Affirmative Action is Wrong

[Castle]

Affirmative action, for those of us who do not know, is "a policy or a program of giving preferential treatment to certain designated groups allegedly seeking to redress discrimination or bias through active measures, as in education and employment. Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past or present discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity" (from Wikipedia).

Problems with affirmative action:
1) It's discrimination, plain and simple. Discrimination is wrong. I thought the U.S. had established that decades ago.
2) It's hypocritical to combat discrimination with discrimination. Two wrongs do not make a right
3) It's unfair to hold people today accountable for past wrongs. People today are not responsible for discrimination that occurred in the past, but they are being punished for it.
4) It's simply a bad idea to force people to cater to the less qualified or less skilled. When one does so, one reduces the pool of competence in an area. It's more beneficial to society to help those who have the greatest potential, not to weed them out.

[Fangrim]

I also generally agree that Aff. Action is wrong. However, on your specific points (for ease, I'm focusing primarily on ethnicity. You could stretch most of the points to fit all forms of aff. action though):

1) Racism is essentially omnipresent. It isn't going away anytime soon. What we can do is limit discrimination through policy/media/etc that affects society and how it works. We can't change very directly how people feel about each other, but we can change whether they are allowed to express these feelings into physical or legal means. Yes, discrimination is wrong today, and things are going against it. Aff. Action, though a form of discrimination, may defeat it in the long run.
2) This is stupid, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The most effective way that the government can combat something is through passing laws and changing policies, not twiddlings its thumbs and hoping something happens. Aff. Action lets the government do something to combat (past or present) discrimination and ethnic barriers, and not just sit there.
3) I can't come up with much of an argument against this. I will say that the focus is more on the "actioned-in" guy than the "actioned-out" though, and that the policy is focused on helping the ethnically disadvantaged and not harming others.
4) This does make some sense. However, increasing the welfare of disadvantaged groups would also help society in making it more mixed and diverse in all of its levels. It also keeps wealth from simply being passed down through advantaged groups and lets previously disadvantaged ones rise, either through an education or a better job. This would help society. I don't know which of our points would be better though.

[Jakob]

Quote by: Castle t's unfair to hold people today accountable for past wrongs. People today are not responsible for discrimination that occurred in the past, but they are being punished for it.

Perhaps they aren't being punished for creating it, but for perpetuating it. At least someone is making an attempt, instead of sitting on their ass condemning the only attempt at solving it.

Quote by: castle it's simply a bad idea to force people to cater to the less qualified or less skilled. When one does so, one reduces the pool of competence in an area. It's more beneficial to society to help those who have the greatest potential, not to weed them out.

Perhaps. Yet, it is possible that by "catering" to those beneath us, we raise them up to our level, thus perpetuating the growth and developement of our society as a whole. Regardless of whether you push from the back or pull from the front, society moves.

[Castle]

Quote by: Fangrim What we can do is limit discrimination through policy/media/etc that affects society and how it works.

Which, obviously, we do by passing discriminatory laws. Yup, that makes perfect sense.

Quote by: Fangrim We can't change very directly how people feel about each other

Ooh, you mean like by causing resentment among majorities ("He got the job just because he's black") or insulting minorities ("They need an advantage just to compete").

Quote by: Fangrim we can change whether they are allowed to express these feelings into physical or legal means.

And we have. Discrimination is currently illegal. The job is already done. Overcompensating won't help anything. And encouraging discrimination again certainly won't help things.

Quote by: Fangrim The most effective way that the government can combat something is through passing laws and changing policies, not twiddlings its thumbs and hoping something happens.

See above.

Quote by: Fangrim I will say that the focus is more on the "actioned-in" guy than the "actioned-out" though, and that the policy is focused on helping the ethnically disadvantaged and not harming others.

But helping one neccessarily hurts another. Two guys are competing for a job. One gets it because of affirmative action. The other guy was harmed, regardless of whether that was the "focus of the policy".

Quote by: Fangrim However, increasing the welfare of disadvantaged groups would also help society in making it more mixed and diverse in all of its levels.

Quite frankly, who cares if society is mixed and diverse? If someone's good enough to get in, that's great. But we shouldn't let people who can't do the job get in in the name of diversity.

Quote by: Fangrim It also keeps wealth from simply being passed down through advantaged groups and lets previously disadvantaged ones rise, either through an education or a better job.

That's called welfare. Affirmative Action is a different beast altogether.

Quote by: Jakob Perhaps they aren't being punished for creating it, but for perpetuating it.

Evidence that racism is happening today?

Quote by: Jakob At least someone is making an attempt, instead of sitting on their ass condemning the only attempt at solving it.

I applaud people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who have tried to stomp out racism. And I detest those who continue to support it in the guise of justice and equality. Racism is racism, regardless of what you want to call it.

Quote by: Jakob Yet, it is possible that by "catering" to those beneath us, we raise them up to our level, thus perpetuating the growth and developement of our society as a whole.

But oftentimes what you need is not a horde of mediocrity, but a few shards of brilliance. Presidents, prime ministers, CEOs, great scientists; these are our best, and if we don't make them our best, society suffers greatly. A few people in key places hugely impact society. We should make those people our best.

[tinybear]

Affirmative action is state-sponsored racism. Enough said.

[Jakob]

Quote by: tinybear Affirmative action is state-sponsored racism. Enough said.

Uhm yeah... actualy it's not.

Everybody who likes chocolate is evil and deserves to go to hell. 'Nough said.

See what I did there?

Quote by: castle But oftentimes what you need is not a horde of mediocrity, but a few shards of brilliance. Presidents, prime ministers, CEOs, great scientists; these are our best, and if we don't make them our best, society suffers greatly. A few people in key places hugely impact society. We should make those people our best.

Allow me to elaborate. If we view all of society as one entity made up of several entities, which we will call social classes. The wealth/power/progress of a nation is the sum total of all the classes. If you progress one class, you progress society. However, if disparity also comes into a play. Take for example a few nations in Africa, regarding the AIDS epidemic. The AIDS solutions are only affordable for the rich. The rich, in most countries make up less than one percent of the population. Thus, the disparity between rich and poor negates any progress made within the nation. This is why it is imparitive to help those underneath us. If you continue to progress, and leave them in the dust, the disparity between you and them will make null all your progress.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fangrim 1) Racism is essentially omnipresent.

Mostly because it's constantly shoved in everyone's faces. The second anything bad happens to a black person, they toss out the race card. You can't even look sideways at some people without them assuming you're racist. What's happening today is something that would make MLK spin in his grave.

What we can do is limit discrimination through policy/media/etc that affects society and how it works.

You don't limit discrimination by discriminating. If discrimination is wrong, it is wrong regardless of who does it. It sends a message that certain forms of discrimination are fine.

We can't change very directly how people feel about each other, but we can change whether they are allowed to express these feelings into physical or legal means.

And it is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. Problem solved. Unfortunately, under AA, certain forms of discrimination are legal and certain forms are not. That's patently unfair.

2) This is stupid, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The most effective way that the government can combat something is through passing laws and changing policies, not twiddlings its thumbs and hoping something happens. Aff. Action lets the government do something to combat (past or present) discrimination and ethnic barriers, and not just sit there.

But it doesn't, it just makes racism worse. It makes blacks feel that they are incapable of getting the job without having a quota. It makes whites mad at blacks. All it does is HARM equality, it certainly doesn't make anyone more equal.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jakob Take for example a few nations in Africa, regarding the AIDS epidemic. The AIDS solutions are only affordable for the rich. The rich, in most countries make up less than one percent of the population. Thus, the disparity between rich and poor negates any progress made within the nation. This is why it is imparitive to help those underneath us. If you continue to progress, and leave them in the dust, the disparity between you and them will make null all your progress.

But we're not talking about helping a particular social class, we're talking about helping people purely on the basis of their skin color. That's what AA does. It doesn't help the poor, it helps people with a certain amount of melanin in their skin.

That's just plain stupid.

[Castle]

Quote by: Jakob Uhm yeah... actualy it's not.

How so?

Quote by: Jakob Allow me to elaborate. If we view all of society as one entity made up of several entities, which we will call social classes. The wealth/power/progress of a nation is the sum total of all the classes. If you progress one class, you progress society. However, if disparity also comes into a play. Take for example a few nations in Africa, regarding the AIDS epidemic. The AIDS solutions are only affordable for the rich. The rich, in most countries make up less than one percent of the population. Thus, the disparity between rich and poor negates any progress made within the nation. This is why it is imparitive to help those underneath us. If you continue to progress, and leave them in the dust, the disparity between you and them will make null all your progress.

Point #1: You're talking about welfare. That's not affirmative action. Actually, that's a pretty fatal flaw with your argument. Stick to affirmative action.
Point #2: Yay for welfare and advancing the poor and all that. But that doesn't mean we should make someone who doesn't have a high school education, say, a world leader unless they earn it.

[Athena]

Quote by: Castle Affirmative action, for those of us who do not know, is "a policy or a program of giving preferential treatment to certain designated groups allegedly seeking to redress discrimination or bias through active measures, as in education and employment. Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past or present discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity" (from Wikipedia). Problems with affirmative action: 1) It's discrimination, plain and simple. Discrimination is wrong. I thought the U.S. had established that decades ago. 2) It's hypocritical to combat discrimination with discrimination. Two wrongs do not make a right 3) It's unfair to hold people today accountable for past wrongs. People today are not responsible for discrimination that occurred in the past, but they are being punished for it. 4) It's simply a bad idea to force people to cater to the less qualified or less skilled. When one does so, one reduces the pool of competence in an area. It's more beneficial to society to help those who have the greatest potential, not to weed them out.

This wrong has made a huge right! While we still have discrimination, look at all the people who think it is wrong, since we made a law clarifying it is wrong. When it is the White man discriminated against, he finally gets the wrongness of discrimination.

It's a great idea to cater to the less qualified or less skilled, because when we do, these people become qualified and skilled and that is what we want.
Another thread is about a police tower watching over neighborhoods. Is this the kind of world you want to create, or one where people have good social bonds? The choice is yours.

[tinybear]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Athena]

Castle wrote "Ooh, you mean like by causing resentment among majorities ("He got the job just because he's black") or insulting minorities ("They need an advantage just to compete").

Whoo another person who understands the wrong of discrimination! I would say the law is working very well. Hopefully, in the future we will not need such laws, but as long as people complain about them, they are necessary.

Something has gone very wrong in our society? I am reading a lot of to hell with the other guy, messages today. We all share reality with the other guy, and if that reality isn't good for the other guy, it isn't going to be good for us either, because we share the same reality. Think about it, and how reality might be improved for everyone.

We prided ourselves in being better than barbarians. How were we better than barbarians? What does it mean to be civil?

[Castle]

Quote by: Athena While we still have discrimination, look at all the people who think it is wrong, since we made a law clarifying it is wrong.

Yeah, that back decades ago, in the sixties. Today, we're telling people that discrimination is right, that it's neccessary.

Quote by: Athena When it is the White man discriminated against, he finally gets the wrongness of discrimination.

People get the wrongness of discrimination. They don't need unjust laws to remind them, and they don't need to discriminated against when they've done nothing wrong.

Quote by: Athena It's a great idea to cater to the less qualified or less skilled, because when we do, these people become qualified and skilled and that is what we want.

No, it's not. I don't want the nuclear engineers to be those who placed in the bottom of their physics class. I want qualified people where they can do important jobs right.

Quote by: Athena Another thread is about a police tower watching over neighborhoods. Is this the kind of world you want to create, or one where people have good social bonds? The choice is yours.

I'm a little less ambitious. All I'd ask for is a world where people are judged on who they are, not on how they were born.

Quote by: Athena How were we better than barbarians?

You mean before affirmative action? We had a merit-based society, instead of a race-based society.

Quote by: Athena What does it mean to be civil?

Yup, still going with merit-based society.

[Jakob]

Quote by: Castle Quote by: Jakob Uhm yeah... actualy it's not. How so?

Read the rest of my post. Or even better, I'll quote it for you.

Quote by: Me Quote by: tinybear Affirmative action is state sponsored racism. Enough said. Uhm yeah... actualy it's not. Everybody who likes chocolate is evil and deserves to go to hell. 'Nough said. See what I did there?

[Castle]

Quote by: Jakob See what I did there?

No. But if you forced me to guess, I'd say you threw in a red herring and refused to address the claim that "affirmative action is state-sponsered racism".

[Jakob]

no. What I was addressing was how he/she/it said that affirmative action is state sponsored racism, with nothing else behind it. Stating an argument is true just because it's stated is an imbecilic attempt at winning an argument. I was simply pointing that out by offering a similar statement.

I find it interesting that I am coming under fire, instead of the person who assumed her opinion was the only necessary word on the subject.

[Castle]

Quote by: Jakob What I was addressing was how he/she/it said that affirmative action is state sponsored racism, with nothing else behind it.

I believe it follows fairly self-evidently from the definition of affirmative action that it is state-sponsored racism. That's what "preferential treatment of groups seeking to redress discrimination (read: minority races, like blacks and hispanics)" means. Preferential treatment for some is discrimination for others.

Quote by: Jakob I find it interesting that I am coming under fire, instead of the person who assumed her opinion was the only necessary word on the subject.

My apologies. But the point seemed self-evident to me, and I was interested in your reasoning for denying it. Plus, I'm not on your side Sorry, but that's the way it works.

[Jakob]

Touché. I wasn't working off of that definition of affirmative action.

Although, you can't honestly claim that it is perfectly fair to give to all peoples exactly the same. Some discrimination is neccessary in the long run. It's just a question of which standard you are discriminating by.

[Castle]

Quote by: Jakob Although, you can't honestly claim that it is perfectly fair to give to all peoples exactly the same.

That has nothing to do with affirmative action. Affirmative action is about a very specific type of discrimination.

Quote by: Jakob Some discrimination is neccessary in the long run.

Merit (Ability at the task in question)

[tinybear]

I agree you can't have absolute equality, but it is very inappropriate for the state (which professes to uphold equality) to engage in blatant racism.