Affirmative Action

[The Reasonable]

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr...

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."

he did write a few books, you know.

...and simply considering race as a factor in getting jobs and college admissions isn't equipping anyone to compete on a just and equal basis. That "something special" should be increased funding for them to get access to education and employment training so they can truly compete on a just and equal basis without artificial help and not actually increase resentment and racism among the majority. The non-minorities need proof that formerly oppressed minorities can be equal in merit in order to get rid of entrenched racism.

Zephie wrote:

I believe in Affirmative action. I think an equal amount of each race should be hired at a workplace despite how well they can perform the duties of the position. Doing this without discriminating of course.

...And this is why people oppose race-based affirmative action and rightfully so. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter in which direction. Simply picking people based on a quota is illegal even under American affirmative action laws.

[Free Soviets]

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."

he did write a few books, you know.

...and simply considering race as a factor in getting jobs and college admissions isn't equipping anyone to compete on a just and equal basis. That "something special" should be increased funding for them to get access to education and employment training so they can truly compete on a just and equal basis without artificial help and not actually increase resentment and racism among the majority. The non-minorities need proof that formerly oppressed minorities can be equal in merit in order to get rid of entrenched racism.

except, of course, it is so equipping them. or are you denying that access to education is important to equal competition? and, well, the admitted candidates are of 'equal merit'. the fact that racist fucks think black people are inherently inferior is no argument against anything. possibly a good argument for skipping right over them when it comes time to decide who gets moved up the ladder, though.

[Greed and Death]

Because the people who made that wiki page were over inclusive and dumped links to every civil rights related bill into affirmative action.

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/laws.htm

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires them to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities.

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits employment discrimination based on disability and requires affirmative action in the hiring, placement and advancement of people with disabilities by federal contractors or subcontractors who have federal contracts or subcontracts in excess of $10,000.

And again, that a hold over from colorful language Kennedy used when he promulgated Executive Order 10925.

When society at large, the media, and the half dozen or so court cases speak about affirmative action that is not what they are speaking about.

Yes you can go dig through the wiki to confuse the issue and make it seem like detractors seek to have wheel chair ramps turned into stairs. But that is no constructive to a debate about the policy in anyway shape or form.

[The Reasonable]

...and simply considering race as a factor in getting jobs and college admissions isn't equipping anyone to compete on a just and equal basis. That "something special" should be increased funding for them to get access to education and employment training so they can truly compete on a just and equal basis without artificial help and not actually increase resentment and racism among the majority. The non-minorities need proof that formerly oppressed minorities can be equal in merit in order to get rid of entrenched racism.

except, of course, it is so equipping them. or are you denying that access to education is important to equal competition? and, well, the admitted candidates are of 'equal merit'. the fact that racist fucks think black people are inherently inferior is no argument against anything. possibly a good argument for skipping right over them when it comes time to decide who gets moved up the ladder, though.

I really don't think it's helpful to characterize all anti-affirmative action people as "racist fucks". They just don't want race to be considered at all- in fact, I could argue that the more intelligent and well-reasoned among them are less racist than many that do support affirmative action. Minorities may or may not be of equal merit- and those who are not should not be admitted over someone more meritorious, period. Those who are should be admitted. And equal access to education is more of a financial issue anyways- to truly bring disadvantaged groups up you need to start with the lowest levels and work up, not at the college level- and even at that emphasize that minorities can be objectively just as well-qualified as non-minorities without artificial considerations based on color of skin.

[Emile Zola]

If you don't like affirmative action make all education free.

[The Reasonable]

If you don't like affirmative action make all education free.

Your one sentence made more sense than almost anything anyone has said on this thread.

No complaints here, from an opponent of affirmative action.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...and simply considering race as a factor in getting jobs and college admissions isn't equipping anyone to compete on a just and equal basis. That "something special" should be increased funding for them to get access to education and employment training so they can truly compete on a just and equal basis without artificial help and not actually increase resentment and racism among the majority. The non-minorities need proof that formerly oppressed minorities can be equal in merit in order to get rid of entrenched racism.

except, of course, it is so equipping them (1). or are you denying that access to education is important to equal competition (2)? and, well, the admitted candidates are of 'equal merit' (3). the fact that racist fucks think black people are inherently inferior is no argument against anything (4). possibly a good argument for skipping right over them when it comes time to decide who gets moved up the ladder, though.

1: Yes, an education/training does equip them for this. No one is really arguing that. The sticking point is HOW they are getting into these educational/training programs.
2: Equal access to education can be rather easily removed from the concept of 'affirmative action', which may generally refer to equal access, but is commonly referred to and referenced as if it refers quite specifically to a specific policy used in promoting that "equal" access. Namely, letting colleges discriminate in order to promote a minority groups representation on campus.
3: So wouldn't the non-racist or discriminatory thing to do be the proverbial coin toss? If two candidates are of 'equal merit', why exactly should there be any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender? Flip a coin, roll a pair of dice, play pin the tail on the donkey, don't allow people to weigh their decisions for who gets in based on what color someone's skin is.
4: It's a good thing that that isn't the argument being used over affirmative action then.

If you want to expand access and help the disadvantaged get represented in university's and federal workforce's you advocate for increased spending on education and assistance to poor folks, you don't weight someone's contribution to the diversity of the college or workforce they are trying to enter by the color of their skin or their ethnic background or whether or not they have a penis. You weight them based on merit and then, in the case of ties, play eenie-minee-miny-moe.

[Moving Forward Inc]

This is mainly a US issue, as far as I know. The original intent is to counteract former racial discrimination in schools and the workplace, therefore enforcing equal opportunity. However, controversy arises when specific racial quotas and conditions are brought in, as it then punishes members of non-underrepresented groups despite perhaps higher qualifications. NSG, what is your view on this issue? As an Asian-American, I stand to be harmed by race-based affirmative action and therefore am personally against it, as I will be applying to colleges in the next few months, and think that a better form of enforcing equal opportunity is equal access to high-quality schooling and education as well as financial support for that purpose, but I am willing to hear well-reasoned arguments from either side.

Absolutely against affirmative action. We can never tell whether it was discrimination or choosing for good reasons anyway. Banning discrimination isn't important anyway, as it comes with it's own punishment.

Let's say there is an employer. He likes Europeans, has a mild dislike for Asians, and absolutely hates Africans.
He is searching for someone with balanced and high skills in the areas of Intelligence, Charisma, and Perception to work for him for 2 years.
So he evaluates their skills
He has 3 choices:

European choice:
4.5/10 intelligence.
7/10 charisma.
3/10 perception.

Asian choice:
6/10 intelligence.
5.5/10 charisma.
6/10 perception

African choice:
6.75/10 intelligence
6.75/10 charisma
7/10 perception

Now as you can tell the African happens to be the best choice.
If the employer chooses the European out of pure bigotry, notice the low intelligence and perception?
Chances are, on the job he is going to do something stupid and break something, costing the employer good money. He's not likely to make much money for the employer either!
Choosing this person means you just wasted about 20'000 dollars on him that he is not worth, which sounds about right for a punishment for discrimination.

Then again, he may choose the Asian. Now of course he does a reasonably good job, the employer got a good deal for his money, but because the employees Charisma is mediocre, he failed to convince a potentially major buyer to invest money in your product.
He gets paid exactly what he is worth.

Or the employer fights against his own bigotry and decides to employ the best worker.
The African does an excellent job, and does exactly what is required of him when the stakes are high.
The employer ends up having paid the employee 20'000 dollars less than what the employee was worth, a 20'000 dollars he gets to pocket, which sounds about right as a reward for choosing not to be a bigot.

The fact is you don't need police and courts to punish bigots, because Capitalism just naturally hates bigots.

[The Reasonable]

except, of course, it is so equipping them (1). or are you denying that access to education is important to equal competition (2)? and, well, the admitted candidates are of 'equal merit' (3). the fact that racist fucks think black people are inherently inferior is no argument against anything (4). possibly a good argument for skipping right over them when it comes time to decide who gets moved up the ladder, though.

1: Yes, an education/training does equip them for this. No one is really arguing that. The sticking point is HOW they are getting into these educational/training programs.
2: Equal access to education can be rather easily removed from the concept of 'affirmative action', which may generally refer to equal access, but is commonly referred to and referenced as if it refers quite specifically to a specific policy used in promoting that "equal" access. Namely, letting colleges discriminate in order to promote a minority groups representation on campus.
3: So wouldn't the non-racist or discriminatory thing to do be the proverbial coin toss? If two candidates are of 'equal merit', why exactly should there be any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender? Flip a coin, roll a pair of dice, play pin the tail on the donkey, don't allow people to weigh their decisions for who gets in based on what color someone's skin is.
4: It's a good thing that that isn't the argument being used over affirmative action then.

If you want to expand access and help the disadvantaged get represented in university's and federal workforce's you advocate for increased spending on education and assistance to poor folks, you don't weight someone's contribution to the diversity of the college or workforce they are trying to enter by the color of their skin or their ethnic background or whether or not they have a penis. You weight them based on merit and then, in the case of ties, play eenie-minee-miny-moe.

Very well said. Opposing affirmative action does not mean you are opposed to equal access to education or help for the disadvantaged. It only means that you think it's time to move past race as a determining factor for anything.

[Emile Zola]

If you don't like affirmative action make all education free.

Your one sentence made more sense than almost anything anyone has said on this thread.

No complaints here, from an opponent of affirmative action.

Thanks. As you said in the OP this more of a American phenomenon. It isn't issue an in Australia because if you qualify for university you get in and it's paid for by the government. (We do have HECS fees but you pay them once you get a job). I can understand why there is a need for affirmative action for historical reasons but to quote Winston Churchill,

Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities

[Free Soviets]

So wouldn't the non-racist or discriminatory thing to do be the proverbial coin toss? If two candidates are of 'equal merit', why exactly should there be any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender? Flip a coin, roll a pair of dice, play pin the tail on the donkey, don't allow people to weigh their decisions for who gets in based on what color someone's skin is.

2 reasons.
1) we know that people do discriminate based on race, even when they pretend not to. again, see studies on identical resumes getting differential call-backs based on perceived race of the names attached.
2) because we should strive to have a society where all levels of it are representative of the whole. and getting there is only possible when we notice "damn, sure are lots of white dudes around here. perhaps we should hire that qualified hispanic lady. or admit that poor black kid." the pool of candidates right now is disproportionately white and male, so coin tosses will ensure the continued dominance of such into the future.

this shit ain't hard.

[The Reasonable]

So wouldn't the non-racist or discriminatory thing to do be the proverbial coin toss? If two candidates are of 'equal merit', why exactly should there be any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender? Flip a coin, roll a pair of dice, play pin the tail on the donkey, don't allow people to weigh their decisions for who gets in based on what color someone's skin is.

2 reasons.
1) we know that people do discriminate based on race, even when they pretend not to. again, see studies on identical resumes getting differential call-backs based on perceived race of the names attached.
2) because we should strive to have a society where all levels of it are representative of the whole. and getting there is only possible when we notice "damn, sure are lots of white dudes around here. perhaps we should hire that qualified hispanic lady. or admit that poor black kid." the pool of candidates right now is disproportionately white and male, so coin tosses will ensure the continued dominance of such into the future.

this shit ain't hard.

That study, which I've seen in Freakonomics, is true, but it simply means that if two candidates are identical then it should become a matter of random chance.

And race should have nothing to do with diversity- if any diversity is valued, it should be diversity of opinions, backgrounds, and personalities- all of which has to be subordinate to making that business or college or whatever operate the best- hence selection on merit. Any measure of fairness should not take into account what you were born as, but what you made of the situation you had, what you've accomplished, and who you've become as a person after your birth.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So wouldn't the non-racist or discriminatory thing to do be the proverbial coin toss? If two candidates are of 'equal merit', why exactly should there be any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender? Flip a coin, roll a pair of dice, play pin the tail on the donkey, don't allow people to weigh their decisions for who gets in based on what color someone's skin is.

2 reasons.
1) we know that people do discriminate based on race, even when they pretend not to. again, see studies on identical resumes getting differential call-backs based on perceived race of the names attached.
2) because we should strive to have a society where all levels of it are representative of the whole. and getting there is only possible when we notice "damn, sure are lots of white dudes around here. perhaps we should hire that qualified hispanic lady. or admit that poor black kid." the pool of candidates right now is disproportionately white and male, so coin tosses will ensure the continued dominance of such into the future.

this shit ain't hard.

To the underlined: I thought about adding that to the end of MY post then didn't. (Not a criticism of you using it, I just find it genuinely funny we both had the idea of ending our posts with the same phrase when we're arguing opposite sides)

1) So the solution is to act like everyone is a racist and adjust things accordingly? We assume everyone is guilty of doing this and "punish" them accordingly (not to suggest that affirmative action is a punishment, its just a word to fit the analogy)? Besides, the solution here is to break the assumption by people that anyone named "Sheniqua" or "Jamal" is black AND THEREFORE unqualified because they're uneducated. I'd argue a majority of employers who do discriminate based on perceived race do so more out of a stereotype of blacks being uneducated and not genetically inferior to a white applicant (something those studies don't seem to have addressed). If you're going to argue for ending this, the solution is to argue for better education for such folks, not encourage colleges or employers to throw the colored/female people a bone.
2) The pool of candidates is disproportionately white and male because minorities are often getting sub-par educations in the inner city schools they come from. Hiring or accepting them into college after they come out of that situation is a bad move, as good as it may make the hiring company or university look because "Oh hey look, minorities!". Affirmative action in these regards is addressing a consequence of the problem, not the problem itself. How about we address the problem?

[Johz]

This is mainly a US issue, as far as I know. The original intent is to counteract former racial discrimination in schools and the workplace, therefore enforcing equal opportunity. However, controversy arises when specific racial quotas and conditions are brought in, as it then punishes members of non-underrepresented groups despite perhaps higher qualifications. NSG, what is your view on this issue? As an Asian-American, I stand to be harmed by race-based affirmative action and therefore am personally against it, as I will be applying to colleges in the next few months, and think that a better form of enforcing equal opportunity is equal access to high-quality schooling and education as well as financial support for that purpose, but I am willing to hear well-reasoned arguments from either side.

Absolutely against affirmative action. We can never tell whether it was discrimination or choosing for good reasons anyway. Banning discrimination isn't important anyway, as it comes with it's own punishment.

Let's say there is an employer. He likes Europeans, has a mild dislike for Asians, and absolutely hates Africans.
He is searching for someone with balanced and high skills in the areas of Intelligence, Charisma, and Perception to work for him for 2 years.
So he evaluates their skills
He has 3 choices:

European choice:
4.5/10 intelligence.
7/10 charisma.
3/10 perception.

Asian choice:
6/10 intelligence.
5.5/10 charisma.
6/10 perception

African choice:
6.75/10 intelligence
6.75/10 charisma
7/10 perception

Now as you can tell the African happens to be the best choice.
If the employer chooses the European out of pure bigotry, notice the low intelligence and perception?
Chances are, on the job he is going to do something stupid and break something, costing the employer good money. He's not likely to make much money for the employer either!
Choosing this person means you just wasted about 20'000 dollars on him that he is not worth, which sounds about right for a punishment for discrimination.

Then again, he may choose the Asian. Now of course he does a reasonably good job, the employer got a good deal for his money, but because the employees Charisma is mediocre, he failed to convince a potentially major buyer to invest money in your product.
He gets paid exactly what he is worth.

Or the employer fights against his own bigotry and decides to employ the best worker.
The African does an excellent job, and does exactly what is required of him when the stakes are high.
The employer ends up having paid the employee 20'000 dollars less than what the employee was worth, a 20'000 dollars he gets to pocket, which sounds about right as a reward for choosing not to be a bigot.

The fact is you don't need police and courts to punish bigots, because Capitalism just naturally hates bigots.

Then why hasn't bigotry been stamped out already? And how do you deal with the issue in places where the free market doesn't hold as much power, such as in universities? The issue is that unless we do something serious, racism and discrimination are going to become more and more entrenched in culture, to the point where your Asian and African are not going to be applying for a job in America. We need affirmative action to stop this trend, even if it is just a temporary measure.

[Norsklow]

The fact is you don't need police and courts to punish bigots, because Capitalism just naturally hates bigots.

In Government-funded Education, there is a need to institute mechanism to make sure that the colour of your skin does not determine whether you get your sheepskin or not.

But in the context of the Free Market, you're right.

The Road Ahead is the Booker T. Washington Road. The best strategy for non-whites is to simply out-capitalise the white majority. That should not be too hard, considering the the most considerable proclivity of Johnny C- White to indulge in socialism, progressivism, fair-trade and other silly notions. And looking in my own neighbourhood, it is working just fine.

Free Enterprise here, looks pretty much solidly dominated by Asians. And yes, the white majority is trying to challenge it, appealing through papers, white Mayors making phone-calls to Asian business-owners if they would pretty please include some under-represented Johnny C-'s and so on.
And of course, said business owners evaluate such appeals based on their own economic interest. And that is how things should be.


It even works for major industrial concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teesside_Steelworks

In light of the termination of a large contract in 2009, 1,700 jobs were lost at the plant.[3] However, on 24 February 2011, it was announced that Teesside Steelworks has been purchased by Thai Steel giant, SSI.[4] On 15 April 2012 the plant was officially reopened.[5]

[Moving Forward Inc]

Absolutely against affirmative action. We can never tell whether it was discrimination or choosing for good reasons anyway. Banning discrimination isn't important anyway, as it comes with it's own punishment.

Let's say there is an employer. He likes Europeans, has a mild dislike for Asians, and absolutely hates Africans.
He is searching for someone with balanced and high skills in the areas of Intelligence, Charisma, and Perception to work for him for 2 years.
So he evaluates their skills
He has 3 choices:

European choice:
4.5/10 intelligence.
7/10 charisma.
3/10 perception.

Asian choice:
6/10 intelligence.
5.5/10 charisma.
6/10 perception

African choice:
6.75/10 intelligence
6.75/10 charisma
7/10 perception

Now as you can tell the African happens to be the best choice.
If the employer chooses the European out of pure bigotry, notice the low intelligence and perception?
Chances are, on the job he is going to do something stupid and break something, costing the employer good money. He's not likely to make much money for the employer either!
Choosing this person means you just wasted about 20'000 dollars on him that he is not worth, which sounds about right for a punishment for discrimination.

Then again, he may choose the Asian. Now of course he does a reasonably good job, the employer got a good deal for his money, but because the employees Charisma is mediocre, he failed to convince a potentially major buyer to invest money in your product.
He gets paid exactly what he is worth.

Or the employer fights against his own bigotry and decides to employ the best worker.
The African does an excellent job, and does exactly what is required of him when the stakes are high.
The employer ends up having paid the employee 20'000 dollars less than what the employee was worth, a 20'000 dollars he gets to pocket, which sounds about right as a reward for choosing not to be a bigot.

The fact is you don't need police and courts to punish bigots, because Capitalism just naturally hates bigots.

Then why hasn't bigotry been stamped out already?

1. The USA is not capitalist.
2. Law only stopped deliberately discriminating against blacks a few decades ago, processes usually take time.
3. Some people are willing to pay a price for bigotry... that's their problem anyway.

And how do you deal with the issue in places where the free market doesn't hold as much power, such as in universities?

Give the free market more power.

[Saiwania]

Then why hasn't bigotry been stamped out already? And how do you deal with the issue in places where the free market doesn't hold as much power, such as in universities? The issue is that unless we do something serious, racism and discrimination are going to become more and more entrenched in culture, to the point where your Asian and African are not going to be applying for a job in America. We need affirmative action to stop this trend, even if it is just a temporary measure.

I doubt that affirmative action would ever eliminate all instances of racism/discrimination. In my view it actually strengthens it. The perception among some people within the majority is no longer that minorities are disadvantaged, now it is "they must have only gotten ahead because of affirmative action." Racism will endure in some places regardless of whether there are affirmative action policies or not, because it occurs across generations.

So tell me, how are Asians at any disadvantage when economically; they are the wealthiest demographic within the US?

[Free Soviets]

2 reasons.
1) we know that people do discriminate based on race, even when they pretend not to. again, see studies on identical resumes getting differential call-backs based on perceived race of the names attached.
2) because we should strive to have a society where all levels of it are representative of the whole. and getting there is only possible when we notice "damn, sure are lots of white dudes around here. perhaps we should hire that qualified hispanic lady. or admit that poor black kid." the pool of candidates right now is disproportionately white and male, so coin tosses will ensure the continued dominance of such into the future.

this shit ain't hard.

To the underlined: I thought about adding that to the end of MY post then didn't. (Not a criticism of you using it, I just find it genuinely funny we both had the idea of ending our posts with the same phrase when we're arguing opposite sides)

1) So the solution is to act like everyone is a racist and adjust things accordingly? We assume everyone is guilty of doing this and "punish" them accordingly (not to suggest that affirmative action is a punishment, its just a word to fit the analogy)? Besides, the solution here is to break the assumption by people that anyone named "Sheniqua" or "Jamal" is black AND THEREFORE unqualified because they're uneducated. I'd argue a majority of employers who do discriminate based on perceived race do so more out of a stereotype of blacks being uneducated and not genetically inferior to a white applicant (something those studies don't seem to have addressed). If you're going to argue for ending this, the solution is to argue for better education for such folks, not encourage colleges or employers to throw the colored/female people a bone.

what matters is the outcome, not the thought process. i don't really give a shit if people are racist fucks, as long as they can't actually use their racism to hold people back. and everybody who isn't acting racist in their hiring and admission processes, etc., is quite literally absolutely unaffected by any reasonable affirmative action policies - they will already naturally be following them.

the way to break the barriers down isn't to hope the barriers will be broken down. the way to break them down is to storm the gates and topple them from the inside. always has been.

2) The pool of candidates is disproportionately white and male because minorities are often getting sub-par educations in the inner city schools they come from. Hiring or accepting them into college after they come out of that situation is a bad move, as good as it may make the hiring company or university look because "Oh hey look, minorities!". Affirmative action in these regards is addressing a consequence of the problem, not the problem itself. How about we address the problem?

except that bringing on additional otherwise qualified candidates from historically oppressed group directly helps them, their kids, and even the rest of the affected population. in addition to the direct benefits to the people and their families, having black or female or openly gay faces in positions of authority breaks down the idea that they can't be there. this helps others achieve similar and encourages the rest to strive by showing it is possible to make it.

we should definitely fix the schools and such, but focusing just on that stops progress for at least another 20 years. coin tosses make sure that the problem remains, because the existing pool distorts the possible outcomes.

the only way to move up is to actually move up. and since, as you agree, we obviously have to help the process along, we might as well do it in the most effective way we can. which just so happens to be well-run affirmative action programs.

[Free Soviets]

Then why hasn't bigotry been stamped out already?

1. The USA is not capitalist.
2. Law only stopped deliberately discriminating against blacks a few decades ago, processes usually take time.
3. Some people are willing to pay a price for bigotry... that's their problem anyway.

1 is stupidly false.
2 is true, but why should we wait patiently for massive problems to go away when we can end them quicker by actually, you know, trying?
as for 3, no, it is not their problem. it is a problem for those who suffer the discrimination, as their lives are made needlessly worse because bigots happen to hold wealth and power - unjustly, as you just mentioned in 2, even.

[Neo Art]

It only means that you think it's time to move past race as a determining factor for anything.

Sure.

You first.

no, really, I mean that. I hear this line so fucking often by the anti-affirmative action crowd, the mewling "it's time to move past race!" cop out. Fine, I agree, let's move past race, and religion, and gender, and sexuality as elements in hiring, firing, promotion and salary decisions. And as the volumes of data we have, all current and up to date, the clear indication is that we haven't done that yet.

So go ahead, get out there, hit the streets, protest this. Get the system changed. Show me, get me real, actual data that this has happened, and then we can talk about dismantling the affirmative action system. Show me that traditional minorities are no longer at a disadvantage in these systems and THEN we can talk about getting rid of the means to weaken those dsadvantages.

You want to "move past" the point that those factors are considered? Great, you first. Convince me that affirmative action no longer has a purpose, and I'll work with you to help get rid of it.

I'll be right over here waiting.

[Gravlen]

They Leveled The Playing Field.

Solution Unacceptable.That is not an Aptitude Test.

Meritocracy or Bust!

Why are you opposed to a movement towards meritocracy?

[The Reasonable]

what matters is the outcome, not the thought process. i don't really give a shit if people are racist fucks, as long as they can't actually use their racism to hold people back. and everybody who isn't acting racist in their hiring and admission processes, etc., is quite literally absolutely unaffected by any reasonable affirmative action policies - they will already naturally be following them.

If you only care for results, don't pretend to be for equality for opportunity then, and those who are truly not racist may or may not select people based on racial proportions- they will only care about who are the best for the task.

the way to break the barriers down isn't to hope the barriers will be broken down. the way to break them down is to storm the gates and topple them from the inside. always has been.

The way to break them down is to end centuries of educational inequity. It won't be done overnight, but no amount of artificial racial mixing can solve the problem.

except that bringing on additional otherwise qualified candidates from historically oppressed group directly helps them, their kids, and even the rest of the affected population. in addition to the direct benefits to the people and their families, having black or female or openly gay faces in positions of authority breaks down the idea that they can't be there. this helps others achieve similar and encourages the rest to strive by showing it is possible to make it.

we should definitely fix the schools and such, but focusing just on that stops progress for at least another 20 years. coin tosses make sure that the problem remains, because the existing pool distorts the possible outcomes.

the only way to move up is to actually move up. and since, as you agree, we obviously have to help the process along, we might as well do it in the most effective way we can. which just so happens to be well-run affirmative action programs.

Again, don't assume everyone is so prejudiced as to think that women, gays, or minorities shouldn't be in positions of authority. But if you have any of these that are not as qualified, it destroys the entire intent of affirmative action and only entrenches racism by "proving" that minorities are weak and only got their positions from their minority status. Only the minorities that are just as or more qualified as the non-minorities should be selected so that they provide a good example of minorities succeeding on their own merits and so eliminates racism against them based on perceived "inferiority". Having a "victim" mentality doesn't help anyone- what matters now for minorities is working to better themselves in a new, fair system that no longer discriminates against them, but does not favor them either.

[Seperates]

The fact is you don't need police and courts to punish bigots, because Capitalism just naturally hates bigots.

In Government-funded Education, there is a need to institute mechanism to make sure that the colour of your skin does not determine whether you get your sheepskin or not.

But in the context of the Free Market, you're right.

The Road Ahead is the Booker T. Washington Road. The best strategy for non-whites is to simply out-capitalise the white majority. That should not be too hard, considering the the most considerable proclivity of Johnny C- White to indulge in socialism, progressivism, fair-trade and other silly notions. And looking in my own neighbourhood, it is working just fine.

Free Enterprise here, looks pretty much solidly dominated by Asians. And yes, the white majority is trying to challenge it, appealing through papers, white Mayors making phone-calls to Asian business-owners if they would pretty please include some under-represented Johnny C-'s and so on.
And of course, said business owners evaluate such appeals based on their own economic interest. And that is how things should be.


It even works for major industrial concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teesside_Steelworks

In light of the termination of a large contract in 2009, 1,700 jobs were lost at the plant.[3] However, on 24 February 2011, it was announced that Teesside Steelworks has been purchased by Thai Steel giant, SSI.[4] On 15 April 2012 the plant was officially reopened.[5]

*slaps knee laughing*

You think Johnny C- is the one who is uncapitalistic? Really? Here's a challenge. Look at all the "wisest", most philisophical people throughout human history. Fuck, even throw in some conceptual ones, like Jesus, for good measure. Most have not been capitalistic in their ideals. If you actually take the time to read Ghandi, rather than just hear others talk about him... you will realize that we always forget to mention one little detail about him. In the familiar trends of Buddism and Hinduism he was against the concept of possession... of any form. Even the possession of ideas. And if you possess nothing... you have nothing to sell or barter with... which is very uncapitalistic.

No. Johnny C- will make a wonderful capitalist. He won't realize the long term effects of his current actions. He won't communicate with the people who he sells his products to, and he will de-humanize them as often as possible. In essence, he will act in a similar manner as the majority of stockbrokers and corporations have for the last two decades, with only a couple of notable exceptions. Perhaps he won't make it to C.E.O. but he will at least make it to the Board out of sheer ruthlessness.

Johnny A, on the other hand, has come to the realization that money isn't everything... in fact, that money isn't anything. He will realize that viewing money as success is only our current cultural paradigm, and that the only thing that is constant in a good society and culture is having an honored position for all of it's members. And hopefully he will strive for that.

[Saiwania]

You want to "move past" the point that those factors are considered? Great, you first. Convince me that affirmative action no longer has a purpose, and I'll work with you to help get rid of it.

I'll be right over here waiting.

Having affirmative action in place won't advance all minorities and has a negligible effect at best, it just favors taking away from one group to give to another group. Would you rather have society give no one any special favors or would you rather have the government play games of which group is the most oppressed and thus should be given benefits year after year, as various ethnic groups rise and fall in wealth and prominence?

No matter what, there will always be some people who are more disadvantaged than the majority, but the group that is considered the lowest is by no means static.

[The Reasonable]

It only means that you think it's time to move past race as a determining factor for anything.

Sure.

You first.

no, really, I mean that. I hear this line so fucking often by the anti-affirmative action crowd, the mewling "it's time to move past race!" cop out. Fine, I agree, let's move past race, and religion, and gender, and sexuality as elements in hiring, firing, promotion and salary decisions. And as the volumes of data we have, all current and up to date, the clear indication is that we haven't done that yet.

So go ahead, get out there, hit the streets, protest this. Get the system changed. Show me, get me real, actual data that this has happened, and then we can talk about dismantling the affirmative action system. Show me that traditional minorities are no longer at a disadvantage in these systems and THEN we can talk about getting rid of the means to weaken those dsadvantages.

You want to "move past" the point that those factors are considered? Great, you first. Convince me that affirmative action no longer has a purpose, and I'll work with you to help get rid of it.

I'll be right over here waiting.

Insinuating that I'm racist doesn't support your argument.

You know what's the real issue behind it all? Inequality in K-12 education. Because those ignorant conservatives would cry socialism every time somebody proposes distributing property taxes equally towards all schools, schools in impoverished areas are lower in quality. This is not even a racial issue- the greatest percentage of welfare recipients are white, and there's a whole lot of white poverty going on throughout the US. What does that mean? Inequality in opportunity isn't purely divided upon racial lines.

I go to a math-and-science school in Georgia, heartland of the racist South. The Hispanic and black students who were admitted without affirmative action are doing quite well- they come from well-off, complete families and are culturally no different than whites or even Asians such as myself (and I actually came from a family poorer than any of the blacks and Hispanics here), and perform similarly in terms of grades- they've had the opportunities from a good public education system. Should they be placed above those coming from similar backgrounds just because of what color/race they were born as? Or should they get a level playing field?

Affirmative action's idea is to level the playing field, but it only disguises the true issue at hand, which is inequality in opportunity based on socioeconomic factors. It just so happens that because of prior oppression that minorities are disproportionately poor, and so they should get benefits...but those benefits shouldn't be token crumbs thrown at them in terms of positions just based on race, but rather real, long-term help in making themselves equal in merit- whether it's more school funding, more advertising and training programs...and as for the racist attitudes embedded in society, there's no better cure for that than for minorities to prove themselves in terms of academic achievement and later professional achievement, without a perception of unfair advantage- you'd find that people will gradually drop their racist attitudes when there's evidence of minorities performing strongly without an artificial leg up. To me, this is a choice between a quick, gimmicky fix, and a long-term solution.