Full Version: Affirmative Action
Winner, Best Topic: Best Topic: Race Debate 2003-2004
Is Affirmative Action helpful or harmful to society as a whole, if harmful, why? If helpful, why [and please don't just say it helps African Americans, I'm talking society as a whole].
CP
First off, let me clarify what I see to be the fundamental aassumption behind affirmative action programmes.
Society a a whole is prejudiced against certain sections of itself. Members of those sections not only face prejudice that acts against them in an otherwise equal struggle - for example, two equally qualified candidates for a particular job - but that puts them at a competitive disadvantage, for instance through the education, welfare and justice systems.
If that core assumption is true, which is open to debate, I think affirmative action is broadly beneficial in principle, because it makes society work a little more fairly than it otherwise would - putting more and better candidates in the right roles than would be the case otherwise.
The social damage caused by a more qualified person (white, male, able-bodied, straight, or whatever the characteristic that means the affirmative action goes against them in a particular circumstance) being barred from a role that is fill by a less qualified candidate whose face fits is real, but across the whole of society it has less impact than the damage caused by the absence of affirmative action. But again, this is only ture if the core assumption is true.
I happen to think that the core assumption is true, but you idn't ask me that.
Society a a whole is prejudiced against certain sections of itself. Members of those sections not only face prejudice that acts against them in an otherwise equal struggle - for example, two equally qualified candidates for a particular job - but that puts them at a competitive disadvantage, for instance through the education, welfare and justice systems.
If that core assumption is true, which is open to debate, I think affirmative action is broadly beneficial in principle, because it makes society work a little more fairly than it otherwise would - putting more and better candidates in the right roles than would be the case otherwise.
The social damage caused by a more qualified person (white, male, able-bodied, straight, or whatever the characteristic that means the affirmative action goes against them in a particular circumstance) being barred from a role that is fill by a less qualified candidate whose face fits is real, but across the whole of society it has less impact than the damage caused by the absence of affirmative action. But again, this is only ture if the core assumption is true.
I happen to think that the core assumption is true, but you idn't ask me that.
It is most harmful to the groups whose purpose it is to benefit. The attempt to equalize economic opportunities for those who have failed to meet standards imposed on others encourages sloth. Energy should be focused on equalizing academic achievements and test scores, not handicapping the numbers.
When economic and educational achievements are compared between black and whites from two parent families the numbers are quite close. Similarly if you compare the economic and educational achievements of single parent families, of these two races, the numbers are close. The children suffering the biggest handicap are those from single parent homes. The group that has the highest ratio of two parent families...Asians. Guess which group, despite their minority status, is the best educated and wealthiest?
Stop illegitimate births and the statistics that indicate racism disappear. So when are we going to focus on the real issue, instead of wedge issues?
When economic and educational achievements are compared between black and whites from two parent families the numbers are quite close. Similarly if you compare the economic and educational achievements of single parent families, of these two races, the numbers are close. The children suffering the biggest handicap are those from single parent homes. The group that has the highest ratio of two parent families...Asians. Guess which group, despite their minority status, is the best educated and wealthiest?
Stop illegitimate births and the statistics that indicate racism disappear. So when are we going to focus on the real issue, instead of wedge issues?
In the short run, AA helps certain individuals, based upon their perceived minority status. It does not help the entire group of the minority, since it does nothing to adderss the root problem.
In the long run, AA hurts the very groups it touts to help.
There are several reasons behind this:
1. There is an inherent backlash when the government forces people to do things a certain way. People don't want to be told what to do by government. There is a certain resentment towards blacks which might not have otherwise been there.
2. AA goes against the ideals of self improvement: working harder, longer, and beating the pants off the competition. I won't go so far as Hugo and say that it encourages sloth, but it does not encourage the opposite.
Many immigrant groups (most, actually) were discriminated at some point in American history. They all overcame by first finding a niche that they could fill, and then expanding from there into the general workplace. Before the turn of the 20th century, it was the Irish and Italians and the Asians who were discriminated against.
Irish Americans
Italian Americans
These groups are now a part of the dominant culture.
I don't agree when someone argues "but it is much worse for ME and my group..."
This problem has been faced in the past, but has never been so muddled as it is today. Rampant discrimination is a thing of the past, but some people will not allow it to go the way of the dodo.
AA is not the answer, complete color blindness is.
In the long run, AA hurts the very groups it touts to help.
There are several reasons behind this:
1. There is an inherent backlash when the government forces people to do things a certain way. People don't want to be told what to do by government. There is a certain resentment towards blacks which might not have otherwise been there.
2. AA goes against the ideals of self improvement: working harder, longer, and beating the pants off the competition. I won't go so far as Hugo and say that it encourages sloth, but it does not encourage the opposite.
Many immigrant groups (most, actually) were discriminated at some point in American history. They all overcame by first finding a niche that they could fill, and then expanding from there into the general workplace. Before the turn of the 20th century, it was the Irish and Italians and the Asians who were discriminated against.
Irish Americans
Italian Americans
These groups are now a part of the dominant culture.
I don't agree when someone argues "but it is much worse for ME and my group..."
QUOTE
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these. -Paul Harvey
This problem has been faced in the past, but has never been so muddled as it is today. Rampant discrimination is a thing of the past, but some people will not allow it to go the way of the dodo.
AA is not the answer, complete color blindness is.
The very nature of AA is discriminatory and reinforces a double standard.
It’s not ok to discriminate against an individual if the result is negative, but it’s ok to discriminate if the result is positive. Special treatment cheapens any result and perpetuates bias.
I agree, the root of the problem is not being addressed, only glossed over with this feeble attempt at equity.
It’s not ok to discriminate against an individual if the result is negative, but it’s ok to discriminate if the result is positive. Special treatment cheapens any result and perpetuates bias.
I agree, the root of the problem is not being addressed, only glossed over with this feeble attempt at equity.
Before we get too far in this debate, could Conservpat or someone else please post some links defining exactly what "affirmative action" is as it's being practiced today. I know it's a great catch-all phrase for set-asides, quotas, etc. But are these practices actively happening today and where and why? Does "affirmative action" mean "actively seeking minorities to fill positions (job/college/etc.)" or "filling a minority 'quota' to right an historical discrimination" or what? I think those answers may help with the debate.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jan 21 2004, 01:54 PM)
In the short run, AA helps certain individuals, based upon their perceived minority status. It does not help the entire group of the minority, since it does nothing to adderss the root problem.
In the long run, AA hurts the very groups it touts to help.
There are several reasons behind this:
1. There is an inherent backlash when the government forces people to do things a certain way. People don't want to be told what to do by government. There is a certain resentment towards blacks which might not have otherwise been there.
2. AA goes against the ideals of self improvement: working harder, longer, and beating the pants off the competition. I won't go so far as Hugo and say that it encourages sloth, but it does not encourage the opposite.
Many immigrant groups (most, actually) were discriminated at some point in American history. They all overcame by first finding a niche that they could fill, and then expanding from there into the general workplace. Before the turn of the 20th century, it was the Irish and Italians and the Asians who were discriminated against.
Irish Americans
Italian Americans
These groups are now a part of the dominant culture.
I don't agree when someone argues "but it is much worse for ME and my group..."
This problem has been faced in the past, but has never been so muddled as it is today. Rampant discrimination is a thing of the past, but some people will not allow it to go the way of the dodo.
AA is not the answer, complete color blindness is.
In the long run, AA hurts the very groups it touts to help.
There are several reasons behind this:
1. There is an inherent backlash when the government forces people to do things a certain way. People don't want to be told what to do by government. There is a certain resentment towards blacks which might not have otherwise been there.
2. AA goes against the ideals of self improvement: working harder, longer, and beating the pants off the competition. I won't go so far as Hugo and say that it encourages sloth, but it does not encourage the opposite.
Many immigrant groups (most, actually) were discriminated at some point in American history. They all overcame by first finding a niche that they could fill, and then expanding from there into the general workplace. Before the turn of the 20th century, it was the Irish and Italians and the Asians who were discriminated against.
Irish Americans
Italian Americans
These groups are now a part of the dominant culture.
I don't agree when someone argues "but it is much worse for ME and my group..."
QUOTE
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these. -Paul Harvey
This problem has been faced in the past, but has never been so muddled as it is today. Rampant discrimination is a thing of the past, but some people will not allow it to go the way of the dodo.
AA is not the answer, complete color blindness is.
I would be interested to see how you demonstrate that women (who have benefited the most from AA programs) have not benefited in the long term...
QUOTE
1. There is an inherent backlash when the government forces people to do things a certain way. People don't want to be told what to do by government. There is a certain resentment towards blacks which might not have otherwise been there.
Yet wouldn't you say that blacks are, in general, less resented (or shown prejudice) now than they were before AA programs began? Even if what you are saying is true, why wouldn't people simply resent the government? Why would they resent blacks in any general way? People who oppose the ADA, at least as far as I have seen, tend to resent the government - not crippled people.
QUOTE
2. AA goes against the ideals of self improvement: working harder, longer, and beating the pants off the competition. I won't go so far as Hugo and say that it encourages sloth, but it does not encourage the opposite.
• Most Affirmative Action programs are not about lowered standards, they are about ensuring minorities and women who meet the generally accepted standards are given increased opportunities in hiring or enrolling. This is cogent, because the main problem (before AA) was not that qualified women and minorities did not exist - the problem was, they were being ignored.
• So how does a black child work less hard to earn a 4.0 than a white child? How does a woman work less hard to get a J.D. than a male?
• Even today, after several decades of Affirmative Action programs, women and minorities earn, on average, less money than their white male counterparts, in the same fields. Even in traditionally female careers like nursing, male nurses tend to earn higher slaries.
QUOTE
AA is not the answer, complete color blindness is.
A groovy sentiment to be sure - but how to put it into practice? How do we solve (still rampant) inequity in payscale?
I agree to an extent with Hugo when he defines this as a wedge issue, not a root cause issue. But I don't think AA was ever intended as a sole means of solving the root issues of inequity. It can only be a valuable part of an overall sea change - and as such, has been remarkably successful by almost any standard.
QUOTE
It is most harmful to the groups whose purpose it is to benefit. The attempt to equalize economic opportunities for those who have failed to meet standards imposed on others encourages sloth. Energy should be focused on equalizing academic achievements and test scores, not handicapping the numbers.
It is not about handicapping numbers. It is about providing a chance to those who might not otherwise have one. I just posted elsewhere about how - barring any interview or PICTURE whatsoever - a male with a "white" sounding name is FIFTY PERCENT more likely to be asked in for an interview than a person with a "black" sounding name an identical resume, according to an AP study.
Other studies have suggested that, despite 9/11, blacks are still the most discriminated minority in America.
And yet at the same time, for all the talk about ending Affirmative Action, the only Affirmative Action people want to end is the race-based AA. The number one group to benefit from AA are white women. After that? White males (as always, I will provide the links below).
But based on your quote up above, I am guessing you just mean as far as education is concerned. And as I have said before, I think that Bush's (Jeb) One Florida Plan is very beneficial, and would support that.
QUOTE
Stop illegitimate births and the statistics that indicate racism disappear. So when are we going to focus on the real issue, instead of wedge issues?
Since when does illigetimate births indicate racism? I thought it was the unheard statistics that indicate racism, such as that whites are 13 times more likely to use cocaine than blacks, but that blacks are 57 times more likely to be imprisoned for the action. Or that more whites smoke marijuana than do blacks who smoke cigarettes.
It isn't the statistics that indicate racism. It's the tailoring of statistics.
And just another little piece of information: since the 1960s - with the CRAs and Affirmative Action - blacks have had the fastest growing income of any other race. It's not as helpful to look at where we are as it is where we have come from.
more whites than blacks- drugs
who benefits from AA?
black names a burden
Affirmative action for white women is equally wrong. Anything that get's someone a job based on what group they fall into is, by definition, discriminating. I do have a question for the people that say "Blacks have faced slavery and hundreds of years of discrimination." My ancestors faced genocide and THOUSANDS of years of discrimination...when do I get MY affirmative action?
From your link.
I think those who sell drugs in public, regardless of race, are more likely to get busted. Us white dopers make our deals behind closed doors. Of course if we were not arresting black street dealers it would be claimed that we were ignoring crime in the black community. Can't win on this one.
Back on topic, Thomas Sowell:
What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action -- and has barely changed since then.
What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California's state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.
Fewer are attending Berkeley and more are attending other universities, whose normal admissions standards they meet. These students are now more likely to graduate, which is the whole point. Before, they were being used like movie extras to create a background -- until most either dropped out or flunked out.
(end of quotes)
Does anyone have graduation rate figures on those who have been admitted to universities due to affirmative action? I am trying to figure out how my mother was able to get two degrees and jobs before affirmative action.
QUOTE
These disparities exist even though data gathered by the Department of Health and Human Services show that in 1991, 1992 and 1993, about five times as many whites had used cocaine than blacks, the report said. The report added that drug transactions among blacks often are easier for police to target because they more often occur in public than do drug transactions among whites.
I think those who sell drugs in public, regardless of race, are more likely to get busted. Us white dopers make our deals behind closed doors. Of course if we were not arresting black street dealers it would be claimed that we were ignoring crime in the black community. Can't win on this one.
Back on topic, Thomas Sowell:
What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action -- and has barely changed since then.
What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California's state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.
Fewer are attending Berkeley and more are attending other universities, whose normal admissions standards they meet. These students are now more likely to graduate, which is the whole point. Before, they were being used like movie extras to create a background -- until most either dropped out or flunked out.
(end of quotes)
Does anyone have graduation rate figures on those who have been admitted to universities due to affirmative action? I am trying to figure out how my mother was able to get two degrees and jobs before affirmative action.
QUOTE(Looms @ Jan 23 2004, 05:52 PM)
Affirmative action for white women is equally wrong. Anything that get's someone a job based on what group they fall into is, by definition, discriminating. I do have a question for the people that say "Blacks have faced slavery and hundreds of years of discrimination." My ancestors faced genocide and THOUSANDS of years of discrimination...when do I get MY affirmative action?
Assuming that this means you're Jewish, you'll feel the benefit of billions of dollars of US-government-funded affirmative action by the simple expedient of moving to Israel.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 23 2004, 01:59 PM)
Assuming that this means you're Jewish, you'll feel the benefit of billions of dollars of US-government-funded affirmative action by the simple expedient of moving to Israel.
By your logic blacks should move to Africa, provided the U.S. gives aid to wherever they go. I am not Israeli, I'm American. I see no reason to leave. And in reality I would NOT want affirmative action. I would consider it an insult to my intelligence and my capabilities, how someone wouldn't is beyond me. My point is that SOOOO many different groups have been given the shaft at one point or another. Virtually everyone. Reminds me of lyrics from a song by Marilyn Manson, "Everybody's someone else's [N-word], I know you are, so am I". One could argue that the Irish indentured servants had it worse than the slaves. At least with the slaves, they had an interest to keep them alive as long as possible. But the point is not who had it better, or who had it worse. History has been cruel to every ethnic group you can think of. The point is that someday we have to FIGHT racism, instead of working around it. What does present day Spanish society have to do with the Inquisition? Nothing. What does present day Germany have to do with the Third Reich? Nothing. What does present day America have to do with slavery? Nothing. Yes, racism does exist. It always will. Period. The best we can hope to do is minimise it as much as possible. And the way to do that is not through MORE discrimination. It is through total, uncompromising, in-your-face equality. Julian, I see you are from the UK. Do the English have affirmative action for the Scottish? If not, why?
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point. I took your parting shot to mean that you thought Jews had more of a claim to AA than blacks, so I pointed out that, through US financial support of Israel, they get it (and have been getting more of it, for longer). Indeed, as far as I am aware, the formal AA program doesn't involve any actual financial outlay by the federal government.
It's perfectly true that everyone's been ill-treated at one time or another (except some white Anglo-Saxon protestant men until the advent of AA, and it seems they like it no more than anyone else ever has), but that does not necessarily argue against AA - perhaps the problem is that it should have taken place a long time ago for Jews, Hugenots, Weslh, Scots, Irish, Catholics, et cetera ad nauseam?
I don't know precisely how AA is applied in the USA, since we have no equivalent here - our Race Relations Act and other anti-prejudice legislation simply makes it illegal not to hire someone on the grounds of prejudice - it doesn't force quotas as such. As I understand it, AA simply says that when choosing between two equally qualified people, you aren't allowed to rule out one on the grounds of gender, skin colour, etc. To me that makes eminent sense.
I can also see that in education, someone from an educationally deprived background (i.e. not just blacks, but anyone from an inner-city environment with low school standards, or someone with other reasons - not excuses - for not having had the same opportunities) might be given a little more credit than someone with the same ability but higher test scores.
It also seems to me though, that once you've played the AA card to get into college, you have the same chances as everyone else - i.e. any particular individual only gets to play their AA wildcard once.
If that's not the way it works, then AA certainly needs to be reformed - as opposed to revoked.
The problem with total removal seems to be that everybody knows someone else who was passed over by an underqualified and, more importantly, undertalented black man/woman/disabled person/etc., but nobody seems to know exactly how many people are affected. The friend-of-a-friend approach could mean one person felt hard-done-by once - it does not completely undermine the whole concept.
And, being Welsh, the Scots can join the back of the queue, since we've been oppressed by the English for couple of centuries longer than them.
It's perfectly true that everyone's been ill-treated at one time or another (except some white Anglo-Saxon protestant men until the advent of AA, and it seems they like it no more than anyone else ever has), but that does not necessarily argue against AA - perhaps the problem is that it should have taken place a long time ago for Jews, Hugenots, Weslh, Scots, Irish, Catholics, et cetera ad nauseam?
I don't know precisely how AA is applied in the USA, since we have no equivalent here - our Race Relations Act and other anti-prejudice legislation simply makes it illegal not to hire someone on the grounds of prejudice - it doesn't force quotas as such. As I understand it, AA simply says that when choosing between two equally qualified people, you aren't allowed to rule out one on the grounds of gender, skin colour, etc. To me that makes eminent sense.
I can also see that in education, someone from an educationally deprived background (i.e. not just blacks, but anyone from an inner-city environment with low school standards, or someone with other reasons - not excuses - for not having had the same opportunities) might be given a little more credit than someone with the same ability but higher test scores.
It also seems to me though, that once you've played the AA card to get into college, you have the same chances as everyone else - i.e. any particular individual only gets to play their AA wildcard once.
If that's not the way it works, then AA certainly needs to be reformed - as opposed to revoked.
The problem with total removal seems to be that everybody knows someone else who was passed over by an underqualified and, more importantly, undertalented black man/woman/disabled person/etc., but nobody seems to know exactly how many people are affected. The friend-of-a-friend approach could mean one person felt hard-done-by once - it does not completely undermine the whole concept.
And, being Welsh, the Scots can join the back of the queue, since we've been oppressed by the English for couple of centuries longer than them.
QUOTE
"Blacks have faced slavery and hundreds of years of discrimination." My ancestors faced genocide and THOUSANDS of years of discrimination...when do I get MY affirmative action?
I also take it you are Jewish, Looms. And if that is correct than you should be happy to know that many of YOUR ancestors have received big cash paybacks from many US companies for what happened in Germany.
You would also be happy to know that many refugees who entered the US as an escape were immediately supported by the United States government.
I am not saying this to belittle genocide or to start a bit about who had it the worst. I am saying this to say that it takes a lot for a people to come from nothing and finally catch up to the rest of society.
The Jewish community in America received that support, and the black commnity is currently being able to finally receive support also. We have enjoyed total freedom - what - 20 years?
Yet everyone acts as if blacks are taking something from them. Well ask yourself this (since Hugo originated on Education): Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
QUOTE(UGA Boy @ Jan 24 2004, 07:32 PM)
Yet everyone acts as if blacks are taking something from them. Well ask yourself this (since Hugo originated on Education): Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
Is the rise in certain forms of cancer, since the initiation of affirmative action, due to affirmative action?
I was sorry there wasn't "both" as a choice on the poll.
Affirmative action is a conscious effort to rectify some longstanding inequities directly attributable to racial discrimination. In that regard, it is helpful to encourage minorities to get a better education or a better job.
It is harmful in the sense that non-minority people who have been busting their butts to get a place in the university of their choice or to get that better-paying or more promising job are being passed up through no fault of their own and not entirely owing to any superior skills or abilities of the minority person who got the job or the place in a university class.
And then there is the case of the minority person who wonders about his/her worthiness to be in that job or that university, because affirmative action was what ultimately made it possible for that person to be there.
So how do we fix it? How do we know who will see this adversity as an opportunity to once again pull themselves up by those bootstraps, say "The hell with them; I'm going to succeed anyway" and move on to better things; and who will say "Man, this was my only chance, and I don't have bootstraps" and settle into bitterness, blaming an unfair system for their inability to accomplish what they wanted/needed to accomplish?
It depends on the way people are raised. And I for one am not wise enough to see whether affirmative action does more good than harm.
Affirmative action is a conscious effort to rectify some longstanding inequities directly attributable to racial discrimination. In that regard, it is helpful to encourage minorities to get a better education or a better job.
It is harmful in the sense that non-minority people who have been busting their butts to get a place in the university of their choice or to get that better-paying or more promising job are being passed up through no fault of their own and not entirely owing to any superior skills or abilities of the minority person who got the job or the place in a university class.
And then there is the case of the minority person who wonders about his/her worthiness to be in that job or that university, because affirmative action was what ultimately made it possible for that person to be there.
So how do we fix it? How do we know who will see this adversity as an opportunity to once again pull themselves up by those bootstraps, say "The hell with them; I'm going to succeed anyway" and move on to better things; and who will say "Man, this was my only chance, and I don't have bootstraps" and settle into bitterness, blaming an unfair system for their inability to accomplish what they wanted/needed to accomplish?
It depends on the way people are raised. And I for one am not wise enough to see whether affirmative action does more good than harm.
QUOTE
QUOTE (UGA Boy @ Jan 24 2004, 07:32 PM)
Yet everyone acts as if blacks are taking something from them. Well ask yourself this (since Hugo originated on Education): Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
Yet everyone acts as if blacks are taking something from them. Well ask yourself this (since Hugo originated on Education): Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
Is the rise in certain forms of cancer, since the initiation of affirmative action, due to affirmative action?
I think there is a little more of a connection between the two. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the desegregation of UGA (university of georgia), and also the 40th Anniversary since Georgia's Gov. Ernest Vandiver ran on the ticket that "no, not one" black person would ever enter UGA.
IT would sound as if 40 years ago, UGA had a definite policy against blacks. However, the same excuses were being made then as today: that "we allow anyone into our university, the blacks who apply just haven't had the qualifications".
Understanding that affirmative action is the process of allowing education (if we are still talking about education) to those who have had a disparate impace discrimination against them, it would seem that affirmative action was what dispelled Governor Vandiver's claim that "no, not one" black would enter UGA.
So I guess the question concerning AA's helping or harming is this: would the same effect have occured over these past 40 years. Well let's think. Slaves were free in 1865, and yet blacks had as much rights in 1880 as they did in 1950. And possibly would stil occur today if it weren't for the VERY radical movements of the 50s and 60s.
So when I look at the sluggish growth in income from 1865-1965, and then see that we have had the fastest income growth of any race since the 60s, I have to believe that it had something to do with Affirmative Action and the EEOC...not the "sudden kindess" of people's hearts in the 60s.
QUOTE(UGA Boy @ Jan 24 2004, 07:32 PM)
I also take it you are Jewish, Looms. And if that is correct than you should be happy to know that many of YOUR ancestors have received big cash paybacks from many US companies for what happened in Germany.
Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
U.S. companies were paying for what the Germans did? Please, show me the source.
QUOTE
You would also be happy to know that many refugees who entered the US as an escape were immediately supported by the United States government.
And provided with affirmative action? This IS what the thread is about right?
QUOTE
I am saying this to say that it takes a lot for a people to come from nothing and finally catch up to the rest of society.
The Jewish community in America received that support, and the black commnity is currently being able to finally receive support also. We have enjoyed total freedom - what - 20 years?
The Jewish community in America received that support, and the black commnity is currently being able to finally receive support also. We have enjoyed total freedom - what - 20 years?
Please provide evidence of Jewish communities receiving preferential treatment.And what exactly are you arguing here, that black people are incapable of succeeding at this point in time? Because many are.
It hasn't been that long since Asians were completely equal as well. They don't have affirmative action.
What's really funny even in the examples you provided (the accuracy of which I doubt), things where done for people who were DIRECTLY affected by Nazis. Not their descendants, generations down the line.
QUOTE
Are public universities more accepting of minorities NOW, or at the start of Affirmative Action?
Talk about obvious. Of course universities accept more black people now. That's exactly what affirmative action does. The point is not all the black people they accept are qualified to be there.
QUOTE
U.S. companies were paying for what the Germans did? Please, show me the source.
QUOTE
Please provide evidence of Jewish communities receiving preferential treatment
cnn
csm
BBC
There were articles upon articles suggesting that not only have holocauust victims received compensation, but so have their families...EACH. In fact, an article in a German newspaper yesterday shows that Germany has just give all families the equivalent of $5000.
Switzerland is providing 4.7 Billion and the US and British have provided 5.2 Billion dollars over the past 3 years.
In the same article yesterday, 500,000 PEOPLE in the Ukraine are receiving the equvialent of 950 m dollars...about 136,000 dollars, EACH.
However, I am not arguing the receiving of money by the Jews. I could care less how much they get. I have argued many times to other blacks that the decades are extermination and harsh treatment by Jews is much worse than what happened over the years to blacks. What I don't understand is why you don't see leveling the playing field as appropriate.
QUOTE
And provided with affirmative action? This IS what the thread is about right?And what exactly are you arguing here, that black people are incapable of succeeding at this point in time? Because many are.
I explained myself earlier when I said AA is a way of alloting opportunities to those not given it because of their race. Yes. Many are succeeding, and many did succeed in the 1960s. But so did the Jews in the 40s.
QUOTE
It hasn't been that long since Asians were completely equal as well. They don't have affirmative action.
Asian-Nation
Not that I disagree that Asians in general care about information, but if all the professional and high-degree earning Hispanics came to America, we would think differently about them, too. Many Asian immigrants were well-to-do in their own country. This is a little different from blacks who have just entered college equally 20-30 years ago.
And finally to answer the biggest question. Affirmative Action is discounting those treated differently because of race. I have already showed the stats of how even after college, and with specialized degrees, blacks don't walk lock-step with whites. Maybe it would be different if we were all on the same playing field, and THEN blacks were being discriminated against. It would be like to runners running and one slowing down towards the finish line. However, until the 60s and 70s, we weren't even allowed to race, and now we as a race are lagging behind. And the fact that discrimination against blacks still occuur does not help at all. No offense, but if we were Jewish, Italian, etc. we couuld easily assimilate and just be seen as white. But we're not. It is much easier to discriminate against Steve Harvey than Debra Messing. And seeing that black hatred has been prevalent for centuries in America, and jewish hatred is virtually unheard of in today's time in America (I don't know about other places), it is obvious why a program such as AA is needed.
This is what I hate about answering posts, the response ends up being too long.
I say helpful. I lived in Chicago and a massive difference does exist between the education and adequatecy of predominately white and black schools. Denying affirmative action is assuming the playing field is level and it isnt. How many studies must be done before people see this. Half of the blacks in this country are considered impoverished. It is 3x's as hard to get a job, buy a house, get a loan for people with more ethnic sounding names like Jerome or Taisha or Latoya then it is for blacks with less ethnic names like Mike or Jeff. Unfair stereotypes and hurdles do exists and affirmative action is a tool to combat that. Do certain people of ethnic minorities unfairly get over and abuse the system? Of course. Every system has flaws but it does more good then harm. By helping all Americans become equal you are helping America in the long run. Keeping blacks in underfunded, ill taught, still segregated areas of the US the gaps between standards of living will continue to grow. Level the playing field and make America truly equal.
If you live in Houston, Texas or the surrounding area and can't buy a house or get a home loan due to racial discrimination PM me, I guarantee if you got good credit and a little money or mediocre credit and a bit more money I can solve your problems.
Why is it that the critics of affirmative action never offer any alternative that can be
legally enforced other than the nebulous desire of a "color-blind society?"
A worthy goal, but without the force and rule of law behind it, it's nothing more than a soggy sentiment without any hope of ever being realized.
White conservative men resent affirmative action because they think it discriminates against them. That is the kind of discrimination that rankles them most. They conveniently forget it was their systems of formal racial discrimination that created the dilemma in the first place.
legally enforced other than the nebulous desire of a "color-blind society?"
A worthy goal, but without the force and rule of law behind it, it's nothing more than a soggy sentiment without any hope of ever being realized.
White conservative men resent affirmative action because they think it discriminates against them. That is the kind of discrimination that rankles them most. They conveniently forget it was their systems of formal racial discrimination that created the dilemma in the first place.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 29 2004, 03:51 PM)
White conservative men resent affirmative action because they think it discriminates against them. That is the kind of discrimination that rankles them most. They conveniently forget it was their systems of formal racial discrimination that created the dilemma in the first place.
I think we do need to recognize that those systems of racial discrimination were usually propped up by laws, by government prohibiting freedom of association. A generation before I married my wife we would not have been able to get married in several southern states. Conservatives (and libertarians) often believe discrimination will be greatly reduced by the free market and freedom of association if government simply gets out of the way.
One problem with affirmative action is it does rankle people. The question is how much political capital is spent supporting it and if alternative programs could accomplish as much without a similar loss in political capital. My gut feeling is the Democrats have a net loss of votes due to this issue.
Its harmful because....
1. Those who work hard to get the grades could be rejected.
2. Some minorities could use that as an excuse not to try as hard.
A lot of Asian students get great grades so that poor minority excuse doesnt cut it.
1. Those who work hard to get the grades could be rejected.
2. Some minorities could use that as an excuse not to try as hard.
A lot of Asian students get great grades so that poor minority excuse doesnt cut it.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 29 2004, 04:51 PM)
White conservative men resent affirmative action because they think it discriminates against them. That is the kind of discrimination that rankles them most. They conveniently forget it was their systems of formal racial discrimination that created the dilemma in the first place.
Thanks for the blanket....
Institutional racism is a thing of the past. If AA is the solution to institutional racism, then you are seeking to simply replace one discrimination policy with another.
We should do away with AA quotas (I know, I know, it's not quotas
) in education and hiring. If anything, providing incentives based upon economic need would be much more fair. It doesn't discriminate against any particular skin color, and it helps those members of society who need it the most.
As I have said before, as long as the government forces me to consider an applicant's race (while denying I am considering their race...) then we can never move towards a color blind society.
Remember the Detroit Lions' situation? A laughable application of an AA policy. Forcing someone to string along candidates who know that the job is essentially already filled by a qualified coach. How does a policy like that work for anyone? The same exact reasoning could be applied to any job, anywhere.
A business that wants to discriminate against some group is only harming itself. A manager that will not hire the most qualified candidate, regardless of sex, race, or any other consideration, should be fired because he is harming his company. Preferential treatment of any group (including whites) harms the business.
In education, why should a poor black man be favored over a poor white man, or a poor Asian? They shouldn't. Both are equally poor. It makes no difference that statistically whites are better off: this particular white man is not.
AA is simply discrimination with different criteria. Discrimination was wrong before, and it is wrong now.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jan 30 2004, 08:55 AM)
If anything, providing incentives based upon economic need would be much more fair. It doesn't discriminate against any particular skin color, and it helps those members of society who need it the most.
I agree. But I think there is no reason to start pulling out affirmative action protections for society until the replacement is put in order. I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure an equality of opportunity in our society. The affirmative action system creates the perception and in some cases the reality of people getting somewhere without due hard work.
As to the Lions situation, I think the league had a good point. The NFL has a political problem in terms of the number of black coaches being hired at the top position. They mandated that vacancies required minority interviews. The Lions failed to follow the rules of their organization and were penalized for it. There is no mandate to say that a minority coach has to be hired, and yes, in some situations the candidate being hired may be strung along, but that candidate also would have a chance to present his case before a team and get experience in the interviewing process. It is a bandaid, but it, like affirmative action, is a useful bandaid.
My question is, under the bandaid program of affirmative action, has the booboo healed or not. If it is healed then it is time to air that sucker out and move on. Where the wounds exist, AA needs to remain.
Institutional racism has not gone away. Real court cases of real racism by businesses still emerge. (Shoney's, Cracker Barrel) Real school systems still remain under court control (or they had recently in the case of my last two residences of Tuscaloosa and Nashville) because they could not get in compliance on their own with Brown v. Board, a 1954 court decision.
Seeing how you brought up pro football to make your case, Amlordand you took exception to my "white conservative men" remark, let's recall all the drama created by the embodiment of the White Conservative Man, Rush Limbaugh and his spectacularly ignorant remarks about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.
If the blanket fits...
As regards the Detroit Lions being slapped upside the head by the NFL for their tap dance around the league's minority hiring rules, I would say the introduction of the policy was specifically designed to address the problem of institutional racism in the NFL in the hiring, promotion and retention of black coaches.
Last season teams only had to show they had contacted a minority candidate for their head coaching vacancies. Detroit knew they wanted ex-49er coach Steve Mariucci. Dallas knew they wanted Bill Parcells. But the difference was that in Dallas they made a limp effort to include a black coach in their "search." Owner Jerry Jones called his friend Dennis Green and asked him if he wanted the job. Green declined as he was holding out hope that he'd get the job with the 49ers.
Detroit on the other hand was incredibly fumbling and maladroit. General manager Matt Millen made it clear that Mariucci was his first, last and only choice for the team. So when he was reminded that he hadn't interviewed any minorities, Millen vainly tried to get someone--ANYONE--of color to apply for the job. The problem was no black coach--not already on the Lions' staff or external candidates--would play along with Millen's dog-and-pony show. Why bother applying for a job that isn't open?
The NFL socked the Lions with a hefty fine for violatiing its rules. This year the league modified it minority screening requirement and dictated that teams would have to interview candidates in person and knock off the butt-covering tricks of the Lions and Cowboys.
This year, at season's end, there were seven head coaching vacancies in the NFL. Blacks were hired as head coaches in Chicago and Arizona. This brings the number of black head coaches up to five in the 32 team league.
I refute the claim by Titus that minorities use affirmative action "...as an excuse not to try as hard." If anything, in the case of the black head coaches in the NFL, they typically have more experience than some of the white guys that pass them by for head coaching gigs.
There are no unqualified black guys taking jobs away from more qualifed white guys in the NFL. In the NBA black coaches are hired AND fired with regularity and race has nothing to do with it. Just this week the New Jersey Nets fired Byron Scott, the most successful head coach in their history and replaced him with a white assistant coach.
Nobody cried "racism" when Scott got the boot, despite having his team in first place. Scott had been feuding with the team's star player (Jason Kidd, who is black) and that was that. Affirmative action works in the NBA because now black coaches are hired and fired because of their performance on the court and not the color of their skin. That was what Martin Luther King advocated, right?
Soon the same principle will apply in the NFL and we won't be having this conversation about black coaches any more.
And affirmative action was the instrument that brought this to pass---despite what Rush Limbaugh and Amlord think.
If the blanket fits...
As regards the Detroit Lions being slapped upside the head by the NFL for their tap dance around the league's minority hiring rules, I would say the introduction of the policy was specifically designed to address the problem of institutional racism in the NFL in the hiring, promotion and retention of black coaches.
Last season teams only had to show they had contacted a minority candidate for their head coaching vacancies. Detroit knew they wanted ex-49er coach Steve Mariucci. Dallas knew they wanted Bill Parcells. But the difference was that in Dallas they made a limp effort to include a black coach in their "search." Owner Jerry Jones called his friend Dennis Green and asked him if he wanted the job. Green declined as he was holding out hope that he'd get the job with the 49ers.
Detroit on the other hand was incredibly fumbling and maladroit. General manager Matt Millen made it clear that Mariucci was his first, last and only choice for the team. So when he was reminded that he hadn't interviewed any minorities, Millen vainly tried to get someone--ANYONE--of color to apply for the job. The problem was no black coach--not already on the Lions' staff or external candidates--would play along with Millen's dog-and-pony show. Why bother applying for a job that isn't open?
The NFL socked the Lions with a hefty fine for violatiing its rules. This year the league modified it minority screening requirement and dictated that teams would have to interview candidates in person and knock off the butt-covering tricks of the Lions and Cowboys.
This year, at season's end, there were seven head coaching vacancies in the NFL. Blacks were hired as head coaches in Chicago and Arizona. This brings the number of black head coaches up to five in the 32 team league.
I refute the claim by Titus that minorities use affirmative action "...as an excuse not to try as hard." If anything, in the case of the black head coaches in the NFL, they typically have more experience than some of the white guys that pass them by for head coaching gigs.
There are no unqualified black guys taking jobs away from more qualifed white guys in the NFL. In the NBA black coaches are hired AND fired with regularity and race has nothing to do with it. Just this week the New Jersey Nets fired Byron Scott, the most successful head coach in their history and replaced him with a white assistant coach.
Nobody cried "racism" when Scott got the boot, despite having his team in first place. Scott had been feuding with the team's star player (Jason Kidd, who is black) and that was that. Affirmative action works in the NBA because now black coaches are hired and fired because of their performance on the court and not the color of their skin. That was what Martin Luther King advocated, right?
Soon the same principle will apply in the NFL and we won't be having this conversation about black coaches any more.
And affirmative action was the instrument that brought this to pass---despite what Rush Limbaugh and Amlord think.
QUOTE
Its harmful because....
1. Those who work hard to get the grades could be rejected.
2. Some minorities could use that as an excuse not to try as hard.
A lot of Asian students get great grades so that poor minority excuse doesnt cut it.
1. Those who work hard to get the grades could be rejected.
2. Some minorities could use that as an excuse not to try as hard.
A lot of Asian students get great grades so that poor minority excuse doesnt cut it.
All of these issues have already been addressed, yet they keep coming up over and over again.
But to reiterate:
1st off, like already posted there may be some flaws where SOME might abuse the system. But come on! For the 1 possible chance off discrimination in schools, there is an overwhelming amount of discrimination in the workforce, in layoffs during bad economic times, and in pre-college education. Also, the Asian factor has been addressed also, so please atleast look through the postings before saying the same thing.
And I am sorry to fill you in, but discrimination and racism is not poverty based. I just supplied a link about the overwhelming amount of blacks in professional and management positions who were laid off compared to whites during the past economic downturn. Just to throw in a sob story...
A friend of mine had been taking out loans to pay for college, and was in the reserves to pay off his future grad school. Was he poor? Not by government standards, but the recent economic downturn made his father lose his job, so that he couldn't sign for the next loan with good credit. Last Wednesday, he received a letter from UGA saying he had until 5 to leave, because of past due bills.
This is at the same time when atleast half the mobile campus is driving late model big name cars, paying more for high school than college and yet arguing because they might have to start paying for books next year. Or arguing that AA is not fair. And it is like this across the country. Look at the type of people going to school at the prestigious university near you. And then tel me AA is not fair.
QUOTE
Seeing how you brought up pro football to make your case, Amlordand you took exception to my "white conservative men" remark, let's recall all the drama created by the embodiment of the White Conservative Man, Rush Limbaugh and his spectacularly ignorant remarks about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.
You should listen (not hear) what Rush said about Donovan McNabb, it wasn't about McNabb at all, but about the media.
The AA issue is just as needed as the Unions are now today. The market place has finally solved that issue and so will it solve the AA issue in time. For now, in some areas, AA does do a small amount of good, and its share of harm as well.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 30 2004, 10:44 AM)
Soon the same principle will apply in the NFL and we won't be having this conversation about black coaches any more.
And affirmative action was the instrument that brought this to pass---despite what Rush Limbaugh and Amlord think.
And affirmative action was the instrument that brought this to pass---despite what Rush Limbaugh and Amlord think.
So, what exactly IS the AA program in the NBA?
Minority hiring a non-factor in NBA
QUOTE
The push to bring in qualified minority candidates starts in commissioner David Stern's office and filters down through the teams to the point where no one even notices. And in perhaps the best development, black coaches move from job to job and get second and third chances (Cleveland's Paul Silas and Washington's Eddie Jordan), just like white coaches do.
In other words, as a league spokesman said earlier this year, the hiring of black coaches in the NBA is "not even news and that's the way it should be."
In other words, as a league spokesman said earlier this year, the hiring of black coaches in the NBA is "not even news and that's the way it should be."
NBA coaches are judged solely by the performance of their teams, just as it should be. Hiring is done based upon past records, past coaching experience, and charisma. Firing is done...well, sometimes other factors are involved.
Any discrepancy in the major sports coaching ranks is based only upon perception, not fact. 5 out of 32 NFL head coaches are black. That is ....15.6%. Let's see, according to the 2000 US Census, 12.9% of all Americans identify themselves as either Black or African American.
The Black Population: 2000
So blacks are NOT unfairly represented, at least not as compared to the general population. The problem does exist, of course, in the NCAA ranks, from which many NFL coaches are drawn.
So the question should be asked: should the coaching percentage reflect the player percentage? You can rephrase that by asking whether or not the physical requirements of sports parallels the managerial requirements of being a head coach. Most people will concede that one's ability as a player has little to do with one's future prospects as a coach. The abilities required for the two jobs are completely different.
Here is one look at why the racial makeup of coaches does not match that of players:
Black Coaches
QUOTE
One would think that the shear numbers game would find more Black head coaches in the college ranks. Presently at every level, high schools to the NFL, black athletes dominate the sport. Yet there are few black coaches at the top level of Division I football schools. Are black athletes that do not make it in the NFL just not seeking coaching jobs? Could the numbers be quickly whittled by the fact that a low percentage of college players that earn degrees and graduate? Most college coaches have college degrees.
Many of the college stars jump early to the NFL and never finish their college eligibility or education. Making it in the NFL carries a fat salary - fatter than a starting salary for coaching at any level. If they continue to play in the bigtime for a number of years, the odds are they will never go back and earn that degree which obviously would make them more marketable even for a coaching job. One would assume that this considerably pares the numbers of potential black coaches.
A large number of college stars will never make it to the NFL, but likewise will leave school after their playing days are over and never graduate. This is very sad and again cuts the number of possible black coaches. All of this can be said for white players as well, but remember there is a much higher percentage of black players in college. All college athletes have to remain eligible by passing a minimum number of hours each semester. Courses that would prepare them for teaching and coaching may not be the ones that can keep them eligible.
How does the college coaching game work anyway? For almost ever the route to college coaching is: Player, graduate, get on at some school as a graduate assistant maybe for two/three years, get hired as a fulltime assistant, become a defensive or offensive coordinator, hope your team wins enough to gain attention, then get on the "short lists" as a head coaching prospect, gain lots of luck. Very, very, very few ever make the transition from high school to college. The college coaching community is a fairly closed one. Even within itself few move up. You rarely see a Division III head coach move to I-AA or I-A.
What about from the athletics director's perspective? The job of an AD at a major school is to attract head coaches who will produce winning records and fill stadium seats. A spinoff is donor support and national recognition, which then keeps the cycle of success going. More often than not, the AD's job may depend on the hires he makes. The top 40 or so bigtime football programs will go after a proven head coach at another top school when a vacancy happens. Armed with the ability to offer a multimillion dollar contract and more perks that you can shake a stick at, the AD goes after the best there is. Some he cannot approch because his school cannot match the deal a particular coach already has. With the goals of the one's already mentioned along with demanding a "clean" program (and a clean resume), the AD has to be color blind. That AD is going after the best he can afford. One thing he isn't going to do is offer the job to someone because of the color of his skin!
Moral of story: Same as it's always been. You want to be a college head coach? No matter if you are Black or White, Finish school. Get a degree!
Many of the college stars jump early to the NFL and never finish their college eligibility or education. Making it in the NFL carries a fat salary - fatter than a starting salary for coaching at any level. If they continue to play in the bigtime for a number of years, the odds are they will never go back and earn that degree which obviously would make them more marketable even for a coaching job. One would assume that this considerably pares the numbers of potential black coaches.
A large number of college stars will never make it to the NFL, but likewise will leave school after their playing days are over and never graduate. This is very sad and again cuts the number of possible black coaches. All of this can be said for white players as well, but remember there is a much higher percentage of black players in college. All college athletes have to remain eligible by passing a minimum number of hours each semester. Courses that would prepare them for teaching and coaching may not be the ones that can keep them eligible.
How does the college coaching game work anyway? For almost ever the route to college coaching is: Player, graduate, get on at some school as a graduate assistant maybe for two/three years, get hired as a fulltime assistant, become a defensive or offensive coordinator, hope your team wins enough to gain attention, then get on the "short lists" as a head coaching prospect, gain lots of luck. Very, very, very few ever make the transition from high school to college. The college coaching community is a fairly closed one. Even within itself few move up. You rarely see a Division III head coach move to I-AA or I-A.
What about from the athletics director's perspective? The job of an AD at a major school is to attract head coaches who will produce winning records and fill stadium seats. A spinoff is donor support and national recognition, which then keeps the cycle of success going. More often than not, the AD's job may depend on the hires he makes. The top 40 or so bigtime football programs will go after a proven head coach at another top school when a vacancy happens. Armed with the ability to offer a multimillion dollar contract and more perks that you can shake a stick at, the AD goes after the best there is. Some he cannot approch because his school cannot match the deal a particular coach already has. With the goals of the one's already mentioned along with demanding a "clean" program (and a clean resume), the AD has to be color blind. That AD is going after the best he can afford. One thing he isn't going to do is offer the job to someone because of the color of his skin!
Moral of story: Same as it's always been. You want to be a college head coach? No matter if you are Black or White, Finish school. Get a degree!
Let's go back to the NBA, since they seem to have their act together as far as the numbers go ...
What is the AA policy in the NBA? ...? ...?
More Black Coaches Guide NBA Than Ever Before
QUOTE
"It's something that we notice, and it's something that we hope someday nobody will notice," NBA Commissioner David Stern told USA Today.
The NBA was also the first professional sports league to have a Black general manger and a Black starting lineup. The Milwaukee Bucks hired Wayne Embry as GM in 1972, and the players starting for the Boston Celtics during the 1964-65 season were all African American.
Bill Russell was the first Black coach/manager in professional sports in 1966, when he took over for Red Auerbach coaching the Boston Celtics.
"When I retired, I said there is no better man to coach Russell than Russell," Auerbach told USA Today. "He was given the job strictly because of merit. Him being Black or White was never thought of, hinted at or discussed."
Many owners and managers said they choose coaches with the same interest in mind -- winning.
"Basically, I'm color-blind," said Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin. The Wizards have had six Black head coaches in their 40-year history, more than any other franchise except Seattle.
"I can't quantify it, but I think most coaches are like I am. They hire guys who can do the job."
The NBA was also the first professional sports league to have a Black general manger and a Black starting lineup. The Milwaukee Bucks hired Wayne Embry as GM in 1972, and the players starting for the Boston Celtics during the 1964-65 season were all African American.
Bill Russell was the first Black coach/manager in professional sports in 1966, when he took over for Red Auerbach coaching the Boston Celtics.
"When I retired, I said there is no better man to coach Russell than Russell," Auerbach told USA Today. "He was given the job strictly because of merit. Him being Black or White was never thought of, hinted at or discussed."
Many owners and managers said they choose coaches with the same interest in mind -- winning.
"Basically, I'm color-blind," said Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin. The Wizards have had six Black head coaches in their 40-year history, more than any other franchise except Seattle.
"I can't quantify it, but I think most coaches are like I am. They hire guys who can do the job."
Nothing about AA, or even a diversity policy. Simply about the ability to do the job.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't find any official NBA policy about "diversity", "race", or "affirmative action".
Your example is the perfect one for MY point. The NBA is diverse without AA. The NBA values performance over what color someone's skin happens to be. The NBA doesn't even notice when a black coach is fired, because they realize it is part of the job.
When you force people to consider race, as the NFL is currently doing, you are creating a negative connotation. Any good decision maker realizes that race very rarely has any impact on doing any particular job. So why "promote diversity"?
We should promote excellence, and become color blind... like the NBA. No affirmative action is required, and the NBA demonstrates why.
An aside:
A tongue in cheek assessment of the NBA's policy
NBA: 'Affirmative on affirmative action'
I remember hearing an issue about AA in the NFL just before Steve Marriucci left San Fran and headed for Detroit. The Lion's front office had to 'consider' a minority candidate for the position, even though 'Mooch' was the smart money bet to get the job. Did they hire Marriucci beacuse they didn't want any minority head coaches? No. They hired him because they thought he was a good coach. It's not like no good minority head coaches exist for Pete's sake. AA has been blown out of proportion.
QUOTE(UGA Boy @ Jan 25 2004, 04:48 PM)
cnn
csm
BBC
There were articles upon articles suggesting that not only have holocauust victims received compensation, but so have their families...EACH. In fact, an article in a German newspaper yesterday shows that Germany has just give all families the equivalent of $5000.
Switzerland is providing 4.7 Billion and the US and British have provided 5.2 Billion dollars over the past 3 years.
In the same article yesterday, 500,000 PEOPLE in the Ukraine are receiving the equvialent of 950 m dollars...about 136,000 dollars, EACH.
csm
BBC
There were articles upon articles suggesting that not only have holocauust victims received compensation, but so have their families...EACH. In fact, an article in a German newspaper yesterday shows that Germany has just give all families the equivalent of $5000.
Switzerland is providing 4.7 Billion and the US and British have provided 5.2 Billion dollars over the past 3 years.
In the same article yesterday, 500,000 PEOPLE in the Ukraine are receiving the equvialent of 950 m dollars...about 136,000 dollars, EACH.
You still haven't provided a SINGLE example of AA. Reparations are NOT AA. Have you actually read your links? For crying out loud, in one of them, they were returning Nazi gold that was looted from Jewish businesses! You are showing the examples of companies who profited from what the Nazi were doing, paying reparations. What you are not showing is showing examples of Jews being awarded points at colleges, and all the other "great things" AA does. Show me ONE example of true affirmative action.
QUOTE
Not that I disagree that Asians in general care about information, but if all the professional and high-degree earning Hispanics came to America, we would think differently about them, too. Many Asian immigrants were well-to-do in their own country. This is a little different from blacks who have just entered college equally 20-30 years ago.
How about the chinese that were building our railroads? The were treated basically like labor animals. Can you point out who their descendants are? I can't, because their lifestyle is no worse than of those "educated immigrants".
How about the Japanese being put into concentration camps during WWII? Where's their AA?
QUOTE
No offense, but if we were Jewish, Italian, etc. we couuld easily assimilate and just be seen as white. But we're not. It is much easier to discriminate against Steve Harvey than Debra Messing. And seeing that black hatred has been prevalent for centuries in America, and jewish hatred is virtually unheard of in today's time in America (I don't know about other places), it is obvious why a program such as AA is needed.
So in other world's, I should get AA. Why, you ask? Because I have a distinct accent when I speak. So all those people who do not like immigrants (and there are MANY) will discriminate against me. I can't blend in, right? AA for people with accents!
QUOTE
You still haven't provided a SINGLE example of AA. Reparations are NOT AA. Have you actually read your links? For crying out loud, in one of them, they were returning Nazi gold that was looted from Jewish businesses! You are showing the examples of companies who profited from what the Nazi were doing, paying reparations. What you are not showing is showing examples of Jews being awarded points at colleges, and all the other "great things" AA does. Show me ONE example of true affirmative action.
"Reparations are not AA". Are you kidding me? First, blacks are not the only ones who receive AA. It is all minorities. Disabled, women, elderly...JEWS. THe only difference is that WE don't get reparations.
Now as I have said before, I have never tried to make this into a "who got it worse" debate, and yes I did read the articles. SOME businesses. But what about all the other statements, and links around it. I honestly don't see why you are so angry. And how do you show JUST JEWS receiving AA?
QUOTE
How about the Japanese being put into concentration camps during WWII? Where's their AA?
Before spouting atleast read the history. The Japanese also received reparations from the government. And you keep saying, "Reparations is not AA". You're right, it's BETTER! The Asian organization that took this problem to court, not only received money for themselves, but also enough to start another organization.
This organization still exists to day, and gives any Asian interest-free loans to start a business here in America. In fact the clothing line Nautica was started under the same premise. The owner of Nautica is in his 20s!
But how do you give reparations to 12% of America without going bankrupt? You don't. And seeing that reparations are nothing more than wide-scale compensatory damages (money amounts to try to put people in hopefully the same situation they would have been in had the incident not occured), AA seems to be better - and CHEAPER - at solving the problem. Wouldn't you think?
Or is it still not fair?
QUOTE
Amlord Posted on Jan 30 2004, 09:55 AM
As I have said before, as long as the government forces me to consider an applicant's race (while denying I am considering their race...) then we can never move towards a color blind society.
As I have said before, as long as the government forces me to consider an applicant's race (while denying I am considering their race...) then we can never move towards a color blind society.
In Martin Luther King's most famous speech he states:
QUOTE
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.
Does AA as applied to any minority group meet this dream? No. In its own right AA does the opposite. A person who benefits under AA is judged based on the color of their skin, and for women based on their gender.
How do you combat racism with racism? Isn't AA propagating further racism? It sends a message to consider ones race and/or gender when making decisions. In my opinion the only way to combat racism is a cultural change. Government enforced change does not remove the individual racist mindset.
Therefore in my opinion AA is harmful to society as whole. By the very nature of AA it is enforcing the idea that race and/or gender must be considered when determining the ability of an individual. While it appears that AA is benefiting a specific group of minorities it is in effect doing the opposite. Their race and/or gender will always be considered as a determinant of their individual character and abilities.
QUOTE
How do you combat racism with racism? Isn't AA propagating further racism? It sends a message to consider ones race and/or gender when making decisions. In my opinion the only way to combat racism is a cultural change. Government enforced change does not remove the individual racist mindset
For nearly a century, southern blacks waited for the cultural change to occur. It took a governmental enforced change to get us to where we are now. As I have shown before, the income of blacks from 1870 to 1960 was stagnant compared to America. However, since 1960 blacks have had the fastest rising income in America.
This is because of government enforced opportunities. Regardless of who wants to admit it, there is a very real possibility that if the black and white "radicals" of the 1960s were never fighting for this movement, there could very well have been another 40 years of blacks hoping for a cultural change.
Look at the examples: agovernment enforced change is what helped the Natives, a government enforced change is what helped secure women's rights. There is nothing cultural that made Americans men think, "You know what? She can do anything I can do." The post-WWII era attests to that.
It may not be the Lucitania, but it's a life preserver. And right now, I thankful...it's better than nothing.
QUOTE(UGA Boy @ Jan 31 2004, 02:47 PM)
QUOTE
How do you combat racism with racism? Isn't AA propagating further racism? It sends a message to consider ones race and/or gender when making decisions. In my opinion the only way to combat racism is a cultural change. Government enforced change does not remove the individual racist mindset
For nearly a century, southern blacks waited for the cultural change to occur. It took a governmental enforced change to get us to where we are now. As I have shown before, the income of blacks from 1870 to 1960 was stagnant compared to America. However, since 1960 blacks have had the fastest rising income in America.
This is because of government enforced opportunities. Regardless of who wants to admit it, there is a very real possibility that if the black and white "radicals" of the 1960s were never fighting for this movement, there could very well have been another 40 years of blacks hoping for a cultural change.
Look at the examples: agovernment enforced change is what helped the Natives, a government enforced change is what helped secure women's rights. There is nothing cultural that made Americans men think, "You know what? She can do anything I can do." The post-WWII era attests to that.
It may not be the Lucitania, but it's a life preserver. And right now, I thankful...it's better than nothing.
Perhaps when AA was instituted the good outweighed the long term bad consequences. The way I see AA today is it is propagating further racism. The reverse discrimination argument that is now used as a reason that AA is harmful is a long term consequence. These are now disenfranchised people who may feel discriminated against and therefore perpetuates the racist mindset. The cure could now be seen as a cause of racism. So I ask how is AA benefiting the minority group it is meant to help in the US today?
I'm completely against this idea, Imagine if whites were to do this to blacks. There would be an uproar. The thought of someone advancing with ease ahead of me because of the color of their skin incites resentment and jealousy. It's simply not fair.
my generation, and most of your guys's i suppose, was in no direct way responsible for slavery or the jim crow laws. So why should we be held accountable? The NAACP (now-a-days) also, as far as i'm concerned is just a legalised and more diplomatic version of the KKK.
my generation, and most of your guys's i suppose, was in no direct way responsible for slavery or the jim crow laws. So why should we be held accountable? The NAACP (now-a-days) also, as far as i'm concerned is just a legalised and more diplomatic version of the KKK.
QUOTE
The thought of someone advancing with ease ahead of me because of the color of their skin incites resentment and jealousy. Imagine if whites were to do this to blacks.
...
I think it's about that time that someone opened a history book.
QUOTE
most of your guys's i suppose, was in no direct way responsible for slavery or the jim crow laws. So why should we be held accountable?
Because you do not have to be responsible to benefit from it.
I have a question I would like to ask. People keep saying, "Im outraged. Im angry Affirmative Action. " etc, etc.
Yet, I have posted stats after stats in this thread showing all the true racism in discrimination against minorities. Where's the outrage? Where is the anger that says, "We should be a color-blind society" like in postings about AA? Where is this passion of people to vote in a poll that our current socio-political system is flawed and corrupt?
Oh, I get it.
Sounds a little hypocritcal to me.
I definitely think Affirmative Action is harmful to society. I thought justice was blind? If so, why is race and gender even a factor in the job market and our higher learning facilities? I personally think that when a kid applies to a college or university, the ONLY thing about the kid that should be shared is their GPA and SAT scores. The ONLY thing that should be considered for a job is their experience and work record. By allowing other factors, such as race and gender to be considered allows the problems this country has to perpetually aggitated. If we eliminated them from the equation and went by RECORD alone, no one can complain and everyone would be on even ground. Now I'm not saying that I'm naive and that people don't have eyes and that the problems of the past are fixed completely, but it would be a good start down the right path. 
How do i benifit from the treatment of blacks 50+ years ago?
If anything, expecially in my state, it's almost reverse that..
How can I tell my mom, who lost her promotion in the government, to a black who dident have nearly as much time and effort put into the schooling and work as she did, that she doesent get it, because they are special? that whites are racist so they will get treated better?
In my school they have a "black coalition of mothers" what the ***Removed attempt to bypass profanity filter***.How come a kid who knows perfectly right from wrong can get in trouble but not suffer the same consequences as a white student just because he is of a certain race?
I could understand it if every single person of the majority was racist against blacks, but this is far from the case.
and it's bullcrap, cause i'm not a racist personality, but I see injustice in this. I dont benifit nor am I responsible for actions of the past.
I just have to think about the irish, italians and other immigrants that came to america who were treated like complete trash. they dont complain, and they worked their way to the top. I respect that kind of attitude.
If anything, expecially in my state, it's almost reverse that..
How can I tell my mom, who lost her promotion in the government, to a black who dident have nearly as much time and effort put into the schooling and work as she did, that she doesent get it, because they are special? that whites are racist so they will get treated better?
In my school they have a "black coalition of mothers" what the ***Removed attempt to bypass profanity filter***.How come a kid who knows perfectly right from wrong can get in trouble but not suffer the same consequences as a white student just because he is of a certain race?
I could understand it if every single person of the majority was racist against blacks, but this is far from the case.
and it's bullcrap, cause i'm not a racist personality, but I see injustice in this. I dont benifit nor am I responsible for actions of the past.
I just have to think about the irish, italians and other immigrants that came to america who were treated like complete trash. they dont complain, and they worked their way to the top. I respect that kind of attitude.
Green river,
Maybe you should look at some of the stats I provided, as well as some of the MANY links I have posted.
If what you say about your mother losing her job is true, she is definitely the exeception, because in the recent downturn of economy, it was the blacks who lost the most...from the lowest to the highest paying positions.
And you ask how do you benefit? How about that no one will turn you down for a job because you look different from them? How about that you will not be 7 times more likely to be unjustly called for drug convictions? How about DNA testing won't provide your race with more confessed false arrests than anyone else? Or that you won't be 50% more likely not to be called in for an interview because of your name?
How about that you won't be walking home from a football game and here a bunch of drunk people spitting racist comments at you? Or the fact that there are not over 100 sites on the internet -aimed at only hating you for your race just because you're your race- with over 1,000 hits per day? Or the fact that, despite post-911 fears, you still statistically have more hate crimes posed upon you than any other race?
So what's the bullcrap? THe fact that after over 100 years of "freedom" we have only had an actual chance for the past 20? Or is it the fact that over 1,000 people protested at a rally at UC-Berkeley in California because 66 blacks entered their school under the Affirmative Action program in an entering class of around 3,000?
Because in all honesty, it seems like we should be the ones *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.
Maybe you should look at some of the stats I provided, as well as some of the MANY links I have posted.
If what you say about your mother losing her job is true, she is definitely the exeception, because in the recent downturn of economy, it was the blacks who lost the most...from the lowest to the highest paying positions.
And you ask how do you benefit? How about that no one will turn you down for a job because you look different from them? How about that you will not be 7 times more likely to be unjustly called for drug convictions? How about DNA testing won't provide your race with more confessed false arrests than anyone else? Or that you won't be 50% more likely not to be called in for an interview because of your name?
How about that you won't be walking home from a football game and here a bunch of drunk people spitting racist comments at you? Or the fact that there are not over 100 sites on the internet -aimed at only hating you for your race just because you're your race- with over 1,000 hits per day? Or the fact that, despite post-911 fears, you still statistically have more hate crimes posed upon you than any other race?
So what's the bullcrap? THe fact that after over 100 years of "freedom" we have only had an actual chance for the past 20? Or is it the fact that over 1,000 people protested at a rally at UC-Berkeley in California because 66 blacks entered their school under the Affirmative Action program in an entering class of around 3,000?
Because in all honesty, it seems like we should be the ones *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.
I suppose i'll come clean. I'm basing my opinions, or views, off of experiences. What i see outside is a people who can't get off their butt. They abuse the workers comp system and use that same money to go outside and buy crack. It's become a major problem here..(and if you dont believe me, murder statistics show baltimore as having 271 homocides commited last year, with new york, a few million people coming in at a few over 500- most being commited by drug addicts killing other drug addicts here) They have 8 kids, who arent properly taken care of and just add to the cycle in larger numbers. 64% of baltimore is black.
based upon these experiences i come to two conclusions. (same ones bill maher came to also)
1) Racial inferiority
2) Social Oppresion
as i've mentioned before, I'm not racist, so i rule that out. But than I come to social oppresion and find that, if they are the majority of the city.. who exactly is oppressing them? why do they continue this cycle?
I'm still very confused on this matter, and maybe you can help me sort it out. I'm against affirmative action, only because its not fair to other people. Also because i dont believe in having things handed to you by the government, when people dont work for what they want, they get spoiled.
What you say is true, yes, but on the other hand i've had alot of that come my way from blacks. They have a chance, everyone has an equal opportunity in this country no matter how society works, they just have to take it.
PS: my mom dident lose her job, just her promotion because the government HAS to fill a quota of black people. I respect those who work the latter, but i must say, i dont respect the people who are handed it.
based upon these experiences i come to two conclusions. (same ones bill maher came to also)
1) Racial inferiority
2) Social Oppresion
as i've mentioned before, I'm not racist, so i rule that out. But than I come to social oppresion and find that, if they are the majority of the city.. who exactly is oppressing them? why do they continue this cycle?
I'm still very confused on this matter, and maybe you can help me sort it out. I'm against affirmative action, only because its not fair to other people. Also because i dont believe in having things handed to you by the government, when people dont work for what they want, they get spoiled.
What you say is true, yes, but on the other hand i've had alot of that come my way from blacks. They have a chance, everyone has an equal opportunity in this country no matter how society works, they just have to take it.
PS: my mom dident lose her job, just her promotion because the government HAS to fill a quota of black people. I respect those who work the latter, but i must say, i dont respect the people who are handed it.
QUOTE(UGA Boy @ Jan 23 2004, 05:20 PM)
I have a bit of an issue with this report. On the surface it does appear that your claim is true. However, for the report to be completely accurate it would be nice to know the breakdown by those who were sent to prison on their first offense, 2nd offense, possession or dealing, crack/cocaine/marijuana.
Some states (which the report only included 37 states, suspicion alert!!) have harsher penalties depending on the drug. This report apparently just looks at the overall prison rate and conveniently fails to mention if the comparison was based on blacks/whites committing the same crime which could considerably skew the results and interpretation.
One issue with AA and similar ‘equity’ regulations is when does it stop? The last I looked blacks made up 17% of the population and Hispanic’s just passed them as the largest minority at 18%. So do we end this when 17% of the CEO’s, VP’s, middle managers, principals, politicians, doctors, lawyers, entry level positions, apple pickers, etc.. are black and 18% are Hispanic, 12% are Asian on and on? Seriously though, when does it stop?
Another serious issue surfaced with NY Times reporter Jason Blair who was advanced through the system as a result of AA. In order for him to meet the pressures of his position he ended up fabricating stories to justify his advancement. I really feel for the guy and can’t imagine what was going through his mind during and after his ordeal. And where does he go from here?
The NY Times did it again with a female reporter that ended up being released for basic incompetence. Again, I feel sorry for her because she was put into a position where she obviously didn’t belong. And her future?
Here’s an interesting article where the reporter raises some good points and the question he asks at the end sums it up nicely.
QUOTE
But what of doctors, mechanics, engineers and other critical life-and-death jobs filled by those "boosted" via lessened standards? How many supervisors either cover up, look the other way, or must pay additional scrutiny to "preferred hires"? When you board a 747 and notice a female pilot, do you applaud "gender diversity" or do you expect that she, like her male counterparts, aced flight school? When you call 911, do you request a Hispanic, a woman, an Asian, or someone well-equipped and qualified, who mastered the standards applicable to all?
I admire what AA attempts. But you’ll never legislate the prejudice will out of an individuals mind. Having worked for large corporations I've witnessed individuals in certain positions only because of AA, and some are willing to admit this.
The insightful look past the person and blame AA (I mean who isn’t going to take a fat salary), the short sighted look at the individual and credit their sex/race for their advancement/hire, whether it’s true or not, which only furthers their prejudice or may create one that never existed. And that’s why this is such a bad idea.
I can tell you from first hand experience that ‘the good ole girl network’ is alive and well. At a former employer and in my department which is traditionally male, 82% of the employees below management level were male, yet 66% of the managers and above were female (like most companies it’s the managers who decide who will join their ranks).
I could have raised cain, stomped, stammered, called the ACLU but I’m a white male so I’m never discriminated against. But like anyone else who feels the brunt of discrimination, if I feel my opportunities are limited because of my sex/race then I’ll suck it up, dust myself off, go someplace else or start my own company.
THAT’S the American way. If one door is closed then open another one or build your own.
This isn't just a black issue. Affirmative action as defined by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs:
Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action
(side note, yes Asians also benefit from Affirmative Action).
I see it as unfairly pitting women and minority groups against white males. It unfairly pits me against white men. Perhaps it had its purpose when first enacted. Right now, I don't like the idea that I could get into a University or get a better job just because I am a woman. Also your statistics of how it helps (and if you read the link it also gives examples of how it has helped) only show me that it isn't needed anymore.
When I read some (not all!) of the comments posted by white men on this board it only furthers my belief that Affirmative Action begets racism. White men, who under other circumstances, would not consider race or gender, do and they get angry. Why shouldn't they? If it is possible that, due to a government mandate, they are being passed over for better jobs instead being passed over due to their own merits, I would be angry too. Affirmative action also gives those white men who truly don't deserve the job or the admittance to a college over a minority or woman are now also given an excuse. They don't have to think about whether they deserved the position but just blame it on the unfairness of Affirmative Action.
Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action
QUOTE
The equal opportunity clause requires that the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic individuals are considered minorities for purposes of the Executive Order.
(side note, yes Asians also benefit from Affirmative Action).
I see it as unfairly pitting women and minority groups against white males. It unfairly pits me against white men. Perhaps it had its purpose when first enacted. Right now, I don't like the idea that I could get into a University or get a better job just because I am a woman. Also your statistics of how it helps (and if you read the link it also gives examples of how it has helped) only show me that it isn't needed anymore.
When I read some (not all!) of the comments posted by white men on this board it only furthers my belief that Affirmative Action begets racism. White men, who under other circumstances, would not consider race or gender, do and they get angry. Why shouldn't they? If it is possible that, due to a government mandate, they are being passed over for better jobs instead being passed over due to their own merits, I would be angry too. Affirmative action also gives those white men who truly don't deserve the job or the admittance to a college over a minority or woman are now also given an excuse. They don't have to think about whether they deserved the position but just blame it on the unfairness of Affirmative Action.
Our Constitution and our national conscience demand that every American be accorded dignity and respect, receive the same treatment under the law, and enjoy equal opportunity. The hard-won civil rights legislation of the 1960s, which I benefited from, was fought for by presently derided liberals, courageous leaders who won these gains over the opposition of those hiding behind transparent arguments over "state rights" and "property rights."
Equal rights and equal opportunity, however, mean just that. They do not mean preferental treatment. Preferences, no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the nonpreferred. And preferential treatment demeans the achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts. The present debate over affirmative action has a lot to do with definitions. If affirmative action means programs that provide equal opportunity, then I am all for it. If it leads to preferential treatment or helps those who no longer need help, I am opposed. I benefited from equal opportunity and affirmative action in the Army, but I was not shown preference. The Army, as a matter of fairness, made sure that performance would be the only measure of advancement. When equal performance does not result in equal advancement, then something is wrong with the system and our leaders have an obligation to fix it. If a history of discrimination has made it difficult for certain Americans to meet standards, it is only fair to provide temporary means to help them catch up and compete on equal terms. Affirmative action in the best sense promotes equal consideration, not reverse discrimination. Discrimination "for" one group means, inevitably, discrimination "against" another; and all discrimination is offensive.
---- Colin L. Powell, MY AMERICAN JOURNEY (1995) pages 607-608
Equal rights and equal opportunity, however, mean just that. They do not mean preferental treatment. Preferences, no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the nonpreferred. And preferential treatment demeans the achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts. The present debate over affirmative action has a lot to do with definitions. If affirmative action means programs that provide equal opportunity, then I am all for it. If it leads to preferential treatment or helps those who no longer need help, I am opposed. I benefited from equal opportunity and affirmative action in the Army, but I was not shown preference. The Army, as a matter of fairness, made sure that performance would be the only measure of advancement. When equal performance does not result in equal advancement, then something is wrong with the system and our leaders have an obligation to fix it. If a history of discrimination has made it difficult for certain Americans to meet standards, it is only fair to provide temporary means to help them catch up and compete on equal terms. Affirmative action in the best sense promotes equal consideration, not reverse discrimination. Discrimination "for" one group means, inevitably, discrimination "against" another; and all discrimination is offensive.
---- Colin L. Powell, MY AMERICAN JOURNEY (1995) pages 607-608
Here's my take on why it's harmful,
If a white kid was accepted into a public college with worse grades and crudentials than an African American kid, the African American kid would rightly sue, and of course win...But now, this is happening to white kids...and it's not illeagal? That isn't equal protection under the law.
CP
QUOTE
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
That's Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. AA is a clear unadulterated attack on Civil Rights...And it doesn't just apply to African Americans.QUOTE
and let us be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.
That, of course is Martin Luther King Jr. I'm pretty sure that he meant that RACE shouldn't matter when JUDGING PEOPLE.QUOTE
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If a white kid was accepted into a public college with worse grades and crudentials than an African American kid, the African American kid would rightly sue, and of course win...But now, this is happening to white kids...and it's not illeagal? That isn't equal protection under the law.
CP
QUOTE
If a white kid was accepted into a public college with worse grades and crudentials than an African American kid, the African American kid would rightly sue, and of course win...But now, this is happening to white kids...and it's not illeagal? That isn't equal protection under the law.
First, we know this sort of thing happens. Don't even try and act like it doesn't. Rich kids getting in purely through the connections of friends of their fathers.
QUOTE
White men, who under other circumstances, would not consider race or gender, do and they get angry. Why shouldn't they? If it is possible that, due to a government mandate, they are being passed over for better jobs instead being passed over due to their own merits, I would be angry too. Affirmative action also gives those white men who truly don't deserve the job or the admittance to a college over a minority or woman are now also given an excuse. They don't have to think about whether they deserved the position but just blame it on the unfairness of Affirmative Action.
So for one split second in a white male's life, they may have the SLIM POSSIBILITY of feeling the same racism minorities have to go through in job interviews, career advancements, and just plain walking to the store. And I'm supposed to somehow feel sorry for them? Everybody is all of a sudden up in arms, because their child or daughter MIGHT be discriminated against when he/she turns 18. That's ironic, because it goes back to a question I recently asked.
QUOTE
have a question I would like to ask. People keep saying, "Im outraged. Im angry Affirmative Action. " etc, etc.
Yet, I have posted stats after stats in this thread showing all the true racism in discrimination against minorities. Where's the outrage? Where is the anger that says, "We should be a color-blind society" like in postings about AA? Where is this passion of people to vote in a poll that our current socio-political system is flawed and corrupt?
Oh, I get it.
Sounds a little hypocritcal to me.
Yet, I have posted stats after stats in this thread showing all the true racism in discrimination against minorities. Where's the outrage? Where is the anger that says, "We should be a color-blind society" like in postings about AA? Where is this passion of people to vote in a poll that our current socio-political system is flawed and corrupt?
Oh, I get it.
Sounds a little hypocritcal to me.
Now if I were to be honest, I would say dreampiper has definitely made some amazing points. If I were to be even mre honest, I would agree that AA is not a great policy to live off of. But it will take a lot more to have that kind of honesty when you're telling me that I am supposed to feel sorry for the sons of daughters of the rich white bosses who will pass me over just because I do not look like them. Or that after 20 years of freedom, some howo a "reverse discrimination" is going on.
You show me the time and date that the majority actually get angry about the unequal job hirings, advancement opportunities, false convictions, and drug convictions and I will get angry about Affirmative Action. But as for right now, I support the little man.
I still think we miss some big points when we as a society evaluate affirmative action.
If it is harmful to society it should mean that people who receive preferential hiring treatment perform worse than their peers who did not in school or in their level of employment.
I wish there was information available as to the performance of students who get into college in part because of affirmative action preferences or are deemed EOE hires by their employers. (if it is I have not yet seem this information)
Evaluating how one's academic or employment resume compares to one's peers is an extremely subjective process.
If it is harmful to society it should mean that people who receive preferential hiring treatment perform worse than their peers who did not in school or in their level of employment.
I wish there was information available as to the performance of students who get into college in part because of affirmative action preferences or are deemed EOE hires by their employers. (if it is I have not yet seem this information)
Evaluating how one's academic or employment resume compares to one's peers is an extremely subjective process.
QUOTE
First, we know this sort of thing happens. Don't even try and act like it doesn't. Rich kids getting in purely through the connections of friends of their fathers.
Yeah, and that's why I think that alumni relations shouldn't be considered either, care to get to any of my other points? It still doesn't allow for equal protection under the law, goes against what MLK preached AND violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.CP
Winner, Most Convincing Post 2003-2004
The name of Martin Luther King Jr. has come up several times and while it's been amusing to observe how his "I Have A Dream" speech has been called upon as a repudiation of affirmative action, there has been an extremely selective usage of King's famous address.
Here's a part of that same speech that somehow most conservatives omit when they invoke the name of Dr. King: One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
Then Martin got a bit more specific about what that day in Washington was all about: In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
http://www.toptags.com/aama/voices/speeches/speech1.htm
America is only one generation removed from the pernicious effects of de jure Jim Crow racism in the South and the less codified, but no less devastating benign neglect of racism everywhere else in the nation. I'm weary of the contention by many on this board that bigotry and racial divisions are relics of a dead, forgotten past. May I point that it was only four years ago that South Carolina voters decided to repeal the ban on interracial marriage. Though the majority of voters supported interracial marriage, 40 percent of the fine folks of John Edwards' home state voted to keep the ban in place.
I understand the resentment from whites that they feel the playing field is being tilted against them and that less qualified blacks, browns, Asians and other people of color are getting a leg up on opportunities that should be open to all. I submit that this is not the case and it's still a lot easier to make it in this country with white skin than any other color.
Institutional racism still exists. Acts of race-based violence by both sides still occur. While affirmative action is not the perfect solution to addressing past and present racism, I've yet to see the viable alternative put forth by its opponents.
And NO---just saying "racism doesn't exist" is not a solution. It's a excuse and a pretty weak one at that.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.