Affirmative Action

[Cheekyvincent]

Affirmative action is just crap. And dont say im racist cause i dont approve of affirmative action. I f we were living in a non descriminating society then why would we have affirmative action? Some clever kid cant get a scholarship because of affirmative action whearas a dumb kid gets a scholarship because of affirmative action? How does this work? In the future its going to go vice versa. Isn't this being racist to the people that don't benefit from it?

[Drah]

Well, for some reason, it seems white males have monopolised discriminating.
Not just that, but we're discriminating EVERYONE ELSE it seems.
Obviously, there's going to come a political correctness fanatic along and fuck up that...

(End of angry rant)

Seriously...
If everyone in the US of A are born equal, and always will be equal, affirmative action, along with a few things i will let stay unmentioned, are against your own constitution.

[Begoner]

At 1/10/07 03:50 PM, drah wrote: Seriously...
If everyone in the US of A are born equal, and always will be equal, affirmative action, along with a few things i will let stay unmentioned, are against your own constitution.

But not everybody is born equal. Blacks have been the subject of discrimatory measures for centuries, and it has taken its toll. Whereas there were many middle-class and successful white males in the 1950s, this was uncommon among blacks because of the racism which permeated society. Even after blacks were granted extensive civil rights during the reform movement of the 1960s, they did not simply rise in social class immediately. Because of the poor conditions in which they had lived, the large majority of blacks were still poor. The US is a country with extremely limited social mobility; if you are born poor, you're likely to stay that way. Therefore, some sort of system is necessary to help those who have been disadvantaged by the system. It would be preferable to extend this help to all poor people, but it is necessary to offer a helping hand to the race which we have continuously trampled upon for all these years. We beat blacks into the ground through discrimination; without affirmative action, we'd just be leaving them there. It's our fault, and we must accept responsibility.

[Drah]

At 1/10/07 04:01 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/10/07 03:50 PM, drah wrote: Seriously...
If everyone in the US of A are born equal, and always will be equal, affirmative action, along with a few things i will let stay unmentioned, are against your own constitution.

But not everybody is born equal. Blacks have been the subject of discrimatory measures for centuries, and it has taken its toll. Whereas there were many middle-class and successful white males in the 1950s, this was uncommon among blacks because of the racism which permeated society. Even after blacks were granted extensive civil rights during the reform movement of the 1960s, they did not simply rise in social class immediately. Because of the poor conditions in which they had lived, the large majority of blacks were still poor. The US is a country with extremely limited social mobility; if you are born poor, you're likely to stay that way. Therefore, some sort of system is necessary to help those who have been disadvantaged by the system. It would be preferable to extend this help to all poor people, but it is necessary to offer a helping hand to the race which we have continuously trampled upon for all these years. We beat blacks into the ground through discrimination; without affirmative action, we'd just be leaving them there. It's our fault, and we must accept responsibility.

I believe i get your point, although I think that affirmative action is a poor way of doing this.
I mean, instead of affirmative action, where you are purposefully diminishing the abilities of your workforce (picking people with poorer skills over people with good skills solely based on skin colour), you could possibly give the possibility of classes on the subject of advancing in your society (Which is likely a nice way from the one I'm living in), or possibly (slowly) change your laws to make social advancement an easier task.
Because of affirmative action, there is no real point for african-americans to stress themselves.
I am in no way implying that they are lazy, but if you were given the choice of working 1 or 5 hours a day to get the same goal, you'd pick one hour, correct?
And if this goes on, they will end with a society built around affirmative action as the pillar to advancement, instead of actually working.
And then, maybe in 20, 50, or even 100 years, your workforce will = lazy and unskilled.

My point, to shorten down, is: Change to better long term alternatives than affirmative action.

"give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for the rest of his life."

[qygibo]

You're arguing against quotas, not affirmative action. Affirmative action is basically designed to combat this sort of thinking:

A white man and a black man, both equally qualified, apply for a job. If the hiring manager is white, they are more likely to note that while both are equally qualified, that somehow the white man is MORE qualified (I have the book that mentioned this study downstairs, Why Do All the Black Kids Sit Together in the Cafeteria? if anyone is interested to know more about it).

[Begoner]

At 1/10/07 04:14 PM, drah wrote: My point, to shorten down, is: Change to better long term alternatives than affirmative action.

That's exactly my point, too. We must implement a solution that allows the under-privileged, regardless of race, to succeed. Such a policy would be preferable to our current policy of helping the minorities which we have disadvantaged over the years, as it would include but not be restricted to that particular subset. A rich black man doesn't need our help, but someone who was born to impoverished parents and goes to an inner-city school where drugs are rampant does need aid, whether he is black or white.

[Draconias]

At 1/10/07 04:01 PM, Begoner wrote: The US is a country with extremely limited social mobility;

That's simply not true. While the mobility between middle class and upper class is fairly limited, the one between middle and lower class is not.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/10/07 04:14 PM, drah wrote: Because of affirmative action, there is no real point for african-americans to stress themselves.

That is not the reality of Affirmative Action, though I cannot disagree that it in some cases is the result.

I am in no way implying that they are lazy, but if you were given the choice of working 1 or 5 hours a day to get the same goal, you'd pick one hour, correct?

The system still rewards work. It just gives the advantage to that person who MAY have had more adversity than the otehr, and in which case would have not been able to get as good training. It's not meant to reward the person who tries less. I guarantee for every person who abuses the system, there is at least one person who uses it correctly shooting for the smae position.

And if this goes on, they will end with a society built around affirmative action as the pillar to advancement, instead of actually working.
And then, maybe in 20, 50, or even 100 years, your workforce will = lazy and unskilled.

Well, the laziness involved in negligible, so it means nothing. Your more likely to roll the dice with a qualified pool and end up with a bunch of lazy or incompetant people out of them.

My point, to shorten down, is: Change to better long term alternatives than affirmative action.

I agree, but we live in a flawed world, and sometimes a flawed solution is needed.

"give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for the rest of his life."

This is the goal of affirmative action actually. Give several generations a road to the top, so that their children can see the benefits of it ala the other college educated groups.

I think I bigger, better problem you should address is the MAY I said before...

[Drah]

At 1/10/07 04:23 PM, qygibo wrote: You're arguing against quotas, not affirmative action. Affirmative action is basically designed to combat this sort of thinking:

A white man and a black man, both equally qualified, apply for a job. If the hiring manager is white, they are more likely to note that while both are equally qualified, that somehow the white man is MORE qualified (I have the book that mentioned this study downstairs, Why Do All the Black Kids Sit Together in the Cafeteria? if anyone is interested to know more about it).

I am still against it at this point, however less than before, because even this is less fair than, say, a roll of a dice.
I'll stick to my opinion that a long-term solution will be better in the long run, but I'd say that the change should come slowly.

[Drah]

At 1/10/07 04:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/10/07 04:14 PM, drah wrote:

That is not the reality of Affirmative Action, though I cannot disagree that it in some cases is the result.

I know it was not why it was created, and that it is not the way it should be used, But most human beings, me included, tend to take the easiest way from point A to point B, so to speak.

The system still rewards work. It just gives the advantage to that person who MAY have had more adversity than the otehr, and in which case would have not been able to get as good training. It's not meant to reward the person who tries less. I guarantee for every person who abuses the system, there is at least one person who uses it correctly shooting for the same position.

Still, 50% abusing a system to prevent a certain race getting discriminated is WAY too much.
Not to mention, it would, in it's own way, be most intelligent to pick the easy way, so you have more time to ready for a plan B, if that is needed.
Possibly useless info: This summer, We're getting a new grade system.
In this system, a , 8 or 9 will have pretty much the same value (4 i believe).
If I were used to getting 9s, but could pull out an essay worthy of 7 in 15 minutes, I'd obviously take the 7, as there is no penalty.

Well, the laziness involved in negligible, so it means nothing. Your more likely to roll the dice with a qualified pool and end up with a bunch of lazy or incompetant people out of them.

Sorry, i think I've misunderstood this part.
Care to explain further?

My point, to shorten down, is: Change to better long term alternatives than affirmative action.

I agree, but we live in a flawed world, and sometimes a flawed solution is needed.

I am not saying that it should be taken down now, but that it should gradually be replaced by another system, where the people actually needing help get help, instead of limitting it to a certain minority.

"give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for the rest of his life."

This is the goal of affirmative action actually. Give several generations a road to the top, so that their children can see the benefits of it ala the other college educated groups.

I'm hoping that by "The top" you mean "upwards".
Because if you're going to replace the top of society, the top is going to fight back, and it's going to be nasty.

I think I bigger, better problem you should address is the MAY I said before...

I'll consider it.

For now, i'll just say: God, I sound like a racist bastard.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/10/07 03:46 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Affirmative action is just crap. And dont say im racist cause i dont approve of affirmative action. I f we were living in a non descriminating society then why would we have affirmative action? Some clever kid cant get a scholarship because of affirmative action whearas a dumb kid gets a scholarship because of affirmative action? How does this work? In the future its going to go vice versa. Isn't this being racist to the people that don't benefit from it?

How about instead of just assuming people of a certain race are poor and dumb we just help the people who are poor? Look at a family's income and judge whether not to give assistance from that. And yes, there are many poor black families so much of the aid would go to black people, and I have no problem with that. But there are poor whites and asians as well; so instead of basing the criteria on race, how about basing it on whoever needs help?

[Der-Ubermensch]

-Cry cry cry- discrimination -cry cry cry- I need a crutch to make it in the white man's world -cry cry cry-

Evolve for Christ's sake.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/10/07 06:47 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: -Cry cry cry- discrimination -cry cry cry- I need a crutch to make it in the white man's world -cry cry cry-

Evolve for Christ's sake.

While I don't agree with affirmative action, it's foolish to think blacks aren't discriminated against. Racism against blacks is still very common. I don't mean to justify exploitation of discrimination, I just think it's really foolish to simply shrug it off.

[weather-seed]

Society is, in the view of conflict theorists, always striving to bring more power to the powerful. Functionalists say that by having some people unequal in society we are uniting ourselves to reach a common goal.

Either way, pick your poison, because if you aren't in the top 1% of America's high society, you're probably oppressed, white or black. It all depends on whether or not you're being oppressed by those that are angry with that fact and want someone below them so they feel better. Rascism caters to the inflated ego of idiots and Affirmative Action caters to the ego of well-meaning idiots.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/10/07 04:56 PM, drah wrote: I know it was not why it was created, and that it is not the way it should be used, But most human beings, me included, tend to take the easiest way from point A to point B, so to speak.

My experiences with white people show the same thing. The average whtie college student knows they can skate by with a 3.3 in a business major and still be competitive. The amount of work output by the "Qualified" whites and the Affirmative Action blacks, is most likely equal, if not lopsided toward the Affirmative Action group. I definitely agree there are abusers, there will be in every system, but they are a little group. The amount of effort a righ white person needs to do to go somewhere in the business world, is surprisingly low. Pass a few benchmarks and then be at least slightly better than mediocre and you can succeed. trust me, I see it all the time. The assumption is that the minorities are set so far back in their lower education and in the hiring process, that they need affirmative action to show that their 3.3 isn't laziness, and to make it so that a good minority isn't put under a slightly better than mediocre white. Because that happens quite a lot.

The system still rewards work. It just gives the advantage to that person who MAY have had more adversity than the otehr, and in which case would have not been able to get as good training. It's not meant to reward the person who tries less. I guarantee for every person who abuses the system, there is at least one person who uses it correctly shooting for the same position.

Still, 50% abusing a system to prevent a certain race getting discriminated is WAY too much.

I persoanlly do not feel that 50% is accurate. I might place the number down below 20% as a liberal estimate. Those who want to go far, that haven't been given everything, don't slack off. It's more likely to see a rich white student who has been given everythnig they've ever needed with minimal work slacking off. Ironically, even with Affirmative Action, the lazy rich white is gold on the job market while the minority is in for a fight to get a good job.

By the roll of the dice comment, sorry accidentally deleted it, I was hinting that not all "qualified" white people are acctually qualified. Many fo them knew the system of their college, which in the business school has proportionately little to do with the actual mechanics and one's personal ability. You might end up with a good 60% quality workers and end up with 40% slick frat boys who sweet-talked, inhereited through friend, and test banked their way to a shiny good GPA, yet have very little knowledge about how to do anything worth while.

I'll consider it.

The MAY problem is much bigger thn the possible laziness. The may is having the government lay a blanket over certain peoples, ignoring those people of that group who do not need it, yet will benefit from it, and more importantly, to our country, the extremely large amount of people who need a stepping stone yet don't qualify. the amount of underprvileged white people in the country is very high, yet they get nothing. They by far outnumber the minorities that have come so far as to overcome and compensate for the barriers that exist (as if that is even possible at all.)

For now, i'll just say: God, I sound like a racist bastard.

Acctually, no you don't. Der-Ubermensch and Violent AJ sount like racist bastards. you're trying to show flaws in the system for what they are. All I am saying is that they are not as big of flaws, and as harmful to the system or society as you think.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/10/07 03:46 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Some clever kid cant get a scholarship because of affirmative action whearas a dumb kid gets a scholarship because of affirmative action?

That argument is weak and spurious. Look at all of the cases where Affirmative Action has been brought to court. The students were white students trying to get into enormous universities. They act as if the extra 100-200 slots out of a class of 10,000 really hurt them. Seriosuly, if they lost to 8,000+ other white people, they must have not been qualified to enter the University in the first place. To claim that the last 2000 pushed them out is quite arrogant and just a bitch move used to try to get themselves into college.

[Drah]

At 1/11/07 05:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/10/07 04:56 PM, drah wrote:

My experiences with white people show the same thing. The average white college student knows they can skate by with a 3.3 in a business major and still be competitive. The amount of work output by the "Qualified" whites and the Affirmative Action blacks, is most likely equal, if not lopsided toward the Affirmative Action group. I definitely agree there are abusers, there will be in every system, but they are a little group. The amount of effort a rich white person needs to do to go somewhere in the business world, is surprisingly low. Pass a few benchmarks and then be at least slightly better than mediocre and you can succeed. Trust me, I see it all the time. The assumption is that the minorities are set so far back in their lower education and in the hiring process, that they need affirmative action to show that their 3.3 isn't laziness, and to make it so that a good minority isn't put under a slightly better than mediocre white. Because that happens quite a lot.

If that is the case, I'd say that the government should focus more on making laws that make sure that the good worker is picked over the rich worker.
That really is closer to equality than having a system clearly stating that one must be picked over the other in X cases, correct?

Still, 50% abusing a system to prevent a certain race getting discriminated is WAY too much.

I persoanlly do not feel that 50% is accurate. I might place the number down below 20% as a liberal estimate. Those who want to go far, that haven't been given everything, don't slack off. It's more likely to see a rich white student who has been given everythnig they've ever needed with minimal work slacking off.

The 20% was merely an estimate based on what i could collect from your post.
Still, I'd say that 1/5 person with possibility to use the system abusing it, is too much.
And obviously, if you've been spoiled, as the rich white in you example, you're very unlikely to work harder than you're used to, if you won't have to.

Ironically, even with Affirmative Action, the lazy rich white is gold on the job market while the minority is in for a fight to get a good job.

As i wrote in my first response, it would be better to solve THIS particular problem by making laws securing that the smart is picked over the rich on the job market, instead of one race over another (In X cases).

By the roll of the dice comment, sorry accidentally deleted it, I was hinting that not all "qualified" white people are acctually qualified. Many fo them knew the system of their college, which in the business school has proportionately little to do with the actual mechanics and one's personal ability. You might end up with a good 60% quality workers and end up with 40% slick frat boys who sweet-talked, inhereited through friend, and test banked their way to a shiny good GPA, yet have very little knowledge about how to do anything worth while.

That's education to you.
As I'm sure you'll agree with me on, most people can be "convinced" to give you better grades, one way or another.
The system of a school-based education has very little to do with the actual job.
However, I'd say that business actualy is about sweet-talking your way to a good deal, so in one way it might just be good.

I'll consider it.

The MAY problem is much bigger than the possible laziness. The may is having the government lay a blanket over certain peoples, ignoring those people of that group who do not need it, yet will benefit from it, and more importantly, to our country, the extremely large amount of people who need a stepping stone yet don't qualify. the amount of underprvileged white people in the country is very high, yet they get nothing. They by far outnumber the minorities that have come so far as to overcome and compensate for the barriers that exist (as if that is even possible at all.)

Very true, hence my previous posts about changing affirmative action to better laws, so the socialy weak people get help, instead of just one race.

For now, i'll just say: God, I sound like a racist bastard.

Acctually, no you don't. Der-Ubermensch and Violent AJ sount like racist bastards. you're trying to show flaws in the system for what they are. All I am saying is that they are not as big of flaws, and as harmful to the system or society as you think.

Why thank you.

[JakeHero]

Liberals are only in favor of Affirmative Action until they're turned down by a college because a black kid also applied and the university could only squeeze in one of the two...

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 1/11/07 05:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Acctually, no you don't. Der-Ubermensch and Violent AJ sount like racist bastards. you're trying to show flaws in the system for what they are. All I am saying is that they are not as big of flaws, and as harmful to the system or society as you think.

When they prove me wrong, I'll change my tone.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/11/07 05:38 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: When they prove me wrong, I'll change my tone.

Nothing pejorative meant. Just an observation.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/11/07 05:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: Liberals are only in favor of Affirmative Action until they're turned down by a college because a black kid also applied and the university could only squeeze in one of the two...

Yeah, all liberals support affirmative action. It's one of the main tenets of Liberalism, if you support stopping giant corporations from exploiting people then you also support affirmative action, there is no way around it. Just like if you are a conservative, you automatically support Bush, right?

[JakeHero]

At 1/11/07 06:06 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Yeah, all liberals support affirmative action. It's one of the main tenets of Liberalism, if you support stopping giant corporations from exploiting people then you also support affirmative action, there is no way around it. Just like if you are a conservative, you automatically support Bush, right?

I didn't say "All Liberals" and if I said "Some Liberals" my post would of had less..........finesse. But considering affirmative action is an issue supported generally by the left camp it doesn't really matter how I phrase it.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/11/07 05:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: Liberals are only in favor of Affirmative Action until they're turned down by a college because a black kid also applied and the university could only squeeze in one of the two...

No,see you got it wrong.

Liberals are in favour of AA untill the black guy makes enough money and trys to live in the same neighborhood as they do.

[qygibo]

At 1/11/07 05:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: Liberals are only in favor of Affirmative Action until they're turned down by a college because a black kid also applied and the university could only squeeze in one of the two...

Which might be true if not for the fact that whites are still overwhelmingly the majority in colleges. They're more likely to lose their seat to another white kid than to a person of color. Nice try with the generalizations.

[Benovere]

At 1/12/07 03:56 AM, qygibo wrote: Which might be true if not for the fact that whites are still overwhelmingly the majority in colleges. They're more likely to lose their seat to another white kid than to a person of color. Nice try with the generalizations.

While I agree with your statement, I have some pennies to add. At my high school, our class had a white Valevictorian. She had a GPA of 4.0 (she was a bitch too). The school therefore had two valevictorians, the white one and a black one who had the highest black GPA (3.4). She was number 40 out of 700 seniors. Tell me how that is a generalization when 38 people get passed up because of the real valevictorian's color caused her to share her title (and 60% of the scholarships)?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/12/07 04:05 AM, Benovere wrote: While I agree with your statement, I have some pennies to add. At my high school, our class had a white Valevictorian. She had a GPA of 4.0 (she was a bitch too). The school therefore had two valevictorians, the white one and a black one who had the highest black GPA (3.4). She was number 40 out of 700 seniors. Tell me how that is a generalization when 38 people get passed up because of the real valevictorian's color caused her to share her title (and 60% of the scholarships)?

You know, when a 3.4 is 40th among 700, who gives a shit about who is passed up. That school has 659 more problems to deal with. Seriously, that's just sick. High school is easy to get good grades in. If less than 10% of your school can get As, I think Affirmative Action shouldn't be argued about at all.

[Imperator]

At 1/11/07 04:54 PM, Mercator wrote:
I recently looked at a point score (system used to get into this particular college)

+1800 score on SAT = 15 points
Being black = 20 points

WTF?? No, its not a bitch move.

Looks like U of M's old system, which was deemed illegal and had to be changed 3 years ago.

I'm against both AA and lack of AA. I think there needs to be a middle ground. AA in its current form was great when it was first introduced, but now it is being taken advantage of, and whites are beginning to face reverse discrimination.

In other words, systems like that often penalize whites based on race alone, which is also not fair.

Total abandonment of the system (recently passed in Michigan, Prop 2) I don't like either. Completely getting rid of it is the same as saying racism has died. Racism still exists, and discrimination still exists.

But because politicians often go completely opposite (and equally shitty) directions on issues, I don't think a middle ground was ever theorized, let alone debated or enacted.........

Gotta love politics, what'll you have?
Shit Choice A
Shit Choice B

.....how about GOOD CHOICE C for once!!

[Imperator]

At 1/12/07 05:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
You know, when a 3.4 is 40th among 700, who gives a shit about who is passed up. That school has 659 more problems to deal with. Seriously, that's just sick. High school is easy to get good grades in. If less than 10% of your school can get As, I think Affirmative Action shouldn't be argued about at all.

Good call there. My school had about 120 seniors in my class. Valedictorians had 4.4s (had exact same scores out to like 7 decimals so they gave it to both of em).

I think I was ranked in the top 20%, not sure though.....anywho, I got a 3.8 and I was nowhere NEAR the top....

[Camarohusky]

At 1/12/07 05:08 AM, Imperator wrote: .....how about GOOD CHOICE C for once!!

Not gonig to happen. the American public is too fickle and too whiny.

Make it shitty choice A and choice B side complains really hard.
Make it shitty choice B and choice A side complains really hard.
Make it good choice C and both sides complain that they aren't being listened too.

[Benovere]

At 1/12/07 05:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You know, when a 3.4 is 40th among 700, who gives a shit about who is passed up. That school has 659 more problems to deal with. Seriously, that's just sick. High school is easy to get good grades in. If less than 10% of your school can get As, I think Affirmative Action shouldn't be argued about at all.

4.0 all advaced classes all a's
3.0 regular classes all a's. The school punishes those who dont go for advanced placement. They go on something called an extended 4.0 scale, which means that an advanced class can get up to a 8.0 (read as a 4.0 to colleges) and regular classes get only a 6.0 (3.0 to colleges). Most electives are considered normal. Medical electives are advanced, thats how she got a perfect 4.0.