NationStates Jolt Archive

i think affirmative action sucks. It may have been nice, and useful 40 years ago.. maybe even 30 years ago.. but now its just a problem that we should end. There is no direct connection now between your race/ethnicity, and your education... i think affirmative action should be banned now... why should ppl with less credentials get accepted to the college, or get the job becuase of their race, while i am screwed out of these things because im white (though i also am jewish.. gives me some credit.. but A.A. still sucks) even though i have better credentials...

i think either we completely ban afirmative action... or atleast have afirmative action based on your economic situation (ppl from the poorer neighborhoods get higher credentials) rather than race/ethnicity/religion


what are your thoughts?

Your brain is an enigma.

Well, I am a white, middle class, healthy, educated, heterosexual, non religiously aligned male. Of course I think AA sucks.

i think either we completely ban afirmative action... or atleast have afirmative action based on your economic situation (ppl from the poorer neighborhoods get higher credentials) rather than race/ethnicity/religion


I get told that I'm racist because I have a problem of the AA we have here in Australia, where Aboriginals get special treatment.
People say "But they need it more" and I agree entirely.

I say "So why not give an advantage to ALL poor people, and if the Aborigines are poor, they will get a larger share of the special treatment?"

AA is great to get people to change their attitudes. If I'm not going to hire an aborigine, no matter what...then something should be done. If I'm not going to hire one because I have someone better instead, there is nothing wrong there.

I don't see why a rich aboriginal (few as there are, unfortunately) should get into university with a lower mark than a rich white person.
I don't see why a poor white person should get less study aid than a poor aboriginal.

I DO see why the aboriginal community should be helped out, but I say help out everyone that needs help, regardless of their skin colour.

Of course, I'm complaining in a mild way, we've got a relatively good system here, and the cases of really totally serious system abuse are relatively few.

Judge not a man on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.

Judge not a man on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.

Tell that to the NAACP.

Tell that to the NAACP.

Exactly. Amazing how Jesse Jackson forgets what his mentor taught.

I have serious problems with AA.

1) It provokes resentment among those not getting it. If we're trying to heal racial wounds, this isn't the way.
2) It says to those that aren't getting it, "We're going to punish you for things that your parents and grandparents did."
3) It says to those that do get it, "We don't think you can make it on your own merits."
4) In regards to using it to assure classroom diversity, are we saying that all black people think the same? If we're looking for a diversity of opinions, we ought to base it on Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and Libertarians.

Affirmative Action is bullshit, just like most things perpetuated by the idiots we keep putting into power in this country. All it does is promote the idea that blacks, asians, hispanics and various other ethnic groups should be held to different standards and that minorities should be given special treatment. Whites compose roughly 85% of the population of this country so it stands to reason that they'll have about 85% of the jobs too.

Also it undermines the idea that employers should be selecting the most qualified individual for the job. If my house is on fire, I want a team of the best guys around to come put it out; not 60% of the best guys and 40% of the people they had to hire in the name of 'equality.'

If I was a black man, I'd be insulted by a policy like this. Basically what it's telling them is "you can't get a job on your own merits, so we're going to make $EMPLOYER hire you based on the color of your skin." They have a word for that.

[i]Discrimination.

I think AA is a good idea in principle, but a difficult one to make work well in practice.

Affirmative Action is bullshit, just like most things perpetuated by the idiots we keep putting into power in this country. All it does is promote the idea that blacks, asians, hispanics and various other ethnic groups should be held to different standards and that minorities should be given special treatment. Whites compose roughly 85% of the population of this country so it stands to reason that they'll have about 85% of the jobs too.
[i]Discrimination.
Actually whites are only like 70 percent. America's breakdown is like 12 percent black, 13 percent hispanic and 4 or 5 percent other.

Actually whites are only like 70 percent. America's breakdown is like 12 percent black, 13 percent hispanic and 4 or 5 percent other.

That makes sense to me. I wasn't very sure of my figure, since it was given to me by my grandfather [not the most reliable source] over dinner while drunk several years ago. Still, the 70% figure tells us that the vast majority of our population is white. Point still stands. :p

Unless I am mistaken with reguards to education anyway quotas are illegal. They only give you a slight edge for race anyway. It is like race is the equivelent of being on the swim team in highschool or something. It is a little unfair, but quotas for schools have been illegal since the Supreme Court case Regents Of Univ. of California v. Bakke. I am not sure what is legal and what isn't for hiring purposes.

I'm rather surprised. It's nearly unanymous against AA. Given the crowd on NS, I would have expected at least a 50/50 split, or more likely a lean towards AA.

I'm rather surprised. It's nearly unanymous against AA. Given the crowd on NS, I would have expected at least a 50/50 split, or more likely a lean towards AA.
I think AA pisses off nearly all white people. I wish the goverment would spend a lot more time and money on improving poor public schools where most minorities go to school, rather than focusing on giving them an advantage in the job market or in college applications--that would probably make everyone a lot happier.

by now we've gotten rid of most forms of racism in our country, AA is only inciting racism and making things worse by classifying minorities as being unable to work for themselves, and pissing the majority (me) off, I'd be pissd if i were black

In my life I have seen the abuse of AA. I had a girlfriend who was 1/8 Hispanic (the rest white) and received a minority leadership. While another girl at my high school received one because she was an 1/8 American Indian. These were programs supposed to help minorities who are underprivledged, but in those two case, it helped upper middle class white girls.

However, I cannot see how we can get rid of Affirmative Action. While racism is not as big of a problem now as in previous decades, it does still exist. There needs to be a mode for an intelligent, poor, minority to be able to get the education he/she deserves. It does need an overhaul, but I believe the idea of Affirmative Action is sound.

Well, the kicker as far as I'm concerned is private businesses are just that: private. Equal Employment is all well and good but it doesn't strike me as something that's particularly practical to waste my tax money enforcing. It's probably pretty easy for me to say this since I'm white, but if someone wants to be a racist asshole when considering new hires, it should be their business, their rules. Most people I've run into in this regard have proven fairly practical, so I fail to see why we need to mandate hiring policies for them. If you want to followe Equal Employment to the letter, that would mean you'd have cripples working as construction workers and so forth.

If, for instance, empolyers in a certain region refuse to hire blacks, then another guy somewhere else will have that much larger a pool of potential workers to choose from. We can't fill all the jobs in the country with white people. At least not if we gave our taxes a good stomping so we could bring the minimum wage back down. If we want to keep raising it and killing jobs then yes, this would be a problem.

I think AA is a good idea in principle, but a difficult one to make work well in practice.

The only problem with AA is that people assume that the statistics ought to be the same for all races and then just manipulate events to get the desired results. What needs to be done is an investigation into the causes of racial discrepencies.

eg. if fewer black people are getting into good colleges, don't just lower standards for them, look at what's going on in primarily black highschools. If underfunded black highschools aren't educating people properly then all that college level AA does is bring black students into an academic environment that they haven't been prepared for, AND gives racists ammunition in their race war to say "black people have to be less intelligent, because even when they're given the same education they're not able to complete it."

My favorite example of lousy AA application was a college that had a rule that they needed to provide as many athletic opportunities to girls as to boys. But girls don't want to play football and baseball in the same numbers that boys do, so they cut boys sports until it equalled the numbers that girls sports were able to reach. Even with the best of intentions, the ends don't justify the means.

Well, the kicker as far as I'm concerned is private businesses are just that: private. Equal Employment is all well and good but it doesn't strike me as something that's particularly practical to waste my tax money enforcing. It's probably pretty easy for me to say this since I'm white, but if someone wants to be a racist asshole when considering new hires, it should be their business, their rules. Most people I've run into in this regard have proven fairly practical, so I fail to see why we need to mandate hiring policies for them. If you want to followe Equal Employment to the letter, that would mean you'd have cripples working as construction workers and so forth.

If, for instance, empolyers in a certain region refuse to hire blacks, then another guy somewhere else will have that much larger a pool of potential workers to choose from. We can't fill all the jobs in the country with white people. At least not if we gave our taxes a good stomping so we could bring the minimum wage back down. If we want to keep raising it and killing jobs then yes, this would be a problem.

1. Of course, there are not laws requiring affirmative action by private employers (at least in the US).

2. Equal Opportunity Employment does not mean that unqualified persons must get jobs. It means the opposite. It means you cannot deny qualified persons jobs based on prejudice.

3. To be logically consistent, you must fully support affirmative action and equal employment programs adopted by private employers and institutions.

The only problem with AA is that people assume that the statistics ought to be the same for all races and then just manipulate events to get the desired results. What needs to be done is an investigation into the causes of racial discrepencies.

Like discrimination?

Or do we just assume it can't possibly be that?


And, um, here is some irony:

all that college level AA does is bring black students into an academic environment that they haven't been prepared for...

college level AA ... gives racists ammunition in their race war to say "black people have to be less intelligent, because even when they're given the same education they're not able to complete it."

My favorite example of lousy AA application was a college that had a rule that they needed to provide as many athletic opportunities to girls as to boys. But girls don't want to play football and baseball in the same numbers that boys do, so they cut boys sports until it equalled the numbers that girls sports were able to reach. Even with the best of intentions, the ends don't justify the means.

Not AA. That is Title IX. Federal law.

And a damn good one.

Does not require absolute equivalence. Nor does it require that girls play football and baseball. There are many team and individual sports that women do play in larger numbers than men. And many schools don't allow or discourage women from playing the same sports as men. Perhaps that would help.

Does require you not spend disproportionate amounts of government funds on sports for men and not for women.

Almost all schools have found it easy to comply with Title IX without arbitrarily cutting "men's" sports. That some respond to a good law in a stupid way does not make it a bad law.

:headbang: :headbang: If u were an aboriginal, who's being treated like an animal (no exageration) for hundreds of years... Wouldn't u deserve some protection, some apology?
I'm white and Go for AA

Affirmative Action is bullshit, just like most things perpetuated by the idiots we keep putting into power in this country. All it does is promote the idea that blacks, asians, hispanics and various other ethnic groups should be held to different standards and that minorities should be given special treatment. Whites compose roughly 85% of the population of this country so it stands to reason that they'll have about 85% of the jobs too.

Also it undermines the idea that employers should be selecting the most qualified individual for the job. If my house is on fire, I want a team of the best guys around to come put it out; not 60% of the best guys and 40% of the people they had to hire in the name of 'equality.'

If I was a black man, I'd be insulted by a policy like this. Basically what it's telling them is "you can't get a job on your own merits, so we're going to make $EMPLOYER hire you based on the color of your skin." They have a word for that.

[i]Discrimination.

Really beat the hell out of that strawman. Way to go. :rolleyes:

Statistically, white males have power, privilege, and economic benefits disporportionate to their percentage in the population.

Most affirmative action programs would see no problem with a group that was 85% of the population having 85% of the jobs. When they have 95% of the high paying jobs, that raises a flag. (using an admittedly fictional number)

Modern affirmative action programs do not require or even encourage the hiring of less qualified individuals on the basis of race (or any other factor). In fact, that is generally illegal.

I'm rather surprised. It's nearly unanymous against AA. Given the crowd on NS, I would have expected at least a 50/50 split, or more likely a lean towards AA.

Many who support AA realize the futility of debating the issue with white males on thesse Forums.

Particularly those that say things like "we've eliminated racism in this country except for AA" and think the NAACP is a racist organization.

White males have the same civil rights and equal opportunity protections as everyone else. It is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are white or male.

Whites -- particularly white males -- are not disadvantages as a class by pratically any socio-economic indicator. To the contrary, they are disporportionately privileged.

You are not oppressed. Others have been extremely oppressed and are still facing racism, sexism, etc. Our socitey is trying to do something about it.

You may face competition and lose some unfair advantages. Tough cheese.

Get over it.

Really beat the hell out of that strawman. Way to go. :rolleyes:

Statistically, white males have power, privilege, and economic benefits disporportionate to their percentage in the population.

Most affirmative action programs would see no problem with a group that was 85% of the population having 85% of the jobs. When they have 95% of the high paying jobs, that raises a flag. (using an admittedly fictional number)

Modern affirmative action programs do not require or even encourage the hiring of less qualified individuals on the basis of race (or any other factor). In fact, that is generally illegal.

Excuse me?

Whites have more power in a democracy because they are the majority. Thats the way things work in this country. I'm not sayin git's right to discriminate but when you say something like "white males have power, privilege, and economic benefits disporportionate to their percentage in the population" it's sort of silly because... well... they have more votes. A 4 year old could tell you that.

Your last bit is something of a... um.. well, I don't know how to describe it beyond utterly false. While AA admittedly does not directly advocate hiring people unfit for the job, it does tend to promote a "quota" which means "you have to hire $PERCENTAGE of $MINORITY." Lets say they set your quota at 40% of your workforce, but 80% of the people who are applying for the job are white. Now chances are you'll have a few minorities in the mix, who passed the test or what have you, but given the stunning discrepancy of the racial makeup of your applicants, chances are you'll have to dig down pretty deep to fill that quota. Depending on your neighborhood, minority applicants might be very few and far between. A quota in this instance would require you to hire pretty much all who applied.

In case you're interested you might want to read this and redefine your definition of "straw man." I have committed no such fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Excuse me?

Whites have more power in a democracy because they are the majority. Thats the way things work in this country. I'm not sayin git's right to discriminate but when you say something like "white males have power, privilege, and economic benefits disporportionate to their percentage in the population" it's sort of silly because... well... they have more votes. A 4 year old could tell you that.

Main Entry: dis·pro·por·tion·ate
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&t
Function: adjective
: being out of proportion <a disproportionate share>

Curious that you would suggest that the majority is entitled to a disproportionate share of power, privilege, and economic benefits.

That the majority can see to it that they receive a disproportionate share of power, privilege, and economic benefits does not make it right.

Apparently affirmative action programs exist with the endorsement of some majority. Or they would not be statutes.

A 4 year old could tell you that.

Your last bit is something of a... um.. well, I don't know how to describe it beyond utterly false. While AA admittedly does not directly advocate hiring people unfit for the job, it does tend to promote a "quota" which means "you have to hire $PERCENTAGE of $MINORITY." Lets say they set your quota at 40% of your workforce, but 80% of the people who are applying for the job are white. Now chances are you'll have a few minorities in the mix, who passed the test or what have you, but given the stunning discrepancy of the racial makeup of your applicants, chances are you'll have to dig down pretty deep to fill that quota. Depending on your neighborhood, minority applicants might be very few and far between. A quota in this instance would require you to hire pretty much all who applied.

Quotas are generally illegal. As is hiring a less qualified applicant over a more qualified candidate based on race, gender, etc.

Neither hiring goals (nor quotas when they nonetheless exist) are as ridiculous as you suggest. Most would seek a percentage of minority hires roughly proportionate to the percentage of minorities in the relevant community -- and fully recognize that the percentage of applicants may make such goals unrealistic and adjust the goals accordingly.

BTW, much involved in "affirmative action" in employment has more to do with encouraging diversity in applicants, etc., and has little to do with hiring -- but I recognize that is not to what you are referring.


In case you're interested you might want to read this and redefine your definition of "straw man." I have committed no such fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

There are many different was to define a "straw man"

Let's see: did you set up a false or imaginary opposition to easily confute?

Yes. That qualifies.

But if you want to identify what fallacy applies when a person simply ignores an actual policy or law and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that policy or law then you can be guilty of that fallacy instead.

As long as racism exists and can be practiced by those in power, affirmative action will be necessary.

Main Entry: dis·pro·por·tion·ate
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&t
Function: adjective
: being out of proportion <a disproportionate share>

Curious that you would suggest that the majority is entitled to a disproportionate share of power, privilege, and economic benefits.

That the majority can see to it that they receive a disproportionate share of power, privilege, and economic benefits does not make it right.

Apparently affirmative action programs exist with the endorsement of some majority. Or they would not be statutes.

A 4 year old could tell you that.



Quotas are generally illegal. As is hiring a less qualified applicant over a more qualified candidate based on race, gender, etc.

Neither hiring goals (nor quotas when they nonetheless exist) are as ridiculous as you suggest. Most would seek a percentage of minority hires roughly proportionate to the percentage of minorities in the relevant community -- and fully recognize that the percentage of applicants may make such goals unrealistic and adjust the goals accordingly.

BTW, much involved in "affirmative action" in employment has more to do with encouraging diversity in applicants, etc., and has little to do with hiring -- but I recognize that is not to what you are referring.




There are many different was to define a "straw man"

Let's see: did you set up a false or imaginary opposition to easily confute?

Yes. That qualifies.

But if you want to identify what fallacy applies when a person simply ignores an actual policy or law and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that policy or law then you can be guilty of that fallacy instead.

Wow. Just.... wow. You're more naïve than anyone I've ever discussed this with. If you think my explanation is a "distortion" of affirmative action, then you really need to go out and do some more reading on the subject. You tell me that quotas are "illegal" but they're sort of... well.. the whole point of affirmative action. Allow me to cite an example: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/.

That's affirmative action. Yes, it's in Norway, but the principle is the same. If you'd like a more localized example then please direct yourself to http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/pages/quotas.html. I'd like to point out, as a point of fact, that "Proportional Representation" is--whether you want to call it one or not--a quota.

Allow me to backtrack to the firemen example. Lets say you live in a town where the adult population is 51% female and 49% male. Proportional representation would mean that out of every 100 applicants, you would have to hire 51 women. Doesnt' that seem a little off to you? Hiring practices should be based on practicality and competence, not race or gender, [i]end of story. For example, it's not my fault or my employer's fault that the Mexicans we have working in the kitchen generally move about more slowly than the rest of us, and the one who washes dishes before my shift leaves the dish tank a goddamn mess every time I come in there. One time it took me six hours to catch up on all the dishes he left me. They're nice people and I would never want anything bad to happen to them, but the idea that they should be entitled to a job on the virtue of their ethnicity alone bothers and disturbs me. What if the 2% latino population in this area just flat out sucks at washing dishes? Why the fuck should they be hired anyway? Affirmative Action makes the mistake of assuming that minorities are automatically as competent as non-minority workers. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it's not. Making a policy out of assuming it is true is laughably absurd.

Long story short, my synopsis of the situation is hardly an exaggeration, and it is by no means "false" or "imaginary." It happens. Next time, please familiarize yourself with the facts before accusing me of promoting a fallacy.

Also, thanks for that definition, I never knew what that word meant since I never made it out of the first grade and I can't really read or write to save my soul.

If white people are passing all the laws [and we are], then it's a no brainer: it's far more likely that current legislation will favor those who passed said laws. I'm not saying this is right, but it's merely a fact of life. If our "power and privilege" is disproportionate, it's because we've passed laws that make this possible. I'd like to point out that in a Democracy, the majority has nearly unlimited power so long as they all think along the same lines. Which most of them do, disturbingly enough.

I live in a small town in the Pacific Northwest. There are three colleges in our valley (less than 50k population). There is an approximate breakdown of 70% white, 30% hispanic (many of whom are migrant workers who mind their own business). Racism is virtually non-existant, though people here have trouble understanding the speech of anyone from a large city or the south.

If more places could carry the same attitude, racism wouldn't be needed. The breakdown above was an attempt to show that even cultures where some minorities are so small as to not be mentioned can be accepting of other cultures. This is not to say we are without issues, just that this is not one of them.

Racism is very hard to beat. On a very primal level, it's programmed into all of us: 20,000 years ago if you saw someone from another tribe, you didn't help them. You killed them. And you probably ate them when you were done. The way I see it, it's a vestigal instinct that a lot of us still haven't quite gotten over. Much of it still depends on culture and upbringing.

"If more places could carry the same attitude..." is a nice pipe dream but at the same time is a nearly unattainable reality. The best you can do in most cases is educate people about this sort of thing and hope they're receptive to it. If they're not, there's little or nothing you can do unless you want to go A Clockwork Orange on their ass.

AA is racism, plain and simple. A friend of mine gave a excellent example of what can be done in place of it. Get rid of the top of a resume, replace it with a number given to the applicant and a phone number. Keep the rest of the resume together as far as job experience, education, etc. If employers are interested they will contact you. That would put everyone on a equal playing field.

Many who support AA realize the futility of debating the issue with white males on thesse Forums.

Particularly those that say things like "we've eliminated racism in this country except for AA" and think the NAACP is a racist organization.

White males have the same civil rights and equal opportunity protections as everyone else. It is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are white or male.

Whites -- particularly white males -- are not disadvantages as a class by pratically any socio-economic indicator. To the contrary, they are disporportionately privileged.

You are not oppressed. Others have been extremely oppressed and are still facing racism, sexism, etc. Our socitey is trying to do something about it.

You may face competition and lose some unfair advantages. Tough cheese.

Get over it.

Tell that to my college scholarship board. When I look in the book at the available scholarships, I see a lot that are restricted by major. I can understand that because I made a choice to study something in particular, and the people who set up those scholarships wanted to set up something to continue a certain field. On the other hand, there are also tons of scholarships that I don't qualify for because you have to be female or minority to get. Isn't that discriminatory? If I set up a scholarship for white males, wouldn't people be screaming their heads off that I was racist and sexist?

The fact of the matter is that white rich guys have the power, while I'm a white poor guy. Why can't I get any help?

Not AA. That is Title IX. Federal law.

And a damn good one.

Does not require absolute equivalence. Nor does it require that girls play football and baseball. There are many team and individual sports that women do play in larger numbers than men. And many schools don't allow or discourage women from playing the same sports as men. Perhaps that would help.

Does require you not spend disproportionate amounts of government funds on sports for men and not for women.

Almost all schools have found it easy to comply with Title IX without arbitrarily cutting "men's" sports. That some respond to a good law in a stupid way does not make it a bad law.

Title IX seems a bit stupid to me, especially for small colleges. Let's say that a college wants to start a women's basketball team. Let's say that 4 women show up to the tryouts. Kinda to form a team then, isn't it? So then man's sports need to be cut to comply with Title IX. I say get rid of it except in blatant cases of discrimination.

Many who support AA realize the futility of debating the issue with white males on thesse Forums.

Particularly those that say things like "we've eliminated racism in this country except for AA" and think the NAACP is a racist organization.

White males have the same civil rights and equal opportunity protections as everyone else. It is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are white or male.

Whites -- particularly white males -- are not disadvantages as a class by pratically any socio-economic indicator. To the contrary, they are disporportionately privileged.

You are not oppressed. Others have been extremely oppressed and are still facing racism, sexism, etc. Our socitey is trying to do something about it.

You may face competition and lose some unfair advantages. Tough cheese.

Get over it.

The goal should be to allow employers to hire based solely on merit... with no regard to race, sex, sexual preference, etc.

if i am vying for a business job with an african-american man, a latinoamericano woman, and an asian-american man, and holding all else equal:

If I have an MBA and they do not have a masters-level degree (MBA or otherwise)... and remember, keeping everything else equal... I should get the job.

THAT is what should happen if we're NOT forced to discriminate based on sex/race etc.

that should be our #1 goal: to be able to hire solely based on merit

Wow. Just.... wow. You're more naïve than anyone I've ever discussed this with. If you think my explanation is a "distortion" of affirmative action, then you really need to go out and do some more reading on the subject. You tell me that quotas are "illegal" but they're sort of... well.. the whole point of affirmative action. Allow me to cite an example: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/05/norway.women.reut/.

That's affirmative action. Yes, it's in Norway, but the principle is the same. If you'd like a more localized example then please direct yourself to http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/pages/quotas.html. I'd like to point out, as a point of fact, that "Proportional Representation" is--whether you want to call it one or not--a quota.

Being better informed than you does not make me naive.

Quotas are not the whole "pont" of affirmative action. You do not know what you are talking about.

In fact, if you had read the second link you provided and the articles contained therein, you would have discovered ample evidence that quotas are not usually a part of affirmative action and they are generally illegal.

Moroever, you would have trouble finding any evidence that quotas are a usual part of affirmative action.

Googling "affirmative action" and "quotas" does not make you well informed if you do not bother to read the results.

I cannot, of course, explain my extensive experience and knowledge of affirmative action without being accused of (a) making unverifiable assertions and (b) appealing to authority.

You may wish to read up on the subject.

You might start with your own link and with these:

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

These are good sources of information. The first is short and summarizes some of the relevant law. The second is extremely detailed.

ABA Talking Points: Affirmative Action (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html)

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)
Reverse Discrimination Quiz (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=794&item_id=7812&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)
Whites Swim in Racial Preference (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=789&item_id=7807&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)

If you wish to persist in asserting falsehoods -- despite your own source and the above -- I can provide more information. But methinks that is pointless.

Allow me to backtrack to the firemen example. Lets say you live in a town where the adult population is 51% female and 49% male. Proportional representation would mean that out of every 100 applicants, you would have to hire 51 women. Doesnt' that seem a little off to you? Hiring practices should be based on practicality and competence, not race or gender, [i]end of story.

Again, a fictional example. That is not how affirmative action works.


For example, it's not my fault or my employer's fault that the Mexicans we have working in the kitchen generally move about more slowly than the rest of us, and the one who washes dishes before my shift leaves the dish tank a goddamn mess every time I come in there. One time it took me six hours to catch up on all the dishes he left me. They're nice people and I would never want anything bad to happen to them, but the idea that they should be entitled to a job on the virtue of their ethnicity alone bothers and disturbs me. What if the 2% latino population in this area just flat out sucks at washing dishes? Why the fuck should they be hired anyway?

<sigh>

You work with some Mexicans that "generally move more slowly than the rest of us" and you blame affirmative action for their employment.

Your assessment of the situation may be inaccurate.

What on earth makes you think affirmative action is too blame? Holy leap of logic Batman!

If someone does not perform their job adequate, they may be fired. Affirmative action does not prevent it.

If someone is not qualified, they need not and should not be hired. Affirmative action does not require it.

Affirmative Action makes the mistake of assuming that minorities are automatically as competent as non-minority workers. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it's not. Making a policy out of assuming it is true is laughably absurd.

If that were what affirmative action was, it would be absurd.

So far, the only thing that is absurd is your definition of affirmative action.

Long story short, my synopsis of the situation is hardly an exaggeration, and it is by no means "false" or "imaginary." It happens. Next time, please familiarize yourself with the facts before accusing me of promoting a fallacy.

Long story short: remove the plank from thine own eye.

Also, thanks for that definition, I never knew what that word meant since I never made it out of the first grade and I can't really read or write to save my soul.

Well, then perhaps you shouldn't confuse it proportionate.

If white people are passing all the laws [and we are], then it's a no brainer: it's far more likely that current legislation will favor those who passed said laws. I'm not saying this is right, but it's merely a fact of life. If our "power and privilege" is disproportionate, it's because we've passed laws that make this possible. I'd like to point out that in a Democracy, the majority has nearly unlimited power so long as they all think along the same lines. Which most of them do, disturbingly enough.

Um. So white people passed the affirmative action laws. It's a "fact of life." By your logic, you should qwitcherbitchin'.

And neither the US or the UK is a pure democracy and there are many limits on majority political power. Here in the US, a relevant one is the 14th Amendment.

Congratulations, Cat-Tribe. You've made me laugh harder than I have since I heard that my band's ex-drummer called Keith Moon the "Neil Pert of his day." I hope I'm capable of speech at work today, but my throat's still pretty sore.

I already pointed out that "Proportional Representation" is a quota, just using prettier words. I do tend to read the things that I link to, thankyoudrivethrough.

You're mistaking theory for practice here.

Title IX seems a bit stupid to me, especially for small colleges. Let's say that a college wants to start a women's basketball team. Let's say that 4 women show up to the tryouts. Kinda to form a team then, isn't it? So then man's sports need to be cut to comply with Title IX. I say get rid of it except in blatant cases of discrimination.

OK ... but that isn't what Title IX requires.

Look people of all ideological stripes are guilty of this from time to time. We don't know a lot about something but it has some aspect we think we know about and we assume the worse about it as a whole.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

NOTE: Not directed at you or opponents of affirmative action in particular. We should all take heed of this at times.

Here is some good information about what Title IX really is and works:
About Title IX (http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html)
Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm)
Mythbusting (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/rights/article.html?record=34)

I'm rather surprised. It's nearly unanymous against AA. Given the crowd on NS, I would have expected at least a 50/50 split, or more likely a lean towards AA.
Don't confuse "liberals" with those weirdos known as "Democrats".

Yes, I am also against racial AA because it's racist discrimination, and for the reasons you gave.

You may face competition and lose some unfair advantages. Tough cheese.

Get over it.
Opponents of AA are arguing in favour of competition.

Affirmitive Action and anyone who supports it are not pro-black, or pro-asian or pro-whatever. They are racist. The definition cannot only work one way. This is double standards.

Affirmitive Action is already destroying South Africa, with many white getting arbitrarily replaced with blacks.
Although it is true that they are being replaced by trained black professionals, which is no more acceptable IMO, sometimes even trained white professionals are being replaced by untrained blacks, even less acceptable because it will lead to a decline in the economy.

One one occasion, actually, a person I know who was trained and posessed a significant number of qualifications was replaced by a black who, and this is true, had trouble reading and writing. Reading and writing!
Although I know this doesn't happen in the majority of cases, replacing a white with a black, or giving preferential treatment, is still racism. Especially so since whites are the minority in South Africa.
Its the same in Colleges and Universities, they take a significant amount less whites than black, I am not sure on these figures, but I still have many family members in S.A., including my own father right now. White professionals are leaving the country by the boatload in search of fair employment.

Summary: Affirmitive Action is two words for racism. Giving preferential treatment to whites is racism. So is the same case with blacks. It is stupid, ignorant and in some cases it actually has a counter productive effect on the nation's economy

Congratulations, Cat-Tribe. You've made me laugh harder than I have since I heard that my band's ex-drummer called Keith Moon the "Neil Pert of his day." I hope I'm capable of speech at work today, but my throat's still pretty sore.

I'm glad you find your own ignorance on a subject amusing.

I already pointed out that "Proportional Representation" is a quota, just using prettier words. I do tend to read the things that I link to, thankyoudrivethrough.

Really? Show where your sources document the practice of quotas.

You're mistaking theory for practice here.

No. I'm talking about both law and practice.

You are mistaking your fictions for reality.

I'm glad you find your own ignorance on a subject amusing.

Don't bait me again. Capeesh?

Really? Show where your sources document the practice of quotas.

I'll say it again. Proportional Representation is a quota, only using a different terminology. Both terms can be found in the giant boldface heading at the top and in most of the articles and explanations below. Yes, I know it says quotas are "illegal." That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Drugs are illegal but I still use them. I'm not 21 but I still drink. Many companies have self-imposed quotas, but I don't see the department of Labor kicking down their doors.

No. I'm talking about both law and practice.

You are mistaking your fictions for reality.

Patently false. I've cited sources, so I don't really know quite what else I can do.

AA is a racist pile of crap....

Speaking from the standpoint of a self employed white american I find that Affirmative action more often then not discriminates against me. I understand the jazz about leveling the playing feild and this and that, but one company I tried dealing with required that MY business be owned at least 50% by a racial minority or woman.

Keep in mind it does not represent gays, people from broken homes, people that live below or at the poverty line or any number of other social issue, and this is deemed not only perfectly legal but encouraged by government.

So if you ask why white american males hate the concept of AA it is because our **35% of the population is being discriminated agianst by this government sanctioned (and blessed) action.

In a single sentence "AA Sucks"

** 35% based on the white population of the US in a previous post on this thread divided by 2 to reepresent the male population

1. Of course, there are not laws requiring affirmative action by private employers (at least in the US).

That doesn't stop people from suing private employers for discrimination on the basis that the percentage of employees (or the percentage of employees at a specific level) doesn't match the percentage of that particular minority in the populace.
It also doesn't stop the government from enforcing "regulations" rather than "laws" on government contracts.

2. Equal Opportunity Employment does not mean that unqualified persons must get jobs. It means the opposite. It means you cannot deny qualified persons jobs based on prejudice.
The way the Feds measure whether or not you're compliant around here is by percentages. If your percentages are off, you're automatically accused of denying people jobs even if you didn't get any from that minority who applied. Seen more than one government contractor fined or have their contract suspended. I had it explained to me by more than one government official - the only minority that counts is black, and the only other one that "might" count is women. If you don't have X percent black people and X percent women, you lose the contract and/or are fined.

They said that "equal results" is equality - not equal opportunity.

3. To be logically consistent, you must fully support affirmative action and equal employment programs adopted by private employers and institutions.

Affirmative action is another embodiment of "equal results" are the only measure of equality.

Let's say I'm a government contractor. I need to hire 50 programmers for the contract, and they each have specific skills I need. The government official is going to tell me that if I don't hire 10 black people, and don't hire 24 women, I lose the contract and may be fined.

The odds of having women apply now is slim to none - there aren't enough women interested in computer science in school. There are recruiting efforts at most engineering departments, but the women don't want to do computer science. So I don't even have 24 women apply.

The number of black programmers is also abysmally low - not my fault. I don't even get 10 blacks (male or female) to apply.

So I hire all the women who apply, and all the men who apply, even if they don't have computer science degrees, or have any prior experience in programming, because I need to make the quota, or lose the contract. Of the people I do hire, some may know how to program - but experience shows me that nearly half will not. Those people sit around and stay out of the way. The rest do the work. And we don't get fined as long as we hire SOMEBODY.

These things affect schools as well. I think it's fair to go by test scores alone to determine if certain people can go to a university. Let's say a school has 4000 freshman seats. They take the top 4000 scoring people, and without looking at their race or gender, accept them. For any tiebreakers, we let a program pick them randomly.

We're going on strict ability - and nothing else - and guess what, that's called discrimination - while I may intend to discriminate against the less academically capable in a blind and unbiased fashion, I am accused of discrimination against a particular race.

And that's the final straw - I want a race-blind society. But these programs, by measuring results rather than opportunity, encourage and formalize the classification of people by race.

I'm not white. And I'm not black. And I'm not completely Korean. And I'm not a single race. And I don't identify with Koreans culturally. So what am I?

I'm a human being. And I'd rather treat everyone that way - I don't care what your race is or what your gender is. If you can do the job for the money I'm offering, fine. But this forced practice of hiring duds to cover my ass against regulations is for the birds.

And don't get me started on the 8A minority set-aside programs. Had a ROOMFUL of black government officials tell me to stop having non-blacks apply for 8A status (even though Asians and Hispanics are listed as minorities in the program). They told me the program, no matter what the regulations say, are for blacks only. And they said if I bring another application down, they'll just throw it away.

By enshrining these racial separations, they have now taken it as license to be discriminatory not only to whites (who can't apply to such a program by regulation), but to all other races (who by regulation can apply, but are automatically rejected by black bureaucrats).

Don't bait me again. Capeesh?

You saying things like I am ignorant, naive, don't have the understanding of a 4 year old, etc., to me is OK. Your saying my views made you laugh so hard you may not be able to talk today is OK.

Me saying you are ignorant about a subject you is "bait."

Being a Mod does not entitle you to intimidate those who disagree with you.

I'll say it again. Proportional Representation is a quota, only using a different terminology. Both terms can be found in the giant boldface heading at the top and in most of the articles and explanations below. Yes, I know it says quotas are "illegal." That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Drugs are illegal but I still use them. I'm not 21 but I still drink. Many companies have self-imposed quotas, but I don't see the department of Labor kicking down their doors.

Yes. The headings say quotas. And almost all of the articles explain why equating affirmative action and quotas is erroneous. [I]I read through them.

If you choose to ignore what the articles say and interpret "proportional representation" as a quota -- even when the articles expressly explain the difference and/or explain how quotas are a myth -- then there is little hope of a rational discussion. I can say "affirmative action" means "free dental care and sex toys for everyone" but that does not make it so.

You've been asked to show where your linked showed proof of quotas. You've failed.

Any person negatively impacted by a company with a "self-imposed quota" can sue. That is one of the primary ways laws against corporate discrimination are enforced.

If what you have a problem with is not affirmative action laws, but the failure to enforce existing laws against quotas -- say so. Right now you are doing the equivalent of blaming the drinking age laws for underage drinking.

Patently false. I've cited sources, so I don't really know quite what else I can do.

But your sources do not support your conclusion.

You could either find reliable sources that do -- or concede you are wrong.

As I know the second option is a cardinal sin on these forums, I'm sure you will find a third option.

AA is counterproductive and resentment building. Rather than help bring us together it simply divides us more (which is what I suspect the power brokers who created it really wanted).
In the area of education AA we should be fixing the public schools so that they are able to educate students to meet an equal standard of admission to universities. They should also stop brainwashing all children into the belief of University or Bust! It denigrates people who work crucial, non-university needing jobs and devalues a university degree.

I'm opposed to any kind of Affirmative Action.
Would you want to go to a doctor who got where he is through Affirmative Action, or a doctor who got in because he had his shit together and had the know how? Affirmative Action is a way for under-priveleged, and under-educated people to do jobs they are not fit for. It has nothing to do with race or sex. If you have the stuff, then you can do it. If they are going to continue Affirmative Action, they should at least have an aptitude test for the position they're fighting for.

You saying things like I am ignorant, naive, don't have the understanding of a 4 year old, etc., to me is OK. Your saying my views made you laugh so hard you may not be able to talk today is OK.

Me saying you are ignorant about a subject you is "bait."

Being a Mod does not entitle you to intimidate those who disagree with you.



Yes. The headings say quotas. And almost all of the articles explain why equating affirmative action and quotas is erroneous. [I]I read through them.

If you choose to ignore what the articles say and interpret "proportional representation" as a quota -- even when the articles expressly explain the difference and/or explain how quotas are a myth -- then there is little hope of a rational discussion. I can say "affirmative action" means "free dental care and sex toys for everyone" but that does not make it so.

You've been asked to show where your linked showed proof of quotas. You've failed.

Any person negatively impacted by a company with a "self-imposed quota" can sue. That is one of the primary ways laws against corporate discrimination are enforced.

If what you have a problem with is not affirmative action laws, but the failure to enforce existing laws against quotas -- say so. Right now you are doing the equivalent of blaming the drinking age laws for underage drinking.



But your sources do not support your conclusion.

You could either find reliable sources that do -- or concede you are wrong.

As I know the second option is a cardinal sin on these forums, I'm sure you will find a third option.

I didnt say you were ignorant. Naive is not an insult. I also did not compare you to a 4 year old, I merely said a 4 year old could understand what I was saying.

You're not reading my posts, obviously; since you're making wildly erroneous conclusions about what I'm saying. I'm done with this.