Affirmative action, yes or no?

[just2kicku]

And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the black community, as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
Sean

Why does it have to be the black community? Why can't it be any community, whether it's black, brown, yellow, or whatever?

Where is this drive to be middle class, if it is handed to you based on your ethnic background?

I'm a brown boy from Hawaii who never asked for anything. I took out student loans and went into the military and got educated. I chose a rate that would be around for a long time. (Electronics). Everyone has the same oppurtunity, if they got educated first, then hit the job market, then no matter who you are, you'll be qualified for whatever position you apply for.

We wouldn't need affirmative action.

So why should I think it's OK to hand someone something who didn't have to work for it like I did?

 

[Empty Hands]

Whole lot of privilege on display here.

Until this is no longer a problem, the "best person for the job" is a polite fiction. AA attempts to address the biases on display that lead to results like above. A Solomon-like neutral finding of the "best candidate" just doesn't happen much - unless all details are blinded like the search committee discussed above. Personal biases all come into play, in a way that just so happens to discriminate against minorities - no matter how qualified they are.

You see this with Sotomayor. Somehow, a person who graduates summa cum laude from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. The response to her shows just how far we have not come. As do the responses of some here.

 

[Twin Fist]

Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
Sean

no one's fault but theirs. I refuse to feel guilty that some black kids decides to steal or sell drugs instead of getting an actual job

 

[Live True]

First, let me note that I am considered a minority (Asian Pacific Islander), and I may have benefited from AA in getting into my first college choice. I don't know for certain, but the thought is always there. Hmmmm....

I voted no, for a couple of reasons, but mainly because I think Aff. Action is not the best means to the stated end goal. The first reason for no is mentioned above. I will never be 100% certain that I got into the college of my choice simply because of my qualifications. While I do not believe in turning down a helping hand, and it does not cheapen the accomplishments I made from there, it will always be a question in the back of my mind. A small one, inconsequential really, but there, nonetheless.

I also think, like Unions, that Aff. Action had a purpose and use when first created. Sometimes, a paradigm shift requires some nudging to help give it the chance to grow and develop. Even today, racism exist, although the focus may have changed more from colour to sexual and belief orientation. But any good gardener knows that you may need support early in the growth of a tree, to give it chance against weather and predators. But if you keep that stake and wire as the tree grows, you create an overly dependent tree that cannot stand on its own and who's "assistance" may actually bring harm and encourage pests into the living organism (breaks in the bark from wire cuts invite invasion). So, I think Aff. Action was a helpful support in the early stages of America growth into the diverse culture it was truly meant to be. While I still think we have much work to do, I think it's time to nurture growth instead of support.

That said, I think the money spent on Aff. Action oversight would be better spent elsewhere. Right now, those funds would be better spent in assuring that poorer and disadvantaged neighborhoods had some of the same educational resources, programs, and opportunities for thier children to learn and experience other opportunities. To speak to Sean's concern....instead of a program meant to artificially require equality (and unfortunately old enough to be ripe for abuse), why don't we put that funding into programs that will help folks achieve thier own equality by showing them opportunities and then providing the tools to reach those opportunities? Put the money into nutrition programs, work programs, education programs, and mentor programs.

Messier, by far, but it has so much more potential to improve lives across the board, not just on a case by case basis.

 

[Twin Fist]

And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the black community, as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
Sean

if they stop getting things handed to them, eventually, they wont need to get things handed to them

and this goes for ANY group

 

[Twin Fist]

maybe if she wasnt overturned 60% of the time FOR BEING WRONG no one would object.

maybe if EVERY single decision of her's that went before the supreme court hadnt been overturned no one would be objecting

touchy feely types always assume racism, when the truth is often simply that the person of color is INEPT

You see this with Sotomayor. Somehow, a person who graduates summa cum laude from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. The response to her shows just how far we have not come. As do the responses of some here.

 

[Empty Hands]

maybe if she wasnt overturned 60% of the time FOR BEING WRONG no one would object.

The national overturn average for all circuit courts is 77%.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, think about which decisions do get appealed...

 

[Live True]

And Empty Hands, I agree that racism and prejudice still exist, but the nature of this abuse has changed. I would say (or dare I say hope) that physical intimidation and threats to one's life are no longer the norm. We shouldn't forget how far we've come, or be afraid to step out and up for what we believe is right. I simply think that existing laws against discrimination are a better vehicle to prevent abuse. I think Aff. Action is not the best use of those resources (funds). I think it is time for more personal and direct action.

But of course, we are free to disagree and do so with freindly discussion.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

The national overturn average for all circuit courts is 77%.

Thanks for proving my point.

I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.

 

[Thems Fighting Words]

Depends on why the minority is underprivileged. If it's because there is or was system of legal oppression that led to their underprivilege (ie Apartheid) then I'm all for AA. But if they are underprivileged simply because they are waiting for hand outs, than I'd say no.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ladies and gents, I know that most of the posters here are American and so will naturally respond within the context of their cultural experience. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm not criticising.

It's just that I wanted to add to the discourse from my own background and I'm not sure if you'll understand when I say that I may be a white, heterosexual, male with roots that really do go back to the Anglo Saxons {Hi, English :waves: }; however, I was also discriminated against (and still am) in the education and job market.

Why?

Because I'm from a lower working class family (unskilled to semi-skilled manual labour).

The only Affirmative Action I ever got was when the Labour government lived up to the promise of making university education free for those who could make the grade. From there I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps until I am now a very well qualified professional that most people would call Middle Class (altho' I still reckon I'm Working class (which is a whole other discussion )).

Now it's no longer true that degree level education is free and at the risk of sounding like an appalling fascist and racist, our universities are packed with foreign students with wealthy parents and I'm the only person I know (that isn't in my age bracket) who came from such 'lowly' council estate roots.

Discriminatory affirmative action is as valueless and unfair as the racism that spawned it.

 

[Twin Fist]

I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.

as have I

 

[JDenver]

Now it's no longer true that degree level education is free and at the risk of sounding like an appalling fascist and racist, our universities are packed with foreign students with wealthy parents and I'm the only person I know (that isn't in my age bracket) who came from such 'lowly' council estate roots.

Disengenuous. You're mixing complicated European immigration issues in with a distinctly American issue.

Discriminatory affirmative action is as valueless and unfair as the racism that spawned it.

And if you use inflammatory language like calling AA 'discriminatory' then the debate rolls to a full stop. Discriminatory against who - the most privileged and elite group of people on Earth, heterosexual white american men??

 

[Sukerkin]

Is this just a five minute argument or the full half hour?

It's fine to disagree with me, you know. But this is not the first time you've done so with undue vigour. Any assumptions and prejudices you carry about me are not my responsibility. Perhaps you have me confused with someone who has done you wrong?

To attempt some sort of answer to your first point, I think you mistook me, possibly due to flaws in my own phrasing. What I was attempting to say is that the universities are now full of the children of the wealthy (again) and I did muddy that by the reference to the fact that many of these are from abroad (which is for the simple pragmatic reason that the universities charge more for them).

As to your second point of contention, that is my opinion. Certainly, it is not intended to stop the debate stone dead. I would also dispute your last assertion to the extent that the nebulous elite may fit that categorisation but that is only a tiny percentage of the whole population.

 

[arnisador]

And if you use inflammatory language like calling AA 'discriminatory' then the debate rolls to a full stop.

Oh, it's undoubtably discriminatory--but as the link provided in this post indicates, so is not having AA.

I lost a prestigious fellowship when my application was rated high enough for every category but White Male. That sucked. We've been compelled to make offers to minority candidates that were rated low but acceptable. I don't like that. But...there are consequences to doing nothing, too. A world of racially segregated haves and have-nots isn't desirable (or fair). Locally optimal need not be globally optimal.

 

[Empty Hands]

I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.

as have I

Oh, now you are interested in hard data TF? Look here. This is also a foolish argument based on a very small sample size, as only 5 cases are in the set. I await your breathless condemnations of the entire circuit court system as hopelessly inept.

Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of my post. Sotomayor was just an example. Would either of you care to address the actual point?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Oh, now you are interested in hard data TF? Look here. This is also a foolish argument based on a very small sample size, as only 5 cases are in the set. I await your breathless condemnations of the entire circuit court system as hopelessly inept.

Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of my post. Sotomayor was just an example. Would either of you care to address the actual point?

The 9th Circus court of appeals.... lol
thats awsome. I don't even have to say another word.
Thanks for the post though, I am reading it now, I just think thats funny is all..

 

[JDenver]

As to your second point of contention, that is my opinion. Certainly, it is not intended to stop the debate stone dead. I would also dispute your last assertion to the extent that the nebulous elite may fit that categorisation but that is only a tiny percentage of the whole population.

Okay.

I dunno anything about 'undue vigour' or 'assumptions' of your personage. I come to the boards and post and don't follow who said what-----

---anyways, my opinion is already stated. To give a bad example, it's like any discussion around abortion. Soon as someone uses the word 'murder', it just goes from there. For me, my opinion, depositing AA into discrimination does a similar thing. My question was legitimate too, if it's discriminatory, against which demographic?

Ahhh, we see each other. Is okay. Funny too, English and Canad talking up American policy!

 

[celtic_crippler]

That is easy to say if your race has been in the majority all along. Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
Sean

LOL...right. There ain't a race in the history of man that hasn't had it bad at one point or another.

My heritage is Irish. The Irish haven't exactly had it great throughout history. Not even in the good ole' US of A. Got any idea where the term "Paddy Wagon" came from? Oh, and the Chinese weren't the only ethnicity treated like crap by the railroads.

But hey, I don't feel anybody owes me anything because of my race, gender, or otherwise.

I would rather be judged, if I am to be judged, based on my actions and accomplishments. I would be offended to be offered a handout our shown "pity" becuase of my ethnicity or gender. I would think anyone that had any respect for themselves would feel the same.

I challenge anyone to effectively argue that any particular race or gender deserves special treatment over another and not come off as biased or prejudicial. You simply can't do it. It's impossible because such treatement is in and of itself biased and prejudicial!

Whole lot of privilege on display here.

Until this is no longer a problem, the "best person for the job" is a polite fiction. AA attempts to address the biases on display that lead to results like above. A Solomon-like neutral finding of the "best candidate" just doesn't happen much - unless all details are blinded like the search committee discussed above. Personal biases all come into play, in a way that just so happens to discriminate against minorities - no matter how qualified they are.

You see this with Sotomayor. Somehow, a person who graduates summa cum laude from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. The response to her shows just how far we have not come. As do the responses of some here.

Hate to beat a dead horse...two wrongs don't make a right. You either believe and follow that line of thought or you don't. You can't apply it when it suites you and not apply it when it doesn't. IMHO, the only proper ethical approach is to put the most qualified person for the job in the job.

There's no denying that wrongs have been commited based on prejudices, but arguing that more prejudice is needed to correct the problem... well... is like saying more gasoline is needed to put out a fire. AA is simply not the right approach to overcoming these problems. It only makes it worse and contributes to further bad feelings.

In regards to Sotomayor, her gender and race have nothing to do with why she's a bad pick. Her comments in regards to what she feels the role of a judge is supposed to be is plenty to disqualify her. It's simply unconstitution for a judge to legislate, if that's what she'd like to do then she needs to run for Congress. Judges, especially Supreme Court Judges should never feel they have the right or duty to legislate. It violates the core principles of our constitution. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Consider this: what do the people (all of us) have to gain from any legislation that serves to further differentiate and separate us from one another? What does the central government have to gain from legislation that serves to further divide the diverse people of this nation?

Our problems won't be solved by anything that serves to divide us in any way shape or form.