Affirmative action - is it fair?

[Viridian]

I think the only way it can be viewed as unfair is if it is assumed that white privilege doesn't exist.

I think there's a distinction here between "fairness" and "countering a social ill"...

 

[Elfboy]

I haven't read through the thread, but no. if they're going to do a system like that, it should be based off of the income of the said person's parents/guardians. for instance, a white guy with the same credentials as a black guy would get priority if the black guy grew up in suburban Orange County while the white guy grew up in the Detroit ghetto and was a self made man. that being said, I would be opposed to this system too, but it would be much better than the one we have now, especially given how outdated it is. the income gap between Caucasians and minorities is closing at an incredibly fast rate

 

[Santosha]

At what point, if ever, can we determine when it's now longer necessary?

Census Bureau says the non-hispanic white population will be the minority by 2042. More than half the US children will be from minority ethnic groups by 2023. THere are currently 6 states where non-hispanic white IS the minority, and all 6 states still advocate affirmative action.

Affirmative action propogates racism, and racism will never be undone with more racism.

 

[Elfboy]

Census Bureau says the non-hispanic white population will be the minority by 2042. More than half the US children will be from minority ethnic groups by 2023. THere are currently 6 states where non-hispanic white IS the minority, and all 6 states still advocate affirmative action.

Affirmative action propogates racism, and racism will never be undone with more racism.

exactly, why can't people just understand that they are separate from their ancestors? by this I mean, why do people have to associate race with people at all? scientifically, there are no races in the first places. really it's almost disgusting. a single community of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity than the entire human race! why do people feel like "you owe me something because my ancestors were discriminated against by yours" or "I feel guilty because my ancestors discriminated against yours". that kind of thinking is so tribal and collectivistic. you are your own person, not your race!
Edit: sorry, Fi rant

 

[Savage Idealist]

From my (limited) understanding of the issue, I agree with this. It seems to be mostly a temporary solution to a persistent social malady.

Indeed. If affirmitive actions wasn't needed, than I'd say that the entire system is an awful joke that deserves to be trashed, but I know damn well that if businesses have the freedom to select candidates then they will consider race a factor (like when job applications if one is 'hipsanic/latino' and 'what race you are'; why do they need to know this aside from the fact of using that information to theri own selfish advantage?), for they will want more people of a certain race depending on the location of the establishment. Therefore affirmative actions works as a safegaurd to ensure against business racism, although I'd personally prefer a new solution that entitles fairness for potential employees but doesn't have all the bad effects (and reputation) that affirmative action has.

Why is this in 'spirituality' instead of 'politics' ?

OMFG! Do minorities get into heaven faster too?

True that man!

 

[Such Irony]

I would hate it if I knew that the main reason why I got a job was due to being a woman. I want to be hired due to my capabilities, not to fill some quota.

 

[Orangey]

In essence, it's zero-sum in nature because it attempts to advance one race at the direct expense of another.

That's assuming that without AA no "race" is advancing at the expense of the other. That under normal circumstances, when no one is being given special privileges like AA, everyone has equal opportunity regardless of race. Personally, I think that's incredibly naive, but my original point still stands. What you've said here is a direct denial that white privilege exists, which is why I said that the only way AA could be viewed as unfair is if you don't think white privilege exists. Which you obviously don't.

I think there's a distinction here between "fairness" and "countering a social ill"...

Only if you view "countering a social ill" as unfair to begin with, so this is a bit of a circular statement.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

That's assuming that without AA no "race" is advancing at the expense of the other. That under normal circumstances, when no one is being given special privileges like AA, everyone has equal opportunity regardless of race. Personally, I think that's incredibly naive, but my original point still stands. What you've said here is a direct denial that white privilege exists, which is why I said that the only way AA could be viewed as unfair is if you don't think white privilege exists. Which you obviously don't.



Only if you view "countering a social ill" as unfair to begin with, so this is a bit of a circular statement.

White privilege doesn't exist...

 

[Agent Jelly]

I don't think its fair. I think someone should be hired for their credentials and character. Not their skin color!!!

 

[ragashree]

I think the only way it can be viewed as unfair is if it is assumed that white privilege doesn't exist.

Are you trying to get kudos for stating the obvious here...?

Only if you view "countering a social ill" as unfair to begin with, so this is a bit of a circular statement.

Or just indulging yourself by falling back on the very fallacy you're objecting to others using?

Yes, I saw what you did there.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Ideally, no. But hear this out.

Minorities won't be hired quickly by employers especially in customer relations departments, because in many business', customers still have strong opinions about minorities and this could go at the cost of revenue. This is rascism, or just business, but it's above all unfair and unfortunately the current situation. (Much less so for black people nowadays though, but there are plenty of minorities that still fall in that category almost in all cases)

Putting minorities in more jobs, allowing them to prove themselves to the general public and integrate wholly into the communities with unreserved acceptance, then a generation or two later, there will no longer be a need for this, as employers won't feel compelled to pass up on hiring minorities. Because the minorities, being accepted by the general population, are no longer a threat to their revenue.

It's a long term solution, but not one that should be ignored.

I'm not wholly against it.

 

[Spamtar]

I'm OK with the general concept of taking affirmative steps to address racial, gender or disability prejudice (i.e. promoting job opportunities at black/female colleges/locations etc.)...but am not OK with quotas absent narrow exceptions in extreme cases (workplaces with an actual history of discrimination)

 

[Viridian]

Only if you view "countering a social ill" as unfair to begin with, so this is a bit of a circular statement.

Okay, I think I get your point. It is fair, it's just not "fair" in the sense that, say, court proceedings are supposed to be - it's fair due to two different forces at work instead of one. Does that make sense?

 

[Fluffywolf]

Okay, I think I get your point. It is fair, it's just not "fair" in the sense that, say, court proceedings are supposed to be - it's fair due to two different forces at work instead of one. Does that make sense?

Is if fair to give +1 to minorities while giving 0 to general populace? Suppose not.

But what if the general populace is at 0 and the minorities are at -1. And the result would be that both would be on the 0 afterwards, is it still unfair?

 

[jimrckhnd]

The question in my mind is "what is fair". Fair on the individual level? Fair on the societal level? Affirmative action might well mean that I as an individual might lose out if say an essentially equally qualified women and I were going for the same job. On the other hand on the macro scale this might be more than fair. Moreover, I must also consider that I have built in advantages as a white male that in fact essentially acts as an affirmative action program in and of themselves: it is useful to recall the biggest affirmative action program in US history was keeping women and people of color out of certain professions.

 

[Orangey]

Are you trying to get kudos for stating the obvious here...?

Perhaps it's obvious to you, but I don't think a lot of the naysayers in this thread really think of it from that perspective. Plus if people bit on this comment, then the discussion would be steered toward arguments about white privilege, which, I'm sorry, are far more fucking interesting and constructive than people whining about "fairness" and saying the same thing over and over again.

...Your comment here is useless to the discussion and can only serve to provoke.

Or just indulging yourself by falling back on the very fallacy you're objecting to others using?

Yes, I saw what you did there.

Well, this makes absolutely no sense, but okay.

Okay, I think I get your point. It is fair, it's just not "fair" in the sense that, say, court proceedings are supposed to be - it's fair due to two different forces at work instead of one. Does that make sense?

I think so. I just meant to point out that "countering a social ill" is pretty much always a fair concept (if fair means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice") unless you don't think there's a social ill to be countered. So to say that "fairness" and "countering a social ill" are distinct is to already presume that there is no social ill to be countered, which struck me as a bit circular.

I must also consider that I have built in advantages as a white male that in fact essentially acts as an affirmative action program in and of themselves: it is useful to recall the biggest affirmative action program in US history was keeping women and people of color out of certain professions.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Edgar]

Ideally, no. But hear this out.

Minorities won't be hired quickly by employers especially in customer relations departments, because in many business', customers still have strong opinions about minorities and this could go at the cost of revenue. This is rascism, or just business, but it's above all unfair and unfortunately the current situation. (Much less so for black people nowadays though, but there are plenty of minorities that still fall in that category almost in all cases)

Putting minorities in more jobs, allowing them to prove themselves to the general public and integrate wholly into the communities with unreserved acceptance, then a generation or two later, there will no longer be a need for this, as employers won't feel compelled to pass up on hiring minorities. Because the minorities, being accepted by the general population, are no longer a threat to their revenue.

It's a long term solution, but not one that should be ignored.

I'm not wholly against it.

Nobody is given a chance to "prove themselves" simply because the govt offers subsidies for their retention.

What usually happens is that the affirmative action hires are quarantined into some obscure HR subdivision, while their employer gets govt largesse for having an X amount of minorities.

Affirmative action is a round about "slavery reparations" scheme, and even then, the politicians decided to add Hispanics to that program simply to gain their votes.

TL;DR: Affirmative Action is bullshit

 

[Beargryllz]

is it fair?

In a word, no

 

[Fluffywolf]

Nobody is given a chance to "prove themselves" simply because the govt offers subsidies for their retention.

What usually happens is that the affirmative action hires are quarantined into some obscure HR subdivision, while their employer gets govt largesse for having an X amount of minorities.

Oh, you're right that left-wing hobbies like these are thoroughly abused throughout the world because they are not properly orchestrated and overseen by abled government bodies, but the idea should be to put minorities in public positions, having every days people to deal with them and learn to accept them as a human being. In essence, I do like that concept.

Anyway, integration has never been and never will be an easy process.

 

[Edgar]

Oh, you're right that left-wing hobbies like these are thoroughly abused throughout the world because they are not properly orchestrated and overseen by abled government bodies, but the idea ...

Here's another good idea: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Too bad communism doesn't work when it put into practice, partly for the reasons already mentioned by you.