POLL: In what situations do you feel "affirmative action" is appropriate?

[Infohawk]

I think blacks and native americans should be the only racial minorities to have aid. For blacks, they should show they are not recent African immigrants. The reason is that the US government has seriously hurt them in the past.

Personally, I don't think other ethnic minorities deserve it. I think they are underepresented to the extent they are immigrants and everyone ethnicity was an immigrant at some point in US history (except blacks and native Americans).

 

[nageov3t]

fvck 'em.

 

[tnilC]

White condescension is more damaging than white racism.

 

[Rainsford]

Instead of giving any group of people a hand up in the work world that they haven't earned, I think we'd be better off focusing on making disadvantaged groups better able to compete on a level playing field. That would give us all the effects of affirmative action (better racial representation in high paying jobs, etc) without the downsides (hard feelings from non-minorities, lower skilled workers in important jobs, etc). This could be accomplished by having far more need based scholarships, better urban schools, job training assistance programs instead of welfare unless someone CAN'T work and a number of other things.

Affirmative action is only the best option if the underrepresentation of minorities in certain jobs is a result of discrimination. While I don't think this country is perfect in that regard, I think there are more obvious reasons for the dispraportionate numbers.

 

[Rainsford]

As for the legacy admissions question that I just saw, I don't think legacy admissions schools should get government funding. They are directly opposite of the American idea that anyone can rise to any level, limited only by their intelligence and drive.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: tnilC
White condescension is more damaging than white racism.

And whites don't have a monopoly on racism.

 

[Ryan]

Never.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I believe that if we're going to have any affirmative action in school admission it should be based entirely on economic status.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I believe that if we're going to have any affirmative action in school admission it should be based entirely on economic status.

Which you so conveniantly would qualify for if it were the case!

 

[Schrodinger]

I don't think affirmative action based on race is ever appropriate. I find it highly racist and disgusting.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like race bating to me.

 

[spidey07]

Never, I think that racist policy should be outlawed.

 

[piasabird]

I work at a community college and I think a lot should be based on merit. However, I also think that any institutions should be able to take a certain percentage of scholarships or aid and earmark it for discretionary spending.

I see too many funds given to women just because they gave birth to some illigetimate child, and I wonder what we are awarding the money for. Is it awarded just because some woman had sex indiscriminately and now wants a free ride from society?

I think funds should reward young couples trying to make it and remain married, Not just because someone is a single parent. We need to think about what we are actually rewarding when we give people these funds. I think more money needs to be spent on married people.

 

[Gatos]

A. Action is just an excuse!!!

 

[Schrodinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think blacks and native americans should be the only racial minorities to have aid. For blacks, they should show they are not recent African immigrants. The reason is that the US government has seriously hurt them in the past.

Hurt the native americans and blacks? In what way? How long ago (centuries)?

While those particular races faced financial hardships from restricted abilities to attend good schools nor had high paying jobs available to them--couldn't, in all of the years since, they have fixed their problems and moved up the chain themself like other poor people who help themselves?

Furthermore, aren't those who were affected already dead by now? In my lurking days I seem to recall you had some strong feelings that offspring shouldn't be able to inherit the entitlement of their parents (you had a particular hard-on for Bush and his situation). So they can't inherit one way, but inheriting pity and lack of bettering oneself is okay in your view?

Whatever happened to your view of "earning it"? (It being what you've accumulated, wealth, status, entitlement, education whatnot in life).

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Furthermore, aren't those who were affected already dead by now? In my lurking days I seem to recall you had some strong feelings that offspring shouldn't be able to inherit the entitlement of their parents (you had a particular hard-on for Bush and his situation). So they can't inherit one way, but inheriting pity and lack of bettering oneself is okay in your view?

Whatever happened to your view of "earning it"? (It being what you've accumulated, wealth, status, entitlement, education whatnot in life).

Wow. That is what I call lurking.

First of all, affirmative action is not something I am very 100% about. I am definitely against most of it. I'm actually not sure about the black / native American aspects, even if I presented it like I was. But I'll continue to present it like am sure for the sake of argument.

I think the government can right some of its wrongs as a very limited exception to the general rules. This is redressing very specific US Government wrongs. Native americans were victims of genocide, for example. I don't think it should go on for ever but I don't think we've reached an equilibrium yet. Just like I don't think Germany should pay up to Israel for eternity. That's why I limit this exception in very strict ways. It's only for the truly heinous crimes of our government we should bend the rules. Slavery and genocide meets the test for me. Also, for blacks and native Americans I would still take in other attributes. If they were already wealthy and their parents went to college I would tend to think they weren't worthy because they had reached a point of equilibrium.

Frankly, I think college affirmative action is pretty dumb. If we spend more on poorer schools and got rid of legacy funding, I would think this sort of action would be unecessary.

As for GWB and his ilk, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing arbitrary rewarding (GWB) and very specific remedying (indians and blacks). As soon as blacks and indians would be rewarded, I would say no. But if they were still being remedied, I would say yes.


PS Sixteen posts. lurking, or re-registering? I keed I keed. I haven't seen enough of your posts to suspect you of re-registering. This is the first.

 

[ntdz]

Im against all affirmative action. By implementing affirmative action, you are degrading another race by basically saying they aren't capable of getting where they want to be without help, and I don't think thats true.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Im against all affirmative action. By implementing affirmative action, you are degrading another race by basically saying they aren't capable of getting where they want to be without help, and I don't think thats true.

And do you think schools should be allowed to have legacies?

 

[Schrodinger]

I have abstained from responding in this forum as long as I could. It is too scary I'm not very argumentative but perhaps I can build some skin here!

Do I think lots of people were wronged in the past? Definitely.

I just think it is impossible to right those wrongs by giving added benefit to their far off descendants. No matter how you cut it, it will always favour one group and isolate another.

In addition, I do feel that enough time has passed that if they wanted it enough they could have worked hard enough to pull themselves and their families up. Would that mean they had to work their butt off for just as much equal opportunity as "the white man"? You bet. But life isn't fair and we all get shafted someway or another.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

I just think it is impossible to right those wrongs by giving added benefit to their far off descendants. No matter how you cut it, it will always favour one group and isolate another.

You're right. Like I said, I'm not 100% sure about it. My gut reaction is that the past wrongs were so bad that we can risk taking some measures, even if they might create some unfairness in themselves... but only with those specific populations for a limited period of time. (For the record, I think helping people at the college level is pretty stupid. The idea should be to help people compete to get into college. )

 

[Amused]

Affirmative action just teaches people to think that they are not good enough/smart enough to get jobs.

AA teaches self defeatism.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Amused
Affirmative action just teaches people to think that they are not good enough/smart enough to get jobs.

AA teaches self defeatism.

LOL. Yea right :roll:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused
Affirmative action just teaches people to think that they are not good enough/smart enough to get jobs.

AA teaches self defeatism.

LOL. Yea right :roll:

What does it teach then?

 

[Darilus]

A problem with AA is that it benefits a few groups of people to the detriment of everyone else. Neither side of my family was here until the early 1900's, so they neither had slaves nor killed Native Americans, yet because I'm caucasian I still get the shaft.

 

[DT4K]

AA is racist, immoral, unneccessary, and detrimental to minorities.

Community colleges accept EVERYONE.
Hard work and good grades at a CC will get you admitted to a top-notch university.
Federal financial aid makes it posible for EVERYONE, no matter how poor they are, to attend college.

EDIT: legacy admissions are fine for private institutions. Public, tax-payer supported schools should have the same admissions standards for every applicant.