TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

Just recently(today) Bush anounced he plans on challenging certain cases of affirmative action. So I figured that now's as good a time as any to talk about it.

Are you for affirmative action? Against it? Why

This is actually one of the few topics in which I actually agree with Bush. In my eye's there are two problems with quotas as it pertains to minoritys and or people who live in poor area's.

The first problem is that going to an underfunded school, with overfilled classrooms, and unqualified teachers makes it impossible to compete with students in the middle and uper economic classes in terms of ones education. My school is in one of the worst school districts in the country, yet I still scored a 1400 on my sat, many people had scores higher than me. In situations like these is learning everything you need more difficult? Yes. But hardly impossible.

As far as discremination against people in terms of jobs and such, my main problem with that is that I feel that the majority of the people in this world no longer base any part of there hiring on race(asside from mandatory quota's).

Lastly, just like my parents told me as a kid "Two wrongs don't make it right" Even though people of color may very well have been discriminated in the past, by giving them special treatment you are now hurting people that are not minority.

yeah, i agree. i know this sounds sick, but if you dont have a "racial enrollment gap" and try to just force people into things because they are of certain race, it destroys the incentive for one of a minority to better themselves. it destorys incentive for the majority to better themselves too.

in my view, thats why "extreme equality" (what de tocqueville calls it) doesnt work. its stalin-esque

sorry, i have a crazy stomachache so excuse anything dumb i said

Well, if you didnt know, minority's are those that dont make the MAJORITY of the US population ( Hispanics, Jews, Blacks and so on )

Now, Hispanics are the largest minority groups, and are no longer a MINORITY on the bigger states ( New York, California, Florida etc etc .. ) . Now, many of the imigrants, are actually smarter and are alot more accelerated then those in the USA, and they are hell lot smarter. I live in Florida, and attend one of the best Schools in Miami, and on the TOP when it means Florida Schools. Its an A + school, and its one of the most diversed schools in the county, with about the same amount of whites and hispanics, blacks are right after. Been a minority does not mean poor, although in some suburbs that happens, but thats when Mr.Bush has to help funding and helping those kids to get a better education, why blame them, thanx to the lack of money the schools receive, is the kind of education they get.

My area is nothing close to been poor .. all the way around, and is one of the places where the most hispanics live on .. so that opinion about education and minorities is all bs ... all there is about minoritys is the fact that they dont make the majority of the COUNTRY, as I said.. but , with hispanics making a big part, soon in 2010, if not 2005, they will no longer be a minority, so get things straight a bit when it comes to talk about poverty and minority ( when it relates to education ).

Now, Im not sure if Affirmative action is the best thing, but what BUSH is doint is totally wrong, thats up to the state, cause states like Florida, New York, and California, where most universitys are fed with hispanics, it will be in the best sense of the word... descrimination.

I agree with both of you.

You don't achieve equality by treating people differently. That's just common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I agree with both of you. You don't achieve equality by treating people differently. That's just common sense.

Thanks

And I agree, personally I think it would be best to not even ask for ethnicity or languages on any written applications

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi Thanks And I agree, personally I think it would be best to not even ask for ethnicity or languages on any written applications

True, now thats a lot more fair ! ! First because many people dont even fit on any of the categories, I hate when they say WHITE ( NON HISPANICS ) .. jeez.. lol

If I was running a business or a college, I'd want the most qualified individuals, regardless of diversity or lack thereof.

I consider myself a very liberal person, but come on, affirmative action is just bullshit. Whatever unfair/racist practices this country hold, affirmative action won't solve a damn thing. I'd like to hit the person who came up with the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Skaya If I was running a business or a college, I'd want the most qualified individuals, regardless of diversity or lack thereof.

I agree with the business part, however I have to disagree with your statement when it comes to colleges/universities. If affirmative action is needed to ensure a campus diversity then so be it. Part of the college learning experience should be interaction with others.

quote:

I consider myself a very liberal person, but come on, affirmative action is just bullshit. Whatever unfair/racist practices this country hold, affirmative action won't solve a damn thing. I'd like to hit the person who came up with the idea.

Do you have a better idea?

affirmative action.

its funny how i've heard two hispanic girls in my school say how "i'm a minority, i should get accepted" and such things as "they need to let more hispanics in"...

whatever. affirmative action is as plagued as welfare benefits. once active, some just begin to expect it.

>JM<

Decades of "oppression" don't just reverse themselves once you give a certain group of people voting rights. The fact that the African-Americans are still the most underprivilaged, poverty-stricken race in the US should be evidence enough for this. It takes initiative - proactive initiative - to restore some balance, and to reduce the income gap. To quote Michael Moore:

quote:

No black person is ever going to ruin your life by getting the job you "deserve". The door will always be open for you. Your only duty is to hold it open for those who have less of a chance simply because they aren't white.

Poverty begets poverty. Privilage begets privilage. This is an irreversible cycle without intervening ideas such as "affirmative action" to give the underprivilaged a chance.

And before someone misconstrues this as mere "anti-Americanism" I will say that I could say exactly the same thing about Australia and its mistreatment of the Aboriginal people. The Aborigines are one of the poorest, most mistreated people on the globe and even the UN Human Rights Commission have tried to intervene to force the Australian government to do something about it. Yet, without any proactive initiatives, Aboriginal poverty just self-perpetuates itself from generation to generation while rich white people just stand back and say "why can't they just help themselves? Look at me, I got into college and got a good job, why can't they?". The underprivileged don't have access to the same standard of education as the wealthy, so they are destined for a lifetime of poorly paying jobs, while giving birth to offspring destined for the same sort of life for exactly the same reasons.

I see nothing wrong with any initiative designed to offset self-perpetuating affluence (or lack thereof) and implicit racism, and I find it hard to believe that so many can disagree with affirmative action on these grounds. If you oppose affirmative action, then I can only ask if you are concerned about the obvious discrepancies in the level of education/income between the races? If so, how else do propose these discrepancies can be narrowed other than by actions such as these?

And, by the way, it's not about placing underqualified people into jobs/college courses that they are obviously not competent enough to be in, it's about encouraging employers to go out of their way to employ those who would otherwise be looked over through no fault of their own. There is obviously an issue of "reverse racism", but, so far as I see it, this "reverse racism" is literally the only way to rectify such a long period of actual racism. Once again, if you actually care that certain races are severely over-represented in certain income brackets, then I can only ask if you have a better solution than this one. Once again, if you do not see affirmative action as a solution to an very real, existing problem tell me if you deem this to be acceptable:

quote:

The Urban Institute researchers found that the young white men were offered jobs 45 percent more often than the young black men. This result clearly reveals that some employers were not treating male minority job seekers equally with white males of similar qualifications. The same researchers paired white Anglo testers and Hispanic testers who were fluent in English. Again, the pairs of young men were matched to minimize the differences between them; the only apparent differences were the slight accents, somewhat darker complexions, and Spanish names of the Hispanic testers. The Anglos received 52 percent more job offers than the Hispanics.

Blacks and hispanics - even where they have credentials equalling those of their white counterparts - are not being given the same opportunities. If affirmative action is "racist" in any way, then what exactly is a society without affirmative action? More evidence that it's a self perpetuating cycle:

quote:

Today, as Francine Blau and John Graham documented in a 1990 article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, the major source of wealth is inheritance. Although at all income levels, blacks save more of their money than whites do, black families now have comparatively less wealth than whites do, because black parents had less to bestow upon their children. And the children of today's black families will, in turn, have relatively less wealth, because their parents will have less to bestow upon them.

quote:

To believe that only the present matters is to deny the continued economic subordination of blacks. Yet as we enter the 21st century, black Americans' income per capita, is only 59 percent of that for white Americans--the same percentage that the economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and David C. Klingaman estimate was the case in 1880.

Besides, here are the current US laws pertaining to "affirmative action". Point to one of them and tell me which is unjust or racist. Go on. One:

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Laws.html

I think this shows that affirmative action is about undoing a long history of racism (and the self-perpetuating income discrepancies that have resulted from it) and implicit racism that undeniably still exists in US society and is not about using "racism" to combat a different type of "racism".

So, any thoughts?

quote:

Poverty begets poverty. Privilage begets privilage. This is an irreversible cycle without intervening ideas such as "affirmative action" to give the underprivilaged a chance.

Thats nice in theory, but I'm pretty damn poor, but I won't be recieving the majority of the benifits others will from affirmative action.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Decades of "oppression" don't just reverse themselves once you give a certain group of people voting rights. The fact that the African-Americans are still the most underprivilaged, poverty-stricken race in the US should be evidence enough for this. It takes initiative - proactive initiative - to restore some balance, and to reduce the income gap. To quote Michael Moore: Poverty begets poverty. Privilage begets privilage. This is an irreversible cycle without intervening ideas such as "affirmative action" to give the underprivilaged a chance.

Suppose you had two competing businesses that are nearly identical, but one of the hires the best candidate regardless of race, while the other hires only whites. The country which taps the greater pool for human resources is going to simply outcompete the company that chooses to hire on a discriminatory basis because they are going to have more good employees. The result of this natural process is that today, the only type of racial discrimination left is affirmative action itself.

quote:

The underprivileged don't have access to the same standard of education as the wealthy, so they are destined for a lifetime of poorly paying jobs, while giving birth to offspring destined for the same sort of life for exactly the same reasons.

That doesn't have anything to do with race. Poor inner-city whites don't have access to any better standard of education as poor inner-city blacks. This is not a problem that can be solved with affirmative action, it is a problem that can be solved with educational reforms. Trying to solve it with affirmative action is like trying to put a band-aid on a tumor.

quote:

If you oppose affirmative action, then I can only ask if you are concerned about the obvious discrepancies in the level of education/income between the races? If so, how else do propose these discrepancies can be narrowed other than by actions such as these?

These discrepancies are the result of a variety of factors, none of which is race. If people whose last names begin with the letter 'A' happened to have a 5% higher income than those whose began with the letter 'Z', should we give people hiring preference for alphabetically late last names?

quote:

And, by the way, it's not about placing underqualified people into jobs/college courses that they are obviously not competent enough to be in,

Whether or not that's what it is about, that is what it does.

quote:

There is obviously an issue of "reverse racism", but, so far as I see it, this "reverse racism" is literally the only way to rectify such a long period of actual racism.

So you're willing to sacrifice principle for expediency? Don't you see that you're only creating greater divisiveness between the races by these policies? If minorities want to be considered equal, they shouldn't go around identifying themselves as a seperate group.

quote:

Blacks and hispanics - even where they have credentials equalling those of their white counterparts - are not being given the same opportunities.

I don't believe that to be the case. The issue in actuality is that rich people have an advantage over poor people. Since a lot of wealthy families trace their wealth back past civil rights, it's no surprise that there are more rich white people at this point in time. But that doesn't mean that discrimination is still taking, place.

quote:

If affirmative action is "racist" in any way, then what exactly is a society without affirmative action?

Not racist.

quote:

More evidence that it's a self perpetuating cycle: Today, as Francine Blau and John Graham documented in a 1990 article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, the major source of wealth is inheritance. Although at all income levels, blacks save more of their money than whites do, black families now have comparatively less wealth than whites do, because black parents had less to bestow upon their children. And the children of today's black families will, in turn, have relatively less wealth, because their parents will have less to bestow upon them.

More evidence that this is a class issue rather than a race issue. According to your recommended policies, poor white people really get the shaft, don't they?

quote:

Besides, here are the current US laws pertaining to "affirmative action". Point to one of them and tell me which is unjust or racist. Go on. One: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Laws.html

Here's one:

quote:

Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. � 2000d, and regulations at 45 C.F.R. �� 80.1 et seq. Title Vl prohibits race discrimination in any program receiving federal funds. This law applies to both admissions and employees. Violations can result in withdrawal of federal funds or suits by private individuals. Cases brought under Title Vl, such as University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), establish that in an affirmative action context, race can be one of several factors used in admissions decisions.

"race can be one of several factors used in admissiosn decisions" If that isn't racism in its purest form, then racism does not and never has existed.

And another:

quote:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. �� 1681 et seq., and regulations at 34 C.F.R. �� 106.1 et seq., 45 C.F.R. �� 86.1 et seq. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in all educational institutions that receive federal funding. Title IX's affirmative action provisions apply to both employment and admission of students. Violations can result in withdrawal of federal funds or suits by private individuals. Regulations promulgated under Title IX, 34 C.F.R. � 106.3, authorize affirmative or remedial action in instances in which members of one sex must be treated differently to overcome the specific effects of past discrimination.

Title IX demands equivalent (not just equal) treatment of men and women. But men and women are not equivalent, so its premise is entirely irrational.

I could continue, but I don't want to belabor the point...

quote:

I think this shows that affirmative action is about undoing a long history of racism (and the self-perpetuating income discrepancies that have resulted from it) and implicit racism that undeniably still exists in US society and is not about using "racism" to combat a different type of "racism". So, any thoughts?

Here's a thought: "I need to be treated preferentially, so I can be equal" is a self-contradictory statement. Affirmative action is fundamentally a self-contradictory policy.

No amount of rhetoric can erase the simple fact that the fundamental ideology of affirmative action is axiomatically false. To support it, quite simply, is to be irrational.

I could have applied to school as a minority. But I didn't. To do so would have been so incredibly dishonorable that I would never have been able to look myself in the mirror again.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Decades of "oppression" don't just reverse themselves once you give a certain group of people voting rights. The fact that the African-Americans are still the most underprivilaged, poverty-stricken race in the US should be evidence enough for this. It takes initiative - proactive initiative - to restore some balance, and to reduce the income gap. To quote Michael Moore: Poverty begets poverty. Privilage begets privilage. This is an irreversible cycle without intervening ideas such as "affirmative action" to give the underprivilaged a chance. And before someone misconstrues this as mere "anti-Americanism" I will say that I could say exactly the same thing about Australia and its mistreatment of the Aboriginal people. The Aborigines are one of the poorest, most mistreated people on the globe and even the UN Human Rights Commission have tried to intervene to force the Australian government to do something about it. Yet, without any proactive initiatives, Aboriginal poverty just self-perpetuates itself from generation to generation while rich white people just stand back and say "why can't they just help themselves? Look at me, I got into college and got a good job, why can't they?". The underprivileged don't have access to the same standard of education as the wealthy, so they are destined for a lifetime of poorly paying jobs, while giving birth to offspring destined for the same sort of life for exactly the same reasons. I see nothing wrong with any initiative designed to offset self-perpetuating affluence (or lack thereof) and implicit racism, and I find it hard to believe that so many can disagree with affirmative action on these grounds. If you oppose affirmative action, then I can only ask if you are concerned about the obvious discrepancies in the level of education/income between the races? If so, how else do propose these discrepancies can be narrowed other than by actions such as these? And, by the way, it's not about placing underqualified people into jobs/college courses that they are obviously not competent enough to be in, it's about encouraging employers to go out of their way to employ those who would otherwise be looked over through no fault of their own. There is obviously an issue of "reverse racism", but, so far as I see it, this "reverse racism" is literally the only way to rectify such a long period of actual racism. Once again, if you actually care that certain races are severely over-represented in certain income brackets, then I can only ask if you have a better solution than this one. Once again, if you do not see affirmative action as a solution to an very real, existing problem tell me if you deem this to be acceptable: Blacks and hispanics - even where they have credentials equalling those of their white counterparts - are not being given the same opportunities. If affirmative action is "racist" in any way, then what exactly is a society without affirmative action? More evidence that it's a self perpetuating cycle: Besides, here are the current US laws pertaining to "affirmative action". Point to one of them and tell me which is unjust or racist. Go on. One: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Laws.html I think this shows that affirmative action is about undoing a long history of racism (and the self-perpetuating income discrepancies that have resulted from it) and implicit racism that undeniably still exists in US society and is not about using "racism" to combat a different type of "racism". So, any thoughts?

I completely agree.

quote:

Suppose you had two competing businesses that are nearly identical, but one of the hires the best candidate regardless of race, while the other hires only whites. The country which taps the greater pool for human resources is going to simply out compete the company that chooses to hire on a discriminatory basis because they are going to have more good employees. The result of this natural process is that today, the only type of racial discrimination left is affirmative action itself.

Could you clarify this? I�m not sure there�s much validity to your argument. How can a company that is not discriminatory out compete a �white only� company on the basis of having more good employees? Not understanding the logic there, nor do I understand the conclusion you made from it.

quote:

That doesn't have anything to do with race. Poor inner-city whites don't have access to any better standard of education as poor inner-city blacks. This is not a problem that can be solved with affirmative action, it is a problem that can be solved with educational reforms. Trying to solve it with affirmative action is like trying to put a band-aid on a tumor.

Sorry, but it has direct ties to race. While it is true that the underprivileged includes all races, blacks disproportionately comprise this group. I don�t have those statistics at hand, but I�m sure you�ll find this true if you look �em up. So the consequences of an unequal standard of education therefore affect blacks quite a bit more than the underprivileged whites.

quote:

Whether or not that's what it is about, that is what it does.

Yeah, but I won�t lose sleep over this too much. If everyone can agree to do this, then businesses as a whole may not move forward as quickly as our fast-paced, gotta-have-it-now society wants, but I think we�ll all live a little better in the long run. Of course, that's not gonna happen in our capitalistic society, but it's just wishful thinking.

quote:

So you're willing to sacrifice principle for expediency? Don't you see that you're only creating greater divisiveness between the races by these policies? If minorities want to be considered equal, they shouldn't go around identifying themselves as a seperate group.

Have you hugged your nearby black man today? Have you talked to him? You know what they tend to say about this issue to us white folks? They�re not trying to be like us. Whoa, I know that�s a shocker! But seriously, equality does not mean togetherness in one happy oreo cookie! Yeah, they want to remain separate, but why shouldn�t they? If I were black, I guess I�d have a hard time trusting Whitey right now as well! They can still have equal rights and be separate amongst us. As for sacrificing principle for expediency, his principle is that reverse racism in a sense is a retaliatory reaction towards actual racism. This is understandable to me, considering what we put their race through in the past, and what we are still putting these people through. I�d be a little pissed off myself.

quote:

I don't believe that to be the case. The issue in actuality is that rich people have an advantage over poor people. Since a lot of wealthy families trace their wealth back past civil rights, it's no surprise that there are more rich white people at this point in time. But that doesn't mean that discrimination is still taking, place.

You may not believe it, but it still exists. Consider: The average income for a black American is 61% less per year than the average white income. Guess what? That�s the same fu#$ing % difference as it was in 1880! Wow, talk about consistency in discrimination! Here�s some more tidbits from Michael Moore:
20% of black men ages 16-24 are neither in high school nor working, compared to only 9% of white men. Despite our wonderful economic boom in the �90s, that number has not fallen over the last 10 years. Black levels are unemployment have been almost twice those of whites since 1954. In 1993 white households have invested in nearly 3x as much in stocks/mutual funds/IRAs/Keogh accounts as black households.

quote:

More evidence that this is a class issue rather than a race issue. According to your recommended policies, poor white people really get the shaft, don't they?

Yes but as I pointed out, blacks are disproportionately in poverty than whites.

quote:

Here's a thought: "I need to be treated preferentially, so I can be equal" is a self-contradictory statement. Affirmative action is fundamentally a self-contradictory policy.

Well you take anything out of context and you can create whatever fantasy world you wish. The statement itself implies a state of inequality to begin with, which is what affirmative action stands on. But it�s not simply an implication, it is a fact. There is a great deal of inequality here, and to deny that would be false.

quote:

No amount of rhetoric can erase the simple fact that the fundamental ideology of affirmative action is axiomatically false. To support it, quite simply, is to be irrational.

Again, if there was no inequality to begin with, that would be true.

quote:

I could have applied to school as a minority. But I didn't. To do so would have been so incredibly dishonorable that I would never have been able to look myself in the mirror again.

That�s your choice, and an honorable one. Not very many minority individuals that�s poverty-stricken see the world as you do. Were you ever poverty-stricken? Is your income, or your family�s income considered lower class? It�s these individuals that affirmative action helps out the most, not the middle to upper class minorities who have the same privileges as the majority of whites. Not to make an assumption that you are middle/upper class, but you see my point here.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Could you clarify this? I�m not sure there�s much validity to your argument. How can a company that is not discriminatory out compete a �white only� company on the basis of having more good employees? Not understanding the logic there, nor do I understand the conclusion you made from it.

If two companies are identical except one has better employees, it's going to be able to offer a superior service at a lower price. A company gives itself the greatest chance of having better employees when it drafts them from the greatest possible pool of candidates.

quote:

Sorry, but it has direct ties to race. While it is true that the underprivileged includes all races, blacks disproportionately comprise this group. I don�t have those statistics at hand, but I�m sure you�ll find this true if you look �em up. So the consequences of an unequal standard of education therefore affect blacks quite a bit more than the underprivileged whites.

If we are truly trying to move towards an equitable society, we shouldn't even be keeping track of statistics that categorize people based on race. What are you suggesting, that we ensure every possible subcategory of the population has precisely identical economic statistics? Please. There are a variety of factors resulting in this statistical imbalance. But the fact that it exists doesn't justify discrimination.

quote:

Yeah, but I won�t lose sleep over this too much. If everyone can agree to do this, then businesses as a whole may not move forward as quickly as our fast-paced, gotta-have-it-now society wants, but I think we�ll all live a little better in the long run. Of course, that's not gonna happen in our capitalistic society, but it's just wishful thinking.

If your family member was killed because an unqualified person was hired to implement or test the algorithms that controlled the aircraft they were riding in, would you lose sleep over that?

quote:

Have you hugged your nearby black man today? Have you talked to him? You know what they tend to say about this issue to us white folks? They�re not trying to be like us. Whoa, I know that�s a shocker! But seriously, equality does not mean togetherness in one happy oreo cookie! Yeah, they want to remain separate, but why shouldn�t they? If I were black, I guess I�d have a hard time trusting Whitey right now as well! They can still have equal rights and be separate amongst us. As for sacrificing principle for expediency, his principle is that reverse racism in a sense is a retaliatory reaction towards actual racism. This is understandable to me, considering what we put their race through in the past, and what we are still putting these people through. I�d be a little pissed off myself.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If they want to be seperate, that's fine, but remember how the principle of "seperate, but equal" worked out with regards to segregation? I don't think it's practical, and certainly affirmative action is doing little to facilitate it.

quote:

You may not believe it, but it still exists. Consider: The average income for a black American is 61% less per year than the average white income. Guess what? That�s the same fu#$ing % difference as it was in 1880! Wow, talk about consistency in discrimination! Here�s some more tidbits from Michael Moore: 20% of black men ages 16-24 are neither in high school nor working, compared to only 9% of white men. Despite our wonderful economic boom in the �90s, that number has not fallen over the last 10 years. Black levels are unemployment have been almost twice those of whites since 1954. In 1993 white households have invested in nearly 3x as much in stocks/mutual funds/IRAs/Keogh accounts as black households.

Again, your statistics do little to justify your proposed remedy. If they even show that a problem exists (which I do not believe), they still fail miserably in attempting to explain why racism is the solution to the problem. If the problem is minorities in general, then why don't Asians, for example, exhibit the same degree of relative impoverishment as blacks or hispanics? I'll tell you why, because there are far more factors at work contributing towards these trends than the discrimination of the past. The black subculture, for example, is not exactly one that tends to glorify education. Even when black students are presented with wonderful opportunities, fewer of them take advantage of those opportunities than members of various other ethnic groups. Discriminating in order to try to compensate for this, and give the appearance of equality when in reality we are only creating inequality, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

quote:

Yes but as I pointed out, blacks are disproportionately in poverty than whites.

So why not give people in poverty an advantage, rather than just giving the advantage to poor people of certain ethnic groups?

quote:

Well you take anything out of context and you can create whatever fantasy world you wish. The statement itself implies a state of inequality to begin with, which is what affirmative action stands on. But it�s not simply an implication, it is a fact. There is a great deal of inequality here, and to deny that would be false.

There is no fantasy. The statement is axiomatically false. No context can justify that statement. It is self-contradictory. What that means is that there are no circumstances under which it can be true. That is an indisputable fact.

quote:

That�s your choice, and an honorable one. Not very many minority individuals that�s poverty-stricken see the world as you do. Were you ever poverty-stricken? Is your income, or your family�s income considered lower class? It�s these individuals that affirmative action helps out the most, not the middle to upper class minorities who have the same privileges as the majority of whites. Not to make an assumption that you are middle/upper class, but you see my point here.

No, I've never lived in poverty, but my grandparents grew up as subsistence farmers on an Indian reservation in an era where discrimination was very real and very opposed to them and they still made millions of dollars by their own hard work.

Giving people advantages on the basis of skill color only serves to discourage people from living up to their potential, by making fewer demands upon them. People need to be challenged, to give them something to rise up to, not to be handed a better life just because they started off below average.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that poverty in the modern developed word is really a euphamism for irresponsibility. If you're responsible with your finances, you can support a family with a decent standard of living on less than $5,000 a year. The people who are living in poverty aren't in poverty because they can't make enough money. They're in poverty because they're too lazy to work, or because they spend all their money on drugs, or cigarettes, or alcohol, or designer clothes they don't need, or because they get themselves in to ridiculous amounts of debt. Poverty does not exist except where it is invited. Any sane person in half-decent physical condition has more than sufficient opportunity to support themselves and their family. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

Alrighty then, here we go......

quote:

If two companies are identical except one has better employees, it's going to be able to offer a superior service at a lower price. A company gives itself the greatest chance of having better employees when it drafts them from the greatest possible pool of candidates.

Okay, I see your point here. But as I explained, if all companies truly adopted an affirmative action policy, this would be a moot point because all companies would be under the same guidelines, and thus would have to draw upon the same 2 pools of possible employees: one pool from the majority, one pool from the minority. But like I said, this is wishful thinking, because in reality you are correct, unfortunately.

quote:

If we are truly trying to move towards an equitable society, we shouldn't even be keeping track of statistics that categorize people based on race.

The statistics serve the purpose of pointing out that we are NOT in an equitable society, which is what I am explaining here.

quote:

What are you suggesting, that we ensure every possible subcategory of the population has precisely identical economic statistics? Please. There are a variety of factors resulting in this statistical imbalance. But the fact that it exists doesn't justify discrimination.

If you mean that I feel that we should all be a little more equal in terms of economic status, my answer is absolutely. Without going into too much detail in economics, history has shown that a stronger middle ground (middle class) gives a more economic stability to our country. Now I realize this is a class argument, but I pointed out earlier of the disproportional reality of blacks and other minorities for that matter in the lower class, so I�ll make a direct tie to race. Whether you accept those statistics or not is not the argument here. The point they make, however, is painfully clear. Yes, there are a variety of factors that result in this statistical imbalance, and one of biggest factors is oppression. This idea alone more than justifies affirmative action, not only for blacks but for you and your Indian ancestors as well. I�ve worked as a teacher�s aid at an Indian Nation�s Colleg in my hometown, and there are few Native Americans I�ve worked with there that have grown up underprivileged that would disagree with me.

quote:

If your family member was killed because an unqualified person was hired to implement or test the algorithms that controlled the aircraft they were riding in, would you lose sleep over that?

No, I�d sleep like a baby and throw a party in my loss! C�mon, of course I would! But I�m looking at the bigger picture here, society as a whole, not particular nit-picky incidents.

quote:

Two wrongs don't make a right. If they want to be seperate, that's fine, but remember how the principle of "seperate, but equal" worked out with regards to segregation? I don't think it's practical, and certainly affirmative action is doing little to facilitate it.

Now you�re really taking me out of context. Did it really sound like I was saying the old �separate but equal� doctrine, or did my statement have anything to do with the atrocities that occurred from this doctrine? Not even close, so don�t even attempt such a jump. Cultures can work together in any work or educational environment without trying to mix views/beliefs/cultural attitudes � that�s what I�m saying here.

quote:

If they even show that a problem exists (which I do not believe), they still fail miserably in attempting to explain why racism is the solution to the problem. If the problem is minorities in general, then why don't Asians, for example, exhibit the same degree of relative impoverishment as blacks or hispanics?

One word: history. We took these people as slaves to our country, destroying their families, language, culture, religion, and above all else, morale. Their humanity was stomped on while we had them tied up around the necks picking cotton in our fields to �better� our industrial nation. We institutionalized their poverty from the very get go. Asians didn�t necessarily have the greatest start in the world either, having to work on our railroads and then being easily disposed of when finished. But guess who was working on those railroads with them? Yep, the Blacks. The point, however, is that no other race had to bear the unbelievable atrocities that we put African Americans through with slavery. We in essence destroyed their outlook because of our past, and that has DIRECTLY affected their outlook on life in the present and future. Now, we did a pretty good job screwing up Native Americans as well, which is why I support affirmative action for all minorities.

quote:

The black subculture, for example, is not exactly one that tends to glorify education. Even when black students are presented with wonderful opportunities, fewer of them take advantage of those opportunities than members of various other ethnic groups. Discriminating in order to try to compensate for this, and give the appearance of equality when in reality we are only creating inequality, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Neither do the Native Americans living on Federal income below poverty levels on protected land, but they should be given the same opportunities as anyone else to succeed nonetheless. Do you have any proof to support such a claim of Blacks neglecting opportunities given to them? That�s quite a generalization, and a claim which nearly implies either a level of laziness or lack of intelligence on the Black race as a whole. Surely that�s not what you meant was it?

quote:

So why not give people in poverty an advantage, rather than just giving the advantage to poor people of certain ethnic groups?

Because again, taken as a whole, it�s not Whitey in poverty that�s hurting the most, it�s the other minorities in poverty and subsidized living that are getting the shaft, statistically speaking. True, all individuals in poverty have a disadvantage, and there should be a better means of allowing all poverty-stricken individuals to be on the same playing field as middle and upper class. Your point is well taken here.

quote:

There is no fantasy. The statement is axiomatically false. No context can justify that statement. It is self-contradictory. What that means is that there are no circumstances under which it can be true. That is an indisputable fact.

Okay, so the statement you created is self-contradictory. I�ll concede that your interpretation of affirmative action with your statement is false, based on YOUR words you created in the statement alone. Instead, how about my interpretation: �I didn�t have the same chances and educational opportunities as you, so I need help to be equal.� Better?

quote:

No, I've never lived in poverty, but my grandparents grew up as subsistence farmers on an Indian reservation in an era where discrimination was very real and very opposed to them and they still made millions of dollars by their own hard work..

I commend their grandparents� bravery and hard work. Obviously you have a lot to be thankful for. However, this story you share is not a common story. Rather, it�s a rarity. Is that to say that others around your Grandparents were not hard workers? I�m sure many, if not most Native Americans were hard workers in whatever they did or still do, but still did not receive the fruits of their efforts. The same is true of Blacks and other minorities that have worked hard but did not receive a financial fortune in return. You see, hard work does not always equate to lots of money. I�ll point you to a great many teachers that could tell you this.

quote:

Giving people advantages on the basis of skin color only serves to discourage people from living up to their potential, by making fewer demands upon them. People need to be challenged, to give them something to rise up to, not to be handed a better life just because they started off below average

I couldn�t agree with you more on this. There are many of those individuals that will take advantage of such circumstances, unfortunately. People do need to be challenged, given goals to shoot for, and feel the rewards of attaining such goals. However, living in poverty is a challenge in of itself for many. I wish I could show you what I�ve seen working in the schools of urban Cincinnati. Life in poverty is harsh, and it�s full of many worries. Being in school and staying in school to better yourself is but one small worry. Staying alive, feeding your family, making ends meet in any way you can tend to be the theme for most families. Sadly, this is what�s passed onto kids at a very early age. School may be a means of getting out of the ghetto, but there are other life issues that tend to be a little more pressing. I�m sorry, but unless you�ve been there, you may not truly understand this, like many in the upper-middle/upper class.

quote:

Additionally, I'd like to point out that poverty in the modern developed word is really a euphemism for irresponsibility.

That�s pretty low. Where in the hell do you get such a statement? What makes you think this? You can point it out, but you�d better back it up. Seriously, you really should stop listening to Limbaugh on the radio.

quote:

If you're responsible with your finances, you can support a family with a decent standard of living on less than $5,000 a year.

Jeez, what are you smoking, and could you pass it over here? Less than $5,000? Again, any evidence to support this? Better yet, I�d like to see you try this yourself.

quote:

The people who are living in poverty aren't in poverty because they can't make enough money. They're in poverty because they're too lazy to work, or because they spend all their money on drugs, or cigarettes, or alcohol, or designer clothes they don't need, or because they get themselves in to ridiculous amounts of debt.

Man, the generalizations keep a comin�! Look, I won�t deny there are those individuals in the bunch who fit this category. But to categorize an entire group by such is completely irresponsible of you. Again, evidence?

quote:

Poverty does not exist except where it is invited. Any sane person in half-decent physical condition has more than sufficient opportunity to support themselves and their family. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

Wow, so poverty is invited by the lazy alcoholics who wear expensive designer cloths and refuse to work hard? Don�t leave the door open so far will you? These statements you�ve made are pretty typical of someone in the upper class who has no clue what it means to be poor and struggling through life. Now there�s my generalization. Will you prove that one false for me?

Look, the point of affirmative action is yes, to create a more level playing field for minorities, and give allow the opportunities that are given to the MAJORITY of whites. They did not start off on the same level playing field as the white males, but constitutionally should be given the same opportunities as anyone else. The argument you hold is that they are in fact given the same opportunities as everyone else, and I�m trying to point to you that is not the case. Their culture has been damaged morally, spiritually, and financially by our stupid stupid actions in the past, and they are only beginning to see that they can, in fact, move forward in their lives. Keep in mind, we�re only talking 30 years here. That�s not a very long time for any culture to develop, let alone a culture that�s been trampled on for so many years in the past. Affirmative action no doubt helps this process. Until there�s a more level playing field, it will continue to exist, and I will continue to support it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The statistics serve the purpose of pointing out that we are NOT in an equitable society, which is what I am explaining here.

Yes but the point is we're never going to get there by driving races apart through this kind of legislation. Don't you see the inevitability of a backlash? It's happening already.

quote:

If you mean that I feel that we should all be a little more equal in terms of economic status, my answer is absolutely. Without going into too much detail in economics, history has shown that a stronger middle ground (middle class) gives a more economic stability to our country. Now I realize this is a class argument, but I pointed out earlier of the disproportional reality of blacks and other minorities for that matter in the lower class, so I�ll make a direct tie to race. Whether you accept those statistics or not is not the argument here. The point they make, however, is painfully clear. Yes, there are a variety of factors that result in this statistical imbalance, and one of biggest factors is oppression. This idea alone more than justifies affirmative action, not only for blacks but for you and your Indian ancestors as well. I�ve worked as a teacher�s aid at an Indian Nation�s Colleg in my hometown, and there are few Native Americans I�ve worked with there that have grown up underprivileged that would disagree with me.

Can you show that a black person with N personal assets is worse off, or has fewer opportunities, than a white person with N personal assets? If not, your arguments are merely generalizations (something you have found it quite convenient to criticize my arguments for). Hardly the basis for sound legislation, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

No, I�d sleep like a baby and throw a party in my loss! C�mon, of course I would! But I�m looking at the bigger picture here, society as a whole, not particular nit-picky incidents.

Todays nit-picky incidents can become tomorrows pandemics. An underqualified employee here or there is inevitable, but when we begin to write legislation that encourages it, it will only continue to grow in frequency and degree.

quote:

Now you�re really taking me out of context. Did it really sound like I was saying the old �separate but equal� doctrine, or did my statement have anything to do with the atrocities that occurred from this doctrine? Not even close, so don�t even attempt such a jump. Cultures can work together in any work or educational environment without trying to mix views/beliefs/cultural attitudes � that�s what I�m saying here.

Multiculturalism is a pipe dream. Unless human nature changes, what you're suggesting is simply not practical. If groups insist on defining themselves as different, there's no practical means to ensure their equality, and certainly treating them with different standards is a step away from creating the type of society you seem to be advocating.

quote:

and that has DIRECTLY affected their outlook on life in the present and future.

If this is can even be demonstrated to be true, can you establish causality between this and the opportunities you purport they are not receiving. Actually, I'd appreciate it if you would explain exactly what opportunities you feel they are being denied as well.

quote:

Do you have any proof to support such a claim of Blacks neglecting opportunities given to them?

BUFFALO CITY SCHOOLS (1998-2000)
INCIDENTS OF TRUANCY BY RACE [PER STUDENT, PER YEAR]

WHITE: 14.72
BLACK: 26.09
HISPANIC: 19.74
ASIAN: 8.65
OTHER: 16.38

Skipping school isn't the best way to get the education you need to succeed in today's economy.

quote:

That�s quite a generalization, and a claim which nearly implies either a level of laziness or lack of intelligence on the Black race as a whole. Surely that�s not what you meant was it?

Its not a genetic characteristic of their race, but instead arises from the social environment in which they are raised. As ethnic groups tend to keep to themselves to a fairly large degree, their social environment may be substantially different than that of other ethnic groups. The result of this is a variance in behavior which exhibits a lower degree of effort towards formal education.

quote:

Because again, taken as a whole, it�s not Whitey in poverty that�s hurting the most, it�s the other minorities in poverty and subsidized living that are getting the shaft, statistically speaking. True, all individuals in poverty have a disadvantage, and there should be a better means of allowing all poverty-stricken individuals to be on the same playing field as middle and upper class. Your point is well taken here.

Again, are these not merely generalizations that you're suggesting then. Can you explain why affirmative action is a superior policy to one granting advantages to people based on their economic class?

quote:

Okay, so the statement you created is self-contradictory. I�ll concede that your interpretation of affirmative action with your statement is false, based on YOUR words you created in the statement alone. Instead, how about my interpretation: �I didn�t have the same chances and educational opportunities as you, so I need help to be equal.� Better?

That's perfect. But it would only be a justification for affirmative action if only minorities could say that. But that isn't the case.

quote:

I commend their grandparents� bravery and hard work. Obviously you have a lot to be thankful for. However, this story you share is not a common story. Rather, it�s a rarity. Is that to say that others around your Grandparents were not hard workers? I�m sure many, if not most Native Americans were hard workers in whatever they did or still do, but still did not receive the fruits of their efforts.

Well I'll admit that more goes into success than merely hard work. You need talent and opportunity as well. But talented people can create their own opportunities with a little ingenuity, at least in modern America.

quote:

The same is true of Blacks and other minorities that have worked hard but did not receive a financial fortune in return. You see, hard work does not always equate to lots of money. I�ll point you to a great many teachers that could tell you this.

Nor should it necessarily equate to lots of money. Not everyone can be wealthy (since wealth is relative). The problem is that you seem to think that merely because one group is proportionately under-represented in the upper class, we ought to do whatever is necessary to create the appearance of balance.

I can't find any statistics about this, but I would posit that descendants of people who emigrated before 1850 form a disproportionate amount of the wealthy population compared to those who emigrated after 1850. Would this mean we should give the descendants of people who came to our country more recently an advantage in occupational and educational opportunities?

quote:

I couldn�t agree with you more on this. There are many of those individuals that will take advantage of such circumstances, unfortunately. People do need to be challenged, given goals to shoot for, and feel the rewards of attaining such goals. However, living in poverty is a challenge in of itself for many. I wish I could show you what I�ve seen working in the schools of urban Cincinnati. Life in poverty is harsh, and it�s full of many worries. Being in school and staying in school to better yourself is but one small worry. Staying alive, feeding your family, making ends meet in any way you can tend to be the theme for most families. Sadly, this is what�s passed onto kids at a very early age. School may be a means of getting out of the ghetto, but there are other life issues that tend to be a little more pressing. I�m sorry, but unless you�ve been there, you may not truly understand this, like many in the upper-middle/upper class.

I'll grant you that it's not easy. But I simply fail to see how this is a justification for inherently discriminatory policies.

quote:

That�s pretty low. Where in the hell do you get such a statement? What makes you think this? You can point it out, but you�d better back it up. Seriously, you really should stop listening to Limbaugh on the radio.

It may not be politically correct in this day and age, but it's the truth. It's the people making excuses for underachievers that condemn many more to that same fate.

quote:

Jeez, what are you smoking, and could you pass it over here? Less than $5,000? Again, any evidence to support this? Better yet, I�d like to see you try this yourself.

Actually I'm living well under $5,000 annualy right now. Deduct my tuition from my expenditures and, according to my tax records, I've only spent $4,645.27 per year for the past two years. The vast majority of that [$3,600] is rent. And there are certainly plenty of ways I could have saved more money.

The only challenge in getting under such a budget is finding a relatively cheap place of residence. But if you go somewhere were property values are relatively low, it's definitely possible.

quote:

Look, the point of affirmative action is yes, to create a more level playing field for minorities, and give allow the opportunities that are given to the MAJORITY of whites. They did not start off on the same level playing field as the white males, but constitutionally should be given the same opportunities as anyone else.

The constitution also guarentees equal treatment of all races under the law, a principle in which any legislation permitting different racial standards is clearly in violation of.

quote:

The argument you hold is that they are in fact given the same opportunities as everyone else, and I�m trying to point to you that is not the case.

Not everyone else but, yes, white people growing up in similar circumstances. The relative proportions of these groups are largely irrelevant.

quote:

Their culture has been damaged morally, spiritually, and financially by our stupid stupid actions in the past, and they are only beginning to see that they can, in fact, move forward in their lives.

You see, but it's not the stupid actions in the past of most of the people who are suffering as a result of these policies. Did a white student who is passed over for admission into college enslave anyone?

quote:

Keep in mind, we�re only talking 30 years here. That�s not a very long time for any culture to develop, let alone a culture that�s been trampled on for so many years in the past. Affirmative action no doubt helps this process. Until there�s a more level playing field, it will continue to exist, and I will continue to support it.

I really think the burden of proof is on supporters of affirmative action to not only demonstrate the existence of a problem, but also why discrimination is the best way to resolve the problem.

It seems to me that in this case, the end does not justify the means. But I'd be happy to hear more from you on the matter, if you'd care to respond.

Regards,

Arbiter

Doesn't anyone here think that it just a tad bit hypocritical that the President wants to do away with affirmative action in the field of education, when he HIMSELF A BENEFICIARY OF THE SAME TYPE OF QUOTAS? How might one ask how he got into Yale and Harvard Business School? Was it because of his stellar scholastic and intercurricular activities in secondary school and in his undergraduate days? Or was it rather because because he is the next in line of an admissions policy/practice that is known in college admissions circles as a LEGACY, being that his father, grandfather, etc., attended the school in their undergraduate days AND HAVE CONTRIBUTED SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF MONEY to the institution. The President just had himself the good fortune to have been born into a WASPy, many generations-old New England family (yes, he really is not the "good ol'Texan Cowboy" he would like to believe he is) and thereby, being part of such a DYNASTY, got basically a free ride into two of the most prestigious universities of America.

This "legacy" policy is still very much in practice in many private universities, and is even prevalent in quite a few public ones. For example, how about the state quotas in the University of California's, where you if one lives out of state, they have much less of a chance (something like a 5% acceptance rate) of getting in than a person who lives in state. Now I know the argument people will throw at me (that it is a STATE UNIVERSITY and therefore it caters to people who live within that particular state), and I accept that as the way things are, but ultimate, no matter how one looks at it, it is still a QUOTA, just based on where one lives. But how about UNC-Chapel Hill? They still have a state-based quota, but there's also a catch; if one of your parents so attended this prestigious public institution and you live out of state, you are considered in the in-state selection pool, maximizing your chances of getting in (and, coincidentally, giving your grateful parents a wonderful chance to show their gratitude by thus donating more money to the university). If this isn't a QUOTA, what is?!?! And where's the uproar?

The truth is, selective selection is still very prevalent in all apects of American society today, regardless of the form it takes, and probably will still be around for the foreseeable future. Race is just one of them; one could pretty much put wealth, social class, and, as evidenced above, even who one's parents are and what they did, into a quota category.

The problem is many people don't understand what exactly affirmative action is and how it works, and since race has been and still is a very sticky and sensitive issue, this policy has become a very easy target for one to lash at. Now I don't pretend to know the intricacies of affirmative action, but I do know that there is A LOT MORE TO IT than just the selection of a black guy over a white guy JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. A lot of factors really do come into the picture, and race is just one of them, albeit an important one.

Contrary to popular belief, THE ANGRY WHITE MALE is not the one who is alienated, down on his luck, and oppressed in today's world; that distinction still lies in the urban and rural POOR, most of which in this day and age happen to be RACIAL MINORITIES. If you doubt this, just look at who's mowing the lawns and doing the caretaking at the civic and public institutions of your community, and farming, rearing, and transporting the food that is set on your table. Or look at the label of your shirt and see the origin of its manufacture; or, on another pertinant note, ask the local Shell or Chevron who the workers are who drill the oil that keeps our cars running every day. Chances are, the people who perform these activities that are for our consumption and benefit haven't have and still don't have access to the same social, economic, and educational facilities that you do, and yet these people make up the backbone of American society, and allow us to live, in the ever-popular phrase nowadays, "The American Way of Life."

I could go on and on, as it is an endless cycle manifesting in many different forms, but I hope one can get the general picture of where I'm coming from with this. Even if you, as the reader, don't agree with my general points and views, I hope at least that I might have cause you to think a little differently than you might be accustomed to.

Have a nice day!

we do not need affirmitive action. why? because we are all created equal, and we should all believe in it.

quote:

Originally posted by deejay2002 we do not need affirmitive action. why? because we are all created equal, and we should all believe in it.

Obviously since there is still discrimination in this country, we do not believe in everyone being created equal.


on a side note check out the following article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/17/m...s.ap/index.html

this case will be an interesting one......

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.