Affirmative Action

[nclib]

Option 2 for me. Although class-based AA is not a bad idea, race-based AA is still preferable since lower-class blacks are victims of racism that lower-class whites don't have to face.

[Lunar]

Class or income based affirmative action.  The government should not be looking if I'm black or white.

[Keystone Phil]

Against Affirmative Action

[Sheliak5]

Class or Income.

[Brambila]

option 5.

[Gustaf]

Toughie...think I'm gonna go with the last option, but I'm not entirely sure. It should probably be left to the market-place and change as attitudes in society change.

[KEmperor]

Final option.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

class-based.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

So long as consumers don't discriminate based on race(say, for instance, a customer who refuses to go to restaraunts that hire blacks), the market in general tends to go against employment discrimination. If a lot of employers discriminate, the wages for the group discriminated against goes down(simple law of supply and demand of labor) and people who capitalize on these lower wage rates will have lower costs and therefore lower prices - effectively putting the other guys out of business, or at least taking a bigger share of the pie. I say let anyone foolish enough to discriminate do it.

As far as class based affirmative action - it's a stupid, communistic idea. Think about it - by hiring the poor, you might just be forcing someone else into a lower income bracket, possibly even making them poor. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

If I was an employer, I would hire the best people for the job - I'm a capitalist, I don't give a damn about race, class, or gender.

[HockeyDude]

Affirmative action is wrong.  Schools and employers should take the best person for the job.  period.  Giving a minority a job over a white person based on skin color is just racism the other way around.

[HockeyDude]

Affirmative action is wrong.  Schools and employers should take the best person for the job.  period.  Giving a minority a job over a white person based on skin color is just racism the other way around, even worse its racism promoted by the gov't.  

[KEmperor]

No to any government supported racist policies!

[Akno21]

I'm agaisnt Affirmative action.

[migrendel]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently.

That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one. Rich people are our equals, so we should tax them a greater percentage of their earnings. Eqaul, right? Perfect equality is a pipe dream, it shall never be attained, especially economically.

There's only one equality I care about - equality under the law. It shouldn't matter what race, class, or gender you are - the law should treat you the same. Privately owned businesses are not the law - they are privately owned, and the private owners should be allowed to set whatever policy they damn well please. As I said, as a general rule discrimination will make their competitors more profitable and themselves less profitable - let the free market weed them out.

[KEmperor]

In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently.

That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one. Rich people are our equals, so we should tax them a greater percentage of their earnings. Eqaul, right? Perfect equality is a pipe dream, it shall never be attained, especially economically.

There's only one equality I care about - equality under the law. It shouldn't matter what race, class, or gender you are - the law should treat you the same. Privately owned businesses are not the law - they are privately owned, and the private owners should be allowed to set whatever policy they damn well please. As I said, as a general rule discrimination will make their competitors more profitable and themselves less profitable - let the free market weed them out.

Exactly

[dazzleman]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

There should be equality of opportunity, within the confines of what the government can control, but nobody can guarantee equality of outcomes.  People don't possess equal amounts of ambition, intelligence, etc. and some will always do better than others.  We shouldn't discriminate in favor of or against people based on factors irrelevant to job performance.

Equality of outcome can only be assured at a subsistence level, if that.  The greater good is served by permitting economic inequality, with some type of safety net for those who are unable (but not unwilling) to take care of themselves.

[muon2]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

There are two separate points you raise. The first point is easily stated. Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, and the law should make that clear. I wholeheartedly agree.

The second point is also easy to state, but does not so easily follow. Your statement could be that "certain racial groups should be punished for the reason that unrelated members of their group acted wrongly and went unpunished in the past". On this I must disagree. I feel that rights belong to the individual not to groups. If some person has done wrong then they should be responsible. Races become arbitrary classifications that unfairly group people.

Let me go one step further. To current science, race is not a very meaningful concept since it is based on ideas from the 16th-19th centuries. I believe that the use of race as a descripion for someone only reinforces that distinction with each generation. If we truly wanted a more equal society, we would avoid the use of race entirely.

[migrendel]

You're right, Muon2. Our concept of race has very little factual foundation. In fact, it is primarily social. But that is how virtually every person in our nation understands race. Since affirmative action is addressed to the society at large, it must be in reasonable conformity with how society views race. It would otherwise be incompatible. I have optimism that for many people, exposure to other races will show to them that they're really not that much different from you and me, and the old ideas about race will lose their powerful hold.

[muon2]

You're right, Muon2. Our concept of race has very little factual foundation. In fact, it is primarily social. But that is how virtually every person in our nation understands race. Since affirmative action is addressed to the society at large, it must be in reasonable conformity with how society views race. It would otherwise be incompatible. I have optimism that for many people, exposure to other races will show to them that they're really not that much different from you and me, and the old ideas about race will lose their powerful hold.

But the labels we use become the tool for discrimination. As long as the law supports racial labels in any capacity, their use in wider society will result in people making generalizations based on those labels. The law should be written without regards to race, even if some might think there is a social good from it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Blacks are a greater percentage of the NFL, and NBA players than their distribution in the general population.

If we merely use such statistic evidence of 'discrimination' by race and the basis for 'affirmative action,' then do we need to force the professional teams to hire more whites and fire more blacks?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks again,

I would really  appreciate feedback on my posting in the 200 U.S. Presidential election board, 2004 User Prediction - Discussion thread, page 157.

Apparently the lefties either haven't read it, or don't know how to respond to that post.

[AuH2O]

Well, the left is so indoctrinated on racial issues that they can't hold any kind of discussion on it. Waste of time.

For the record, whites that have a lot of contact with blacks are more likely to dislike them in general, so 'mixing' people up doesn't solve any problems. Giving people things they don't deserve is likewise futile.

[??????????]

For the record, whites that have a lot of contact with blacks are more likely to dislike them in general, so 'mixing' people up doesn't solve any problems. Giving people things they don't deserve is likewise futile.

I agree with that.

[MarkDel]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Blacks are a greater percentage of the NFL, and NBA players than their distribution in the general population.

If we merely use such statistic evidence of 'discrimination' by race and the basis for 'affirmative action,' then do we need to force the professional teams to hire more whites and fire more blacks?

Carl,

Yeah, that pretty much sums up Migrendel's logic, but you have to remember that incoherent logic and hypocrisy are not legitimate restraints on left wing ideology....those limitations only seem to apply to our side of the political spectrum.