I fear this will turn into a battleground thread but Im hoping we can atleast get 2 or three good pages of discussion. Affirmative Action exists to change the distribution of jobs, education, wealth, or other things, based on characteristics that usually include race, ethnicity or sex. I, myself, being young and not extremely educated feel that Affirmative Action is essentially wrong and unfair. If anything, it should be based on wealth rather than race or sex. If we are going to "level the playing field" shouldn't it be for the poor rather than exclusively for minorities. Once this point is made you can ask the question "Wait.... why should poor people get an oppurtunity over a person who is wealthier. Dont the wealthier people deserve what they have earned?" Which then just leads me to think about how unfair and ridiculous it all is. Is affirmative action unfair? Would making it based on wealth make things any better?
Yessss!! I love threads that discuss AA! Huh? You want to base it on wealth? Now that would be way to rational. We must keep our arbitrary (and increasingly blurred) standard of race to base this on! You're brown and wealthy, congrats, you win! You're asian and poor, sooooorrrry, try again!
Hell, why don't you just toss a grenade in here while you're at it??? I like how you drop the race bit, and use economics to examine your position on the issue. Too often affirmative action discussions devolve into race baiting. I think folks' ideas about affirmative action ultimately derive from their ideas about the nature of social stratification--where it comes from, how it persists, how it functions, is it structural, whether societies have a duty to "correct" perceived/real structural inequality. It would be interesting to read how people feel about social stratification and whether or not anything should be done about it before we all attack a flawed attempt to deal with social hierarchy. I mean, if everyone gets what they deserve and work for, then AA is absolutely stupid. If people want more out of life, they should just work harder. (Like I did.) If, on the other hand, people don't always get what they work for, then to what degree --if at all-- are they "cheated," why are their opportunities limited, and if they are, what does a society do about it (if anything at all)? One other thing, a year ago, I was working on a research project and came across some Reconstruction era debates about what to do with the recently emancipated slaves, when the issue of inequality was much more concrete. The federal government was trying to see what to do about "rectifying" slavery while respecting "white rights." The texture of those debates -- which largely centered on land re-distribution (forty acres and a mule stuff) and money grants -- is really similar to the current debates about affirmative action and educational and job opportunities. The debaters then even dropped race as a factor and examined the hard work of using class-based redistribution of wealth. (They ultimately thought it would get too expensive once poor whites wanted a piece of federal entitlements.) Anyway, I mention it because, even over 140 years later, our society hasn't hashed out a governmental approach (let alone an answer) to these general questions of inequality.
does afirmative action cause racism? AA was created to level the playing field, but while it may help some, it hurts others. like bigtexx said, "brown and wealthy, congrats, you win! You're asian and poor, sooooorrrry, try again!" i have no doubt that it may help a percentage, but of that it is helping, how many is it hurting?
I don't think affirmative action "causes" racism. I think any government program factoring or based on race perpetuates the racism already infecting society. But I won't go so far as to say those programs "cause" it. Regardless, DrewP seems to be posing a deeper question about dealing with inequality--not a specific question about race and the crazy ways race-based affirmative action has been implemented. Should a society redistribute wealth, job opportunities, educational opportunities, and so on? Is such redistribution fair?
We need to make sure that everyone get's equal oppurtunity -- and punish those that deny it. I would not want someone giving me something I didn't earn over someone more deserving. It seems insulting.
affirmatice action may or may not cause racism... a topic that should be argued... calling people "brown" is RACIST... knuckleheads... can anyone tell me exactly which race this is referring to anyways?
I can tell you why it hasn't been historically used as AA for poor and has been used for race or sex. There have been hidden agendas in the past that may have kept poor folks poor, but there have actually been legislated as well as hidden agendas that have kept minorities, and women out of power positions. For about 400 years African Americans were kept out of the best schools, from voting, etc. It wasn't until 1956 that schools were integrated, and it wasn't until the 1960's that Blacks were able to fully participate in voting. While they were being kept out of the programs and power structure of our nature, others were making the contacts, ties, and connections that are largely responsible for attaining powerful positions. While there are many cases of people who knew nobody, managing to work their way in to the system, promotions, appointments, and positions were and are largely given based on who you know. Keeping or moving up once you get your foot in the door is based in part on who as well as what you know and how competent a person is at their job. AA was made to help minorities who have been locked out make up for lost time. It is mostly voluntary, with incentives given to those who apply AA in hiring practices. It is only mandated in cases where there is a proven history of discrimination. Much of a person's learning comes not only from their education but from their home, and in fact much what a person gets out of their education comes from their home background as well. So while in 1964 an African American could vote, and presumably go to the same schools as whites, their parents hadn't been able to, and weren't able to help the children with homework, instill a tradition of striving for a good education etc. By helping minorities gain a good education, and places of power in career markets, the idea was that it would create more of a culture of educational values, and opportunities, helping to erase the 400 years of oppression forced on the minorities by whites. Yes, poor people of any race have a tougher road than do the wealthy when it comes to getting ahead, in education and career, but there hasn't been centuries of institutionalized discrimination against them that needs to be overcome. Let's use our president as an example. He has run several businesses, and each of those businesses has been a failure. Because of his connections he has always been able to try again, and often escapes making a profit, while the companies go down in flames. Poor people don't have that opportunity. But I think it is acknowledged that some people will always have advantages that others don't. So it is a matter of where to fight for mare access, and where to let it slide. Some feel that the 400 years without an education or voting rights has been erased already in the 40 years that those rights have been official. Some feel we need to keep doing more.
Once upon a time, some businesses excluded minorities and women from their workplace because they did not like the color of their skin, their national origin, their race, their gender, their disability, their religion, or their age. Businesses took great pains to exclude the people they did not like. They even went so far as to hire people who were less qualified than these women and minorities they disliked so much. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made these practices illegal. Guess what happened? Some businesses still did not want to hire these women or minorities. So they did not and they would not...until they were forced to... There are few affirmative action plans left in existence that require preferential hiring practices for minorities. Most that remain are court ordered and necessary to correct identified illegal practices. Except in specific court ordered instances, there was never a requirement that a business must choose a minority over an equally qualified non-minority. Affirmative action just made it illegal to exclude the minority. With three similarly qualified individuals, it was legal to hire whomever, as long as the reason was non-discriminatory. At least at the state level of Texas government, the current model is to use affirmative action as a recruitment tool to eliminate imbalances in the workplace. If you have an identified imbalance (racial, gender, etc.) in a particular area, you focus your recruitment in that group to find the best qualified. Do they get a hiring preference? No. You still have to be the best suited for the job. The goal of any well-constructed recruitment plan is to achieve a diverse workforce
What this country needs is more preferential treatment for the wealthy. And if we are really lucky, someday, another man like GWB will become President and save this country from itself.
What about applications to attend public universities? This is simply not true in some instances. Although it might not be required by law to hire minorities, a company receives incentives to do so from the state. Most businesses wont allow others to get a leg up in such a manner. If you are saying that affirmative action hasn't ever resulted in a less qualified person getting a job over another based on race, you are misinformed. Although your facetious remark adds greatly to the discussion ....... oh wait, its completely irrelevant George W bashing! Please keep the discussion about Affirmative Action rather than petty political trash. To all those I replied to and other reading this thread: Im not trying to bash you, Im just trying to learn more about the subject and other persons views. Im open minded about the whole matter, I just need a solid explanation to why I should believe otherwise.
AA is preferential treatment. It is just the wrong kind of preferential treatment, since it is not based on the $$$ in your bank account or who you know. To say that AA is bad on face value while legacy admissions (GWB to Yale) or "special case" admissions (GWB to Havard) are OK is missing the big picture.
I'm not sure about individual universities. I could be wrong, but I believe many of them are doing AA to create a more diverse environment intentionally, qualify for the incentives, or there was a documented policy of discrimination.
This tired thing again? The Supreme Court has spoken, as has the market, as have many others - all in favor of AA. It is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and there's nothing you can do about it. Just sit home, and stew about all those undeserving minorities stealing your jobs, etc., and have faith that your persecuted white maleness will someday, somehow, in some way, be rewarded by a greater power.
B]If you are saying that affirmative action hasn't ever resulted in a less qualified person getting a job over another based on race, you are misinformed. [/B] I did not say, nor imply this at all. The courts agree that racial preference does not mean you can hire a less qualified person simply because they are a minority. Check here. The misunderstanding that many people and employees have about AA has led to these types of mistakes in implementation, and hence, the backlash. I understand this is a hotbutton issue for many, and without getting too deep into it, I am paid to be informed on this issue.
True, but that's not what I have witnessed time and time again in practice. Not only in the workplace, but also in university admissions. I've said this before, but I'm convinced that AA does more to hurt "underrepresented" minorities than it does to help. The fact that everybody looks at them and says, "oh, he just got the job (or got accepted to X university) because of AA." That happens... A lot.
If people here do not think that AA puts unqualified people in positions they did not earn, then these people just aren't facing reality. An example: A coworker at a former place of employment was a black female. She was rejected from the MBA program at UT. She was accepted at the MBA program at UPenn (Wharton). Wharton is ranked considerably higher than UT by every publication. The difference? Hopwood prevented UT from using racial preferences. Wharton used raced as a criteria for admission. You just can't argue it. Most schools don't publish average SAT, MCAT, GMAT, LSAT scores by race. If they did, it would humiliate those that benefit from AA. This is not one isolated example here. I personally have witnessed dozens of examples just like this one, as have many of you, no doubt. Regardless of your idea of racial equity, one has to admit that AA is an inherently flawed program. It discriminates in order to correct past discrimination. It is a distortion in the labor and admissions markets. It arbitrarily rewards certain races while punishing others. It puts people in a position to fail time and again (Jayson Blair is a prime example). Why do Indians and Asians not get it, while Hispanics do? Whose version of social justice is the standard by which we judge the program? And Rashmon, the goal of a hiring program is not diversity. The goal is to hire the *best* people for the job and to increase firm profitability. Does the NBA insist on hiring more whites and Asians? Does Hooters want men for waitresses? Does Benihana want more German chefs? Diversity does not make sense ALL the time. When you have the threat of a lawsuit (or bad PR)hanging over your head if you don't adhere to AA policies, a lot of people will adopt foolish programs. AA is a prime example.
