Is Affirmative Action Insulting?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by Lightning_fan (284 posts) -
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="General_X"]But wouldn't that imply that only non-minorities are able to get a good GPA? And people SHOULD be offered positions solely based on their qualifications, as qualifications usually come in the form of education (GPA), work ethic, ability to properly function in a team setting, and communication skills. I may be way off base here, but diversity for diversity's sake at the potential expense of those who have potentially worked harder or who are more qualified does not seem very fair from my point of view.

I did not make that implication you did... My GPA was nothing special... Plenty of "minorities" have better GPAs than me. I am saying everyone should have the opportunity for a college education.

Which is a noble thought and one I can get behind, but if colleges don't have enough space for all the applicants who have proven track records, how do you propose they ALSO fit in enough room for everyone else besides?

How about instead of buying gyms and rock walls like so many colleges ****ing do, they make more room for more students. Federal aid to colleges goes to funding lucrative luxuries rather than the actual education.
#102 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Taxation is related to this issue. You're talking about government-funds education and jobs. The government shouldn't be funding either of those.Laihendi

Providing education and jobs may be cheaper on the long run, taxation is related to the issue and therefore efficiency is as well.

I don't think you're understanding my point. Involuntary taxation is theft. Government is funding institutions that provide education/jobs with stolen money, therefore it has no legitimate claim of ownership on those institutions and has no right to determine who is hired/granted admissions.

I'm not going to start a pointless entitlement debate here, your claim that taxation equals theft is a matter of perspective. I believe that AA is financially efficient on the long, so I have no troubles spending my money on it.

#103 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] Providing education and jobs may be cheaper on the long run, taxation is related to the issue and therefore efficiency is as well.

rastotm

I don't think you're understanding my point. Involuntary taxation is theft. Government is funding institutions that provide education/jobs with stolen money, therefore it has no legitimate claim of ownership on those institutions and has no right to determine who is hired/granted admissions.

I'm not going to start a pointless entitlement debate here, your claim that taxation equals theft is a matter of perspective. I believe that AA is financially efficient on the long, so I have no troubles spending my money on it.

Taking property by force without the owner's consent is theft by definition. The government doesn't ask when it collects taxes. It demands, and it puts anyone who refuses in prison.

#104 Posted by General_X (9090 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] I did not make that implication you did... My GPA was nothing special... Plenty of "minorities" have better GPAs than me. I am saying everyone should have the opportunity for a college education.

Which is a noble thought and one I can get behind, but if colleges don't have enough space for all the applicants who have proven track records, how do you propose they ALSO fit in enough room for everyone else besides?

How about instead of buying gyms and rock walls like so many colleges ****ing do, they make more room for more students. Federal aid to colleges goes to funding lucrative luxuries rather than the actual education.

Then that sounds like a problem with fund appropriation, not necessarily the admission of students.
#105 Posted by Lightning_fan (284 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="General_X"]Which is a noble thought and one I can get behind, but if colleges don't have enough space for all the applicants who have proven track records, how do you propose they ALSO fit in enough room for everyone else besides?General_X
How about instead of buying gyms and rock walls like so many colleges ****ing do, they make more room for more students. Federal aid to colleges goes to funding lucrative luxuries rather than the actual education.

Then that sounds like a problem with fund appropriation, not necessarily the admission of students.

All students should be able to attend some university/college. Period, despite what snobbish elitists think.
#106 Posted by mingmao3046 (2648 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] How about instead of buying gyms and rock walls like so many colleges ****ing do, they make more room for more students. Federal aid to colleges goes to funding lucrative luxuries rather than the actual education.

Then that sounds like a problem with fund appropriation, not necessarily the admission of students.

All students should be able to attend some university/college. Period, despite what snobbish elitists think.

higher education is a privilege, not a right
#107 Posted by Lightning_fan (284 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="General_X"]Then that sounds like a problem with fund appropriation, not necessarily the admission of students.mingmao3046
All students should be able to attend some university/college. Period, despite what snobbish elitists think.

higher education is a privilege, not a right

For elitists sure, marriage is a privilege as well. That does not mean everyone should not be allowed to marry who they want to.
#108 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I don't think you're understanding my point. Involuntary taxation is theft. Government is funding institutions that provide education/jobs with stolen money, therefore it has no legitimate claim of ownership on those institutions and has no right to determine who is hired/granted admissions.

Laihendi

I'm not going to start a pointless entitlement debate here, your claim that taxation equals theft is a matter of perspective. I believe that AA is financially efficient on the long, so I have no troubles spending my money on it.

Taking property by force without the owner's consent is theft by definition. The government doesn't ask when it collects taxes. It demands, and it puts anyone who refuses in prison.

Every action that depletes a nations resources and land has a effect others, the government collects taxes to balance a individuals gains against the collective well being. The tax equals theft is a far more complex debate then you make it sound because the concept of ownership is extremely complicated. Furthermore what is your problem with investing in laws that are in the well-being of everyone?

#109 Posted by General_X (9090 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lightning_fan"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Lightning_fan"] All students should be able to attend some university/college. Period, despite what snobbish elitists think.

higher education is a privilege, not a right

For elitists sure, marriage is a privilege as well. That does not mean everyone should not be allowed to marry who they want to.

What you propose is socially beneficial, and would very much be worthy of investment. But back to the topic at hand, AA is not the answer for admission for all peoples, and in fact some sort of reform to the appropriation of state-funds in public universities would be much more beneficial to the goal you would like to see achieved. In the short term, in the system we have now, accepting applications based on qualification and merit is the only "fair" answer. In my opinion ofcourse.
#110 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] I'm not going to start a pointless entitlement debate here, your claim that taxation equals theft is a matter of perspective. I believe that AA is financially efficient on the long, so I have no troubles spending my money on it.

rastotm

Taking property by force without the owner's consent is theft by definition. The government doesn't ask when it collects taxes. It demands, and it puts anyone who refuses in prison.

Every action that depletes a nations resources and land has a effect others, the government collects taxes to balance a individuals gains against the collective well being. The tax equals theft is a far more complex debate then you make it sound because the concept of ownership is extremely complicated. Furthermore what is your problem with investing in laws that are in the well-being of everyone?

The only laws that promote the well-being of everyone are laws that universally protect freedom. Stealing wealth and redistributing it is only beneficial to the people it is being redistributed to.
#111 Posted by gamerguru100 (11145 posts) -

LOL, people are still using the term "reverse racism/discrimination".

Is it hard for some of you guys to wrap your head around the fact that racism is just racism, even if it's directed at whites?

Someone earlier said the race question shouldn't even be on college applications. I agree.

And it would be nice if we could just be "Americans" instead of "[insert race or ethnicity here]-Americans", but that's not gonna stop anytime soon, unfortunately. In the mean time, if you call yourself an African American, Asian American, Native American, or Hispanic American, then please refer to white Americans as European Americans, instead of "white boys". :P

#112 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Taking property by force without the owner's consent is theft by definition. The government doesn't ask when it collects taxes. It demands, and it puts anyone who refuses in prison.

Laihendi

Every action that depletes a nations resources and land has a effect others, the government collects taxes to balance a individuals gains against the collective well being. The tax equals theft is a far more complex debate then you make it sound because the concept of ownership is extremely complicated. Furthermore what is your problem with investing in laws that are in the well-being of everyone?

The only laws that promote the well-being of everyone are laws that universally protect freedom. Stealing wealth and redistributing it is only beneficial to the people it is being redistributed to.

A person living in a society has the unwritten obligation to provide for his society, redistributing value to others in order to increase their potential allows these others to contribute more. This increase in contribution is beneficial for everyone. For example a minority who can't get a job due to discrimination works (untaxed) side jobs or gets his money with criminal activities, thanks to AA he starts working a real job providing tax to the nation. In the end, the AA is beneficial to everyone.

#113 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="rastotm"] Every action that depletes a nations resources and land has a effect others, the government collects taxes to balance a individuals gains against the collective well being. The tax equals theft is a far more complex debate then you make it sound because the concept of ownership is extremely complicated. Furthermore what is your problem with investing in laws that are in the well-being of everyone?

rastotm

The only laws that promote the well-being of everyone are laws that universally protect freedom. Stealing wealth and redistributing it is only beneficial to the people it is being redistributed to.

A person living in a society has the unwritten obligation to provide for his society, redistributing value to others in order to increase their potential allows these others to contribute more. This increase in contribution is beneficial for everyone. For example a minority who can't get a job due to discrimination works (untaxed) side jobs or gets his money with criminal activities, thanks to AA he starts working a real job providing tax to the nation. In the end, the AA is beneficial to everyone.

What is the source of this obligation you speak of?

A minority who gets a job because of AA gets the job at the expense of an equally or better qualified non-minority. Helping one person at the expense of another is not helping everyone.

#114 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

It would be insulting under a perfectly meritocratic system. The fact of the matter is that the system is not so. I do not agree that basing public policy on race is a good solution, but the principle of Affirmative Action (not always in practice) does not rely on the premise that minorities are inherently less qualified.

#115 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The only laws that promote the well-being of everyone are laws that universally protect freedom. Stealing wealth and redistributing it is only beneficial to the people it is being redistributed to.Laihendi

A person living in a society has the unwritten obligation to provide for his society, redistributing value to others in order to increase their potential allows these others to contribute more. This increase in contribution is beneficial for everyone. For example a minority who can't get a job due to discrimination works (untaxed) side jobs or gets his money with criminal activities, thanks to AA he starts working a real job providing tax to the nation. In the end, the AA is beneficial to everyone.

What is the source of these obligations that you speak of?

A minority who gets a job because of AA gets the job at the expense of an equally or better qualified non-minority. Helping one person at the expense of another is not helping everyone.

A society cannot exists without individuals contributing to it, the so called obligation comes with the definition. A person is a member of a group because he has a certain value for others, the same goes for society. Ask yourself, how can a society sustain itself if people don't contribute to it?
Furthermore you assume that the other person is better qualified, why would you think so? AA is founded to combat discrimination, in which a minority doesn't get the job despite being well qualified for it. In addition non-minorities are far more likely to get another job, especially in the private sector. Minorities do are far less likely to do so, part of the AA is the public sector compensating for that.

#116 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] A person living in a society has the unwritten obligation to provide for his society, redistributing value to others in order to increase their potential allows these others to contribute more. This increase in contribution is beneficial for everyone. For example a minority who can't get a job due to discrimination works (untaxed) side jobs or gets his money with criminal activities, thanks to AA he starts working a real job providing tax to the nation. In the end, the AA is beneficial to everyone.

rastotm

What is the source of these obligations that you speak of?

A minority who gets a job because of AA gets the job at the expense of an equally or better qualified non-minority. Helping one person at the expense of another is not helping everyone.

A society cannot exists without individuals contributing to it, the so called obligation comes with the definition. A person is a member of a group because he has a certain value for others, the same goes for society. Ask yourself, how can a society sustain itself if people don't contribute to it?
Furthermore you assume that the other person is better qualified, why would you think so? AA is founded to combat discrimination, in which a minority doesn't get the job despite being well qualified for it. In addition non-minorities are far more likely to get another job, especially in the private sector. Minorities do are far less likely to do so, part of the AA is the public sector compensating for that.

Society doesn't exist. It's an abstraction based on an arbitrary collection of individuals.
#117 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]What is the source of these obligations that you speak of?

A minority who gets a job because of AA gets the job at the expense of an equally or better qualified non-minority. Helping one person at the expense of another is not helping everyone.

Laihendi

A society cannot exists without individuals contributing to it, the so called obligation comes with the definition. A person is a member of a group because he has a certain value for others, the same goes for society. Ask yourself, how can a society sustain itself if people don't contribute to it?
Furthermore you assume that the other person is better qualified, why would you think so? AA is founded to combat discrimination, in which a minority doesn't get the job despite being well qualified for it. In addition non-minorities are far more likely to get another job, especially in the private sector. Minorities do are far less likely to do so, part of the AA is the public sector compensating for that.

Society doesn't exist. It's an abstraction based on an arbitrary collection of individuals.

People still live on the same land, under the same government and still share the same interests, which is living happily in a sustainable way.

#118 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4328 posts) -
It served a purpose at one point, but I feel that it has outlived that purpose and is now having too much of a negative effect on white people.
#119 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

It may have been necessary in the past due to de facto racism and sexism but now, it may not be necessary. I think we should focus on socioeconomic status like giving poorer students a chance to succeed through life; however, I'm not sure if that is a policy already.

As for it being insulting, I can't say since I've never gotten special treatment, nor do I know any people that did get through with affirmative action. If I did get special treatment, I would be somewhat insulted but move on.

#120 Posted by thebest31406 (3571 posts) -
Affirmative action is suppose to ensure that qualified applicants are able to gain access to employment and education regardless of race, color, sex, etc. Widespread discrimination takes place in these areas in spite of AA and quota schemes. The fact that even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17%) than blacks without criminal records (14%) is quite insulting. The fact that that Blacks with college degrees are one-third more likely to nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts is a bit insulting.
#121 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Affirmative action is suppose to ensure that qualified applicants are able to gain access to employment and education regardless of race, color, sex, etc. Widespread discrimination takes place in these areas in spite of AA and quota schemes. The fact that even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17%) than blacks without criminal records (14%) is quite insulting. The fact that that Blacks with college degrees are one-third more likely to nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts is a bit insulting.thebest31406

I can understand AA but never quotas. Especially quotas for women in sports. I can understand wanting women to get into sports but there are some sports that women aren't genuinely interested in.

#122 Posted by tryagainlater (7445 posts) -

It's one of those things that shouldn't be necessary but it is or atleast it was when it started. I wonder if they got rid of it, would other races have trouble finding jobs?

#123 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]Affirmative action is suppose to ensure that qualified applicants are able to gain access to employment and education regardless of race, color, sex, etc. Widespread discrimination takes place in these areas in spite of AA and quota schemes. The fact that even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17%) than blacks without criminal records (14%) is quite insulting. The fact that that Blacks with college degrees are one-third more likely to nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts is a bit insulting.leviathan91

I can understand AA but never quotas. Especially quotas for women in sports. I can understand wanting women to get into sports but there are some sports that women aren't genuinely interested in.

I'm not sure you can make that generalization. I know a variety of women whom are interested in a huge range of sports. I mean, the existence of the sport itself, and the fact that women play it, should be evidence enough.
#124 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -
Affirmative action is incredibly racist. It's very discriminatory and has no place in modern society.
#125 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
Don't think of the minorities who benefit from AA as taking the potential place of equally qualified or more qualified non-minorities, but think of them as taking places specifically added for them.BluRayHiDef
Positions are not specifically added for minorities. When AA was put into law, GE didn't go out and say "We need to hire X more minority employees, else we're not diverse enough. Go create X more meaningless job positions we can put them in". The company will hire as many qualified workers as required to meet the ideal quota without hiring so many that their profit drops. AA does NOT create more money for a company, it simply dictates what % or # of minority workers that a company MUST have. Non-Minorities and Minorities fight for THE SAME POSITIONS, a more diverse company is seen as a good thing (assuming there's no communication problems.) With AA forcing however # or % of positions to minorities, those are obviously going to minorities. Minorities are also allowed in the other positions.