Affirmative Action

[MolecularMan14]

I know that this may very well be seen as in the wrong place, so make whatever change you feel needed.

I have to do an I-Search paper (for any of those who are familiar with them, you know my pain) on Affirmative Action. I know that there are very harsh views on either side of the spectrum, and I'd like to see both before making my personal decision (which has been forming from what I've heard from my parents and the news)

In any case, does anyone have any good arguements in terms of supporting or opposing an Affirmative Action topic. Keep in mind that Affirmative Action is not exclusive for African Americans.

In any case, thanks for everything, keep an open mind and present your thoughts.

[MolecularMan14]

I suppose I ought to start with my own interpretation.

Personally, its hard for me to make a decision on such a topic. Although I understand that lack of resource, and opportunity that many minorities have been faced with, I still can't help but feel that it is unfair for the race that is then overlooked, just for the color of their skin.

I dont EVER want to hear about the Karma arguement, in which you make the ever-deadly "You did it to them! Why shouldn't they do it to you?" presentation. Dont me immature. We learn from the past, we dont take vengence from it. I never oppressed anyone, so why in the hell should I be overlooked in terms of opportunities.

I've also heard the arguement that since "whites" have had such opportunities in the past, it is time for us to step aside and allow minorities. While this is a valid arguement, I work hard as hell for everything I do, and I am not allowing anyone to take my position because of the color of their skin as compared to mine! Truely, it's hard to make it fair for anyone, but if anyone has a good suggestion to a solution, feel free to present it.

Im running low on time, so I suppose I'll talk more later.

Thanks

[syntax252]

I am basically opposed to affirmative action because a meritocracy is the best way to assure excellence. Affirmative action is an open invitation to mediocracy.

[Phi for All]

I support affirmative action because I feel we need to overcompensate for our predilection for what is known and comfortable. If meritocracy were completely blind to gender, color and national origin, it would indeed be the best system, but it's not. Affirmative action helps those whose merit is hidden behind the prejudices of the company who thinks certain hires are safe, economical and predictable.

 

I don't have any figures on it, but isn't it almost always quiet, normal, safe white male workers who go postal and shoot up everyone in the office?

[syntax252]

If meritocracy were completely blind to gender' date=' color and national origin, it would indeed be the best system, but it's not. Affirmative action helps those whose merit is hidden behind the prejudices of the company who thinks certain hires are safe, economical and predictable.

 

[/quote']

 

And it would seem to me that working out the problems of racial/gender/national origin prejudice would be the way to fix that, rather than to institute a program that would exacerbate those problems.

[Phi for All]

And it would seem to me that working out the problems of racial/gender/national origin prejudice would be the way to fix that, rather than to institute a program that would exacerbate those problems.

And leaving those prejudice problems up to the individual employer has worked well, in your white male opinion? I encourage government programs where individual initiative on the part of big business is not immediately profitable. I wouldn't want to relax laws against pollution, either.

[Pangloss]

The Wikipedia has a good page on the pros and cons of Affirmative Action here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

 

Being somewhat of a libertarian/centrist type, I tend to lean rather towards opposition to it. But I am generally in favor of the legal system of anti-discriminatory practices (i.e. you can't deny someone a job just because they're black). Purists often oppose those measures as well, on the basis that an employer should be free to employ whomever he chooses for whatever reason he likes. But I think history has shown us that this is a valid compromise. But Affirmative Action seems to cross the line for me.

 

But I have heard some good, well-reasoned arguments in favor of AA, and if you're writing a paper then of course you'll need to read those and digest them fully, whether you agree with them or not.

 

One of the more interesting areas you may want to take a look at is that segment of the black community which opposes Affirmative Action. Lead by prominent individuals (such as Bill Cosby), their position essentially is that it holds them back by giving them something they haven't earned. It's an interesting line of reasoning, and it does have some interesting counter-points as well, which you may have to dig for, but I would try the NAACP web site and similarly inclined advocacy groups.

 

You might also want to look into "Title IX", which is basically a legislated prohibition against gender discrimination in sports, but which from a practical point of view has presented some rather interesting challenges for educational institutions, which often use sporting events as a major revenue stream (often benefitting non-sports students). For example, a men's sports team might be eliminated because a women's team can't be constructed due to lack of interest. (But the arguments in favor of it are interesting and provocative as well, and it is generally seen as a successful application of affirmative action.)

 

Good luck with the paper!

[Pangloss]

And leaving those prejudice problems up to the individual employer has worked well, in your white male opinion? I encourage government programs where individual initiative on the part of big business is not immediately profitable. I wouldn't want to relax laws against pollution, either.

 

I would, if scientific, objective analysis indicated that the atmosphere had suddenly acquired a new ability to cleanse itself of pollution.

 

In other words, if society is no longer of a discriminatory bent, then the analogy is flawed.

[syntax252]

And leaving those prejudice problems up to the individual employer has worked well, in your white male opinion? I encourage government programs where individual initiative on the part of big business is not immediately profitable. I wouldn't want to relax laws against pollution, either.

 

You don't think that the government can provide the oversight needed to insure equal opportunity, without institutiing laws that insure that we don't have it?

 

The point is that one does not correct a wrongful act by committing another wrongful act.

[ydoaPs]

it is racist against white males.

[atinymonkey]

Can't comment I'm afraid. Affirmative action is positive discrimination, which makes it a bad thing in the UK. The US is a different kettle of fish, and I'm not capable of considering what sort of reparations the society owes any previously repressed groups.

[Phi for All]

I would' date=' if scientific, objective analysis indicated that the atmosphere had suddenly acquired a new ability to cleanse itself of pollution.

 

In other words, if society is no longer of a discriminatory bent, then the analogy is flawed.[/quote']I see no overwhelming evidence that big business is capable of voluntary non-discrimination. They have merely gotten good at circumventing current laws that prohibit it, but it is still a white male world out there that is difficult for women and minorities to break into. I don't think it is an active conspiracy, I think it is part of the way corporations advance people to higher levels, based on many non-applicable factors, like how well you play golf, or how little your skin color offends the client you are going after.

 

Again, I believe a merit system is best, but it is just not realistic even in today's more enlightened outlook.

You don't think that the government can provide the oversight needed to insure equal opportunity, without institutiing laws that insure that we don't have it?

No. Non-discriminatory laws have been in place for years and employers can get around them.

The point is that one does not correct a wrongful act by committing another wrongful act.

False dilemma. You can't be sure that affirmative action is a wrongful act. You're making an assumption that fits your argument.

it is racist against white males.

No, it is a temporary correction of the current system which is heavily weighted in favor of white males. There is a difference, one which white males find difficult to see.

[coquina]

It should work, but often doesn't. The politics get too involved.

 

One example - I grew up in a machine shop and learned the job hands on and I bought into the business. (My dad didn't believe in giving anyone anything they hadn't earned, including me.) Many first time potential customers have assumed that I was put in charge so that the company would be able to receive set aside contracts. I don't like that. Neither do I like it that the practice of doing just that is widespread.

 

Another example - I worked with the Navy on a project to build a 5-axis machine that washed explosives out of bombs using a high velocity "water-knife". It was operated by remote control using hydraulics (No sparks) and a closed circuit TV camera. The Navy had the initial idea, but I, my husband, and several of my employees spend a lot of extra time making it work. We were told that there were a number of facilities who would be "demilitarizing bombs" and we would be able to sell several of the machines to other DOD facilities. When the request for quotations came out, it was set-aside for minority-owned businesses (not the same as female-owned businesses). We had to provide a set of drawings to the Navy when we completed our first part, and then we were not even allowed to bid on the other machines.

 

The programs were set up for good reason. A lot of good has come from them, when they function as they should. A lot of bad has come from them when people have "beaten the system".

[syntax252]

False dilemma. You can't be sure that affirmative action is a wrongful act. You're making an assumption that fits your argument.

 

Well by that line of reasoning' date=' you couldn't be sure that discrimination is a wrongful act. You only claim it is because it fit's your argument.

 

No, it is a temporary correction of the current system which is heavily weighted in favor of white males. There is a difference, one which white males find difficult to see.

 

You don't know that it is temporary. It has been in force for years and there is no sign that it about to be suspended.

 

Any system that uses a person's race or gender to assign a special status to that person is, by definition, racist, or sexist.

[Tetrahedrite]

I am basically opposed to affirmative action because a meritocracy is the best way to assure excellence. Affirmative action is an open invitation to mediocracy.

This is one of the rare times I completely agree with syntax. The best person for the job should get the job, I say.

[Pangloss]

In other words' date=' if society is no longer of a discriminatory bent, then the analogy is flawed.[/quote']

 

I see no overwhelming evidence that big business is capable of voluntary non-discrimination. They have merely gotten good at circumventing current laws that prohibit it, but it is still a white male world out there that is difficult for women and minorities to break into. I don't think it is an active conspiracy, I think it is part of the way corporations advance people to higher levels, based on many non-applicable factors, like how well you play golf, or how little your skin color offends the client you are going after.

 

Sure, that's why I said "if". But an important question is whether we will *ever* be able to identify "evidence that big business is capable of voluntary non-discrimination" in an environment in which they're not allowed to make any such choice in the first place.

 

You can point to specific examples of violation, but those are a tiny percentage of the total. What you need is some sort of overall assessment. But any numbers currently in use are tainted by bias either for or against affirmative action, and are therefore scientifically worthless.

 

I think we need to decide as a society if we want this to be handled by an agenda (for or against), or if we want it to be handled by the truth. That might be a good start.

 

 

Again, I believe a merit system is best, but it is just not realistic even in today's more enlightened outlook.

 

I'm a little confused -- I thought you were postulating that society was NOT more enlightened. Businesses aren't run by computers, you know. But I guess you're basically saying that society is more enlightened in general, but businesses are still inclined towards discrimination. Fair enough in the opinion department, but from what I've seen there's just no objective evidence to back this up OR refute it. But I've already touched on this above so let me move on.

 

At any rate, you had me right up until the last six words. While we've definitely gotten across the notion that discrimination is wrong in our society, I'm not sure that most people really care WHY. And there's nothing enlightened about people who behave in a certain way without regard towards why that behavior is better than some other behavior. This applies to BOTH sides of the affirmative action debate.

 

There is, in my book, no fundamental difference between someone who, due solely to social pressures (racism), refuses to hire a black man because he's black, and someone who, due solely to social pressures (political correctness), hires a black man because he is black. They are equally damning, equally vapid in their ignorance, and equally damaging to society. The ONLY difference is that the latter causes less harm to the black man in the example.

[Douglas]

In any case, thanks for everything, keep an open mind and present your thoughts.

I'm opposed to affirmative action, not for constitutional or reverse discriminatory reasons, but because I see it as a disincentive to the blacks. I see people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton constantly reminding the blacks that they're being discriminated against, they deserve more handouts, they should receive reparations or they'll never get out of the ghetto.

The blacks should be encouraged by the black leaders to make it on their own, develop self respect, scrap ebonics and keep reminding them that they're as good as anyone else, they just may have to work a little harder.

[Phi for All]

Well by that line of reasoning, you couldn't be sure that discrimination is a wrongful act. You only claim it is because it fit's your argument.

My point exactly. The two cancel each other out. The dilemma is false and cannot be used in this debate. rolleyes

You don't know that it is temporary. It has been in force for years and there is no sign that it about to be suspended.

Why should it be suspended when it hasn't been allowed to reach it's potential? Should Martin Luther King Jr's work have been suspended after his death? This is where I do trust the system. When the employment marketplace has a fairer amount of ethnic and gender diversity at all levels, when the playing field is level and merit can finally be the true gauge, affirmative action programs will be dismantled. It will happen because the white male workers will have spent enough time feeling what it is like. They will scream like the women and people of color screamed, and they will be heard.

 

Part of my objection to dismantling the programs too soon is that all these objections of reverse discrimination are coming up. Of course white males are going to start bitching as soon as they can. We may need to go a little overboard to make sure the system is fair, the opportunities are even. Imo, the more empathy we can have for the plight of those who have been discriminated against for so long, the better our chances it won't happen again.

 

There will always be those who take negative advantage of any program, those who will not rise up on their own if given a leg up. Let's not judge the whole system by those few. And let's not make the mistake of saying that because merit is the logical system that it is also the best system in a world where discrimination flies in the face of logic.

[ecoli]

I too am opposed to affirmative action. If I am qualified for a job, why should I get punished because other people are rascist? Rascism is a disgusting thing, but why, if I deserve a job, should I get penalized for other's wrongdoings.

[Sayonara]

Can't comment I'm afraid. Affirmative action is positive discrimination, which makes it a bad thing in the UK. The US is a different kettle of fish, and I'm not capable of considering what sort of reparations the society owes any previously repressed groups.

In other words, we support it because it's funny.

 

Race you to the top of the ivory tower - last one there has to drink their tea from the saucer.

[john5746]

I voted yes, but I think affirmitive action should be geared toward the economically disadvantaged, not by race. A middle class black person doesn't need any help compared to a poor white person, IMO.

 

We do have an interest in improving our 'weakest link', which are the poor.

[ydoaPs]

No, it is a temporary correction of the current system which is heavily weighted in favor of white males. There is a difference, one which white males find difficult to see.

guess what, there is a difference between being equal and crapping on the white guys. i am all for equality, but i am not in favor of thing like extra points for college admission for being anything but white.

[Phi for All]

I voted yes' date=' but I think affirmitive action should be geared toward the economically disadvantaged, not by race. A middle class black person doesn't need any help compared to a poor white person, IMO.

 

We do have an interest in improving our 'weakest link', which are the poor.[/quote']Great point, john5746. Perhaps that's also why Bill Cosby is against it.

guess what, there is a difference between being equal and crapping on the white guys. i am all for equality, but i am not in favor of thing like extra points for college admission for being anything but white.

I'm so glad that, as a privileged white male, you're all for equality. The point here is that you and I have had an easier walk than others. Affirmative action puts a bit more of a hill ahead of us to climb, but doesn't prevent us from climbing. It is a temporary compensation for a temporary inequality. Do you feel put out because things are a little tougher on you now? Perhaps you will learn how discrimination feels and never practice it on others.

[ydoaPs]

bullsh*t.

 

anyone can do anything they want to. you no nothing of me. you have no clue about my background. saying "you and i have had an easier walk than others" is almost as racist as "lets kill all the jews". your statement implys that anyone that is not a white male was born poverty striken and is incapable of digging their way out. it also implys that all white males are well off.

 

what is the purpose of this "temporary inequality?" it is like the reparation money to the decendents of slaves. what did those people do to get the money? the answer: nothing. i am not saying slavery is in any way good, but i am saying that there is no reason for the money. part of the reason i don't claim my native american heratige on any forms. i don't want to be treated as "better" for something that i can't control. jobs, money, opprotunities, ect. should be given on merit, not genetics.

 

my ancestors were repeatedly lied to by the americans(like the rest of the world ), relocated, and killed. Since my ancestors walked the trail of tears, i CAN get handouts from the government. i CAN but i DON'T and i find it morally reprehensible that anyone would.

[Aardvark]

You can't be sure that affirmative action is a wrongful act. You're making an assumption that fits your argument.

To discriminate against someone on the grounds of the colour of their skin is a wrongful act. That is not an assumption, but a statement of generally accepted ethics.

No' date=' it is a temporary correction of the current system which is heavily weighted in favor of white males. There is a difference, one which white males find difficult to see.[/quote']

 

Temporary? What's the sell by date on these measures?

 

And you seem to assume that affirmative action is only used in favour of blacks against whites. If you are prepared to look outside America there are other countries using affirmative action. Malaysia has official discrimination against Chinese and in favour of Malays.

 

I think affirmative action is wrong. It is a matter of creating client groups for politicians, a form of corruption. It is racially divise, actively encouraging racial divisions and resentment. It is a grossly inefficent tool, how do you target who most deserves such help? How do you decide how much help is required? Affirmitive action creates a culture of grievence, of 'baring of sores', as people rush to argue that their ancestors were more victimised than someone elses ancestors. That they are more pathetic and in need of special favours than someone else.

 

In addition, it simply doesn't work. A few individuals benefit, but their is no general benefit for the population that is being targeted. Years of affirmitive action programmes have not demonstrated the predicted results.

 

On grounds of morality it is wrong.

 

On grounds of practicality it is wrong.