Affirmative Action

[Eiger]

[color=yellowgreen]Since affirmative action has come up in a few threads lately, I thought I'd toss this out there so that people can better understand what affirmative action is and discuss it.[/color]

[color=yellowgreen]I'll start off with this general description from the Washington Post and then provide some really good links for those who want to get in deeper:[/color]

[color=darkorange]What Is Affirmative Action?[/color]

Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals.

In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man. Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates. And they are not supposed to harm anyone through "reverse discrimination."

[color=darkorange]The Politics of Affirmative Action[/color]

President Clinton, asserting that the job of ending discrimination remains unfinished, strongly defends affirmative action. "Mend it, but don't end it," he says.

Conservatives, however, see ending affirmative action as a powerful political issue. Heartened by recent Supreme Court decisions that have limited affirmative action – and by the passage in 1996 of a California ballot initiative abolishing sexual and racial preferences – Republicans are taking up the battle wherever they can.

The debate over affirmative action takes on a particularly bitter tenor in the trenches. "Angry white men" blame affirmative action for robbing them of promotions and other opportunities. And while many minorities and women support affirmative action, a growing number say its benefits are no longer worth its side effect: the perception that their success is unearned.

Judging simply by the results, the playing field would appear to still be tilted very much in favor of white men. Overall, minorities and women are in vastly lower paying jobs and still face active discrimination in some sectors. At this point in our nation's history, does affirmative action make things better or worse? The debate rages on.

[color=darkorange]Links[/color]

[color=yellowgreen]1. Affirmative Action and Diversity Project - This is the best one I've found for providing a ton of info, data, and a variety of views:[/color] http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/

[color=yellowgreen]2. US Govt info provided by the U of Colorado Library:[/color] http://www-libraries.colorado.edu/ps/gov/us/affact.htm

[color=yellowgreen]3. Ten Myths about Affirmative Action:[/color] http://www.understandingprejudice.or...les/affirm.htm

[color=yellowgreen]4. An essay on the practical and ethical defense of affirmative action: [/color]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3638/action.html

[color=yellowgreen]5. Washington Post resource page on AA:[/color] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...irm/affirm.htm

[Sage the Mage]

Why is affirmative action in place?
To allow disadvantaged blacks to achieve a higher standard of living. The key word here is, "disadvantaged." If your not disadvantaged, it shouldn't exist.

[Cale The Dark]

I wouldn't have a problem with A.A. if it worked the way it was supposed too. Since I'm currently in college, that's the instance I focus on. You see, as I understand it, college applications are looked at as a series of areas where points are awarded (at least in big schools). You are given points based on things such as your S.A.T. (A.C.T.) and your class ranking. However, thanks to affirmative action, they also award points based on race. So a minority student gains an automatic advantage over a student of non-minority background. Now, if this were maybe 1 point to break a tie, I wouldn't be writing this. I can't remember the exact numbers, but as both my parents are teachers I remember hearing all about this...right about the time that Michigan got sued. Anyhow, the extra points are substantial enought that it is entirely possible that a poorer student could get in ahead of a student who scored higher and performed better in high school. This simply is not right.

that is my major reason for not liking A.A. Besides that though, I see it as reverse discrimination and wrong. It is racism no matter how much you try and butter it up. A.A. is but a symptom of the problems in America today. If a school has an African American Club, it's all fine and dandy, but if some students start a Caucasian Club, well...they're just little KKK wannabes. There are many other examples, such as the social acceptability of Black racism (directed towards whites) vs. White racism (directed towards blacks). A.A. was a good idea at one time, and I'm not saying that we live in a perfect and equal American yet (I doubt we ever will), but A.A. has taken us as far as it can, it needs to get the axe before it stirs up more racial tension.

[Essex]

ah but A.A. also rewards white people. For instance if I was to apply to Michgan I would get points for being from a small rural town, so I'm not saying that it helps all white people but it helps some. Its not just race it helps to diversify

[Sage the Mage]

Ah, but rich white people have Legacy to back them up :)

[Essex]

right so those people dont' need A.A. however I would, so would someone who is black, or a woman... the list goes on.

The playing field is far from even in many ways this just levels it a bit in my opinon.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

History shows that the tragedy of solving one problem brings another, by means of overcompensation.

[Leon[fp]]

Originally Posted by AgeOfAbnegation

History shows that the tragedy of solving one problem brings another, by means of overcompensation.

Would history be so kind to give examples?

Oh, and with your current wordings solving one problem is a tragedy :uhhuh: ("the tragedy of solving one problem"). I know you didn't mean it; I just couldn't help pointing that out.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Surely, you're a clever one Leon. I'd be happy to give you an example, which deals with matters of doctrine. I'm not sure if you've looked at any philosophy, but the trend has been one intellectual school being superceded by another that is nigh the polar opposite of the other. The empiricists of the17th century overshadowed the rationalists, who were far removed from empirical data as a norm for knowledge. Rationalism was an extreme overcompensation of scholasticism, and wished to divorce reason from faith.
It's generally a typical reaction to any doctrine that's being "phased out". However, there is usually a synthesis in the end, as we've seen with 18th century philosophy (which offered a holisitc approach), and in this case, I perceive that all will be given equal opportunity based on merit, not as a reaction to a social flaw.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I think Affirmative Action is actually pretty stupid.
I can understand wanting to give people with a disadvantage a break but I would hardly call a persons skin colour or being a woman a disadvantage. Not any more at least.

What it comes down to is less qualified people getting ahead of higher qualified people because of their race or sex, wich is wrong no matter how you look at it. It also promotes racism. Not just in getting a job but how many times have you heard of a coloured person in a high up job be called an affirmative action piece of ****.
If the government want to help people with a disadvantage it needs to simply provide them with more chances to get the nescessary qualifications for better employment, not just give them jobs because of a percieved disadvantage that is decidedly outdated in most of the world these days.