animosity

I have a debate tomorrow & must come up with some good arguments for these questions. I am having a hard time. Anyone have any thoughts? thanks.

Are there still discrimination against monitories and women? Do minorities and women truly have equal opportunities?
*

How do you define affirmative action? Is affirmative action the best approach to the problem we are facing today?
*

Affirmative action--Should programs be based on economic need rather than a history of discriminatory treatment?
*

Affirmative action programs--Are they constitutional?
*

Affirmative action programs—Do All Minorities benefit from such programs?
*

Affirmative action programs--How have women benefited?
*

Affirmative action programs--Should they be continued?
*

Affirmative action programs--What constitutes an effective civil rights policy?
*

Affirmative action programs on campus--Are they still needed?
*

Affirmative action programs on campus--Do they benefit minority students and faculty members?
*

African American education and employment trends--How are they related?
*

Affirmative Action—amend it or end it?

DJ Happy

Well, as a white South African, I have experienced a bit of affirmative action, so I'll try and give you an insight into my views regarding it.

Mine was the last generation to live under white rule. When I graduated from high school, apartheid had just ended. I applied to university and although I was granted a place, two weeks before the start of the year I was told that my place had been given to a black student and that I could no longer attend.

Apartheid was never something that sat very favourably with me anyway, so I never mentioned it again. I packed my bags and headed overseas and have never lived in SA since.

Now, while I understand that the imbalances and injustices of the past need addressing, and while I believe that affirmative action has a part to play in all that, I don't feel it is being implemented correctly.

For me, affirmative action should only be about making sure that everyone has an equal chance to succeed whereas too often it is seen as a guarantee of success. Let me give you an example:

In SA we used to have "racial quotas" on our national sporting teams. For instance, the national cricket team had to have at least 2 "previously disadvantaged" players on it at all times (this rule has since been scrapped). This to me is not what affirmative action (hereafter referred to as "AA") should be about. For me, AA should be about providing people with equal opportunities to make the national team by providing them with quality facilities and training at a young age and allowing them the opportunity to hone and exhibit their skills at a domestic level, but after that it's every man for himself. The national team should be chosen on merit and merit alone.

In the economic world this would mean allowing those previously disadvantaged to have more opportunities when it comes to schooling and education, university places and vocational training. But when it comes time to get a job, all applicants should be treated equally. Because the ultimate goal of AA is equality, and while we are treating one group more favourably than another, equality will never be attained.

In fact, too often AA merely highlights inequalities rather than correcting them. To go back to the example of the SA cricket team, in 2001 SA was playing Australia when a young white player by the name of Jacques Rudolph was selected to make his debut. The politicians disagreed with the team selectors however, and insisted that a coloured player by the name of Justin Ontong should play instead. Rudolph was duly dropped and Ontong played in his place. By his own admission, Ontong was embarrassed at having earned his place in the team through political intervention rather than merit and while he performed credibly on his debut, he has never been the same player since and has never again been selected for SA. It was as if the whole world was told he was not good enough to play.

The implementation of AA can also become a crutch, so that instead of utilising the opportunities presented to them by AA, the previously disadvantaged coast along knowing that politicians have ensured their safe passage regardless of performance. Standards are lowered and performance suffers. This is why I think AA should apply only at educational levels and should be abolished by the time individuals reach the jobs market. If you don't make use of the extra opportunities afforded you earlier on, then you will not benefit later in life. AA should not be the free meal ticket it so often is these days.

Sorry my post was so long.

animosity

Thank you for your thoughts.

longer is better. thanks.

smooth

one of your Q's -- How have women benefitted:

I haven't seen the data, but in any soc class that I've sat in dealing with inequality or race/ethnicity it's been said that upwardly mobile, white women have benefitted the most from affirmative action.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

balderdash111

I hate to be cynical, but it seems like you haven't even begun to work on this if you are still trying to define what affirmative action even is.

Are you asking the TFP to do your homework for you?

animosity

heh, well I have already written an essay on it. But now I am having to prepair for this debate. I am having a hard time because I dont get to choose which side I get to argue. I am at the point now where I am just going to hope that I get the side I agree with.

aceventura3

Yes, discrimination exists. On the whole today everyone has the ability to succeed.

Many define it as lowering standards and quotas, I don't. I think it is simply taking an "affirmative" step in broadening the pool of qualified people including those who may have been overlooked in the past.

Any objective standard other than race, sex, age, national origin, etc. However, there is nothing wrong with major universities going to all "black" schools to try to find students meeting their requirements. But, the should not create seperate admissions precesses for those students.

Yes.
No. Most don't need them.
*

[quote]Affirmative action programs--How have women benefited?[\quote]
More balannce in employment today than before. *

I think the maket place will decide. It is to the benefit of society (based on my definition) in my opinion and as long as it is AA will continue.
*

Too many questions, neeeed aaaiiiir.....

98MustGT

I live in a very diverse part of the country, there are alot of mixed races here. How would AA account for a person who is half white and half black? Do they get half the preferencial treatment?

Suppose someone is half black and half asian? Here in Calif there are too many asians in college (compared to actual population).

There has been so much mixing of races in California it will soon be a mess to administor.

madsenj37

I wrote a paper on affirmative action, (Im against it). On my rough draft my teacher said that affirmative action was handicapping for a sport. So I addressed the issue in my final paper. At first, I thought he had one over me. Then I realized as a golfer, that handicapping is only useful for friendly games, where the outcome is for bragging rights. It is true that some people are truly lucky and/or truly gifted and they are set apart from some, even those who truly work hard. The problem lies in the fact that those who are good from working hard and those who are good from being lucky/gifted cannot be seperated without some type of discrimination. To deny people an opporunity based solely on their race while accepting someone else solely based on their race is what affirmative action wants to combat, yet it does exactly what it fights against. Also, I read in a book that some successful black men disliked affirmative action because they no longer recieved credit for their work. People assummed that they were their because of ther race and not their hard work. Affirmative action can make outcasts of those it is trying to help.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

aceventura3

It seems like you are against quotas and lowering standards. I think almost all people are against that. What about when a company or school reaches out and makes an extra effort to find qualified people?

What about when government has jobs available, and lets say almost everyone meets the qualifications (like holding a sign in a construction zone), why not make sure those jobs are allocated in a manner reflective of the population?

In our public university system, given tax payer subsidy, and given a pool of people who meet the admission requirements, why shouldn't the public university give consideration to having a student body representative of the community from that pool of qualified people?

If you say 'best qualified', would you agree that Universities in the US supported by US tax payer should give preference to US citizens regardless 'best qualified' status? Or, would you have a US system of universities supported by US tax payers filled with people from other countries? Before you respond, I think people who go to universities should pay the real cost, no government subsidies. And, then let all the private institutions do what they want.

Orpheus

Inequality is a fact of life. The statement that all men are created equal represents an ideal, not a fact. Thus, the greatness of a society is often determined on how it goes about to remedy these inequalities.

As for AA, race is only one component of AA and is highlighted by right wingers to capitalize on their subtle biogtry.

madsenj37

Best qualified to me means exactly that, no strings attached. I do not care what ethinicity, country of origin, gender or religion the best qualified comes from. I believe having schools and workplaces be selective based on population is a form of law based discrimination. Just because it is made legal, does not make it moral. With affirmative action, you are affirming that differences do exist. How can we live towards the goal of equality if we seperate people? "Discrimination will only end when we do away with laws that legalize it."


And just so orpheus knows, I am not a right winger. Also, I am a student of politics and economics. I got my B.A. at UC Santa Cruz.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

TheFu

My take on affirmative action is that it is not needed anymore or maybe needed less than it was before. Sure, you still have racism and I think if AA continues it could worsen attitudes towards races. I think now is the time to either phase it out or kill it cold turkey. Here is my reasoning. The youth of today, both black and white are equally scary looking. In the past some white people may have been afraid of black kids because they look different and therefore would hire the white kid. Now, thanks to tatoos and body piercings, the differences in races have been equalized to the elder generations. We no longer feel a threat of being robbed by the young black man because the fear of being sodomized and having our blood drank by the disturbed white man with lock washers in his lips is much more powerful.

People should be judged by their actions and their ability, not by color or sex. I think people are getting better at that. I know I am, although the body piercings do scare the hell out of me.

aceventura3

"Best Qualified" is subjective at best. If you are picking a quarterback for a football team what objective measure is used universally? None. A factor I may use, is going with someone I am "comfortable with". If you are picking a doctor what objective measurement is universally used? None. A factor I may use is sex. If you are picking a vice president to head your sales department, what objective measurement is universally used? None. A factor I may use is - the person is a family member. I think you get the point.

If my organization is privately owned, shouldn't I have the right to determine what "best qualified" means to me? You bet I should, if I own it. If the tax payers "own" government, shouldn't tax payers be able to determine what "best qualified" means for government projects/work/benefits. And if taxpayers say these projects/work/benefits be reflective of the comminity what is the problem? The real problem is not with affirmative action, the problem is with the government being involved in things it has no business being involved in. Privatization will end alot of these affirmative action debates in higher education.

sob

It could also be noted that left wingers rely on race to appear "progressive," when their actual message is that racial minorities can't possibly succeed without the magnanimousness (it's in the dictionary) of their liberal saviors.

Competent racial minority members don't appreciate this liberal bigotry.

summerkc

Of course there is, there is also discrimination against white males sometimes. Also people are discrimiated because they are ugly, pretty, smart, dumb, fat, thin, etc. There will never be a level playing field, and the government can not regulate people's thoughts and prejudices. You have to take it upon yourself not to feel like a victem and that you are in control of your actions.

Affirmative action is basically just telling someone, "you are not smart of experienced enough to do this on your own so we are going to force someone to hire/accept you, not because you desirve it for your accomplihments, but because of your outward appearences

While this would be better, it is still just affermative action. Studies show that low academic performance os more of a poor thing than a black or white thing. A poor black male has a much better chance of getting into college than a poor white male, even if he has better grades. Now how is this solving discrimination?

Of course not, they just change the discriminated person from (usually) a black person to a white person. You are providing differential, government funded treatment based on the color of someone's skin, which is highly unconstitutional

No, for the most part Asians get almost no aid.
What do you think? Of course not.
[/QUOTE]

The only way this should be kept is if all racial, creed, and religous factors are kept out of it and only academic record and financial status are examined. As of right now, a black student with sub-par grades will be admitted and a white student with fairly good grades is denied. This is of course has nothing to do with the fact that the student is black, but just because he didn't try in high school or have the skills necassary for college. What happens is what is expected and the college student fails and drops out after a few semesters. How is this helping society?

madsenj37

I hope you do not select anything by one universal qualification. Many factors make someone qualified for a postion. I do not feel factors you cannot control like sex or race should play any part in the choice.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

Kalibah

I belive affirmative action makes sense, but only in situations where racial disc rimination has been proved.

thefictionweliv

I believe affirmative action is government funded racism. If we are to be equal under the law then all mention of race needs to be obliterated from census, jobs, and government subsidised sponsorships. I grew up white and poor alongside a hispanic population, why should I not have the same opportunities as them. To qualify for aid for a white person has to score 25%-50% higher on standardized tests. Now look me in the eye and tell me thats right.

Orpheus

Perhaps before condemning AA as reverse discrimmination, we can try to understand the factors that necessitate it's policy since it is widely assumed that elimination of AA would result in a drastic decline of minority enrollment (if you think this is acceptable, move on and ignore this email). Most public school funding comes not from the Federal Government, but from property taxes, local revenue and municipal bonds. Guess what type of neighborhoods have the advantadge. Now, if the Federal Government would take control and REALLY level the playing field, AA might be on it's way out. But, unfortunately, the current funding structure is intractable and status quo will reign; until them, AA will be critical.

quicksteal

The way I see it, the point of affirmative action is to give qualified minorities a chance--in other words, in case of a tie, the minority gets the job/admittance into college. When the requirements are lowered for those in the minority, it gives the appearance that it's the best that they can do, which simply is not true. To me, the bigger problem is the idea that getting a good education is only for white people, which is what Bill Cosby has been fighting against lately. The opportunities are there now, they just have to be grasped.

host

Ironically, Bush does not recognize his (p)Residency as the "legacy"
appointment that, in truth, it is. Appointed president by Supreme Court judges who were appointed to office by his father, Bush owes all of
his "admissions" to college, military, and business positions to the
"affiirmative action" of the connections, strings that are pulled, and the
nepotism that is inbred in the priveleged, rich white, ruling class in
America. Even with the implementation of affirmative action to help
those formerly excluded because of race, class, or gender, it would
take centurys for everyone to compete on an equal playing field with
Bush and his "legacy". Bush has the gall and the hyprocacy to use his
power and influence to attempt to diminish the access that affirmative action
only recently offered in venues such as the University of Michigan's admissions policies. Wake up and view your president for who he really is!

shakran

Yes. No.


affirmative action is a program in which employers are required to give preferential treatment to minorities and, to a lesser extent, women, in the hiring process. No it is absolutely not the best approach - in fact, it's an idiotic one because it makes race / gender an issue. It guarantees animosity between the races and sexes, and doesn't solve anything in the end.


They shouldn't be based on either one. They should be abolished.



No. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to force a business to hire a black woman.


Do you mean all individual minorities, as in 100% of black people, or do you mean all minorities as in blacks, asians, mexicans, etc?

Either way, the answer is obviously no.



By being hired when more qualified male applicants were not.


Absolutely not.


One which works to change attitudes. Going up to a KKK member and telling him "look bubba, you MUST hire this black man" will not suddenly make him embrace minorities. A good civil rights policy is one which educates people to the concept that race/gender/etc does not matter when judging a person. Affirmative Action goes against that concept by saying race DOES matter because we have to meet hiring quotas.


No.

Minorities are given preferential treatment when being considered for hire or as a student. That would be a pretty big benefit.

What does being black have to do with this statistic? It's the same for all races. More education = more likelihood of a better job.


End it.

Kalibah

Wow ^
i totally agree with everyhintg you said

host

Are we to ignore the entrenched status quo of legacy entitlements that
impede a meritocracy in this country? Affirmative Action has it's deficiencies,
but instead of bashing it, why not offer ideas to help to level the playing
field for minorities, women, and the "have nots" who do not have access to
the connections and inherited wealth that contributed so obviously to, for
example, Bush's "success".

thefictionweliv

It should be dropped, one human can be equally as poor as another human, race should have nothing to do with their opportunities for sucess. Goverment saying that human A gets more cookies because his great great great great grandfather had less cookies is flawed. I'm white and was a "have not" as much as the people of other races in my community, I was denied the same opportunities as them. Tell me that is just.

aceventura3

In decisions you have personally made, you would lead me to believe you have never used factors like sex or race (be careful because we know the one on race can easily be disguised by some other factor that appears legit)? If true you are unique.

madsenj37

I have been discriminatory before, but as a student for life I try my best to not to repeat my mistakes. Also, I am individual who speaks only for himself. The government is a collective of individuals that speak for everyone, or are supposed to at least.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

aceventura3

You can have a non-discriminatory government or non-discriminatory organization, but all it takes is one person in power to totally undermine the good intentions of the "collective of individuals". I remember reading Jack Welsh's book (former CEO of GE), he talked about at one stage in his career he hired sales people who fit "the mold", young, slick looking, white guys. At the time it was not GE's policy to discriminate based on sex, race and age, but he did it (he eventually recognized that what he was doing was not in the best interest of his comapny). In-spite of laws, regulations, company policy, etc., individuals discriminate regularly. Luckly, today there are enough people like you and me who are willing to give people opportunity based on ability.

Kalibah

im always concerned why so many forms say "race"

seriously if its a non issue why ask?