Affirmative Action

[© tweed]

I said race-based because I don't want Nym rattling off on class-based AA.

I support AA, however with convictions.

[Platypus]

The best people for the places should get them.

That also means that rich daddies boys won't get a free ride. We need to offer free places at uni for more poeple, whatever their race, gender, etc is.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

STRONGLY, STRONGLY opposed.

Any kind of "Affirmative Action" program should be based on fiscal need, not skin color.

[© tweed]

That also means that rich daddies boys won't get a free ride. We need to offer free places at uni for more poeple, whatever their race, gender, etc is.

You mean so that Gore, Bush, Kerry, Lieberman, the Kennedys, and the other people with any kind of political stature in America wouldn't have a free ride?

[Platypus]

Exactly. But neither should minorities. As hmtldon said, if we are going to have any AA at all, it has to be on fiscal need. but even then, a better is system is just letting anyone form any background etc sit for any place at college. If more college places were free, or had a much lower cost, it would be fairer to everyone.

[Gustaf]

I voted no, I am against affirmative action. This is the 3rd issue I have found where Sweden can be said to be to the right of the US!

[Michael Z]

Perhaps it should be applied in parts of the country where there is proof of discrimination against ethnic minorities, just for the sake of redressing the imbalance. Apart from that it doesn't seem feasible, especially if you want to have a meritocracy in the truest sense of the word. (But then neither does charging students money for their education.)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

"(But then neither does charging students money for their education.)"

Oh I totally agree, professors should stop being paid for their services... then education could be free!

Perhaps it should be applied in part of the country where there has proven to be discrimination against ethnic minorities. Apart from that it doesn't seem feasible, especially if you want to have a true meritocracy.

(But then neither does charging students money for their education.)

[Michael Z]

Oh I totally agree, professors should stop being paid for their services... then education could be free!

LOL, I see your point.

It's just that college fees may hinder students from poorer backgrounds from attending university. There's a big debate about this raging in Britain right now, so you can forgive me for having some strong feelings on this issue. I'm not really sure how the system in America works, it's probably a lot fairer, but over here (where a uni degree doesn't necessarily guarantee a well-paid job) it has caused a lot of controversy.

[12th Doctor]

Opposed.  Everyone should be treated equally by the law.  No preferential treatment for anyone based on race.  Economic concerns should be handled, that's it.

[7,052,770]

I too am opposed.  AA is simply racial discrimination.  Jobs and scholarships should go to whomever is most qualified.

[12th Doctor]

I too am opposed.  AA is simply racial discrimination.  Jobs and scholarships should go to whomever is most qualified.

Agreed.  It is discrimination if not in the classical sence.  They should go by grades/activities, not race or family backround.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

They should go to the most qualified, but financial background should be considered in scholarships.

I too am opposed.  AA is simply racial discrimination.  Jobs and scholarships should go to whomever is most qualified.

[M]

I am strongly opposed. Supporters of AA are generally not engaged in willful discrimination, but that is the end result. University quotas are just that, quotas (sorry Howard). Worst of all, having racial status requires us to  have a racial science, reminding me unpleasantly of the 3rd Reich. An example: South African Whites are often proud Africans, but neither they nor Moroccans can be considered African Americans. Iranaians are white, and Pakistanis are Asian, despite the fact they are closely related. Historical discrimination of Irish, Jews, Germans, Italians, Poles, Arabs, Greeks, etc is not addressed. People of mixed origin can be psychologiclly tormented by these things, having to pick a racial identity (i.e., are you mom's or dad's? This survey says CHOOSE NOW!) And students who do get a free ride to fulfill some university's black percentage or whatever often have trouble throughout life because they didn;t have to work for it.

The best solution is, I think, a colorblind society. Race does not exist at all, it is an anachronism that should have been left behind in the Old World. We are all Americans, and so we should be treated.

[7,052,770]

They should go to the most qualified, but financial background should be considered in scholarships.

I too am opposed.  AA is simply racial discrimination.  Jobs and scholarships should go to whomever is most qualified.

Yes.  Exactly.

[migrendel]

I endorse the idea of affirmative action and support the use of quotas to implement it.

This country has had a checkered history of oppressing those who do not have the benefit of belonging to a majority. We have a moral debt because of four hundred years of brutal and systematic mistreatment of people because of their skin color to make some retribution. Since, I fear, discrimination still exists, albeit with more subtlety, we must not stop short at proclaiming equality of opportunity, when we can make fifty years progress in five by disregarding the chilling technicalities of academic merit by guaranteeing the equality of circumstance that was what our nation owed to all of its citizens, but for so long refused to grant for so many.

To sum it up, slavery was based on race, lynchings were based on race, Jim Crow laws were based on race, and because of that, affirmative action must be based on race.

Affirmative Action has worked in the past. In the early 1970s, many workplaces and institutes of education began aggressively recruiting women, and managed to get them to a point of proportional representation in schools and in the professions. I earnestly believe this could be done with race if an arch-conservative federal judiciary didn't constantly undermine attempts at reversing previous discrimination by imposing stricter and stricter rules on remedial practices.

The simple fact is, though, that affirmative action doesn't in any way go against the traditional and contemporary definitions of Equal Protection, because it lacks a discriminatory intent, because of the university or workplace's intent to alleviate just that, or cause a disparate impact, on account of the fact that the end result actually reduces a disparate impact by making racial representation more proportional. The only way affirmative action could be found unconstitutional is if it is vindictively and hell-bentedly gone over with a fine tooth comb, which Antonin Scalia has been known to do.

I do believe there is hope for progress on the race question. Race is facially meaningless, considering we are all descendants of hominids which are from Africa, so it's just a question of how diluted your African blood is, but the power structure has, for centuries, placed the gravest importance on it. Maybe someday we can all be seen as fundamentally similar, just of a different tone.

However, I can say emphatically that we cannot get to that glorious point without vigorous efforts to move our hearts to a greater level of sympathy. Heartless meritocrats in the various fora of government can turn a blind eye to some of the most severe injustices ever seen by humanity, and upwardly mobile blacks can forget all that their ancestors had done for them, or how the likes of the anti-affirmative action Clarence Thomas benefited from it just thirty years ago, but I still think most people are fundamentally of goodwill. They will realize the careful thought and inspired wisdom behind affirmative action when they can finally get past the point where they are not threatened by the concept, but can see how diversity enriches the lives of all.

[M]

To sum it up, slavery was based on race, lynchings were based on race, Jim Crow laws were based on race, and because of that, affirmative action must be based on race.
enriches the lives of all.

You hear this one a lot, and it's the most fallacious argument I can think of. Slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow were based on race, so the cure must be- more race? That's like heart attacks, obesity, and cavity are based on bad eating habits, so the cure is... more junk food! Race is the problem Therefore how can it possibly be the solution?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't like anything based on race...

[dazzleman]

I think that anything that creates protected classes is a very bad thing.

Affirmative action is one of those things that is of very limited use for a very short duration.  But once it takes hold, others want to jump on the bandwagon, and those who benefit from it never want to let go of it.  Look at all the others who have come out of the woodwork demanding preferential treatment -- women, gays and left-handed people with three eyeballs.  The situation is totally out of control.

Affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries because they know they don't have to do their best, so they use their race as a crutch, and blame all their problems on past discrimination.  This then perpetuates their victim status, and creates the perception among others that their race really is inferior, and therefore deserving of continued discrimination.

If preferential treatment for whites is wrong, so it preferential treatment for blacks.  There is no way to pay a historical debt to people who are long dead, and to try to pay this debt in a way that hurts their descendants in the long run, as affirmative action does, is very wrong.

It is also dangerous in the long run to single out a minority group for preferential treatment, because that could eventually bring a strong backlash of resentment from the majority.  Assimilation and de-emphasis of race would be far better, for blacks and society in general.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I voted no.

[Nym90]

Well MiamiU, you may not want me to rattle off on it, but it would seem that my position in favor of class-based AA and opposed to race-based AA has quite broad support from both parties here.

[Gustaf]

Well MiamiU, you may not want me to rattle off on it, but it would seem that my position in favor of class-based AA and opposed to race-based AA has quite broad support from both parties here.

WE HAVE A WINNING THEME! lol...

[Beet]

I would instinctively be strongly opposed to race-based Affirmative Action but I do think there is a case to be made for racial-discrimination based Affirmative Action. Supporters of Affirmative Action rightly point out that it is sometimes a compelling social objective to remedy the wrongs of past racially-based discrimination. Yet if what AA is trying to remedy is racial discrimination, the criteria for qualifying for AA should be racial discrimination, not race.

I believe that whites should be eligible for AA. Whites are also targets of discrimination in certain conditions and in certain places. For example how many whites do you see in a Chinese restaurant? Why exclude one race from the possibility of remedying racial discrimination? If whites were eligible for AA, the policy would be shifted from a race-based policy and an inherently racist one to fulfill the mission it was originally intended for-- to redress the social problem of racial discrimination and unbalance. An applicant would have to show substantial underrepresentation due to discrimination or structural problems that, due to the person's race, cause that underrepresentation. In evaluating this, all races would be treated equally.

Of course the deeper problem in society is cultural segmentation and identity segmentation. This won't be remedied by AA.

[PD]

VERY VERY STRONGLY OPPOSED.

[angus]

been a while since we waded into the murky waters of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"  Thought it was worth a bump.

I'm still against it.