[Boyle]

Well, it has been brought up and it seems that there is a lot to be said regarding it.

The entire concept of Affirmative Action is terrible. The government is giving an advantage to certain people based on their race, yet it is considered a "good" racism. Either stand for something or don't. If you are against racism, be against all forms of it. Having flexible and removable morals and principles is fun and all, but please, keep it to a minimum.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

I agree with you as well, how is certain racism good racism?

[Anglo-fuhrer]

Equality of oppurtunity is all you need. Don't pretend everybody is the same.

All applications should be allocated a number, so names are removed and no ethnic data should be stored. And then it's best man/woman/tranny for the job.

[Black Death]

I definately agree with you in principle.

In principle affrimative action is a discraceful, and goes against the idea of equality under the law.

However in practice it serves a positive agent for change.

You have to understand that much of the reason why the majority of white people find themselves in the middle class is due to entitlement afforded to them from direct acts of government.

In the past, not being white meant you weren't considered a citizen which meant you weren't afforded the rights which came with said citizenship, thus the problems compounded generation after generation.

And then there's the more contemporary act which laid the foundation for much of what is now the segregated population of the united states. That was the G.I. bill after WWII. Getting a home was accessible to the common man, that is if you happened to be white.

While whites were in the suburbs, blacks were packed into the inner cities.

Finally the time came when the government stopped subsidizing race, but then the discrimination moved from the public sphere to the private sphere. When black people started moving into the suburbs, all the white people fleed that area systematically destroying the tax base and job opportunities. And so the dance continued where white nieghbourhoods were determined to stay that way, and black neighbourhoods were forced to stay that way. This lead to a two tier system and continued unbalanced prospects, or as it was called "seperate, but equal".

Then came the civil rights movement, and it was clear that if black people were to have fair and equal prospects as white people it would have to come with government intervention, so schools were mixed, neighbourhoods were mixed and work places were mixed.

It has been shown that the kids of families who have benefitted from affirminative action do much better than those who have not. And it's obvious why this is, coming from a middle class family has a much greater advantage to coming from the inner city.

So if we can level the playing field by correcting past injustices (of black families being systemically excluded from the middle class), I would say it's our duty to do so.

This will ultimately lead to a time where affirmative action is no longer necessary.

The playing field was lop sided, this is just an effort to level it.

[Czar Garrett]

AA is one of the most racist policies ever thought up.

It basically says "Because you are black, you won't be able to get a job on your own, so we'll give you one."

[Xiao Weng]

Black Death, on Jan 9 2008, 05:56 AM, said:

I definately agree with you in principle.

In principle affrimative action is a discraceful, and goes against the idea of equality under the law.

However in practice it serves a positive agent for change.

You have to understand that much of the reason why the majority of white people find themselves in the middle class is due to entitlement afforded to them from direct acts of government.

In the past, not being white meant you weren't considered a citizen which meant you weren't afforded the rights which came with said citizenship, thus the problems compounded generation after generation.

And then there's the more contemporary act which laid the foundation for much of what is now the segregated population of the united states. That was the G.I. bill after WWII. Getting a home was accessible to the common man, that is if you happened to be white.

While whites were in the suburbs, blacks were packed into the inner cities.

Finally the time came when the government stopped subsidizing race, but then the discrimination moved from the public sphere to the private sphere. When black people started moving into the suburbs, all the white people fleed that area systematically destroying the tax base and job opportunities. And so the dance continued where white nieghbourhoods were determined to stay that way, and black neighbourhoods were forced to stay that way. This lead to a two tier system and continued unbalanced prospects, or as it was called "seperate, but equal".

Then came the civil rights movement, and it was clear that if black people were to have fair and equal prospects as white people it would have to come with government intervention, so schools were mixed, neighbourhoods were mixed and work places were mixed.

It has been shown that the kids of families who have benefitted from affirminative action do much better than those who have not. And it's obvious why this is, coming from a middle class family has a much greater advantage to coming from the inner city.

So if we can level the playing field by correcting past injustices (of black families being systemically excluded from the middle class), I would say it's our duty to do so.

This will ultimately lead to a time where affirmative action is no longer necessary.

The playing field was lop sided, this is just an effort to level it.

What?

Affirmative Action policies have created the need for 'quotas', where businesses are required not to hire people who are qualified, but meet the race requirements so they aren't fined by the government. Affirmative Action was supposed to ensure that if two people were equally qualified for a position that the minority would have greater pull with the hiring staff (instead of simply setting up a blind interview and allowing the skills to speak for themselves). I think you have the principle and the practice reversed, there.

[Magnus Nordir]

"Affirmative" Action=complete, unadulterated epic fail.

[Vaal Satori]

Xiao Weng, on Jan 9 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

What?

Affirmative Action policies have created the need for 'quotas', where businesses are required not to hire people who are qualified, but meet the race requirements so they aren't fined by the government. Affirmative Action was supposed to ensure that if two people were equally qualified for a position that the minority would have greater pull with the hiring staff (instead of simply setting up a blind interview and allowing the skills to speak for themselves). I think you have the principle and the practice reversed, there.

Do you have any evidence that minorities who are hired are by and large not qualified for the positions? Because unless you do, you should not insinuate that such is the case.

[Loki Ire]

Black Death, on Jan 9 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

The playing field was lop sided, this is just an effort to level it.

And to Hell with all those who don't get into college, don't get the job, don't get the promotion, don't get the home loan, or don't get something else they've earned simply because of the color of their skin?

In reality, the field is still lop-sided; just in a new direction. If racism was wrong before, how is it ok now?

Affirmative action is a racist policy. Just because the targets of that racism are now whites doesn't make it ok. It's an ex-post facto run-around holding the son accountable for the sins of the father. In this case, it's the sins of some of the great, great, great, great, great grandfathers. A white, second or third generation immigrant has a reduced chance at many opportunities simply because of the color of their skin. It's racist and it's wrong.

[SoxNation]

Loki Ire, on Jan 9 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

And to Hell with all those who don't get into college, don't get the job, don't get the promotion, don't get the home loan, or don't get something else they've earned simply because of the color of their skin?

In reality, the field is still lop-sided; just in a new direction. If racism was wrong before, how is it ok now?

Affirmative action is a racist policy. Just because the targets of that racism are now whites doesn't make it ok. It's an ex-post facto run-around holding the son accountable for the sins of the father. In this case, it's the sins of some of the great, great, great, great, great grandfathers. A white, second or third generation immigrant has a reduced chance at many opportunities simply because of the color of their skin. It's racist and it's wrong.

exactly these policies fail because they focus on race rather than economic background


i'd still be against it, but could understand it more if they were bassed on economic background, a poor white kid in the ghetto has just as hard a time as a poor black kid in the ghetto.

[The Confederation]

CzarGarrett, on Jan 9 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

AA is one of the most racist policies ever thought up.

It basically says "Because you are black, you won't be able to get a job on your own, so we'll give you one."

Exactly, which is the reason Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken out against Affirmative Action because of the Stigma it puts against blacks. He himself went to Yale and felt like an outcast, not because of the racial divides, but because he felt he was let into Yale because of the color of his skin not because of his school record.

He has gone on to say

Clarence Thomas said:

Any effort, policy or program that (in some way accepts the notion) that Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me.

[Vandal]

AA = Fail
Racism in any form = Fail

Equal rights. Not Special rights.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Racism = bad.

Affirmative action = racism.

Therefore, by the transitive property ( ), affirmative action = bad.

[Opethian]

*sigh*

I have said this before, and I'll say it again:

AA is NOT a quota system. AA is a system in which qualified individuals (so, no, you can't be underqualified and get hired because of your skin color, contrary to popular belief) that happen to be minorities are given certain preferences in the hiring process.

In and of itself AA has NO quota, and does not require any be filled.

Do quota systems exist in parallel to AA in some cases? I'm sure they do, but that quota system is independent of AA, and AA can't be blamed for its separate installation.


NOW THAT THAT IS OUT O THE WAY:


I don't necessarily agree with AA, regardless.

[The Confederation]

Opethian, on Jan 9 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

*sigh*

I have said this before, and I'll say it again:

AA is NOT a quota system. AA is a system in which qualified individuals (so, no, you can't be underqualified and get hired because of your skin color, contrary to popular belief) that happen to be minorities are given certain preferences in the hiring process.

In and of itself AA has NO quota, and does not require any be filled.

Do quota systems exist in parallel to AA in some cases? I'm sure they do, but that quota system is independent of AA, and AA can't be blamed for its separate installation.


NOW THAT THAT IS OUT O THE WAY:


I don't necessarily agree with AA, regardless.

State and Federal jobs actually do have a pseudo-quota to reach, but it's based on the area the job is being offered and the ethnic standards of said area.
However, in private business, racism does take a roll. Many people won't hire a minority or a disabled person due to a bias, however, they just wont document it as such, stating interview hitches or incompatibility to the job (things impossible to actually prove)

[HeroofTime55]

Affirmitive Action is racism, pure and simple.

When are people actually going to get the idea of "equality" right?

[Isildur]

Black Death, on Jan 9 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

You have to understand that much of the reason why the majority of white people find themselves in the middle class is due to entitlement afforded to them from direct acts of government.

Support, please. Especially when the biggest indicator of poverty is single versus dual parent homes.

Quote

It has been shown that the kids of families who have benefitted from affirminative action do much better than those who have not.

Support, please.

Quote

So if we can level the playing field by correcting past injustices (of black families being systemically excluded from the middle class), I would say it's our duty to do so.

Yet when you are busy "correcting past injustices", you are imposing modern and current ones against individuals who may have never done anything wrong or may not have benefitted in any way from those past injustices.

Brian Reimer, on Jan 9 2008, 07:22 PM, said:

However, in private business, racism does take a roll. Many people won't hire a minority or a disabled person due to a bias, however, they just wont document it as such, stating interview hitches or incompatibility to the job (things impossible to actually prove)

Of course, due to the insidious nature of affirmative action and "protected status" for minorities, many people are encouraged not to hire minorities or disabled people not due to a bias, but due to the higher standard they must hold when trying to get rid of that individual when that individual fails, solely on the basis of their race.

I haven't -- and won't -- let such considerations impact me when making a hiring decision, but I can tell you for a fact that people do.

This post has been edited by Isildur: 09 January 2008 - 06:41 PM

[Opethian]

Brian Reimer, on Jan 10 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

State and Federal jobs actually do have a pseudo-quota to reach, but it's based on the area the job is being offered and the ethnic standards of said area.

But that ISN'T AA at work. That is a separate quota system.

[Loki Ire]

Opethian, on Jan 9 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

But that ISN'T AA at work. That is a separate quota system.

Well, you have to admit that the quota systems used are an extension (if you will, an implementation) of AA. Without AA, you have no quota.

In that sense, quotas are a part of the AA problem.

[Delta1212]

Loki Ire, on Jan 9 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

Well, you have to admit that the quota systems used are an extension (if you will, an implementation) of AA. Without AA, you have no quota.

In that sense, quotas are a part of the AA problem.

AA is a specific system. You (and most people) are using it a catch-all phrase for everything of that nature, which it technically is not.