Affirmative action

[champion]

Good evening everyone! Sorry I haven't been around the site much, but I am excited to see all the new posts! I read alot of interesting (ok, not ALL were interesting) veiws.

So, I need some veiwpoints on affirmative action, in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Specifically, do we live in a just society? If you assert that we do, how is it just? If we don't, how do we account for those injustices? Do we consider only current situations or past injustices as well? How far back do we need to go?
And finally, if a public university were to implement an AA policy, how could they do that in a way that is fair and Constitutional?
I have a hundred more questions, as this is an issue I am avidly exploring, but hopefully these will start us off.

[Paradox Bain]

I don't believe in Affirmative Action, nor will I ever.

I believe that a person should get by on their talent/skill/merit, not the color of their skin or their whether they are male or female.

I also believe that nothing more needs to be said about this subject. ;)

[champion]

Thanks, P.B., for your opinion; unfortunately, simply stating your opinion and declaring "And that's the end of that!" doesn't quite cut it.
You mentioned merit, doesn't that assume we live in just world where everyone, while growing up, has the opportunity to learn and demonstrate what they know?

[mykiop]

a society owes it's being a society to the individuals that make it up. it has a responsibilty to itself, as with a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link. have you ever read animal house? remember this, one man's dream may be another mans nightmare.

[ROBERT STEWART]

RAISED IN TENN., IN VIETNAM, AND NOT TIL I LIVED HERE IN THE NORTH HAVE I HAD AN OPION ON THIS TIL I WENT FOR A JOB AND WAS TOLD THIS OTHER CLASS FELLOW GOT THE JOB. HE WAS ONLY FOUR'S HOURS LATE FOR INTERVIEW.
THE OWNER WAITED FOR HIM. INSTRUCTOR DID TELL ME HE ONLY GOT THE JOB BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR , IT WOULD HELP HIM GET A CONTRACT.:confused: :: :mad:

[Export]

Funny you should start this thread, champion!

I was totally against Affirmative Action - until I moved to Quebec.

For those of you who may not be familiar with it, Quebec is Canada's French province. They are what we call a 'Federal Province' - they have their own immigration policies, collect their own taxes, have their own police force, that sort of thing. French is the only Official Language.

Anglophones (English speakers) make up 12% of the Province, but less than 3% of the public service. There is a plan in place to put more Anglos in the service, and in some cases there are Anglophones being hired over Francophones.

When I was in the Majority in English Canada, I was against Affirmative Action. Now that I'm in the Minority in French Canada, I can definitely see a place for Affirmative Action. I'm fluent in both languages, but I perfer to deal in English rather than French, and think it's great that there is a plan to advance 'my' minority group.

I suppose it really comes down to some kind of 'tribalism' gene in out makeup, but I'll bet most people prefer to deal with people from their own 'tribe'.

[champion]

Do we stay with the skin-color-associated formulation of affirmative action, or do we change our laws to reflect that all men (read: humans) are created equal and can not be judged based on skin?

Regardless of how you answer, the following question applies: How do we account for those who, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunities others have? What about institutionalized racism? White privilege? What about the children who, through no fault of thier own, will never have the chance to acquire the skills to compete for university admission?

The question remains: How do we do this?

[USAFLady]

Skin color, ethnic background, religion and other such standards and requirements are not relevant as to who should or should not be granted a college education.

What is relevant is the ability of the student to meet the requirements academicly. It is the applicant's skills and abilites that matter not his ethnic background. Simply put the most qualified person for the position, nothing else matters.

If the applicant is qualified with the appropriate skills to warrant an advanced education then it should not matter whether he/she is black, yellow, pink, white or any other skin color. Affirmative action is simply another method of racial prejudice. It commits prejudices against the majority by unfairly granting less qualified people opportunities and denying more qualified people opportunities due to racial background.

Institutional racism is relative. Affirmative action only allows less qualified people achieve a position due to race. While the more qualified applicant is denied due to his/her skin color.

Companies should and do promote the most qualified person for the position, so why should Affirmative Action force them to pick a less qualified person?

White privilege?

Not in today's society. In many cases being caucasion will handicap someone for a position.

What about the children who, through no fault of thier own, will never have the chance to acquire the skills to compete for university admission?

There are abundant programs for anyone with the academic skills to qualify for financial assistance or scholarships if the applicant and his family cannot afford it.

As for skills to compete, every child in America has free public education and that education has provided the majority the college students in America.

The question remains: How do we do this?

Relatively simple the most qualified applicant for the position. Sex, race, religion and nationality should not matter.

[champion]

USAFLady, while I agree with the fundmental principles of your argument, I was wondering how you feel about the fact that all four branches of the military use racial preferences in enrollment to their academies (West Point, etc., each branch has one). My experience in the Navy was that the military has the most strict anti-racist rules I've ever seen, and yet, sees fit to utilize affirmative action.

[Export]

The formula that the government is (apparently) working with here is this: Anglophones make up 12% of the population, so they should make up 12% of the public service. It seems to be working quite well, might that work for you folks as well (but on a much larger scale, of course)?

I think it's a fair system. Thoughts/opinions?

[mykiop]

saying anything about our government being ''fair'' is like saying it's honest. much better to use words like fad or popular, for the most part people in government serve themselves. what scares me is the way popular opinion jumps around like a water bug fleeing from a trout. mykiop

[USAFLady]

Originally posted by champion
USAFLady, while I agree with the fundmental principles of your argument, I was wondering how you feel about the fact that all four branches of the military use racial preferences in enrollment to their academies (West Point, etc., each branch has one). My experience in the Navy was that the military has the most strict anti-racist rules I've ever seen, and yet, sees fit to utilize affirmative action.

admission to the academies is not based upon a quota... you have to get an appointment from either a US Senator or a Member of the House.... unless you meet the other requirement which is to be the dependent of an active duty member killed....


And we both know that no sitting or former member of congress will tell you that they used race in their factor in making appointments....

[ROBERT STEWART]

WHAT'S THE POINT MAKING MORE LAWS NOT TO DISCRIMATE, EVEN WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. WHEN [A -RERSON-COMPANY] MONEY IS TO BE MADE BY USING A LAW TO HELP OTHERS NOT QUALIFIED. I NEVER FORGET WHY THIS PERSON WAS HIRED OVER MYSELF & it BUGGED ME. I DOUBT IF HE EVEN KNEW THE TRUTH WHY HE STILL GOT HIRED. ONLY THING I KNOW NOW IS HE MAY HAVE A JOB TIL MONEY IS USED THEN HE'LL BE LOOKING FOR MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. HE WAS NO BETTER OFF, OR WAS HE? I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO GREED. I WAS IN NEED AT THAT TIME TOO. I TRIED HARDER CAUSE I HAD TOO.

[champion]

With regard to the military academies, yes, one must have a congressional reccomendation for admission, and no, politicians wouldn't readily admit to racial preferences - unless, of course, they were recognizing the historical lack of minorities in such institutions. Only the Coast Guard is barred from using race as a factor in admissions; the others can and do.

On to affirmative action in the larger, more sweeping sense.
The CEO of NAACP states "The Supreme Court has ruled that the use of race, among other factors, in college admissions is constitutional. Academic research has also proven that race conscious admissions are the most effective method identified to increase racial diversity in higher education. The NAACP calls on the [SCOTUS] to defend educational opportunities and protect America's interest." Going on to say: "Affirmative action has always been seen as a lawful means of remedying present and past discrimination. It is still the right thing to do to level the playing field and a proven way to increase diversity." (please see NAACP.org to verify quotes)

So, few would attempt to argue that blacks and other minorities have not been discriminated against in the past and many would be compelled to admit there is still racism today (I'll get into the 'trickle-down' argument later), so what's fair? An assumed-race-blind system? Doesn't that just ignore the racism that does exsist? Should we continue the affirmative action stance? Doesn't that just perpetuate racism by dividing and identifying people as colors?

What do you think?

[ROBERT STEWART]

Originally posted by champion
With regard to the military academies, yes, one must have a congressional reccomendation for admission, and no, politicians wouldn't readily admit to racial preferences - unless, of course, they were recognizing the historical lack of minorities in such institutions. Only the Coast Guard is barred from using race as a factor in admissions; the others can and do.

On to affirmative action in the larger, more sweeping sense.
The CEO of NAACP states "The Supreme Court has ruled that the use of race, among other factors, in college admissions is constitutional. Academic research has also proven that race conscious admissions are the most effective method identified to increase racial diversity in higher education. The NAACP calls on the [SCOTUS] to defend educational opportunities and protect America's interest." Going on to say: "Affirmative action has always been seen as a lawful means of remedying present and past discrimination. It is still the right thing to do to level the playing field and a proven way to increase diversity." (please see NAACP.org to verify quotes)

So, few would attempt to argue that blacks and other minorities have not been discriminated against in the past and many would be compelled to admit there is still racism today (I'll get into the 'trickle-down' argument later), so what's fair? An assumed-race-blind system? Doesn't that just ignore the racism that does exsist? Should we continue the affirmative action stance? Doesn't that just perpetuate racism by dividing and identifying people as colors?

What do you think?

[ROBERT STEWART]

I NEVER SPOKE MY OPION ON THIS BEFORE BUT THIS HAS ME THINKING OF PROS AND CONS. OUR SOCIETY HAS A HISTORY OF LOOKING THE OTHER WAY. I CAN SEE NOW WHY WE ARE WHO WE ARE AS A FREE NATION. I DO BELIEVE IN EQUAL AND JUST TREATMENT FOR ALL. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE ANSWER TO FAIRNESS AND TRYING TO GIVE EVERYONE THE CHANCE TO EXCEL.,
WE WOULD BE A BACKWARD SOCIETY IF WE CONTIUED TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY- EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF. I LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES AND BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT, DEPENDING WHICH SIDE YOU'RE ON. I JUST CALL IT SOMEONES OPION AND BELIEF. NOW, TODAY, I WOULD'T WANT TO SEE WHERE WE WOULD BE IF OUR COUNTRY HAD NOT TRIED TO CHANGE OUR PAST. WE CANNOT CHANGE THE PAST IF WE LIVE IN THE PAST. I SUPPOSE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS MORE THAN ABOUT BEING EQUAL

[USAFLady]

With regard to the military academies, yes, one must have a congressional reccomendation for admission, and no, politicians wouldn't readily admit to racial preferences - unless, of course, they were recognizing the historical lack of minorities in such institutions. Only the Coast Guard is barred from using race as a factor in admissions; the others can and do.

Evidence is to the contrary. Recent history has shown that the number of minorities in senior command position is representative of the fact that ability and qualifications outweigh ethnic heritage in these positions. For the military the fact that Colin Powell became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and arguably the most powerful one since Gen. Marshall, proves conclusively minorities are not discriminated against but rather the individual qualifications are dominate.

Those who serve do so because of desire and the willingness to volunteer to serve their nations. There is no evidence that the military is intentionally biased in recruitment and those who attend the military academies. On the contrary looking at graduating classes of the past years, military academies have admitted and accepted cadets and midshipmen of all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

[USAFLady]

Champion, you asked alot of stuff so I'm gonna have to answer in several threads.

The CEO of NAACP states "The Supreme Court has ruled that the use of race, among other factors, in college admissions is constitutional. Academic research has also proven that race conscious admissions are the most effective method identified to increase racial diversity in higher education. The NAACP calls on the [SCOTUS] to defend educational opportunities and protect America's interest." Going on to say: "Affirmative action has always been seen as a lawful means of remedying present and past discrimination. It is still the right thing to do to level the playing field and a proven way to increase diversity." (please see NAACP.org to verify quotes)

Simply speaking the NAACP and its chairman is not an unbiased or reliable source for racial equality comments. The NAACP’s goal has been and is the advancement of African Americans interests, and has demonstrated they have a questionable record of making non-racially motivated statements. The NAACP’s comments have to be taken in the context it was intended and are not representative of the reality or non-prejudicial analysis.

While SCOTUS have stated that race can be used as a factor in admissions, it has not nor has it ever stated that race is the sole factor for college admissions. Nor does it state that it is a requirement for admissions. In addition racial discrimination goes both ways, there are a significant number of universities and colleges today that are known as “Minority” schools. Whose student body and faculty are geared more towards a particular ethnic background.

Statements from obviously highly biased organizations like the NAACP is not representative of the real life.

[USAFLady]

So, few would attempt to argue that blacks and other minorities have not been discriminated against in the past and many would be compelled to admit there is still racism today (I'll get into the 'trickle-down' argument later), so what's fair?

Yes, minorities have faced discrimination in the past and some continues today. But discrimination is a two edged sword, and affirmative action is the other edge. It gives unqualified people an unfair and prejudicial advantage in education and the job market, effecting qualified people and their individual rights. Today’s job market is so competitive that it is unfair to force an employer and the employees of a company to hire or advance an unqualified worker because of his/her ethnic background. The pace and competitive of today’s workplace the overwhelming majority of employers have no concern about ethnic background, skin color and other prejudices, but rather the abilities of an employee to perform the job requirements. Affirmative action today not only hinders that it is also an obsolete and highly flawed method.

[USAFLady]

Doesn't that just ignore the racism that does exsist?

Racism exists very little in modern society except in the minds of the politically correct and those who wishes to see it. The vast and overwhelming portion of the public does not care about the ethnic background of their co-workers, boss, and/or fellow student. Corporations in the competitive world promotes, and hires on abilities and forcing them to promote and hire on skin color is nothing short of aiding racism itself.

How do we do this? Do we stay with the skin-color-associated formulation of affirmative action, or do we change our laws to reflect that all men (read: humans) are created equal and can not be judged based on skin?

Please read the 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution. Also the Declaration of Independence as far as all men are created equal. There are numerous laws that state discrimination in any form is illegal at both the state and federal level. Therefore discrimination is illegal provided all factors are equal.

Affirmative action in its existing form can be defined as an illegal and prejudicial
program.

[champion]

Originally posted by USAFLady
Evidence is to the contrary. Recent history has shown that the number of minorities in senior command position is representative of the fact that ability and qualifications outweigh ethnic heritage in these positions. For the military the fact that Colin Powell became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and arguably the most powerful one since Gen. Marshall, proves conclusively minorities are not discriminated against but rather the individual qualifications are dominate.

Those who serve do so because of desire and the willingness to volunteer to serve their nations. There is no evidence that the military is intentionally biased in recruitment and those who attend the military academies. On the contrary looking at graduating classes of the past years, military academies have admitted and accepted cadets and midshipmen of all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Not quite.
'Recent history' reflects affirmative action policies. Powell, while I agree he is a strong military leader even if I don't agree with his politics, is the beneficiary of 'race-conscious' practices. Furthermore, he does not 'conclusively prove' that minorities are represented in the upper echelans of the military. Look at the population percentages of the nation, then of the percentages of the big brass.
There is evidence of the military's complicity in the perpetuation of affirmative action policies. Look at the recruitment goals. Listen to the responses from these academies to their critics. Read the transcript of Grutter v. Bolinger; the military's policy with regard to it's officers schools was a component of the Justices' questions to the plaintiff. (In that, if the military feels it is nessacary, why shouldn't UM?)
You claim that the number of minorities in command positions is somehow indicative of the "race-blind" nature of the military. This simply isn't so. The military does consider race, and as long as it does, anyone's promotion, or lack of, is indicative of nothing but these policies.

[champion]

Originally posted by USAFLady
While SCOTUS have stated that race can be used as a factor in admissions, it has not nor has it ever stated that race is the sole factor for college admissions. Nor does it state that it is a requirement for admissions. In addition racial discrimination goes both ways, there are a significant number of universities and colleges today that are known as “Minority” schools. Whose student body and faculty are geared more towards a particular ethnic background.


No, NAACP was never intended to represent a non-biased veiw.

SCOTUS did not say that race can be the required factor in admissions. In Grutter v. Bolinger, SCOTUS ruled that race can be a factor, one of many, that administrators can consider when making desicions for admittance.
Yes, there are colleges that are "historically black" or "historically hispanic" and have claimed that they have a right to discriminate in this manner - and they're right. These are private institutions, and private schools can have whatever admission requirements they wish.

[champion]

Originally posted by USAFLady
Yes, minorities have faced discrimination in the past and some continues today. But discrimination is a two edged sword, and affirmative action is the other edge. It gives unqualified people an unfair and prejudicial advantage in education and the job market, effecting qualified people and their individual rights. Today’s job market is so competitive that it is unfair to force an employer and the employees of a company to hire or advance an unqualified worker because of his/her ethnic background. The pace and competitive of today’s workplace the overwhelming majority of employers have no concern about ethnic background, skin color and other prejudices, but rather the abilities of an employee to perform the job requirements. Affirmative action today not only hinders that it is also an obsolete and highly flawed method.
Your argument seems to imply that if today's market wasn't so competitive, then affirmative action would be alright. Yet, it is the very competitiveness that affirmative action proponents point to as the reason for continuing these policies.
Moreover, most AA supporters I have spoken with have no desire to see unqualified persons hired/admitted/advanced solely because of their race. Rather, they see AA as a 'tie-breaker' of sorts.

[champion]

Originally posted by USAFLady
Racism exists very little in modern society except in the minds of the politically correct and those who wishes to see it. The vast and overwhelming portion of the public does not care about the ethnic background of their co-workers, boss, and/or fellow student. Corporations in the competitive world promotes, and hires on abilities and forcing them to promote and hire on skin color is nothing short of aiding racism itself.



Please read the 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution. Also the Declaration of Independence as far as all men are created equal. There are numerous laws that state discrimination in any form is illegal at both the state and federal level. Therefore discrimination is illegal provided all factors are equal.

Affirmative action in its existing form can be defined as an illegal and prejudicial
program.
How do you justify your assertion that racism occurs very little these days? (I'm sure we can both agree that there are radical extremists on all sides- I'm not refering to them - just the 'average folk') How does one accurately gauge the presence or absence of racism?
As for the laws prohibiting discrimination, there are those who assert AA does not 'discriminate', rather it serves as a 'leveler' for unfair social standards.

[USAFLady]

Originally posted by champion
How do you justify your assertion that racism occurs very little these days? (I'm sure we can both agree that there are radical extremists on all sides- I'm not refering to them - just the 'average folk').

Look at the overwhelming evidence. There are very few if any exclusively white clubs, organizations; or institutions that aren't widely condemned and/or chastised for their position. There are no exclusively white neighborhoods, schools, businesses or any similar groups. People of all color, ethnic backgrounds, religion and diversity live and work next to each other and without any care for their differences. Major business, social and political leaders are chosen without prejudice. From Colin Powell and Condi Rice to the guy working at the corner coffee stand no one is boycotting or condemning them for the position in life.

How does one accurately gauge the presence or absence of racism?

Again look at society today. Is there black only lunch stands, blacks at the back of the bus, or anything similar? The fact is African American students and employees interact with each other on every level without prejudice. It is the person's abilities and their qualities that matter in today's society.

As for the laws prohibiting discrimination, there are those who assert AA does not 'discriminate', rather it serves as a 'leveler' for unfair social standards.

Any program that imposes racial quotas and encourages less capable and qualified people into a position is absolutely racially biased. To take away an opportunity for someone that is skilled and qualified to give to someone with lesser abilities is discriminatory and biased. Those who assert AA is non-discriminatory are in complete denial of the facts. Imposing quotas a based on race is discrimination, nothing less.

Leveler? Hardly, leveler implies that all people are treated equal and according to their skills and abilities. Imposing racial quotas is not a leveler but an endorsement of racism and favoritism. Either someone is qualified for a position or they are not. Making their race the determining factor rather than skill is not only discrimination but instead of leveling it slants and skews the playing field unfairly for all.

[champion]

Okay, so it's been awhile; I've been busy.
The evidence that AA proponents look at is not the lunch stands or the people working day to day. Discriminate, it is asserted, is much more sutble than that. The percentages of black students versus white students, as compared to the population percentages show that whites are more likely to be in collage. Also, the percentages show that whites are more likely than blacks to get higher paying jobs and are promoted at a higher rate. Sorry, I don't have the sources with me, but I will post them.
The main theory is the 'trickle-down' argument. This says that the racism pervascent in the past has put today's minorities at an unfair disadvantage. For example, whiteguyjoe got hired into a good job back in the fifties. He was able to make a decent, if modest living and provide for his children, who in turn were able to get a good education and eventually an even better job than dad, and then are able to provide even better educations for their children, so on and so forth. Constrastly, blackguyjoe was not hired into that good job back in the fifties and was not able to provide for a decent education for his children, who were then not able to get a better job.
The trouble is, what now? If we recognize the generational advantages of whites versus the generational disadvantages of blacks (I know this is not true in every case - we're talking in general) and we assert that AA is unfair, then what is fair? It wasn't fair that blacks were discriminated against, and it's not fair to punish whites today for it. But what is fair? What system can be put in place to ensure equality, when those responsible for the inequality aren't even around (for the most part) anymore?

[pb]

So some of you are saying that we need AA because some people are not capable of meeting the grade? I think that is the most racist thought ever.