Afirmative Action...

[SleepingOwl]

Afirmative Action is the concept to create a more equal society... right?

Heres the wiki: Afirmative Action

Some praise this as one of the many great acts for racial equality.
Others however say that it takes jobs away from those who are capable.

My position is that it is understandable for someone to praise it (as all good intentions should be, but we now how those usually end up), but how, in this capitalistic society, can someone with less ability beat someone out of a job who is more capable?

Thoughts?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SleepingOwl Afirmative Action is the concept to create a more equal society... right? Heres the wiki: Afirmative Action Some praise this as one of the many great acts for racial equality. Others however say that it takes jobs away from those who are capable. My position is that it is understandable for someone to praise it (as all good intentions should be, but we now how those usually end up), but how, in this capitalistic society, can someone with less ability beat someone out of a job who is more capable? Thoughts?

No, affirmative action does not create a more equal society. It is a racist policy because it says to minorities "You're not capable of competing on an equal footing with white males, so we'll make it easier for you by giving you special preferences and by letting you meet a lower standard than white males."

[SleepingOwl]

No, affirmative action does not create a more equal society. It is a racist policy because it says to minorities "You're not capable of competing on an equal footing with white males, so we'll make it easier for you by giving you special preferences and by letting you meet a lower standard than white males."

I can agree with you here about how it is a rascist society. I think you would say that any group that is established for the benefit of a certain race is indeed rascist. Issues of sex aside, should any legislation or group of this nature be allowed? Should there be programs that give benefits exclusively to racial minorities?

And i do realize how it works so that first line shouldn't be read as though i agree with it necessarily, it is just to start the topic.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think its reverse racism in action, which is equally as bad as racism.

Being equal is just that, being equal.

[shield772]

In my opinion it was necessary when it was enacted, but now it has become a crutch to minorities who will not strive to become better and it is a thorn in the side of race relations, our society will only become equal when we stop seeing people for their race.

[Mr.Vicchio]

AA is racism codify into federal law.

It gives special treatment to one group of people based on skin color, and denies the same advantages to others because of skin color.

It should be abolished.

[another day]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think its reverse racism in action, which is equally as bad as racism. Being equal is just that, being equal.

I can't stand this term "reverse racism", and I can't believe you would be one to use it. There is no "reverse racism", only racism...the implication of your term is that only white people can be racist, and the rest are simply "reverse racist".

Racism does not mean hate/discrimination against minorities by white people. It means hate/discrimination by any race against any other race.

[padrisimo]

on principle affirmitive action is a racists policy that is crippling minorities and hamstringing capable workers.

[Osborn F Enready]

another day said: I can't stand this term "reverse racism", and I can't believe you would be one to use it. There is no "reverse racism", only racism...the implication of your term is that only white people can be racist, and the rest are simply "reverse racist".

Well, sorry to disappoint you. I do actually agree with you, there is only "racism", and affirmative action is a form of that.

I often use the term reverse racism because that is in effect what it did, reversed racism by one group on another, or flipped it. The people in chains traded sides with those holding the chains. (not in totality, but in logical understanding of the term racism)

another day said: Racism does not mean hate/discrimination against minorities by white people. It means hate/discrimination by any race against any other race.

I agree.

[Gods_Mercenary]

nice to see Os clear that up, And I agree with the other posters, AA is just as racist as programs that prefer whites, only the supporters of AA have deluded themselves that they're providing equal footing.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SleepingOwl I can agree with you here about how it is a rascist society. I think you would say that any group that is established for the benefit of a certain race is indeed rascist. Issues of sex aside, should any legislation or group of this nature be allowed? Should there be programs that give benefits exclusively to racial minorities?

Rights are for individuals, not groups. The only group idenity that we should recognize is that of "American." There is no place in our constitutional republic (at least since the 14th amendment) for laws designed to benefit specific groups based on some sort of "minority" status or, for that matter, based on "majority" status.

And i do realize how it works so that first line shouldn't be read as though i agree with it necessarily, it is just to start the topic.

I took the first line as simply being a question.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day I can't stand this term "reverse racism", and I can't believe you would be one to use it. There is no "reverse racism", only racism...the implication of your term is that only white people can be racist, and the rest are simply "reverse racist".

There are self-appointed "civil rights leaders" (read "blacks") that believe blacks cannot be racist because they are not in the positions of power.

Racism does not mean hate/discrimination against minorities by white people. It means hate/discrimination by any race against any other race.

Not according to certain civil rights leaders. Here's an article that discusses the notion of "blacks can't be racist":

Race Matters - In bigot versus bigot, white racist is winner

[Chancellor]

Quote by: shield772 In my opinion it was necessary when it was enacted

Why? Were "minorities" back then really less capable than white males and, thus, in need of special treatment by way of lower standards, lower test scores, and preference in hiring and admissions? It smacks of typical leftist paternalism. What was needed back then was simply vigorous enforcement of the 14th amendment.

, but now it has become a crutch to minorities who will not strive to become better and it is a thorn in the side of race relations,

No doubt.

our society will only become equal when we stop seeing people for their race.

You mean like the concept of the melting pot that America used to talk about - the idea of shedding your ancestry and the culture of the motherland and just being American?

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think its reverse racism in action, which is equally as bad as racism. Being equal is just that, being equal.

Disagree with you Os. Being equal means equal oppertunity and equal responsibility.

I do not favor affrimative action because it ignores the part of equal responsibility, however I believe it is up to the government to somehow find a way that everyone should have equal oppertunity.

Sure you can tell me that everyone has "rights" and "Constitutional protection" but without quality education there is no income, with no income there is no affordable living, without affordable living there is the streets, and on the streets I see no oppertunity.

In courts when I see a poor african american family using a public defender with tons of cases and just putting this one at the back of his mind and trying to settle and not win then the prosecutor with his high dollar attorney looking to press charges and seek jail time, I don't see equal oppertunity.

I'll agree with you there is no equal responsibility, fine, affirmative action as it stands is not okay with me, however living without equal oppertunity does not. Our government should be doing something to eradicate the lack of equal oppertunity, and as citizens, so should we.

[grandpa]

The term "reverse racism" makes no sense, first of all. Second, affirmative action is not as bad as it's made out to be.

However, I do not think it accomplishes more than direct action in the workplace.

Grandpa h.

[ZNFYRH]

"Reverse racism" is one of those terms that makes me laugh at those who use it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe it's because I'm educated... maybe it's because I'm black and have felt the literal physical pain of racism first-hand.

"Racism" is a frame of mind and perception. Someone who goes out of their way to help black people because they think blacks are superior is also racist.

Racism isn't just about a negative attitude towards one race. It's also when you have no problem with any race but hold one higher than another.

Realize that a White supremacist doesn't necessarily hate Blacks, Hispanics, etc. They might just hold Whites higher than all others.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Jimmy the Pro Disagree with you Os. Being equal means equal oppertunity and equal responsibility.

I'm sure you meant equal opportunity.

I do not favor affrimative action because it ignores the part of equal responsibility, however I believe it is up to the government to somehow find a way that everyone should have equal oppertunity.

Why is it the government's responsibility to ensure everyone has exactly the same opportunities?

Sure you can tell me that everyone has "rights" and "Constitutional protection" but without quality education there is no income, with no income there is no affordable living, without affordable living there is the streets, and on the streets I see no oppertunity.

Please tell me that you don't think these government indoctrination centers (public schools) are "quality education." Again, why is it the government's responsibility to make sure everyone gets a "quality education" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

In courts when I see a poor african american family using a public defender with tons of cases and just putting this one at the back of his mind and trying to settle and not win then the prosecutor with his high dollar attorney looking to press charges and seek jail time, I don't see equal oppertunity.

First of all, is the family African or is it American? Second, what does the family's economic status have to do with a member of that family being on trial because of a crime he or she committed? Also, the prosecutor is an attorney and he works for the government and represents "the people."

I'll agree with you there is no equal responsibility, fine, affirmative action as it stands is not okay with me, however living without equal oppertunity does not. Our government should be doing something to eradicate the lack of equal oppertunity, and as citizens, so should we.

Why does opportunity have to be equal? As long as you don't have one group of Americans trying to prevent another group of Americans from taking advantage of existing opportunities, why does it matter whether one person happens to have more opportunities than another (because of such things as the willingness to apply oneself, etc.)?

[SleepingOwl]

Another issue here is that many are seeking a state of equality. Except for when chancellor said:

Why does opportunity have to be equal?

As i see it, striving for equality is an exercise in futility. Firstly, there would need to be a bar that is set as a point where no one should be below it. However even if all people were at or above this bar, there would still be people over, hence people would still complain. I highly doubt that there ever has been a state of equality any where, and there never will be. The situation i described though, would not come quickly and obviously is the beginning of a socialistic state. Which ideally would be an equal state but due to corruption and thirst for power, it is impossible and pointless. This is why, equality should not seen as an object of perfection.

Equal opportunity does not mean equality and should not be construed as so. America could be said to have a state of near equal opportunity. Things hold people back however as chancellor said, "because of such things as the willingness to apply oneself." Because many have apathy they may not take advantage of their opportunities. The only reason that someone would feel oppressed is because they oppress themselves.

[ZNFYRH]

SleepingOwl

Welcome to Volconvo... nice avatar!! I thought you'd pick the owl-girl-thing from Ninja Scroll.

I think your second paragraph is the simplest answer.

The available opportunities are blind to all factors other than those necessary to take advantage of the opportunity.

But too many people think that a black kid not getting into college is because of equal opportunity. Instead, it's about the kid not doing as well as the 400 kids who were accepted.

I remember a time when Affirmative Action was a good thing. It's what started hiring processes where the majority was done without seeing your name (race can be guessed from a name) or phone calls (race can be guessed from speech patterns). Only in the end, usually with a H.R. rep. present, would there be interviews.

The cool thing about H.R. reps being there and scoring you was that they made sure that the reason you weren't being hired was because you didn't demonstrate ability to do the job... which you don't need to be qualified in the job to be able to notice in an interviewee.

Where it went too far was when they established quotas.

[SleepingOwl]

Thanks for the welcome ^_^
Ive tried looking for an avatar suitable to my name but to no avail, so ill stick with this one.

Anyway, what does H.R. mean exactly? Would they go as far as to invent reasons, or would they try to spot the flaws, however slight?