Affirmative Action

Crusader05 · Nov 15, 2005

Jetgirl said:
One of the problems I've found is that things that look unequal on the surface, are often things you actually don't want to change:

I was looking at some stats on lifetime earnings of men and women on the census website and saw something interesting. The earnings of men and women tracked roughly on the same scale but womens earnings were consistantly about 15% less than mens.

Bigotry! Outrage!

Actually not.

What women do, that men can't, is have babies. To have babies, I gaurentee that you're going to be taking some time off work. Between that and the women who choose to stay home for months to years to raise children. It's also hard to have a gung-ho career when taking care of a family. I see it myself, it drives me bonkers when my staff cannot get to work on time because they're taking the kids to school, take random days off for kid stuff, are always leaving early for kid stuff, and I have to pick up all the slack. These women are not going to make it to management, because they simply aren't THERE when management needs to be there. Men generally don't have this problem.

To get those numbers I saw on the census site to add up, you would need to actually pay women consitantly more than men.

What you would be doing is artificially forcing the numbers to look equal by discriminating against those that aren't doing the pregnancy/children thing.

I feel that AA does this same thing. Makes things LOOK equal, when they're really not and shouln't particuarly be.

So how is this an excuse for black men having less access to education and therefore making less money throughout their lives then white men? And the similar situation with black women?

I feel that your trying to make excuses for discrimination, excuses for us letting entire classes of people in our society being left by the wayside.

Yusuf Evans · Nov 15, 2005

I voted for use in both employment and universities, only because of my children. However, like myself and my children, most people today are not full blooded anything, therefore, where does the minority sit at? I think in the past 50yrs, we have done more to better our society, than the previous 200 yrs. I think it should be utilized, but not weighed as heavy as it was 10yrs ago.

Zoot · Nov 15, 2005

I voted for use in both employment and universities, only because of my children. However, like myself and my children, most people today are not full blooded anything, therefore, where does the minority sit at? I think in the past 50yrs, we have done more to better our society, than the previous 200 yrs. I think it should be utilized, but not weighed as heavy as it was 10yrs ago.

It has a best-before date on it: it is no longer justified when there is proportional representation.

Maynard Keenan · Nov 15, 2005

All affirmative action does is lower the bar for minorities. To truly help minorities acheive equality of results, we need a few things, none of which is affirmative action. We need better education. We need a welfare system that is more of a hand-up than a handout (Job training and such, plus aid that allows a person to work a job, such as providing childcare while a single mother works, or transportation for someone who has no car. These can be temporary until income allows the person to become self-sufficient.) And lastly, we need fewer unwed parents and more families that stick together to prop eachother up. This of course isn't minority-specific, this plan benefits the underprivelidged of all races.

BrownCoat · Nov 16, 2005

I voted against affirmative action, but given the fact that I'm a member of a minority group (Native American), if it's easier for me to get some type of job because of that fact, I'd try take advantage of the system and cynically use it for my own benefit.

If it screws someone else out of a job? Heh. Too bad.

k · Nov 16, 2005

Jetgirl said:
Affirmative action has done it's duty.

We should be basing employment and school admissions on blind (as to race and sex) examination of qualifications.

So, the claim here is that racism has been antiquated via AA?

k · Nov 16, 2005

MachZer0 said:
Affirmative Action is a way of telling minorities that they do not have sufficient mental or physical skills to compete for jobs and education. Therefore, they need help. Just like allowing kids to speak ebonics is telling them that they aren't smart enough to learn proper English

Ummm...NO....this is a myth put out about AA but companies do not have to hire someone just because of their ethnicity/sex...they DO have to be QUALIFIED for the jobs.

AA is a way for telling minorities that the US screwed up big-time and now it is the responsibility of the US to disabuse the pervasive effects of racism.

"Allowing" them to speak ebonics? WOW!!!

k · Nov 16, 2005

Packy said:
Best person for the Job.
if people wanted to be treated as Equals then they need to stop using their race/sex/sexual orientation as a crutch.

AA does not take lower qualified candidates over better qualified ones.

Kroger99 · Nov 16, 2005

I voted.....
should be used for neither employment nor college acceptence

Everyone should be offend by Affirmitive Action!
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19974664#post19974664

k · Nov 16, 2005

Kroger99 said:
I voted.....
should be used for neither employment nor college acceptence

Everyone should be offend by Affirmitive Action!

Why?

Kroger99 · Nov 16, 2005

Neverstop said:
Why?

The best person possible should be selected instead of counting colors. It's really not that hard.

MethodMan · Nov 16, 2005

Marek said:
In that case, that person was breaking the law. Affirmative action should not be necessary to inforce that law.

No - It is not against the law.

12volt_man · Nov 16, 2005

If liberals are sincere about affirmative action, then why aren't they pushing for more white players in the N.B.A.?

k · Nov 16, 2005

Kroger99 said:
The best person possible should be selected instead of counting colors. It's really not that hard.

It seems there are many myths about AA. This is a basic rundown: Say there are two candidates, equally qualified, the minority would get the preference. If there are two candidates and the minority is not as qualified, then AA does not trump the one MORE qualified.

k · Nov 16, 2005

12volt_man said:
If liberals are sincere about affirmative action, then why aren't they pushing for more white players in the N.B.A.?

Ummm...AA is not needed where there is no prevalence of racism.

What should the policy be to disabuse a few hundred years of racism? Should we pretend racism no longer exists?

MethodMan · Nov 16, 2005

Neverstop said:
It seems there are many myths about AA. This is a basic rundown: Say there are two candidates, equally qualified, the minority would get the preference. If there are two candidates and the minority is not as qualified, then AA does not trump the one MORE qualified.

Not a myth at all considering ALL Gov't contracts require EEOC declarations and require a percentage minimum number of minorities be employed by said company.

12volt_man · Nov 16, 2005

Neverstop said:
It seems there are many myths about AA. This is a basic rundown: Say there are two candidates, equally qualified, the minority would get the preference. If there are two candidates and the minority is not as qualified, then AA does not trump the one MORE qualified.

Actually, this isn't true.

Where quotas are involved, employers and organizations must take the minority in order to keep their quotas.

Some cities, like San Fransico and my own adopted hometown, Philadelphia, have policies in place that dictate that businesses owned by women and minorities get preference, regardless of their bid on public contracts.

In addition, my sister, who is a postmaster in South Jersey and my brother in law, who runs the Postal Service Bulk Mail Facility in Philadelphia, as well as being a former inspector, have both told me that minority candidates are routinely given preference in postal hiring.

k · Nov 16, 2005

MethodMan said:
Not a myth at all considering ALL Gov't contracts require EEOC declarations and require a percentage minimum number of minorities be employed by said company.

But no where does the EEOC state that companies must higher lower qualified candidates over more qualified ones. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that companies have purposefully done that to try and say AA does not work.

The percentage minimum exists because there have been MANY qualified candidates turned down based solely on race. Or is the argument here that has not and does not happen?

12volt_man · Nov 16, 2005

Neverstop said:
Ummm...AA is not needed where there is no prevalence of racism.

So then, you're saying that racism should be demonstrated before affirmative action programs can be enacted?

What should the policy be to disabuse a few hundred years of racism? Should we pretend racism no longer exists?

No. We should let markets work.

It's unfair to tell a business owner that he must hire an inferior candidate because that candidate has been treated unfairly in other places?

It's unfair to tell a contractor that, regardless of his bid or his ability to fulfill his contract, that he won't be awarded a job.

It's also an irresponsible misuse of taxpayer money.

Racism is a bad thing and there's no doubt that people have been treated badly because of it.

However, it's not the role of the government to correct it and it's both immoral and illogical to say that because one person has been treated unfairly in the past, we're going to treat someone else unfairly now to make up for it.

[I have recently been told that it's wrong to say that favoring or punishing one race over another based on race is racist. So I am editing that out of this post.]

Moros · Nov 16, 2005

A white man and a black man are taking aptitude tests to become police officers.

The white man scores higher than the black man.

The black man is hired because the government says there aren't enough "minorities" on the squad.

Race is not the issue. Whoever scored higher on the test should be given the job because he is more qualified.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action...

should be implemented in employment and college acceptance

should be implemented in employment but not college acceptance

should be implemented in college acceptance but not employment

should be used for neither employment nor college acceptence

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Omnis Obstat

Well-Known Member

BrownCoat

Guest

reset

reset

reset

Senior Member

reset

Senior Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

reset

reset

Legend

Well-Known Member

reset

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency