Why is affirmative action good?

In My Humble Opinion
41

A very wise man said this back on August 28, 1963:

It is my opinion that Affirmative Action was a good thing for those who have been personally impacted by institutionalized discrimination. Let’s use 1970 as a date where Alabama and Mississippi and the like finally got rid of the lingering race-based laws. Any black person of age in 1970 should benefit from AA. Any child of anyone who lived under those racist rules should benefit, they were raised by those who were oppressed, and would have been exposed to it through their parents. The third generation is debatable, but Affirmative Action should be shut down after three generations.

The University of Florida system went to a race and gender blind admissions, effective Fall 2000, with the top 20% of ANY public high school being admitted into the UF system (10 universities). It is called the “One Florida Initiative”. The overall percentage of Minorities went down the next year, but immediately rebounded to previous levels (36.6% in Fall 1999, 36.68% in Fall of 2001 for all minorities, 11.01% in '99-'00 to 11.85% in '01-'02 for black students).

Cite is a PDF.

42

Ftg, you raised some interesting points in your replies, when you were asking why people were resenting kids who were admitted under affirmative action rules.

If affirmative action is designed, in part, to remedy racisn, how is breeding this resentment helping this end?

I believe switching to a model not predicated on race will lessen this resentment, and hopefully improve race relations.

43

I don’t think it’s eveer been proven that the kids who were admitted in the OP got in due to affirmative action rules, was it? For all we know, maybe they got in because the school thought they were better values, such as music skills or more interesting/diverse life experiences.

44

That doesn’t affect the question, though.

The public knowlege that an affirmative action program exists is enough to breed resentment among people who aren’t beneficiaries of it.

And even if an individual student isn’t a direct recipient of AA aid, resentment may still attach to them if they are a member of the group that benefits from the program.

That’s one of the reasons I think the whole racially based system is so pernicious. It causes people to question every legitimate achievement by a member of a racial or sexual minority.

45

People have misinformation about a program, and somehow it’s the program’s fault? :confused:

46

What misinformation, though? This has been a hotly debated topic for thirty years. The arguments and supporting evidence are very well known, on both sides.

There’s no way to deny that there’s a discriminatory aspect to many affirmative action programs. The Supreme Court recognized this when they curbed the worst abuses last year.

Why, then, do people wonder that resentment exists?

47

The problem that AA is meant to deal with arises from the basic nature of capitalism.

Both Alan Greenspan and Karl Marx know that capitalism requires that a certain level of unemployment is necessary .

Greenspan and other bourgeois economists claim that it is to prevent inflation.

Marx claimed that capitalism requires a “reserve army of the unemployed” to prevent workers from facing competition from the unemployed and therefore unable to demand higher wages and better working conditions under threat of being replaced by those compelled to accept work at any wages and conditions offered.

Therefore, there are perpetually 100 people competing for 95 jobs. Nobody wants to be unemployed. Those who run the system know that unemployment is a very explosive issue and that if workers organize around an end to unemployment, the system is in serious trouble.

Therefore, the creation of a racist system means that the powerful white majority can be mostly employed and the systematic unemployment can be foisted on the backs of minorities. The White majority then does not generally suffer the worst consequences of that necessary rate of unemployment, but it means that unemployment falls disproportionaty on the oppressed minority, giving that community a rate of unemployment many times that of the majority.

Of course, the consequences of this are ghettos and mass poverty.

Politicians have historically had two solutions: The Democrats program has been welfare, but for unmarried women and children only. This means that the mass of the unemployed minorities cannot marry without losing their incomes, homes, and livelihood.

The Republican solution is to deny the basic nature of capitalism (even as their economists affirm it) and claim they should work or starve. What they really mean is that they should try harder to get employers to fire their current employees and hire them under lower wages and conditions.

AA is an attempt to spread the misery accross the board; to equalize unemployment. This, of course, pisses off a lot of people, white men in particular.
It is true that, strictly speaking, it sometimes results in a sort of “reverse discrimination”.

People need to realize that if the population were homogeneous that the majority would be facing many more employment problems than they presently do.

In some countries, any unemployed person is entitled to wages from the state. This, of course, becomes abused and leads to right wing “taxpayer revolts”.

The system has to be held accountable. Everyone has the right to work and earn a living. If the system cannot do that, it should be changed.

48

Oops! That should read:
Marx claimed that capitalism requires a “reserve army of the unemployed” to force workers to face competition from the unemployed and therefore unable to demand higher wages and better working conditions under threat of being replaced by those compelled to accept work at any wages and conditions offered.