Affirmative Action

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I just want to know what everyone thinks...

And then belittle those who don't agree with me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Seriously, I think its a terrible idea. Racism against the majority. Do any of you people from Europe have to deal with it in your countries? I'm mainly talking about affirmative action in the US, but if there is some of it in Europe I'd be interested (though dismayed) to here about it.

What do all of you have to say for yourselves? Come on, we need more arguments in this forum http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[IrishMike]

Sometimes affirmative action can be a good thing but i believe that most of the time in the U.S. that it gets a little carried away by some people and its turn into something it wasn't meant to be.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I personally try to look beyond skin color in judging people (or in grading their test scores).

Affirmative action is supposed to reverse the effects of past racism and race-associated disadvantages as part of a larger action to end racism, right? How will making it harder for some people (those of European decent) end racism? Or for that matter, making other groups (non-whites) dependent on a coddling system to make it in America? Because when you know you've got some extra points right off the bat because of something you cannot control, you're probably not going to try as hard to get the points you need to succeed.

It is just racism in a different (and for that, matter politically correct) direction. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

[Lehesu]

Consider: a large segment of the black population is involved in crime/poverty, whathaveyou. During slavery, a huge ditch was dug for the africa/american population; denial of education, oppurtunity, etc. Much of the present generation is digging itself out of the ditch that was dug during slavery. Ignorance (lack of education) begets ignorance. God knows how much less poverty we would have and how much potential would have been realized if slavery had not occurred. I may not agree with the tactic, but the rationale behind AffAct is good.

[Maedhros]

No argument that much of what has happened, even through today has been unjust.

The Affirmative Action process undermines the integrity of those who have and continue to accomplish. It bears the appeareance of admitting I can't do it on my own true or not that is how it appears. Even for those who really did it on their own.

It is also an entitlement. These sorts of programs only serve to demotivate people. Labor unions have the same effect. They are great for protecting people, but they leave workers so protected they don't need to work as hard, and with a sense of they owe me

Adversity does make one better.

Having said that, I would and do support directed assistance. Job training and scholarships for those who meet established performance requirements. Funding to place additional trained bodies or volunteers in schools at every level, and child care centers dominated by minorities. To bring academic performance up to or above the national average.

Those types of efforts are the best way to level the field. It still requires hard work, and leaves the people receiving this aid able to say I did it without having had handouts. Perserverance is its own reward.

[Jason the Absentminded]

I don't like Affirmative Action. I wish that all people could be colour blind and judge us on our merits and not our racial makeup. Unfortunately there is still a lot of racism in Amerikkka. Look at the NFL for example. How many minority coaches, GMs, and owners are there. Very few. Is that because of the lack of qualified individuals? No, it's because the NFL is still an old boys club. It's only recently that it's been somewhat acceptable to believe that a black man is capable of being a Quarterback. That's my 2 pennies.

[HopAlongBunny]

Affirmitive Action. Good in theory;may translate to numbers games and downright destructive behaviour modification in practice.

I support it. If you have the legislation things happen...most of it good

[HARALD THE RUTHELESS!]

Whats this affirmative action? sounds like some vague eupherism or piece of political gibberish.

Maybe im stupid, but hey I'm European.

[Papewaio]

Considering most science students (physics) are second or third generation plus university graduates (they have a parent, uncle and probably a grandparent), that a lot of med students have Doctor parents (more then the normal population ratio)...

...it seems rational then that those who have less educated parents and grandparents have a less chance of getting higher educated even if they are fairly bright they just don't have the early training.

The poverty cycle takes multiple generations to break the back of. It is only in the 60's that desegration occurred in the USA so it will be awhile before you get proportional representation at all levels of society.

Australia has similar things to affirmative action within government departments, education allotments at university, and social welfare. Which is sensible considering Aborigines where only taken off the wildlife census in 1967.

[Game Over!!!]

Studies show that when faced with hiring two equally qualified applicants, the only difference being the color of their skin, the person who is choosen usually looks more like the person who hired them. For instance if a 'white' boss is hiring two EQUALLY qualified applicants: one hispanic and one white, the 'white' boss usually hires the 'white' applicant.
Until more of a diverse ethnic mix of company MANAGERS becomes apparent, affirmative action is needed; if only to help achieve that mix. Over time the mis-match of the companies ethnic employee background will more closely resemble the community the company is located in fix itself and affirmative action not be needed.

[English assassin]

A lawyer writes...

We don't have affirmative action in the UK: positive discrimination is unlawful in the same way as negative dicrimination.

However recent anti-discrimination laws have been quite cleverly drafted, in that they impose duties on public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and to promote equal opportunity. So positive action is required, even if it cannot be positive discrimination. Quotas are unlawful, but taking steps to ensure your job vacancies are advertised to ethnic minorities is lawful (indeed, required)

Overall I think that is a reasonable compromise. It ties into the concept of institutional discrimination, (which is not in fact a legal concept) in taking effect at the collective, organisational level, rather than requiring you to identify a racist act or person.

In some ways though the concepts are rather too subtle and far reaching. For example, boys do worse than girls at all levels of UK schooling. By definition therefore the UK public education system is institutionally sexist. Whether it actually makes a different to stick that label on the situation I rather doubt...

[Inuyasha12]

Thank god you people have some sense because some people here in the US have lost it with affirmative action. Do they really think that it will simply reverse what happened during slavery. Of course not, you can't change back time. Affirmative action is an insult to the Black community
How can we be 'equal' if something like that is done.
It's the dumbest idea i've ever heard.
What happened to the merit of the person?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seriously. The supporters of Affirmative Action are making it the government's job to make sure everybody gets the same. That's socialism (which has never worked off of the drawing board), and rather daft, too (would you trust the government to get you a fair anything?).
You'd think it was illegal to let someone EARN their share through hard work, not favors from the government.

[Lehesu]

Truth is, the government, which you point at with much disdain, did much to hurt the african american community during slavery. Indeed, what happened to the merits of a person during that time period? I'm not saying I agree with the implementation, but I do believe many problems linger with us because of slavery's shadow, and it is in the best interests of all to fix it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I am curious in how you would go about fixing it. Would you have the government police every matter involving people of different skin color (for the distinction of race is imaginary; we are all human beings)? Would you have the government control people's thought? Of course not. And I acknowledge that the African American community has suffered in the past. I don't think that treating the descendants of those who were mistreated as being less than everyone else will help; I think it would do more harm than good.

PS - this is great that we can all discuss current issues relatively calmly and politely; many of us are opinionated and aren't the apathetic losers that the average American appears to be. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Lehesu]

Actually, my solutions would be completely different than affirmative action; I just wanted to let everyone know the rationale behind the poorly execution.

[motorhead]

Affirmative Action is a good idea poorly implemented in the USA. It benefits those who deserve it as well as those who definitely don't. This creates backlash when people see under/poorly-qualified people getting jobs they obviously don't deserve. On the other hand, a recent study (i wish i could find a link) sent out identical resumes (CVs for you brits) except for the names. Those with non-white names (i.e., Antwan DeAndre) received far less callbacks for interviews than did those with nice WASP names (i.e., John Powell). So, even qualified minorities simply don't get the same shot at landing a job, even if they're fully qualified.

I worked in New York City for several years and every department in the company was run by white-males (except Human Resources who had a white-female), yet the company was easily 1/3 minority. Sure, some of the white-males were at the company a long time and had obviously earned their positions. But in one case, an obviously qualified minority (of Hispanic descent) was passed over for a more junior white-male. This guy quit and within 2 months one-half of his group quit and either joined him at his new job or found another - they were royally pissed at what had happened. The running joke in the IT group I was in (90% non-whites) was You're not white enough to be a manager. (there was also an obvious religious aspect to promotions, but i won't even touch that)

Racism is alot less overt in most parts of the USA, but there are certainly some strong pockets, even today. I was down in Louisiana during Mardi Gras just a few years back, and the some of the locals still refered to colored and white crewes (societies that sponsor the floats in the parades). And, I can still recall, back in the late 80's, not getting served at a diner in north New Jersey (hardly a place I'd consider KKK country). Took me 20 minutes to realize that the waitress was never going to bring me a menu. Kinda tipped me off seeing others who came after me getting their food while I was still waiting for a menu...

[Well, I sure didn't mean for this post to be this long. Despite the problems, I love my country and I think it's the best one on earth. But some people need to realize that hard work and merit aren't always recognized, even today.]

[English assassin]

@Motorhead

Yes, they did the same CV/resume thing here in the UK too, with more or less the same results. Its good to think of that before getting too down on affirmative action.

But I must admit I'm not too sure what affirmative action actually means, in real, on the ground terms, in the USA, because as I said we don't have it in the UK. So I wouldn't like to comment to much on it.

[mcv]

Affirmative action is indeed mildly racist (or sexist when applied to women in high profile jobs), but it's intended to counter other, subtle forms of racism. The idea is that two wrongs might make a right, which is true when applied in moderation. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has gone way overboard with this (as they tend to do with so many things).

The Dutch government tended to have only one or two female members even as late as the '80s. It's pretty recent that government and parliament have a more equal gender distribution, and most of the party leaders are still male. And I really doubt that they are really that much more able that the female members of their parties. (Only the Greens have a woman in charge, and she's definitely more competent than the bumbling idiots in the other parties.) Ethnic minorities are still rare in government, although more common in parliament. The corporate world, however, is still very much an old boys network with glass ceiling for women and very few ethnic minorities in important positions.

Ofcourse it's possible that white males really are that much more competent, but then we should wonder why that is the case. Maybe other groups just don't get the same chances for education, training and that sort of stuff, or they don't receive the same kind of encouragement. And until that happens, I think it's okay if in cases where two people are equally suitable for a position, the one from the underrepresented group gets the job. It's a dirty fix, but it's better than nothing. And ofcourse it's stupid to take someone who's underqualified just because he/she is from some kind of minority.


mcv.

[motorhead]

In theory, here is how the Washington Post describes AA:
Quote[/b] ]Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions.
Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals.

There is no single AA law, such as the Civil Rights Act, it's more of a general policy that some institutions adopted, but none are required to adopt. There are anti-bias and anti-discrimination laws to counter problems in the here and now. Some institutions, notably some universities, set aside XX slots for certain qualified minorities. This can result in the top XX minority candidates being accepted, even if under a colorblind system they wouldn't make the grade. Which then leads to backlash from people pointing out that they don't deserve those slots, on merit alone they aren't good enough. And that's a tough point to argue, because I strongly believe in getting what you've earned, not entitlement.

On the other hand, as i described in my previous post, in the real world private companies often have their own silent selection process, which just happens to perpetuate white-only management, regardless of merit. Or, companies hire token minorities just to give the appearance they don't discriminate. I also contracted at a large national company where they really implemented colorblind promotions, and in meetings you'd see a wide spread of genders and races. They never had any stated AA policy, but they made it clear they promoted on performance. Managers who promoted candidates who performed poorly received low evaluations themselves, while those who had a track record of promoting high performers got high marks and promotions. Sounds like common sense, but that was the only company I ever worked for who had this system.

edit: Ironically, one of the most gender/race balanced organizations in America is the Armed Forces. They set hard quotas that roughly approximate the composition of their forces. If 20% of their soldiers are Hispanic, they might aim for a minimum of 10-15% Hispanic NCO and officers. They're not trying to make up for past discrimination exactly, but for such a regimented organization they ensure some semblence of representation. I've got two (white) friends who are Army lifers and they have no problem with this representation policy.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Quote[/b] ]edit: Ironically, one of the most gender/race balanced organizations in America is the Armed Forces. They set hard quotas that roughly approximate the composition of their forces. If 20% of their soldiers are Hispanic, they might aim for a minimum of 10-15% Hispanic NCO and officers. They're not trying to make up for past discrimination exactly, but for such a regimented organization they ensure some semblence of representation. I've got two (white) friends who are Army lifers and they have no problem with this representation policy.

So the US military has a quota system?? I'm surprised. I would think that it would be even more important to promote based on merit than in, say, a white-collar job. That is interesting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Studies show that the SAT/ACT and other standardized tests are slanted towards white students/middle class. The way the test is written gives advantages to middle class students over poor students. By taking SAT classes and purchasing SAT books you can improve your score by about 150 points...I myself improved my score 130 points by studying out of a couple SAT prep books. Colleges use these tests in a big way, affirmative action makes up the difference.