NationStates Jolt Archive

In the various affirmative action threads I have read, there always seems to be a vague misunderstanding. It seems to me that the affirmative action supporters and those against it have different definitions of what it is. Those against it tend to say that it is enforced equal outcome, while I haven't yet figured out what the supporters believe it is.

I have not personally formed an opinion on the issue yet, as I have not yet figured out quite what affirmative action really is.

So, AA-supporters, what exactly is AA?

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons!?...

wham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)

It's basically a drive to recruit people from a particular under-represented group, such as ethnic minorities or children form poor families to science degrees in the UK. As a result, the standards for people of different backgrounds can be different, hence the claims of racism/classism/someotherism

wham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
*feels like an idiot for never having checked Wikipedia*

*feels like an idiot for never having checked Wikipedia*

wiki is the absolute bollocks

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons!?...
i'd tend to say doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

It's giving minorities and disadvantaged people an equal chance to succeed.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

It's giving minorities and disadvantaged people an equal chance to succeed.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

that's a very innaccurate way of putting it

i'd tend to say doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Potato Tomato or something like that.

In America Affirmative Action is racism against white people.

Why should someone who does not do as good a job as I get promoted
just because he is a minority? (BTW that did not happen to me personaly just making an example)

In America Affirmative Action is racism against white people.

Why should someone who does not do as good a job as I get promoted
just because he is a minority? (BTW that did not happen to me personaly just making an example)

Bullshit.

The same laws that make racism against any race illegal protect white people.

If someone less qualified is promoted over someone more qualified based on race, that is illegal discrimination. It is not affirmative action.

Bullshit.

The same laws that make racism against any race illegal protect white people.

If someone less qualified is promoted over someone more qualified based on race, that is illegal discrimination. It is not affirmative action.

Well, I must admit that according to Wikipedia, you are wrong. Though I agree with your views, it seems that I have been misunderstanding Affirmative Action all along.

Scrolling down a bit in the definition, I'd be for "Other approaches"

"In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being ‘’’race-blind’’’. It tends to act against both discrimination and reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to "positive discrimination"."


This is what I always thought of as affirmative action, and this is what I think is right.

Bullshit.

The same laws that make racism against any race illegal protect white people.

If someone less qualified is promoted over someone more qualified based on race, that is illegal discrimination. It is not affirmative action.

O how i wish you were right about that. However MANY white people have been passed over for promotion to give less qualified non-whites promotions.
and the courts backed them up saying it was not discrimination because of affirmative action.

O how i wish you were right about that. However MANY white people have been passed over for promotion to give less qualified non-whites promotions.
and the courts backed them up saying it was not discrimination because of affirmative action.

Prove it.

Well, I must admit that according to Wikipedia, you are wrong. Though I agree with your views, it seems that I have been misunderstanding Affirmative Action all along.

Scrolling down a bit in the definition, I'd be for "Other approaches"

"In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being ‘’’race-blind’’’. It tends to act against both discrimination and reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to "positive discrimination"."


This is what I always thought of as affirmative action, and this is what I think is right.

I like wikipedia, but it is not always correct. (And it tends to have a conservative bent on many issues.

You might check out:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=794&item_id=7812&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

Though Kennedy used the term in one of his executive orders, LBJ was the first to truly coin the phrase "affirmative action;" but their methods were different from the ones generally in use today. Johnson merely wanted race to be disregarded in the hiring process. Nixon took it a step further with the Philadelphia Order, which practically set a quota on race for hiring purposes (in other words, qualifications don't matter: skin color does).

Most of those against affirmative action (there are those few very racist exceptions, but they're getting rarer and rarer) are against this latter concept, that quotas need to be set on race when it comes to employment and enrollment in universities. They merely want race to not be an issue, and see this quota system as being as good as racism in reverse. Those in favor of the quota process argue that it's the only means to ensure beyond doubt that minorities are not discriminated against.

I'm in the middle of the two ends, with I believe a [slight] majority of people. Sure, quotas help ensure that discrimination isn't practiced, but at the same time, they also do -- just against the majority rather than the minority.

Which some believe is a good thing. That's their preference. I don't really care that they believe that.

There you go.

Though Kennedy used the term in one of his executive orders, LBJ was the first to truly coin the phrase "affirmative action;" but their methods were different from the ones generally in use today. Johnson merely wanted race to be disregarded in the hiring process. Nixon took it a step further with the Philadelphia Order, which practically set a quota on race for hiring purposes (in other words, qualifications don't matter: skin color does).

Most of those against affirmative action (there are those few very racist exceptions, but they're getting rarer and rarer) are against this latter concept, that quotas need to be set on race when it comes to employment and enrollment in universities. They merely want race to not be an issue, and see this quota system as being as good as racism in reverse. Those in favor of the quota process argue that it's the only means to ensure beyond doubt that minorities are not discriminated against.

I'm in the middle of the two ends, with I believe a [slight] majority of people. Sure, quotas help ensure that discrimination isn't practiced, but at the same time, they also do -- just against the majority rather than the minority.

Which some believe is a good thing. That's their preference. I don't really care that they believe that.

There you go.

Quotas have not been generally been part of affirmative action for decades.

Quotas are generally illegal.

Feel free to document a federal law or policy enforcing quotas.

I never meant to imply that an actual quota is being enforced at the moment. I meant that the argument against affirmative action is against a sort of "quota system," which has basically resulted in the mindset that minorities have a slight advantage over "majorities" when applying for employment or enrollment in schools, and especially the latter. The only actual quota in place that I've ever studied is the Philadelphia Order.

Something that doesn't help this Straight, White, Anglo-Saxon, Mixed-Germanic, Protestant, Upper-Middle Class, Male. That's all I can say for certain.

*Those affirmative action bastards refused to give me half appalachian status, as such I didn't get the scholarship...grrrrrrrr.*

Because I have been accused of having my own magic definition of affirmative action that does not match anyone else's:

I'm working from what programs are legally mandated and/or legally allowed.

Here is the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.