who bang the reparations drum haven't a clue who their ancestors are or what really happened. It's truly astonishing in the case of american indians how little they know about their past, but dammit they were wronged and deserve handouts.

I don't know. If Native Americans had the land in order to sustain themselves out of our system, then they wouldn't need handouts. I think that their way of life is worth saving.

I for one am more for home schooling. I think the current education system teaches one how to work and not how to live. Living to me is much more important than work. Now if I could only find a way to live without working. Getting close though...

Well, I'm kind of divided personally on the issue of reperation to countries or communities, rather than preferential treatment to individuals. Countries like Britain and America benefitted through draining or outrightly taking the human resources of other countries. The past was often rather brutal. We don't need to feel racked with guilt personally about this. Every person, from those in the majority to those in the minority, living in these wonderful countries is benefitting from the wealth and success that was built up through many great deeds, but also through some dubious and wrong activities. We can't help where we are born. In my opinion we are all born innocent.

Hopefully, without feeling we are doing it purely through guilt or obligation, aid to countries or communities that may have been adversely affected by the past will help them to come closer to where we are. I am not talking about personal preferential treatment.

Here I am talking about trying to repair things in a positive sense. I am opposed to the idea of positive discrimination because it approaches the problem on an individual level and from a negative proposition. It comes from the perspective that to further some we nust inhibit others, and is not sympathetic to the idea that we are all individuals who don't deserve to be affected personally by a flawed policy.

Sadly racism and discrimination still exist in our society. Those who are proposing positive discrimination are, on the whole, honestly trying to redress these issues. But they are missing the fact that this is a doubled edge sword. By curing in one direction they are harming in the other direction, and the net effect will not be justice, but a propogation of discrimination, all be it in the opposite direction. This is not a solution.

I'll try to resist posting any more in this thread 'cos it's been seriously hijacked

Leon