Affirmative Action

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The EEOC has observed an increasing number of color discrimination charges. Color bias filings have increased by 125% since the mid-1990s, from 413 in FY 1994 to 932 in FY 2004.

That is a lot of imaginary discrimination.

I don’t think that anyone here is contending that there is no discrimination, only that AA is the wrong solution to solve it.

Given that AA has been around for quite some time now, the figures quoted above would appear to show that it has been an abject failure in changing behaviour, and that a new approach is needed.

 

[praying]

I don’t think that anyone here is contending that there is no discrimination, only that AA is the wrong solution to solve it.

Given that AA has been around for quite some time now, the figures quoted above would appear to show that it has been an abject failure in changing behaviour, and that a new approach is needed.

suggestions?

 

[MethodMan]

players/staff

It's easy. Pretty level already!

 

[MethodMan]

Let's say he got it through ______ means. How is that microscopic example possibly relevant?

It's called extortion!

 

[Lifesaver]

These laws benefit society.

Not at all.
They benefit some individuals that have a particular trait at the expense of those who don't.

 

[k]

It's called extortion!

Let's say that that ONE case was done wholly by extortion, it still does not answer the question.

 

[k]

The Government is depriving an individual of the privilege of [font=&quot]acquiring certain job.

Sincerely,
zoink[/font]

Prove it with concrete examples.

 

[k]

But not all businesses deny employment because of race, yet many must adhere to AA.

If the former is true the latter is irrelevant.

 

[k]

Affirmative action is a terrible thing. It forces universities and companies to accept people not based on any trait they value (merit, result, history, experience, personality, etc) but on an imposed arbitrary trait such as sex, skin colour, etc.

They spring from perceived statistical inequalities to propose the enforcemente of all kinds of impositions and measures of "social justice", which are nothing more than helping some at the expense of all others. So, for instance, if it is shown that blacks occupy fewer jobs of such characteristic than is their percentage in the population, companies should be forced to hire blacks as opposed to other candidates so that the statistics equalize.

This is ridiculous and unjust. Soon enough someone will prove that the percentage of top executives with no little toe on their left foot is smaller than the percentage of these men in the general population, and thus companies should favour applicants who lack their little toe.

Firms that don't make the best choices of employees are hurt in their profits; likewise, firms which make good decisions reap higher profits. The market already provides the system of reward and punishment to those managers who put their own arbitrary preferences of gender and skin colour over the company.

Every single individual is unique; no two persons are identical, though each shares many characteristics with many others. Gender, skin colour, kind of hair, eyes, head size, height, number of toes, etc, to name just some of the physical characteristics that vary among men.
To force someone to favour the posessors of this or that characteristic is absurd, immoral and harmful for society as a whole.

The best weapon against unjust prejudice of all kinds is information. With the spread of knowledge, old false opinions are discarded in favour of more reliable ones. To force companies and universities to hire and enroll contrary to their present best judgement is a great blunder.
Afterall, what if there are indeed differences between the sexes, as many studies have been showing? This is the kind of question that proponents of affirmative action want to deny at all costs, preferring imposition and coercion rather than information.

Instead of doing a copy and paste job, I will just post a link.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

 

[k]

Confession: I USED to be anti-AA...until I actually got off my self-righteous pedestal and started doing some actual WORK by reading, researching, and talking w/ people. I had to let the facts create my position, not the converse. It was a hard process for me, but it was well worth it.

 

[12volt_man]

Prove it with concrete examples.

Why is it that you love to demand that others prove things to you, but when you're asked to provide evidence to back up your claims, you refuse?

Isn't that just one more example of hypocrisy on your part?

Confession: I USED to be anti-AA...until I actually got off my self-righteous pedestal and started doing some actual WORK by reading, researching, and talking w/ people. I had to let the facts create my position, not the converse. It was a hard process for me, but it was well worth it.

So, what "facts" led you to support reverse racism?

If the former is true the latter is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all.

Rather than allowing the business owner to put the prospective minority appplicant on equal footing with other candidates, he must now give preference to somebody who may not have been the better choice, even though that person wouldn't have faced discrimination in the first place.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Confession: I USED to be anti-AA...until I actually got off my self-righteous pedestal and started doing some actual WORK by reading, researching, and talking w/ people. I had to let the facts create my position, not the converse. It was a hard process for me, but it was well worth it.

Well plenty of us from the Anti-AA position base our stand on facts too. And the fact remains that a government cannot on the one hand mandate race in ANY FORM in hiring policy while at the same time expecting the public not to do likewise.

And as for talking to people, almost no-one that I've talked to supports the policy for that exact reason.

The figures cited earlier in mhatten's post show that racist incidents have been INCREASING since the early 90s. So it seems that AA is failing in the real world too.

 

[jgarden]

If affirmative action is to be replaced, what other practical mechanisms exist to level the playing field for poorer minority groups. the long term consequences include creating a growing population of alienated citizens who have no commitment to the nation.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

If affirmative action is to be replaced, what other practical mechanisms exist to level the playing field for poorer minority groups. the long term consequences include creating a growing population of alienated citizens who have no commitment to the nation.

Going back to a simple, transparent anti-discrimination policy, backed up by laws to prosecute companies guilty of discriminatory hiring practises would be a start. Putting more money into education, especially into underfunded schools in poor areas would go a long way too.

 

[praying]

Going back to a simple, transparent anti-discrimination policy, backed up by laws to prosecute companies guilty of discriminatory hiring practises would be a start

Going back to??? These have always existed side by side with AA.

 

[BrownCoat]

Going back to a simple, transparent anti-discrimination policy, backed up by laws to prosecute companies guilty of discriminatory hiring practises would be a start. Putting more money into education, especially into underfunded schools in poor areas would go a long way too.

Meh. Hypothetically, if I was a business owner, I wouldn't be able to stand the government telling me how to make my money.

Here's how I think about it:

My first premise if I'm hiring a person for a job in my company, that person does not have a right to expect to be hired for that job, because a job represents an investment that I am making with my money. Since it is my money, I am entitled to spend it however I choose.

Which leads to:

Since a job is spending my money, I am entitled to choose any criteria that I want to, to spend my money. The government has no right to dictate to me how I spend my money, as long as I am not using it to infringe on the rights of anyone else. Since a job is not a right, the government has no right to tell me who I can or cannot hire for a job.

Thus:

If I am entitled to use any criteria I choose for hiring a person for a job, and the government cannot interfere, I have a right to use racist qualifications to hire people to work for my company, because a job is not a right, and the government has no right to tell me how I can or cannot spend my money.

Is using racist decisions a bad criteria for hiring someone? Certainly. Does it make it a bad business decision? Yes. Am I entitled to make bad business decisions? Absolutely.

 

[MaryS]

What's interesting about this poll is that nearly 75% are opposed to affirmative action. Considering how most polls here are way skewed to the left, that's quite amazing.

Based on the rulings made by the Supreme Court in the Michigan University case, the best opponents of affirmative action programs are Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. Rehnquist was also, but he's gone.

The judges who seem to favor affirmative action are Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Stevens used to rule against it but he has steadily moved toward the left of the court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger (upholding Michigan University's right to use race as a criteria for admissions)
Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger (striking down Michigan University's point-based system of affirmative action)
Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented


Looks like there might be a chance of using the Supreme Court to strike down some university programs if both of the newest judges on the court are conservative on that issue.

 

[praying]

Is using racist decisions a bad criteria for hiring someone? Certainly. Does it make it a bad business decision? Yes. Am I entitled to make bad business decisions? Absolutely.

So you think market forces will stop people from making racist decisions?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Is using racist decisions a bad criteria for hiring someone? Certainly. Does it make it a bad business decision? Yes. Am I entitled to make bad business decisions? Absolutely.

I agree with you up to a point.

However, your business decisions affect society as a whole, and your business derives benefit from a stable, harmonious commercial climate. Both these things would be adversly affected if businesses chose to discriminate based on race.

 

[MaryS]

Some states have made progress to eliminate affirmative action programs.


In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, legislation that eliminated affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting throughout the state.

Washington voters passed Initiative 200 in November 1998, which restricts the use of race/ethnicity in employment, education, and contracting decisions.

The only exception that I know of in California is contractors who get money from the federal government. Lockheed and many others continued their racial and gender preference programs in hiring and promotions.