Affirmative Action - Yeah or Nay.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court Monday agreed to decide whether affirmative action programs in the nation’s universities should continue to help minorities, or whether they represent “reverse discrimination.”

From CNN .

At issue is whether race be used as a factor in admissions to state-funded colleges, to increase diversity in the student body. Justices will be asked to decide whether a state has a “compelling interest” to promote a diverse student body, or whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment forbids giving one ethnic group or culture special advantages over another.


I think its time to take another look at affirmative action (nationwide) and decide whether or not its actually beneficial and fair to all parties. On its face, it seems unfair to those with the best qualifications regardless of race. There are situations where race should be considered such as a police officer or teacher in a predominately minority neighborhood. In many cases it is unfairly giving advantage to those with a race/gender advantage and discriminating against the (possibly better) candidate who may come from the majority race/gender. The SCs decision will affect universities and admissions. I think it will eventually have an effect on hiring practices in general. I also think that those who discriminate should be punished but that the laws should not force them to hire minorities for the sake of filling quotas. I see Affirmative Action as an unfair practice.

Thoughts?

With all respect, I find your view of affirmative action to be short-sighted. Because the United States has, over the course of its existence, been about the individual freedom and the individual accomplishment, much is lost, IMHO, when each person is only considered individually. I would argue that those people who are benefitted by affirmative action would gladly trade places with a “displaced” white person because that minority memeber knows about the implicit advantages which are available to that person every day which they don’t even think about.

White people easily get cabs in NYC. They don’t have have to worry as much about being hassled by the police for walking down the street. They don’t have to worry whether people will immediately judge them the color of their skin. These indecencies which minorities are forced to suffer in the US can really take a toll on the psyche of minority people and can be completely overlooked by those who don’t experience it.

Affirmative action is not about merely promoting one person over another because of skin color. It is a recognition that, because of the years of damage which has been caused as result of the years of degradation which minorities as a group have had to endure, encouraging their participation in the processes which will help minorities, as individuals, and as members of minority groups, will ulitmately improve the society in which we live due to increased understanding and appreciation of the value of all people.

I do not argue that an underqualified minority person should be given a job or a college acceptance merely because of skin color. That would be stupid because all members of that person’s minority group would be judged based on an unqualified person’s actions (e.g., “well, the firm hired that one unqualified black guy a few years ago who really screwed up. I don’t think we should do that again.”). I merely suggest that affirmative action should be a recognition that certain “factors” used to determine eligibility, apptitude and qualification should include a measure of a person’s life experience and group experience.

No one is asking for a hand out when they extol the virtues of affirmative action. They are merely asking for recognition that the paths which are available to most minorities in the US are not available to a very large number of minority people. Affirmative action is an effort to affirm that alternative path that minority people are forced to take as a result of the fact that the majoirty path is unavailable to them.

While I argue here in favor of affirmative action, it is my dream that one day it will not be necessary. I hope that one day there is no explicit or implicit discrimination which is based on anything besides an individual’s abilities. At that time I will fight vehemently to do away with any sort of affirmative action. To act as if such no such discrimination currently exists, however, is to put blinders on to the realities of our society.

One way to look at “fairness” is this:
Immigrant who become citizens pay taxes like the rest of us.
They and their children often have a harder time passing college entrance exams, however, when they are taken in English as a second language.
Why should they pay and get no services?
And why do we want part of the population to stop learning when they have not reached their full potential?

  1. Even immigrants who do not become citizens pay taxes as long as they have US income.

  2. I do not understand your point about the test. It appears that you might be attempting to say that the immigrants would do better on their standardized tests if they are given in their native language and not english.

  3. I don’t think that anyone is saying that a person should pay taxes to the government and get no government services as a result. I don’t understand the connection.

  4. I am positive that no one is saying that anyone should stop learning regardless of whether “full potential” (whatever that is) is reached. Again, I do not understand the connection.

  1. Even immigrants who do not become citizens pay taxes as long as they have US income.

  2. I do not understand your point about the test. It appears that you might be attempting to say that the immigrants would do better on their standardized tests if they are given in their native language and not english.

  3. I don’t think that anyone is saying that a person should pay taxes to the government and get no government services as a result. I don’t understand the connection.

  4. I am positive that no one is saying that anyone should stop learning regardless of whether “full potential” (whatever that is) is reached. Again, I do not understand the connection.

Discrimination is just that. The euphymisms you wrap it in only show your mindset. Two wrongs make a right? Or do they?

Nay. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

Red Neck,

People discriminate every day. Some people get into college and some people don’t. Those who don’t get in might have lower test scores. Therefore, the group being discriminated against is those people who have lower test scores. If that group of people were racially, religiously, sexually and gender neutral then there would be no argument. Affirmative action merely recognizes that not all of the so-called objective criteria may be as objective as people (read white males) think it to be. If you would like to call that discrimination, go right ahead.

DB

Then why does my hispanic fiancee insist on hyphenating her maiden name when we get married because if she didn’t, employers wouldn’t believe she was hispanic? (she’s very light-skinned)

InquisitiveIdiot,

I apologize for not modifying the statement you quoted with the words “vast majority.” I do not think that the OP intended for this to be a debate about individual antecdotes (and I would not get into such a debate). When speaking about the people who are affected by the laws and doctrines being discussed, no individual story will prove anything that applies to the entire group (either for or against affirmative action).

DB

Oh. I’m sorry. I thought this was a debate where people who aren’t the “vast majority” have some importance. But tell me, if the “vast majority” is being put at a disadvantage by being forced to participate in a scheme that is exactly the same type of situation that it was intended to rectify, doesn’t that make it ethically wrong? Whether it makes things more fair or not, isn’t it very hypocritical to claim that the best way to fight discrimination is by discriminating?

Taking affirmative action to eliminte discrimination is a good thing. Judging someone based on their race is discrimination.

If you wish to argue that many black people are poorer than average and thusly missed out on certain advantages that richer people had, why not make such policies based on wealth, not race?

I grew up in a town with a large hispanic population. I had to worry about walking down the street and being hassled (or shot) by hispanic gang members. I was constantly judged based on the color of my skin. Where’s my affirmative action?

Seriously, though, you go on to say that you have a dream that someday, affirmative action will not be necessary. That we’ll achieve MLK’s ideal of color-blindness. You do realize, though, that it is impossible to achieve color-blindness as long as we have affirmative action? That the constant attention that AA forces us to allot to everyone’s skin color will someday hinder, rather then help, our progress towards this goal?

Someday, we’ll need to abandon these policies. Someday, we’ll have to recognize that government mandate has taken the journey towards colorblindness as far as it can, and the rest of the trip is going to come down to the simple passage of time. So how will we know that we’ve reached the point where AA is doing more harm than good?

Irrational prejudices, such as racism, go away over time. Every batch of immigration that the US has seen has had to deal with racism or prejudice of a sort. The Irish dealt with it. The Chinese dealt with it. The Italians dealt with it. In these cases, there was nothing like AA to help guide them through - the prejudices just gradually evaporated over time.

Of course, the case of blacks is unique - no other race or nationality had to deal with slavery in quite the same way. (I think the Chinese came the closest, but they were still free, even if only nominally.) Thus, the blacks had a lot more ground to cover in trying to achieve parity with the majority in America. But even without a concentrated effort the likes of AA, they achieved remarkable progress. While being a black person in 1960 was no picnic, it beat the holy hell out of being a black person in 1870. That progress would have continued, AA or no AA.

And really, the “ushering in acceptance” aspect of AA has been minor. It was really more of a Band-Aid, to make the integration process more tolerable. To the extent that some people got over their racism because of the forced proximity that AA required, it helped some in overcoming racism, but largely, the decline in hostility - overt or otherwise - towards blacks has been a result of the old maxim, “Time heals all wounds.”

But someday - and it’s my contention that “someday” has arrived - AA is going to get in the way. The hallmark of AA today is that sometimes - too often - less qualified people get jobs based solely on skin color. It’s impossible for this to not have a negative impact on race relations. No matter how open minded and enlightened you are, if you see someone get a job, or get into school, or whatever ahead of you - and not because they’re more qualified, but because they’re more pigmented - it’s going to breed resentment. And that resentment will keep race relations from progressing any further.

I think it’s time to put AA to rest. It was a useful program that served its purpose, but it’s now just a troublesome relic of a less enlightened era. We’re not out of the woods yet in terms of the eradication of racism (and likely, there will always be some vestiges of racism to rear their unsightly heads), but we’ve come a long way. I think it’s time to rev up for the home stretch. And a program that answers past unfairness with present unfairness isn’t going to do our engine any good.
Jeff

ElJeffe:

I agree wholeheartedly. I also shared the same childhood you did. The ironic thing was that it wasn’t until high school that I found out I was oppressing them!

I think that someone who is more qualified for a job or for a spot in a competitive college class should feel resentment if someone who is less qualified. I merely think that the terms used to define “qualification” are less objective than many people like to admit. An acceptance of the premise is necessary to support any form of affirmative action. If you do not accept that premise then you will never agree with me (not that you have to). Because, historically, for certain minority groups (and I am not limiting this post to blacks), the historical trend toward acceptance has not occurred notwithstanding the fact that such minority groups have had a large presence in this country since before its founding, I think action is required to correct such an injustice. You may agree with everything I have said so far and still think that affirmative action is wrong because of all the problems that it brings about. In such a case, I would argue that we should then change the affirmative action system rather than ignore the problem as I feel is being suggested.

Yes, that’s “rebuttal #1 for anti-affirmative action arguments”: They’re not being GIVEN the job because of their race, just HELPED. They’re still “qualified”! Well, they’re still being “helped” or “given a hand up” solely on the basis of their race.

And I completely agree. When cultural intergration is being held up for whatever reason, action needs to be taken. But that action needs to be an elimination of whatever barriers are in the way, not enforced discrimination on the race wherein the barrier lies. In short, education, not discrimination.

Affirmative Action - Yeah or Nay.
Outreach: Yeah (if you really think it’s necessary)
Preferences: Nay

I’ve only been participating on this board for a few months, but I’ve already been round and round on this issue enough to not want to say anything more than that.

InquisitiveIdiot:

Yeah, I wish I’d known that when I was being punched around as a youth. I would’ve felt a whole lot better. :wink:
db4530:

Can you give an example of a minority group that did not make progress towards acceptance, even in the face of explicit laws declaring them to be equal to the majority group? Please make sure your example covers a reasonable time period over which progress could logically be expected to be made.
Jeff

El Jeffe:

I have your example: women. While I admit that studies have shown that females may not be in the minority (I read somewhere–no cite–that women make up 52% of the popoulation), they have certainly been oppressed like as a minoirty over the course of the existence of this nation. In addition women have not, despite laws in their favor, been granted the status and acceptance to which they are entitled.

No progress for women “over the course of the existence of this nation”? db4530, you are reaching. ANd your assertion that white males just can’t, or don’t, undertstand shows youe boggotry.

It needs to go. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.