Affirmative action - is it fair?

[figsfiggyfigs]

Do you believe affirmative action in its current form is fair?

 

[The Ü™]

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children!

WPWW 14/88.

And obviously, no, this is not fair.

 

[dala]

Not by any means. It's a form of condescending racism that is unfair on several levels. It leaves people thinking 'he only got the job because he's black,' or 'she only got the job because she's a woman,' resulting in everyone wondering if that person really has what it takes. In more extreme situations, entire communities become infantilised, which leads to a downward spiral of dependence and entitlement. Further from that, it results in perfectly qualified individuals being passed over due to their race or gender.

 

[Savage Idealist]

No it's not fair, becuase it is ultimately based solely on the color of a persons skin (among other social factors), even if the intention is equality within the workplace. I think that business should have no right as to inquire the race of their applicants, instead only choosing potential employees through a veil of ignorance. Although such a fair policy probably isn't practical, and I worry that business, when given the oppertunity to do so, would jump on the chance to exlude people of certain social conditions, which in of itself is ultimately unfair. Thus I'm more willing to accept affirmative action on the sole basis that it is a necessary evil.

 

[Critical Hit]

Not really. It also is ineffective, treating the symptom and not the problem. The problem is poor education to begin with. We need to improve the quality of education so that they can get in to schools on their own merit.

 

[Edgar]

You're not retarded, you just need a little bit of help.
Here you go retard... I mean, disadvantaged person.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

It is as long as you still feel bad about slavery.

 

[Viridian]

No it's not fair, becuase it is ultimately based solely on the color of a persons skin (among other social factors), even if the intention is equality within the workplace. I think that business should have no right as to inquire the race of their applicants, instead only choosing potential employees through a veil of ignorance. Although such a fair policy probably isn't practical, and I worry that business, when given the oppertunity to do so, would jump on the chance to exlude people of certain social conditions, which in of itself is ultimately unfair. Thus I'm more willing to accept affirmative action on the sole basis that it is a necessary evil.

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

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

It's fair if you're benefiting from it and vice versa.

 

[Santosha]

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

OMFG! Do minorities get into heaven faster too?

 

[Southern Kross]

Here all it amounts to is basically more scholarships and grants available for Maori and Pacific Island uni students and incentives for them to train in certain professions (eg. teaching) - consequently there is little controversy surrounding it. But from what I gather it is taken to extreme lengths in the US and that many people aren't happy about it. Can you give some specific examples of how it works there?

 

[Rasofy]

Unfair. Especially because I'm not black or poor enough to benefit from it. If I was being benefited I would argue afirmative actions are an efficient way to compensate the presumable lack of access to better education.

 

[Stigmata]

I don't agree. Especially because I'm not black or poor enough to benefit from it. If I was being benefited I would argue afirmative actions are an efficient way to compensate the presumable lack of access to better teachers and schools.

If your stance is based on your ability to benefit from it, or lack there of, then that in turn renders it void as it's skewed because of bias. Affirmative action seeks to rectify past social discrimination by essentially employing the same tactics, except to the opposite racial group as the original offenders. It basically perpetuates the same root issue it attempts to eliminate, which is inequality.

 

[Rasofy]

If your stance is based on your ability to benefit from it, or lack there of, then that in turn renders it void as it's skewed because of bias. Affirmative action seeks to rectify past social discrimination by essentially employing the same tactics, except to the opposite racial group as the original offenders. It basically perpetuates the same root issue it attempts to eliminate, which is inequality.

Fine points, buddy. I agree with you. I was mostly playing with the fact that I'm biased. I'm just not 100% sure I would have the same opinion if people had an educational edge on me.

 

[Rasofy]

I'm not sure if I got this right but how does it work in US? I wanted to know whether the system is based solely on ethnicity. I ask because In Brazil, in the states where we have this, family income is also a factor to be considered.

 

[Orangey]

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

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

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

It's sort of like one of those social "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" anomalies. We could just call it uh-huh action.

 

[FigerPuppet]

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

One evil doesn't justify another. And white privilege is basically non-existent at all levels below the upper middle classes. I'd go so far as to say that a poor working class white kid is more disadvantaged than his coloured counterpart.

 

[Stigmata]

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

But at what point can we distinguish between either what or how it exists in actuality and the realistic effects of such, as opposed to attributing negative occurrences in relation to minorities as a by-product of white privilege when in fact it may be nothing more than projection. Affirmative Action is nothing more than an attempt to artificially redistribute power and capital by creating attempting to create some sort of socioeconomic balance, yet all it is employ the same tactics for doing so that spawned its necessitation; In essence, it's zero-sum in nature because it attempts to advance one race at the direct expense of another.

Also, while it would be foolish to deny that for most of american history the bulk of political and social influence was predominantly in the hands of Whites, but if systems like this persist, at what point can we decide that we've restored the balance without it appearing arbitrary? If Whites maintained most of the power in for 400+ years, would that not render Affirmative Action no longer necessary in an equal amount of time in the future? At what point, if ever, can we determine when it's now longer necessary?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

If Whites maintained most of the power in for 400+ years, would that not render Affirmative Action no longer necessary in an equal amount of time in the future? At what point, if ever, can we determine when it's now longer necessary?

It's no longer necessary when there are no more poor minorities. It's interesting to note that between two kids from racially-different families with the same exact income, the black kid will actually have greater opportunities as far as college funding, employment, etc than the white kid.