Poll: Affirmative Action

[mike1921]

As long as companies offer more jobs to white convicts than black non-offenders [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EEDB133EF934A25755C0A9639C8B63], or are 50% more likely to call an applicant back if they have a "white-sounding name" [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2], AA will still need to exist in some shape or form.

No, than we need to crack down on discrimination. Since that's illegal as far as jobs go.

 

[Jaedon]

It's reverse descrimination, don't see how it can't be, if a company was in a position where it was full of white people merely because they were the most qualified then should they hang a sign outside their door saying 'crackers need not apply'? Though it probably would be a costly work around the only way to avoid it whilst racism still exists is for an independant body to go up to the employer as they pick people and go 'ok, why'd you choose A over B?'

 

[Jaedon]

It's reverse descrimination, don't see how it can't be,

Of course it is. The question is whether it's *legal* discrimination. The standard for discrimination by the state is strict scrutiny:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Oh, well I wasn't interested in the legal side of it. To me any form of discrimination is wrong. If the law says it can be legal in some cases then I disagree with that too. *Shrug* May sound an ignorant response but to discrimate means you're taking opinions into account on a situation that should only include reason, can't think of one scenario where I agree with it.

 

[elricik]

It was needed like in the 1950's when racism was still prominent. But now America has become almost a home for all countries, its no longer needed.

 

[Jaedon]

It's reverse descrimination, don't see how it can't be,

Of course it is. The question is whether it's *legal* discrimination. The standard for discrimination by the state is strict scrutiny:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Oh, well I wasn't interested in the legal side of it. To me any form of discrimination is wrong.

Even when it's intended to undo the lingering effects of past discrimination, or of current discrimination itself?

Yes, definitely. If you have to treat someone differently then you never resolve that issue, is more that you acknowledge that people are not equal and just try to even out the score. Granted I can see why affirmative action is there but it's a quick fix at best and only makes the lines between race, gender, religion, etc stand out all the stronger.

 

[Spectre39]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - MLK Jr.

Welcome to the modern dream, where none of that matters anymore.

 

[Jaedon]

It's reverse descrimination, don't see how it can't be,

Of course it is. The question is whether it's *legal* discrimination. The standard for discrimination by the state is strict scrutiny:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Oh, well I wasn't interested in the legal side of it. To me any form of discrimination is wrong.

Even when it's intended to undo the lingering effects of past discrimination, or of current discrimination itself?

Yes, definitely. If you have to treat someone differently then you never resolve that issue, is more that you acknowledge that people are not equal and just try to even out the score.

That's the thing--people are not equal. Equal in their worth as a human being, equally varying in the quality of the contents of their character, but not equal when it comes to how they are treated, and how a person is treated can effect how they perform in school/what jobs they get hired for/etc.

Granted I can see why affirmative action is there but it's a quick fix at best and only makes the lines between race, gender, religion, etc stand out all the stronger.

That doesn't mean you think it's wrong, that means you think it doesn't work. There's a difference between the two.

Good point, don't think you can ever know how much that's going to effect a person though. I mean, by the same logic, someone bullied all their school life should get a better chance of being picked for a college, no?

But yeah, I guess you're right, I do just think it doesn't work, my suggestion of someone from the outside visiting the employer to make sure they pick only by suitability for the job/school is still acknowledging a difference. Damn it. xP

 

[MaxFan]

I chose "other" because I actually agree with two of the statements.

"It's keeping the whole system convoluted with reverse discrimination issues."
"It's still necessary to an extent to prevent racism."

The first I can tell you that there's a whole culture of people who think everything that's not in their favor means they're being discriminated against which ends in them causing problems for others.

[slightly off topic but maybe relevant] I manage a store and this happened to me recently. I was helping a customer with something and walked past another customer who said something to the effect of "it's ok to say hi" but I didn't reply because I was already involved with something and she was clearly talking to one of my employees, so if she needed help it was there. She said (noticing that I'm white) "That's how you white folks are, won't talk to blacks." My not talking to her had nothing to do with her being black and everything to do with already being helping somebody else and the fact that she was already engaged with someone who could help her. I saw her a few minutes later after I had finished my task and tried to say hi simply to be polite (most reasonable people are understanding when this happens) and she went off on some rant about race. Sheesh.[/off-topic]

However, I believe the second statement I quoted is also correct because I'm not so stupid as to think racism doesn't exist.

 

[revan_SW89]

This topic means a lot to me since I am an Hispanic student from South Texas that was accepted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I did not get the best education from my public high school. In my Junior and Senior years it was certified by the State of Texas as "academically unacceptable." However, I was a very good musician who made All-State after I was accepted and ranked 9th and 8th place at the State Decathlon meets as well as an internship at NASA and strong standardized tests.

I want to only discuss Affirmative Action for colleges because I have no experience with it in the job market. I do believe that Affirmative Action in its current form is not overtly racist. I'm sure other students accomplished much more than I have have gotten in and some were rejected. The reasoning behind this is that I have accomplished so much with so little. I have seen and met students from both MIT and Harvard and have to say many of the children of affluent families are intelligent but not smart. I always like to make an example of D&D with intelligence versus wisdom. Many lack any emotional intelligence and simply stick to what they know. This is true of all races.

What really matters is the financial opportunities available to the student before college. I agree with Cheeze_Pavilion, "That assumes college is a reward and not a place of learning." Colleges should want students that can broaden their own horizons and take risks and expand their mind. I see students all the time that just train for a technical position and no nothing else about the world.

To put in a mathematical sense, Affirmative Action is adjusting the ratio of how well a student did with the resources available to them. If you do not believe these problems exist I suggest you read this New York Times article about racial inferiority complex and racism in general. Discussion about Race is great and I am glad that this is occurring, but I think that far too many people believe that racism does not exist in this country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/opinion/21blow.html?_r=1

 

[Shycte]

I see your point, maybe it would be more "fair" is the one with the most potential got in first. But the system can't work that way because that would meen that you'll have to sit down and judge every possible outcome of each students life. There is no such resources.

Actually, that's exactly what most standardized tests from the SAT to the GRE to the MCAT try to do.

Yes I know. But what I'm trying to say is that you can't see into the future. You can't know what will happend to who. Maybe the one with potential will get pregnant or something. Then everything will be wasted.


Therefor it is much easier to just take the student who alredy has proven his capabilities.

It's equally possible that the one who has already proven her capabilities will get pregnant or something, in which case everything will be equally wasted.

Yes, so they are equals. So why don't take the one who have earned his spot. That's the keyword, "earned". That is the major diffrence between the students, one had warked hard and one haven't. Why should someone who earned his spot lose it to someone who didn't?

Because it's not a college's only job to function as a reward? It has other functions, like assembling the best student body it can to benefit the members of that student body with challenging classmates and turn out skilled graduates, and that's only public schools: private schools also have to function as businesses and seek acclaim and prestige.

Where is this idea of yours coming from that college is something you 'earn' to the extent you're pushing it?

I think you missunderstood.

What I was trying to say is that it is to no good to choose a student who "maybe" can become something with hard work when you have the real deal right there. A student who have shown diciplin, brains and enthusiasm.

All of this does not really matter since the college stll gets to choose however they want. Like you said, they are not "a reward". They are tools of learning.

 

[Shycte]

No, I understand. I'm not talking about the "real deal" I'm talking about a "possibly *better* deal" who can "maybe" become something *more* than the "real deal."

Of course there is a small chance that this other student can become something more then the first one. But now we are talking about if it's wise to take that chance with the other student. It is like gambling, you don't know if you are going to make any profit from it.

I don't now about you but I have strict rules when it comes to gambling. I avoid it. Maybe YOU like to take risks and hope for a payout. And maybe the college like that aswell, but that would be their choice, not ours.

 

[Shycte]

No, I understand. I'm not talking about the "real deal" I'm talking about a "possibly *better* deal" who can "maybe" become something *more* than the "real deal."

Of course there is a small chance that this other student can become something more then the first one. But now we are talking about if it's wise to take that chance with the other student. It is like gambling, you don't know if you are going to make any profit from it.

I don't now about you but I have strict rules when it comes to gambling. I avoid it. Maybe YOU like to take risks and hope for a payout. And maybe the college like that aswell, but that would be their choice, not ours.

Everything in life--including students with good high school records--is a gamble.

And taking the first student is the safest bet.

 

[Shycte]

No, I understand. I'm not talking about the "real deal" I'm talking about a "possibly *better* deal" who can "maybe" become something *more* than the "real deal."

Of course there is a small chance that this other student can become something more then the first one. But now we are talking about if it's wise to take that chance with the other student. It is like gambling, you don't know if you are going to make any profit from it.

I don't now about you but I have strict rules when it comes to gambling. I avoid it. Maybe YOU like to take risks and hope for a payout. And maybe the college like that aswell, but that would be their choice, not ours.

Everything in life--including students with good high school records--is a gamble.

And taking the first student is the safest bet.

If you have a college that only admits one student ;-D

Yeah x)

But the rules are they same. if the college allows 500 students and there are 500 safe and 500 "risky" students. It is still safer to take the 500 safe students.

 

[Shycte]

No, I understand. I'm not talking about the "real deal" I'm talking about a "possibly *better* deal" who can "maybe" become something *more* than the "real deal."

Of course there is a small chance that this other student can become something more then the first one. But now we are talking about if it's wise to take that chance with the other student. It is like gambling, you don't know if you are going to make any profit from it.

I don't now about you but I have strict rules when it comes to gambling. I avoid it. Maybe YOU like to take risks and hope for a payout. And maybe the college like that aswell, but that would be their choice, not ours.

Everything in life--including students with good high school records--is a gamble.

And taking the first student is the safest bet.

If you have a college that only admits one student ;-D

Yeah x)

But the rules are they same. if the college allows 500 students and there are 500 safe and 500 "risky" students. It is still safer to take the 500 safe students.

Actually, it isn't necessarily safer to take the 500 safer--there's no such thing as a 'safe student'--students than the ones with bigger upside but more risk. The 'smart bets' when it comes to risk change the larger the numbers get.

But then we also have to consider the finacial situation of the college. If the college is at the edge of the pit of doom (know as the financal crysis) it would be nothing short of stupid to start taking risks.

But if the college is going strong, THEN the college could start taking risks.

So what it comes down to is that the college has to make their own decision that can vary from time to time.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Affirmative action was made to protect the rights of minorities who may not be equally represented, because they are a minority.

You know what though? What makes them so special? They are a different colour so we should definitely treat them differently?

Are we now going to punish people who have done something with their life now too?

 

[Agayek]

I'm of the opinion that Affirmative Action is rather foolish. All it does is further segregation and the separation of ethnicities. I believe that we'll never be able to really evolve as a society until people stop caring about superficial bullshit like skin color, religious beliefs or whether or not they like mayonaise.

Edit: Just read through the posts.

That's the thing--people are not equal. Equal in their worth as a human being, equally varying in the quality of the contents of their character, but not equal when it comes to how they are treated, and how a person is treated can effect how they perform in school/what jobs they get hired for/etc.

My problem with this statement is that a person's performance, in anything, is wholly dependent on themselves and their choices. No more, and no less. If someone is not performing 100% at school or work or whatever, it's entirely their own fault.

Affirmative Action exists to attempt to undo various levels of discrimination by white men against minority groups X,Y and Z. How does forcing a company to hire an underqualified black woman over a fully qualified white man, for example, benefit anyone?

At least in the states, every single person has the capability of making themselves successful. Granted, it's much harder for some than others, but that does not make it impossible. I speak from experience in the benefits of such. My father grew up on a farm with 5 siblings, and they all had to share clothes because their parents could not afford enough separate sets. Yet, 30 years later, after colossal amounts of work that I can barely contemplate, he had a job with a 6 figure income. Anyone, regardless of whatever issues you think may be holding them back, is capable of becoming at the very least moderately wealthy/successful. It all comes down to personal choices and willingness to work.

 

[asinann]

Affirmative action was needed when it was put in place, it is no longer necessary.

 

[Agayek]

I'm of the opinion that Affirmative Action is rather foolish. All it does is further segregation and the separation of ethnicities. I believe that we'll never be able to really evolve as a society until people stop caring about superficial bullshit like skin color, religious beliefs or whether or not they like mayonaise.

That's what Affirmative Action was designed to do--to get people to "stop caring about superficial bullshit like skin color, religious beliefs or whether or not they like mayonaise."

If you think that all "it does is further segregation and the separation of ethnicities" that's fine. However, that's a criticism of it as a technique, not of the ideology behind it.

To "stop caring" is not to pretend something does not exist. It's to recognize it exists in the right way, like not pretending that only giving the SAT on Saturday morning won't affect people with certain religious beliefs adversely. For instance, consider this Fable of Aesop's, The Fox and the Stork:

Any ideology that race enters into creates discrimination. Any more details than that are completely irrelevant. The sheer fact that race, color, creed, sexual orientation or any other random unchangeable difference between peoples enters into the equation ensures the ideology is discriminatory. The only way to eliminate discrimination is to completely disregard and ignore any and all of the genetic/"born-with" differences between various people.


Edit:

That's not what it does--or at least, what it was meant to do. It forces a company to hire a qualified black woman over an overqualified white man. Big difference.

This idea is terrible and discriminatory. Whoever has the best qualifications should be hired, regardless of any other details. All of the superficial crap that affirmative action stresses should be completely and totally ignored by everyone, period.

 

[Shycte]

But then we also have to consider the finacial situation of the college. If the college is at the edge of the pit of doom (know as the financal crysis) it would be nothing short of stupid to start taking risks.

But if the college is going strong, THEN the college could start taking risks.

Um, both sets of students pay the same tuition...I don't know where you're going with this.

Yes, but the "safe" student is less likely to drop out or do anything else that will waste
everything. That is why we call him, "the safe student", becasue he is safe. He won't get in to trouble or drop out. And he will pay the tution on time.

The risky student may however destory the hole school for all we know. And that would cost money. See my point?

 

[Agayek]

AA can "completely disregard and ignore any and all of the" differences you speak of. However, it cannot "completely disregard and ignore" the fact that some people act with regard and in attention to those differences.

The fact of the matter is, no it does not. AA requires employers and university admissions directors to ask about an applicant's race. If instead AA banned any and all methods of conveying race pre-hiring/acceptance, it may actually help against discrimination. As it is, all it does is point gigantic neon arrows at the applicant's race and does nothing but propagate discrimination.

That's the point--neither person in that situation has better qualifications.

Yes they do. Said overqualified white man has much better qualifications than the black woman. If the black woman was overqualified instead of the white guy, then hire her. Merit should be the only value involved in the decision.