I think that choosing candidates by race, hometown, or anything more than performance/qualification does more to ensure a diversity of aptitude in the classroom/office than it does of race.

I voted other as the poll choices didn't seem to be encompassing. The first option assumes that race is MORE important than all else, which is absurd and totally untrue.

Ideally (for me anyway) race would be used as a factor when all other things are equal (which is, excepting some circumstances like the UMich admissions, what happens currently). I definitely think diversifying the workforce, university, etc. is beneficial but I don't think anyone is suggesting that race be placed at the top of the list in terms of "credentials".

As far as scholarships (in case that was a part of this poll), there are all sorts of silly scholarships out there awarding thousands of dollars to individuals who are tall, virgins (yep, a U of AZ benefactor wanted to set up a pretty hefty scholarship fund to virgins), etc. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me.

I didn't like the voting options either.

Anything Ward Connerly is for, I am against.

He's a trojan horse for a host of right-wing initiatives, none of which that advances bettering racial relations in America. If I could, I'd move to California just to vote against his disgenously titled sneak attack on civil rights.

I don't trust him any further than I can throw him.

Why should race be used as a factor at all, if we are talking about getting the best person for the job, or the university classroom? Diversity is fine, but if what is supposed to count is performance, then using race or gender is not viable.

If diversity is the goal, then why bother with SATs, or job qualifications, or any of the rest of it. Just hire based on quotas. We all agree I think, that that isn't going to work. But if the goal is the best person for the job, diversity is a hinderance.

I've hired plenty of people in my profession. I never hired based on "diversity". That does not mean I don't have a diverse workplace. I need personable, friendly, bright people, that can get the job done. My hotel has a sales staff that is entirely made up of Women. My front office manager is a woman. My current controller is black, as is our executive chef. I hire the person, not the race or gender. None of these were hired because I thought that, "all things being equal", I better hire a minority, so I'm seen as "diversified".


Edited to add: Yahoo, I just realized it's my 100th post!

Race should never be a factor in school or workforce selection, nor should it be held against anyone. While I absolutely support cracking down on racist/sexist/ageist hiring and enrollment practices, it should come down to who has the best grades and track record, not how much melanin you have in your skin.

Racism is racism regardless of who is doing it.

If this passes, it will be interesting to see whether disparities between races get smaller or larger.

Is this proposition to get rid of all affirmative action? White women have been by far the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. Since AA programs began, the diparity of income (equal pay for equal work) has been closing, though women are still paid less than men, even in traditionally "female" careers like nursing. So, if this passes, will the gap continue to close, or will it widen? Will the percentage of minority students in state colleges go up or down? Since AA programs began, the number of minority enrollment has been rising. Will this trend continue? It remains to be seen.

I don't know the answers; I won't pretend to. But to compare a society in which ALL minorities were legally discriminated against to a society in which an occasional white guy gets shut out of a job is to do some pretty heavy whitewashing (no pun intended) of history.

Here is an excerpt from a speech delivered by Connerly at a conference on Affirmative Action.



Martin Luther King said it was a man's character, not color, that mattered. In my opinion, Ward Connerly is trying to obtain King's dream. I voted no on racial preferences.

So two wrongs do make a right, huh Quark?

Best thing I have heard all day

I long for the day that a job/promotion will be awarded on nothing but performance. It wouldn't matter who you knew or what you look like but just performance, that would be ideal. Too bad it isn't that way. I see more people at work who have relatives in management or got a job as a favor from a friend it is not even funny (I work as an engineer and you would think it wouldn't be the case). In fact I don't think people understand what it means to have a job market where everything is based strictly on performance....but it would eliminate people brown nosers getting promotions .

I had to vote "other" here as well. This is a ridiculously biased poll. "Continue" putting race over aptitude/performance makes it sound as though this were the norm. It is not. Affirmative action should be about giving preference to previously excluded minorities when - and only when - their qualifications are roughly equal.

Even where people have erred in determining what "roughly equal" means, they have probably been justified (though I wouldn't necessarily endorse the practice of accepting unequal candidates on the basis of race alone). I feel that the candidate for any job or any position should be looked at in toto - and that would include their race and background.

Al Franken uses the example of a baseball coach who posed the following question: "You have two guys run down to first. They have equal times, but one has much better form. Which one do you choose?" If you're a good coach, you choose the one with bad form because you can coach him to use good form and he'll be the better runner.

Similarly, say you're the Dean of Admissions. You have two candidate for your university. One is white, attending a private school, the son of educated middle-class parents; he's received intensive SAT tutoring, and has taken the SATs three times, submitting his best score, 1260. The other is black, attending an over-crowded public school, brought up by a single mother who dropped out of high school; he works nights, has had no tutoring and takes the SATs once, scoring 1240. Who do you admit?

I would have to agree with aquapub:
I feel that if one looks only at performance/qualification without looking into "race, hometown, or anything more" that aptitude is going to be less diverse for sure - dissolute, undisciplined children of privilege will ensure that aptitude is consistently low. Taking other factors into account will ensure that standards are raised and result in both low and high levels of aptitude.

Leave the other factors the same, now switch their race. Who do you admit?

I voted other.

As an Asian, fortunately, I've never been in a situation of being discriminated against because of my race for school or work. And I don't expect, nor want, people to hire me solely based on my performance. There are many other factors - personality, salary requirements, fitting into the culture, etc.

Also, I'm against "in the name of diversity" to consciously choose one group over another because we need a "diverse" workplace. As NiteGuy said, "hire the person, not the race or gender."

I know that the UC systems do not discriminate at all based on raced. When you send in your application, its impossible for them to tell what Race you are unless you state it in your personal essay.

Private colleges can discriminate all they want. The workplace is probably a different subject.

If that was what happened, no one would complain, but it's more like the black applicant has taken the SAT three times and got 1200, the white applicant took it once and got 1260, but because the school doesn't have enough black students, the black applicant will be admitted to make the racial figures look better.

That is simply wrong. Two students with the same qualifications deserve the same treatment. A student with HIGHER qualifications should not be rejected because he isn't a minority.

I admit the white guy. This is what I meant by "the candidate for any job or any position should be looked at in toto". But the fact is that, while not all white applicants have the advantages described, very few black applicants do.


And, Cephus, I would agree with you entirely where preference is given to vastly underqualified candidates (though I really doubt your "more likely" scenario). But where the applicants do have the same - or roughly similar - qualifications, would you not support admission on the basis of proportional representation of the population?

Given two students of roughly equal academic standings, I'd put their names in a hat and pick randomly. Race should have absolutely NOTHING to do with it in any way, shape or form.

Forgive the brevity of this response, Cephus, but why not?

This is why favoring those of lower socioeconomic classifications is preferable to racial preferences. Limiting SAT tests to two a year would be a great idea also.

I will answer this as well. Because when you are born you have no choice in the matter what race you are. And because race is something you cannot change about yourself. You should neither get advantage or hinderance because of it.

If you have two equally qualified people, what makes the black one any more special than the white one? Listen, you don't pay people to be black, so why hire them for being black?

CP

Why should we? Should we start giving preferential treatment because of eye color? Hair color? Tall people? Short people? All of these are genetically determined, just like skin color, why should we show preference to someone for something they have no control over? Why does someone with more melanin in their skin deserve to go to school more than someone with less? Why should we give preference to a blue-eyed person over a brown-eyed person? You simply do not solve racism by being racist, and *ANY* preferential treatment based on your genetic background is problematic at best.

I'm willing to let AA go for this statement, as long as we also eliminate legacies at colleges. Oh, and let's bump the inheritance tax up to 100%. Oh and hey, nepotism should be illegal. Why should someone inherit a million dollars just because of their genetics? Why should someone get into university just because of genetics?

White women, the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs, are rarely mentioned by conservatives decrying preference programs... I wonder why? Don't wanna alienate over half the voting public, I guess - keep it focussed on those troublesome minorities...

OK, quarkhead, I thought this was the Race Debate thread. Maybe *that's* why people are only criticizing the racial side of the hypocritical abomination that is Affirmative Action. But, sure, if you want to get technical, I'll submit.

I don't think someone should benefit or be hindered because of gender either. You work for what you get in life, period. Your experiences lead to qualification, and that is how you should be chosen or not. I also agree that nepotism shouldn't be used. Where did that inheritance tax comment come from, though?

I would ask in the first place why AA is even needed, or i would imagine if the real world was one of perfect harmony that such a program would not exist. I also imagine as a better quality of life or standard to society or moral rehashing occurs, that such a program will cease to exist.

Call it human or what not, but difference in people seems to be an issue with humanity. This is rather evident in world history and in America i would say.

We have yet to have a president that is any kind of a minority or a female, so i would say that we are progressing towards i guess a more equal platform in society, i also fell once that is reached, a majority of all these programs will go away, and society wont even notice because it will just be a better place to live in general.

We have social programs for a broad range of people, it seems that AA just sticks out like a sore thumb for some reason i am not fully sure of. I also would guess that AA would exist for the same reasons regardless if the target minority was white or purple or green or what not, the color issue is only really skin deep in some aspects.

Anyways race relations for the most part in America i would say have become mush better then they were even 50 years ago.

Nice logical debate there quark. We make a good point and you get emotional and start being irrational. What do college legacies and inheritance have to do with race?

Just to add, that 100% inheritance remark is proof positive for my anger towards rich thread. Thanks Quark.

I don’t see it as anger towards the rich, but the fact economic status in America is a very large issue. We agree with it in some forms then not in others. It peels off to me as more of a problem of capitalism then rich people themselves. Remember a majority of Americas wealth is held by a very small percent of America, and wealth is usually kept by those that have it, this in turn causes problems in society, at least to me it does. We have to rely on these people being generous to society with the wealth they have, or make more companies or jobs or whatever, not use it to buy 300 million dollar mansions. Capitalism provides social classes i would guess, this then is turned into words like social mobility or poverty, or racism or whatever you want to call it. Is America better because it can have rich and poor people, or is it worse because of such?

We like to say that your actions reward you in America or that American dream idea, but how true is that to reality? Does the structure of America have mechanical flaws for lack of better words? Does the current status of humanity at large and in the society of America play a role in this, like skin color? Does Americas system itself destroy the ideas it was founded on?

Well, nileriver, I don't know what you're getting at or what your political motivations are, but consider the alternatives. You can either accept that there are always going to be people richer, more successful, and more "well off" than you are and live with it, striving always for the best life you can achieve and living happily as such (it isn't that hard). Or, you can say that everyone should be exactly the same, economically speaking, and that nobody should even be given the opportunity to succeed above anyone else. I don't think that has worked out too well throughout history, even if it may sound appealing at times. The results have never worked out as well as the plan indicated they would.

In America, people are guaranteed the "pursuit of happiness", not necessarily happiness itself. Some people, I think, would do well to remember that. Anyway, my point is that the capitalist system, for lack of better options, is the best available system. If it causes some social problems, they are miniscule to those problems of greater significance that would undoubtedly result with other means of government.

I never advocated for the institution of socialism in my post. I addressed a problem in America. People born into either poverty or richness, have innate disadvantages or advantages in this system. How do you get around that problem, if you consider it a problem, or how do we give equality to people or a fair chance, without destroying the ability to be successful? I do advocate for the socialization of education to certain extents as one possible solution, as you may be an excellent student and make right choices, but you class does not permit the benefits of higher education, thus higher paying jobs, stability or whatever. Which i guess is one of the main reasons AA came to be, it was to try and provide a more equal footing for societies problems areas, not necessarily just poor people, but as you get into AA you find it more and more to be a complex issue. We don’t seem to have a problem with the benefits society offers people that make it, but the next generation of those people are not the ones that made bad or good decisions, if even bad decisions or good ones were the only factor in why such people ended up where they are.

I accept the fact someone could win the lotto, or hit a baseball farther then another person, or be in the right place at the right time, or get a position based on the company, be it a white black or Hispanic male or female. Like i said its not a simple issue that people try to make it out to be.

This more or less is dealing with issues in America, be it system based, the society, or somewhere in between. Then we have to deal with how to try and approach such issues, and deal with why they come to be in the first place, like i said in an earlier post, why does AA even have to exist.

I don't mean to sound condescending here, but my post was sarcastic, not "emotional and irrational." Do you really think I was advocating a 100% inheritance tax? I was being sarcastic because, in spite of Cephus' comment that there should be no preferetial treatment based solely on genetics, there are many cases in which we are preferential precisely due to genetics. But you don't hear all the conservative white dudes ranting about them, do you?

Look. Life ain't fair. The strange thing is, most of us accept that maxim in most parts of our lives, but most of us also have an area or two which push our "fairness buttons."

I have more personal experience with this than perhaps most of you: I have been unemployed for three years, precisely because I am white. I live on a reservation, where there are Indian Preference laws. Fortunately, my wife makes a lot of money, and I don't have to work. If I did, I would simply have to move off of the reservation. No biggie. It certainly doesn't have me getting all whiny about being discriminated against. And why is that? Because I know that I have all kinds of options; options that a lot of the local Indians don't have. I am an educated, erudite white male.

Of course, I think that AA programs would be better served if they were based on economic levels rather than race and gender, but instead of freaking out about it, instead of getting "emotional and irrational," I am confident that such changes will come about naturally; and in the meantime, no one has been able to come up with any empirical evidence of white men whose lives are being economically or educationally truncated by this horrible specter of "race preferences." In fact, the only empirical data we really have shows that blacks have fewer assets, make less money, and get less education than whites, on average. If those indicators were roughly equal, I too would call for an end to AA.

PS: I apologize to anyone who misunderstood my earlier post - it was intended as a sarcastic way of proving a minor point.

Oh, and Sleeper: Why should I hate the rich? I am rich!

Personally, I don't think people should get into colleges just because their parents attended, but it isn't a racist (or sexist) policy and really doesn't harm anyone. If you're black and your parents went there, you get in just like if your parents were white. Males, females, doesn't matter, the tradition is still the same. I'll agree with you that ending "tradition" as an admission policy is fine.

And the same thing that goes for minorities goes for women as well. Sexist hiring policies are, for the most part, gone in America today. They don't need preferential treatment either. There are a lot of companies out there that are simply using AA to their benefit anyhow. My wife used to work for a company which had a female "owner" simply because state and local governments gave preferential treatment to companies owned by women. Of course, the woman in question was the real owner's wife, who never did a day's work for the company...

Actually, I think Quarkhead made a very valid point, sarcastic or not. His posting struck me as being a pretty direct response to the following:
and

If one is arguing genetics or "accidents of birth", one must accept that being born to a Harvard graduate or to a parent who is leaving you $40 billion tax-free is just as much a genetic accident as being born with more melanin in one's skin. All men may be created equal, but they sure as hell aren't born equal. Like it or not, being born independently wealthy or into an Ivy League legacy is a distinct advantage - every bit as much as being born black in this country is a distinct disadvantage. True, Sleeper, legacies and inheritance have nothing to do with race - but they have everything to do with the happenstance of genetics. If you guys are advocating some kind of level playing field from birth, then a 100% estate tax makes perfect sense.

Your arguments would make perfect sense, of course, if our society had reached a stage where one's race did not have a direct impact one one's ability to get an education, a job, or a promotion - but it has not.

Of course it has. Other than very small pockets of rednecks and individuals in white sheets, race has nothing whatsoever to do with education, employment or anything else. A black person and a white person from the same community have the same opportunities, by and large, as everyone else. If you want to complain about educational opportunity, it's a CLASS issue, not a RACE issue. But of course, it's a lot easier to claim everyone is racist than to admit that in poor areas, education sucks and job opportunities are low. It's ridiculous to take a single example of racism and declare that everyone is racist because of it.

Enough is enough, it's time for everyone to grow up and be adults, rather than squabbling children calling names.

I voted "Remove all factors EXCEPT performance". the ONLY factor should be based on performance and qualifications.

And you say this with what evidence? There are scores of current studies - possibly hundreds - which indicate huge disparities in relation to wages and promotions on the basis of gender and race. This is a smaller problem in relation to college admissions - solely because of Affirmative Action. Here is one small example of the extent to which race remains a factor in the job market. A couple of professors from MIT and the University of Chicago sent 5000 job applications to 1250 employers advertising for jobs in Boston and Chicago. Half of the applications had white bread names like Meredith Baker and Brendan Kelly, the other half had names like Tamika Jones and Jamal Robinson. Amy and Gregg were 50% more likely to get a response to their application than Latonya and Tyrone. Fifty percent, Cephus. Employers are discriminating even on the basis of "black-sounding" names, never mind the color of one's skin. Racism in the US is far from dead - and is hardly limited to rednecks in sheets (unless your definition of "redneck" extends to corporate offices in Massachusetts). It is time - long past time - to grow up and be adults: adults who no longer pre-judge people on the basis of race and accuse their critics of name-calling.