Affirmative Action

[In A Perfect World]

Do you think AA is immoral because it holds one's race into consideration in applications for careers and colleges?

Some things to consider:

AA is only extended to certain people. Only non-European groups receive preferrence under AA. Irish groups, Italian groups, and German groups were heavily discriminated against in the 1880's, yet receive no benefits from past discrimination. During WWII, Japanese and Italian Americans were interned and had property seized. Yet only people of Japanese descent are covered under AA (for being Asian). I realize people who are Hispanic, black, and Asian had been wronged in the past, however, there are other groups who have been almost equally wronged!

Why is AA only extended to those of color? All groups have been wrong in the past, except perhaps WASPs (who I suspect make up a majority of CF members).

I understand AA attempts to make wrongs disappear in the corporate world, but when does this go too far? Is it really needed? I think a poor white person and a poor black person are equally disadvantaged in my area, yet only one qualifies for special preference. Perhaps I am wrong, and there is still rampant racism and discrimination in the work force I am unaware of that AA is still needed? I think that if anything, AA harbors more racist attitudes by those bigots who are further upset that minorities have become "special". Just a temporary solution to a dying problem.

Disclaimer - I am not racist and I think that race shouldn't even be a box on a work application. All humans regardless of skin pigment are of the human species and therefore no more or less able to perform in a given job/area than different others.

 

[psychedelicist]

I'm enough % Native american to qualify for AA. But, I don't. I don't think it's right that I should get a job or go to college just so they could meet their status quo, instead of on my own merits.

 

[Brimshack]

For what it's worth, minorities are not the only beneficiaries of AA.

Preference is also commonly given to Veterans.
Preference is often given to people from Graographically underrepresented regions.
Preference in Universities is also given to children of faculty and alumni.

These are all in principle doing much the same thing that AA does.

 

[blackwasp]

I think a poor white person and a poor black person are equally disadvantaged in my area, yet only one qualifies for special preference.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[The Seeker]

I think a poor white person and a poor black person are equally disadvantaged in my area, yet only one qualifies for special preference.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there, IMO. As my friends from the CSG might say, it's class

 

[Voegelin]

Nicolas Davila:

"An individual declares himself a member of some group or other with the goal of demanding in its name what he is ashamed to claim in his own name."

 

[hernyaccent]

I am supportive of AA in public business and educational settings for reasons such as this :

In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back.

http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/workplacediversity/20030910-wessel.html
Using information on 55,046 children from 24,298 families with two or more children enrolled in a large Florida school district from 1994-95 through 2000-01, Figlio studied national reading and mathematics test scores and grade transcripts to determine who was promoted to the next grade or referred to gifted programs. Comparing pairs of siblings, Figlio found teachers treat children within the same family differently depending on whether their name connoted low socio-economic status, resulting in discrepancies in academic performance

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2005news/names.htm

Job applicants with African-American sounding names are far less likely to get a callback as are similarly qualified "white" candidates, according to researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, who submitted 5,000 bogus résumés in response to job ads. Half the résumés bore stereotypical African-American names such as Latonya and Tyrone; half sported traditionally Anglo names like Kristin and Brad.

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030430-000001.html

The playing fields aren't equal. I am sure there are similar studies when it comes to other races also.

 

[hernyaccent]

I'm enough % Native american to qualify for AA. But, I don't. I don't think it's right that I should get a job or go to college just so they could meet their status quo, instead of on my own merits.

But that isn't how AA works. You have to be equally as qualified and without AA chances are there wouldn't be any minority workers in many companies.

 

[Nightson]

Racism is still present in todays society, it's just been forced underground, it's become subconcious. People don't even realize they're being racist, but it's still there. And until it's gone entirely, I will support programs like AA.

 

[""]

I don't support AA. I do not believe that anybody should be allowed to receive special benefits, assistance, promotions, job offers, etc., simply because of race. AA promotes continued division among races, as well as continued inequality. I also do not support the idea of paying back African Americans (or transplanted Africans whose ancestors were sold to other countries for the purpose of profit) who can claim that their ancestors were moved away from their homeland for slavery purposes.

My reason for not supporting this is because while I am wholly opposed to slavery, and the selling of humans for any reason, I think that financial restitution should be coming from them that sold, not them that bought.

Back to the OP: While AA was formed with good intentions, I believe it has outlived it's services. The only way to stop bigotry is through experience and education. It comes from both sides. I reach out to people of all races, and I am of mixed race myself. When you have all sides telling you "you're too white for me", "you're too dark for me", "you're too jewish for me", "you're too muslim for me" "you're too christian for me" "you're too african, too white, too... whatever...... whatever you are.. you're not all white right?" Well...

When you don't fit in anywhere, you begin to see how foolish it is to take sides. Besides, it's kind of amusing to be asked "what are you anyway?" I'm human. So are we all.

(btw I am 100% Christian )

 

[Doctrine1st]

For what it's worth, minorities are not the only beneficiaries of AA.

Preference is also commonly given to Veterans.
Preference is often given to people from Graographically underrepresented regions.
Preference in Universities is also given to children of faculty and alumni.

These are all in principle doing much the same thing that AA does.

With White women being the biggest beneficiaries.

I think a whole lot of people need to read up on AA.

 

[Quijote]

I believe that, for Universities/Colleges, AA should be based on economic need and not race.

I taught HS in Houston and had black students, who were top of the class, smarter than me, never really had to study to catch on to Calculus, Physics, Chemistry but studied anyway, whose parents were Engineers, VP of Banks, Physicians, etc... who received aid to attend a State sponsored university because their race. I also had white, Filipino, and Vietnamese students who were equally bright but did not qualify for AA help because they were the "wrong" race (and whose parents were not "professionals").

I think AA should stop being race based and now be economically based.

cheers

 

[psychedelicist]

But that isn't how AA works. You have to be equally as qualified and without AA chances are there wouldn't be any minority workers in many companies.

Well there's the thing. I don't care if a company won't hire me cause of my race. It's their company and if they want to discriminate they have the right. If I want to start a business that caters only to non-whites that's my right as well, and the white people can go find work somewhere else.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Well there's the thing. I don't care if a company won't hire me cause of my race. It's their company and if they want to discriminate they have the right. If I want to start a business that caters only to non-whites that's my right as well, and the white people can go find work somewhere else.

No it's not your right to discriminate just as it is not your right to wack your neighbor for looking at you wrong. There are state and federal laws. The same entities that provides one certain priviledges that comes with filing for your business license.

 

[psychedelicist]

No it's not your right to discriminate just as it is not your right to wack your neighbor for looking at you wrong. There are state and federal laws. The same entities that provides one certain priviledges that comes with filing for your business license.

OK Legally it is still wrong. But I do not see anything morally wrong with how you run your business. I don't agree with the analogy because hitting someone and discriminating against them are 2 very different things.

 

[Doctrine1st]

OK Legally it is still wrong. But I do not see anything morally wrong with how you run your business. I don't agree with the analogy because hitting someone and discriminating against them are 2 very different things.

You can run your business anyway you see fit. You can pay your bills by robbing banks, it just may behoove you not to get caught.

 

[psychedelicist]

You can run your business anyway you see fit. You can pay your bills by robbing banks, it just may behoove you not to get caught.

True enough, but once again no one, or their property is hurt by discrimination (except their ego perhaps), so once again it is a bad analogy.

A much closer one would be, say, drug use. It's not immoral to do, IMO, but it is still illegal for no real reason. I kind of feel that way about discrimination as well.

That being said I probably wouldn't think too highly of people who hire based on gender, but he does have that right.

 

[Doctrine1st]

True enough, but once again no one, or their property is hurt by discrimination (except their ego perhaps), so once again it is a bad analogy.

A much closer one would be, say, drug use. It's not immoral to do, IMO, but it is still illegal for no real reason. I kind of feel that way about discrimination as well.

That being said I probably wouldn't think too highly of people who hire based on gender, but he does have that right.

So your saying that the person who is discriminated against for skin color for example, is not being hurt by being denied employment because of their color. Is that what you're saying?

 

[psychedelicist]

So your saying that the person who is discriminated against for skin color for example, is not being hurt by being denied employment because of their color. Is that what you're saying?

I don't see them leaving with black eyes. The only thing that is hurt might be their pride and the fact that they're still jobless.

Believe me I've been discriminated against. I know how much it sucks, and it's pretty hard to find jobs sometimes because of it. But the government shouldn't have to step in every time someone gets their ego bruised.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I don't see them leaving with black eyes. The only thing that is hurt might be their pride and the fact that they're still jobless.

Believe me I've been discriminated against. I know how much it sucks, and it's pretty hard to find jobs sometimes because of it. But the government shouldn't have to step in every time someone gets their ego bruised.

Not being able to put food on their table and a roof over the heads of their families, not being able to have a decent quality of life that employment allows, not being treated equally as a America is far worse than a blackeye. Could you imagine how all the black veterans of war after fighting for their country only to come home and be denied employment because of color felt? It's far more than a pride thing. The Government steps in because it's, one more time, against the law.

Moreover I think it's important to understand how AA job discrimination works. It's been awhile, but from what I recall it only applies to companys with "X" number of employees. (can't remember number) The burden of proof is on the applicant to show discrimination, not the employer to show they didn't. The monitoring of employment by the Government comes into affect only after a company has been proven to be discriminatory. It's not as easy as some may think.