Affirmitive Action
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Utter bull****</div> Ah, got your attention I see. Make no mistake, I am against affirmative action. I'll tell you why. I am not a racist, nor am I a bigot. On the contrary, I believe that if you are against affirmative action, you are less racist than someone that is for affirmative action.
We've all heard this scenario. If a black man and a white man are in an office applying for a job. Both are equally qualified. Which do you pick?
Affirmative action would say you pick the black man. Why? Apparently, oppression many many years ago mean that black people should be rewarded today. Does anybody else see the irony in this? This too, is racist. Racist is associated with a hate crime, but racist is actually just making a decision based on race. So if you pick the black person because of affirmative action, you are being a racist, as ironic as it sounds. As you'll see, in any racist decision is a person that gets punished because of it. In this case, it is the white guy who would have had a job otherwise.
My university tries to diversify its student population. In doing so, it is actually having to lower SAT requirement scores. It is allowing people less qualified into the university and people more qualified out of the university. The people who get punished in this case are the people that actually got better grades than the ones that did not because they were minorities.
I believe in having the best man (or woman) win. If it happened that blacks got better SAT scores than whites, then blacks should be in the universities, not the whites. Lets not kid ourselves though, generally black people do less academically than white people. Asians typically do better than whites. (I'm applying this to the general case, because I realize there are many exceptions to the rule)
I don't feel that anybody should receive a scholarship or a job or anything without deserving it more than the other guy that couldn't get it. That's my two cents.
I'm sure many of you will protest to this, but I ask you to think about if selecting anything on account of race was ever a good idea.
We've all heard this scenario. If a black man and a white man are in an office applying for a job. Both are equally qualified. Which do you pick?
Affirmative action would say you pick the black man. Why? Apparently, oppression many many years ago mean that black people should be rewarded today. Does anybody else see the irony in this? This too, is racist. Racist is associated with a hate crime, but racist is actually just making a decision based on race. So if you pick the black person because of affirmative action, you are being a racist, as ironic as it sounds. As you'll see, in any racist decision is a person that gets punished because of it. In this case, it is the white guy who would have had a job otherwise.
My university tries to diversify its student population. In doing so, it is actually having to lower SAT requirement scores. It is allowing people less qualified into the university and people more qualified out of the university. The people who get punished in this case are the people that actually got better grades than the ones that did not because they were minorities.
I believe in having the best man (or woman) win. If it happened that blacks got better SAT scores than whites, then blacks should be in the universities, not the whites. Lets not kid ourselves though, generally black people do less academically than white people. Asians typically do better than whites. (I'm applying this to the general case, because I realize there are many exceptions to the rule)
I don't feel that anybody should receive a scholarship or a job or anything without deserving it more than the other guy that couldn't get it. That's my two cents.
I'm sure many of you will protest to this, but I ask you to think about if selecting anything on account of race was ever a good idea.
Comments
I went to a very good college, and I can't tell you the number of unqualified people I met who were there simpy because of connections. I don't think race should be <i>the</i> deciding factor, nor should social standing or donated buildings.
However, I don't think you can simply take grades/SAT scores at face value between two students, either.
The case is often made that a white prep schooler who receives tutoring and SAT preparation is not necessarily more qualified, or a better student, than a black youth who attends an inner city public school and manages comparable/slighty lower GPA/SAT scores.
That's an extreme example, but scores don't tell the entire story.
*edit* my opinion isn't needed here <!--emo&::fade::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/fade.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='fade.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Nitpicking aside, you're right. It is often unfair. Unfortunately, the people it benefits are still often in unfair situations. For example, BathroomMonkey's example of inner city schools vs., say, a much wealthier suburban school.
There's unfortunately no easy solution here. With affirmative action, some people get the boost they need to escape the inequalities in this country. But with it, many other worthy people are tossed aside in the quest to even things out. Without it, there's still no check to balance out the existing inequalities in our society.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Sadly this is among the better efforts to equalize opportunity across racial, ethnic, and social lines. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's unfortunate conditions were such that it had to be created in the first place.
We've all heard this scenario. If a black man and a white man are in an office applying for a job. Both are equally qualified. Which do you pick?
Affirmative action would say you pick the black man. Why? Apparently, oppression many many years ago mean that black people should be rewarded today. Does anybody else see the irony in this? This too, is racist. Racist is associated with a hate crime, but racist is actually just making a decision based on race. So if you pick the black person because of affirmative action, you are being a racist, as ironic as it sounds. As you'll see, in any racist decision is a person that gets punished because of it. In this case, it is the white guy who would have had a job otherwise.
My university tries to diversify its student population. In doing so, it is actually having to lower SAT requirement scores. It is allowing people less qualified into the university and people more qualified out of the university. The people who get punished in this case are the people that actually got better grades than the ones that did not because they were minorities.
I believe in having the best man (or woman) win. If it happened that blacks got better SAT scores than whites, then blacks should be in the universities, not the whites. Lets not kid ourselves though, generally black people do less academically than white people. Asians typically do better than whites. (I'm applying this to the general case, because I realize there are many exceptions to the rule)
I don't feel that anybody should receive a scholarship or a job or anything without deserving it more than the other guy that couldn't get it. That's my two cents.
I'm sure many of you will protest to this, but I ask you to think about if selecting anything on account of race was ever a good idea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but its probably not going to change soon.
why?
It's like parents spanking kids, they just wont for fear of being accused of abuse
Employers are afraid of being called racist, so a lot of times they'll hire the person from the minority unless the majority person has some Uber 1337 skillz
Just kidding. Although I am a minority within this country, I feel that I've been given more than enough advantages in life to be taken at faceless value and accepted as a person who had no past struggles nor inequalities forced onto me by powers beyond my control.
Although, you're at a standstill. Assuming there are two equally qualified people, but different skin color, who DO you choose? You can't choose both, it's gotta be one or the other.
Simply put, life is unfair, and it will always remain unfair.
That said Im against affirmative action.
I went to a very good college, and I can't tell you the number of unqualified people I met who were there simpy because of connections. I don't think race should be <i>the</i> deciding factor, nor should social standing or donated buildings.
However, I don't think you can simply take grades/SAT scores at face value between two students, either.
The case is often made that a white prep schooler who receives tutoring and SAT preparation is not necessarily more qualified, or a better student, than a black youth who attends an inner city public school and manages comparable/slighty lower GPA/SAT scores.
That's an extreme example, but scores don't tell the entire story. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree compleatly. If an imployer decideds that someone with less written qualifications is better suited for the job than someone else based on 'connection' I think that is a far better gauge for them to use then being forced to follow rules about "best man gets the job" all the time. I know its annoying to see people getting into university because there dad was some rich bastage who donated lots of money or something, but without alternitives to the 'best man gets the job' system, many good hardworking people, who are quite good at what they do, would easily be overlooked because their personallity or learning disabilities got in the way preforming as highly as everyone else on the more testable gauges of ability.
I am against racial afirmitive action (we probably all are to some degree judging from this boards average demographic) but I really don't see it as enough of an issue to construct a rigid lawcode around.
It needs to happen at some point, but I would rather see it reaplaced with a more simplified lawcode giving employers more power of decision than a restricting law code that spells out in no uncertian terms how each employee is supposed to be hired.
It seems soiciety just keeps taking one step forward, then two steps back. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
10/4/2004
Affirmative Action
In America’s quest for giving all citizens equal footing in society, affirmative action has answered the call. Installed by Lyndon Johnson, affirmative action was installed to give a benefit to those who were disadvantaged by society. That was in 1967, which was the height of minorities back lashing against society in demands for equal treatment. Today we live in a different America, both where affirmative action is increasingly unwanted and unnecessary as it strays from our classic liberal roots.
The original thinking that put affirmative action into effect with Executive Order 11246, in 1965:
You do not take a person, who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.1
This logic is understandable. Other times the government had to intervene to keep order in society was the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. After that there was the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which it was decided that the policy of “separate, but equal” was the way to go, which was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 2 The government has consistently been dealing with racial issues, ever since the creation of the nation. It only makes sense that sooner or later, after countless incidents of racial discrimination that a law is placed down that simply forces equality. This could be seen as something of an injustice by the government, but is easily defensible by the notion the government must protect the minorities from the majority. Democracy through mob rule is hardly a way to let a country live.
That was then. Those in favor of affirmative action today state that affirmative action is still necessary to promote the equality of American citizens. Those who oppose it claim it’s unfair towards the “evil white male”, has reverse discrimination, and doesn’t choose the most qualified person. Merit should be the defining aspect of who is chosen for any position in our liberal society, not something you are born with. Of course, one could always argue that merit is not the sole deciding factor. But, trying to get things down to merit is the idea, and this includes limiting factor by factor. Starting to limit things back to merit, by removing affirmative action is a great start.
This is a classic liberal’s argument. The idea of merit, of earning what you deserve – where has this ideal gone? John Locke, a philosopher our founding fathers were influenced heavily by once said,
God gave the world to the men in common, but since He gave it them for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it); not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.
Has our morals today fallen so low that we no longer trust each other to treat our fellow man like human beings? Has 35 years of affirmative action not been enough to change things so that we do not need a crutch on society to make sure racism no longer affects how minorities are treated? Does the government not trust us that we would not pick our students and workers based on their ability and past achievements, or do we be ruled by a law that treats us like bigots? How does it feel to those who have been put in prestigious positions have done so under a handicap? Morally, affirmative action is questioned by almost every liberal ideal.
In today’s world quotas are finally becoming things of the past, where colleges and universities were recruiting a number of minorities based on number. It is being reformed that now affirmative action bases is just there, that if the university has a choice between a minority or female, over say something like a white male, then they will choose the female. Of course, it’s not all as bad as it seems, as the students need to meet the basic requirements of the school in order to be accepted. A minority still isn’t going to be accepted into Harvard if he doesn’t have straight A’s, a well-rounded curriculum, and good SAT or ACT scores. The differences in affirmative action are small. Even still, it affects enough people that today there are court cases of whites who feel they have been wronged by affirmative action.
America isn’t going to righted until it receives proper treatment. Admission offices around the country need to be given the responsibility that they will pick people based solely on their merit and ability. Removing affirmative action in the government first, and then the university could easily start a slow reform in this direction. Some believe America is ready to take this next step. Is our government?
No matter what is done right now, affirmative action has become such a part of American universities and military that to remove it now would create backlash. Backlash from minorities who feel they still need it, backlash from those factions who are in power and like to campaign on the issue of affirmative action for their benefit. But it was the same when affirmative action was first put in, most of American society did not want it, but in order to keep order our government installed it. Removing it will be in the same process. At first people will hate the decision, but will slowly become accustomed, and eventually would move back into every having another affirmative action type system, providing racism does not somehow do a resurface on society.
The problem with change in our government is the staying power of laws and programs. It’s hard enough to install a new system in our government, but it is much harder to remove it. For this reason our government always expands but never contracts. Growth without control leads to its own form of disorder, the kind that technically is lawful but makes no sense. John Locke would look at affirmative action as pure absurdity, but much of today’s society has come to terms with this program to the point that almost no one realizes how far it’s gone past what our founding fathers setup.
Bibliography
1. Nancy S. Love, DOGMAS AND DREAMS: A Reader in Modern Ideologies, (New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1998), 99
2. <a href='http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html' target='_blank'>http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html</a>
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...firm/affirm.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/for.html' target='_blank'>http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazin...ticles/for.html</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/powell.race/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/powell.race/</a>
<i>This was an essay I wrote for english class. Still haven't gotten my grade back on it yet :x</i>
"My ancestors wronged your ancestors. Therefore, I owe you something."
This of course, makes no sense.
Obviously, economic affirmative action will help blacks and Hispanics more considering the poverty statistics, but also helps disenfranchised white and Asian kids. No race involved. We are all still Americans people.
If I were a employer and had to chose between a poor vrs rich applicant and both were qualified, id go with the poor guy. I’m sure most here would agree.
P.S. I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, Asians are not included in affirmative action.
"My ancestors wronged your ancestors. Therefore, I owe you something."
This of course, makes no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's supposed to be:
"your anscestors were slaves, so there hasn't been any time for your family to aquire money, thus we are going to give you a bit of a head start getting into the workforce"
It acctually is:
"I'll hire you first if you don't call me a racist"
And thus is problematic.
The system the way you describe it isn't even remotely logical, because tonnes and tonnes of white American families only imigrated to America several generations after slaverly, and affirmitive acction also applies to other non-black/non-white races and cultures.
The problem is that it is political suicide. No politician will go near the subject without fearing his head be cut off. Who is going to stand up and shout in front of a large crowd "I'm against affirmative action! I believe a black person should not necessarily be picked over a white person!"? That will kill your minority votes right there.
I'm interested to hear more minority opinions to be perfectly honest.
The problem is that it is political suicide. No politician will go near the subject without fearing his head be cut off. Who is going to stand up and shout in front of a large crowd "I'm against affirmative action! I believe a black person should not necessarily be picked over a white person!"? That will kill your minority votes right there.
I'm interested to hear more minority opinions to be perfectly honest. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's becoming a pretty huge issue amoung white americans, and progressively a smaller issue to American minorities... I don't know, I could see a politition going for the majority vote by coming out against affimative action within the next ten years... Not to say it WILL happen, but I could see it happening.
FYI, black people are better at basketball. The possible expetion is chineese people, some of them are pretty crazy too...
It's supposed to be:
"your anscestors were slaves, so there hasn't been any time for your family to aquire money, thus we are going to give you a bit of a head start getting into the workforce"
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, tack on, 'And, relatively speaking, you've also only recently been given any political input into your destiny . . . '
OMG! RACIST!
j/k
I think it is stupid to stop pretending. The races are not equal. I won't go so far as to say that one is superior than another, but some are certainly better in some things than others. There's no point denying that fact.
Why pretend there aren't differences? It doesn't make us racist. Why is it okay to choose someone because of race, but not okay to acknowledge the differences? This sort of ties in with the "N word" thread a bit.
The problem is that the world is too politically correct. That's okay to a degree, but when it starts affecting your judgement, you're too politically correct.
OMG! RACIST!
j/k
I think it is stupid to stop pretending. The races are not equal. I won't go so far as to say that one is superior than another, but some are certainly better in some things than others. There's no point denying that fact.
Why pretend there aren't differences? It doesn't make us racist. Why is it okay to choose someone because of race, but not okay to acknowledge the differences? This sort of ties in with the "N word" thread a bit.
The problem is that the world is too politically correct. That's okay to a degree, but when it starts affecting your judgement, you're too politically correct. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just kidding (no duh)
In all honestly the physical differences between the differnent colors of humans (I don't really like the word races, it has too much cultural connetations for this purpose) are inconsequential. Of course different races are very different culturally, but if treated properly there is no reason that cultural differences should represent a major handicap to anyone attempting to participate in sociaty. No culture requires stupidity or physical lethargy.
Sure black people can run a little farther a little faster, or white people can swim a slight bit better, but how often does this realistly play a role in sociaty?
<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>*Unless you're white.</span>
The government screws up in the social structure, security, and schooling area in several major cities for several decades.
Due to this descepancy, the Government feels that it should give something back for screwing up for so many decades to the minorities, even though when any thought is put to the future of such a "initiative" it quickly becomes evident it will not make anything better; even though it <i>will</i> shut people up quick enough to get a second term in office or on the board or whatever.
True story.
Thing is, who'd you want to guide your space ship back to earth from orbit:
A) The minority who got into university and nearly flunked out?
or
B) The average-joe university man who passed sufficiently?
And please note that there are no tags, colors, and/or labels applied to that question. What <i>you</i> think the minority is is your own business, so keep it to yourself!
I, personally, would choose B. Why?
Better qualified, regardless of who that person is. (Male/Female, Black/White/Asian/Alien from Uranus. I dont care. I JUST WANT TO GET TO EARTH SAFELY!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Just because the criteria for picking who deserves this help is often simplistic and race-based, doesn't mean that the idea of helping people who are statistically proven to have a disadvantage is faulty.
You're right in saying that equal opportunity doesn't equate with equality, but that doesn't rationalize your belief that there is no basis for affirmative action. Creating an environment where equal opportunity exists is one step in raising the quality of life in minority populations to that of the majority one.
There is no such thing as positive discrination. Discriminating "positively" towards one person is discriminating negatively against another... which is essentially just ...discrimination.
um .. just doesn't sound as good to say
"the police force is discriminating against well spoken white people"
in the Met's reports...