NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not bleive in Affirmativ action I don't see scars on any blacks that are marks of slavery here in the USA why pay for anothers debt why pay a promise by one man to thounsands made nearly 150 years ago, why?I don't think many rember when segration was real and in power, to those who do where you in college at the time of that age quailfifed ect, where you?. begin stere-dems bashing NOW!!!!!!!!!

I oppose it, but for a different reason. Affirmative action doesn't deal with racism itself. It just generates resentment and is ultimately counterproductive.

Affirmitive action should be based on socio-economic background, not race.

Affirmative Action is discriminatory and has no place in society. Whether it be based on race or socio-ecomonic grounds, it is still discrimination and only succeeds in widening the divide between groups in society.

I do not bleive in Affirmativ action I don't see scars on any blacks that are marks of slavery here in the USA why pay for anothers debt why pay a promise by one man to thounsands made nearly 150 years ago, why?I don't think many rember when segration was real and in power, to those who do where you in college at the time of that age quailfifed ect, where you?. begin stere-dems bashing NOW!!!!!!!!!
You don't see any disparity? The number one cause of death for black men under 35 is homicide. If I asked you to name a couple of poor regions in America, I'm betting South Central LA, Detroit's 8 mile and the outer sections of Washington DC are on many peoples lists. What race of people predominatly live there?

Compare racially the number of people who eat in resteraunts to the number of people who work in resteraunts. These are the effects, the "scars" of oppression, slavery and segregation. A kid in Harlem is more likely to go to prison than to a four year college. Compared to these things, a couple of white men not getting their promotions on time or a white teenager going to Yale instead of Harvard isn't exactly a tragedy, y-know?

Im am second generation Puerto Rican and I oppose Affirmative Action. I know there have been many injustices against minorities but in at least the US racism is a thing of the past. And also I would feel awful if I got into a college and someone smarter than me didn't because he was white. And another thing...weren't the Irish discriminated against...the italians to kinda cuz of the crazy mob boss thing. Why doesn't affirmative action work for them? If anything colleges should look at all students equally. If student A is the same as B academically then they should see which one has less money. That one should go to college because his family needs it more and he has been dealt a bad card in life to begin with. And to Spoffin it's because they're poor not black.

Affirmative Action is discriminatory and has no place in society. Whether it be based on race or socio-ecomonic grounds, it is still discrimination and only succeeds in widening the divide between groups in society.
Of course, yes, simply based on your testimony it now seems clear that a program that is designed expressly for the purpose of narrowing social divisions has actually failed so monumentally that it is in fact widening those divisions. Now prove that rain is not wet and we'll really be getting somewhere.

You don't see any disparity? The number one cause of death for black men under 35 is homicide. If I asked you to name a couple of poor regions in America, I'm betting South Central LA, Detroit's 8 mile and the outer sections of Washington DC are on many peoples lists. What race of people predominatly live there?

Compare racially the number of people who eat in resteraunts to the number of people who work in resteraunts. These are the effects, the "scars" of oppression, slavery and segregation. A kid in Harlem is more likely to go to prison than to a four year college. Compared to these things, a couple of white men not getting their promotions on time or a white teenager going to Yale instead of Harvard isn't exactly a tragedy, y-know?
yeah but the white will then be opressed let the opressers get a taste of their own opression then we will make them are slave for we are the grand lord bastards, whoops that didn't come out right.

Im am second generation Puerto Rican and I oppose Affirmative Action. I know there have been many injustices against minorities but in at least the US racism is a thing of the past. And also I would feel awful if I got into a college and someone smarter than me didn't because he was white. And another thing...weren't the Irish discriminated against...the italians to kinda cuz of the crazy mob boss thing. Why doesn't affirmative action work for them? If anything colleges should look at all students equally. If student A is the same as B academically then they should see which one has less money. That one should go to college because his family needs it more and he has been dealt a bad card in life to begin with.Do you not think that diversity in colleges and universities is something that should be strived for? That with all schooling and especially with universities, theres more to it than mere education? That character building and making friends and learning to understand people, all people of all cultures, is at least as important as whether your GPA is 3.94 or 3.92?

yeah but the white will then be opressed let the opressers get a taste of their own opression then we will make them are slave for we are the grand lord bastards, whoops that didn't come out right.
I'm not saying you continue this program until you run all white people down into the ground, its something that should go on until there is no discrimination, not just in law but in reality and in our hearts and in our minds.

It causes resentment. Let me give you this scenario. Im a white kid that is growing up in a poor neighborhood. I see all my african american and hispanic friends with D averages get into college but I apply to the same and get the same grades maybe even a little better and don't get into the same college as they do. I would be a tad upset.

Do you not think that diversity in colleges and universities is something that should be strived for? That with all schooling and especially with universities, theres more to it than mere education? That character building and making friends and learning to understand people, all people of all cultures, is at least as important as whether your GPA is 3.94 or 3.92?

No. Diversity is an euphemism for racial quotas and should be acknowledged as such by college administrators.

Affirmitive action should be based on socio-economic background, not race.
I'd be just as happy with that as a race based one, and its something that could be continued indefinately and would automatically balance out racially when racial economic disparity is eliminated..

Of course, yes, simply based on your testimony it now seems clear that a program that is designed expressly for the purpose of narrowing social divisions has actually failed so monumentally that it is in fact widening those divisions. Now prove that rain is not wet and we'll really be getting somewhere.

Errmm...I am looking very hard to see a point in there but fail to see anything at all of relevence.
I am glad you have acknowledged, however, that Affirmative Action only breeds resentment and has failed to achieve its alleged purpose.

Do you not think that diversity in colleges and universities is something that should be strived for? That with all schooling and especially with universities, theres more to it than mere education? That character building and making friends and learning to understand people, all people of all cultures, is at least as important as whether your GPA is 3.94 or 3.92?
There is diversity everywhere you don't need to create it. If you don't do well enough in public school then you don't go to college. The education you get has nothing to do with the skin color. We all go to the same schools we all recieve the same education

I think you don't understand its a metaphor meaning well once we were segrated let us do it slightly better by making have a high place in society like you did a long time ago.

There is diversity everywhere you don't need to create it. If you don't do well enough in public school then you don't go to college. The education you get has nothing to do with the skin color. We all go to the same schools we all recieve the same education
except us privatsand homers we homers have it worse and I was a homer (Home Schooler), privats have it about the same as public they have to take a test, homers have to take a harder one public just get minor pop quiz instead at random thru out their education oh yeah and the S.A.T.S in. are test is huge and we still get the S.A.T.

The home-schooled kids I know end up getting screwed. Cuz their parents have them work around the house and stuff and then for an hour or two a day they jus give'em a textbook to learn. They don't have to do nearly the same amount of testing as public do no assesments or that weird stuff jus the regents. Privaters do none of that around here.

Errmm...I am looking very hard to see a point in there but fail to see anything at all of relevence.
I am glad you have acknowledged, however, that Affirmative Action only breeds resentment and has failed to achieve its alleged purpose.
Affirmitave action has not achived its purpose *yet*. But then, I don't think anyone expected a generation of moderation to make a big impact on two centuries of discrimination. As to breeding resentment, in some areas, yes, but with a larger number of black people in higher-class jobs, people will identify black people as collegues and co-workers as opposed to bus-boys and errand runners. That is where reducing resentment and reducing silent segregation comes into play.

Affirmitive action stinks to high heaven and must be stamped out for the racism it really is.
Calling it positive discrimination or reverse racism doesnt change what it really is, its pure racism and an incredibley unashamed hypocrisey that is absolutely disqusting to hear about and appalling to see in all its arrogance.

Affirmative Action is discriminatory and has no place in society. Whether it be based on race or socio-ecomonic grounds, it is still discrimination and only succeeds in widening the divide between groups in society.
There's already positive discrimination based round socio-economic class. Private schooling and the old boys network.
You don't see any disparity? The number one cause of death for black men under 35 is homicide. If I asked you to name a couple of poor regions in America, I'm betting South Central LA, Detroit's 8 mile and the outer sections of Washington DC are on many peoples lists. What race of people predominatly live there? Predominantly being the operative word. So the real factor that disadvantages those people is poverty. It's a class issue, not a race one.
Compare racially the number of people who eat in resteraunts to the number of people who work in resteraunts. These are the effects, the "scars" of oppression, slavery and segregation. A kid in Harlem is more likely to go to prison than to a four year college. Compared to these things, a couple of white men not getting their promotions on time or a white teenager going to Yale instead of Harvard isn't exactly a tragedy, y-know? And how will schemes that largely benefit the small minority of black people who are middle and upper class help those restraunt workers you speak of? Surely it's a lot more productive to raise the minimum wage?

There is diversity everywhere you don't need to create it. If you don't do well enough in public school then you don't go to college. The education you get has nothing to do with the skin color. We all go to the same schools we all recieve the same education
But thats not true! If it was, you'd be right, but people of the same race tend to cluster together and go to the same schools in the local area. As such you do not have everyone going to the same schools. Also, what about private schools? Are there many black students who can afford to go there?

Theres also an analogy that Al Franken uses about two runners, with almost the same times, one who has poor form and one who has perfect form. You're the coach, so you pick the one with poor form, because if you teach him good form he'll beat the other guy. Black education... is like poor form. If someone can overcome the hurdles of going to school in poor areas, in not being brought up in an environment with books and other things that lead to better education, and you have an SAT thats 3 points lower than the guy who got coached for the tests, took it three times and submitted their best score, then odds are, the first guy is smarter.

Affirmitive action stinks to high heaven and must be stamped out for the racism it really is.
Calling it positive discrimination or reverse racism doesnt change what it really is, its pure racism and an incredibley unashamed hypocrisey that is absolutely disqusting to hear about and appalling to see in all its arrogance.
You're right, it isn't reverse racism or positive discrimination, its racism and its discrimination. But its there to turn around years and years of racism that ran the other way, so although its not great solution, it is for a good cause.

Affirmitave action has not achived its purpose *yet*. But then, I don't think anyone expected a generation of moderation to make a big impact on two centuries of discrimination. As to breeding resentment, in some areas, yes, but with a larger number of black people in higher-class jobs, people will identify black people as collegues and co-workers as opposed to bus-boys and errand runners. That is where reducing resentment and reducing silent segregation comes into play.

If only you posted this instead of your smart-arse comment earlier.

I believe that Affirmative Action will not ever achieve its goal because discrimination breeds resentment. Affirmative Action is discrimination no matter how much you sugar-coat it.
I think your view that everyone sees black people and other minorities as bus-boys and errand runners to be extremely narrow-minded and based in the world of 50 years ago.
I work, and have worked, with people of many races and have not treated them as anything other than a colleague and co-worker. I think your opinion of society is warped.

The home-schooled kids I know end up getting screwed. Cuz their parents have them work around the house and stuff and then for an hour or two a day they jus give'em a textbook to learn. They don't have to do nearly the same amount of testing as public do no assesments or that weird stuff jus the regents. Privaters do none of that around here.
My mom had a P.H.D. In english and my dad taught me to program computers I learnd mulitplication in preschool ect. although it took me awhile to learn to read I didn't want too, now however I love reading, also yeah those are the one who screw up I hate it whenn I meet them gits.

Predominantly being the operative word. So the real factor that disadvantages those people is poverty. It's a class issue, not a race one.
Absolutely. And if you can sell class-based AA, then I'll go for it in a shot, because it will even out the racial disparity by tackling it at the root, poverty

And how will schemes that largely benefit the small minority of black people who are middle and upper class help those restraunt workers you speak of? Surely it's a lot more productive to raise the minimum wage?Again, yes, absolutely, I'd like to minimum wage hike that at the very least kept up with inflation. But, I don't see it as a massive improvement to have a whole lot of black people who are slightly less poor than they were before, when what you really need is to have all echelons of society with the same proportions of all races.

There's already positive discrimination based round socio-economic class. Private schooling and the old boys network.

Positive discrimination? Not sure about that. The fact that a private school is exactly that, private, I would say it is up to those that run the school as to who attends. Or, more precisely, set the prices so high that only those they want can attend.
Having never been in the socio-economic group that would contemplate going to a private school I bear no grudges to those that could afford it. The funny part was, the people that went to private schools ended up in the same classes as me in university and I found they struggled to cope with being "on their own" after the private school's enforcement of studying etc.
As far as an "old boys network" , to base that purely on socio-economic class is unfair. These networks also operate around many other aspects. It is a side-effect of society that success can depend upon not only what you know, but who you know. I think that has been true throughout history and is not specific to modern society.

I believe that Affirmative Action will not ever achieve its goal because discrimination breeds resentment. Affirmative Action is discrimination no matter how much you sugar-coat it.
Yes it is, I have never, ever tried to say that its not discriminatory.

I work, and have worked, with people of many races and have not treated them as anything other than a colleague and co-worker. I think your opinion of society is warped.Thats great, and I think that that is mostly the case, that on an individual level people have little issue with race, but the thing is, on a collective, political level people still see things in terms of "black" issues, or "minority" issues, even at the highest levels of politics. This is an attitude that sticks pretty hard, but it breaks down eventually when there is enough social interaction between people of different races on an individual level.

Yes it is, I have never, ever tried to say that its not discriminatory.

Good.

Thats great, and I think that that is mostly the case, that on an individual level people have little issue with race, but the thing is, on a collective, political level people still see things in terms of "black" issues, or "minority" issues, even at the highest levels of politics. This is an attitude that sticks pretty hard, but it breaks down eventually when there is enough social interaction between people of different races on an individual level.

So, if for the most part people do not see race as an issue then why the need the for legislation that makes it an issue?
How does creating legislation that makes race an issue break down the idea that there are "black issues" and "minority issues"? To me it only propagates what you claim to be fighting.

If someone can overcome the hurdles of going to school in poor areas, in not being brought up in an environment with books and other things that lead to better education, and you have an SAT thats 3 points lower than the guy who got coached for the tests, took it three times and submitted their best score, then odds are, the first guy is smarter.

Possibly. But the simpler solution is just to give equal education to all people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their ethnicity. If in fact the only need for affirmative action comes from a lack of equal schooling, then just give added funding to schools with students who are struggling.

I go to a public high school... that's rather poor I might add....

However, I would never want to be accepted into university over a white kid who was smarter than me just because I'm a minority... (although universities usually have more than enough Asian students anyways).

The argument that they (blacks) don't grow up in as good conditions as white people is total BS. This is applicable to any immigrants, almost any immigrant won't be nearly as well off as the white folk whose families have lived here for generations, yet I don't believe you will ever see arabic families or asian families demanding that their children be accepted over more qualified students just because they are minorities....

If someone can overcome the hurdles of going to school in poor areas, in not being brought up in an environment with books and other things that lead to better education, and you have an SAT thats 3 points lower than the guy who got coached for the tests, took it three times and submitted their best score, then odds are, the first guy is smarter.

Not necessarily. I love how people who defend AA use this extreme example as justification for carte blanche application of AA.

So, if for the most part people do not see race as an issue then why the need the for legislation that makes it an issue?
How does creating legislation that makes race an issue break down the idea that there are "black issues" and "minority issues"? To me it only propagates what you claim to be fighting.
No, sorry, I must have expressed that badly. I'm saying that, when people don't have much interaction with black or minority people, they tend to see them as a faceless mass, a political abstraction based on skin colour. They don't hate or dislike or have anything against the individual black people they know, they have the intelligence to think past stereotypes on an individual level, but they use stereotypes when thinking of the overall black community.

AA brings down these walls by exposing middle class people (where a huge majority of political power is based) into contact with more of the people they had previously viewed as a faceless stereotype.

Possibly. But the simpler solution is just to give equal education to all people, regardless of where they live, regardless of their ethnicity. If in fact the only need for affirmative action comes from a lack of equal schooling, then just give added funding to schools with students who are struggling.Well, this is another problem. Schools aren't just something where you can throw money at a problem. If you try, it tends to evaporate on the tarmac. Extra funding for struggling schools provides no insentive for schools to do well, but then, extra funding for good schools provides no means with which to improve. I don't know what the answer is exactly, but its not as simple as you're suggesting.

Not necessarily. I love how people who defend AA use this extreme example as justification for carte blanche application of AA.
Not necessarily, but on average. When the model is applied to large groups, the numbers bear it out. AA students statistically are very sucessful.

No, sorry, I must have expressed that badly. I'm saying that, when people don't have much interaction with black or minority people, they tend to see them as a faceless mass, a political abstraction based on skin colour. They don't hate or dislike or have anything against the individual black people they know, they have the intelligence to think past stereotypes on an individual level, but they use stereotypes when thinking of the overall black community.

AA brings down these walls by exposing middle class people (where a huge majority of political power is based) into contact with more of the people they had previously viewed as a faceless stereotype.

This is based on the false assumption that the middle class is totally "white". As I said, I think your opinion of society is slightly warped. Are you saying there are no successful black people? No black doctors? No black lawyers? No black teachers? How did these people reach there current situation?

I go to a public high school... that's rather poor I might add....

However, I would never want to be accepted into university over a white kid who was smarter than me just because I'm a minority... (although universities usually have more than enough Asian students anyways).

The argument that they (blacks) don't grow up in as good conditions as white people is total BS. This is applicable to any immigrants, almost any immigrant won't be nearly as well off as the white folk whose families have lived here for generations, yet I don't believe you will ever see arabic families or asian families demanding that their children be accepted over more qualified students just because they are minorities....
This is why I think a means based AA would work better (although there are some flaws with that as well, like falsifing your income)

This is based on the false assumption that the middle class is totally "white". As I said, I think your opinion of society is slightly warped. Are you saying there are no successful black people? No black doctors? No black lawyers? No black teachers? How did these people reach there current situation?Again, yes, I'm generalising. But honestly, you are aware that there is a class/race correlation, right? The average black person is poorer than the average white person, that kind of thing, yeah?

Not necessarily, but on average. When the model is applied to large groups, the numbers bear it out. AA students statistically are very sucessful.

Whether the AA student is successful is irrelevant. They are obviously smart enough because they reached the point where they were considered for the position in college or university. The point is, why should the other student be denied the opportunity for success based on their race or socio-economic class? To use an incredibly extreme example and say "see thats why we need AA" is laughable. In your example where is the line drawn? What is their SAT's were 4 points apart? 5 points? What if the wealthier student had only sat the SAT once?

You're right, it isn't reverse racism or positive discrimination, its racism and its discrimination. But its there to turn around years and years of racism that ran the other way, so although its not great solution, it is for a good cause.

So now we feel confident enough about it to own up to what it really is, just out of curiosity, how long did you deny this to people that called it racism before?

And sorry but the ends dont justify the means, so to speak.

Again, yes, I'm generalising. But honestly, you are aware that there is a class/race correlation, right? The average black person is poorer than the average white person, that kind of thing, yeah?

And can't you see that basing legislation on a generalisation marginalises people? AA treats the symptoms, not he causes of socio-economic gaps. Poverty is not a race issue and to treat it as such under a generalisation is a great injustice to those you marginalise in the process.

Well, this is another problem. Schools aren't just something where you can throw money at a problem. If you try, it tends to evaporate on the tarmac. Extra funding for struggling schools provides no insentive for schools to do well, but then, extra funding for good schools provides no means with which to improve. I don't know what the answer is exactly, but its not as simple as you're suggesting.

It wasn't meant to be. But you mention schools without books and the like, which I can only assume isn't a lack of caring but a lack of funding.

The money doesn't have to go to the schools. The funding can be to hire better teachers, or train the ones already there, or get extra supplies or a bigger building, etc.

My post certainly wasn't intended to be a guide on the subject; merely pointing out it's better to make sure everyone gets a decent education to begin with. In which case, affirmative action is never needed at all.

My post certainly wasn't intended to be a guide on the subject; merely pointing out it's better to make sure everyone gets a decent education to begin with. In which case, affirmative action is never needed at all.

Precisely, fix the cause rather than cover over the symptoms.

As far as the clusters. Yes minorities do tend to cluster. But my parents decided they weren't going to do that they were gonna work their butts off to rent us an apartment in a good school district. It took them work we're barely cuttin it as far as bills but I've never had to walk to school and see someone get mugged. Or have to worry that my school cant afford the new textbooks. And throwing money at poor schools does nothing. Here on Long Island we have encountered Roslyn School District(i believe thats the name) where the top people were taking tons of money. They do believe the corruption is more widespread. I know in my school district the Superintendant attends none of the meetings does nothing as far as I know and gets $250,000 a year. We also are the only High School on the Island that has an astroturf football field(some football teams cant afford that!!) while we are cutting the Gifted and Talented program. My district is good as far as teachers wages because they are not unionized but teachers in most other schools start at $40,000-$50,000 dollers with no after school activites money. A tenured teacher makes $150,000+. So when throwing money its hard to tell if the students actually get the money they should

Whether the AA student is successful is irrelevant. They are obviously smart enough because they reached the point where they were considered for the position in college or university. The point is, why should the other student be denied the opportunity for success based on their race or socio-economic class? To use an incredibly extreme example and say "see thats why we need AA" is laughable. In your example where is the line drawn? What is their SAT's were 4 points apart? 5 points? What if the wealthier student had only sat the SAT once?
Irrelevant? You think that the fact that, when given an opportunity, disadvantages students excel is irrelevant? That they do, as is illustrated by the running form analogy, do better than the people with higher marks than them?

Again, like I said, we're talking about averages. Its not possible to examine each candidates life in sufficient detail to get a perfect model.

I don't know enough detail to about the exact borderlines for AA to make a judgement here, but if you analysed the stats for final year tests, you could compare the final mark (where everyone has roughly equal "form") to the mark you began with, you'd be able to find the percentage better that "bad form" students did, and that'd be what you'd use to determine where the lines are drawn. (eg, bad form students with 3% lower marks at the start than good form students end up with the same final mark, then the "form" variable is 3%, so thats where you set the line.)

So now we feel confident enough about it to own up to what it really is, just out of curiosity, how long did you deny this to people that called it racism before?
To the best of my knowledge, I have never denied that AA was racism. Its counter-productive to the debate and flatly untrue.

And sorry but the ends dont justify the means, so to speak.
I never quite get this saying. Ends cannot be used as a final justification for whatever means, thats true, but if nothing was done because everything required a tradeoff (a good effect with a bad side effect), then that would be wrong also. The opposite of what you're saying is that the "ends" (a society with no racism in the laws) does not justify the "means" (a society where there is a massive racial disparity)

Irrelevant? You think that the fact that, when given an opportunity, disadvantages students excel is irrelevant? That they do, as is illustrated by the running form analogy, do better than the people with higher marks than them?

Its not the fact that they excel that is irrelevant, it is the fact that such a revelation is irrelevant to the argument for AA. How exacty does the running form analogy prove anything other than come across as a biased and extreme example to try and justify a carte blanche application of discrimination?

Again, like I said, we're talking about averages. Its not possible to examine each candidates life in sufficient detail to get a perfect model.

So essentially you are saying that those marginalised by a poor model are just an unfortunate by-product?

I don't know enough detail to about the exact borderlines for AA to make a judgement here, but if you analysed the stats for final year tests, you could compare the final mark (where everyone has roughly equal "form") to the mark you began with, you'd be able to find the percentage better that "bad form" students did, and that'd be what you'd use to determine where the lines are drawn. (eg, bad form students with 3% lower marks at the start than good form students end up with the same final mark, then the "form" variable is 3%, so thats where you set the line.)

This is the point I am making. There is no criteria, its just open-ended with no specific guidelines and as you said, an imperfect model to begin with. If there are no specific criteria is it not purely and simply discrimination based on race being advertised as some sort of social equality solution?
Your reference to "good form" and "bad form" is nothing but a smokescreen of rhetoric to hide the fact that AA is an unnecessary and unjust imposition on people's lives.

No the fact that they excel is irrelevant, the fact that such a revelation is irrelevant to the argument for AA. Hoe exacty does the running form analogy prove anything other than come across as a biased and extreme example to try and justify a carte blanche application of discrimination?Analogies don't prove anything, they just illustrate the point. Its to show that direct sucess isn't the best measure of how smart someone is, and when you take extra considerations into account, you end up choosing the people who will eventually be the smartest or the fastest.

So essentially you are saying that those marginalised by a poor model are just an unfortunate by-product?
If you can reduce the number of people marginalised, or reduce the degree to which they are marginalised, then thats a good thing. Its not perfect, its just a step in the right direction. Then you look at where you are once you've done that, and you decide on the next step. Eventually you get it right.

This is the point I am making. There is no criteria, its just open-ended with no specific guidelines and as you said, an imperfect model to begin with. If there are no specific criteria is it not purely and simply discrimination based on race being advertised as some sort of social equality solution?I don't quite understand this. I don't consider AA as open-ended, once equality is at hand it'll be no longer needed and it can be put aside. I provided an explaination of where the guidelines should be as I see it.

My post certainly wasn't intended to be a guide on the subject; merely pointing out it's better to make sure everyone gets a decent education to begin with. In which case, affirmative action is never needed at all.

But educational reform doesn't happen overnight. What do we do in the meantime? Until we can fix education so that its equal, black people just have to sit tight in poverty? That ain't right.

And can't you see that basing legislation on a generalisation marginalises people? AA treats the symptoms, not he causes of socio-economic gaps. Poverty is not a race issue and to treat it as such under a generalisation is a great injustice to those you marginalise in the process.Well, all laws are based on statistics and estimates and best guesses. I have said though that an economic based AA would be better than a race based one.

But educational reform doesn't happen overnight. What do we do in the meantime? Until we can fix education so that its equal, black people just have to sit tight in poverty? That ain't right.

Nor is affirmative action. They claim to want equality. Well, equality doesn't happen overnight either. If to be equal is what they really want, they will take steps to make this happen and be patient. Not simply use the past as leverage to make their lives easier.

But that's just me. Everyone has different principles.

Absolutely. And if you can sell class-based AA, then I'll go for it in a shot, because it will even out the racial disparity by tackling it at the root, povertyAnd that's the crux of the matter. You're not going to be able to sell it, because unlike the bandaid solution of racially based positive discrimination it's actually a challenge to the status quo. In the greater scheme of things any corporation can happily add a token black face to it's boardroom (or even to the golf club. Actually tackling class priviledge would be a threat.)
Again, yes, absolutely, I'd like to minimum wage hike that at the very least kept up with inflation. But, I don't see it as a massive improvement to have a whole lot of black people who are slightly less poor than they were before, when what you really need is to have all echelons of society with the same proportions of all races.I'd go further then the rate of inflation and call for a wage of about seven or eight pounds an hour. (I don't know what that is in dollars I'm afraid ;)) But I also don't see it as an improvement to have a small number of black people joining the elite while the rest still live and work in the same crap they always did. I don't actually consider a member of the black middle class to be particuarly oppressed in the greater scheme of things, although I do accept he/she may be discriminated against within his/her class that doesn't alter the fact that he/she's in a postion of priviledge over all. What's actually needed is an independant political voice for working class people of all races, that's the only way poverty's seriously going to get tackled.

Positive discrimination? Not sure about that. The fact that a private school is exactly that, private, I would say it is up to those that run the school as to who attends. Or, more precisely, set the prices so high that only those they want can attend.
Having never been in the socio-economic group that would contemplate going to a private school I bear no grudges to those that could afford it. The funny part was, the people that went to private schools ended up in the same classes as me in university and I found they struggled to cope with being "on their own" after the private school's enforcement of studying etc.But in a supposed meritocracy the idea that rich parents can pay to get their children a good job is merely a reinforcement of the current class divisions:

"What makes England distinctive is the degree to which the school system segregates the privileged from the rest. Money matters when it counts most – between 5 and 18 years old – and the nearly free universities are “largely a state subsidy and reward for those who have paid their way to get there”. Few members of the elite have a close personal interest in the success of state schools."- Is class 'dead' in modern Britain?, Stewart Morris, www.stewartmorris.com/essays/14Ingham4.doc

"By contrast with the US, access to the private sector is largely restricted to the most advantaged. There are exceptions, and some low income parents make huge sacrifices to send their children to private schools. But certainly the socioeconomic profile of pupils in the sector is not even close to that of the society as a whole. Private schooling, at least in the academically oriented part of the sector, provides greater access to elite universities, and the consequent labor market rewards: in turn, socio-economic background provides access to the private schools. The sector is a major contributor to educational inequality. "- The Ethics of private Schooling, Professor Harry Brighouse, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/brighouse.html

In the UK this inequality is made even more pronounced when you look at the fact that private schools are given favourable charitable tax status. In other words my taxes are going to allow rich people to stop their kids mingling with the proles.

As far as an "old boys network" , to base that purely on socio-economic class is unfair. These networks also operate around many other aspects. It is a side-effect of society that success can depend upon not only what you know, but who you know. I think that has been true throughout history and is not specific to modern society. But if you look specifically at the "old boys network" in things like corporation boardrooms, the vast majority of it's members do come from the same socio-economic background, despite whatever other aspects they may have in common.

As a white male in the college application proccess, I currently am against affirmitive action, however once I get into college I will be for it. Why you ask? Because all the minorities who have a much lower gpa than me, will make the grading easier, as the liberal professors want them to succede, thus my grades would be higher proportionatly to the rest of tha acadamy than it would have been if there had been no affirimitive action. And by the way, most times, it is a .02 gpa difference but more like a .2, if not higher.

So once I get in, my grades will be higher because of the minorities who got in with worse scores. Go me!

As a white male in the college application proccess, I currently am against affirmitive action, however once I get into college I will be for it. Why you ask? Because all the minorities who have a much lower gpa than me, will make the grading easier, as the liberal professors want them to succede, thus my grades would be higher proportionatly to the rest of tha acadamy than it would have been if there had been no affirimitive action. And by the way, most times, it is a .02 gpa difference but more like a .2, if not higher.

So once I get in, my grades will be higher because of the minorities who got in with worse scores. Go me!
So basicly... you're apolitical and selfish?

As a white male in the college application proccess, I currently am against affirmitive action, however once I get into college I will be for it. Why you ask? Because all the minorities who have a much lower gpa than me, will make the grading easier, as the liberal professors want them to succede, thus my grades would be higher proportionatly to the rest of tha acadamy than it would have been if there had been no affirimitive action. And by the way, most times, it is a .02 gpa difference but more like a .2, if not higher.

So once I get in, my grades will be higher because of the minorities who got in with worse scores. Go me!

But isnt that just encouraging mediocrity for your own self centred gains?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're not going to be able to sell it, because unlike the bandaid solution of racially based positive discrimination it's actually a challenge to the status quo. In the greater scheme of things any corporation can happily add a token black face to it's boardroom (or even to the golf club. Actually tackling class priviledge would be a threat.)
Also, with the vast hatred that seems to exist for people on the dole or on welfare, more bonuses for the poorest sections of society are looked down upon. Its not like I'm opposed to race-based AA, I just think that class or income based would be better, but also, sadly, impossible to sell.

[QUOTE=Spoffin]To the best of my knowledge, I have never denied that AA was racism. Its counter-productive to the debate and flatly untrue.

Yeah OK Ill take your word for it.

Analogies don't prove anything, they just illustrate the point.

Then why base your whole agument on one?

Its to show that direct sucess isn't the best measure of how smart someone is, and when you take extra considerations into account, you end up choosing the people who will eventually be the smartest or the fastest.

It is based on the assumption that the person from the lower socio-economic class is actually smarter based only on the fact of their socio-ecomonic class. Can't you see the obvious flaw in that logic? Choosing who is "potentially smarter" based only on their socio-economic background is choosing based on speculation.


If you can reduce the number of people marginalised, or reduce the degree to which they are marginalised, then thats a good thing. Its not perfect, its just a step in the right direction. Then you look at where you are once you've done that, and you decide on the next step. Eventually you get it right.

What you actually mean is, if you reduce the number of minorities marginalised at the expense of people from wealthier backgrounds then thats a good thing. A happen to think it is no better than discriminating against minorities you are supposedly fighting. Its not a step in the right direction it is an attempt to make two wrongs a right. The only way to achive equality it is to set an example of equality, not an example of reversed racism.

I don't quite understand this. I don't consider AA as open-ended, once equality is at hand it'll be no longer needed and it can be put aside. I provided an explaination of where the guidelines should be as I see it.

How do you achieve equality by instituting discrimination? Who decides when equality is achieved?

But in a supposed meritocracy the idea that rich parents can pay to get their children a good job is merely a reinforcement of the current class divisions:

"What makes England distinctive is the degree to which the school system segregates the privileged from the rest. Money matters when it counts most – between 5 and 18 years old – and the nearly free universities are “largely a state subsidy and reward for those who have paid their way to get there”. Few members of the elite have a close personal interest in the success of state schools."- Is class 'dead' in modern Britain?, Stewart Morris, www.stewartmorris.com/essays/14Ingham4.doc

"By contrast with the US, access to the private sector is largely restricted to the most advantaged. There are exceptions, and some low income parents make huge sacrifices to send their children to private schools. But certainly the socioeconomic profile of pupils in the sector is not even close to that of the society as a whole. Private schooling, at least in the academically oriented part of the sector, provides greater access to elite universities, and the consequent labor market rewards: in turn, socio-economic background provides access to the private schools. The sector is a major contributor to educational inequality. "- The Ethics of private Schooling, Professor Harry Brighouse, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/brighouse.html

In the UK this inequality is made even more pronounced when you look at the fact that private schools are given favourable charitable tax status. In other words my taxes are going to allow rich people to stop their kids mingling with the proles.

I think it is safe to say the UK has the most "elitist" system with regards to private tuition. Why is it essential for people to go to "elite" universities and schools to get an education? The only thing I can add is that the use of tax payer's funds to finance a private school is something I do not agree with. The same thing happens here though probably not to the extent as in the UK. If these schools were to be self-funding then I cannot begrudge them to operate as they see fit.

But if you look specifically at the "old boys network" in things like corporation boardrooms, the vast majority of it's members do come from the same socio-economic background, despite whatever other aspects they may have in common.

Yes, but that would be looking at a small aspect of the situation. The fact that most of them come from the same socio-economic background is because they have more than likely had a similar work background and moved up through the same channels. That is, they have all held similar positions in the past and earned similar money.
The "old boys network" exists but at so many levels in society. It is unfair to concentrate on only one level or aspect.

Well, all laws are based on statistics and estimates and best guesses. I have said though that an economic based AA would be better than a race based one.

What laws would they be? I don't agree with economic based AA either for the same reasons. Changing the reason does not make it any more accpetable to me.

As a white male in the college application proccess, I currently am against affirmitive action, however once I get into college I will be for it. Why you ask? Because all the minorities who have a much lower gpa than me, will make the grading easier, as the liberal professors want them to succede, thus my grades would be higher proportionatly to the rest of tha acadamy than it would have been if there had been no affirimitive action. And by the way, most times, it is a .02 gpa difference but more like a .2, if not higher.

So once I get in, my grades will be higher because of the minorities who got in with worse scores. Go me!

2 teachers were fired from a college for not going along with a new grading system proposed by the school's administration. It was an effort based grading system where 60% of a freshmans grade was derived from effort put into the work, with only 40% based on actual accademic merit. The ration goes to 50%/50% sophmore year and gone in junior year.

By the administrations own admission, if a freshman completely failed to grasp any of the material taught, and would normally score a 0, as long as the student recieved and "A for effort" then they would still pass the course.

This is what lowering of standards has brought on to supposed institutions of higher learning.

2 teachers were fired from a college for not going along with a new grading system proposed by the school's administration. It was an effort based grading system where 60% of a freshmans grade was derived from effort put into the work, with only 40% based on actual accademic merit. The ration goes to 50%/50% sophmore year and gone in junior year.

By the administrations own admission, if a freshman completely failed to grasp any of the material taught, and would normally score a 0, as long as the student recieved and "A for effort" then they would still pass the course.

This is what lowering of standards has brought on to supposed institutions of higher learning.

Its rewarding mediocrity, and doing this in your schools will have terrible effects on your nation in future, if these buffoons keep getting rewarded for nothing.
You will have a society of idiots.

Its rewarding mediocrity, and doing this in your schools will have terrible effects on your nation in future, if these buffoons keep getting rewarded for nothing.
You will have a society of idiots.

I agree. This "warm and fuzzy" approach to education will ensure the nation suffers for generations to come.

It is a disservice to the individual to allow them to pass through their schooling without achieving a standard of education that enables them to contribute to society and to achieve something for themselves.

Instead of identifying students having difficulties and offering them assistance to catch up they instead force them through the system which leaves them at an immense disadvantage once they venture out into the real world.

How such a system helps remove poverty is beyond me, all I can see is it ensuring that we have more and more uneducated people therefore swelling the numbers of people in the lower socio-ecomonic classes.

I agree. This "warm and fuzzy" approach to education will ensure the nation suffers for generations to come.

It is a disservice to the individual to allow them to pass through their schooling without achieving a standard of education that enables them to contribute to society and to achieve something for themselves.

Instead of identifying students having difficulties and offering them assistance to catch up they instead force them through the system which leaves them at an immense disadvantage once they venture out into the real world.

How such a system helps remove poverty is beyond me, all I can see is it ensuring that we have more and more uneducated people therefore swelling the numbers of people in the lower socio-ecomonic classes.

But this is why AA should not be around. Perhaps it's a necessary evil to "level the playing fields" but this is one of the results of AA. Where some qualified minorities are given access to colleges (they had access before) but now unqualified students are given access because of their minority background.

James Earl Jones' speech to C.Thomas Howell in Soul Man said it best. You cant change other people, you can only change yourself. If you have to work harder than others, then work harder.

But this is why AA should not be around. Perhaps it's a necessary evil to "level the playing fields" but this is one of the results of AA. Where some qualified minorities are given access to colleges (they had access before) but now unqualified students are given access because of their minority background.

James Earl Jones' speech to C.Thomas Howell in Soul Man said it best. You cant change other people, you can only change yourself. If you have to work harder than others, then work harder.

I agree, as my initial post suggested. AA has no place in society.

[QUOTE=Tygaland]I agree. This "warm and fuzzy" approach to education will ensure the nation suffers for generations to come.

The cream should always rise to the top, now it will be harder for the ones who deserve to get there, because of all the idiots who get rewarded for trying so hard but are still regardless idiots, blocking the way.

Who decides when equality is achieved?
Equality is achieved when the percentage of minorities in a particular class is proportionate to the percentage of that particular minority in the nation's population.

but in at least the US racism is a thing of the past.What an absurd thing to say.

What an absurd thing to say.

I have to agree. Racism in fact discrimination will always exist in a society based on hierarchy. That is ANY society. Their will always be people on top and people on the bottom. The people on the top will always take advantage of the people on the bottom. The people on the bottom will always groan under the weight of the people on the top. It is human nature.

I'd be just as happy with that as a race based one, and its something that could be continued indefinately and would automatically balance out racially when racial economic disparity is eliminated..
really? that's an interesting theory, what do you base it upon? how will allowing special treatment to certain races based on nothing more than their ethnicity "balance out"? don't examples like the Jim Crow laws refute your theory?

Once there are scholarships for my own personal minority for things other than having a horrible and usually stupidity-inflicted disease or being disowned (of which there were two, last I checked), I'll like affirmitive action much more.

i'm a huge fan of the "affirmative action will just put white people at a disadvantage" argument. especially when articulated with many typos and ending with statements like "and then we can just make the white are slaves"

it brings me back to the days of "if we let the blacks go free, they'll seize power and make us their slaves! besides, they're BETTER OFF being owned by us!"

also:
A- the biggest beneficiaries from affirmative action policies have been white women.

B- most affirmative action legislation has to do with admitting a person of color/woman over a white man insofar as the two candidates are largely equal in all other respects. so what's all this "black kids with D averages" bull?

don't worry, all you nervous nelly closet racists, affirmative action isn't in danger of actually alleviating the problems of people of color in this country any time soon, so just put on some overalls, sit back on your porch rocking chair, stroke your shotgun, and relax.

same deal with the "weren't italians and irish discriminated against?" argument. yeah, couple hundred years ago. now, irish and italian are regarded as shades of white. affirmative action isn't about slavery, it's about the system of economic and social oppression in effect TODAY against people of color.

on the other hand, i think arguments about the KIND of oppression addressed by affirmative action are totally valid. por ejemplo: does a black man or a latina woman get precedence first? or a First Nation woman or an Indian man, etc. etc. (i use "first nation" cuz saying "indian and indian" would confuse people, and i don't know any first nation folks who like being referred to as "native americans." give you a hint why: Amerigo Vespucci was a white italian dude, who got these continents named after himself before any europeans but the vikings knew they existed)

what about queer people? i know, you're not allowed to fire us for it anymore... but are you obligated to hire us before or after a straight candidate?

and the economic model of affirmative action is a good idea, except for the fact that affirmative action in the first place exists because, left to their own devices, institutions tend to favor whites over everybody else. in that scenario, i see them just favoring POOR whites over POOR everybody else. and economic discrepancies exist because we live in a capitalist system which mandates that most people have to fail or limp along paycheck to paycheck in order for a few to become fabulously wealthy. i just don't see affirmative action legislation propelling us into a classless socialist utopia, (or a classless stalinist dictatorship) whatever the folks at the DNC or the Free Republic might say.

it's not a solution, just one tool. and it only favors stupid black kids if the entire candidate pool is stupid kids.

it's only racially divisive because rich white men like to misconstrue the issues involved.

nirvana rule cause axl rose is a t**t

nirvana r da best guns and roses ROCKED axl can't sing if he wasn't in it they would proberly still be around

yeah but the white will then be opressed let the opressers get a taste of their own opression then we will make them are slave for we are the grand lord bastards, whoops that didn't come out right.

Works for me! :) DOWN WITH WHITEY!!!

A- the biggest beneficiaries from affirmative action policies have been white women.Of what socio-economic class would they be? (I reckon I can hazard a guess).


it's about the system of economic and social oppression in effect TODAY against people of color.What economic and social oppression in real terms exist against the child of a black lawyer?

and the economic model of affirmative action is a good idea, except for the fact that affirmative action in the first place exists because, left to their own devices, institutions tend to favor whites over everybody else. in that scenario, i see them just favoring POOR whites over POOR everybody else. and economic discrepancies exist because we live in a capitalist system which mandates that most people have to fail or limp along paycheck to paycheck in order for a few to become fabulously wealthy. i just don't see affirmative action legislation propelling us into a classless socialist utopia, (or a classless stalinist dictatorship) whatever the folks at the DNC or the Free Republic might say.What evidence to you have that working class whites are less disadvantaged then working class blacks? It's very simple. All working class people are at a disadvantage and your stance is just playing into the systems divide and rule game. There's a reason the Black Panthers believed that the multiculturalism ideology was invented by the CIA after all. Put simply we need to stop racialising issues of class and need to start applying a class analysis to issues of race.

it's not a solution, just one tool. and it only favors stupid black kids if the entire candidate pool is stupid kids.

it's only racially divisive because rich white men like to misconstrue the issues involved.[/QUOTE]

Of what socio-economic class would they be? (I reckon I can hazard a guess).

Of you guessed that white women are of all socio-economic classes, one gold star for you! :)

Women of all classes and races have been oppressed for MIL-LEN-I-A!!! Women of any given race are disadvanteged as compared to men of their race.

What economic and social oppression in real terms exist against the child of a black lawyer?

What evidence to you have that working class whites are less disadvantaged then working class blacks?

Here is a chart of race vs. household income from the U.S. Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income99/incxrace.html

Here are some statistics for rental-class tenents in Ontario, Canada:

http://www.geocities.com/torontotenants/reports/age-race.html

As for economic disadvantages of the children of upper class black households, well, if the income is the same between a black household and a white household, then there is no difference in disadvantages on an economic level. DUH! But more to the point, statistically the incomes are simply not comparible. There are simply fewer per capita black lawyers than white lawyers, even if we assume that all lawyers earn the same accross the racial divide.

And as for the economic systems that maintain this status quo, I place the largest part of the blame on local-property-tax-based public school funding systems.

As far as social disadvantages, well, how about RACISM? Want to pretend it doesn't exist anymore? Go right ahead... but while you're at it, state your race when you do (Celtic here) so we can have a measure of your real-life experience. And you're not looking at the whole picture unless you consider that income disparity coupled with racism puts a disproportionate number of minority jobs in the hands of white employers, many of whom are still, believe it or not, racist.

It's very simple.

If only it were as simple as you seem to think it is. :(

All working class people are at a disadvantage and your stance is just playing into the systems divide and rule game. There's a reason the Black Panthers believed that the multiculturalism ideology was invented by the CIA after all. Put simply we need to stop racialising issues of class and need to start applying a class analysis to issues of race.

I can agree with some of this, and that as it exists today (not as it was intended, as a balance-tipper for otherwise equally qualified applicants) it is fucked up and does perhaps as much harm as it does good. But tell me, unless you are of the belief that racism itself is a dead issue left to history: what would you replace it with?

B- most affirmative action legislation has to do with admitting a person of color/woman over a white man insofar as the two candidates are largely equal in all other respects. so what's all this "black kids with D averages" bull?



This "bull" comes from how AA is administered. It isnt being admistered on a "all things being equal, the minority wins" case (which is still racism, but since it's against whites, it's ok right?) it's administered on a "there is 15% (insert minority here) population in this arbitrary area, therefor we need to have 15% student body/board of directors (whatever) of said minority. Regardless of whether or not there are sufficient applicants of said minority.

In Britain, large employers have 'ethnic quotas' to reach, which means they can get fined if they aren't employing more than a certain fraction of people of a certain ethnic minority. If it was backwards enforced, meaning Indian restaurants and Turkish kebab shops had to employ 80% whites there would be Hell on.

The employer that turns down a more intelligent candidate for employment to choose someone of his own race should be free to do so. The more intelligent candidate will find a new job, and the business he joins will prosper as it has more intelligent staff. Employers should choose 'the best candidate', and then the market will punish racism.

Equality is achieved when the percentage of minorities in a particular class is proportionate to the percentage of that particular minority in the nation's population.

I see, so this racial quota system will be applied to all aspects of society? The NBA? College sports teams? Can't wait to see the NBA with the exact percentage of white guys, asians, dwarves, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped etc etc.

Or are we only talking "good equality"?

I see, so this racial quota system will be applied to all aspects of society? The NBA? College sports teams? Can't wait to see the NBA with the exact percentage of white guys, asians, dwarves, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped etc etc.

Or are we only talking "good equality"?
The quota should be based upon the number of qualified applicants. If it is, then yes, it should apply to all jobs.

The quota should be based upon the number of qualified applicants. If it is, then yes, it should apply to all jobs.

What happens if there aren't enough "qualified" applicants from a certain group? Do you just employ anyone from that group to meet your quota regardless of qualifications?
Do we then resort to "minority group bingo" when employing people? Candidate A is black and female but Candidate B is black, female, disabled and a muslim! Congrats Candidate B you have won because you fit more of our minority quotas, my condolences Candidate A, you just weren't different enough.

Good plan..... :confused:

What happens if there aren't enough "qualified" applicants from a certain group? Do you just employ anyone from that group to meet your quota regardless of qualifications?
Do we then resort to "minority group bingo" when employing people? Candidate A is black and female but Candidate B is black, female, disabled and a muslim! Congrats Candidate B you have won because you fit more of our minority quotas, my condolences Candidate A, you just weren't different enough.

Good plan..... :confused:
The quota is based upon the number of applicants. There's no way to "not have enough" applicants from a certain group. Hypothetically, let's say that 5% of people of group A apply for a job. Group A makes up 10% of the population. The employer would hire 10% of the applicants from group A.

*Editor's note: "applicants" in this post is shorthand for "qualified applicants".

The quota is based upon the number of applicants. There's no way to "not have enough" applicants from a certain group. Hypothetically, let's say that 5% of people of group A apply for a job. Group A makes up 10% of the population. The employer would hire 10% of the applicants from group A.

I have no idea what your hypothetical means. 5% of the entire population of Group A (who make up 10% of the total population) apply for a job? And you hire 10% of a person from group A? Sounds a bit grisly to me.

So using a country of 300 million you are hypothesising about 150000 peopel from Group A alone applying for a single job. Not to mention how you get 10% Group A and 90% a combination of other groups into a single job. :confused:

I have no idea what your hypothetical means. 5% of the entire population of Group A (who make up 10% of the total population) apply for a job? And you hire 10% of a person from group A? Sounds a bit grisly to me.

So using a country of 300 million you are hypothesising about 150000 peopel from Group A alone applying for a single job. Not to mention how you get 10% Group A and 90% a combination of other groups into a single job. :confused:
No, 5% of the applicants for a job are of group A. Apologies if I didn't make this clear.

wow, congrats, Jello, that is the most racist system i have heard proposed by any non-Nazi around here.

so you're going to hire or admit a certain percentage of minority applicants, regardless of their relative qualification compared to other applicants? as long as they meet the minimum qualification standards for application they get a job, because they have a certain skin tone? that's pure racism, you realize...using a person's ethnic makeup rather than their abilities to award them a position. in your system, a MORE qualified non-minority will thus be denied because he/she wasn't colorful enough, because there were some qualified minorities who have to be admitted to fill the quota.

how about we hold everybody to the same standards of excellence, and ignore their bloody skin tone? how about we don't judge people on accidents of birth, but rather on the choices they make and the successes they earn for themselves as an individual?

so many non-Nazis like to say "there's only one race: the human race" but then don't live that in practice. if we're all one race then why are you trying to grant special privaledges to certain races? sure, you call them "ethnic groups," but that's semantics. it's the same racism.

nothing about having browner skin makes a person different. nothing about having differently shaped eyes makes a person an example of diversity. there is absolutely NOTHING about a person's "ethic makeup" that determines how different or special they are. if you claim there is, congrats you're a racist. that theory tells us that all white people are alike, all black people are alike, and so on and so forth...to be different you have to LOOK different, and that's all that matters. or at least, people of one ethnic group can be a little bit different from each other, but not enough to count as being "diverse," and "diversity" is what we all must want, right?

how about we grant special status based on how different an individual has made himself or herself, rather than on the melanin content he or she was born with? how about we leave racism where it belongs, in the hands of the ignorant KKKers and their ilk? how about we let individual merit rather than racial profiling determine our employment protocals?

Of you guessed that white women are of all socio-economic classes, one gold star for you! :)Not what I was saying. I was talking specifically about those white women who benefit from positive discrimination.

Women of all classes and races have been oppressed for MIL-LEN-I-A!!! Women of any given race are disadvanteged as compared to men of their race.But the real question is are women of the middle and upper classes disadvantaged compared to men and women of the working class. If not that suggests that sex is not the primary oppression.


Here is a chart of race vs. household income from the U.S. Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income99/incxrace.html

Here are some statistics for rental-class tenents in Ontario, Canada:

http://www.geocities.com/torontotenants/reports/age-race.htmlBut neither of those sets of statistics tackle precisely who is helped by affirmative action.

As for economic disadvantages of the children of upper class black households, well, if the income is the same between a black household and a white household, then there is no difference in disadvantages on an economic level. DUH! But more to the point, statistically the incomes are simply not comparible. There are simply fewer per capita black lawyers than white lawyers, even if we assume that all lawyers earn the same accross the racial divide.So if you accept that there is not as much difference across the same class as compared to between different classes, then the schemes you support are simply not helping the vast majority of women or ethnic minoritys. Do people from well off economic backgrounds (of whatever sex or race) actually need a step up compared to those who are not?

And as for the economic systems that maintain this status quo, I place the largest part of the blame on local-property-tax-based public school funding systems.I think that's a large part of it. But there's also the question of the lack of social mobility in modern society.

As far as social disadvantages, well, how about RACISM? Want to pretend it doesn't exist anymore? Go right ahead... but while you're at it, state your race when you do (Celtic here) so we can have a measure of your real-life experience. And you're not looking at the whole picture unless you consider that income disparity coupled with racism puts a disproportionate number of minority jobs in the hands of white employers, many of whom are still, believe it or not, racist.When did I say racism didn't exist? I said that it discriminates against people within their class. So a middle class black person is more oppressed then a middle class white person. Can you think of any black women that are better off then working class males? Now reverse it. Can you think of any member of the working class who is better off then a member of the upper class? Which looks like the primary oppression from that.



If only it were as simple as you seem to think it is. :(



I can agree with some of this, and that as it exists today (not as it was intended, as a balance-tipper for otherwise equally qualified applicants) it is fucked up and does perhaps as much harm as it does good. But tell me, unless you are of the belief that racism itself is a dead issue left to history: what would you replace it with?
A class based approach to social issues. If, as you say, part of the discrimination against black people is that a larger percentage of them are working class, surely this would actually be more advantageous to the majority of black people, instead of the small minority helped by your prefered option.

wow, congrats, Jello, that is the most racist system i have heard proposed by any non-Nazi around here.

so you're going to hire or admit a certain percentage of minority applicants, regardless of their relative qualification compared to other applicants? as long as they meet the minimum qualification standards for application they get a job, because they have a certain skin tone? that's pure racism, you realize...using a person's ethnic makeup rather than their abilities to award them a position. in your system, a MORE qualified non-minority will thus be denied because he/she wasn't colorful enough, because there were some qualified minorities who have to be admitted to fill the quota.

how about we hold everybody to the same standards of excellence, and ignore their bloody skin tone? how about we don't judge people on accidents of birth, but rather on the choices they make and the successes they earn for themselves as an individual?

so many non-Nazis like to say "there's only one race: the human race" but then don't live that in practice. if we're all one race then why are you trying to grant special privaledges to certain races? sure, you call them "ethnic groups," but that's semantics. it's the same racism.

nothing about having browner skin makes a person different. nothing about having differently shaped eyes makes a person an example of diversity. there is absolutely NOTHING about a person's "ethic makeup" that determines how different or special they are. if you claim there is, congrats you're a racist. that theory tells us that all white people are alike, all black people are alike, and so on and so forth...to be different you have to LOOK different, and that's all that matters. or at least, people of one ethnic group can be a little bit different from each other, but not enough to count as being "diverse," and "diversity" is what we all must want, right?

how about we grant special status based on how different an individual has made himself or herself, rather than on the melanin content he or she was born with? how about we leave racism where it belongs, in the hands of the ignorant KKKers and their ilk? how about we let individual merit rather than racial profiling determine our employment protocals?


Thank you for making my point for me. Saved me typing another post. ;)

wow, congrats, Jello, that is the most racist system i have heard proposed by any non-Nazi around here.

so you're going to hire or admit a certain percentage of minority applicants, regardless of their relative qualification compared to other applicants? as long as they meet the minimum qualification standards for application they get a job, because they have a certain skin tone? that's pure racism, you realize...using a person's ethnic makeup rather than their abilities to award them a position. in your system, a MORE qualified non-minority will thus be denied because he/she wasn't colorful enough, because there were some qualified minorities who have to be admitted to fill the quota.

how about we hold everybody to the same standards of excellence, and ignore their bloody skin tone? how about we don't judge people on accidents of birth, but rather on the choices they make and the successes they earn for themselves as an individual?

so many non-Nazis like to say "there's only one race: the human race" but then don't live that in practice. if we're all one race then why are you trying to grant special privaledges to certain races? sure, you call them "ethnic groups," but that's semantics. it's the same racism.

nothing about having browner skin makes a person different. nothing about having differently shaped eyes makes a person an example of diversity. there is absolutely NOTHING about a person's "ethic makeup" that determines how different or special they are. if you claim there is, congrats you're a racist. that theory tells us that all white people are alike, all black people are alike, and so on and so forth...to be different you have to LOOK different, and that's all that matters. or at least, people of one ethnic group can be a little bit different from each other, but not enough to count as being "diverse," and "diversity" is what we all must want, right?

how about we grant special status based on how different an individual has made himself or herself, rather than on the melanin content he or she was born with? how about we leave racism where it belongs, in the hands of the ignorant KKKers and their ilk? how about we let individual merit rather than racial profiling determine our employment protocals?
Ideally, the system that you proposed in this post would be the best one. However, we don't live in an ideal world. The fact remains that employers can and will deny a person a job simply because of their race. This, as we all know, is racism. Now, there are two ways to combat racism. The first way is to educate. Part of education is experience. A racist has to have positive experiences with members of another race before they will cease to be racist. One way of doing this is by having people of different races be co-workers. (The co-worker solution also counteracts the fact that race can and does play a negative role in the minds of many employers.) The other solution is to give all racists lobotomies. Which solution do you prefer?

Ideally, the system that you proposed in this post would be the best one. However, we don't live in an ideal world. The fact remains that employers can and will deny a person a job simply because of their race.

Isn't this the exact same thing as your "system"?

Isn't this the exact same thing as your "system"?
Yes, but the effects of it will be less severe, as the majority group will have an easier time in finding another job.

Ideally, the system that you proposed in this post would be the best one. However, we don't live in an ideal world. The fact remains that employers can and will deny a person a job simply because of their race. This, as we all know, is racism. Now, there are two ways to combat racism. The first way is to educate. Part of education is experience. A racist has to have positive experiences with members of another race before they will cease to be racist. One way of doing this is by having people of different races be co-workers. (The co-worker solution also counteracts the fact that race can and does play a negative role in the minds of many employers.) The other solution is to give all racists lobotomies. Which solution do you prefer?
ahhh, so we would use racist hiring policies to teach racists not to be racist! i get it!

Yes, but the effects of it will be less severe, as the majority group will have an easier time in finding another job.

Less severe to whom? What makes you think they'll easily find a job is your law denies them equal footing in competing for these jobs?

Less severe to whom? What makes you think they'll easily find a job is your law denies them equal footing in competing for these jobs?
hey, those white applicants can just go look for another job that they will be denied if there is anybody with darker skin who meets the minimum standard! what do those privaledged white people have to complain about? it's not like anybody is being racist toward them! oh, wait...

----"Affirmitive action should be based on socio-economic background, not race."

That suggestion is much more equal than the one we have in place now. I simply disagree with affirmative action because it plays a race card. I dont care if it was in favor of white or black or brown or red, the color of ones skin should never be a talking point (or advantage/disadvantage) when we are dealing with people.

bump

Less severe to whom? What makes you think they'll easily find a job is your law denies them equal footing in competing for these jobs?Without the law, racial minorities would be denied equal footing in competing for these jobs. Since racism exists, I will assume that it is proportionate within each group (for instance 10% of racists in the majority are racists, 10% of minority group A are racists (until proven otherwise.)) Therefore, there would be far more racists in the majority group, and likewise the majority group would own most of the businesses and have the power to be racist.
The policy would apply both to jobs where there the majority of applicants are of the majority race, and also where the majority of applicants are of a minority race, therefore it would even out. Without such a policy, racists are free to be discriminatory in their hiring practices since it's difficult to prove. (They could hire one member of a racial minority and point to that person when they refuse to hire other members of that minority.)

----"Affirmitive action should be based on socio-economic background, not race."

That suggestion is much more equal than the one we have in place now. I simply disagree with affirmative action because it plays a race card. I dont care if it was in favor of white or black or brown or red, the color of ones skin should never be a talking point (or advantage/disadvantage) when we are dealing with people.
But the fact remains that it is an advantage (without affirmative action) for people. You can either educate racism out of people (which affirmative action would fit one method of doing so) or you can lobotomize them. While I agree that classism is something that we have to deal with, it would be foolish to assume that just by solving the class problem, we will also solve the race problem.

Without the law, racial minorities would be denied equal footing in competing for these jobs. Since racism exists, I will assume that it is proportionate within each group (for instance 10% of racists in the majority are racists, 10% of minority group A are racists (until proven otherwise.))

10% of racists are racists...my figures lean towards 100% of racists being racist.

Therefore, there would be far more racists in the majority group, and likewise the majority group would own most of the businesses and have the power to be racist.

Are you even reading the crap you are typing?

The policy would apply both to jobs where there the majority of applicants are of the majority race, and also where the majority of applicants are of a minority race, therefore it would even out. Without such a policy, racists are free to be discriminatory in their hiring practices since it's difficult to prove. (They could hire one member of a racial minority and point to that person when they refuse to hire other members of that minority.)

People should be free to employ who they choose based on who they think is best qualified for the position.
Do you then propose 70% of people working in a Chinese restaurant have to be white? Or as I have gleaned from this statement you can pick and choose where AA is applied depending on whether the majority of applicants are from the "majority". I ask you to further determine where your definition of minorities ends. We have "race" which you determine is judged on skin colour, eye shape etc. Then we have religion, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, disabilities the list goes on. Where does it end? Does it end up where we havr to keep data bases on what groups are represent and underrepresented and also require job applicants to fill out a survey as to what groups they belong to. Oh, its your lucky day, we are short on Sudanese Coptic Christians...welcome aboard!!

If anything colleges should look at all students equally. If student A is the same as B academically then they should see which one has less money. That one should go to college because his family needs it more and he has been dealt a bad card in life to begin with. And to Spoffin it's because they're poor not black.

Great idea, I approve.

10% of racists are racists...my figures lean towards 100% of racists being racist.

Are you even reading the crap you are typing?

People should be free to employ who they choose based on who they think is best qualified for the position.

Do you then propose 70% of people working in a Chinese restaurant have to be white? Or as I have gleaned from this statement you can pick and choose where AA is applied depending on whether the majority of applicants are from the "majority". I ask you to further determine where your definition of minorities ends. We have "race" which you determine is judged on skin colour, eye shape etc. Then we have religion, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, disabilities the list goes on. Where does it end? Does it end up where we havr to keep data bases on what groups are represent and underrepresented and also require job applicants to fill out a survey as to what groups they belong to. Oh, its your lucky day, we are short on Sudanese Coptic Christians...welcome aboard!!

1) Yes, I meant 10% of people are racist (as a hypothetical). I used the wrong word.

2) Other than using the wrong word, yes, I have, but clearly you aren't.

3) In most cases, I agree that people should be able to choose who they think is best qualified for the position. However, without affirmative action, people will choose the white person - simply for being white. You haven't answered the question of how to eliminate racism. I suppose you pretend it doesn't exist. And certainly it's odd to impose racism with the goal of eliminating racism, however you have to keep in mind that the workplace is the best place to get people of two separate races together and have them get to know each other. Racists won't voluntarily communicate with a member of a different race, but they might for employment. Naturally, as racism decreases, the system would change. Do you have an alternate proposal for eliminating racism?

4) A national database would be fine, however it wouldn't be a "two for one" deal. You could hire a black female Jew, but you would have to pick whether you're filling the black, the female, or the Jew quota.

1) Yes, I meant 10% of people are racist (as a hypothetical). I used the wrong word.

Yes, you did use the wrong word so it made no sense.

2) Other than using the wrong word, yes, I have, but clearly you aren't.

No, you said because (hypothetically) 10% of all races are racists then the majority group would have more racists. Way to state the obvious. I wasn't aware affirmative action was designed to punish the race with the most racists, even hypothetical racists.

3) In most cases, I agree that people should be able to choose who they think is best qualified for the position. However, without affirmative action, people will choose the white person - simply for being white.

Complete crap.

You haven't answered the question of how to eliminate racism. I suppose you pretend it doesn't exist.

Racism exists, you are a racist as you support a racist agenda such as AA. But that asides, how does punishing a member of the majority race stop racism? Does it not only propagate racism by denying a person a job because of their race?

And certainly it's odd to impose racism with the goal of eliminating racism, however you have to keep in mind that the workplace is the best place to get people of two separate races together and have them get to know each other.

Why do two people of differing races HAVE to be together? Have you ever worked? very place I have worked at have employed the BEST QUALIFIED PERSON regardless of race, gender or religion. Your social engineering agenda is what I find quite offensive, as though everyone is too stupid to make their own choices and we need the likes of you to tell us who to employ and why.

Racists won't voluntarily communicate with a member of a different race, but they might for employment. Naturally, as racism decreases, the system would change. Do you have an alternate proposal for eliminating racism?

Racism will die on its own once people stop creating new ways to divide people of different races. AA divides people into groups and plays them off against each other, that creates friction, not harmony. My answer to eliminate racism, leave everyone the hell alone and stop tampering in the ways society interacts. Racism will never completely die, there will always be racists. Forcing people to work under quota systems does not remove racism, it breeds resentment between races.

4) A national database would be fine, however it wouldn't be a "two for one" deal. You could hire a black female Jew, but you would have to pick whether you're filling the black, the female, or the Jew quota.

Yes, good plan. Lets remove racism by making a national race database and then get people to nominate which card they will play when applying for a job. Are you really sure you read what you post?

No, you said because (hypothetically) 10% of all races are racists then the majority group would have more racists. Way to state the obvious. I wasn't aware affirmative action was designed to punish the race with the most racists, even hypothetical racists.



Complete crap.



Racism exists, you are a racist as you support a racist agenda such as AA. But that asides, how does punishing a member of the majority race stop racism? Does it not only propagate racism by denying a person a job because of their race?



Why do two people of differing races HAVE to be together? Have you ever worked? very place I have worked at have employed the BEST QUALIFIED PERSON regardless of race, gender or religion. Your social engineering agenda is what I find quite offensive, as though everyone is too stupid to make their own choices and we need the likes of you to tell us who to employ and why.



Racism will die on its own once people stop creating new ways to divide people of different races. AA divides people into groups and plays them off against each other, that creates friction, not harmony. My answer to eliminate racism, leave everyone the hell alone and stop tampering in the ways society interacts. Racism will never completely die, there will always be racists. Forcing people to work under quota systems does not remove racism, it breeds resentment between races.



Yes, good plan. Lets remove racism by making a national race database and then get people to nominate which card they will play when applying for a job. Are you really sure you read what you post?

1) AA isn't designed to "punish" anyone, it's designed to make things more equal.

2) Umm..no, it isn't complete crap, people have given preferential treatment to various races without AA, and would continue to do so without AA.

3) AA isn't a punishment. And it would only propagate racism in a person who is already racist.

4) Because the only way to eliminate racism is by having two people of different races to be together. Or you could give racists lobotomies. How do you know that every place you worked employed the best qualified person, were you in charge of hiring?

5) Well, being that your idea of eliminating racism has failed, it's time to try something else. People have always found ways of dividing people into different races, and will continue to do so if left to their own devices. And, again, it would only breed resentment in someone who is already racist.

6) The idea of "playing a race card" is rather absurd. Many applications for things have an area in which to check Race, if only for statistical purposes. And I don't know about where you live, but there is already a national database here.

1) AA isn't designed to "punish" anyone, it's designed to make things more equal.

Yes it is. It punishes the majority.

2) Umm..no, it isn't complete crap, people have given preferential treatment to various races without AA, and would continue to do so without AA.

And AA gives preferential treatment to various races. AA is racist.

3) AA isn't a punishment. And it would only propagate racism in a person who is already racist.

So a white man goes for a job and doesn't get it because he is white and he is somehow a racist? AA is punishment, it punishes people for not being "different" enough.

4) Because the only way to eliminate racism is by having two people of different races to be together. Or you could give racists lobotomies. How do you know that every place you worked employed the best qualified person, were you in charge of hiring?

How does forcing people of different races by using a racist system eliminate reacism?
Answer to your question. Yes, I was involved in hiring.

5) Well, being that your idea of eliminating racism has failed, it's time to try something else. People have always found ways of dividing people into different races, and will continue to do so if left to their own devices. And, again, it would only breed resentment in someone who is already racist.

How has my idea failed? No-one has even tried letting people work things out for themselves. There is always some group tampering with society trying to lable and divide people. AA divides people into races and plays them off against each other.

6) The idea of "playing a race card" is rather absurd. Many applications for things have an area in which to check Race, if only for statistical purposes. And I don't know about where you live, but there is already a national database here.

AA is playing the race card. Look to your left and you will see where I live. We don't have a national database listing who is from what ethnic or religious group and thats the way it should stay.

:headbang: I usually stay out of the AA discussions because I get so tired of hearing people argue over what they think AA is. And they're WRONG! Last time people, AA does not automatically give a job/scholarship/promotion/whatever to a person of color. AA looks at the ethnic makeup of the representative population and the ethnic make up of employees/students/whatever and if a specific group is under represented by perentage as employees/students/whatever when compared to that groups percentage of the general populace, then a member of the under represented group should be given preference when equally qualified as other candidates. If you're talking about anything else it's not AA! If there is no under representation then there is no preferental treatment! It does not specify race so if whites were under represented it would apply to them also!

:headbang: I usually stay out of the AA discussions because I get so tired of hearing people argue over what they think AA is. And they're WRONG! Last time people, AA does not automatically give a job/scholarship/promotion/whatever to a person of color. AA looks at the ethnic makeup of the representative population and the ethnic make up of employees/students/whatever and if a specific group is under represented by perentage as employees/students/whatever when compared to that groups percentage of the general populace, then a member of the under represented group should be given preference when equally qualified as other candidates. If you're talking about anything else it's not AA! If there is no under representation then there is no preferental treatment! It does not specify race so if whites were under represented it would apply to them also!

Which is still discrimination basd on race.

Which is still discrimination basd on race. :rolleyes: Yeah right, whatever. It's only implimented when there already is discrimination, but AA is the problem. Now you know why I try to stay out of these threads. You can't pound a new idea through some thick skulls with a sledghammer.

:rolleyes: Yeah right, whatever. It's only implimented when there already is discrimination, but AA is the problem. Now you know why I try to stay out of these threads. You can't pound a new idea through some thick skulls with a sledghammer.

So it does not discriminate on race then? Which is it? Don't make a statement and then throw a tantrum when the obvious flaw in your argument is pointed out.

So it does not discriminate on race then? Which is it? Don't make a statement and then throw a tantrum when the obvious flaw in your argument is pointed out.You haven't pointed out any flaw, AA is used to try to correct discrimination already imbedded. Perhaps you don't know the difference but that wasn't a tantrum that was exasperation. Like I said I get so tired of trying to correct those who refuse to acknowledge the true concept of AA and insist on clinging to their own twisted interpretations that they can rail against. AA is not a perfect solution but it deals with an imperfect situation. It is not however the reverse discrimination that so many claim it is. In a perfect world it would be moot and unapplicable, the fact that it still is applied in some places proves how far we have to go.

You haven't pointed out any flaw, AA is used to try to correct discrimination already imbedded. Perhaps you don't know the difference but that wasn't a tantrum that was exasperation. Like I said I get so tired of trying to correct those who refuse to acknowledge the true concept of AA and insist on clinging to their own twisted interpretations that they can rail against. AA is not a perfect solution but it deals with an imperfect situation. It is not however the reverse discrimination that so many claim it is. In a perfect world it would be moot and unapplicable, the fact that it still is applied in some places proves how far we have to go.
from reading your qouted post i see you live in some fantasy world. your fantasy world has discrimination, and AA fixes it prefectly with no danger to other people becuase its smart and know when to do stuff

i will take NO for 400, Alex.




affirmative action is blind: although it has been ruled unconstitutional once, that probably hasnt changed the fact that there are still schools holding places solely for african americans,so white people cant get in the school. and there is the fact that many many times AA has caused an underqualified minority to be taken in place of a much much more qualified majority, ie white male. this is to keep them from being sued for racism and to keep with some inane standard of AA, its not to fix racism, its to fix being sued. there is no reason to hire some one underqualified for the job or let some one with far less bling on their application into a college other than AA. AA as applied is reverse racism everywhere other than your fantasy world.

your right, in a perfect world its unapplicable, sadly you live half way between that world and the real one

from reading your qouted post i see you live in some fantasy world. your fantasy world has discrimination, and AA fixes it prefectly with no danger to other people becuase its smart and know when to do stuff

i will take NO for 400, Alex.




affirmative action is blind: although it has been ruled unconstitutional once, that probably hasnt changed the fact that there are still schools holding places solely for african americans,so white people cant get in the school. and there is the fact that many many times AA has caused an underqualified minority to be taken in place of a much much more qualified majority, ie white male. this is to keep them from being sued for racism and to keep with some inane standard of AA, its not to fix racism, its to fix being sued. there is no reason to hire some one underqualified for the job or let some one with far less bling on their application into a college other than AA. AA as applied is reverse racism everywhere other than your fantasy world.

your right, in a perfect world its unapplicable, sadly you live half way between that world and the real one :rolleyes: I knew I shoulda gone to bed and left this thread alone, like I said before you can't pound a new idea through some thick skulls with a sledgehammer. I didn't create AA and don't claim it to be the perfect solution, I do however know the correct definition and how it is intended to be implimented. I also am aware of the scar of discrimination and racism that is still healing across this country. I also know that the admission policies of most private universities, while tempered by their boards to achieve a more diverse student body, are not actually subject to AA. Know what you complain about. Anyways I'm out, big day tommorrow.

:rolleyes: I knew I shoulda gone to bed and left this thread alone, like I said before you can't pound a new idea through some thick skulls with a sledgehammer. I didn't create AA and don't claim it to be the perfect solution, I do however know the correct definition and how it is intended to be implimented. I also am aware of the scar of discrimination and racism that is still healing across this country. I also know that the admission policies of most private universities, while tempered by their boards to achieve a more diverse student body, are not actually subject to AA. Know what you complain about. Anyways I'm out, big day tommorrow.
so you pretend how it is INTENDED to be used is how it is ACTUALLY being used? you have got to be kidding me, have you done ANY research? any at all, just one fucking shred of research?

i will agree, it was a great idea ON PAPER, it has been abused to the breaking point and to the factor of reverse racism and sexism, period.

I know everything.

You haven't pointed out any flaw, AA is used to try to correct discrimination already imbedded. Perhaps you don't know the difference but that wasn't a tantrum that was exasperation. Like I said I get so tired of trying to correct those who refuse to acknowledge the true concept of AA and insist on clinging to their own twisted interpretations that they can rail against. AA is not a perfect solution but it deals with an imperfect situation. It is not however the reverse discrimination that so many claim it is. In a perfect world it would be moot and unapplicable, the fact that it still is applied in some places proves how far we have to go.

How is it not reverse discrimination when, as you said yourself, it advocates selecting a candidate based on race? You can crap on about "the true concept of AA" but the true concept of AA is racial discrimination. you have said so yourself, perhaps it is time you acknowledged the true concept of AA.

How is it not reverse discrimination when, as you said yourself, it advocates selecting a candidate based on race? You can crap on about "the true concept of AA" but the true concept of AA is racial discrimination. you have said so yourself, perhaps it is time you acknowledged the true concept of AA.


It's a necessary evil.

(and no, I have no idea what I'm talking about)

Affirmative action is discrimination against white people. Nothing more nothing less.

Affirmative action is discrimination against white people. Nothing more nothing less.

Agreed, I bet you wish you hadnt said that now lol.

And AA gives preferential treatment to various races. AA is racist.

So a white man goes for a job and doesn't get it because he is white and he is somehow a racist?

How does forcing people of different races by using a racist system eliminate reacism?

How has my idea failed? No-one has even tried letting people work things out for themselves. There is always some group tampering with society trying to lable and divide people.

1) I never denied that.
2) No, if he assumes that a member of a racial minority got a job because of AA, and not because of their qualifications, then he's racist.
3) I've explained this already. The only way to eliminate racism is to educate people. The best way of educating people is through experience. Work is a perfect place for people of different races/backgrounds to get to know each other.
4) Sure they have. For instance, during the immigration waves of the 1800s, the Irish would come over. Everyone that was already here felt that the Irish were coming to take their jobs, and therefore hated the Irish. Then the Italians came. Everyone previous hated the Italians, too, and the Irish and Italians hated each other. Then the Slovaks came. Etc. I'm not sure about the order, but the point is that when left to their own devices, people found more ways to divide themselves from the next person.

1) I never denied that.

Good, then you acknowledge that you support racism?

2) No, if he assumes that a member of a racial minority got a job because of AA, and not because of their qualifications, then he's racist.

So AA is acceptable to you as long as someone who got the job through AA is not recorded as having got the job by that means? Your response proves my point, AA breeds resentment. That person was not a racist for thinking the minority got the job because of AA, he is disenfranchised by your racist policy. If the minority got the job purely because of their qualifications then why do you insist we need AA? If the minority did get the job because of AA does the person rejected because they are not "different" enough have the right to feel aggrieved?

3) I've explained this already. The only way to eliminate racism is to educate people. The best way of educating people is through experience. Work is a perfect place for people of different races/backgrounds to get to know each other.

How does discriminating against the majority instil harmony? It only divides and teaches resentment. Education about other cultures helps but government instituted racism is not education other than educating people that minorities are given preferential treatment purely based on their race.

4) Sure they have. For instance, during the immigration waves of the 1800s, the Irish would come over. Everyone that was already here felt that the Irish were coming to take their jobs, and therefore hated the Irish. Then the Italians came. Everyone previous hated the Italians, too, and the Irish and Italians hated each other. Then the Slovaks came. Etc. I'm not sure about the order, but the point is that when left to their own devices, people found more ways to divide themselves from the next person.

Thank you for helping me make my point. Where are the Irish, Italians and Slovaks now? They are integrated parts of society and it happened without AA. These migrants were accepted based on their contribution to society, not because the government ensured they got jobs over the majority.

Good, then you acknowledge that you support racism?

If the minority got the job purely because of their qualifications then why do you insist we need AA?

How does discriminating against the majority instil harmony? It only divides and teaches resentment. Education about other cultures helps but government instituted racism is not education other than educating people that minorities are given preferential treatment purely based on their race.

Thank you for helping me make my point. Where are the Irish, Italians and Slovaks now? They are integrated parts of society and it happened without AA. These migrants were accepted based on their contribution to society, not because the government ensured they got jobs over the majority.

1) I support the ending of racism, or at the very least dividing it up so that everyone experiences it equally.

2) Because without AA some employers will use an applicants race as a reason to deny them a job. Or there would be some other "ism". For instance, over 2,500,000 women are suing Wal-Mart for gender discrimination.

3) Yes, educating people about different cultures helps, but actually getting to know someone of a different culture works better. A racist wouldn't voluntarily get to know someone of a different race, but s/he might do so if they were coworkers.

4) Well, when the blacks started to fight for their civil rights, all of the racists within those and other groups bonded together and ignored their dislike of the others of European descent. So basically in order for blacks and whites to get along, they'd have to find a common enemy. It's already happening with the Arabs. All of that seems rather counterproductive to me.

1) I support the ending of racism, or at the very least dividing it up so that everyone experiences it equally.

I keep reading that over and over and it still makes no sense to me at all.

2) Because without AA some employers will use an applicants race as a reason to deny them a job. Or there would be some other "ism". For instance, over 2,500,000 women are suing Wal-Mart for gender discrimination.

And because of AA some employers will use an applicants race to deny them a job. Only this time it is government legislated racism. Let people sue if they feel aggrieved, but on what basis does the government have to assume everyone who employs people is a racist? As I have already stated, goverment instituted racism is still racism.

3) Yes, educating people about different cultures helps, but actually getting to know someone of a different culture works better. A racist wouldn't voluntarily get to know someone of a different race, but s/he might do so if they were coworkers.

Educating people about tolerance and other cultures is the only real solution. I make a point of stating that this includes tolerance of ALL cultures by ALL people not just whites being tolerant of ethnic groups and no reciprocation. I think the flaw in your logic is that you assume everyone is a racist. Your frequent referral to anyone from a majority group as a racist is concerning to me. Forcing people to work with people of different groups does not create a harmonious society, it breeds resentment from those marginalised by your hyocritical implementation of racist policy to curb racism.

4) Well, when the blacks started to fight for their civil rights, all of the racists within those and other groups bonded together and ignored their dislike of the others of European descent. So basically in order for blacks and whites to get along, they'd have to find a common enemy. It's already happening with the Arabs. All of that seems rather counterproductive to me.

So you are changing the topic now? I take it you agree that the ethnic groups you mentioned previously have integrated into society over time? The comment you posted has no relevance to the topic being discussed.