NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirmative Action is an integral part of many national social programs--all the more reason it should be outlawed at the international level. Check out my proposal and please, if you are a delegate, approve it, if only so that it may be more properly debated. People of all UN classifications can agree:

Democracies: AA discriminates against those who in no way participated in the mistreatment of a people for which AA attempts to protect
Capitalist Economies/Corporate Nations: Its unfair to a competitive job market in which people are chosen on their merit, not colour or gender
Communist/Socialist Economies: Granting one people special priveleges is unequal and contrary to your egalitarian views
Utopias/Paradises:What minorities, right?
Etc, etc, etc.

Next time, please post a copy of your proposal here if you want to discuss it. Better yet, post it here before you submit it to the UN, and folks can make sure it's legal and likely to pass.

End Unfair Affirmative Action

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Euro-American Nations

Description: Whereas Affirmative Action is a program whereby a nation redresses its past grievances with a demographic by according them certain privileges;

Whereas Affirmative Action is hypocritical, as it attempts to address discrimination by discriminating against non-minorities and males;

Whereas Affirmative Action is unjust in its persecution of modern-day non-minorities and men for the injustices committed against those demographics in the past;

Whereas Affirmative Action is contrary to economic freedom in its undue control over the hiring processes of businesses;

Whereas Affirmative Action obstructs national and international development in its requirement that certain percentages of minorities and women attend colleges and universities, as opposed to allowing higher education to select students based on merit;

Whereas Affirmative Action degrades minorities and women, making them feel and others feel that they only achieve because the government sets for them special, lower standards.

Whereas jobs and university seats will not compensate for the injustices of slavery and other repressions, only assuage our guilty consciences;

Whereas societies based on socioeconomic equality experience problematic economies which negatively affects the global economy and the delivery of economic justice and basic goods and services to that society’s citizens;

Whereas the only means by which equality can be established is by ignoring minority designations altogether and treating every demographic the same;

Resolved,

That the United Nations, in accordance with its legitimate authority as a coalition of willing nations, does—
(1) Repeal all public and private laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, and court rulings/decisions, which
(a)Have authorized/appropriated public or private funds for Affirmative Action programs
(b)Have provided for the execution of said laws, etc.
(2) Establish the Affirmative Action Prevention Agency (AAPA), whose mission is to
(a) Initiate section 1
(b) Inspect the businesses and educational institutions, etc. of member nations to ensure compliance with this resolution
(3) Grant the AAPA the right to enforce this resolution by—
(a) On the first offence, fining the nation and business/institution in question an amount to be determined by the AAPA
(b) On the second offence, freezing the incomes of the business/institution in question
(c) On the third offence, taking control of the business/institution in question for a period of 90 days to ensure compliance with this resolution
(d) On the fourth offence, taking control of the business or institution in question for one (1) year to ensure compliance with this resolution
(e) On the fifth offence, closing the business/institution in question for 1-4 years and, at the time of reopening, oversee hiring and selection of workers, students, etc.
(f) On the sixth offence, closing the business/institution indefinitely and seizing remaining assets to offset the cost of the AAPA.
(4) Decide that the AAPA shall be governed by a Board of Overseers, which shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman, inspector-general, and four at-large members, all of which shall be elected from within U.N. member nations.
(5) Decide that the AAPA shall consist further of a number of Inspectors to carry out the decisions of the Board of Overseers.

Approvals: 7 (Ala cuisene, Nullarni, Lusapha, Milonnia, Coolguyistan, Xarvinia-Wurttemburg, Sedgistan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 115 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Oct 29 2006

Thank you for the information. This is my first proposal and I will remember your advice the next time I submit one.

Thank you for the information. This is my first proposal and I will remember your advice the next time I submit one.

You're quite welcome. :)

One other thing -- make sure you read the Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). They're very good to know when making proposals.

While for a first proposal it's very well-written, the answer is HELL NO.

Ultimately equality is more than just treating everyone the same and even treating everyone the same doesn't mean all groups necessarily have the same opportunities.

Equality is a very big concept. Many nations see preferential treatment now as the only effective way to correct past inequalities, and it does make sense because if you start off with one side being disadvantaged, then move to strict equality of treatment, that group is still disadvantaged, and strict equal treatment may not necessarily alleviate that, and might even perpetuate it.

In any case, how on earth are domestic social policies an international concern?

We'd like to echo the comments put forth by the esteemed representative of Kelssek. We are not particularly NatSov, but this level of infringement on national jurisdiction is just too much.

Illegal (category violation [should be labor deregulation or moral decency], commitee violation [agencies and commitees may not be staffed by any kind of election process], levying of direct taxes/fines on Member nations), unenforceable (how are you going to prove private violations?), and immoral (as we read this, it effectively prevents businesses from hiring minorities, since sections 2b and 3a through 3f would result in any organization that hires minorities being shut down for instituting an “affirmative action” policy; it also violates the principle of private property rights by denying owners who [I]want to maintain a diverse work environment from doing so).

This reactionary piece of trash will never makes the floor.

Holy Persia vehemently opposes this offensive proposal, and sincerlely hopes that the United Nations does not even trouble itself or waste its time by bringing it to serious consideration.

levying of direct taxes/fines on Member nations...which isn't illegal.

While for a first proposal it's very well-written, the answer is HELL NO.

Ultimately equality is more than just treating everyone the same and even treating everyone the same doesn't mean all groups necessarily have the same opportunities.

Equality is a very big concept. Many nations see preferential treatment now as the only effective way to correct past inequalities, and it does make sense because if you start off with one side being disadvantaged, then move to strict equality of treatment, that group is still disadvantaged, and strict equal treatment may not necessarily alleviate that, and might even perpetuate it.

In any case, how on earth are domestic social policies an international concern?

My government is in full agreement with the delegate from Kelssek.

There is no justification for enforcing such legislation on all member States.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Unusual though it is for my nation's government to find itself in strong agreement with those of Ariddia and Kelssek, on this occasion and although 'affirmative action' (on any sort of large scale) is illegal within our own nation...

OOC: "Affirmative action" was simply a phrase used by LBJ in a speech - "we must take every affirmative action to yadda yadda". The meaning you're using it in only came about through specific laws: to think that the term would have this universal meaning in NS is silly.

Yeah, and I live in the UK - what's your point? Besides, what the proposal is describing isn't what is affirmative action in the US: it mentions "certain percentages", yet in the US, quotas are illegal.

Anyway, my point is that without defining "affirmative action", this proposal is meaningless.

OOC: "Affirmative action" was simply a phrase used by LBJ in a speech - "we must take every affirmative action to yadda yadda". The meaning you're using it in only came about through specific laws: to think that the term would have this universal meaning in NS is silly.


OOC: It's come into common usage here in the US, though, as policies such as those (pitifully) described in the proposal. And before anyone jumps on me here, I'm not saying I'd support this proposal. I won't. I abhor affirmative action, and such policies aren't used in my nation, but if some other nation wants to be ignorant and apply them, it's not my or my nation's problem.

We view this proposal as going entirely too far in dictating to nations what approach they should take towards equality issues. We also object to creating an entire agency for this purpose ("Affirmative Action Prevention Agency"), as it would be a waste of time and money aimed at pursuing a patently undesirable goal. For those reasons, Altanar will never vote in favor of such a proposal.