Jump to content
OtakuBoards
Sign in to follow this  
The13thMan

Affirmative Action

Recommended Posts

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Alright, i'm sure we'll get a decent "debate" out of such a controversial topic.

The question is pretty straight forward. What do you think about Affirmative Action?

I personally dislike it for a number of reasons but i won't get into them yet. I want a few other people to voice their opinions first before i bring out my points against it. Also i'm kinda tired and don't have the time to type all of it. ^L^
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1]I'm going to say that I'm in favor of Affirmative Action. While it would be seen as unfair to those who are getting the metaphorical 'short end of the stick,' the good Affirmative Action does outweighs the injustices of it.

While America is thought to be the "land of equal opportunity," it is not. A child going to public school in inner-city Detroit will lack the support structure of a child attending a New England prep-school. Furthermore, the child will probably be raised around drug addicts, prostitutes, and gang violence, while the child attending that prep-school will probably be raised in a two parent home, living in a stable and caring home, far away from the gang violence and prostitution of an inner city. The child will have been taught from day one that success is expected and that failure is simply unacceptable. In contrast, the child raised in Detroit will be brought up with violence, sex, and drugs glorified, rather than a life of honest success. Most will aspire to become a basketball star or a drug dealer, more often the drug dealer.

Now if a child, raised in inner-city Detroit, neglected and underpriviledged, happens to see above the life of crime, and aspire to achieve a 3.7 GPA and a competitive score on the SAT, why should they be turned away from Princeton or Harvard? Why should the New England prep-school child recieve that other child's spot with a 3.9 GPA and marginally higher SAT score? In a vacuum, it would seem fair that the child with the higher scores should deserve that spot. However, these things should never be taken into consideration in a vacuum.

It sounds "fair" that the child attending prep-school would deserve to beat the child raised in inner-city Detroit. However, but accepting the child from New England prep-school, you have perpetuated the cycle of poverty and crime that plagues the African American community. America isn't this golden land where everyone starts out completely equal -- the child raised in Detroit was economically crippled and underpriviledged since day one, while the child attending prep-school had an economic leg-up on the competition. While both children could've worked equally as hard to surmount whatever obstacles came their way, the child attending prep-school had fewer obstacles in the way in comparison to the child attending public school.

While many folks opposed to Affirmative Action favor looking at the numbers, I say in order to make a fair judgement, you have to take into consideration all factors.

And here's a great quote that sums up the Affirmative Action philosophy:

[I]"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."[/I]
[B]- James Farmer[/B][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=darkgreen][size=1]

Affirmative Action is an iffy subject for me. There are positives and negatives that I see, and I have a hard time choosing one side. I think it should be limited in it's use for one reason, but I think it should be endorsed for others.

Like [B]Retri[/B] said, the original intentions of AA are for situations as he stated. But then you have to look at the ones who are actually getting the 'short end of the stick'. In America today, the person who is getting cut off more than anyone else is the Caucasian Male. It really doesn't matter where this man came from. He could have come from a ramshackle trailer park in as bad condition as the young boy from Detroit. But because he is a white male, AA will basically disqualify him if he is competing against some one of another race or sex, regardless of qualifications.

But then there are good things. AA assuers the hiring of a racially or gender equal work force and assures that race and sex are not negative factors in a CEO's hiring process. It keeps old racist/sexist people from descriminating workers. That is a great positive. But I think as our society gets older and racism fades, I think AA should be toned down little by little. There are pros and cons for it, just like anything. And that's why I just can't come to a positive 'for' or 'against' stand point on it.[/color][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]One thing about AA that bothers me is that it discriminates by race. I can totally understand you wanting to give the kid who was born in inner Detroit, because he obviously had disadvantages. But what if that kid was a white male?

Ok, in the scenario where both of the kids are competing for the same job i have a problem how the underqualified kid still has a shot against the qualified kid. Qualifications are the only things that should matter, race shouldn't even be a question in the hiring process. Partly due to AA it is. And what if the underqualified kid does get the job? Then what about the qualified kid? He worked just as hard! His only flaw was not being a minority.

I totally understand that America isn't the perfect land of opportunity. I just have problem believing that AA is the answer. I believe that instead of having AA we shoud just spend money to better those school systems that are really sh***y. That's another thing that bothers me. I believe that all public schools should be equal throughout the nation. I think we need to spend more money in education, give teachers higher salaries, buy new books, buy computers, buy a lot of stuff. AA is only ignoring the wound that is our public education system.

Yes, AA helps make sex and race not be negative factors, instead they are now positive factors. I believe they shouldn't be factors at all. It's just ridiculous to me.

Ok, that's all i can think of for the moment, later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gun Preacher
aa is good now you dont think that much about race, cause the white kid can always get a good job for being white.

now what about me i'm black you think if it aa was never thought of would i even be able to go to collage and what about the kid from the middle east with whats going on in iraq do you think that kid would even be looked at as a collage applicant.

you dont understand AA unless your a member of a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=Sienna]Affirmative Action is all about eliminating past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Most of the opposition to it is based on the misconception that it?s causing reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences. Last I heard, less than 2% of the employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases.

Besides anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or education qualifications. So it?s not a free ticket to getting the job. It?s more of making sure everyone has the chance to apply and not be turned away just because of race, sex or disability.

It?s only natural that people are going to object since they are either afraid it will keep them from getting a job or in the case of some companies, they don?t want to spend the money making their work environment accessible to others. It cost money to retrofit an office to accommodate say someone in a wheelchair. So I'm in favor of it. [/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[font=trebuchet ms]I can understand the benefits of AA, believe me. However, my dad is one of the white males that got the short end of the stick.

He worked at Procter & Gamble for over 25 years, and was at the point to where he was the head of the toothpaste line he worked on. One of his jobs was to teach the newcomers how to run the different machinery, blah blah blah. Well, most of these newcomers were immigrants from various places, barely able to speak or understand English. He would be teaching him one week, then the next week they would be his boss. A lot of the senior employees were being forced into retirement by the company and dad was on the list. He never got the manager job he wanted, but a bunch of the immigrants that hadn't even been there for a few months got the jobs. There were promotions being posted that were only availible for a certain race and soforth.

So, my father left, believing that the company was setting itself up for failure by letting all these newbies take the important jobs. He obviously had major problems with the way the company was run, and I believe he was justified.[/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Gun Preacher, you shouldn't assume i'm not a member of a minority. I mean...if you can tell i'm caucasian just from my orange font then that's saying something. And by the way, i'm not. Also please work on your grammar, i could barely understand what you said.

Ok, if affirmative action only makes it so that race and sex aren't negatives then i'm definitely for it. But if it ever does make it a positive then i'm against it. And i also stand by my statement about the school systems. I think instead of helping the individual person that rises out of the slums of a rotten school you should help the school so that it's not so pathetic anymore. As far as i know AA just ignores the true problem. But then again...i'm not exactly the president of the organization.

And as for the deal with RiflesAtRecess, that definitely does suck and it makes me a little angry that that would happen. But just so you guys know, i'm not hypocritical. If those immigrants were the qualified ones then they should have got the job. But if the guy's dad was the qualified one then it's definitely unfair.

I read a story a while back in English, it was very interesting. It talked about a society of people where everybody was equal. Anybody who was dumb was made smarter. Anybody that was smart was made dumber. Extraordinary people were given handicaps! The smart guy in the story had a hearing aid in his ear that played a random loud sound every 20 or so seconds so that he could never concentrate. The entire society promoted mediocrity. Of course the idea of this society is absolutely absurd which was the whole point of the story. Equality isn't some great thing that we should all fight for. People cannot all be equal. The only thing that we can and should help is where we start. I believe we should all start equal, not end equal.

Later.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
I totally understand that America isn't the perfect land of opportunity. I just have problem believing that AA is the answer. I believe that instead of having AA we shoud just spend money to better those school systems that are really sh***y. That's another thing that bothers me. I believe that all public schools should be equal throughout the nation. I think we need to spend more money in education, give teachers higher salaries, buy new books, buy computers, buy a lot of stuff. AA is only ignoring the wound that is our public education system.[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Everyone knows that throwing money at the problem won't help things. It never will, and it never does. People have tried for decades to give money to schools in the hopes they'd improve. In the end, the people are the same, and no one really wants to change anyway. Yes, buying new and better stuff would help, but I went to a school that was 10 years behind technologically, and it was the best middle school in the county -- far behind those rich kids as far as our stuff went.

The wound in our public education system can and never will be fixed through money alone. And no one's really acknowledged the fact that all minorities are more economically crippled than Whites -- everyone plays that fact down as if it doesn't matter, and they expect minorities to perform as if we all have an equal playing field.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Everyone knows that throwing money at the problem won't help things. It never will, and it never does. People have tried for decades to give money to schools in the hopes they'd improve. In the end, the people are the same, and no one really wants to change anyway. Yes, buying new and better stuff would help, but I went to a school that was 10 years behind technologically, and it was the best middle school in the county -- far behind those rich kids as far as our stuff went.

The wound in our public education system can and never will be fixed through money alone. And no one's really acknowledged the fact that all minorities are more economically crippled than Whites -- everyone plays that fact down as if it doesn't matter, and they expect minorities to perform as if we all have an equal playing field.[/size][/QUOTE][COLOR=RoyalBlue][B]Retribution[/B] is right pouring more money into schools did nothing but benefit those who were currently attending the school. Affirmative Action would have never been necessary if people didn?t discriminate against people based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Without it companies and schools could go back to refusing to even allow people in the building or a part of it.

I have no problem with reducing or getting rid of Affirmative Action so long as the government makes sure the laws allow leeway to protect anyone from being discriminated against in the future. And not just those who fit the Affirmative Action guideline. They should include everyone. [/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with reducing the scope of affirmative action because it really doesn't have the same need it did when it first came into being. The Supreme Court has recognized that reverse discrimination is a real phenomenon that happens everyday, which is unfair. If I get better grades and have better test scores and more extracurricular activities I'm more involved in, I deserve to get into the college. I don't think anyone should get into a college just because they're a minority with semi-decent grades. The system needs to be based on merit, not handouts, which is what this country was based on. If a school is bad, transfer to a district magnet school or apply for a scholarship to a private school or something. It's not possible to decide where you're born into, but if you work hard you can rise above it, and that's the way it should be. You shouldn't knock someone more qualified off the list just because you fit a quota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Anime Elf']...It's not possible to decide where you're born into, but if you work hard you can rise above it, and that's the way it should be. You shouldn't knock someone more qualified off the list just because you fit a quota.[/quote]
[size=1]I guess you missed the part where I posted.

And I've never heard such a blind, idealistic statement in my life. "If you work hard, you can do anything!" I'm sure that works in Pokemon, but not in real life where you are bound by socioeconomic factors completely out of your control. Sure, working hard might work for 5% of people less fortunate than yourself, but the reality is that it just doesn't work. Not everyone has an equal playing field, and Affirmative Action seeks to level it a bit.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I guess you missed the part where I posted.

And I've never heard such a blind, idealistic statement in my life. "If you work hard, you can do anything!" I'm sure that works in Pokemon, but not in real life where you are bound by socioeconomic factors completely out of your control. Sure, working hard might work for 5% of people less fortunate than yourself, but the reality is that it just doesn't work. Not everyone has an equal playing field, and Affirmative Action seeks to level it a bit.[/size][/QUOTE]

[size=1]Hrm. I'm going to tell you guys a story.

I grew up in a trailer park until I was about 10. My dad left us before I was 1, we lived with my aunt until my mom married my daddy's best friend, and then we lived in an even smaller trailer, 'cause my step-dad was a laborer and couldn't afford a house. Mom homeschooled me until the fourth grade because there of money issues, and we moved every 4-6 months so step-dad could find more work. I was supposedly a lost cause.

Once we moved to GA and she put me in school, it was horrible. Jackson County has the worst school system in GA, and GA is ranked second lowest in the country.

However, though I had all those factors working against me, I'm now a junior doing exceptional on my schoolwork [I am once again homeschooled, but I took my work into my own hands years ago and teach myself now. I GOT MYSELF A JOB to pay for a tutor for any classes I needed help on], and I have done exceedingly well on all SAT practice tests, with around an average of 670 on mathmatics and 720 on verbal. I am taking the SAT June third.

But now that we live in an actual house and my step-dad has worked hard to make his way to vice-president of his constuction company, AA could possibly negetively affect me, though I am one who worked hard despite my living conditions.

How is that for un-fair? What about the hard working people like me?

I hate people who sit around and complain about thier lives. Anyone can read a book, reguardless of where you are. Anyone can teach themselves, most people can get help.

AA works in theory, but so do most things. Hell, even [i]communism[/i] works in theory.

Life should be less about hand-outs and more about hard work.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE]And I've never heard such a blind, idealistic statement in my life. "If you work hard, you can do anything!" I'm sure that works in Pokemon, but not in real life where you are bound by socioeconomic factors completely out of your control. Sure, working hard might work for 5% of people less fortunate than yourself, but the reality is that it just doesn't work. Not everyone has an equal playing field, and Affirmative Action seeks to level it a bit.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm sorry I'm idealistic. Or maybe its because it worked for [B]both[/B] my parents who rose from less than ideal conditions growing up (to put it nicely) to where they are today. I benefit from Affirmative Action and I think it's lived past its time. I want to be accepted based on merit and not to fill a quota, and I know I will be because I hate using the race card. I feel its a degrading way to get what you want because you're having people judge you by the color of your skin or your gender, economic standing, etc. and not by your actual merit.

Oh, and I did read your pst about how someone with worse grades and lower test scores should beat out someone with better grades and higher test scores because they grew up in inner city Detroit and not New England. If someone worked that hard to get where they were, I highly doubt they would want a handout. And even if they can't get into Princeton or Harvard, I'm sure there are a few other good schools somewhere in the country, just maybe. But then again, I may just be idealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=sakurasuka][size=1]Hrm. I'm going to tell you guys a story.

I grew up in a trailer park until I was about 10. My dad left us before I was 1, we lived with my aunt until my mom married my daddy's best friend, and then we lived in an even smaller trailer, 'cause my step-dad was a laborer and couldn't afford a house. Mom homeschooled me until the fourth grade because there of money issues, and we moved every 4-6 months so step-dad could find more work. I was supposedly a lost cause.

Once we moved to GA and she put me in school, it was horrible. Jackson County has the worst school system in GA, and GA is ranked second lowest in the country.

However, though I had all those factors working against me, I'm now a junior doing exceptional on my schoolwork [I am once again homeschooled, but I took my work into my own hands years ago and teach myself now. I GOT MYSELF A JOB to pay for a tutor for any classes I needed help on], and I have done exceedingly well on all SAT practice tests, with around an average of 670 on mathmatics and 720 on verbal. I am taking the SAT June third.

But now that we live in an actual house and my step-dad has worked hard to make his way to vice-president of his constuction company, AA could possibly negetively affect me, though I am one who worked hard despite my living conditions.

How is that for un-fair? What about the hard working people like me?

I hate people who sit around and complain about thier lives. Anyone can read a book, reguardless of where you are. Anyone can teach themselves, most people can get help.

AA works in theory, but so do most things. Hell, even [i]communism[/i] works in theory.

Life should be less about hand-outs and more about hard work.[/size][/QUOTE]
[size=1]It's great that you're the exception to the rule, sakurasuka. It's great that there are people like you -- unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that in all cases. Sure, it worked for you. And Anime Elf. There's two. For every two, I bet there are hundreds, possibly thousands of cases where they worked hard, but in the end it just didn't end happily ever after.

I'm not advocating people who sit around and complain about life. I'm advocating rewarding those who work just as hard as you did, but for one reason or another, things didn't work out. For one reason or another, they didn't have a hard-working stepfather/father. For one reason or another, their mother couldn't homeschool them. For one reason or another, they had to get a job not to pay for tutoring, but to pay the rent that their irresponsible parents didn't pay.

Basically, your anecdote is awesome, but doesn't apply across the board. It's not a valid rebuttal of Affirmative Action.

[QUOTE=Anime Elf]Oh, I'm sorry I'm idealistic. Or maybe its because it worked for [B]both[/B] my parents who rose from less than ideal conditions growing up (to put it nicely) to where they are today. I benefit from Affirmative Action and I think it's lived past its time. I want to be accepted based on merit and not to fill a quota, and I know I will be because I hate using the race card. I feel its a degrading way to get what you want because you're having people judge you by the color of your skin or your gender, economic standing, etc. and not by your actual merit.

Oh, and I did read your pst about how someone with worse grades and lower test scores should beat out someone with better grades and higher test scores because they grew up in inner city Detroit and not New England. If someone worked that hard to get where they were, I highly doubt they would want a handout. And even if they can't get into Princeton or Harvard, I'm sure there are a few other good schools somewhere in the country, just maybe. But then again, I may just be idealistic.[/QUOTE]
Once again, it's great that things worked out for your two parents. However, your two parents don't reflect the majority of the population. Furthermore, Affirmative Action is not outdated, as there is still discrimination in the world. A study was conducted where two fake resumes were created, and on one, a "white" name (i.e. Bob Smith) was given to the fictional character, and on the other was a "black" name (i.e. Dante Johnson). This was done for every possible position of several Fortune 500 companies. In the end, despite equal credentials, the "white" character was chosen in an overwhelming majority. It's not like the days of racism (conscious or unconscious) are over. We're not living in a golden age.

I'm sure a person who worked hard would not object to a "hand out"; moreover, I don't think you have the right to speak for them. I understand it's how [i]you[/i] feel, but you don't speak for everyone.

Affirmative Action is designed to pull minorities out of the ditch they've been kicked and left in. It's not "fair" that a white guy doesn't get a job because of AA where a black guy gets it. However, that white guy would probably get more acceptances than the black guy (let's say 10 compared to a minority's 4). AA's about undoing the cycle of poverty and discrimination, not just giving people hand-outs willy nilly.

Yes, you're idealistic for thinking that in America we're all equal and we can all accomplish anything we set our minds to. Sure, Andrew Carnegie was a self-made man who went from rags to riches, but he was the [i]isolated case in the sea of millions of poor workers.[/i] You're happy little stories about how your parents surmounted impossible odds to become successful carries no weight in this debate.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Affirmative Action has overstepped its boundaries in today's day and age.

[QUOTE][B]Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Docket Number: 76-811
Abstract

Argued:
October 12, 1977

Decided:
June 26, 1978

Subjects: Civil Rights: Affirmative Action[/B]

[B]Facts of the Case [/B]
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

[B]Question Presented [/B]
Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

[B]Conclusion [/B]
No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Adarand Constructors v. Pena
515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Docket Number: 93-1841
Abstract

Argued:
January 17, 1995

Decided:
June 12, 1995

Subjects: Civil Rights: Affirmative Action
[/B]
[B]Facts of the Case [/B]
Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

[B]Question Presented [/B]
Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

[B]Conclusion[/B]
Yes. Overruling Metro Broadcasting (497 US 547), the Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review. In other words, they "must serve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest." The Court added that compensation programs which are truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards. However, since race is not a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage and the award of favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be judged under the strict scrutiny standard. Moreover, even proof of past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or future injury. The Court remanded for a determination of whether the Transportation Department's program satisfied strict scrutiny. [/QUOTE]

These are just two examples that came to mind of how the Supreme Court has recognized that reverse discrimination exists in America today. As for a handout, to me it would be like walking up to a well-off businessman, who got to where he was by hard work, eating somewhere fairly nice, and then having someone offer him some money to buy food because he's black. That's a bit insulting isn't it?

Anyway, I'm sorry you feel that minorities are virtually unable to escape they life they were born into without federal mandated help. This isn't the pre-Civil Rights Movement in America. There are a whole lot of ways for people to raise themselves up without needed to be given a handout. The EEOC comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Retribution, we can do anything we set our minds to. You misunderstood the statement, i don't believe he said you can do the same thing any other person can with the same amount of effort. Maybe you should go back and check, you seem awful confused by it.

The fact of the matter is that minorities (or anybody for that matter) born in a crappy area is going to have to work harder to get out. That's the way it should be. If you're born trash and grow up trash then your kids are going to be trash because you didn't care. If you're born trash and grow out of it into something better then your kids will be a little better and so on and so forth. This is the only way that we'll ever destroy poverty. If everybody had that mindset then our nation would be much better off. Of course the chances of that ever happening are slim to none and even if it did happen the process would take a very long time.

I recall somebody saying earlier that if you put money in the school systems they wouldn't improve. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That's like saying a hungry man wouldn't buy food if he had money. If schools had more money they would improve. If we made the salaries better for teachers then more people would want to become teachers and we would have better teachers. If we had better teachers our kids would be smarter and we could raise the ridiculously low standards in our education systems. Things WOULD get better. AA is not helping any of this. AA is simply promoting mediocrity. If a black guy was working his a** off and then found out about AA he'd maybe take it a little easier. If a black guy was working his a** off and didn't find out about AA he'd continue working his a** off. It's as simple as that.

Discrimination of race or sex is a horrible thing, nobody will argue with ya. The problem is that AA promotes discrimination by saying that black people deserve handouts because they are black.

One o' these days discrimination will be non-existent because we'll all be gray. That'll be the day.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Anime Elf]These are just two examples that came to mind of how the Supreme Court has recognized that reverse discrimination exists in America today. As for a handout, to me it would be like walking up to a well-off businessman, who got to where he was by hard work, eating somewhere fairly nice, and then having someone offer him some money to buy food because he's black. That's a bit insulting isn't it?

Anyway, I'm sorry you feel that minorities are virtually unable to escape they life they were born into without federal mandated help. This isn't the pre-Civil Rights Movement in America. There are a whole lot of ways for people to raise themselves up without needed to be given a handout. The EEOC comes to mind.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]I don't approve of letting someone severly underqualified beating out a white guy simply because of their race. I believe that if there are to people with about the same credentials, [i]that's[/i] when AA comes into the picture.

I'm sorry your blind to the socioeconomic cycle. It is [i]much, much[/i] harder for a minority to rise up to the level of most whites, and I'm saying they should have help to get there, as they'd have to work harder just to be on the same playing field. It's possible for minorities to escape the life they were born into, but it's highly improbable, and the government should be there to help the people who are trying to get out of the ditch. I honestly don't see what's so wrong about this except for your whole "But it'd make them feel bad!" argument. Very few minorities feel as if their pride has been hurt when they get a job due to AA.
[quote name='The13thMan']Retribution, we can do anything we set our minds to. You misunderstood the statement, i don't believe he said you can do the same thing any other person can with the same amount of effort. Maybe you should go back and check, you seem awful confused by it.[/quote]
I understood what he said. I also don't honestly believe that you can do anything you set your mind to. Humans are finite beings with limitation, and unfortunately, bias still holds minorities down from achieving as much as a white man. This is the simple truth. I'm also saying that when you write off minorities as not trying hard enough, you're being completely foolish and blind to the factors that keep them chained to the lives they lead. Not everyone can become an Andrew Carnegie -- he was an isolated case in the sea of millions.

[QUOTE]The fact of the matter is that minorities (or anybody for that matter) born in a crappy area is going to have to work harder to get out. That's the way it should be. If you're born trash and grow up trash then your kids are going to be trash because you didn't care. If you're born trash and grow out of it into something better then your kids will be a little better and so on and so forth. This is the only way that we'll ever destroy poverty. If everybody had that mindset then our nation would be much better off. Of course the chances of that ever happening are slim to none and even if it did happen the process would take a very long time.[/QUOTE]
This is how it should be? That some people are less fortunate than others and are forced to work much harder just to get to the starting line of success? It's the way it should be when an "trashy" child is born? I guess I'm mostly objecting to your diction here.

You're right -- we should all be working harder to become better, and these are the people I'd like to help. If they're making the conscious effort to become better and rise out of poverty, I want to help them through the glass ceiling.

[QUOTE]I recall somebody saying earlier that if you put money in the school systems they wouldn't improve. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That's like saying a hungry man wouldn't buy food if he had money. If schools had more money they would improve. If we made the salaries better for teachers then more people would want to become teachers and we would have better teachers. If we had better teachers our kids would be smarter and we could raise the ridiculously low standards in our education systems. Things WOULD get better. AA is not helping any of this. AA is simply promoting mediocrity. If a black guy was working his a** off and then found out about AA he'd maybe take it a little easier. If a black guy was working his a** off and didn't find out about AA he'd continue working his a** off. It's as simple as that.[QUOTE]
A public school in the area got one million dollars from none other than Michael Jordan. This particular school has some of the lowest scores in the area. The one million dollars did nothing to change things. Sure, it [i]helped[/i], but throwing money to a school and doing nothing else isn't helping anyone. We can throw money at impoverished countries in Africa, and we have been doing that for decades. However, there is no improvement in standard of living over there. It's the exact same dynamic. I agree that teachers should be paid more, and that offering increased salary would help, and that newer learning materials would help too, but the first thing you must change is the minds of the students. If they still don't care, and now they go to a ritzy school, nothing willl change.

AA is giving people a shot at things they thought they'd never have, not making them slack off. No black person I know is slacking off because they know they can make it into colllege on AA. If anything, AA is motivating the students who are already academically-oriented to keep going, and that's what I want it to do. I don't want it giving some 2.3 GPA kid a Harvard acceptance letter just because he's black. I want a 3.7 GPA kid getting that benefit.

I know I'm working my *** off even though AA will help me. I could get into Princeton without it, and I'm not slacking off because of it.

[QUOTE]Discrimination of race or sex is a horrible thing, nobody will argue with ya. The problem is that AA promotes discrimination by saying that black people deserve handouts because they are black.[/QUOTE]
Because they are black and have been (and still are) discriminated against and need a way helping hand out of the rut they're in.

[QUOTE]One o' these days discrimination will be non-existent because we'll all be gray. That'll be the day.[/QUOTE]
I sort of want everyone to meet on the same level playing field, and we can do away with AA. I think that's the entire point of it.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE]I'm sorry your blind to the socioeconomic cycle. It is much, much harder for a minority to rise up to the level of most whites, and I'm saying they should have help to get there, as they'd have to work harder just to be on the same playing field. It's possible for minorities to escape the life they were born into, but it's highly improbable, and the government should be there to help the people who are trying to get out of the ditch. I honestly don't see what's so wrong about this except for your whole "But it'd make them feel bad!" argument. Very few minorities feel as if their pride has been hurt when they get a job due to AA.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm blind to the same cycle both my parents rose from? Right. Anyway, it's easier than ever before for people to be insured of job security and equal opportunities et al because of things like the EEOC and the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not the responsibility of the government to raise every single person from poverty to the middle class. People have to take their own initiative. You've been given examples of how that has worked for people on this very board, showing it is more than possible for more than just former world's richest man Andrew Carnegie. Even if people only had a fraction of his success, they would be out of poverty. I never said it would be easy, that's why I used the term "hard work," not "equal work." It almost sounds like you're discriminating against non-beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. If two people are of equal merit academically, then that's where extracirricular activities come in. If the two people are not of equal academic merit, and they're both trying to get into the same academic institution, the person with the higher grades and test scores should get in, despite race. Even if its the difference between and 3.7 and a 3.9, the 3.9 person should get in. If you want to reject the academically superior candidate for an academic institution just because the one with lower grades is black, that's reverse discrimination.

[QUOTE]I understood what he said. I also don't honestly believe that you can do anything you set your mind to. Humans are finite beings with limitation, and unfortunately, bias still holds minorities down from achieving as much as a white man. This is the simple truth. I'm also saying that when you write off minorities as not trying hard enough, you're being completely foolish and blind to the factors that keep them chained to the lives they lead. Not everyone can become an Andrew Carnegie -- he was an isolated case in the sea of millions.[/QUOTE]

Setting your mind to do something and actually putting forth the effort to accomplish it are two dinstinct, yet not exclusive, things. Factors? Sakurasuka and I have already told you how minorities can rise above those factors and a young age, escape the cycle if you will. You're writing off minorities as if minorities can't help themselves and live in a country that actively persecutes them. Maybe you aren't thinking about the United States of America.

[QUOTE]This is how it should be? That some people are less fortunate than others and are forced to work much harder just to get to the starting line of success? It's the way it should be when an "trashy" child is born? I guess I'm mostly objecting to your diction here.

You're right -- we should all be working harder to become better, and these are the people I'd like to help. If they're making the conscious effort to become better and rise out of poverty, I want to help them through the glass ceiling.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is how it should be. People should work to better their living conditions despite what they were born into. Not doing anything to better yourself is a decision that you have to live with the consequences of. If they're working hard, they won't need Affirmative Action because they'll have the same skill sets as every other qualified person applying for that particular job. Knocking out some equally qualified person because you're a member of a protected class is horrible and just basing a decision based on something other than merit. It's like making one form of discrimination illegal so another one can be legal, and that just seems moronic.

[QUOTE]A public school in the area got one million dollars from none other than Michael Jordan. This particular school has some of the lowest scores in the area. The one million dollars did nothing to change things. Sure, it helped, but throwing money to a school and doing nothing else isn't helping anyone. We can throw money at impoverished countries in Africa, and we have been doing that for decades. However, there is no improvement in standard of living over there. It's the exact same dynamic. I agree that teachers should be paid more, and that offering increased salary would help, and that newer learning materials would help too, but the first thing you must change is the minds of the students. If they still don't care, and now they go to a ritzy school, nothing willl change.

AA is giving people a shot at things they thought they'd never have, not making them slack off. No black person I know is slacking off because they know they can make it into colllege on AA. If anything, AA is motivating the students who are already academically-oriented to keep going, and that's what I want it to do. I don't want it giving some 2.3 GPA kid a Harvard acceptance letter just because he's black. I want a 3.7 GPA kid getting that benefit.

I know I'm working my *** off even though AA will help me. I could get into Princeton without it, and I'm not slacking off because of it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so giving schools a handout didn't change their performance, where hard (or should I say harder) work, and not a bigger handout would have. Affirmative Action isn't giving people a shot at something they didn't have before. It gives minorities preferential treatment over others. As of now, minorities do not have to have the same level of performance because of Affirmative Action. Instead, they can do less work and get the same place. Affirmative Action doesn't motivate minorities to work harder. If anything, removing Affirmative Action would make minorities work harder to prove they are more better, more qualified, than everyone else, which is what I want, people working harder and producing better output to show they're more qualified to get where they got. I too am working hard and not relying on school handouts to get into a good school and I don't want race to be a factor in the admissions process, which I can do something about. I want to be accepted based on my grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities just like everyone else (a level playing field) not because I'm a minority (coming up to the plate with the pitcher throwing it to me slow and straight because I'm a minority).

[QUOTE]I sort of want everyone to meet on the same level playing field, and we can do away with AA. I think that's the entire point of it.[/QUOTE]

Affirmative Action creates a whole new discrimination, placing people on an unequal playing field. Making everyone the same was the point of Affirmative Action, but it's gone overboard and it's causing dicrimination, something it sought to prevent, which I think means it's overstayed its welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I don't approve of letting someone severly underqualified beating out a white guy simply because of their race. I believe that if there are to people with about the same credentials, [i]that's[/i] when AA comes into the picture.

I'm sorry your blind to the socioeconomic cycle. It is [i]much, much[/i] harder for a minority to rise up to the level of most whites, and I'm saying they should have help to get there, as they'd have to work harder just to be on the same playing field. It's possible for minorities to escape the life they were born into, but it's highly improbable, and the government should be there to help the people who are trying to get out of the ditch. I honestly don't see what's so wrong about this except for your whole "But it'd make them feel bad!" argument. Very few minorities feel as if their pride has been hurt when they get a job due to AA.

I understood what he said. I also don't honestly believe that you can do anything you set your mind to. Humans are finite beings with limitation, and unfortunately, bias still holds minorities down from achieving as much as a white man. This is the simple truth. I'm also saying that when you write off minorities as not trying hard enough, you're being completely foolish and blind to the factors that keep them chained to the lives they lead. Not everyone can become an Andrew Carnegie -- he was an isolated case in the sea of millions.


This is how it should be? That some people are less fortunate than others and are forced to work much harder just to get to the starting line of success? It's the way it should be when an "trashy" child is born? I guess I'm mostly objecting to your diction here.

You're right -- we should all be working harder to become better, and these are the people I'd like to help. If they're making the conscious effort to become better and rise out of poverty, I want to help them through the glass ceiling.

A public school in the area got one million dollars from none other than Michael Jordan. This particular school has some of the lowest scores in the area. The one million dollars did nothing to change things. Sure, it [i]helped[/i], but throwing money to a school and doing nothing else isn't helping anyone. We can throw money at impoverished countries in Africa, and we have been doing that for decades. However, there is no improvement in standard of living over there. It's the exact same dynamic. I agree that teachers should be paid more, and that offering increased salary would help, and that newer learning materials would help too, but the first thing you must change is the minds of the students. If they still don't care, and now they go to a ritzy school, nothing willl change.

AA is giving people a shot at things they thought they'd never have, not making them slack off. No black person I know is slacking off because they know they can make it into colllege on AA. If anything, AA is motivating the students who are already academically-oriented to keep going, and that's what I want it to do. I don't want it giving some 2.3 GPA kid a Harvard acceptance letter just because he's black. I want a 3.7 GPA kid getting that benefit.

I know I'm working my *** off even though AA will help me. I could get into Princeton without it, and I'm not slacking off because of it.


Because they are black and have been (and still are) discriminated against and need a way helping hand out of the rut they're in.


I sort of want everyone to meet on the same level playing field, and we can do away with AA. I think that's the entire point of it.[/size][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
I believe if two people have the same credentials that's where the interview comes in. Not AA. AA just makes it harder for the white man to get the job when the credentials are the same. In an interview a person can determine the person's personality. If the guy's a stereotypical black punk then he shouldn't get the job over a decent white guy. If the guy's a normal black dude and he's cool he should get the job over the white trash loser. It's that simple, race shouldn't matter.

I do believe you can do anything you set your mind to. But i also realize that just because you set your mind to it doesn't guarantee success. And that's how it should be, of course.

If they don't succeed then they didn't try hard enough, that's all there is to it. I'm not saying that they didn't try as hard or harder than a white guy, i'm simply saying that with a certain amount of extra effort would have gotten them where they wanted to be.

Anyone can become an Andrew Carnegie, that's the point. It sure as hell won't be easy, and you'll probably even need luck on your side, but it is possible. People have the potential.

When i said that's how it should be i meant something else. I meant that if people are worse off than other people then they should have to work harder than people that are better off. I didn't say that there should be people better off. Although, some people being better off is a good thing to a certain extent. Like...let's say there is a genius to be born into one of two families. Family A is rich and can provide the kid a great education and turn him into somebody that will change the world. Family B can't do any of those things. Which family should the genius be born into? To better benefit society as a whole it should definitely be Family A.

There are better ways to help them through the "glass ceiling" other than knocking somebody else under it. Especially if that someone else can better destroy that glass ceiling than the other guy.

Yes, i totally agree that we have to change the minds of the students. And what better way to do that than to better the people that will affect those minds for 13 years of their lives? Also, the process where money helps our school systems will take more time than what's been given in the michael jordan case. And hell...i sure would've liked it if jordon gave my school the money, i sure would have done better. Also if you give the schools more money the playing fields equal out a little bit. That way the stupid kids can remain stupid and the smart kids can get smart.

AA is not the answer to our problem, it's only a bandaid on a broken leg.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1]Race shouldn't be a problem, but it is. The sad fact is that the black guy doesn't get the interview -- he doesn't make it that far if he has an obviously black name. I think I posted the study conducted and the findings.

I'm not bothering with further back-and-forth fruitless argument with neither side gaining any ground.

However, I'm curious -- if AA isn't the answer, what is? Will colorblindness help minorities (since that is the primary point of AA) more than Affirmative Action?[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Race shouldn't be a problem, but it is. The sad fact is that the black guy doesn't get the interview -- he doesn't make it that far if he has an obviously black name. I think I posted the study conducted and the findings.

I'm not bothering with further back-and-forth fruitless argument with neither side gaining any ground.

However, I'm curious -- if AA isn't the answer, what is? Will colorblindness help minorities (since that is the primary point of AA) more than Affirmative Action?[/size][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I agree with what you said about the further back and forth fruitless argument with neither side gaining any ground. Of course that's how it usually is when two people feel strongly about a subject. And there's nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact i'm glad that i can find people like that.

I think that AA should make it so that he gets the interview instead of the job. Or maybe make it so that the person who hires people is a 3rd party who isn't racist. Maybe we could make a new job for people like that? ::shrug::

I do think colorblindness would help minorities. That way it'll solely depend on who the person is as far as personality and qualification goes.

Later.


[/COLOR] [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]I think that, for a job interview, the interviewer couldn't see the interviewee at all. They'll just have a resume and a chat with someone over the phone or something like that. That way, they could only go off of what's on the resume until it's time to choose a person. Perhaps that would level the playing field a bit further.

This kind of reminds me of something my sister said a few weeks ago. She was driving home and I was in the passenger's seat. We drove by a sign that said "Senior Citizen Trailer Park" and had an arrow to the road that led into the place. My sister scoffed and said, "Y'know, if we made an 'Ages 18-24 Trailer Park', people would be pissed at us". Because we'd be leaving out the senior citizens.

My point is that people already have a little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment. Senior citizens can already live anywhere they want. Why do they need their own trailer park? And why do minorities need their own little club? It's kind of like the old days, when we were all young and mostly innocent. Kids would make up their own little clubs and the kids left out would cry because they couldn't be in the group. AA is just making a little group for minorities to be in and leaving the people qualified for the spot (not saying that minorities can't be qualified, but I hope you get my meaning) out.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×