Is Affirmative Action Insulting?

  • 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -
+ Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business",[2] usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

Is that insulting to people who happen to fall into underrepresented groups who have worked hard to ensure their resume or application is as strong as it could be? Is it insulting to individuals in positions in which hiring is a part of their job description? Isn't the very essence of affirmative action patronizing to individuals who may be subjected to its advantages?
#2 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34143 posts) -

Affirmitive action is basically just reverse racism/sexism/whatever. I don't think it is "insulting" but the idea is definintely screwy.

#3 Posted by Omni-Slash (54404 posts) -
It should be insulting.....but it's not to those that use and or agree with it....
#4 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

#5 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -
It should be insulting.....but it's not to those that use and or agree with it....Omni-Slash
Why do you think that is?
#6 Posted by cheese_game619 (13316 posts) -

Affirmitive action is basically just reverse racism/sexism/whatever. I don't think it is "insulting" but the idea is definintely screwy.

DJ-Lafleur
it isnt reverse to me as a white male not that im complaining i suppose its nice that people consider me at an advantage for simply being born like this
#7 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

XaosII
Why isn't it insulting to assume that underrepresented groups require extra help to get jobs? Why shouldn't employers look at a candidate based simply on the merits of their qualifications? It also assumes employers can't separate social issues from professional qualifications. If you disagree with that stance, please explain why.
#8 Posted by cheese_game619 (13316 posts) -

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

XaosII
if i werent born like this however i would consider it insulting i want to get a job because im the best choice not because im a good choice with a different skin tone
#9 Posted by Franklinstein (7014 posts) -
I think it used to be necessary to counteract strong racial bias. However, I'm not sure about it's continuance today. (And I mean that literally, I'm actually just not sure, I don't know if it's still needed or not)
#10 Posted by Lightning_fan (282 posts) -
Nope, life is not fair for many people. It is leveling the playing field. Some people struggle in the inner city and have to teach themselves alot of the concepts that kids in the suburban settings have fed to them. Also is it fair that some people have high IQs and do not have to work as hard to achieve the same results? Nope...
#11 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
It has always struck me as something very odd. In a nation where attaining "equality among all" is an extremely valued goal, and where racism and sexism have been subverted by revolutionary individuals... we bring out a piece of legislation that, essentially, admits that there is a discernable difference between the straight caucasian male and all the other groups representing ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and heritage. If we are all equal, then why are there different standards applied depending on certain criteria? Shouldn't we all be treated equally as we are all human? Shouldn't the most qualified person for the job be the one chosen for it?
#12 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"]Nope, life is not fair for many people. It is leveling the playing field. Some people struggle in the inner city and have to teach themselves alot of the concepts that kids in the suburban settings have fed to them. Also is it fair that some people have high IQs and do not have to work as hard to achieve the same results? Nope...

So you'd rather make life less "fair" for people who are more qualified, and that's okay? Even if those people are better suited for a position? How is the playing field leveled? Are all underrepresented individuals inherently less likely to get a job, even if their qualifications are the same? How do you justify your position?
#13 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

musicalmac

Why isn't it insulting to assume that underrepresented groups require extra help to get jobs? Why shouldn't employers look at a candidate based simply on the merits of their qualifications? It also assumes employers can't separate social issues from professional qualifications. If you disagree with that stance, please explain why.

Because underrepresented groups, as a percentage, are hired less as well. The point of AA, while flawed, is meant to fix that imbalance.

Qualifications for the job is still the top priority. Cases of minorities getting a job, being under qualified for that job, but maintaining it just due AA, are actually very, very rare. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irp.wisc.edu%2Fpublications%2Fdps%2Fpdfs%2Fdp111396.pdf&ei=Vgp3UIbDBOvV0gGJs4DADg&usg=AFQjCNHLuzmoFpiaSW16yv-VnZjbvgob8g&sig2=HIPfhwqYOritecQznEPwig&cad=rja

Employers can seperate social issues from prof. qualifications.... Just not very well, always.

The idea behind AA is sound, but its implemented rather poorly, imo.

#14 Posted by Franklinstein (7014 posts) -

It has always struck me as something very odd. In a nation where attaining "equality among all" is an extremely valued goal, and where racism and sexism have been subverted by revolutionary individuals... we bring out a piece of legislation that, essentially, admits that there is a discernable difference between the straight caucasian male and all the other groups representing ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and heritage. If we are all equal, then why are there different standards applied depending on certain criteria? Shouldn't we all be treated equally as we are all human? Shouldn't the most qualified person for the job be the one chosen for it? Zeviander
Anyone who says we are ACTUALLY equal right now is full of $h!t To say we SHOULD be equal is a different story, and to achieve equality, things like affirmative action are necessary for a period of time. I don't know what that period of time is, or if it is over with, but I really don't think it is. Just because some really revolutionary individuals helped the problem does not mean that the problem is completely fixed. Things are getting better yes, but are they fixed? If they aren't fixed, is affirmative action still necessary?

#15 Posted by Lightning_fan (282 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]It has always struck me as something very odd. In a nation where attaining "equality among all" is an extremely valued goal, and where racism and sexism have been subverted by revolutionary individuals... we bring out a piece of legislation that, essentially, admits that there is a discernable difference between the straight caucasian male and all the other groups representing ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and heritage. If we are all equal, then why are there different standards applied depending on certain criteria? Shouldn't we all be treated equally as we are all human? Shouldn't the most qualified person for the job be the one chosen for it?

Well for one in most cases both have similar GPAs... Admissions offices often take into account extra curricular activities and what not too is that unfair? I mean what is more impressive, a student in the inner city with a 2.9 who worked two jobs to help his family while attending school or a suburban student with a 3.0? Not everyone is in fair circumstances so just having a objective GPA admission process would be rather unfair as well.
#16 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

cheese_game619

if i werent born like this however i would consider it insulting i want to get a job because im the best choice not because im a good choice with a different skin tone

Employers will take a better employee, regardless of minority status, than simply comply with AA. No business will hurt their bottom line for the sake of doing so. You don't have much to worry if you are, in fact, "the best choice."

#17 Posted by cheese_game619 (13316 posts) -

[QUOTE="cheese_game619"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

XaosII

if i werent born like this however i would consider it insulting i want to get a job because im the best choice not because im a good choice with a different skin tone

Employers will take a better employee, regardless of minority status, than simply comply with AA. No business will hurt their bottom line for the sake of doing so. You don't have much to worry if you, in fact, "the best choice."

i absolutely am btw its true what they say about sequels
#18 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

Because underrepresented groups, as a percentage, are hired less as well. The point of AA, while flawed, is meant to fix that imbalance.

Qualifications for the job is still the top priority. Cases of minorities getting a job, being under qualified for that job, but maintaining it just due AA, are actually very, very rare. www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp111396.pd

Employers can seperate social issues from prof. qualifications.... Just not very well, always.

The idea behind AA is sound, but its implemented rather poorly, imo.

XaosII
Your link is broken, I'm intrigued, though skeptical of the actual impact the piece may have.

Yes or no -- is it sound to hire underrepresented individuals who are less qualified? Yes or no -- is it true that almost all individuals looking to hire new employees will choose the white person over an underrepresented minority individual if their qualifications are identical?
#19 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] Well for one in most cases both have similar GPAs... Admissions offices often take into account extra curricular activities and what not too is that unfair? I mean what is more impressive, a student in the inner city with a 2.9 who worked two jobs to help his family while attending school or a suburban student with a 3.0? Not everyone is in fair circumstances so just having a objective GPA admission process would be rather unfair as well.

Nobody can argue your points if they don't have anything tangible. And I'd caution you not to assume admission committees go by GPA alone, because you would be mistaken. Are you in college?
#20 Posted by General_X (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="musicalmac"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

XaosII

Why isn't it insulting to assume that underrepresented groups require extra help to get jobs? Why shouldn't employers look at a candidate based simply on the merits of their qualifications? It also assumes employers can't separate social issues from professional qualifications. If you disagree with that stance, please explain why.

Because underrepresented groups, as a percentage, are hired less as well. The point of AA, while flawed, is meant to fix that imbalance.

Qualifications for the job is still the top priority. Cases of minorities getting a job, being under qualified for that job, but maintaining it just due AA, are actually very, very rare. www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp111396.pd

Employers can seperate social issues from prof. qualifications.... Just not very well, always.

The idea behind AA is sound, but its implemented rather poorly, imo.

I have to agree with your stance, and I think a potential fix would be to levy punishment against companies who blantently hold race as a deciding factor between equally qualified individuals (one way to do this would be to use an auditing method). The way it is now, I do not agree with the AA legislation. The fact that an underqualified person from an under represented group might be hired over a more qualified candidate is quite insane. And I also believe that hiring a under-represented person based on their skin color over an EQUALLY qualified person based on their skin color is just as bad as the reverse.
#21 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
Try and justify it any way you want it is still racist.
#22 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

Your link is broken, I'm intrigued, though skeptical of the actual impact the piece may have.

Yes or no -- is it sound to hire underrepresented individuals who are less qualified? Yes or no -- is it true that almost all individuals looking to hire new employees will choose the white person over an underrepresented minority individual if their qualifications are identical?musicalmac

Sorry, it was a direct pdf link from google: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irp.wisc.edu%2Fpublications%2Fdps%2Fpdfs%2Fdp111396.pdf&ei=Vgp3UIbDBOvV0gGJs4DADg&usg=AFQjCNHLuzmoFpiaSW16yv-VnZjbvgob8g&sig2=HIPfhwqYOritecQznEPwig&cad=rja

The abstract says it simply:

In this paper we use micro-level data on employers and employees to investigate whether Affirmative Action procedures lead firms to hire minority or female employees who are less qualified than workers who might otherwise be hired. Our measures of qualifications include the educational attainment of the workers hired (both absolute and relative to job requirements), skill requirements of the job into which they are hired, and a variety of outcome measures that are presumably related to worker performance on the job. The analysis is based on a representative sample of over 3,200 employers in four major metropolitan areas in the United States. Our results show some evidence of lower educational qualifications among blacks and Hispanics hired under Affirmative Action, but not among white women. Further, our results show little evidence of substantially weaker job performance among most groups of minority and female Affirmative Action hires.Article

As for your questions:

If there is not a significant difference, then according to the data, yes it is sound to hire minorities who are less qualified.

No, most employees will not choose the white person simply because he is white, with all else being equal. Many white people are often given better opportunities and can frequently achieve higher levels of education - and that is why they can be better qualified. Assuming two employees are completely identical and there is no AA, then you can hire aperson based on a coin toss.

#23 Posted by Lightning_fan (282 posts) -
[QUOTE="musicalmac"][QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] Well for one in most cases both have similar GPAs... Admissions offices often take into account extra curricular activities and what not too is that unfair? I mean what is more impressive, a student in the inner city with a 2.9 who worked two jobs to help his family while attending school or a suburban student with a 3.0? Not everyone is in fair circumstances so just having a objective GPA admission process would be rather unfair as well.

Nobody can argue your points if they don't have anything tangible. And I'd caution you not to assume admission committees go by GPA alone, because you would be mistaken. Are you in college?

Exactly, if unrelated academic factors are not a factor such as clubs and sports than why should there not be other factors included in this as well such as economic background, race, gender etc.
#24 Posted by Marth6781 (2564 posts) -
Afirmative action doesn't proclaim that someone will be hired because they are a minority over someone who is more qualified. Affirmative action makes it so that people who would otherwise be looked over, are given a chance.
#25 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

I see AA as nothing more than reverse discrimination. It had a purpose in the past, but today it is outdated and does more harm than good. We should try to live in a color blind society, this does not mean we cannot be proud of our different ethniticities and cultures, but it should not be a determining factor.

We should see each other as fellow Americans, as fellow Humans. Not as "African Americans" or "Asian Americans" or "Jewish" or "Irish" or "Hispanic" or whatever. Only Americans. We are all Americans regardless of ethnicity.

#26 Posted by Marth6781 (2564 posts) -
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I see AA as nothing more than reverse discrimination. It had a purpose in the past, but today it is outdated and does more harm than good. We should try to live in a color blind society, this does not mean we cannot be proud of our different ethniticities and cultures, but it should not be a determining factor.

We should see each other as fellow Americans, as fellow Humans. Not as "African Americans" or "Asian Americans" or "Jewish" or "Irish" or "Hispanic" or whatever. Only Americans. We are all Americans regardless of ethnicity.

What does that mean? What would being a color blind society do? And racism and prejudice for minorities is still present to this day so the notion that AA only had a purpose in the past goes beyond me.
#27 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] Exactly, if unrelated academic factors are not a factor such as clubs and sports than why should there not be other factors included in this as well such as economic background, race, gender etc.

...those are all considered regardless of affirmative action.... Just trust me on this one...
Afirmative action doesn't proclaim that someone will be hired because they are a minority over someone who is more qualified. Affirmative action makes it so that people who would otherwise be looked over, are given a chance. Marth6781
Why would they have been looked over without AA?
#28 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

ainst companies who blantently hold race as a deciding factor between equally qualified individuals (one way to do this would be to use an auditing method). The way it is now, I do not agree with the AA legislation. The fact that an underqualified person from an under represented group might be hired over a more qualified candidate is quite insane. And I also believe that hiring a under-represented person based on their skin color over an EQUALLY qualified person based on their skin color is just as bad as the reverse.General_X

Except those instances are fairly rare. AA guidelines specifically prohibit hiring an unqualified worker solely based on their minority status. AA guidelines state to give preference to minority workers in the hiring process if they are comparable.

#29 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

If there is not a significant difference, then according to the data, yes it is sound to hire minorities who are less qualified.

No, most employees will not choose the white person simply because he is white, with all else being equal. Many white people are often given better opportunities and can frequently achieve higher levels of education - and that is why they can be better qualified. Assuming two employees are completely identical and there is no AA, then you can hire aperson based on a coin toss.

XaosII
So by insignificant difference what do you mean? One has a masters and one only a bachelors, or one played soccer in college and the other was in choir? Perhaps one had a year of experience coming in? And wouldn't it be more appropriate to, if two people were completely equal regarding qualifications, flip a coin than pick the guy that isn't white?
#30 Posted by Diablo-B (4024 posts) -
[QUOTE="XaosII"]

No, its none of those things. Not sure how you are making a jump to "insulting."

musicalmac
Why isn't it insulting to assume that underrepresented groups require extra help to get jobs? Why shouldn't employers look at a candidate based simply on the merits of their qualifications? It also assumes employers can't separate social issues from professional qualifications. If you disagree with that stance, please explain why.

In a perfect world use it would be insulting. However, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world/country still dealing with the aftereffects of slavery and discrimination to both minorities and women. Affirmative Action was meant to serve as a counter to that discrimination because it was determined that people on there own would change quick enough without being "pushed" in the right direction. Ideally we will reach a point where affirmative action won't be needed. However, I doubt we a say that discrimination is no longer a problem today.
#31 Posted by rastotm (1370 posts) -

It's a fact that there is discrimination in nearly every nation, which makes things unequal. The politics attempt to compensate this discrimination by law, in a attempt to make things equal again. I understand the logic behind it, but it is a very delicate subject because discrimination is very difficult to measure. Assuming that the politics does this right, then the affirmative action is not insulting because in essence it blames society for it's discrimination, not the discriminated party for it's 'inability'.

#32 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

Except those instances are fairly rare. AA guidelines specifically prohibit hiring an unqualified worker solely based on their minority status. AA guidelines state to give preference to minority workers in the hiring process if they are comparable.

XaosII
And you find nothing inherently wrong with that?
#33 Posted by Marth6781 (2564 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] Exactly, if unrelated academic factors are not a factor such as clubs and sports than why should there not be other factors included in this as well such as economic background, race, gender etc.musicalmac
...those are all considered regardless of affirmative action.... Just trust me on this one...
Afirmative action doesn't proclaim that someone will be hired because they are a minority over someone who is more qualified. Affirmative action makes it so that people who would otherwise be looked over, are given a chance. Marth6781
Why would they have been looked over without AA?

Because we still have racist/prejudice what ever you want to call it people in this country. Or do you seriously believe that people dont get looked over for jobs because of their ethnicity? Names,etc.
#34 Posted by GazaAli (22508 posts) -
Well considering the benefits they get in this fvcked up economy, no.
#35 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
Affirmative action is government-enforced racism. If that insults you then it's an insult.
#36 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I see AA as nothing more than reverse discrimination. It had a purpose in the past, but today it is outdated and does more harm than good. We should try to live in a color blind society, this does not mean we cannot be proud of our different ethniticities and cultures, but it should not be a determining factor.

We should see each other as fellow Americans, as fellow Humans. Not as "African Americans" or "Asian Americans" or "Jewish" or "Irish" or "Hispanic" or whatever. Only Americans. We are all Americans regardless of ethnicity.

Marth6781

What does that mean? What would being a color blind society do? And racism and prejudice for minorities is still present to this day so the notion that AA only had a purpose in the past goes beyond me.

A colore blind society means that we don't go around putting people into different categories, we don't go "oh you are black, you are now an AFRICAN American" "Oh your Asian? You are now an ASIAN American" etc....in a color blind society we would just call them Americans. I don't believe in dividing people, especially because of their ethnicity, and that's exactly what AA does.

And I know there is still racism in the world. I dealth with an anti-semitic lady recently at a college football game I went to, and another guy making racist jokes towards hispanics. However reverse racism is not the way to go about solving the issue.

#37 Posted by Diablo-B (4024 posts) -
Afirmative action doesn't proclaim that someone will be hired because they are a minority over someone who is more qualified. Affirmative action makes it so that people who would otherwise be looked over, are given a chance. Marth6781
Why would they have been looked over without AA?

Because our society has a long history of racism and sexism and AA was established during the heart of civil rights movement when they were fighting against that stuff.
#38 Posted by Kurushio (10485 posts) -
I kinda understand why it was needed back then but now it should be based on the merit of the individual. Why should a school or an employer pick a worse person only because of their race or sex instead of someone that would be a better candidate. Really in a way it weakens schools and businesses that have to comply with it.
#39 Posted by General_X (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="General_X"]ainst companies who blantently hold race as a deciding factor between equally qualified individuals (one way to do this would be to use an auditing method). The way it is now, I do not agree with the AA legislation. The fact that an underqualified person from an under represented group might be hired over a more qualified candidate is quite insane. And I also believe that hiring a under-represented person based on their skin color over an EQUALLY qualified person based on their skin color is just as bad as the reverse.XaosII

Except those instances are fairly rare. AA guidelines specifically prohibit hiring an unqualified worker solely based on their minority status. AA guidelines state to give preference to minority workers in the hiring process if they are comparable.

Which unfortunately, doesn't change the fact that as it is, AA by your own admission, is not implemented very well. I also agree that the idea behind AA is a strong one, but in the end I feel that it should be used to enforce fairness for all, not to skew favor to the side of those who were originally wronged, as the old saying goes two wrongs don't make a right.
#40 Posted by whipassmt (13995 posts) -

I think Judge Clarence Thomas has said that Affirmative Action is harmful to black people, because it makes people suspicious of their success. His basic claim is that if a black guy is successful, some people will think that his success is do to Affirmative action, whereas without affirmative action, people would know he succeeded on his own merit.

#41 Posted by whipassmt (13995 posts) -

[QUOTE="General_X"]ainst companies who blantently hold race as a deciding factor between equally qualified individuals (one way to do this would be to use an auditing method). The way it is now, I do not agree with the AA legislation. The fact that an underqualified person from an under represented group might be hired over a more qualified candidate is quite insane. And I also believe that hiring a under-represented person based on their skin color over an EQUALLY qualified person based on their skin color is just as bad as the reverse.XaosII

Except those instances are fairly rare. AA guidelines specifically prohibit hiring an unqualified worker solely based on their minority status. AA guidelines state to give preference to minority workers in the hiring process if they are comparable.

that still seems unfair.

#42 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

I think Judge Clarence Thomas has said that Affirmative Action is harmful to black people, because it makes people suspicious of their success. His basic claim is that if a black guy is successful, some people will think that his success is do to Affirmative action, whereas without affirmative action, people would know he succeeded on his own merit.

whipassmt
Or without affirmative action it's very possible that he wouldn't have succeeded in the first place.
#43 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

So by insignificant difference what do you mean? One has a masters and one only a bachelors, or one played soccer in college and the other was in choir? Perhaps one had a year of experience coming in? And wouldn't it be more appropriate to, if two people were completely equal regarding qualifications, flip a coin than pick the guy that isn't white?musicalmac

Insignificant? Someone has 10 years of experience in their field versus 8 years. An MS vs a BS is a fairly big difference, unless the BS has much more work experience.

Would it be more appropriate? In a utopian world, it certainly would. But it hardly is.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Except those instances are fairly rare. AA guidelines specifically prohibit hiring an unqualified worker solely based on their minority status. AA guidelines state to give preference to minority workers in the hiring process if they are comparable.

musicalmac

And you find nothing inherently wrong with that?

No.

#44 Posted by Diablo-B (4024 posts) -

A colore blind society means that we don't go around putting people into different categories, we don't go "oh you are black, you are now an AFRICAN American" "Oh your Asian? You are now an ASIAN American" etc....in a color blind society we would just call them Americans. I don't believe in dividing people, especially because of their ethnicity, and that's exactly what AA does.

And I know there is still racism in the world. I dealth with an anti-semitic lady recently at a college football game I went to, and another guy making racist jokes towards hispanics. However reverse racism is not the way to go about solving the issue.

ShadowMoses900
First there is no such thing a "reverse racism". Its just racism whether is directed towards blacks or whites. Second, we don't live in a color blind society and AA is the best the gov't can do to counter balance the problem. The only solution can't come from gov't it can only come socially.
#45 Posted by GazaAli (22508 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think Judge Clarence Thomas has said that Affirmative Action is harmful to black people, because it makes people suspicious of their success. His basic claim is that if a black guy is successful, some people will think that his success is do to Affirmative action, whereas without affirmative action, people would know he succeeded on his own merit.

-Sun_Tzu-
Or without affirmative action it's very possible that he wouldn't have succeeded in the first place.

We would like to believe we live in a progressive world, where discrimination and racism do not exist. But in reality, they are all over the place.
#46 Posted by Aljosa23 (24745 posts) -

No, not really. Maybe if you're overdramatic if you consider it "insulting". I have no strong feelings for AA, frankly I don't care. People can hire whoever they want on whatever scale they desire. I would prefer it be about socioeconomic status rather than race but, meh.

#47 Posted by Marth6781 (2564 posts) -
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Marth6781"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I see AA as nothing more than reverse discrimination. It had a purpose in the past, but today it is outdated and does more harm than good. We should try to live in a color blind society, this does not mean we cannot be proud of our different ethniticities and cultures, but it should not be a determining factor.

We should see each other as fellow Americans, as fellow Humans. Not as "African Americans" or "Asian Americans" or "Jewish" or "Irish" or "Hispanic" or whatever. Only Americans. We are all Americans regardless of ethnicity.

What does that mean? What would being a color blind society do? And racism and prejudice for minorities is still present to this day so the notion that AA only had a purpose in the past goes beyond me.

A colore blind society means that we don't go around putting people into different categories, we don't go "oh you are black, you are now an AFRICAN American" "Oh your Asian? You are now an ASIAN American" etc....in a color blind society we would just call them Americans. I don't believe in dividing people, especially because of their ethnicity, and that's exactly what AA does.

And I know there is still racism in the world. I dealth with an anti-semitic lady recently at a college football game I went to, and another guy making racist jokes towards hispanics. However reverse racism is not the way to go about solving the issue.

I wouldn't call it reverse racism, especially when white women benefit the most from it. AA isn't all about race it takes gender, economic status, ethnicity, etc into play.
#48 Posted by Diablo-B (4024 posts) -
Also lets remember AA only affects gov't institutions and private institutions that either get funding or contracts from the gov't. A private institution can discriminate all they want without fear of AA. They can get sued for other reasons though.
#49 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

Yes

#50 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I mean what is more impressive, a student in the inner city with a 2.9 who worked two jobs to help his family while attending school or a suburban student with a 3.0?Lightning_fan
Neither are that impressive. If the selection criteria takes into account more than just GPA (like most post-secondary schools do), then I could understand them taking the 2.9 student. When visible minorities are given consideration for a job or school position, despite their qualifications not being as great as another person, just to fulfill a quota of amount of minorities in the field/program (how it is here in Canada)... that's when it becomes a problem. A friend of mine spent four years trying to get into her faculty of choice (social work), and could have played her Ashkenazi Jew and woman cards at any time to do so without any effort, but she didn't, and was finally accepted a couple years ago based on academic achievements alone (since they only take a very small number of high achievers, and fill out the rest of the spots with minority allocations). Now she is about to graduate at the top of her class. As a straight, caucasian male, I don't think affirmative action, or any related system, is necessary in our world. Many people from minority groups have attained achievements without help from these systems. The best qualified should always be the first choice.