EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE?

Seems to be how Bronwyn and other affirmative action oriented folks are arguing.

Sure..this might be true, and is true in greater and lesser ways depending on where.

In Melbourne, I've raised the issue in the past of the State government buying up homes along various creeks which have significance to Aboriginal tribes connected to the area, and then leasing those homes to indigenous people.

My purpose in suggesting that was bending as far as possible toward re-establishing the spiritual element in their lives.
While my preferred outcome is for Aboriginal people to come to know the new life in Christ which will set them free of the clinging to many debilitating ancient chords of cultural attachment, I know this is not something which can be orchestrated at the political level, it must come from the individual heart response.

Bronwyn, did you by any chance check the links I provided in the other thread ? I hope you did as you would see the vast difference of a formerly decaying tribe which had the spiritual vacuum filled,(the Lun Bawang of Sarawak) and a group which is still living in former darkness and current squalor.(Many Aboriginals)

"EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE" that's almost a certainty.

My own stance is closer to "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE" with a mix of the point Col makes that "human compassion cannot be transferred to government".

I suspect that the way to tell how successful we have been in creating equality of opportunity is to measure outcomes across large groups and across a wide range of outcomes. Individual outcomes won't give us an indication of how well we are travelling.

I certainly don't think those who won't make an effort should expect the same outcomes as those who strive for something. I'd like to see institutional barriers which leave members of some groups feeling they have no chance removed but thats a different issue to personal disinterest of lazyness.

R0bert

Quite so Robert...but 'laziness' might be caused by any of a number of causes.

1/ Personality.
2/ Despair, hopelessness.

Point 2 can be caused by various factors obviously. If the cause is a sense of loss of identity which is tied to traditional beliefs being 'trashed' by the new system, the only real solution is to change the beliefs or change the system.

If it's caused by closed doors, institutional racism etc.. that can be fixed at the system/policy level.

Traditional beliefs simply don't cut it in the modern world, I can hardly imagine occupational progress if a man going to work suddenly returns home because a blackbird flew across his path.....
Or a Dingo barked... you know..'bad omens'..the 'spirits have spoken' ..taboo kind of thing.

Robert “measure outcomes across large groups and across a wide range of outcomes.”

Of course, what is also being assumed with an expectation of ”Equality of Outcome” is that everyone wants the same outcome or is striving for some common goal.

You allude to it with “issue to personal disinterest of lazyness.”

Whilst I would suspect you and I share many common values and possibly general aspirations, we might not share the same personal “outcomes”.

Example, not every one wants to own their own house.
Not everyone is motivated by social recognition.
Not everyone wants to be a part of the footie club brigade.
Not everyone is driven to earn a lot of money, preferring to focus more of their personal values and motivations in spiritual things.

Measuring some Australian wide generic “outcome” is completely fallacious and as meaningful as demanding a pay rise based on the CPI index, regardless of the employment conditions.

There is a limit to how much “equality of opportunity” can be regulated because in many aspects of life, “merit” is not equally spread and affirmative action only holds back the best from competing on a level playing field with those being affirmatively favoured.

“Horse, water and drinking” also comes to mind too.

Ian Robertson, "Sociology," tell us that:

"In our society we are primarily concerned with freedom "of" :
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of the individual to make a fortune. In other societies they are...
concerned with freedom "from" : freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from exploitation by people who want to make a fortune." In other words we interpret freedom as meaning "liberty," other societies interpret it as meaning
"equality."

Robertson says that, "Liberty and equality are uneasy bedfellow. In general, the more you have of one, the less you will have of the other. Your liberty to be richer than anyone else violates other people's right to be your equal: other people's rights to be your equal violates your liberty to earn more than anyone else..."

We have chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis that can lead only to social inequality.

As Robertson emphasizes, "Most people do not rationally consider the various alternatives. No matter what country they inhabit, they tend simply to accept the system they have been socialized to believe in.
We tend to overlook our lack of equality. Extensive research on political socialization has shown that people take the legitimacy of their particular political system for granted very early in life, and usually adopt the political views of their parents. By the time they are in elementary school, children all over the world take an overwhelmingly favourable view of their own country's system and of its national leaders."

Yvonne

"I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that slower students have a higher need for teacher time than able ones. I don't think that is the way to achieve what you envision."

So what do you see as the best way to achieve greater parity in educational outcomes? Or don't you consider striving toward greater parity as a priority? You referred fairly scathingly to the "conventional education system" and how it "barely achieves mediocrity". So I'm inferring from this that you believe in educational excellence over mediocrity. Is that excellence for all children? Or excellence for some and mediocrity for the rest?

BD

"EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE?

Seems to be how Bronwyn and other affirmative action oriented folks are arguing.

Sure..this might be true, and is true in greater and lesser ways depending on where.

In Melbourne, I've raised the issue in the past of the State government buying up homes along various creeks which have significance to Aboriginal tribes connected to the area, and then leasing those homes to indigenous people."

BD, I must admit I sometimes see a glimmer of good in your posts and this is one of those rare occasions.

"Bronwyn, did you by any chance check the links I provided in the other thread ? I hope you did as you would see the vast difference of a formerly decaying tribe which had the spiritual vacuum filled,(the Lun Bawang of Sarawak) and a group which is still living in former darkness and current squalor.(Many Aboriginals)"

Yes I did. And I posted a response.

Those pictures are very selective: the situation is not entirely the grim one that they are painting. There are some good things happening you know. It's a long and eclectic list of photos. Do you collect them and have them ready to wheel out whenever you think it's time to cast a few more aspersions on Aboriginals?