Affirmative Action

J

Juliacoolo

Affirmative Action, as defined by Wikipedia, is "the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination"

Contextualized, this is giving less qualified candidates jobs/admissions over more qualified candidates (merit -wise) due to factors such as race and gender. It's considered by many to be reverse discrimination, yet is a common practice in society.

A common argument in favor of affirmative action is that building a well-rounded office/campus/environment is more important than hiring/accepting people who deserve it the most.

There have been numerous Supreme Court cases dealing with affirmative action. Just two weeks ago, the SCOTUS ruled that public university's may use race as an admissions factor as long as it is not the primary criteria.

Various sources estimate that for an Asian male to have similar admissions chances and scholarship as an African American female, he must be 50 percentile higher than her, and score 7 points higher on the ACT or 250 points higher on the SAT. The study also suggests that if admissions were solely based on standardized test scores and grade point averages, approximately 66 percent of Ivy-League classes would consist of Asian and White males.

What is your opinion on Affirmative Action, and why?
 

beebahboo

Collector
Member
Oh man, this is a really, really touchy subject. But here goes.

Affirmative Action is discrimination, it is blatant racism, to every race.
"You're black, so yeah, we're gonna give you 'more points' on your SAT, access to more grants and scholarships, you know, because you can't cut it in this 'white world' on your own." "Oh, you're Asian, got a 36 on your ACT, better try for a... uhhh... 37, 'cause you're, you know, Asain, you'll figure out a way. Oh, you work two jobs to support your immigrant family, how precious."

The people who deserve and work the hardest for something should always be the ones who obtain it. Not someone who works 85% as hard and gets "it" because they are of a different skin color.

Affirmative Action: "the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination"

Racism, from wiki: "Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently."

Discrimination: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


AA is racist, and it is discriminatory. Plain and simple. All you have to do is read the definitions.
 

professorlight

Ice Queen
Member
Okay, I'll stop this right here before someone gets confused.

I don't give a damn about affirmative action, but your premise is just wrong, and anyone can see it right from what you wrote.

First, you brought up the racism, for which you gave a definition, but you'll find that there isn't a single mention of race on jay's description, which you also transcribed.

Affirmative Action: "the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination"

You'll see it says disadvantaged, not a particular race. If it ends up favoring some races over others, then your problem is with socioeconomical conditions and maybe even racial profiling and prejudices, not this law or policy or whatever it is.

You're not arguing definitions here, you're arguing policy, which has a context; and adding a racial element on something that by the very explanation you copied, doesn't contain one is just misleading.


Also, jay, in line with this argument, you may want to change the part of the OP that says "less qualified candidates" for "disadvantaged", since it is an assumption that is also lacking on context.
That was all, I think; have fun with your pandora's box!
 

beebahboo

Collector
Member
professorlight said:
your problem is with socioeconomical conditions and maybe even racial profiling and prejudices, not this law or policy or whatever it is.

You're not arguing definitions here, you're arguing policy, which has a context; and adding a racial element on something that by the very explanation you copied, doesn't contain one is just misleading.

My problem definitely lies within socioeconomic conditions, racial profiling and prejudices.
However, I do believe Affirmative Action perpetuates these problems, rather than solving anything.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Kudos on "calling me out." :p
 

MtheW

What is MtheW? The world may never know.
Member
I think that the main (and only, I suppose) problem I have with Affirmative Action as it stands is that it deals with disadvantaged "groups" of people. It should simply be helping disadvantaged people in general. Although after doing some reading on this that seems to be the direction it might be headed, race-blind Affirmative Action. Which would be nice.
 
J

Juliacoolo

professorlight said:
Okay, I'll stop this right here before someone gets confused.

I don't give a damn about affirmative action, but your premise is just wrong, and anyone can see it right from what you wrote.

First, you brought up the racism, for which you gave a definition, but you'll find that there isn't a single mention of race on jay's description, which you also transcribed.

"Disadvantaged" is used broadly in Wikipedia's description. Because Affirmative Action can be applied in a variety of situations, "disadvantaged" is used over more specific words, such as "underrepresented."

Affirmative Action: "the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination"

You'll see it says disadvantaged, not a particular race. If it ends up favoring some races over others, then your problem is with socioeconomical conditions and maybe even racial profiling and prejudices, not this law or policy or whatever it is.

That's not the point. The controversy is whether or not "socioeconomic conditions," and other factors should be assessed for positions in which these factors do not influence the ability to do the job. Affirmative action as a concept is not specific to any particular group, but examples involving a particular group can be considered affirmative action.

You're not arguing definitions here, you're arguing policy, which has a context; and adding a racial element on something that by the very explanation you copied, doesn't contain one is just misleading.

I'm addressing specific policies that have been the center of controversies regarding affirmative action. Racial matters do in fact fall under the copied definition as explained above.

Also, jay, in line with this argument, you may want to change the part of the OP that says "less qualified candidates" for "disadvantaged", since it is an assumption that is also lacking on context.
That was all, I think; have fun with your pandora's box!

If a candidate who was hired/accepted was not less qualified, then what element of their hiring would be considered controversial?
 

Delta

Selling colourful Pokemon to Celadon Game Corner
Member
So Affirmative Action is essentially giving the position to someone of a group that may be looked down upon and who may not necessarily be the best for the position? Favoring the discriminated and or disadvantaged.

By definition I suppose it would be a mixture of 'isms'. I wouldn't call it reverse discrimination but discriminating on the side of the discriminated. Two wrongs don't make a right, treat everyone equal etc. I understand the sentiment but surely some people would surely be offended if they were picked because the employer/school felt sorry for them. I certainly would. And those who were rejected may be the fairest to other genders, ages and races.

It's these circumstances that lead me to believe that Affirmative Action sounds like a petty excuse to get back at those who were unfair by potentially disrupting the lives of the people who treat others equally. It's not getting the problem of 'isms' directly which is the real problem.
 

TokyoToots

7 year old weeaboo
Member
One of the reasons for this is because employers/recruiters(in colleges) don't want to seem racist.
do gingers count as a minority?

Juliacoolo said:
There have been numerous Supreme Court cases dealing with affirmative action. Just two weeks ago, the SCOTUS ruled that public university's may use race as an admissions factor as long as it is not the primary criteria.

I think that universities should be going the opposite way, not knowing gender, sexuality, nationality, race, and even name, as this might give away some of these things, because of stuff like affirmative action, racism, and sexism.
 

Teal

黄前さん らしい ね
Member
If it's for disabled people, that's good. They need an opportunity at life, too. (As long as they still qualify for it.)
But favouring someone just because of race, gender etc. (pretty much anything except a disability) is wrong. That would just be rewarding someone who doesn't put in enough effort.
 
Top