Affirmative Action

[Guest Powerplay]

With Grutter v. Bollinger, et al, basically being the last stand of Affirmative Action, I would like to know what you guys think about the programs, their legality, their ability to spark or hinder social change towards equality, and whether or not it should survive any longer. I'll be back later to chime in my own opinions after I get my paper for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on the same topic done.

[cawthon777 0]

With Grutter v. Bollinger, et al, basically being the last stand of Affirmative Action, I would like to know what you guys think about the programs, their legality, their ability to spark or hinder social change towards equality, and whether or not it should survive any longer. I'll be back later to chime in my own opinions after I get my paper for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on the same topic done.

Affirmative action is reverse racism, it does more harm than good, and it causes resentment from other groups not getting the preferencial treatment.

 

Yes, ethnic groups have gotten the shaft at one time or another - but does that mean it's okay for caucasions to get the shaft in return, and have it be protected by law?

 

"Oops, sorry you didn't get the job you wanted and that it went to a hispanic person. Maybe you should have thought about that before people you never met treated ethnic groups poorly."

 

Yeah, that's fair.

[Guest JMA]

I'm undecided. On one hand, racism should be tolerated in any business or institution. On the other hand, affirmative action puts too much focus on "race" and further divides the HUMAN race.

[Guest JMA]

Affirmative action is reverse racism

Question: what exactly IS reverse racism? Wouldn't reverse racism mean NO racism? Just asking.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Reverse Racism is pretty much making up for past ills against one race at the cost of another race.

[cawthon777 0]

Affirmative action is reverse racism

Question: what exactly IS reverse racism? Wouldn't reverse racism mean NO racism? Just asking.

Reverse racism is a term describing caucasians being the ones who are the victims of racism rather than the oppressors. I didn't come up with it myself.

[Guest JMA]

Reverse Racism is pretty much making up for past ills against one race at the cost of another race.

Oh. Thanks.

[Guest JMA]

Reverse racism is a term describing caucasians being the ones who are the victims of racism rather than the oppressors. I didn't come up with it myself.

I think Mad Dog's definition is more accurate. After all, prejudice against caucasian would just be racism, not reverse racism.

[cawthon777 0]

Reverse racism is a term describing caucasians being the ones who are the victims of racism rather than the oppressors.  I didn't come up with it myself.

I think Mad Dog's definition is more accurate. After all, prejudice against caucasian would just be racism, not reverse racism.

I was speaking specifically about this country.

[Guest JMA]

I was speaking specifically about this country.

I know you were.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

There's no way someone against it can even get their points across without being labled a racists...that's why I just stopped even talking about it. Everyone has to go so far out of their way now to be a PC kissass.

 

Best man for the job shoud get the job.

[Guest ant_7000]

This topic comes up every month it seems, im Pro AA because if its eliminated I fear discrimination will occur more often. I also heard in a recent study that some companies won't respond to your resume even if QUALIFIED because you have a ethnic name, (well im fucked) and heard some companies won't hire people because their being or looked too ethnic. (i.e. Hairstyles and accents). So that right reinforced my beliefs in AA.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I only support AA and programs like it because I feel they are still necessary in our society today. Maybe in another 50 years, everyone will be looked at equal but to say we are at the point right now is a joke. AA is a way of leveling the playing field a bit. If AA was eliminated, then it would only fair to eliminate ANY type of program that helped on individual over another, like legacy points, but that will never happen.

[Guest JMA]

I only support AA and programs like it because I feel they are still necessary in our society today. Maybe in another 50 years, everyone will be looked at equal but to say we are at the point right now is a joke. AA is a way of leveling the playing field a bit. If AA was eliminated, then it would only fair to eliminate ANY type of program that helped on individual over another, like legacy points, but that will never happen.

Yeah. I don't think it will be needed in fifty years or so.

[cawthon777 0]

I only support AA and programs like it because I feel they are still necessary in our society today. Maybe in another 50 years, everyone will be looked at equal but to say we are at the point right now is a joke. AA is a way of leveling the playing field a bit. If AA was eliminated, then it would only fair to eliminate ANY type of program that helped on individual over another, like legacy points, but that will never happen.

Affirmative Action does not level anything, it just makes someone else the victim. As far as seeing people as equals, the law does that. If a small group of people continues to preach hate and racial bias, well AA won't change that.

 

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use this policy to make themselves richer and their cause bigger. "Oh, you only hired 10 black people last month? Pay me $50,000 or I'm going to the media and I'll verbally rape you on every news channel there is."

 

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves" - Abraham Lincoln

 

Thought I might include that.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

To achieve equality, others must continually be treated *unequaly* to achieve that goal. Therefore, perfect equality is an impossibe idea. That's why the more socialist countries of the world are in such poor shape. The strong minded are completely handcuffed and brought down to the level of the weak minded rather than doing the opposite. The creative one's are treated differently so that the weak minded one's think they're living under pure equality. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

I vehemently oppose affirmative action and other similiar causes. Those that are most qualified and best suited for anything should be selected. I can't think of anything more dangerous than chosing on the basis of diversity rather than on the basis of skill.

 

When your house is on fire and your'e trapped inside, do you want the most diverse firefighters to come and save you? Or do you want the most qualified? When you're going in for surgery, do you want a doctor who is the most qualified? Or do you want the doctor who was pushed to the front of the line because of affirmative action?

[Guest El Satanico]

I'd like to say that I'm against AA and that it's unnecessary. However I don't think we can say that at this time. Rather or not anyone wants to admit it there are still forms of racism among companies.

 

So while I don't agree with AA I believe it's a necessary "evil".

 

However I do think they should implement a better system. They need to work out a system that forces Companies to blindly pick the best possible candidate. If a company doesn't choose the best possible candidate they would be subjected to major fines or other monetary punishments. Such a system would need a Government Agency to keep track of all hiring/firings. It would be a hard system to implement, but it could be done.

[Guest JMA]

Maybe companies shouldn't be able to see a person's name or ethic background until they are hired.

[Guest Some Guy]

Reverse racism is a term describing caucasians being the ones who are the victims of racism rather than the oppressors.  I didn't come up with it myself.

I think Mad Dog's definition is more accurate. After all, prejudice against caucasian would just be racism, not reverse racism.

No, Cawthon is right. According to the people who coined teh term (American leftists) the evil white Christians invented racism and since they are and always have been the only ones capable of oppressing another class 'reverse racism' is used to describe a white guy getting shitted on by a minority. Of course it's all bullshit and you are truly right in your definition, but that's the way it is.

[Guest JMA]

No, Cawthon is right. According to the people who coined teh term (American leftists) the evil white Christians invented racism and since they are and always have been the only ones capable of oppressing another class 'reverse racism' is used to describe a white guy getting shitted on by a minority. Of course it's all bullshit and you are truly right in your definition, but that's the way it is.

So, reverse racism would then be a fucked up definition. Hopefully less people will use the term.

[Guest Some Guy]

This topic comes up every month it seems, im Pro AA because if its eliminated I fear discrimination will occur more often. I also heard in a recent study that some companies won't respond to your resume even if QUALIFIED because you have a ethnic name, (well im fucked) and heard some companies won't hire people because their being or looked too ethnic. (i.e. Hairstyles and accents). So that right reinforced my beliefs in AA.

Hairstyles are acceptible to expect someone to change, accents, unless it's in public relations are not. No matter the color of your skin you can have an unacceptible hairstyle, it's hard to take a parson with a 6" afro or green hair seriously.

 

AA is not necesary and it actually harms minorities. It tells them that they aren't good enough to do it on their own, they need Mother Government and white people to help them along on their journey to remain one rung below on the socio-economic scale.

 

Read the quote in my sig as well.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

AA is not necesary and it actually harms minorities.

More people should listen to what Dr. King said, in his dream speech where stated that he dreamed of a day when his children would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (i.e ability.)

[Guest LooseCannon]

Bollinger is an interesting case to me, because I applied to Michigan's Law School the year this case was initiated, and I was almost certainly an applicant that was on the cusp of being admitted there. I can say with confidence that I was on the cusp because they waited until the last day possible to give me an answer and then ultimately decided to waitlist me. (I didn't bother with the waitlist because I had already been accepted at Penn, a better school, and Penn was pretty much my first choice). Anyway, sometimes I wonder if they didn't have the racial preferences if I would've gotten in.

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter much to me. Qualified people are going to get into good schools. And I haven't met anyone at Penn who got in on Affirmative Action who didn't deserve to be there. Some of the children of rich alumni and politicians, on the other hand, don't really seem to belong here. They bother me more, just because they've been handed as a birthright something that I (and the AA admitees) had to work much harder to earn. But as far as taking race into consideration in admissions, every school gets more qualified applicants than they can admit. They give preference to some of those qualified applicants based on race. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's not the worst thing in the world, either.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"There's no way someone against it can even get their points across without being labled a racists..."

 

Funny how some people that are whining about how questioning the Iraq conflict doesn't make them un-American are the first one on the racist finger-pointing bandwagon the moment a person doesn't agree with AA.

 

Personally, I think the original concept (giving minorities a chance) was good. However, when it spills over in some quota system I'm against it.

 

And just because someone scores five points higher on a test doesn't necessarily make them the best person for the job.

 

With that being said, whenever I go for a job, if I have to fill out one of those AA cards I usually just check a different race. So far I've been black, Hispanic, Asian and Eskimo/Native American.

 

"No, Cawthon is right. According to the people who coined teh term (American leftists) the evil white Christians invented racism and since they are and always have been the only ones capable of oppressing another class 'reverse racism' is used to describe a white guy getting shitted on by a minority. Of course it's all bullshit and you are truly right in your definition, but that's the way it is."

 

I also learned that definition in college. Racism -- party in power exerting authority over others. Bigotry -- the minority party doing the same...

[Guest Powerplay]

Honestly, from what I've studied on the topic, I don't see Affirmative Action (As it is today) accomplishing anything other than creating more racial barriers and bitterness. There aren't any real reasons for it anymore either:

 

Repudiation for past discrimination: This was declared unconstitutional during Bakke, and rightly so. You can't punish innocent people for crimes from long ago that they had absolutely no part in. Two wrongs don't make a right. Simple as that.

 

Ending Societal Discrimination: Bullshit claim. In reality, Affirmative Action only works to further seperate the races. It makes whites bitter since they are put at a serious disadvantage in things like job interviews and University admissions, and (Like mentioned before) it makes minorities feel as if they are inferior to whites and that they must receive help to get anywhere.

 

Diversity: To me, diversity is only an aesthetic solution. It says that it creates a better learning and working environment by providing new and different opinions and viewpoints. Of course, Affirmative Action doesn't consider anything involving character and experiences when choosing who to pick, only race. Rather than picking someone who could bring just as much or maybe even more to the table in terms of knowledge they would rather take someone on the belief that 'Well, he's black, so he must have a different viewpoint'. Personally, I don't think color of ones skin dictates your experiences or your viewpoints, and that those who can bring the most and the best ideas should be the ones who are brought in, regardless of race. If this confuses you, I'll try to explain it better, but I'm really hurrying this at the moment.

 

I'll add more later, but I have to go.

[Guest Some Guy]

I understadn your arguement but I diagree with it. I think they should elimate teh race question all together and that might help. the only problem I see with that is some of the wierd names that people have (they're aren't too many white "Oprah"s, which is a mispelling of a Biblical name) and if someone were really gung ho racist against or in favor of minorities it would be easy to tell. However it would help kids like Flboy (the poster here) who's black and his name is Adam West.

[Guest Brian]

Hey man, when you're colored like me with a white guys name, best of both worlds. That's two feet in the door.

[Guest Bruiser Chong]

This topic has been around my area for a few months now and has caused some heated debates. I live in Michigan so a lot of the stuff involving AA is going down here. I go to a very "mixed" school so of course, there are plenty for AA and plenty against it. I'm against it simply because it contridicts everything that minorities have been asking for all these years. They want equality and hey, I agree on that. Everyone should be treated equal. But how the hell can you get equality when you recieve special treatment based on nothing more than your race? What they're basically saying is "I want equality but I want you to give me something based soley on the fact that I'm a minority." I'm aware that there are people who would still hold someone's race against them but the fact is that everyone is so hellbent on being PC these days that they don't show signs of racism even if they're racist (and there's not as many racist people as some would have you believe). I recently started a thread at the SNKT concerning racism and in it, I touched upon AA and gave a prime example of just why I'm against it. Check it out.

 

To sum things up, racism will always exist and giving white people the shaft in order to appease other minorities is just going to open a whole new can of worms. AA is a good idea in theory, but in reality, it's bullshit and solves nothing. Contrary to popular beliefs from pro-AA people, AA doesn't level the playing field, it just makes it look like it's ok to give something to someone based on their ethnicity.

[Guest Some Guy]

Hey man, when you're colored like me with a white guys name, best of both worlds. That's two feet in the door.

There you go. You're Japanese, right?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

A radio show I often listen to told a story about how the San Francisco concert symphony used to have tryouts where the musician would play behind a curtain while the judges listened to them play. They did this so the musicians didn't get nervous or have to deal with any distractions and so the judges didn't have to make any impartial decisions. All that mattered was how well they played.

 

Well, apparently the SF symphony didn't have enough racial minorities and this upset the usual suspects in the SF area. So they ended up taking down the curtains during tryouts and using affirmative action quotas to make their selections. The result? A crappy symphony that was roasted in the newspaper reviews.