Affirmative Action Bill (Failed)

[MasterJedi]

Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.
Spon: Sen. Franzl

[Franzl]

This should primarily apply to anything run by the government....or any institutions that aren't really direct employment (which would be covered by the Workers' Bill of Rights)....such as universities, even if they're private.

But sure....government is the main thing here.

Might be a good idea to add a clear penalty, though.

[Ebowed]

Why is this necessary?  Affirmative action in government employment is already illegal.

[Franzl]

Why is this necessary?  Affirmative action in government employment is already illegal.

as far as I know....first of all....that only applies to the federal government, I'd like to make this law apply throught the entire country. (Now that might make an amendment necessary....actually, it probably does......going by past precedent)

but I also want to prevent affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination) in every other situation, whether directly by the goverment or simply some absurd university policy.

[bgwah]

You can certainly count on a veto for such a terrible piece of legislation.

[Franzl]

You can certainly count on a veto for such a terrible piece of legislation.

I'm not certain, but that veto could likely be overridden.

[Ebowed]

but I also want to prevent affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination) in every other situation, whether directly by the goverment or simply some absurd university policy.

So what, you want to ban scholarships that are only available to black/Hispanic students?  Would this apply to private universities?  What is the justification for removing a program which has been proven to be successful in expanding educational opportunities for minorities?

Banning the federal government from using affirmative action in their hiring policies is one thing, but I certainly do look forward to seeing all of the self-described centrists and libertarians supporting this law which seems to interfere with policies that should be left to schools.

[Franzl]

but I also want to prevent affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination) in every other situation, whether directly by the goverment or simply some absurd university policy.

So what, you want to ban scholarships that are only available to black/Hispanic students?  Would this apply to private universities?  What is the justification for removing a program which has been proven to be successful in expanding educational opportunities for minorities?

Yes, precisely. It's pure discrimination to award scholarships solely based on race, gender or whatever. It's not something that should be tolerated.

I have no problem with assisting financially weak families....and believe it or not, that automatically gives black and Hispanic students a better chance, on average.

[Ebowed]

and believe it or not, that automatically gives black and Hispanic students a better chance, on average.

Ludicrous.  Even with affirmative action programs, or financial assistance for the poor, you cannot really believe in your heart that black and Hispanic students have equal, or better, opportunities to white students.

[Franzl]

and believe it or not, that automatically gives black and Hispanic students a better chance, on average.

Ludicrous.  Even with affirmative action programs, or financial assistance for the poor, you cannot really believe in your heart that black and Hispanic students have equal, or better, opportunities to white students.

So where does it end? Should white students have to subsidize a portion of a Hispanic's education, too? Should we maybe legislate that >30% of university students must be minorities?

It's absurd to advocate state sponsored discrimination. If blacks and Hispanics are just as smart and capable, I don't see any reason why they can't get scholarships under a financially based system, and blacks and Hispanics are certainly more frequently poor than whites, do you disagree?

The important thing here is equal opportunity....and providing scholarships that solely benefit one race do not seem to provide equal opportunity to me.

[Ebowed]

The important thing here is equal opportunity

Okay, so why are you willing to give a leg up to the student who got worse grades because he's poor?

Put your money where your mouth is.  If you believe in 'equal opportunity', perhaps all scholarships should only be merit-based, and not income-based.

[Franzl]

The important thing here is equal opportunity

Okay, so why are you willing to give a leg up to the student who got worse grades because he's poor?

Put your money where your mouth is.  If you believe in 'equal opportunity', perhaps all scholarships should only be merit-based, and not income-based.

I think level of income and race/gender/religion are rather different things. Scholarships (and other social programs) for poor people help break the cycle of poverty. Education is one's ticket to prosperity. Income is the base for many other things....like health insurance subsidies. Would you advocate providing free health insurance based soley on race? Or would you give welfare checks based on race, regardless of economical standing or status of employment?

Financially based programs are a practical solution, I'll admit, and a soley merit based system would be more consistent with the principle of equal opportunity, but I don't think something based soley on race can seriously not be considered racist by any accurate definition of the word.

[Ebowed]

I think level of income and race/gender/religion are rather different things. Scholarships (and other social programs) for poor people help break the cycle of poverty. Education is one's ticket to prosperity. Income is the base for many other things....like health insurance subsidies. Would you advocate providing free health insurance based soley on race? Or would you give welfare checks based on race, regardless of economical standing or status of employment?

And, generally, the 'equal opportunity' folks happen to be opposed to public health care and welfare, interestingly enough.  Lovely straw man, though - wish I had come up with it myself.  Health care should be available to everyone regardless of income.  The very definition of welfare requires it to be an income-based system, and nothing else.

Now, if you want to fix the status of minority communities, you have to give them access to education.  Affirmative action is not perfect, but it has been shown again and again that when states end racial preference systems in education, the number of minorities decreases (and not in a way which makes the number of minorities going to college any more proportionate to their make-up of the population).

I don't think something based soley on race can seriously not be considered racist by any accurate definition of the word.

Then you aren't really thinking hard enough.  Is the fact that the US government has a Bureau of Indian Affairs racist, or not?

[Franzl]

Now, if you want to fix the status of minority communities, you have to give them access to education. 

Are you claiming that minorities are too dumb to be capable of getting assistance without being prefered because of their minority status? I think that's a racist point of view, personally. If you want minorities to be equal, wouldn't it be hypocritical to make that claim?

Affirmative action is not perfect, but it has been shown again and again that when states end racial preference systems in education, the number of minorities decreases (and not in a way which makes the number of minorities going to college any more proportionate to their make-up of the population).

well, looking at 2005 acceptance rates:

Harvard accepts 10.0%, but 16.7% of black applicants.
MIT accepts 15.9%, but 31.6% of black applicants.

Do you think blacks are that much more qualified? Do you think it's fair?

And furthermore...why is it necessary that the number of minorities at universities be proportional to their share of the population? You're advocating that black people, regardless of actual qualification, be prefered to their white counterparts based on nothing more than race.

and BTW: I don't support economical affirmative action in the sense that only families under a certain level of income should receive support. I want a gradual range system where a family that makes....let's say, $25,000 might get anywhere from 75% to 100% paid, based on qualification, whereas a family that makes $50,000 might only get 40% to 60% paid.....bla bla....etc.

The admission process to universites needs to be based on merit, and nothing else.

Just a question: Would you support set quotas for minorities? Should a university be required to ensure that blacks make up....16% or whatever of total students?

[Ebowed]

Are you claiming that minorities are too dumb to be capable of getting assistance without being prefered because of their minority status? I think that's a racist point of view, personally. If you want minorities to be equal, wouldn't it be hypocritical to make that claim?

See, the fact that you make this leap of logic is a little bit disturbing.  Are you really that incapable of understanding an opposing point of view, without completely distorting it?

I never claimed that minorities were dumb.  I am claiming that the position they find themselves in - a result of centuries of discrimination, segregation, and poverty - makes it inherently more difficult for them to succeed in school.  All throughout Mississippi and Alabama you will find counties with 70% black populations, but public school systems with 95% black students.  Meanwhile the white children are sent to private academies where they can (supposedly) avoid the downfalls of the vilified public system.  If you think that's equal opportunity, I have a bridge to sell you.

Now, before I answer any of your other questions, I really am quite curious as to your very absolutist definition of racism.  Is the Bureau of Indian Affairs a racist concept, or not?

[Franzl]

I never claimed that minorities were dumb.  I am claiming that the position they find themselves in - a result of centuries of discrimination, segregation, and poverty - makes it inherently more difficult for them to succeed in school.  All throughout Mississippi and Alabama you will find counties with 70% black populations, but public school systems with 95% black students.  Meanwhile the white children are sent to private academies where they can (supposedly) avoid the downfalls of the vilified public system.  If you think that's equal opportunity, I have a bridge to sell you.

That is indeed disturbing, and it needs to be corrected. Do you believe that these circumstances in public schools exist because of race alone? Or is it actually more likely that it's a result of economic inequality? (Now I'm not arguiing that that inequality isn't a result of racism...whether past or present)
And if it's because of economic inequality, wouldn't an education assistance program based on that factor be more sensible....I mean, what about the Whites that go to the very same schools, why should the Blacks get the prefered treatment?

It's a more complicated problem...and the solution, of course, is to improve public education in that part of the country, but is a national program that assists soley racial and ethnic minorities just? Why should Whites be put at a disadvantage at receiving federal aid because of injustices in the Deep South?

And of course...the poor blacks (and whites) going to these public schools in Mississippi are most likely poor, are they not? My plans for education aid would help these people....but would also be color blind. Isn't that a win-win situation?

Now, before I answer any of your other questions, I really am quite curious as to your very absolutist definition of racism.  Is the Bureau of Indian Affairs a racist concept, or not?

Yes, but as with affirmative action, it served a purpose at one point.

[Bacon King]

I will not be supporting this bill.

[bgwah]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

[Franzl]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court decided differently....but why is that different from telling companies that they can't discriminate in their hiring process?

[bgwah]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court decided differently....but why is that different from telling companies that they can't discriminate in their hiring process?

I lean towards allowing private companies to use whatever hiring practice they desire.

[Franzl]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court decided differently....but why is that different from telling companies that they can't discriminate in their hiring process?

I lean towards allowing private companies to use whatever hiring practice they desire.

But you signed the Workers' Bill of Rights, which clearly outlawed discrimination by employers. That makes sense.

[bgwah]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court decided differently....but why is that different from telling companies that they can't discriminate in their hiring process?

I lean towards allowing private companies to use whatever hiring practice they desire.

But you signed the Workers' Bill of Rights, which clearly outlawed discrimination by employers. That makes sense.

I thought you loved compromise!

[Franzl]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court decided differently....but why is that different from telling companies that they can't discriminate in their hiring process?

I lean towards allowing private companies to use whatever hiring practice they desire.

But you signed the Workers' Bill of Rights, which clearly outlawed discrimination by employers. That makes sense.

I thought you loved compromise!

Good way to talk your way out

[Devilman88]

FTR, I support this 100000000%, and urge all senators to support it.

[RI]

Oh, so will Smith College and other women's schools be forced to accept men now? I don't see how you can tell private schools not to consider race, gender, etc.

BFOQs are not unduly discriminatory, and should be preserved.