NationStates Jolt Archive

Just taking a poll as to who here on NS supports it . . . (let's avoid a discussion on it being good or bad, lest the thread and my poll spiral down in flames)

No, I do not.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

no, but only because i support revolutionary change rather than reformist attempts to patch things up. but i will defend it as both just and necessary against rightwing attempts to just get rid of it and pretend that everything is just peachy.

Here, Here! It has no place in an equal society.

Here, Here! It has no place in an equal society.

and when you have one, it will be gone.

Hire a man for his merits, not for the color of his skin!

and when you have one, it will be gone.
We can't even decide on the meaning of equal. It won't be gone unless it's deliberately taken away.

Affirmative action is a sham especially in education. All the statistics taken have showen that in almost every case, kids who are either not ready to enter a college setting or who are not prepared to meet the rigerious demands universities have are getting in to schools without the proper basic education and thus either never graduate or take twice as long to graduate.. infact these kids have among the highest drop out rates. This is the greatest fault of putting unqualified students into more advanced schools. The same can be said about the work place. Putting employees in positions who are not qulified or who are less qualified then others...

Affirmative action is a sham especially in education. All the statistics taken have showen that in almost every case, kids who are either not ready to enter a college setting or who are not prepared to meet the rigerious demands universities have are getting in to schools without the proper basic education and thus either never graduate or take twice as long to graduate.. infact these kids have among the highest drop out rates. This is the greatest fault of putting unqualified students into more advanced schools. The same can be said about the work place. Putting employees in positions who are not qulified or who are less qualified then others...
That shouldn't happen, according to legal precedent. Quotas, separate lists, etc. are forbidden.

EDIT: The actual issue is about whether or not private entities have a right to be racist/sexist/whateverist.

We can't even decide on the meaning of equal. It won't be gone unless it's deliberately taken away.

the actual idea behind it has an empirically testable method for determining whether it has done its job or not. aa will have achieved its aims when all socially relevant groups hold positions at all levels of society roughly in proportion with the actual makeup of society. but not many people bother making that argument very much.

i personally don't think it will ever achieve its goal, but that's just me bashing reformism.

To some extent I support it as reparations for slavery and other racially motivated offenses in the past.

As a Hispanic, no

Do you mean legally binding or as something I can practice as an individual?

Affirmative Action is racism. Instead of oppressing someone for being of a race, they uplift them.

Blacks need to understand that the NAACP is harming them nowadays more than helping them. The NAACP keeps saying that the blacks are still being oppressed and that whites are evil. This gives them a bad image. They are not victims, but if the blacks all realize they are not victims, the NAACP loses its power, and they cant' have that, so they must brainwash them into thinking they are still victims.

Obviously, AA is more than about blacks. Mostly it's a thing saying "If you're not white, you can get help. If you ARE white, fuck off."

Do you mean legally binding or as something I can practice as an individual?

I believe legally binding. Frankly, I think a privatized business should be allowed to hire or fire people for any reason whatsoever, whether it be "socially acceptable" or not. If the public doesn't like the owner's policies, they can boycott it. That's what capitalism's partially about.

the actual idea behind it has an empirically testable method for determining whether it has done its job or not. aa will have achieved its aims when all socially relevant groups hold positions at all levels of society roughly in proportion with the actual makeup of society. but not many people bother making that argument very much.

i personally don't think it will ever achieve its goal, but that's just me bashing reformism.
That seems reasonable. I agree, though, that I don't see AA accomplishing that, certainly not alone. Heck, it might even slow it down (I believe that it's going to happen eventually, regardless).

read any credible developmental psychology journal's article on culture and race and you will find that percieved discrimination causes severe psychological trauma. Anyone who is able to overcome such adversity and maintain faith in a pluralistic, society deserves special consideration. Their continued dedication towards education is a show of character because studies show that people who are negatively stereotyped based on race are less far less apt to put forth effort academically. If you are asking me if I would want a student with a 3.6 GPA, who has tutors and and a private school background, and a car, and who has never been taunted for the color of their skin or a student with a 3.5 GPA with teachers who have already recieved their tenure and have long stopped trying at their job, who had to ride the bus to school, who has to deal with stereotypes about their culture in the media and how he or she identifies with those stereotypes, who rides the bus, I would obviously choose the latter because they have shown their character through overcoming adversity. Being sucessful in life is more than just good grades, it is about character.

read any credible developmental psychology journal's article on culture and race and you will find that percieved discrimination causes severe psychological trauma. Anyone who is able to overcome such adversity and maintain faith in a pluralistic, society deserves special consideration. Their continued dedication towards education is a show of character because studies show that people who are negatively stereotyped based on race are less far less apt to put forth effort academically. If you are asking me if I would want a student with a 3.6 GPA, who has tutors and and a private school background, and a car, and who has never been taunted for the color of their skin or a student with a 3.5 GPA with teachers who have already recieved their tenure and have long stopped trying at their job, who had to ride the bus to school, who has to deal with stereotypes about their culture in the media and how he or she identifies with those stereotypes, who rides the bus, I would obviously choose the latter because they have shown their character through overcoming adversity. Being sucessful in life is more than just good grades, it is about character.

Not a bad position in itself, but not one I'd like to see my government make a law based on.

the actual idea behind it has an empirically testable method for determining whether it has done its job or not. aa will have achieved its aims when all socially relevant groups hold positions at all levels of society roughly in proportion with the actual makeup of society. but not many people bother making that argument very much.
That is the *only* argument anyone ever makes in regards to AA, and its bullshit.

People should only be given there jobs based on merit, not on their skin color. You look at the culture that most Black kids grow up in and try to tell me honestly that is the kind of culture that produces scientists, CEOs and engineers. You can't do that. You can look at that culture and tell me it produces athletes, rappers and thugs. AA lies about reality. If we want to try and get a country where everything exists in rough proportion to race (which is a stupid idea anyway, we should be abandoning the entire damned concept of race) we would need to change the way kids are raised, not impose AA on society.

Certainly not. It's discrimination.

no, but only because i support revolutionary change rather than reformist attempts to patch things up. but i will defend it as both just and necessary against rightwing attempts to just get rid of it and pretend that everything is just peachy.
Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Thinking that doesn't make me right-wing. Affirimitive action is no way to solve problems. More money and thought must be put into primary and secondary education in order to create an equal society.

Frankly, I think a privatized business should be allowed to hire or fire people for any reason whatsoever, whether it be "socially acceptable" or not. If the public doesn't like the owner's policies, they can boycott it. That's what capitalism's partially about.
In theory, that's true. But in reality, the vast majority of consumers don't care how immoral a company is as long as they deliver the goods. That's why we need regulation to ensure corporate ethics. In most cases, I think racist and sexist hiring policies should be illegal (obviously if your business is a strip club or some such you have an exception).

People should only be given there jobs based on merit, not on their skin color. You look at the culture that most Black kids grow up in and try to tell me honestly that is the kind of culture that produces scientists, CEOs and engineers. You can't do that. You can look at that culture and tell me it produces athletes, rappers and thugs. AA lies about reality. If we want to try and get a country where everything exists in rough proportion to race (which is a stupid idea anyway, we should be abandoning the entire damned concept of race) we would need to change the way kids are raised, not impose AA on society.

i'm going to ignore the racist attitudes in your post.

as i said, i'm not in favor of aa because i don't think it will ultimately work. but its nothing to do with culture and everything to do with class - specifically the special sort of class that was directly created through state enforcement in addition to private enforcement that that we term 'race'. i largely agree with the goal of aa, but to really make it work, we're going to have to engage in some large-scale restructuring of society from the bottom up. and if you get rid of it, there will be more support for such a project. most opponents of aa will like that even less.

if you want a society based on 'merit', you cannot also have a system that perpetuates a stark divide between those with access to the things that create 'merit' and those that don't.

More money and thought must be put into primary and secondary education in order to create an equal society.

and that means that you don't think that everything is just peachy now. which puts you in roughly the same position as me.

In theory, that's true. But in reality, the vast majority of consumers don't care how immoral a company is as long as they deliver the goods. That's why we need regulation to ensure corporate ethics. In most cases, I think racist and sexist hiring policies should be illegal (obviously if your business is a strip club or some such you have an exception).

But in a free market capitalist society, companies which hired people based on skin colour or nation of origin would generally be outdone by companies which hired people based on skill. A company which is hiring skilled workers from all ethnic backgrounds has at least twice the potential employee pool of one which is hiring only whites, or only christians, or whatever racist employment policy they have.

Further, I think that many people of today are in fact morally integral or even just sensible enough to question the practices of a company which is hiring only people from one race. I'd certainly prefer to buy from a company which hired only based on skill, because I'd know their products were likely to be better thanks to their broader pool of potential employees.

AA may have begun with the best of intentions, but like welfare and other "social" programs it has created a culture of victims. This victim culture is further perpetuated and supported by colleges and universities as well as popular media. The only thing that can result from this is a whole group of people who are not accountable for their actions. If you notice the biggest supporters of AA are not directly affected by it, ( jesse jackson, the clintons NAACP ect.) There is no equality in america and there will never be as long as people benefit from the myth of a white man in a glass tower somewhere keeping every one down. i grew up in black neighboorhood and i am sick of being the scape goat for bad decisions. its time this fantasy is put to rest.

and that means that you don't think that everything is just peachy now. which puts you in roughly the same position as me.

The only reason things aren't peachy now is because government is trying to sort everything out. The simpler folk in society are bound to feel contempt for their neighbors if the government says they should get a better job opportunity purely because of their skin colour or religion.

I'm a firm believer in equal opportunity for all races and religious creeds, but when I say equal opportunity, I mean equal opportunity, in the sense that everyone is treated the same by the law, not government mandating who works where and why.

i'm going to ignore the racist attitudes in your post.

Racist attitudes my ass. You ignore them because the statements are true, and there is nothing racist behind a truthful statement. Your culture shapes who you are, how you behave and what kind of life you will make for yourself. The culture that most black kids grow up in is not one where you decide to be a scientist, engineer, architect etc... Some kids decide to do that despite what they grew up in, but most don't. Perhaps you believe it is merely by coincidence that we have a large amount of black athletes, a large amount of black rappers and a large amount of black criminals? And it likewise by coincide that the majority of black youths want to be rappers and athletes?

as i said, i'm not in favor of aa because i don't think it will ultimately work. but its nothing to do with culture and everything to do with class -

Culture is class and class is culture, there is no distinguishable difference between them in this discussion.

specifically the special sort of class that was directly created through state enforcement in addition to private enforcement that that we term 'race'.

State enforcement and private enforcement that no longer exists today.

i largely agree with the goal of aa, but to really make it work, we're going to have to engage in some large-scale restructuring of society from the bottom up. and if you get rid of it, there will be more support for such a project. most opponents of aa will like that even less.

Society changes itself eventually overtime and eventually the large scale restricting that you are thinking of will occur, but it won't occur with crap like AA kicing around.

if you want a society based on 'merit', you cannot also have a system that perpetuates a stark divide between those with access to the things that create 'merit' and those that don't.

A society based on merit is the society that looks at your resume and picks the better candidate. You can not have that while having any sort of state sanctioned racism, and that most definitely includes anything that gives anyone an upper hand because of race.

No. Affirmative Action is a racist system.

But in a free market capitalist society, companies which hired people based on skin colour or nation of origin would generally be outdone by companies which hired people based on skill. A company which is hiring skilled workers from all ethnic backgrounds has at least twice the potential employee pool of one which is hiring only whites, or only christians, or whatever racist employment policy they have.

except that there are a whole pile of social factors which perpetuate a gross disparity in access to the means to gain 'skills' between the various socially-created races. if you just decide that everything is fine now and stop aa and similar programs, you are still going to have people of darker skin tones living in the worst areas and working the worst jobs, while people of lighter skin color will still hold all the positions of power. and that situation will continue until the actual problem is addressed.

I support Affirmative Action, but I am also disappointed in the way it has been handled recently.

I believe that even to this day many people are rejected from certain jobs/schools based on the color of their skin, etc., so I think that such a program is necessary. At the same time, I've always thought that Affirmative Action should've been a temporary program, which would eventually be done away with when such prejudices could be considered close to non-existant.

except that there are a whole pile of social factors which perpetuate a gross disparity in access to the means to gain 'skills' between the various socially-created races. if you just decide that everything is fine now and stop aa and similar programs, you are still going to have people of darker skin tones living in the worst areas and working the worst jobs, while people of lighter skin color will still hold all the positions of power. and that situation will continue until the actual problem is addressed.

No, the situation will evolve and change and lo and behold it will eventually end up at the situation you seem to want. You can not create a equal society by taking what exists and that plucking people and placing them in positions of power and taking those in power and plucking them out of it. Especially not in our little Republic here.

No, the situation will evolve and change and lo and behold it will eventually end up at the situation you seem to want. You can not create a equal society by taking what exists and that plucking people and placing them in positions of power and taking those in power and plucking them out of it. Especially not in our little Republic here.


social situations do not just evolve without some active work to make them change. things do not just work themselves out on their own without human agency.

It's a proven fact that people of darker races typically don't emphasize grades and school performance, that's why they work in low-paying jobs. I read a newspaper article long ago that showed that asian parents are on average very strict on grades; practically an A average in school. White parents wouldn't tolerate a GPA below a B, Hispanics, C, Blacks etc.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-schools.htm

social situations do not just evolve without some active work to make them change. things do not just work themselves out on their own without human agency.

Yes, and there is an active work to make it change as we speak. And that active work is *not* AA. AA is like using a scaple to heal a knife cut. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

Besides which, an equal society is not equal because of state enforced proportional representation in jobs. It is an equal society because of equal opportunities. AA doesn't even pretend to give equal opportunities.

It's a proven fact that people of darker races typically don't emphasize grades and school performance, that's why they work in low-paying jobs. I read a newspaper article long ago that showed that asian parents are on average very strict on grades; practically an A average in school. White parents wouldn't tolerate a GPA below a B, Hispanics, C, Blacks etc.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-schools.htm

I think that may be bull. Just looking at all the dumbasses at my school who are white, hispanic, and black... it's hard to believe it.

Wait, wait, note the word AVERAGE. If your sample size is the population of Butt-fuck, Georgia, you will recieve different results.

Yes, and there is an active work to make it change as we speak. And that active work is *not* AA. AA is like using a scaple to heal a knife cut. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

Besides which, an equal society is not equal because of state enforced proportional representation in jobs. It is an equal society because of equal opportunities. AA doesn't even pretend to give equal opportunities.

nah, aa is like kissing someone's ouchy, when they actually need stitches.

providing equal opportunity is going to require a massive shift in resource distribution from the privileged to the dispossessed. so let's get started.

More money and thought must be put into primary and secondary education in order to create an equal society.




Typical liberal response - If its broke give it more money.

I think that may be bull. Just looking at all the dumbasses at my school who are white, hispanic, and black... it's hard to believe it.

Its not hard to believe because its frankly true. You can get the California Stanford 9,10,11 and 12 data simply by doing a google search and you can then get the race break down and notice that Asians do better than Whites who do better than Hispanics who do better than Blacks.

nah, aa is like kissing someone's ouchy, when they actually need stitches.

Not really. The problem you are referring to was created via racial discrmination. Try to fix it with more racial discrimination is the same as trying to heal a knife cut with another knife.

providing equal opportunity is going to require a massive shift in resource distribution from the privileged to the dispossessed. so let's get started.

Equal opportunity is already provided fairly well but it needs to be provided better yes. But frankly a 4.0 at X inner city school still gets you into Harvard just as well as a 4.0 at X prep school. Indeed the 4.0 at the inner city school is looked upon more favorably than the 4.0 at a prep school. For the most part in today's world the only reason someone doesn't move past the state of life they were born in is because of lack of effort. For some people that means they started on the first floor and they die on the first floor, for others it means they started on the 5th floor and they die on the 5th floor. Too bad, so sad.

Not only am I against AA, but, being part Native American, I am theoretically able to USE it to my own advantage, whether from AA or the other numerous race-oriented advantages present in the US. Instead, I have decided to make my living on my own merit -- which means, since I look 'white' (though I'm officially undeclared, since I'm a mutt), I get treated as 'white'.

I am outright against any and all use of race, gender, or religion as a basis for giving advantages. It's against the supposed American ideal.

if you want a society based on 'merit', you cannot also have a system that perpetuates a stark divide between those with access to the things that create 'merit' and those that don't.
Like a work ethic, honesty, intelligence and patience.

Not only am I against AA, but, being part Native American, I am theoretically able to USE it to my own advantage, whether from AA or the other numerous race-oriented advantages present in the US. Instead, I have decided to make my living on my own merit -- which means, since I look 'white' (though I'm officially undeclared, since I'm a mutt), I get treated as 'white'.

I am outright against any and all use of race, gender, or religion as a basis for giving advantages. It's against the supposed American ideal.
OK, I'm lily white and quite conservative, but even I cringe when you use the term 'mutt'. I know you don't mean it in a negative sense, but there is a poor history for native americans associated with that term and K9 references in general. How about 'ethnically diverse' or 'best of both worlds' instead? 'Mexican's' are nearly a race on their own merits even they are a blend of native american and euripean.

Like a work ethic, honesty, intelligence and patience.
yes, that's right - and these things must also be genetically determined. that's why blacks are disproportionately poor and poorly educated and working shitty jobs and locked out of holding political power. or why native peoples hold a similar position in latin american countries. or why ethnic minority groups hold such positions in pretty much every state in existence. pardon me when i call bullshit.

yes, that's right - and these things must also be genetically determined. that's why blacks are disproportionately poor and poorly educated and working shitty jobs and locked out of holding political power. or why native peoples hold a similar position in latin american countries. or why ethnic minority groups hold such positions in pretty much every state in existence. pardon me when i call bullshit.

Which is why Asians.. oh yeah...

Its not genetic, its cultural. Blacks don't seem to value education as much as other groups and that hurts their economic and political position in the world. Those blacks who do value education end up in the middle and upper class via hard work and dedication. An interesting phenomena though is that those blacks who do become middle and upper class tend to clump together with other successful blacks voluntarily and actually create black only communities for themselves.

and that means that you don't think that everything is just peachy now. which puts you in roughly the same position as me.
Nobody thinks that everything is just peachy now (well, maybe the naive minority). Just that not everyone agrees on how to make things better.

The goals of the left and right are not really that different (except in the cases of the extremes of both wings). Most leftys and rightys both want to create a society where everyone is prosperous enough to have a decent quality of life. Just we disagree on what are the best ways to achieve these goals.

But in a free market capitalist society, companies which hired people based on skin colour or nation of origin would generally be outdone by companies which hired people based on skill. A company which is hiring skilled workers from all ethnic backgrounds has at least twice the potential employee pool of one which is hiring only whites, or only christians, or whatever racist employment policy they have.

Further, I think that many people of today are in fact morally integral or even just sensible enough to question the practices of a company which is hiring only people from one race. I'd certainly prefer to buy from a company which hired only based on skill, because I'd know their products were likely to be better thanks to their broader pool of potential employees.
Hmmm, that first paragraph makes a lot of sense to me. However, I don't see how I can be for permitting racist employment policy but against affirmitive action. Both are discrimination and I don't like that.

As for your second paragraph, there is the matter of ignorance. If a company had a racist employment policy, chances are they would not be straining to tell the whole world about it. Most consumers probably wouldn't know about a racist hiring policy. And call me cynical, but even if they did I think most still wouldn't care enough to boycott them.

Typical liberal response - If its broke give it more money.
Oh no, he called me a liberal.

Seriously though, I think it's a better long-term approach than AA. I also think that when the populace has education more of them will become entrepeneurs. Thus more will work, unemployment will be reduced and that means welfare can be cut. Which allows us to reach the golden prize of tax reductions!!!!11!

It's a proven fact that people of darker races typically don't emphasize grades and school performance, that's why they work in low-paying jobs. I read a newspaper article long ago that showed that asian parents are on average very strict on grades; practically an A average in school. White parents wouldn't tolerate a GPA below a B, Hispanics, C, Blacks etc.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-schools.htm
Parents who are not educated tend not to care as much about how well their kids do in education. It's a vicious circle. That is why more money and thought must be put into primary and secondary education so as to lift people out of the vicous circle of ignorance.

Hmmm, that first paragraph makes a lot of sense to me. However, I don't see how I can be for permitting racist employment policy but against affirmitive action. Both are discrimination and I don't like that.

AA is forced discrimination by the government. Private, and even publicly held, company discrimination is not by the government. Frankly It should be up to the people that own the bar, own the company, own the farm etc... to decide who they want to employ based on whatever damned principles they want. The government shouldn't have that same privilege but Hooters should (and Hooters seems to exercise it)

Hell no.

No. The correct response is to have Equal Opportunity. This involves large amounts of cash to hire good teachers and improve lower quality ones for every school, weather it be in inner city Baltimore or in Rich Town, Suburbia, and having much higher law enforcement than now, especially in inner cities. Cutting the military budget in half should help out with the costs.

No. The correct response is to have Equal Opportunity. This involves large amounts of cash to hire good teachers and improve lower quality ones for every school, weather it be in inner city Baltimore or in Rich Town, Suburbia, and having much higher law enforcement than now, especially in inner cities. Cutting the military budget in half should help out with the costs.

:rolleyes: riiighhttt Because the military budget is the problem...

EDIT: The actual issue is about whether or not private entities have a right to be racist/sexist/whateverist.

No, the real issue is about whether or not private entities have a right to hire or admit the most qualified candidate. :headbang:

:rolleyes: riiighhttt Because the military budget is the problem...
Well, it's spending...

:rolleyes: riiighhttt Because the military budget is the problem...

cutting the military budget in half would make the u.s.only spend as much money on its military as the next 4 nations combined instead of the next 16. yes, we truly don't spend too much on it.

cutting the military budget in half would make the u.s.only spend as much money on its military as the next 4 nations combined instead of the next 16. yes, we truly don't spend too much on it.

:shrug: compare population, economic size, etc... rather than just the amount they spend on their military please.

:shrug: compare population, economic size, etc... rather than just the amount they spend on their military please.

combined they have a much bigger population (and china alone blows our population away). and they also have a higher combined gdp. any way you cut it, the us spends waaaaaaay too much on its military.

combined they have a much bigger population (and china alone blows our population away). and they also have a higher combined gdp. any way you cut it, the us spends waaaaaaay too much on its military.
I agree. Militarists suck!

combined they have a much bigger population (and china alone blows our population away). and they also have a higher combined gdp. any way you cut it, the us spends waaaaaaay too much on its military.

Any way you cut it the others don't spend enough... :p. This Aside China simply doesn't bother with the toys required to keep its soldiers alive if it were to go to war. The US does and therefor we spend more on less troops while the Chinese would happily outnumber us in troop amount.

Beyound that though, Military spending isn't even the largest portion of our governments budget and the other large nations aren't concenred with having troops everywhere in the world. :shrug:.

This question is always really hard for me - in principle, yes, it is discrimination of a sort. But there are huge inequalities due to past and present societal problems, and I'd like to see something done about those things. Plus, people have a tendency to always prefer (and hire) other people who are like them - so affirmative action is one possible way of addressing that issue.

I guess I really like the American Supreme Court's (relatively) recent decision that quotas must not be used, but other ways of increasing diversity can be.

Also - I think affirmative-action-type-policies should be reformed to reflect economic differences now, more than racial differences. I think that would be a better way of addressing the root of the problem, and could be done without looking at race at all.

Affirmative Action is racism. Instead of oppressing someone for being of a race, they uplift them.

Blacks need to understand that the NAACP is harming them nowadays more than helping them. The NAACP keeps saying that the blacks are still being oppressed and that whites are evil. This gives them a bad image. They are not victims, but if the blacks all realize they are not victims, the NAACP loses its power, and they cant' have that, so they must brainwash them into thinking they are still victims.

Obviously, AA is more than about blacks. Mostly it's a thing saying "If you're not white, you can get help. If you ARE white, fuck off."

It a political organzization that now only exists to advance itself, not the african-american race.

Further, I think that many people of today are in fact morally integral or even just sensible enough to question the practices of a company which is hiring only people from one race.
I have to disagree. People don't care about the massive sweatshop abuses perpetrated by companies like Wal-Mart, I highly doubt they'd care about something comparitively miniscule like racist employment practices.

No, the real issue is about whether or not private entities have a right to hire or admit the most qualified candidate. :headbang:Yes, and as long as private entities decide (without AA) that race will be a qualification for employment, AA is needed.

Yes, and as long as private entities decide (without AA) that race will be a qualification for employment, AA is needed.
umm, so as long as companies decide that race is a qualification, we should have a government program that requires race to be a qualification.

Liberal logic - gotta love it!

umm, so as long as companies decide that race is a qualification, we should have a government program that requires race to be a qualification.

Liberal logic - gotta love it!
Jackass logic, gotta love it. just because some one says one thing, their political beliefs are obvious and that is the common logic among that entire political belief!

Jackass logic, gotta love it. just because some one says one thing, their political beliefs are obvious and that is the common logic among that entire political belief!
You are right and I stand corrected. Sadly, the majority of liberals and the DNC agree with AA and not you.

"We support affirmative action to redress discrimination and to achieve the diversity from which all Americans benefit." (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf)

As I understand, there is a closer relationship between Jackasses and the DNC than jackasses and logic.

As I understand, there is a closer relationship between Jackasses and the DNC than jackasses and logic.

What a true statement. But yes, the majourity of Dem's in America seem to support AA.

Personally, I think a business should be able to [h/f]ire someone for any reason whatsoever. If it's based on race, so be it. While I'm against racism, they have a right to be racist.

And the public has the right to not buy their products/services. The beauty of capitalism.

Derscon, just to clarify - the jackass is the official mascot of the DNC just as the elephant is for the RNC.

Derscon, just to clarify - the jackass is the official mascot of the DNC just as the elephant is for the RNC.

Indeed. Afterall, the cartoonist who drew that did that because the Dem was a jackass.

Derscon, just to clarify - the jackass is the official mascot of the DNC just as the elephant is for the RNC.
Actually, I think the donkey/jackass/whatever is a Dem mascot unofficially, whereas the elephant is a Rep mascot officially.

Democrats are loud, annoying, stubborn asses, and Republicans are huge, dumb, overpowering creatures.

Democrats are loud, annoying, stubborn asses, and Republicans are huge, dumb, overpowering creatures.

Haha, I like that. :D

Swimmingpool, both animals are the official mascot.

Affirmative action is a sham especially in education. All the statistics taken have showen that in almost every case, kids who are either not ready to enter a college setting or who are not prepared to meet the rigerious demands universities have are getting in to schools without the proper basic education and thus either never graduate or take twice as long to graduate.. infact these kids have among the highest drop out rates. This is the greatest fault of putting unqualified students into more advanced schools. The same can be said about the work place. Putting employees in positions who are not qulified or who are less qualified then others...

The problems with education and college preparedness (in the US, at any rate) has more to do with the state of the public education system. Social promotion, No Child Left Behind, unqualified teachers, and people that teach to standardized tests are the real problems we have to face. Affirmative action has very little to do with it.

And if the general attitude in my local area is any indication, we are far from the point where affirmative action is unnecessary. Many people pay lip service to equality, but refuse to associate with others outside of their race.

Haha, I like that. :D

Swimmingpool, both animals are the official mascot.
sorry, i must be behind the times then

I believe it's stupid and unnessicary. Pushing minorities ahead does nothing to quell the problem; if anything it often makes it worse, as a white person might start hating minorities because one was promoted ahead of him to meet an ethnic quota.

Hell, no. Affirmative action is racist, and racism is always wrong, regardless of who it is directed against.

'equal rights' does not mean 'special rights.'

edit: (voted no)

I voted no also. It sends a terrible hatefilled message. It implies inferiority which is untrue. I think AA is not a egalitarian position at all and in fact is extremely elitist.

The problems with education and college preparedness (in the US, at any rate) has more to do with the state of the public education system. Social promotion, No Child Left Behind, unqualified teachers, and people that teach to standardized tests are the real problems we have to face. Affirmative action has very little to do with it.

And if the general attitude in my local area is any indication, we are far from the point where affirmative action is unnecessary. Many people pay lip service to equality, but refuse to associate with others outside of their race.
NCLB is the best thing to happen to the education system in fifty years. If teachers are teaching to standardized tests then good, maybe they can finally meet worthwhile standards.

Yeah, AA is so discriminatory against alcoholics. Damn it, I don't have a problem!

Yeah, AA is so discriminatory against alcoholics. Damn it, I don't have a problem!

It's okay. Here, take this drink, you'll feel better. *hands over a beer*

If it's based on socioeconomic backgrounds, then yes.
It's currently the only way for the poor man to get a leg up in this fiscally and socially conservative society.

NCLB is the best thing to happen to the education system in fifty years. If teachers are teaching to standardized tests then good, maybe they can finally meet worthwhile standards.

Uh. No. Some people just aren't meant to be taught, and are best left in the gutters where they don't impede on other people's learning.

And teaching to standardized tests is a terrible way of teaching, if it can be called that.

NCLB is the best thing to happen to the education system in fifty years. If teachers are teaching to standardized tests then good, maybe they can finally meet worthwhile standards.

Teaching the standards can be a good thing, but when that's the only thing you have time for, children are lost. While people focus on teaching the standards, children are not taught how to learn on their own and they will not be able to function in society.

Back to AA, I thiunk it was initially a good idea, but it's gone too far. People use it as a crutch now to get into positions they can't with strictly credentials. That doesn't give people the right to choose based on race, or gender, or age, but given two people with identical credentials, flip a coin, don't meet a quota.

Affirmative action is a terrible insult to the groups it targets to help. It sends the message that they are not capable individuals. It has been a black eye for the left and continues to undermine them.

I don't know what to think of it. Here's basically how my mom and I discussed it the other day:

ME: Affirmative action is dumb. If they don't want to discriminate, just take race off the application form.

MOM: But see, what happens then is all you get is rich white kids.

ME: Well, if those are the ones most qualified then why not? What's the point of letting in less qualified applicants?

MOM: You have to let in some underqualified people because otherwise these demographics get stuck in a hole where their family is in poverty, they don't get an adequate education, can't get into college, and so they grow up with bad jobs and raise another poor family.

So now it's like, well, yeah, I see that and it makes sense... but it still kinda seems like racism in reverse.

NCLB is the best thing to happen to the education system in fifty years. If teachers are teaching to standardized tests then good, maybe they can finally meet worthwhile standards.

it only teachs people to take tests.not whats on the test.theve done studys,apparntly test takeing is a learnable skill.

I don't know what to think of it. Here's basically how my mom and I discussed it the other day:

ME: Affirmative action is dumb. If they don't want to discriminate, just take race off the application form.

MOM: But see, what happens then is all you get is rich white kids.

ME: Well, if those are the ones most qualified then why not? What's the point of letting in less qualified applicants?

MOM: You have to let in some underqualified people because otherwise these demographics get stuck in a hole where their family is in poverty, they don't get an adequate education, can't get into college, and so they grow up with bad jobs and raise another poor family.

So now it's like, well, yeah, I see that and it makes sense... but it still kinda seems like racism in reverse. so your mom is saying only white kids are rich? and only white kids' paretns teach them to succeed, no matter what the odds are? sounds like your mom is a rac......

If it's based on socioeconomic backgrounds, then yes.
It's currently the only way for the poor man to get a leg up in this fiscally and socially conservative society.

The way for a poor man to get a leg up in this fiscally and socially conservative society is to work hard in school, work hard in life, work hard in college and he gets all the leg up he needs. But hey lets take a test case for ya.

A German Man Immigrants to Canada then to America. Profession: Carpenter
He has four children, two boys, two girls. Grew up relatively poor.

Boy 1: Goes to Dartmouth and Stanford. Lawyer.
Boy 2: Goes to Berkeley. CPA
Girl 1: Goes to UCLA. CPA
Girl 2: Nutcase

Boy 2 has 3 boys.
Boy 1: Nutcase
Boy 2: Pharmacist
Boy 3: College student

That is how poor people get a leg up in Society. Frankly my family’s history demonstrates that for the most part poor people are poor because they won’t didn't do the work to pull themselves out of it. Anyone can do well in HS and College. Anyone can learn a trade. Anyone can become a carpenter, a mechanic, an electrician etc… etc… etc… It generally takes a lazy person to not do those things and remain poor.

I concur fully, Sal.

it only teachs people to take tests.not whats on the test.theve done studys,apparntly test takeing is a learnable skill.
and your evidence of this comes from.....

As I understand it, all education is about taking tests. You cannot graduate without passing midterms, finals and quizes. Making a national standard of acceptable material for students to know, then requiring schools to teach that is more than acceptable. Accountability among educators is way past due.

I don't know what to think of it. Here's basically how my mom and I discussed it the other day:

ME: Affirmative action is dumb. If they don't want to discriminate, just take race off the application form.

MOM: But see, what happens then is all you get is rich white kids.

ME: Well, if those are the ones most qualified then why not? What's the point of letting in less qualified applicants?

MOM: You have to let in some underqualified people because otherwise these demographics get stuck in a hole where their family is in poverty, they don't get an adequate education, can't get into college, and so they grow up with bad jobs and raise another poor family.

So now it's like, well, yeah, I see that and it makes sense... but it still kinda seems like racism in reverse.
Use her logic - there should be more poor asians or white guys in NBA? Lets deny the more capable black athlets in order to balance the race proportionally and allow asian and white poor people the chance for NBA stardom.

Teaching the standards can be a good thing, but when that's the only thing you have time for, children are lost. While people focus on teaching the standards, children are not taught how to learn on their own and they will not be able to function in society.

Back to AA, I thiunk it was initially a good idea, but it's gone too far. People use it as a crutch now to get into positions they can't with strictly credentials. That doesn't give people the right to choose based on race, or gender, or age, but given two people with identical credentials, flip a coin, don't meet a quota.
silly boy - if they are learning the test standards being taught then they are learning. I'm afraid I have to give you a zero on that part of your assignment. There is no teaching someone how to learn - it is an innate ability.

There is no teaching someone how to learn - it is an innate ability.
i've got to disagree with you on that one. i had one class in particular (an American History class in high school) that i thank for teaching me the best way to take notes, the best way to study for different kinds of exams, and some clues on what material is going to be the most important to remember from any given subject. in that class and my English Comp class i learned how to read critically, and thus how to get more information from everything i read.

there are many tactics for effective learning that do not come naturally to most people. maybe you were brilliant enough that you took to such things effortlessly, but the majority of people need some help becoming the most effective "learners" they can be.

and your evidence of this comes from.....

As I understand it, all education is about taking tests. You cannot graduate without passing midterms, finals and quizes. Making a national standard of acceptable material for students to know, then requiring schools to teach that is more than acceptable. Accountability among educators is way past due.
i agree that accountability is crucial, but the tests that they are teaching to are pitiful and the skills required to pass them are all but useless in the real world. it is possible to pass these tests with little to no problem solving skills, virtually no ability to write spontaneously (in other words, form a cohesive essay on a novel topic), and to communicate information verbally to other peers. you can also pass tests on subjects like math or vocabulary without actually knowing much math or vocabulary; the process of elimination can practically answer some of the questions for you, so a student's score actually CAN reflect their ability to take the test better than it reflects their knowledge of the particular subject.

while you need the ability to take tests in order to get through your education, the whole point of GETTING an education is to be able to better function in the "real world"; students who are great at using the process of elimination to fill in little bubbles on score sheets aren't going to find much application for their skill once they get out of school, and there are a great many schools that now focus on only teaching "bubble-filling" so their kids can score well enough to keep funding.

Affirmative action is a sham especially in education. All the statistics taken have showen that in almost every case, kids who are either not ready to enter a college setting or who are not prepared to meet the rigerious demands universities have are getting in to schools without the proper basic education and thus either never graduate or take twice as long to graduate.. infact these kids have among the highest drop out rates. This is the greatest fault of putting unqualified students into more advanced schools. The same can be said about the work place. Putting employees in positions who are not qulified or who are less qualified then others...

What statistics?

AA may have begun with the best of intentions, but like welfare and other "social" programs it has created a culture of victims. This victim culture is further perpetuated and supported by colleges and universities as well as popular media.

Right. The "victim culture" of white kids who complain because they didn't get into their top-choice school and some black kids with lower SAT scores did. (Never mind the other white kids with lower SAT scores... the law suits never seem to notice them. The problem must have been race!)

Right. The "victim culture" of white kids who complain because they didn't get into their top-choice school and some black kids with lower SAT scores did. (Never mind the other white kids with lower SAT scores... the law suits never seem to notice them. The problem must have been race!)
Not hardly. They are a different problem. The victims of AA are the ones that AA is supposed to help. They begin to believe that there is no hope, other than AA, for a fair deal. As long as that is true, "discrimination" will never end. "Discrimination" can never end because the minority needs AA to overcome it. There was a point where we should have said 'AA was great, we don't need it anymore'. 'Sue anyone who discriminates against you and good luck'.

AA is forced discrimination by the government.

No, most of it is perfectly voluntary. Certainly when it comes to education, colleges and universities have decided that they want an ethnically and racially diverse student body.

Not hardly. They are a different problem. The victims of AA are the ones that AA is supposed to help. They begin to believe that there is no hope, other than AA, for a fair deal.

Where are these people who think that? It seems they are a figment of the white imagination... because I don't see any black kids suing schools for not using affirmative action.

Where are these people who think that? It seems they are a figment of the white imagination... because I don't see any black kids suing schools for not using affirmative action.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, any Atlanta politician, any Democratic Congressman...will swear that AA is the only way to prevent discrimination from now until the end of time. If a society can't beat discrimination whether it's majority against minority, or vis versa, by the end of time, then something is really wrong with society. How long is reverse discrimination needed to provide equal opportunities?

It seems a lot of you simply don't know how college admissions work (with or without Affirmative Action).

Having been employed by an admissions department, I hope to enlighten you. For most schools, it works something like this:

The school sets minimum standards of admission: potential candidates must have a certain GPA and SAT score, for instance, to be considered. (At this point -- and every point -- it is possible for an admissions officer to make an exception. For instance, students who speak English as a second language are often excused for having low verbal SAT scores as long as they do well on other language-ability tests.)

It must be stressed that at this stage race is not a consideration.

Okay, so now they have an applicant pool, which is always much larger than the number of available spots, and which always includes all students who are "qualified." If you meet the minimum requirements, you are (admissions policy supposes) "prepared for college."

Many schools, at this point, have a rule that they "automatically" make offers to a certain number of the the "top" students "by the numbers." In other words, if the minimum GPA is a 3.0 and the minimum SAT is a 1050, the school may say, "anyone who gets a 3.7 and above or a 1300 or above automatically gets an offer. Afterward, they are still left with a limited number of offers and a too-large pool of qualified applicants.

Some people here seem to think that they should just go right down in order by what the "numbers" say. Unfortunately, "merit" has turned out -- in the experience of admissions committees -- to be a much less exact science than that. They have determined the pool of individuals that they believe are "qualified," but beyond that it is often impossible to decide, between individuals, who "deserves it more."

Some people play sports. Some are involved in music. Some have done well despite terrible adversity such as a tough home life or a poor school. There is simply no way to abstractly decide merit between members of such a group.

So this is what admissions committees do: they say, "well, we have other considerations about the kind of class we want." They would like diversity. Long before Affirmative Action came along, admissions committees would stop distinguishing between members of the qualified applicant pool based on the indeterminate "merit" rule, and start making admissions decisions based on considerations of diversity. They want some kids who will be interested in sports, some who will be interested in the school newspaper, some who will join the theatre group. They want a diverse geographical background, so students do not all come from the same place. They want a diverse family and social background. They want all kinds of diversity.

This is because they have always felt that a liberal education is better for everyone if it involves student diversity. Universities pride themselves on exposing their students to people they would never otherwise have met.

All of this went on long before Affirmative Action. Now, Affirmative Action works the same way. Given a pool of qualified candidates, many universities prefer to pick a "mix" of students that involves a measure of diversity. Since they probably do not have as many minority applicants as they do white applicants, this translates into a "preference" for such applicants. But this has nothing to do with qualification -- if they were unqualified, they never would have made the "short list."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, any Atlanta politician, any Democratic Congressman...will swear that AA is the only way to prevent discrimination from now until the end of time.

Sure. But surely you are not claiming Jesse Jackson has the "victim mindset" that will not let him get ahead. Show me the masses of black people who think that if Affirmative Action does not "give" them a good life, there is no point working for it themselves.

For most blacks, the question does not even come up: they will never be going to college anyway, and most of them will never be applying for a job that bothers with a selection process and a "qualified applicant pool." That only occurs as you move up the ladder and merit becomes a blurrier concept. If merit boils down to "shows up on time and does not mouth off," then this is not the sort of employment with which Affirmative Action is especially concerned.

The blacks who benefit from Affirmative Action are precisely the ones who were working hard in the first place. As you see in what I just posted, Affirmative Action does not support the selection of unqualified candidates.

i've got to disagree with you on that one. i had one class in particular (an American History class in high school) that i thank for teaching me the best way to take notes, the best way to study for different kinds of exams, and some clues on what material is going to be the most important to remember from any given subject. in that class and my English Comp class i learned how to read critically, and thus how to get more information from everything i read.

there are many tactics for effective learning that do not come naturally to most people. maybe you were brilliant enough that you took to such things effortlessly, but the majority of people need some help becoming the most effective "learners" they can be.
You are right to focus on that. I should ammend my premise that learning is innate, like speaking. Poeple can be taught how to speak better even if it does come naturally. Same for learning. I will concede that. I will not concede that a person is unable to learn without instruction. That said, if a teacher is able to improve a students learning skills it would only enhance the test scores - A valid goal for any teacher wanting to hit that goal. Teaching to the test standards would include that. Particularly good teachers would do better, but particularly bad teachers would be forced to either meet the standard or meet the unemployment office. :)

You are right to focus on that. I should ammend my premise that learning is innate, like speaking. Poeple can be taught how to speak better even if it does come naturally. Same for learning. I will concede that. I will not concede that a person is unable to learn without instruction.
fair enough, sounds like we agree.

Damn you're fast!

i agree that accountability is crucial, but the tests that they are teaching to are pitiful and the skills required to pass them are all but useless in the real world. it is possible to pass these tests with little to no problem solving skills, virtually no ability to write spontaneously (in other words, form a cohesive essay on a novel topic), and to communicate information verbally to other peers. you can also pass tests on subjects like math or vocabulary without actually knowing much math or vocabulary; the process of elimination can practically answer some of the questions for you, so a student's score actually CAN reflect their ability to take the test better than it reflects their knowledge of the particular subject.

while you need the ability to take tests in order to get through your education, the whole point of GETTING an education is to be able to better function in the "real world"; students who are great at using the process of elimination to fill in little bubbles on score sheets aren't going to find much application for their skill once they get out of school, and there are a great many schools that now focus on only teaching "bubble-filling" so their kids can score well enough to keep funding.


I've not seen the test myself, but if it is as simple-minded as you say then I am double dissapointed in our teachers union for saying it raises the bar too high. I'm glad to have a standard low as it may be. Lets get our students passing it first, then we can raise the bar.