Is Affirmative Action Racist?

[Shaggai]

Affirmative action is both helpful and harmful in many aspects, however I believe that rather than forcing someone to hire specific people of race, which is indeed racism in itself, we should respect the right of the employer and allow them to pick who they wish based on skill and qualification. If I own a business, I should be able to hire who I want to, regardless.

Well, affirmative action doesn't mean that you pick people based on race regardless of qualifications. You simply favor the person of a disadvantaged group who has the same qualifications as one of a privileged group.

[Isletta]

Many say that affirmative action boosts equality in the marketplace, while others say that it is racist, as it denies workers with greater ability the right to work at a job, in order to meet quotas.

Yes. As it is currently practiced in the United States

It forces employers to positively prove a negative (thus violating their civil rights).
(there is no evidence that you are racists/bigots but we will assume so and you must prove that your are not by following our arbitrary quota which assumes that you and everyone everywhere (within our jurisdiction, of course) is either racist or the victims of racism.)

It enforces a delusion of cultural Marxism which assumes that (irony of ironies) all dead white men and their descendent's are racist and their ideas cause institutional racism -- neglecting that Marx, Engels, et al., are dead white men with ideas; and that very notion is as racist in and of itself.

One cannot end racism by institutionalizing racism (which affirmative action as currently practices does). (You are not free to hire the right person for the right job, but must hire a person because of his race even if that person is ill suited for the task if there is already a preponderance, or imbalance of others, which is statistically likely.)

It forces some minorities who wish to follow MLK, Jr.'s example and dream of living in a colorblind society to be put on display as a tokens. (One of the few times in my life I was ever racially harassed was because of Affirmative Action. When I was in the Military, I was chided by my command for not claiming my Cherokee/Nez Pierce and Shoshone descent even though it would have given me a few hundred dollars bonus, added a few percentage points to all my advancement tests and given my command several extra thousand dollars in their purse. My reasoning was that unlike my grandparents who had suffered persecution and bigotry for being American Indian, I never had--in fact most people thought it was "cool" and to claim preferential racial treatment for the equivalent of a tort settlement is fraudulent and demeaning.

If we return to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and use it as means to determine that racism may be occurring to prompt an investigation, or be used by the victim of racism to show that illegal preferences are occurring, then it would cease to be the mockery of justice that it has become.

Title VII Section 703, (j)
Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, any employment agency, labor organization or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex or national origin … in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section or other area.

[Mavorpen]

Yes. As it is currently practiced in the United States

It forces employers to positively prove a negative (thus violating their civil rights).
(there is no evidence that you are racists/bigots but we will assume so and you must prove that your are not by following our arbitrary quota which assumes that you and everyone everywhere (within our jurisdiction, of course) is either racist or the victims of racism.)

Oh my gods.

It's hilarious how someone can claim Affirmative Action in the U.S. is racist and then utterly lie by claiming that quotas are practiced.

I'll give you a hint: quotas are *gasp* illegal and have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

[Isletta]

Yes. As it is currently practiced in the United States

It forces employers to positively prove a negative (thus violating their civil rights).
(there is no evidence that you are racists/bigots but we will assume so and you must prove that your are not by following our arbitrary quota which assumes that you and everyone everywhere (within our jurisdiction, of course) is either racist or the victims of racism.)

Oh my gods.

It's hilarious how someone can claim Affirmative Action in the U.S. is racist and then utterly lie by claiming that quotas are practiced.

I'll give you a hint: quotas are *gasp* illegal and have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

Which is why reverse-discrimination lawsuits and penalties are frequent and enforced, no doubt, becuae the courts do not believe this so-called utter-lie?

[Mavorpen]

Which is why reverse-discrimination lawsuits and penalties are frequent and enforced, no doubt, becuae the courts do not believe this so-called utter-lie?

Actually, that's precisely what has happened. Courts have repeatedly struck down Affirmative Action quotas, with the Supreme Court rejecting several appeals.

You should probably do some actual research before making shit up.

[Tumblr Isles]

oh, you poor white people! yes it is racist but it is GOOD racism, its not about "keeping the white man down"(lol) its about helping everyone BUT the white man.

[Aurora Novus]

oh, you poor white people! yes it is racist but it is GOOD racism, its not about "keeping the white man down"(lol) its about helping everyone BUT the white man.

What makes helping everyone but the "white man" good?

[Isletta]

Which is why reverse-discrimination lawsuits and penalties are frequent and enforced, no doubt, becuae the courts do not believe this so-called utter-lie?

Actually, that's precisely what has happened. Courts have repeatedly struck down Affirmative Action quotas, with the Supreme Court rejecting several appeals.

You should probably do some actual research before making shit up.

You are proving my point. If the CRA of 1964 were enforced as written there would be no controversy. However, as it is currently enforced even with the Supreme Court it still amounts to an unworkable system based on quotas yet forbidding that very thing --incoherent, incongruent, and utterly devoid of sense. Instead of juvenile name calling, how about an intelligent discourse.

Here are some books that helped me come to these conclusions.
Civil Wrongs by Yates
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Wrongs-Wron ... 155815292X
Invisible Victims by Lynch
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... wrockwell/
and
Affirmative Action Around the World by Sowell
http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Actio ... ive+action

[Shnercropolis]

Affirmative action is entirely racist. The whole idea of giving anybody preference because of their race is textbook racism.

[Mavorpen]

You are proving my point. If the CRA of 1964 were enforced as written there would be no controversy. However, as it is currently enforced even with the Supreme Court it still amounts to an unworkable system based assuming quotas but forbidding that very thing --incoherent, incongruent, and utterly devoid of sense. Instead of juvenile name calling, how about an intelligent discourse.

Is this supposed to be English?

Seriously, I have utterly no idea what the hell your post is supposed to be saying. You claimed that the courts don't enforce the Supreme Court's ruling against quotas. My source demonstrates that they in fact do.

[Valendia]

Affirmative action is entirely racist. The whole idea of giving anybody preference because of their race is textbook racism.

Racism, as in the viewing of one race as superior to another, and Affirmative Action are mutually exclusive concepts.

[Shnercropolis]

Affirmative action is entirely racist. The whole idea of giving anybody preference because of their race is textbook racism.

Racism, as in the viewing of one race as superior to another, and Affirmative Action are mutually exclusive concepts.

Affirmative action is he policy of giving minorities preference in jobs/universities, correct?
That would imply that minorities are superior in some way. If nothing else, they are superior in deserving jobs/education.

[Mavorpen]

Affirmative action is he policy of giving minorities preference in jobs/universities, correct?

No. It is the policy of encouraging employers/universities to consider more minorities, whether they be white, black, Asian, etc. to increase diversity.

That would imply that minorities are superior in some way. If nothing else, they are superior in deserving jobs/education.

Wrong. Affirmative Action doesn't say that between a stack of black applicants and a stack of white applicants that you choose the stack with the black ones.

[Valendia]

Affirmative action is he policy of giving minorities preference in jobs/universities, correct?
That would imply that minorities are superior in some way. If nothing else, they are superior in deserving jobs/education.

If anything, it actually implies the opposite (and true) notion that said minorities are at a disadvantage.

Say there are two runners in a 100m race. Moving one racer's starting line 10m forward would be unfair. But what if said racer was actually 110m away from the finish line to start with? Is it still unfair then?

[Shnercropolis]

Affirmative action is he policy of giving minorities preference in jobs/universities, correct?

No. It is the policy of encouraging employers/universities to consider more minorities, whether they be white, black, Asian, etc. to increase diversity.

That would imply that minorities are superior in some way. If nothing else, they are superior in deserving jobs/education.

Wrong. Affirmative Action doesn't say that between a stack of black applicants and a stack of white applicants that you choose the stack with the black ones.

Well, I've been mislead! Goddamn media.

Affirmative action is he policy of giving minorities preference in jobs/universities, correct?
That would imply that minorities are superior in some way. If nothing else, they are superior in deserving jobs/education.

If anything, it actually implies the opposite (and true) notion that said minorities are at a disadvantage.

Say there are two runners in a 100m race. Moving one racer's starting line 10m forward would be unfair. But what if said racer was actually 110m away from the finish line to start with? Is it still unfair then?

Obviously they should start at the same place.

[Isletta]

You are proving my point. If the CRA of 1964 were enforced as written there would be no controversy. However, as it is currently enforced even with the Supreme Court it still amounts to an unworkable system based assuming quotas but forbidding that very thing --incoherent, incongruent, and utterly devoid of sense. Instead of juvenile name calling, how about an intelligent discourse.

Is this supposed to be English?

Seriously, I have utterly no idea what the hell your post is supposed to be saying. You claimed that the courts don't enforce the Supreme Court's ruling against quotas. My source demonstrates that they in fact do.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

My claim is that Affirmative Action law (in the 60s) as enacted is based on race based quotas. i believe that the creators had best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. It was originally designed as a tool to diagnose whether or not racial profiling may occuring through a simple statistical analysis to give the victims of racism legal recourse, and I think that is a good idea.

As a pro-active admistrative policy enforcement tool (which it was not meant to be) it is a failure. It is inherently racist, and It leaves employers open to lawsuits from both discrimination cases and reverse-discrimination cases, and at the same time. The supreme court has convoluted the issue by forbiding quotas on a law whose existence is quota based.

[Valendia]

Obviously they should start at the same place.

That is what Affirmative Action is designed to achieve.

[Mavorpen]

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

My claim is that Affirmative Action law (in the 60s) as enacted is based on race based quotas.

Uh, no it wasn't.

It says utterly nothing about quotas and had the explicit goal of ending workplace discrimination based on "race, creed, color, or national origin."

i believe that the creators had best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. It was originally designed as a tool to diagnose whether or not racial profiling may occuring through a simple statistical analysis to give the victims of racism legal recourse, and I think that is a good idea.

Uh... again, I have no idea what you're saying here.

The supreme court has convoluted the issue by forbiding quotas on a law whose existence is quota based.

Again, this is a lie. The Affirmative Action laws make NO mention of quotas whatsoever.

[Isletta]

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

My claim is that Affirmative Action law (in the 60s) as enacted is based on race based quotas.

Uh, no it wasn't.

It says utterly nothing about quotas and had the explicit goal of ending workplace discrimination based on "race, creed, color, or national origin."

i believe that the creators had best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. It was originally designed as a tool to diagnose whether or not racial profiling may occuring through a simple statistical analysis to give the victims of racism legal recourse, and I think that is a good idea.

Uh... again, I have no idea what you're saying here.

The supreme court has convoluted the issue by forbiding quotas on a law whose existence is quota based.

Again, this is a lie. The Affirmative Action laws make NO mention of quotas whatsoever.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law
Affirmative Action
Employment programs required by federal statutes and regulations designed to remedy discriminatory practices in hiring minority group members; i.e., positive steps designed to eliminate existing and continuing discrimination, to remedy lingering effects of past discrimination, and to create systems and procedures to prevent future discrimination; commonly based on population percentages of minority groups in a particular area. Factors considered are race, color, sex, creed, and age.
http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/ ... n-51571039

This is what lawyers and lawmakers mean when they use the term "affirmative action." Notice that it is based on percentages (quotas).

This article will help explain where court has struck down quotas, and where they have let them stand.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-c ... times.html

Any allotment (way of diversifying) is by definition a quota. When one changes the proportion, share or allotment of one's employees or incorporates a system to do so they are using a quota (or quotas). To say this is not the case is disengenuous. This denial seems to be a serious flaw for those whom Affirmative Action as Affirmative Discrimination is a Holy Grail.

Qutoa: a proportion, share or allotment. Blacks Legal Dictionary 3rd, West Publishing

Last Minute Edit.
I have to go. It was a pleasure to post with you. I highly recommend Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (Yale Nota Bene) by Thomas Sowell. Check it out at your local library, or ask to interlibrary loan it if they do not have it in circulation.

[Mavorpen]

This is what lawyers and lawmakers mean when they use the term "affirmative action." Notice that it is based on percentages (quotas).

Uh, that's not what a quota is.

A quota is a fixed percentage that you cannot under or overachieve. In other words, if you have a quota to have 50% of your employees to be women (which is an admirable goal considering they do make up 50% of the population), that means that every other employee you hire must be a woman. That is illegal.

What the link you posted is talking about is something entirely different. It entails a company being encouraged to aim for a 50% female workforce. But that doesn't mean that they have to make every other person they hire a female. It's nothing more than a goal that they have set for themselves that they would like to see because it would represent the reality of the population.

This article will help explain where court has struck down quotas, and where they have let them stand.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-c ... times.html

Any allotment (way of diversifying) is by definition a quota.

No it isn't.

When one changes the proportion, share or allotment of one's employees or incorporates a system to do so they are using a quota (or quotas). To say this is not the case is disengenuous. This denial seems to be a serious flaw for those whom Affirmative Action as Affirmative Discrimination is a Holy Grail.

THAT is a quota. And THAT is illegal. What you described earlier however is not a quota. Having a GOAL where you do not have a REQUIRED obligation to satisfy a fixed percentage is not a quota and is therefore not illegal.

Qutoa: a proportion, share or allotment. Blacks Legal Dictionary 3rd, West Publishing

Which doesn't think what you think it means. As Wikipedia explains it:

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group.

Note the word requirement.

[Saiwania]

Wrong. Affirmative Action doesn't say that between a stack of black applicants and a stack of white applicants that you choose the stack with the black ones.

But that is the end result since Blacks are a smaller segment of the population in the US than Whites are. You've gotta admit that affirmative action isn't completely unbiased. There is no way that a majority White business would get away with never hiring any Blacks for longer than a majority Black business would get away with never hiring any Whites. The White business would get shutdown or penalized, while the Black business would be allowed to do as they please.

[Isletta]

This is what lawyers and lawmakers mean when they use the term "affirmative action." Notice that it is based on percentages (quotas).

Uh, that's not what a quota is.

A quota is a fixed percentage that you cannot under or overachieve. In other words, if you have a quota to have 50% of your employees to be women (which is an admirable goal considering they do make up 50% of the population), that means that every other employee you hire must be a woman. That is illegal.

What the link you posted is talking about is something entirely different. It entails a company being encouraged to aim for a 50% female workforce. But that doesn't mean that they have to make every other person they hire a female. It's nothing more than a goal that they have set for themselves that they would like to see because it would represent the reality of the population.

This article will help explain where court has struck down quotas, and where they have let them stand.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-c ... times.html

Any allotment (way of diversifying) is by definition a quota.

No it isn't.

When one changes the proportion, share or allotment of one's employees or incorporates a system to do so they are using a quota (or quotas). To say this is not the case is disengenuous. This denial seems to be a serious flaw for those whom Affirmative Action as Affirmative Discrimination is a Holy Grail.

THAT is a quota. And THAT is illegal. What you described earlier however is not a quota. Having a GOAL where you do not have a REQUIRED obligation to satisfy a fixed percentage is not a quota and is therefore not illegal.

Qutoa: a proportion, share or allotment. Blacks Legal Dictionary 3rd, West Publishing

Which doesn't think what you think it means. As Wikipedia explains it:

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group.

Note the word requirement.

I gave you the legal definitions (used by the court system where I live), and an infoplease almanac citation regarding the the issues to which i had been referring re: court strike down of quotas. Qutoas are not necessarily fixed, they are what they are. Legislators and jurists do not go to wikipedia for their meanings, they use Wests and other legal works.

Last Minute Edit.
I have to go. It was a pleasure to post with you. I highly recommend Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (Yale Nota Bene) by Thomas Sowell. Check it out at your local library, or ask to interlibrary loan it if they do not have it in circulation.

[Isletta]

I will be back monday if you would like to continue.

[Mavorpen]

But that is the end result since Blacks are a smaller segment of the population in the US than Whites are.

No, it isn't.

Why would a business intentionally reduce its efficiency?

You've gotta admit that affirmative action isn't completely unbiased.

I've never denied this. Like, at all.

There is no way that a majority White business would get away with never hiring any Blacks for longer than a majority Black business would get away with never hiring any Whites.

That's nonsense. Whites make up such a large percentage of the population that it would be vastly more noticeable if a company never hired any whites.

Again, I ask why a company would intentionally reduce its efficiency like that? A "black" company could NEVER afford that.

The White business would get shutdown or penalized, while the Black business would be allowed to do as they please.

Even assuming this bullshit is true, the "black" businesses wouldn't survive long.

[Mavorpen]

I gave you the legal definitions (used by the court system where I live), and an infoplease almanac citation regarding the the issues to which i had been referring re: court strike down of quotas.

...And?

Your "legal definition" was grossly taken out of context and completely misrepresented. How do I know? Well, that's because the courts themselves have actually said that your definition is wrong. Courts have ruled that "having a percentage goal" isn't a quota. What they HAVE ruled is that setting aside a specific (or fixed) number for a group IS a quota and is unconstitutional.

And SCOTUS DOES use the Black Legal Dictionary.

Qutoas are not necessarily fixed, they are what they are.

Uh, yes they are. Repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

Legislators and jurists do not go to wikipedia for their meanings, they use Wests and other legal works.

They also have a working knowledge to create a framework and context of the definitions they are using. You however, don't appear to have that, because you're taking a definition as it literally says without context. For example, using your logic, I can argue God exists just from posting a dictionary definition:

God  

God [god] Show IPA
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

See? See? The dictionary says that God is the creator and ruler of the universe! Thus He must exist! Obviously, this is silly and demonstrates that reading a dictionary (especially legal ones) requires more than just a literal reading of it without giving any thought into a contextual framework.