Is Affirmative Action Racist?

[Hathradic States]

It does. If my memory serves me correctly, it creates quotas for various ethnic groups and genders.

I find that it would be much better just to do phone interviews, without the race or gender of the person being disclosed.

Or just hiring the best candidates.

And if we want to really give everyone an equal standing, we solve the causes of inequality, education and availability of capital.

Yeah, that sounds way too communist for me.

[Mizrah]

And if we want to really give everyone an equal standing, we solve the causes of inequality, education and availability of capital.

Yeah, that sounds way too communist for me.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome is what was just advocated.

[Capital Zealand]

It is racist. It is a form of discrimination. The true solution is to end the achievement gap with education reform and to end economic inequality with reforms based on universal programs such as universal healthcare, free college education, transportation, job training- this coupled with less regulations for starting small business and generous small business grants, etc.

Simply lowering standards for anyone or any group does not fix the problem. A policy of affirmative action solves only the symptoms of inequality, it does not cure the roots of inequality.

Affirmative action doesn't have to lower standards. All it has to do is to benefit an underrepresented group that needs it. That's all it is.

That is positive racism...

[Capital Zealand]

Is the rest of the world Canada? I can play that game as well.

You... You really don't get it do you?

The fact the United Kingdom - One country out of 300+ - calls it "Positive Discrimination" doesn't mean it is. And even if it was it's a good thing, but it isn't.

Fine. Ignore the last two emphases I made because you're a blind liberal.

[Capital Zealand]

Because, yes, it is racist. It encourages discrimination based on race, and really doesn't solve the problem at hand.

It's really easy to determine when people are wrong when they accuse an anti-discriminatory initiative of encouraging discrimination.

Opposing discrimination is encouraging discrimination now?

[Norstal]

Affirmative action doesn't have to lower standards. All it has to do is to benefit an underrepresented group that needs it. That's all it is.

That is positive racism...

Why does it have to be race?

Why can't it be something like disabled people? Women? Why are you so damn focused on races?

[Norstal]

Then...it's not positive discrimination elsewhere now is it?

I mean it literally says it's not in Canada. I dunno how you can conclude that it's positive discrimination in Canada.

Is the rest of the world Canada? I can play that game as well.

"Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group 'in areas of employment, education, and business'."

No matter how you read that, it is positive discrimination. So don't go telling other people are wrong when you're wrong

Shame this forum doesn't support a font size bigger than 200.

[Capital Zealand]

That is positive racismdiscrimination...

Why does it have to be race?

Why can't it be something like disabled people? Women? Why are you so damn focused on races?

Well excuse me for using the wrong word and you picking on it because you have no arguments! There, fixed!

[Capital Zealand]

Is the rest of the world Canada? I can play that game as well.

"Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group 'in areas of employment, education, and business'."

No matter how you read that, it is positive discrimination. So don't go telling other people are wrong when you're wrong

Shame this forum doesn't support a font size bigger than 200.

Ignoring evidence in front of you makes your argument invalid.

[Norstal]

Why does it have to be race?

Why can't it be something like disabled people? Women? Why are you so damn focused on races?

Well excuse me for using the wrong word and you picking on it because you have no arguments! There, fixed!

[Arumdaum]

Is the rest of the world Canada? I can play that game as well.

"Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group 'in areas of employment, education, and business'."

No matter how you read that, it is positive discrimination. So don't go telling other people are wrong when you're wrong

Shame this forum doesn't support a font size bigger than 200.

300, actually.

[Capital Zealand]

Well excuse me for using the wrong word and you picking on it because you have no arguments! There, fixed!

You don't need to pick on an irrelevant point is all I am saying.

[Alien Space Bats]

We could, in theory, just send in job applications that do not require you to fill out any personal information like sex, race, religion, etc. thereby forcing the said company to hire solely on the basis of merit since they cannot take other factors, such as sex, race, religion, etc, into consideration, and therefore cannot discriminate. Though this may not sit will with some people...

You'd need to leave name and age off the applications as well (IOW, just assign a numerical identifier).

To be honest, that would actually be a pretty good system.

[Capital Zealand]

We could, in theory, just send in job applications that do not require you to fill out any personal information like sex, race, religion, etc. thereby forcing the said company to hire solely on the basis of merit since they cannot take other factors, such as sex, race, religion, etc, into consideration, and therefore cannot discriminate. Though this may not sit will with some people...

You'd need to leave name and age off the applications as well (IOW, just assign a numerical identifier).

To be honest, that would actually be a pretty good system.

The only thing one would need to do is prove your age and name with an ID so that you are above the legal working age if there exists one, and also that you're a real existing person.

[Costa Alegria]

You'd need to leave name and age off the applications as well (IOW, just assign a numerical identifier).

To be honest, that would actually be a pretty good system.

It would still be open to abuse.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

I understand the rationale behind it, but yes it is racist and immoral.

[Sealand of America]

Most definitely. Affirmative Action, promotes reverse racial profiling.

Except it doesn't and you don't know what you're talking about.

From the posts I read your rebuttals have been based on insulting cursing and saying no it isn't. But nothing else constructive just shaming tactics.

[Forsher]

There's nothing wrong with opting for a candidate belonging to a different group to the majority of those presently employed/enrolled/whatever on that basis provided there are no better candidates available. In other words, if Paul and John were equally qualified and their interviews or whatever else is used to thin the pool doesn't make a cut and dried decision, choosing John because he's from a different ethnicity would be fine.

Quotas are bad though. So, my answer would be: the idea isn't but some of its applications can be.

You'd need to leave name and age off the applications as well (IOW, just assign a numerical identifier).

To be honest, that would actually be a pretty good system.

It would still be open to abuse.

Anyone with an odd number is out.

On the other hand, it would give National Student Numbers something to do post-school. Although if it was some other number... we have too many as is (even ones for our ethnicity).

[Xsyne]

It's really easy to determine when people are wrong when they accuse an anti-discriminatory initiative of encouraging discrimination.

It does. If my memory serves me correctly, it creates quotas for various ethnic groups and genders.

Your memory does not serve you correctly.

[Senyek]

Shame this forum doesn't support a font size bigger than 200.

You can have a 300 font size if you edit it yourself.

[Farnhamia]

Shame this forum doesn't support a font size bigger than 200.

You can have a 300 font size if you edit it yourself.

But there is no reason at all to do that, save as spam and there are consequences for that.

[Lies and Ignorance]

It does. If my memory serves me correctly, it creates quotas for various ethnic groups and genders.

Your memory does not serve you correctly.

Woo, I'm not the only one who noticed!

I understand the rationale behind it, but yes it is racist and immoral.

It's actually neither... so sorry.

[Alien Space Bats]

The interesting thing from an American legal perspective is that the courts recognize the value of diversity from both an academic and a business perspective (i.e., they recognize that exposing students to a wide variety of social inputs in education through the mechanism of making them fraternize with people of all different kinds improves the quality of the educational experience, and that having people from a multitude of different backgrounds enhances workplace creativity and problem-solving).

What this means is that the courts have created a legal framework under which both universities and businesses can CLAIM that the best candidate for admission or hiring is a person who is different from others they have chosen to admit or hire; this means that these organizations have a justifiable basis on which to, say, choose a black person over a white person (or vice versa) merely because they are black or white (because the selection of a candidate representing an underrepresented group would improve the diversity of their academic community or workplace). Once affirmative action has been banned, however, it may well end up that these entities will find themselves in the paradoxical position of having a legitimate selection objective that they have no actual legal means to achieve through any kind of purposeful effort...

[Nazi Flower Power]

The issue that I feel comes up in this discussion is that one side argues "AA is racist" while the other argues "AA is necessary" the issue being that these things are not mutually exclusive. I can freely admit that in certain places AA is completely necessary, however given the definition provided, if two hypothetical people are tied, and you choose one based on their race, then your selection was based on race, and thus racist. The only discussion that holds any fruit here is "Is that racism necessary?" and I would say that in certain places, absolutely.

This is the most intellectually honest argument in favor of affirmative action that I have seen in a long time. I still disagree. I just wanted to express my appreciation for the intellectual honesty.

I get so sick of people trying to pretend that it's not racist.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Clearly, a system designed to counteract racial discrimination in the workplace is racist because wah wah where did my segregation bonuses go.

Clearly a system utilizing racial quotas for a workforce is not racist, because only white people can be racist.

It's ok to dislike white people, because of their history and the fact that whites are assholes who happen to all be Klansman and love segregation.


.... I sure hope you are not implying this.

I am white and I am not a Klansman. I am a Nazi. Get your facts straight!