It was suggested that a thread on AA might be interesting so here it is. I thought it was best to start with a definition - Affirmative action, in the United States, programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. The policy was implemented by federal agencies enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two executive orders, which provided that government contractors and educational institutions receiving federal funds develop such programs. The Equal Employment Opportunities Act (1972) set up a commission to enforce such plans. The establishment of racial quotas in the name of affirmative action brought charges of so-called reverse discrimination in the late 1970s. Although the U.S. Supreme Court accepted such an argument in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), it let existing programs stand and approved the use of quotas in 1979 in a case involving voluntary affirmative-action programs in unions and private businesses. In the 1980s, the federal government's role in affirmative action was considerably diluted. In three cases in 1989, the Supreme Court undercut court-approved affirmative action plans by giving greater standing to claims of reverse discrimination, voiding the use of minority set-asides where past discrimination against minority contractors was unproven, and restricting the use of statistics to prove discrimination, since statistics did not prove intent. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed a federal government's commitment to affirmative action, but a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts; the affected government programs were revamped in the late 1990s to encompass any person who was "socially disadvantaged." In the late 1990s, in a public backlash against perceived reverse discrimination, California and other states banned the use of race- and sex-based preferences in state and local programs. A 2003 Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students as long as it was not used in a mechanical, formulaic manner. In Europe, the European Court of Justice has upheld (1997) the use in the public sector of affirmative-action programs for women, establishing a legal precedent for the nations of the European Union. http://www.gurunet.com/t1-deid-714982176-dsid-2040-curtab-2040_1-method-5
** These are the words of forum member Megara who has kindly given me his permission to repeat them in a thread on AA. “I've been called a racist probably a dozen times just because i said i'm against affirmative action. I see no room in our society for reverse racism. I'm tired of the shitty arguments of "well they suffered for 500,000 years, so they need the help.' Its absolutely bullshit. We are like 7-8 generations removed from slavery in this country. Ontop of that, so many people came to this country AFTER slavery, why should they have to pay for the crimes of someone else? Why should anyone be given reparations if they were not a slave? AA had its day in the sun to help integrate this society, but its day is long gone. We need to go back to rewarding people on merit. I would much rather have an economic AA system until we can eliminate that too. Economic AA isnt based on the color of the skin and helps the poor whites/asians out who are treated like dirt because they are white/asian.” **
Problem is, a lot of people may think a candidate is not the best person for the job simply because he is black. But I think that there are better alternatives to solving that problem than affirmative action. I have known a fair share of african-americans that are against affirmative action because they don't feel it helps them gain equality if they have to be treated specially. I think that we need to teach our younger generations tolerance, respect, and equality. Focus on making our future better for everyone.
Wow Sera we finnally agree on something, thats pretty cool, Here is an idea, why don't we just put people behind some sort of barrier when they are interviewed, that way you can look at their resume and go through the interview process, but you will won't know what their skin color is, and hire who you think is the best. That would be the most fair way to do it.
Good idea. A person should get a job because they're good at it, not because of their gender or race.
Bingo! The perfect solution. No matter what race/gender you get help if you're poor. Class is where the struggle really begins and ends...
What exactly would "class based" affirmative action look like? If it takes the form of college scholarships/grants, then great. I can't see lowering the standards, awarding extra points, or establishing quotas for college admission (or employment) based on someone's wealth (or lack thereof). That would be no less screwed up than the current race- and gender-based system of preferential treatment.
Affirmative Action is definitely RACISM. Without Affirmative Action, Democrats probably wouldn't stand a chance of being elected at all. That's why the Democratic Party is the slavemaster's party, consisting of a bunch of phony, rich white men who pretend to care about the black community, when all they care about is being elected. Then again, that's ALL politicians. I have had many black friends over the years, and almost every one of them was totally against Affirmative Action. You would think that most black people with some degree of pride, don't want to be made to feel like they can't succeed without Affirmative Action. It's basically like saying, "You're black and stupid, and you can't succeed without our phony government assistance" -- which does more for rich, white politicians than it does for black people anyway. Affirmative Action does little more than enslave black people more, in many ways keeping them below the poverty line, which of course is EXACTLY what they want.
Right, scholarships should be given to those who need financial aid (because of their financial "status") but there should be no sacrifice of intelligence in admitting these students. The only problem is, I don't think government should have a say in it. The majority of scholarships are probably private anyway.
** What people seem to be suggesting is a more meritocracy based system with an economic AA element. Well first up it must be remembered that as some do that discrimination is still around, here is some extracts form a sobering article by the Wall Street Journal – “It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back. Applicants named Greg Kelly or Emily Walsh were 50% more likely to get called for interviews than those named Jamal Jackson or Lakisha Washington, names far more common among African-Americans. Putting a white-sounding name on an application, they found, is worth as much as an extra eight years of work experience.” http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/workplacediversity/20030910-wessel.html ** The next is to realise that economically based work placement AA should only be seen as part of a solution not THE solution. You see for a meritocracy to actually work in any reasonable fashion there needs to be an evening out of advantages and handicaps that go across the board. I don’t think many people understand what that means? Like so much else education is a very important key to the unlocking of such a system but even if it was possible to give the exact same education to everyone equally, this still leaves the poorer at a disadvantage. This is due to the relative resources they are able to bring to bare on the subject compared to the more wealthy. In books, travel, extra tuition, and social connections. So to me economic affirmative action should not just be about getting disadvantaged people it should start at the persons birth, or even before that with assistance to the child’s parent(s). **
any preference that is given to someone because of the color of their skin is racism. Anyone who is discriminated against because of the color of their skin is racism. It is as simple as that. you can see how blatantly disgusting this is in the law school admission process. only 79 blacks scored higher than a 165 on the lsats. A 165 is the bottom of the trough at many of the top lawschools and around median to many others. The top three schools can gobble up these people and leave the rest of the other amazing schools to take blacks who dont meet the LSAT standards... the same thing can be found for SATS, though the college board has gotten in trouble for posting SAT scores of people across racial boundaries because the SAT's were called 'racist.' There should be absolutely NO race box on any application, same with gender. No one should get any special treatment because of something genetic. I do support higher financial aid for low income families who are normally forced to apply to the state college because they cant afford the expensive schools. Since blacks have many more households that are poorer than whites/asians, i think they will be the most benefited. We shouldnt be filling our top schools with mediocre people though. If you cant make the requirements, you shouldnt be in the school no matter whether you're white, male, female, black ro whatever. http://www.jbhe.com/latest/052704_blacks_and_LSAT.html
