[_yosefk]

How is "discriminating against a group" different from "balancing its overwhelming predominance in a particular field"? The dictionary definition of "discrimination" says there's no difference. Is the definition that says there is a difference some sort of a moral standard? What are the thresholds of that standard - at what point group members outdoing others warrants affirmative action and by how much the numbers of those members should be dwindled by affirmative action? Which groups should be punished by affirmative action - ethnic and gender, or is religion a legitimate target, what about height, family history, a preference to wear clothes of a certain color - whom is it OK to count and then hold to a higher standard to balance their overwhelming predominance?

Also - what cost should society pay in lost output due to the average ability of people allowed to enter certain occupations having been lowered by affirmative action (as it has to be if less capable candidates are admitted instead of more capable)?

Perhaps most interestingly - how much cost should a group supposedly "helped" by affirmative action pay for the dubious favor in (A) people being unable to successfully function at institutions who admitted them, not because of their abilities, but due to affirmative action and (B) perfectly capable people of the "helped" group being stigmatized because "everyone knows they only got to where they were due to affirmative action, and not due to their ability?"

(I guess you might notice that I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action, but if we could at least agree that there's no reasonable way to distinguish between "affirmative action" and "discrimination", that would be in itself awesome, even if we disagree about the merit of, well, that one thing with two names...)

[fennecfoxen]

> How is "discriminating against a group" different from "balancing its overwhelming predominance in a particular field"?

Since you ask, I'll repeat myself. Suppose you have lots of people applying for 100 slots in the university. Affirmative action at a US university designed to give you a quota of, say, 10% minorities could, in the worst case, crowd out qualified persons #91-100. "Jewish questions" deployed against highly qualified Jews in a Jewish-dominated field in Lithuania could have easily excluded most qualified persons in the range #1-100.

I really don't like affirmative action either, but it differs substantially in intent, technique, and impact. Considering them morally equivalent slights against the ideals of fairness and merit is a very narrow, black-and-white world view - and without abandoning the ideal of justice, I think it's important to see that there are many shades grays in this world, and some are much much darker than others.

[_yosefk]

I wasn't arguing with your analysis of the differences between asking different people different questions and asking everyone the same questions but then holding different people to different standards. I was only arguing that "discriminating against a group", taken literally, is equivalent to "balancing its overwhelming predominance in a particular field", taken literally. That is, I was arguing with that sentence, without assuming that these two names for what I claim are the same general thing are also names for two different discrimination methods (which are two different specific things as you pointed out.)

Regarding "intent, technique and impact" - I agree on technique and impact, intent is a thornier issue; certainly nobody ever instituted discrimination for reasons they proclaimed evil, it's always done in the name of "righting wrongs," and then real intent as opposed to proclaimed intent is very hard to establish. From my own point of view, at the gut level, some discriminators seem to act much more maliciously than others, but I'm not sure there's always a reasonable argument to support my gut feeling.

[hackuser]

> a quota of, say, 10% minorities could, in the worst case, crowd out qualified persons #91-100

You're assuming #91-100 are better candidates than the minority candidates. I think the resasoning behind affirmative action is that #91-100 are worse students who just had access to far better resources and thus produced better quantitive results. I'd rather hire the minority candidates.

[matt-attack]

I'm sure your argument makes #95 feel much better.

[to3m]

How would they know they were #95?

It's not clear why failed applicants would automatically leap to the theory that they didn't get in because of affirmative action, rather than just assuming they weren't good enough. Competition for good academic institutions is generally stiff enough that this is the most likely reason anyway.

[13thLetter]

"It's not clear why failed applicants would automatically leap to the theory that they didn't get in because of affirmative action, rather than just assuming they weren't good enough."

Why wouldn't they? People generally look for an explanation of bad events that doesn't put the blame on themselves. Even better, if it defines a specific culprit and paints them as a villain. "I didn't get into X because they discriminated against me, those racist bastards" is therefore a very appealing narrative.

[fennecfoxen]

It's not designed to make #95 feel better. It's designed to make you feel bad about equating #95 to a guy who probably would have gotten shipped off to Siberia with all his family and many of his friends if Stalin had lived a few more years than he ended up doing.

[analyst74]

What happens to minorities if they exceeded their "quota"? Do you put them back to their place?

[Udik]

I'm not a great fan of affirmative action either. Some of the things you say make perfect sense to me. I was only remarking that a similar mechanism exists today in the US and it is considered ethically valid.

As for the difference between AA and simple discrimination, the latter is usually intended to increase the power of the current dominant group, while affirmative action should act in the interest of a minority or disadvantaged group. The mechanisms are the same, it's the objective that's different. Much as the same substance or tool can be used to cure or to kill, it's the intention that matters.