Is Affirmative Action A Bad Thing???
  • Question do you feel that Affirmative Action is a bad thing and goes against Equal Opportunity??? Why or why not??? I dont see whats wrong with equal opportunities.
  • Affirmative Action by definition is act that benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. Thus promoting Equal Opportunity. In a perfect world it indeed would work against it but in a flawed world like our own it is a necessary evil to combat discrimination.
  • A better topic might be... In this day and age, is affirmative action outdated?
  • Affirmative action, that would be like... that Occupy Walstreet thing? I didn't see what good occupy did, and honestly, directly, I'm not sure if it did! But I'm thinking, at least for me. I ignored the local Occupy rallys and saw the outcome. Nothing but a big mess to clean up. And did the protesters clean it up? Well maybe a few, but most of it was tax money hiring workers and such. It was pretty stupid. Than the SOPA thing came along, and I thought it'd end up the same way! But it didn't. I even found myself filling out a complaint cuz it was so easy to do! I mean clicky wikipedia clicky submit and clicky your on your way. Well that was very successful I think in large part cuz it was so easy, but in part cuz ppl were just in the protesting kind of mood, at least I was... In the end I DO point to Occupy's affirmative action, not to help itself, but it did help the public in some way.

    I still think these peace rallys are dumb, if that IS the affirmative action your talking about. If your talking about Vigilante Justice (ie Anonymous extracting a currupt politicians home address so his family gets deluged with death threats) than I think that's pretty dumb too.
  • Not only is affirmative action outdated, but it was wrong to begin with. Making decisions based on the color of a persons skin is wrong, simple as that. Individuals should be judged based upon their skill and ability, not based on anything else.

    In regards to the modern day, it's worst than it ever has been. My city's police force lowered the passing grade because the black men and women were not passing the test. The original passing grade was 75%. That's a C, that's average. They lowered it to 65%, that's far below average. Instead of pushing these individuals to study a little harder to they can pass at the same grade as everyone else, they coddled them like children, gave them an easier grade to reach, simply so they can fill their quota. That's wrong.

    On top of all that, it's a complete shame that Affirmative Action does not truly reward hard work. You can be the best student in the world and a black guy at the same time, but that doesn't matter to colleges or scholarships. They care more about you being a black man than you being the best student. Again, that's wrong.
  • It's better than nothing, but worse than a socio-economic form of affirmative action or money assisstance. A race based one is questionable.
  • would you say better than nothing means equal opportunity??? I think they would be the same if you get rid of AA
    GoodEnoughForMe said:
    It's better than nothing, but worse than a socio-economic form of affirmative action or money assisstance. A race based one is questionable.
  • There is no such thing as equality of opportunity in any country on earth right now, just various attempts to rectify it. That's essentially what Affirmative Action is.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    There is no such thing as equality of opportunity in any country on earth right now, just various attempts to rectify it. That's essentially what Affirmative Action is.


    Equality would mean judging everyone on equal grounds, not giving someone special treatment. I agree everyone should have equal opportunity, but no one should be given special treatment because of their skin color or gender.
  • laphamking said:
    Equality would mean judging everyone on equal grounds, not giving someone special treatment. I agree everyone should have equal opportunity, but no one should be given special treatment because of their skin color or gender.


    Equality isn't a one-term word. Affirmative Action was instituted to give everyone an equal shot at things that were denied to people over the centuries. In the wake of discrimination that was most severely issued towards African-Americans, it was an attempt to rectify that. Yes, skin colour basis may be silly to think of now, but it's tough to justify judging everyone equally when many people don't even have the opportunity to be on the same level as others, because of being born poor, black, hispanic, into a Muslim family, etc.
  • There's an important distinction to be made here. Affirmative action was a requirement for Federal contractors and subcontractors, but isn't actually used that much on most nono-government contractor businesses today. Companies rarely set quotas for hiring, though they will often set quotas for interviews. That is, they will require that a certain percentage of the interviews be from members of underrepresented groups. This doesn't mean that they will get the job; only that they will get a chance.

    Today, businesses generally have their own policies for promoting diversity and inclusion, and they do it for business reasons; they want to be able to attract up and coming talent.

    Consider this example: At company 1, the management is all middle-aged married Christian white males. At company 2, the management is a mix of nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, skin tones, etc. Of the two, which do you think is going to appear to a new employee to be more inclusive? Which do you think will better be able to relate to the employee's individual circumstances? Which do you think is going to be more attractive to a potential employee from an underrepresented group? If you were on the board of directors at a company, would you want your competitors getting top employees that would have come your way if you had given some indication that you would respect their diverse backgrounds?

    Managers generally have to get over the notion of most qualified, and treat qualification as a binary. You are either qualified or you aren't. IF you are qualified, then they should look at the skill sets that you bring to the table that they don't already have. If your background and skill set is a carbon copy of their star employee, then you bring nothing new to the table. On the other hand, if you bring something that they don't currently have, then you add a lot more value.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    Equality isn't a one-term word. Affirmative Action was instituted to give everyone an equal shot at things that were denied to people over the centuries. In the wake of discrimination that was most severely issued towards African-Americans, it was an attempt to rectify that. Yes, skin colour basis may be silly to think of now, but it's tough to justify judging everyone equally when many people don't even have the opportunity to be on the same level as others, because of being born poor, black, hispanic, into a Muslim family, etc.


    You don't have to justify judging people equally, you just have to do it. No one is ever going to be born completely equal, just viewed as equal under the law.


    Also, I have to ask, what would you say to minorities who would argue against special treatment as well? Just curious.
  • laphamking said:
    For example, take a rich white guy, and take a poor black man. Offer them each the same job, and give them both a chance to study a test to get the job. Whoever does best on the test gets the job. They were given an equal opportunity.


    This doesn't take into the fact that:

    A) The rich white man likely went to a better school and took more schooling
    B) The rich white man likely has better health care
    C) The rich white man does not have a glass ceiling in place

    These will directly affect the ability to pass the test and the desire to do so.

    laphamking said:
    Now, people aren't magically going to start walking up to people offering jobs, but that's besides the point. The point is we live in a country that does has enough opportunities that you don't have to be born on an equal playing field to be given an equal opportunity.


    No, that's not true at all. A poor person in a poor neighborhood is at an instant disadvantage in schooling of all forms. They will deal with higher crime. A woman may never earn as much as a man in the same job even if she is as qualified (this is finally starting to change). A child born into a family that can not afford health care is at greater risk of injury. These are all things that can affect you throughout life and ruin your opportunity far after childhood. Equality of opportunity does not exist anywhere in the world, especially in the US when compared to some European states. Degree earners make more money on average than non-degree earners. Middle and lower class Americans can not afford to straight pay for college education in most cases. Even well before college, the opportunity gap between poorer students and richer students is strikingly large. This is far from equal opportunity.

    laphamking said:
    Also, I'd have to ask, what would you say to minorities who would argue against special treatment as well? Just curious.


    I would agree with them. Race subjugates the actual issues of poverty and inequality.
  • I agree with GEFM, some folks need to stand back and look at the majority of the world's population and realise that affirmative action is required because as it stands, too much of the world's wealth is in the hands of too few.

    CRC
  • Explain to me how healtchare will effect an ability to take a test?

    Define better school. Are you simply talking from an economic perspective? Do all good teachers magically only end up in these "better schools." Also, does this poor black man have no access to self-education? No books? No internet? We are talking about the modern age, correct?

    In regards to your second paragraph, I'm going to start with the lack of healthcare=more injury. Now if you're scenario is; family has no healthcare, child gets random illness;does not have doctor to treat illness, then fine, your point is valid. If you're talking about actual injury, like a broken arm, that has nothing to do with having or not having healthcare. Having an injury comes from being reckless, not from being incapable of paying a doctor money to fix you after you act recklessly. A rich child can be a complete fool and constantly hurting him/herself, and have wonderful health insurance. That's not going to stop an injury from happening. In regards to schooling, being poor, we live in a time in which information/knowledge is easily available, to all people. This is America, not a third world country with homes made of mud. Even the poorest people are able to get access to internet and information, and teach themselves. There are devices like the WorldWide Telescope that children can use to learn about astronomy and get a free education. There are educators using various forms of media to get out information so it's more readily available, and those same people will do all they can to make it more understandable.

    Finally, in regards to your mention of college, and rich vs poor. Lets understand that having money doesn't mean you're smart. Not all geniuses have tons of money, and just because your family has the money to send you to any school you like, doesn't mean you'll do well, or that you'll even get in. A poor student who does well in school has a better chance of getting into a college than a rich kid who got nothing but C's. When it comes to paying for it, scholarships are available, and if they can't get enough scholarships, loans are also available. Schools have programs in which you can work for them to pay your tuition, and much more. On top of that, a lot of colleges, at least in my view, are bullshit. They make you take a load of classes that has nothing to do with what you're trying to get a degree for, and this does nothing but force people to spend more money and waste more time. Many would simply be better off just going to a community college to get the education they actual planned on getting, instead of pointless classes, and this will also save them a lot of money.

    There are more variations and options, and not everything can simply be dwindled down to rich vs poor or one color of skin versus another. This isn't some comic book in which we can make everything black and white, this is reality. It's not perfect, it's not fair, but it's what we all have to deal with.
  • Explain to me how healtchare will effect an ability to take a test?


    It affects everything beyond the test. It affects leisure time, job time, school time, need for benefits, etc., etc. This can in turn affect a so called "test" taking ability.

    Define better school. Are you simply talking from an economic perspective? Do all good teachers magically only end up in these "better schools." Also, does this poorblack man have no access to self-education? No books? No internet? We are talking about the modern age, correct?


    Schools that serve poorer areas have:

    Overwhelmingly less experienced teachers
    Overwhelmingly fewer AP classes
    Almost half of schools do not offer Algebra II, generally found lacking in poorer school more predominantly

    An inexperienced teacher on average represents a 1+ grade difference from K-12 to an experienced teacher. And that's generous, and not counting outside factors. That is huge.

    If you're talking about actual injury, like a broken arm, that has nothing to do with having or not having healthcare. Having an injury comes from being reckless, not from being incapable of paying a doctor money to fix you after you act recklessly.


    So... on the job injuries are all recklessness? You just generalized millions of people worldwide. I'll tell my dad next time he brings up when he broke his ankle at work doing his job that he was reckless. :P Healthcare changes how people can afford (nor not afford) such potential crises. A healthier workforce is much more efficient.

    And please stop shifting this. Yes, there are tools outside of the classroom. So a kid is supposed to go to school and not learn for 8 hours and then do everything at home? Schools are for education. Some kids work jobs outside of them, some kids have unsafe homes outside of them. Don't throw this on the ability to do research outside of school. Schools are for learning. Right now, there is a massive achievement gap. It is estimated that 30% of the income divergence in recent times is a direct result of a faltering educational system, and the achievement gap and equality in opportunity is the main cause of that.

    Of course money doesn't make you smart, that is not at all the point of my post. College graduates on average make more money. Richer schools are overwhelmingly doing better in education. This is all set up to be disadvantageous to poorer students. It takes place well before college, going back to very early grades. The early school achievement gap exists, too. It doesn't matter if you think college is bullshit, what matters is that it is very important to have a degree in today's job market.

    There are more variations and options, and not everything can simply be dwindled down to rich vs poor or one color of skin versus another. This isn't some comic book in which we can make everything black and white, this is reality. It's not perfect, it's not fair, but it's what we all have to deal with.


    This seems ironic. My whole argument in this thread is essentially for removing the black and white diatribe of "everyone has an equal shot." And you just called injuries of all kinds reckless. Black and white thinking is generally a trademark of Randism and libertarianism because the ideology specifically espouses moral inflexibility. And I don't mean the latter necessarily as a slam because at times it's not bad, but it is sort of a characteristic of the ideology.
  • No, not all injuries are reckless. Many are though. Furthermore, the context of my statement was regarding children, as they are indeed far more reckless than an adult, and their injuries come from such recklessness. Even so, I'm still not arguing that every single injury comes from being reckless, there are going to be varying circumstances.

    In regards to education, I think you missed a big point I was trying to make. Yes, schools are designed as a place to educate. My point is, if a child is not getting the proper education from school, there are other ways in which a child can be educated. Furthermore, parents are just as responsible for teaching, no, more responsible for teaching than schools are. Children are in school for 6-8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's only 30-40 hours of schooling a week. There are 7 days in a week, and a child will be up for at least half of that time, probably more so on the weekend. I'm not saying pull all children out of school and put them in front of a computer to learn. I'm simply saying there are more options than one.

    Anyway, I'm done. We're pulling further and further from the initial point of this thread. I still find Affirmative Action to be wrong. I understand why people feel it's important, but I don't agree. Furthermore, like the Bgbb stated, it's not always going to be a garuantee of employment, and bussinesses are going to hire a more varied amount of people, because it's most beneficial to their company, not because of Government regulation.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week