NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirmative action is t3h 104d 0f bollocks. The point of it is to help racial minorities by allowing them entry to colleges or other university settings by what is basically boosting their score. This isn't the case in smaller universities, but in state universities, this is definately true. Now, there are two problems with this - it is a form of reverse racism, and it makes the assumption that all blacks, native americans, hispanics, and others are by the very fact that the look different from whites, are disadvantaged.

Some people defend affirmative action by claiming that the point of it is to balance the amount of minorities with the majority students. The basic problem is, this is a load of BS. The point of a university is to support a strong education system, not to resemble populus in terms of ethnic makeup of its students. If whites or asians tend to score higher (NOTE: I am NOT saying this is nessicarily the case) then they should be more readily admitted then other people.

NOTE: Please no name-calling. Please respond to my point of view instead of calling me a poofy impotent balding old bigoted queen.

Look, you poofy impotent balding old bigoted queen

it is a form of reverse racism,

you don't need reverse in there. It's racism, pure and simple.

Other than that, I agree with you completely. Even down to the use of leet;)

I thought Affirmative Action was a law that permitted people
to sue if they thought they were discriminated because of
things such as race, religion, sex, etc...
Even a white male can sue.
I think most people who sued using the Affirmative Action law
was white women. ?


And that quotas were not a part of the Affirmative Action law.
I could be wrong.

college should be available to anybody who wants to learn.

it benefits our society by having educated populations.


a reason Japan builds factories in Canada instead of the US.

Personally I am all for affirmative action and quite frankly enjoy watching liberals fight so hard to maintain it. It ensures that they will remain irrelevant in the bigger picture for at least another generation to come. So leave the quote people alone and let them whine!

college should be available to anybody who wants to learn.

it benefits our society by having educated populations.


a reason Japan builds factories in Canada instead of the US.

If you believe that then you're not as smart as your government leads you to believe.

college should be available to anybody who wants to learn.

it benefits our society by having educated populations.

It also greatly benefits the individual who earns the degree. I'm in college now, and after I graduate I intend to become a great benefit to society, but you can be sure that I will be charging as much as I can for it. In a way, my education is free, because the money I'm likely to make in a few years will pay for it.

I think affirmative action on the basis of class rather than racewould be more fair and justifiable. Not that I support affirmative action.

Too many graduates, not enough jobs.

College isn't mearly 'job training' anyway.

It's about ensuring the artificial class structure of society.

Too many graduates, not enough jobs.This is the problem. People who are genuinely intelligent - whether they're black/white, rich/poor, male/female etc etc etc - should have every right to go to university. Places should not just be thrown out to people left, right and centre because they belong to a minority group.

Form a meritocracy in relation to such things - one where you ensure that the university is accessible to minorities, as well as majorities, who have a real brain.

it is a form of reverse racism
Only an alkali will neutralise an acid... I'm not being entirely serious with that remark, but it does seem that in general to secure equality you have to fight for superiority.

Only an alkali will neutralise an acid... I'm not being entirely serious with that remark, but it does seem that in general to secure equality you have to fight for superiority.
*Shudder*

It's true that radical efforts are sometimes required to get the ball rolling, but I don't think that requires some quest for superiority. Far from it; I think equal rights groups are severely hampered by extraneous efforts to win "superiority."

Only an alkali will neutralise an acid... I'm not being entirely serious with that remark, but it does seem that in general to secure equality you have to fight for superiority.
There are two problems with that
1) Races, genders or whatever you want equility between are not homogenous entities. When you fight for superiority for one race you create discrimination against the other race. The statistics become nicer, but none of the previously discriminated people are better off. After a while those you discriminate against get fed up and start working against you, and if they are equally stupid that creates more discrimination against members of the group that you wanted to help.

2) No one ever stops. If you fight for superioriority for some group, the day you reach equility that group will be stronger than ever, and the struggle will continue as long as there is tax money.

The main problem with affirmative action is that it is mostly turned into reverse discrimination.

The main problem with affirmative action is that it is mostly turned into reverse discrimination.
People, seriously, the vein in my head is throbbing out of control.

The "reverse" of discrimination is lack of discrimination, or equality. Unless that's the point you're trying to make, just say "affirmative action is discriminatory." Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it's targetting.

Affirmative Action is present to make up for the inferior education that poor minority students tend to get. Generally speaking, incomes are much lower, incentive to go to college is not as present (a determining factor in how high one's GPA is), and the families usually don't have a history of attending college. Thus, Affirmative Action is a great plan to help get minority students out of a tragically poor situation. It makes perfect sense to me. And so what, white men get countless other advantages in this country that other races don't get. For one thing, no one is going to discriminate against you because you are white.

Black people have to deal with driving while black. Especially wealthy and black men. Cops assume that no black person could have a nice car without having stolen it, so they are much more likely to stop a black man driving his nice car.

So what if a little reverse discrimination goes the other direction? White people are still almost the only ones attending college in America. And that's mainly because there is no cultural white discrimination.

People, seriously, the vein in my head is throbbing out of control.

The "reverse" of discrimination is lack of discrimination, or equality. Unless that's the point you're trying to make, just say "affirmative action is discriminatory." Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it's targetting.
No, the point I am making by saying "reverse" is to note the fact it succeeds at its purpose of making it "more equal" for women and minorities, but many times the "more equal" goes beyond the midpoint and becomes descriminatory against males and white people. Thus "reverse" discrimination.

People, seriously, the vein in my head is throbbing out of control.

The "reverse" of discrimination is lack of discrimination, or equality. Unless that's the point you're trying to make, just say "affirmative action is discriminatory." Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it's targetting.


It's better to use reverse-discrimination to counter the negative effects of discrimination though.

No, the point I am making by saying "reverse" is to note the fact it succeeds at its purpose of making it "more equal" for women and minorities, but many times the "more equal" goes beyond the midpoint and becomes descriminatory against males and white people. Thus "reverse" discrimination.


If I recall accurately, only a few bottom-level white students ever get affected by this. The dredge of high school, in any light. I think it's more than fair to give preference at this low of a level. Empty the ghettos. There is your priority.

It's better to use reverse-discrimination to counter the negative effects of discrimination though.
Aaaaaaagggh.

If you are trying to say, "it is sometimes necessary to counter one form of discrimination with another" then I'm not going to debate you because I think history shows that tactic to work (whether or not one agrees with it in principle). But PLEASE, pretty please, stop refering to it as "reverse" discrimination. It's not "reverse," it's just plain old discrimination.

Aaaaaaagggh.

If you are trying to say, "it is sometimes necessary to counter one form of discrimination with another" then I'm not going to debate you because I think history shows that tactic to work (whether or not one agrees with it in principle). But PLEASE, pretty please, stop refering to it as "reverse" discrimination. It's not "reverse," it's just plain old discrimination.
Well, frankly, now we have to call it "reverse" to see if your head will explode.

No, the point I am making by saying "reverse" is to note the fact it succeeds at its purpose of making it "more equal" for women and minorities, but many times the "more equal" goes beyond the midpoint and becomes descriminatory against males and white people. Thus "reverse" discrimination.
And the point I'm making is that whether a system is biased in favor of white males or against them, the bias is discriminatory. No "reverse" about it. Granting groups different rights or freedoms based on gender/race/sexuality/whatever is discrimination, no matter who it favors.

Well, frankly, now we have to call it "reverse" to see if your head will explode.
ker-BOOOOOM!!

:)

It's just a pet peeve. I'm somebody who believes very strongly in equality, and I don't like seeing people use "reverse" discrimination as a term because I think it ends up perpetuating all the wrong ideas (whether or not the speaker intended to do so). It does this in two ways: first, it implies that "regular" discrimination is the sort perpetuated against minorities, with the implication that it's "normal" for discrimination to occur in that direction. Second, it makes white males into an out-group, by giving the impression that "reverse" discrimination is somehow different or less wrong than "regular" discrimination. As though white males deserve to be treated unfairly because white males have dominated across much of our recent history.

I'm all about equality, and the term "discrimination" should be applied equally to any and all cases where it is taking place. No matter what the motivation, I don't believe enforced inequality is ever going to get us to the final goal of a "discrimination-free" society.

Aaaaaaagggh.

If you are trying to say, "it is sometimes necessary to counter one form of discrimination with another" then I'm not going to debate you because I think history shows that tactic to work (whether or not one agrees with it in principle). But PLEASE, pretty please, stop refering to it as "reverse" discrimination. It's not "reverse," it's just plain old discrimination.


Eh, alright.

Too many graduates, not enough jobs.

College isn't mearly 'job training' anyway.

It's about ensuring the artificial class structure of society.

Yep...

HP is looking for a Corporate Datacenter Consultant....

Their first candidate is fresh out of college.... He's got a bachelors in Electronics Engineering, but does not know anything about the actual equipment he will be consulting on... To perform his job, he will need extensive training, and about a 1 year internship before he could be reliably deployed [at much company expense]

Their second candidate has been a FireControlTechnician in the U.S.N. for the last 6 years, he has extensive experience on many of the systems he will be consulting on, from their military application. He has completed hard-line courses in several electronic fields, and is capable of maintenance of systems down to component levels... To perform his job, he will need a breif course of some cursory systems.... and no internship...[at little company expense]....

to all:

Who do you think the personnel officers at HP are going to pick to fill the position?
The one WITHOUT the degree.... They can get him right to work making them money, at little pocket expence to themselves...

To put it hard.... UNIVERSITY DEGREES =/= WORK EXPERIENCE.... In the end, a personnel officer will choose EXPERIENCE over PAPER all of the time.

I don't really care a lot about afirmative action. It seems largely ineffective to me. I don't feel like I am put at an unfair dissadvantage because of it, but I don't feel like its helping minorities much.

Afirmative action is typical American behavior of trying to come up with a quick fix for a major problem and put a band-aid on a gushing wound. The whole debate is a distraction.

Problems with Afirmative action:
1. Its racist --> racism doesn't just mean hatred, but technically applies to any situation where different races are treated differently. The only non-racist sytem would be a totally blind one.
2. It doesn't deal with the real problems of inequality and hense is unlikely to fix them.
3. Most of the minorities I have seen benefit from it are wealthier ones. It's not the very poor working class that are benefiting. Its the middle class African Americans. (This is my observation, all the African American students I went to college with were from middle class backgrounds. I don't know if anyone is trying to fix this).
4. Afirmative action suppose to increase diversity. But true diversity is diversity of opinion. Afirmative action does nothing to insure diverse opinions (except for differences of opinion over afimrative action). My undergraduate institution specifically recruited minorities who's opinions matched those of the majority student body.
5. It causes resentment from the majority group making problems of racism more.
6. Its a distraction from real problems. That's one of the problems I have allways had with the Democratic Party. They get distracted by these ideas and don't deal with real problems. I see maybe 1 politition talking about fixing causes of inequality for every 100 politions that don't do anything but advocate afirmative action as the fix. please note, I'm not excusing the Republican party which hasn't even attempted to deal with this problem.

I think diversity is important: A truely diverse population (not just upper class minorities that are given a little bost) includes those that come from vastly different regions of the country and world, with vastly different economic backgrounds (and in addition to this different racial makeups). These people are likely to have much different outlooks in society. You can have a very racially diverse group that all come from similar backgrounds and have no real diversity except for skin color. We want diversity of ideas. That's what is useful in our colleges.

Its also more important for colleges to set up ways of encouraging students of different backgrounds to mix. Just putting them in the same location doesn't do anything. The minority students will group together and not interact with the majority students. This is the case in most of our colleges.

An example of dealing with real issues of inequality:
We need to fix the schools. Maybe they should be funded by something other then local property tax. Or better yet deal with issues of white flight. Maybe more widespread busing will be a solution. It's a little unfair to send children from families to bad schools that moved into an area because of its good school district, but this would only be temporary. The richer families will not put up with the terrible public schools and will see that they are fixed (or put thier kids in private school, but not all of them are able or willing to spend that kind of money and those that can often do allready). Besides if we fund the schools from the property taxes of those who go to it. And we bus half the students from one to another then the two schools will be equaly funded and very diverse. [I bet none of you have met someone against affirmative action but for busing before]

Anyway, that's just an example. I'm just saying deal with inequlaity at its roots.

Yep...

HP is looking for a Corporate Datacenter Consultant....

Their first candidate is fresh out of college.... He's got a bachelors in Electronics Engineering, but does not know anything about the actual equipment he will be consulting on... To perform his job, he will need extensive training, and about a 1 year internship before he could be reliably deployed [at much company expense]

Their second candidate has been a FireControlTechnician in the U.S.N. for the last 6 years, he has extensive experience on many of the systems he will be consulting on, from their military application. He has completed hard-line courses in several electronic fields, and is capable of maintenance of systems down to component levels... To perform his job, he will need a breif course of some cursory systems.... and no internship...[at little company expense]....

to all:

Who do you think the personnel officers at HP are going to pick to fill the position?
The one WITHOUT the degree.... They can get him right to work making them money, at little pocket expence to themselves...

To put it hard.... UNIVERSITY DEGREES =/= WORK EXPERIENCE.... In the end, a personnel officer will choose EXPERIENCE over PAPER all of the time.


Depends if the HR drone has a brain or just follows the, "Must meet these requirements....#1 College Degree", path. You're going to find that most HR drones use the degree method to weed out resumes. Fair? No way, but reality. I'm only now starting to see, "or equivalent job experience".

So what if a little reverse discrimination goes the other direction? White people are still almost the only ones attending college in America. And that's mainly because there is no cultural white discrimination.
The thing is, the real problem for minorities who want to get into college isn't racial, it's class-based. A suburban black kid has a much better shot at college than a white kid living in poverty, for instance, and my friend Tim (the suburban black guy) will tell you as much from his personal experience. Now, minorities and poverty overlap so much that the distinction may seem meaningless at this point, but I think it really is very important...no matter how racially equal we make things, if we still have this class-based inequality we're going to be stuck with these same problems forever.

Affirmative action, like unions, had a very valid reason to be created. But, again, like unions, have mostly fixed what they were created to fix, and are no longer necessary. Both are being abused today, and actually espousing what they were intended to fight--being "more" equal.

Affirmative action is racist.

College isn't mearly 'job training' anyway.

It's about ensuring the artificial class structure of society.
I beg your pardon, but that's simply not the case in many situations. For instance, my bachelor's degrees were essential for my "training" in my chosen career path (developmental neurobiology). My education, in college and beyond, has always been about preparing me for my job, and it's never been about some effort to maintain "class structure." If you think you can do my job without college "training", you're welcome to try :).

Depends if the HR drone has a brain or just follows the, "Must meet these requirements....#1 College Degree", path. You're going to find that most HR drones use the degree method to weed out resumes. Fair? No way, but reality. I'm only now starting to see, "or equivalent job experience".

In smaller jobs, it's becomming more prevalent, yes... the Larger corps [while not listing it] have been doing it for years....

Especially biggies like HP, IBM, Raytheon, Unidyne, etc..... They'll grab MOS's and NEC's before they grab College Degrees [and this is for $95,000+ /yr jobs]... Especially dealing with Tech-Consultants... Mostly because they have the same core education; just they don't have to throw as much money into trainig for the MOS's and NEC's as they do with college degrees... It's been this way for some time in those fields...

Medical fields, college-wise, are abit different; just about all the medical fields have actual internship training as PART of their degree programs.... However, when you leave the medical fields [and a few select research fields]... The rest is pretty much theoretical data, and a stamped piece of paper.... Most people leave college possessing absolutely NO working experience in the degrees they have obtained...

college should be available to anybody who wants to learn.

it benefits our society by having educated populations.


a reason Japan builds factories in Canada instead of the US.

I would somewhat doubt the original point. Why on earth should higher education be available for those who intend to learn, but are intellectually deficient?

I would somewhat doubt the original point. Why on earth should higher education be available for those who intend to learn, but are intellectually deficient?

The strong desire to learn likely negates any “intellectually deficiencies” that may exist in someone. Moverover, to deny someone equal opportunity, by virtue of some disability (be it Dyslexia, etc), sound contrary to what most western countries like to think their all about.

The strong desire to learn likely negates any “intellectually deficiencies” that may exist in someone.

It doesn't, I assure you. It is why I can do sod all work and excel, and those who work really hard and are motivated, but untalented, fail.

Affirmative action, positive discrimination, label it what you will, it is merely a pretext to further impose upon the rights of the majority in favour of a minority who are percieved as oppressed, yet statistically commit more crimes, and earn less.

It doesn't, I assure you. It is why I can do sod all work and excel, and those who work really hard and are motivated, but untalented, fail.

Affirmative action, positive discrimination, label it what you will, it is merely a pretext to further impose upon the rights of the majority in favour of a minority who are percieved as oppressed, yet statistically commit more crimes, and earn less.

It obvious that we’re trying to discuss something which is difficult to observe and verify. However, I have seen people, by merely motivating themselves, change their very intellectual state. I’m not sure if they always have some untapped intellectual superiority (as it seem you suggest), or they merely desired to change and did so, I dont know so i'll drop the issue.

Just to clarify, you are suggesting that some individuals are naturally disposed to certain types of intellectual attributes, which assist and negate their ability to perform varied functions, correct?

It doesn't, I assure you. It is why I can do sod all work and excel, and those who work really hard and are motivated, but untalented, fail.
Ah-hah, but I can present the counter-anecdote! I'm not terribly bright or innately talented, yet I'm succeeding pretty well so far in a career path that's known for being extremely mentally challenging. From what I've seen, people who are innately gifted yet lack motivation or focus will typically not succeed in fields like mine, while individuals with a bit less raw talent but a lot more drive will be the ones who really shine.

Now, of course there are limits. You have to have a certain level of intelligence to enter fields like the biological research sciences, and somebody who doesn't meet that minimum is no more going to succeed in these fields than I am going to succeed as a professional basketball player (I'm 5'2" on a good day). But I think you're exagerating the situation way too much.


Affirmative action, positive discrimination, label it what you will, it is merely a pretext to further impose upon the rights of the majority in favour of a minority who are percieved as oppressed, yet statistically commit more crimes, and earn less.
I don't much care for your assumptions about the minorities, but I agree with the general conclusion...I believe in success by merit, and I have personally refused a scholarship that was awarded because of my status in a "minority" (I'm female) because I don't think being born with a certain skin tone or a certain set of genitals makes a person worthy of special treatment.

Ah-hah, but I can present the counter-anecdote! I'm not terribly bright or innately talented, yet I'm succeeding pretty well so far in a career path that's known for being extremely mentally challenging. From what I've seen, people who are innately gifted yet lack motivation or focus will typically not succeed in fields like mine, while individuals with a bit less raw talent but a lot more drive will be the ones who really shine.

Now, of course there are limits. You have to have a certain level of intelligence to enter fields like the biological research sciences, and somebody who doesn't meet that minimum is no more going to succeed in these fields than I am going to succeed as a professional basketball player (I'm 5'2" on a good day). But I think you're exagerating the situation way too much.


I don't much care for your assumptions about the minorities, but I agree with the general conclusion...I believe in success by merit, and I have personally refused a scholarship that was awarded because of my status in a "minority" (I'm female) because I don't think being born with a certain skin tone or a certain set of genitals makes a person worthy of special treatment.

I don't know, I can be motivated if the situation requires it, its simply that for the most part I can be better than most and drift along quite contentedly. At 17, I am writing post graduate essays and speeches at times, I simply loathe those people who work ridiculously hard, yet produce work with no innovation or creativity. Why complete work that is akin to ticking boxes given to you by a teacher?

As for minorities, statistically black people do commit more offences, use up more benefits and generally detract from society more than white. It is irrefutably true, why contest the issue. I will confess to a little bitterness, having lost several part time jobs to ethnic applicants purely due to thei ethnicity, but the statistics support the concept I have extolled, and as a pure English person, why am I rejected in place of MR. Francis Mbangabanga Mawumbaway purely because he is of ethnic origin?

[QUOTE=The blessed Chris]<snip>[QUOTE]

Eh-oh. Mr. Chris, while I agree with you in theory, I think you kind find slightly less racist ways of putting it.

See, the thing about me, mate, is that I'm all for equal rights when they mean everyone - be they black, white, male, female, whatEVA - get the same treatment. I don't like affirmative action when it discriminates against qualified white males - but I dislike it just as much when people discriminate against people of color.

You, on the other hand, seem to dislike blacks for little reason.

But hey, that name was kinda cool. I know!! Let's make up fake names that sound ethnic!

Like, Crapp Inze Töilet for a German, Hertz van Rentals for a Dutchman, Kao Puo for a Chinese... er... person, Lord Algernon Windowputty Ayupton Trottington-Hamburgerflipperton for a Brit, or Frank Leim Abloatedbasterd for an American. /Threadjack

I wonder when The Cat-Tribe will get here and tell you all what affirmative action actually is. Hint: it's not quotas or giving unqualified minorities anything.

I wonder when The Cat-Tribe will get here and tell you all what affirmative action actually is. Hint: it's not quotas or giving unqualified minorities anything.

No it isn't--not directly. But it does lead to frivolous lawsuits and quotas being established because businesses are afraid of being labled "racist" due to said lawsuits, and those that can't accept the reality that some people (skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs aside) are a better fit for a specific job.

If you give a person a free way in, a person will take it.