Affirmative Action

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, I've heard about this whole affirmative action idea, and I have to admit that I don't understand all aspects of the issue well enough to know if it's good or bad.
I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else.

[TeresaBenedicta]

Personally, I see it as another form of backwards discrimination based off of race.

Each and every person should be looked at individually.

[Madame Vengier]

It's racist. Period. There may have been a small window in time when it was justified but the fact that 40 years later it is STILL in effect is shameful.

[Divided]

Could someone explain to me what it is?

[CatherineM]

I have to agree with Madame. There was a time where it was necessary to equal things up, but that time has passed.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Divided' post='1621311' date='Aug 8 2008, 10:50 AM']Could someone explain to me what it is?[/quote]


[url="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html[/url]

It was put into effect in 1961 by President John Kennedy as a first step in civil rights. It was meant to level the playing field after the laws did away with segregation. It is basically allowing a person to have access to education and jobs (and other things) on the basis of their race. So is a white person and a black person both apply for a job in a place that already has a majority of whites, the black person will get the job solely becuase he/she is black and a minority. The problem is this person may not be as qualified or appropriate for the job as the white person applying. But this doesn't matter. Under AA the black applicant has a RIGHT to first dibs on the job because he/she is a minority. This is called RACISM. But at the time Black Americans had been treated with such injustices that something had to be done to help them get equal rights in work and education. That's what affirmative action was for. But 47 years later it's STILL HERE. It should have lasted for 5 years. Then the laws against segregation would have been fully in effect and everyone would be expected to abide by them or go to jail.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my view is that i'm generally against affirmative action. i don't like reverse discrimination.

with that said, if there's a pattern of racism in a given area, then it can fly, as i believe o'conner said. racism in a particular situation can be hard to prove, but affirmative action would be beneficial if generally it's occuring. it's better to have a presumption against reverse discrimiantion.... given that reverse discrimination isn't as much ofa problem anymore.... and so more justice will be done more often than not with that presumption.

[Divided]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1621524' date='Aug 8 2008, 01:18 PM'][url="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html[/url]

It was put into effect in 1961 by President John Kennedy as a first step in civil rights. It was meant to level the playing field after the laws did away with segregation. It is basically allowing a person to have access to education and jobs (and other things) on the basis of their race. So is a white person and a black person both apply for a job in a place that already has a majority of whites, the black person will get the job solely becuase he/she is black and a minority. The problem is this person may not be as qualified or appropriate for the job as the white person applying. But this doesn't matter. Under AA the black applicant has a RIGHT to first dibs on the job because he/she is a minority. This is called RACISM. But at the time Black Americans had been treated with such injustices that something had to be done to help them get equal rights in work and education. That's what affirmative action was for. But 47 years later it's STILL HERE. It should have lasted for 5 years. Then the laws against segregation would have been fully in effect and everyone would be expected to abide by them or go to jail.[/quote]

Gotcha, thanks.
So, as it stands now, Affirmative action is still in effect. Is there anyone working to put an end to it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd be careful about saying it's still in effect. true, but can be misleading.
the court is as much opposed to it generally as the public is opposed to it generally.

they took a nuanced view of it, not either or. i think oconner basically wrote the opinion,,, which is essentially the opinion that i gave in the last post.

[Divided]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1621791' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:19 PM']i'd be careful about saying it's still in effect. true, but can be misleading.
the court is as much opposed to it generally as the public is opposed to it generally.

they took a nuanced view of it, not either or. i think oconner basically wrote the opinion,,, which is essentially the opinion that i gave in the last post.[/quote]

Just trying to understand-
So if the public and govt are both generally opposed to it, who is for it? And how is it in "effect" if it's really not in effect?

[CatherineM]

A friend of mine who works in the HR department of a large company in the US told me that the biggest change is that race is no longer allowed on application forms. She said it didn't really matter anyway. Her boss routinely throws away resumes from Latishas and Kwame's, and puts Jacob, Michael, Alice and Mary at the top of the call back pile.

[dairygirl4u2c]

generally opposed to it means... it usually can't be done.
there has to be a proof of a pattern of racism.
i might be missing something though... i seem to recall that qualitative points can be given to college kids in the minority when everything else is the same.
but anyways,,, it's generally not in effect, for the reasons i pretty much like i said in my last post.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1621137' date='Aug 8 2008, 12:00 AM']Personally, I see it as another form of backwards discrimination based off of race.

Each and every person should be looked at individually.[/quote]

iawtc

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621828' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:42 PM']A friend of mine who works in the HR department of a large company in the US told me that the biggest change is that race is no longer allowed on application forms. She said it didn't really matter anyway. Her boss routinely throws away resumes from Latishas and Kwame's, and puts Jacob, Michael, Alice and Mary at the top of the call back pile.[/quote]

Hey, hey! Now that he's out of jail, Kwame's going to need a job after he leaves office, just like everyone else! That's just not fair to throw away his resume!

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1621775' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:13 PM']my view is that i'm generally against affirmative action. i don't like reverse discrimination.[/quote]


There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and people should stop using this appalling term. This is a false term that was invented to refer to black racism against white people. But by using this phrase it's like saying that only blacks are discriminated AGAINST, as if this is an injustice that is uniquely theirs. As if the very words "racism" or "discrimination" are meant solely for them. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. There is only [i]discrimination[/i], period. It begs the question, The reverse of [u]what[/u]?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Divided' post='1621778' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:13 PM']Gotcha, thanks.
So, as it stands now, Affirmative action is still in effect. Is there anyone working to put an end to it?[/quote]

Oh, absolutely. Has been for years. And every time someone tries it they are called racist and bigot. There are black Americans who want an end to it as well, and they are called Uncle Tom and accused of being still slaves to the whim of the white man, and called "house n****r". It's disgusting to watch what happens when someone comes against affirmative action.

It is believed by a lot of people that two of the main reasons that the liberals and the black Americans went for Clarence Thomas' throat when he was nominated to the Supreme Court were because 1: he is pro-life and 2: he wants an end to affirmative action. Most supporters of CT never believed the attacks on him were about his supposed sexual harrasment of Anita Hill. It was to discredit, defame and ruin him so he couldn't take his conservative Christian ideas to the Court.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621828' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:42 PM']A friend of mine who works in the HR department of a large company in the US told me that the biggest change is that race is no longer allowed on application forms. She said it didn't really matter anyway. Her boss routinely throws away resumes from Latishas and Kwame's, and puts Jacob, Michael, Alice and Mary at the top of the call back pile.[/quote]


I have heard of people like that. But it's not racism. It's because they have (and have had) enough Latishas and Kwames being lazy, not dependable and in general doing a lousy job. And they can't be corrected or taught anything new and theri attitudes are horrible and you can't fire them. Of course, this is not a collective overview. But it exists. We see it a lot out here in DC. When you go through this enough it makes you avoid certain resumes, yes.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1621991' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:19 PM']There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and people should stop using this appalling term. This is a false term that was invented to refer to black racism against white people. But by using this phrase it's like saying that only blacks are discriminated AGAINST, as if this is an injustice that is uniquely theirs. As if the very words "racism" or "discrimination" are meant solely for them. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. There is only [i]discrimination[/i], period. It begs the question, The reverse of [u]what[/u]?[/quote]

i see your point, but i think you're being too PC, too nitpicky. blacks are the one who are generally discriminated against. in trying to not have them discriminated against with AA, we're essentially discriminating against the whites who lose out in the deal.
if direct discrimination against whites were more common,,, maybe using that phrase, reverse discrimination, would be less appropriate, cause it causes minds to think blacks are the ones who get the heat. reality is though, that they are largley,,, and that's why we have AA,,,and that's why we should be concerned for what i said in my lat paragraph.
in fact, just saying discrimination is occuring to the white,,, could be said to be more misleading,, as if hteir plight is just as bad as the blacks. the only plight they have, significantly, is the result of our trying to fix everything.
so basically,,, the phrase more accurately portrays reality, whereas what you desire does not.

[MissScripture]

I think it's just as insulting to minorities as it is frustrating to the non-minorities (aka whites) who don't get jobs. The whole time those minorities are doing the job, it will leave an air over them of "they just got this job because they are *insert minority here.*" So, it doesn't matter if they DID get the job because they were qualified for it, they will still be viewed by many as getting it solely based on race.

[CatherineM]

People other than blacks get discriminated against. Try getting a job when you're disabled.

[KOIfriend]

Who really cares if some of a different race gets a job you should get. Share and share alike, that's the communist motto!