Affirmative Action

[svero]

I don't know if this has been discussed in any depth yet. Are you for or against it?

Personally I lean a little towards "against".

It is a bit of a grey area for me though because I can understand arguments about the good of society in general being served by these sorts of practices, and how they may bring some balance to the position of different races in our society.

On the other hand perhaps the good fight is one where we attack the possibility of racial bias in decision making.

Another thought/concern is whether there's some built in societal imbalance which is reflected in things like job applications, or test scores, and that even a balanced selection process is imbalanced by default.

 

[Tmy]

If done right it can be a good thing. It's done wonders for women.

 

[Gregor]

Af Action - depends

If a privately-owned organization wants to practice it - fine.

If a government (owned or funded) organization wants to practice it it is:

1. potentially unconstitutional if quotas are involved
2. a bad bit of social engineering to use tax dollars for a perceived social agenda. It invariably leads to waste of my money. Let the free market integrate people, not the Un. of Michigan.

Whether private business practices it or not is a business model that may or may not work.

You want to start a real debate? Ask whether private businesses should be free from criminal prosecution and civil suit for practicing discrimination and letting the free market deter discriminatory practices.

 

[Wolverine]

I found this three-part series on the subject rather thought-provoking... thought I'd share:

The grand fraud
Part II
Part III

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I voted 'yes', because I do support the concept..

However, in practice, it can be and often is, a tool for discrimination..

I certainly don't want the job.. ( of implementing it..)

 

[Advocate]

How does institutionalizing racism help to reduce or eliminate racism? "A government policy favoring a minority racial group over other races" - This could describe affirmative action. It could also have described apartheid. The difference is one of degree and scope, not of kind.

I think there are many ways racial discrimination (past and present) can and should be addressed, but institutionalizing more racial discrimination is NOT one of them. It only creates more victims and perpetuates the problem. Worse, it creates the expectation of preference as a remedy and the longer it continues the harder it will be to break out of this model.

 

[Tmy]

Affirm action didnt just fall out of the sky. It came about as a tool to fight institutional racism. Sure it has its problems, but the alternative is what? Do nothing? Allow institutional racism to continue. Chemo sucks, but cancer is worse.

There are a lot of preferences that people readily accept, but AA triggers so much contraversy. No one complains about veteren preferences, in-state prefs, legacy prefs.

 

[BillyTK]

Chemo sucks, but cancer is worse.

Excellent analogy! From 10 myths about affirmative action:

Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Of course, I'm biased as I live in the socialist utopia of Briatain, where discrimination is a thing of the past.

 

[CSSMariner]

The scene: Regional IBM office, Greensboro, NC.

North Carolina lad, Caucasian with a tiny admixture of Native American Cherokee, already trained on IBM equipment through another company, seeks employment with IBM after being recruited by IBM supervisor.

Lad makes application.

Has first interview.

Takes test, aptitude and skills, scores very high.

Has post-test interview.

Advised that IBM most certainly wants to hire the lad.

Benefits explained. Good ones.

Lad says "Great, let's get it on."

Lad advised by IBM that job will be in Charlotte, NC and not Greensboro.

Lad asks about the opening that is available in Greensboro.

Lad is informed that, "Well, that position was filled by a minority, so it must be refilled with a minority."

Lad says, "Do you mean to say that I can not have the job because I am white?"

IBM assures lad that such a thing is most certainly not the case.

Lad wonders why not, but lets it pass.

Lad returns to original location where service contract by other company with which lad is employed is in force, and also where the IBM position was open.

Lad meets new IBM man in the elevator the following week, and sees that it is indeed a minority, an "African-American."

Lad, in his usual friendly manner asks new IBM man, "What's happening."

New IBM man, with a sneer and smart-assed, street laungage accented tone says, "You whas happnin," and leaves "honky" to the imagination.

Happens twice as new IBM man could not do the job, but the second time lad does not inquire as to the state of what's happening with the "Minority" when he sees the second new A-A IBM man in the Western Electric Guilford Center.

Discrimination is the same thing no matter how it is done.

The term "reverse discrimination" really pisses lad of, as it assumes that African-Americans are the only possible victims of discrimination.

Lad does not want the table tilted in his favor, just wants it to be level and color-blind.

Is that asking too much in America?

 

[rustypouch]

I must say that in the fashion it is currently presented, I am against affrimative action.

Quote from the 10 myths about affirmative action:
"Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages."

To me, this is saying that college admissions favor people with better education and good grades in high school, and to me, this is as it should be. Just because white students have these advantages does not make it racist. The applicants are judged purely on academic criteria, and colour should not factor into it. I am certain the college admissions accept any student who meets the qualifications.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Racial discrimination in this country is real. I have seen it. Therefore I favor affirmative action.

However, it seems like it ought to have an end point. AA does defy the very principle it aims to promote, a color-blind society. It can be justified as a remedy for disscrimination, as a way to help the minorities achieve equality. If that does happen, then AA has served its role and can be terminated. If it does not achieve that goal, then what is the point of it?

 

[DrBenway]

Racial discrimination in this country is real. I have seen it. Therefore I favor affirmative action.

However, it seems like it ought to have an end point.

Agreed.

Affirmitive action can create problems for very talented minorities. Imagine a medical school class, where the bottom 10% includes most of the black students in the program. A few years of this, and instructors and patients develop an expectation that a black doctor might not be as bright as a white doctor.

This situation really pisses off the few black students who happen to be near the top of the class.

 

[Richard G]

Quotas have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Affirmative action is a quota system in disguise, and will be shot down.

 

[FFed]

I would like to think that when I am in a commercial plane the pilot was hired because of their skill, and not because of their sex or colour of their skin.

Hiring based on race or sex really pisses me off. If you want to eliminate racism, giving special rights based on race is not the way to do it.