Affirmative Action - am I just not getting it?

[Count Dooku]

they simply give preferential treatment to minority students/hirees amongst equally qualified candidates. There are several exceptions which do lower standards for race-based admission, but they should not be the instances by which the policy as a whole should be judged.

I am resentful of preferential treatment toward anyone, regardless. But you are right.

Not when it's more than likely true. This country was largely built for white males, and to an extent it still is (it's certainly controlled by them).

It's impossible to deny that it was once built for white males, but now, I think America is more geared toward anyone who is extremely wealthy.

That doesn't really address the fact that societal hurdles and lingering racism can make it a lot more difficult for them to do so. There are extraordinary people of any race who can overcome whatever shit gets shoveled on their plate, but the majority of people are not extraordinary, and it's not fair to expect them to be that way.

I agree, on this point.

[Joe]

t's impossible to deny that it was once built for white males, but now, I think America is more geared toward anyone who is extremely wealthy.

The staggering majority of extremely wealthy people are in fact, white males. There's a reason why the corporate boardroom is still dominated by crusty old white men with big jowls.

[RedImperator]

I believe I said this in another thread recently, but it bears repeating:

College admission boards maintain a list of 15 or 20 criteria they factor into decisions. At the top are what you'd expect: grades, standardized test scores, class rank, and application essay (the order changes from college to college--also, note that already in the top four is a subjective criterion). Then beneath those is a whole host of other things: activities, community service, athletic talent, musical talent (a big deal for schools with, say, an award-winning student orchestra or a capella choir), child of alumni, sibling of alumni or current student, child of university employee, first generation college student (i.e., you're from a poor family who's never sent anyone to college before), member of a race not well represented at that school, member of a religion not well represented at that school, from a geographical area not well represented at that school, and Christ only knows what else because schools generally keep these lists confidential.

You can see in the above list that race is only one factor. That's your affirmative action. The controversy comes when that factor is elevated above all the others, especially one or more of the top four. A quota system essentially makes race the first consideration on the list until that quota is met. However, when it's further down among all the other criteria, it's just the college trying to increase the diversity of its student body, based on the quite reasonable theory that people of different backgrounds will bring different ideas and ways of thinking to the table, and that's desireable at a university. As for the other odd ones, legacy is about bringing in the alumni donations, child of staff is a perk given to staff members to compensate for their usually substandard pay, and athletic/other non-academic talent is usually about pride, though money plays a role in the handful of profitable big-time atheltic programs nationwide.

[Count Dooku]

The staggering majority of extremely wealthy people are in fact, white males. There's a reason why the corporate boardroom is still dominated by crusty old white men with big jowls.

This is true.

I am against preferential treatment because it slows change - the good kind of change. If a large group of people are in a really shitty situation and they want to do something about it (like the civil rights movement), they will. But, if you give handouts to school and work, than what motivation is there to change? If your getting what you want without having to make a dramatic change to society, when there should be one, what are you really getting out of it all?

I readily conceed that affirmative action has helped people get into college, where they have suceeded, but my point all along is still valid: if you don't have to do as well as someone else, chances are, your not going to try to. Imagine if you didn't have to try as hard in school - what would be your motivation for doing so? Most would slack off, and that's where I have a problem.

[Count Dooku]

I believe I said this in another thread recently, but it bears repeating:

College admission boards maintain a list of 15 or 20 criteria they factor into decisions. At the top are what you'd expect: grades, standardized test scores, class rank, and application essay (the order changes from college to college--also, note that already in the top four is a subjective criterion). Then beneath those is a whole host of other things: activities, community service, athletic talent, musical talent (a big deal for schools with, say, an award-winning student orchestra or a capella choir), child of alumni, sibling of alumni or current student, child of university employee, first generation college student (i.e., you're from a poor family who's never sent anyone to college before), member of a race not well represented at that school, member of a religion not well represented at that school, from a geographical area not well represented at that school, and Christ only knows what else because schools generally keep these lists confidential.

You can see in the above list that race is only one factor. That's your affirmative action. The controversy comes when that factor is elevated above all the others, especially one or more of the top four. A quota system essentially makes race the first consideration on the list until that quota is met. However, when it's further down among all the other criteria, it's just the college trying to increase the diversity of its student body, based on the quite reasonable theory that people of different backgrounds will bring different ideas and ways of thinking to the table, and that's desireable at a university. As for the other odd ones, legacy is about bringing in the alumni donations, child of staff is a perk given to staff members to compensate for their usually substandard pay, and athletic/other non-academic talent is usually about pride, though money plays a role in the handful of profitable big-time atheltic programs nationwide.

That was indeed well said.

[Magnetic]

And those "crusty old men" are going to die off soon. You don't want me to get started on the grotesque "wages" those types of people earn. I don't care, . . . NO ONE is worth that much money, . . but I digress. As long as there is fairness, and as long as both people are equally qualified, . . . then if I don't get the job and a person of color does, that's just the way it goes. If some future event happens, and white men are now the minority, I won't call for any favoritism in hiring. I'd prefer to market myself instead. In the career of Design, it should be moreso, who has the better porfolio.

[Count Dooku]

And those "crusty old men" are going to die off soon. You don't want me to get started on the grotesque "wages" those types of people earn. I don't care, . . . NO ONE is worth that much money, . .

LOL! You'll get no argument from me.

[Joe]

And those "crusty old men" are going to die off soon.

To be replaced by a new generation of crusty old men. Old boy's clubs replace departing members with people who are like them, not minorities.

[Magnetic]

And those "crusty old men" are going to die off soon.

To be replaced by a new generation of crusty old men. Old boy's clubs replace departing members with people who are like them, not minorities.

That could very well be true. But I doubt that Affirmative Action will have any pull in the "good ol' boy's club".

[Darth Wong]

particularly with regards to job hiring practices. I have warned you twice now that ignoring points you have no answer for is against the rules.

There is a reason I did not answer that question, and to be frank, you must have 'misread' my original post.

I misread nothing, moron. I responded with a comment about hiring and admissions staff, thus generalizing the issue, and you responded with the idiotic assertion that racism has been eliminated as a factor in hiring. YOU MADE A JOB-RELATED CLAIM in this thread, and you have failed to back it up. The fact that you made it in your second post rather than your first one means precisely jack shit to me.

[Superman]

I've always seen this whole issue sort of like how the Empire operates in "Star Wars." The Empire is huge, its resources are vast, and, at it height, its power unequaled.

There's no denying that almost every major corporate business CEO, government official, and person holding major power is of European descent. Of course there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority is made up of a certain ethnicity.

To deny that there is a system of power in place that perpetuates itself is almost like saying that minorities are basically stupider. If they can't pull themselves up by their boot straps, then tough shit. Nevermind the fact that a group, like black Americans, are overwhelmingly less educated, have poor housing, poverty, etc., and have been this way since the time of American slavery. Are they stupider? There's no credible research that confirms this, so perhaps there are other reasons?

I am not giving anyone a free pass. I am, though, saying that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with giving them a little help where help is needed. As a whole, they have been held back to an extent and do not have a level playing field. I've actually had jobs where employers have stated they wouldn't hire a black person.

For a white person to scream that affirmative action is unethical is almost like Emperor Palpatine complaining he doesn't own the Moon of Endor, when he owns 5,000 other planets.

And, once again, I find it ironic how the vast majority of Christians are right wingers, and yet refuse to help anyone else...

[Superman]

And by the way, what is really at the heart of this argument? When you really get down to it, why would a white person have such a huge problem with this?

[rhoenix]

And by the way, what is really at the heart of this argument? When you really get down to it, why would a white person have such a huge problem with this?

Fear. In this case, fear of the familiar changing. Those who always look for enemies will usually find them.

[wolveraptor]

I think that affirmative action should be applicable to those who come from indigence. It's they who face logistical problems with their schools, such as the understaffing of honors classes, or poor facilities in general. While I don't disagree that even a relatively wealthy black man can be discriminated against, I don't feel that the challenge for him is as strong.

[Darth Wong]

The difference, however, is that nobody can look at you and tell that you grew up poor. The challenges you may have faced as a youth do not dog you forever in life. A shower, a haircut, and some decent clothes, and you can no longer tell the difference. Meanwhile, a black man can overcome challenge after challenge after challenge in life, and yet he can still walk into a job interview and the interviewer can think "oh, a nigger".

[Joe]

And by the way, what is really at the heart of this argument? When you really get down to it, why would a white person have such a huge problem with this?

Because affirmative action is racial discrimination directed against them. Let's be honest about the policy; it may be necessary, but it's a necessary evil at best. Hell, I don't like the fact that I may potentially be passed up for a job offer at some point on the basis of my race one bit. But I realize that it's necessary; that's the only difference between me and people who oppose it (and in fact, I used to be a staunch opponent of the policy myself).

Another reason, of course, is that there really are a number of programs that will in fact lower standards for minorities, and while they are not really representative of affirmative action as a whole, they influence public perception about affirmative action the most due to how highly publicized they are.

[Gil Hamilton]

If you want Affirmative Action to work for you, move to the Bay Area of California. The white families out there don't seem to feel it is racism at all.

[Darth Wong]

Whites aren't the only targets of affirmative action; many of the AA programs at the college level have historically targeted Asians, who quite frankly were beating the whites handily in academic performance and were being held back by racial quotas and AA programs.

[Joe]

I think white women have actually been proven to be the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Go figure.

[Superman]

And by the way, what is really at the heart of this argument? When you really get down to it, why would a white person have such a huge problem with this?

Because affirmative action is racial discrimination directed against them. Let's be honest about the policy; it may be necessary, but it's a necessary evil at best. Hell, I don't like the fact that I may potentially be passed up for a job offer at some point on the basis of my race one bit. But I realize that it's necessary; that's the only difference between me and people who oppose it (and in fact, I used to be a staunch opponent of the policy myself).

Another reason, of course, is that there really are a number of programs that will in fact lower standards for minorities, and while they are not really representative of affirmative action as a whole, they influence public perception about affirmative action the most due to how highly publicized they are.

I seriously doubt that any white person has felt the effects of this "discrimination" firsthand. Even if someone had, they could just get another job or position somewhere else. I really don't think this is why, and, in my opinion, this is more akin to the religious persecution complex. The fundies cry about how they are persecuted, but it really just amounts to them projecting their own crap onto everyone else.

[Metatwaddle]

I think white women have actually been proven to be the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Go figure.

Well, that's kind of counterintuitive. I didn't even know that affirmative action targeted women. Do you have links to any articles on that?

[Count Dooku]

I seriously doubt that any white person has felt the effects of this "discrimination" firsthand. Even if someone had, they could just get another job or position somewhere else. I really don't think this is why, and, in my opinion, this is more akin to the religious persecution complex. The fundies cry about how they are persecuted, but it really just amounts to them projecting their own crap onto everyone else.

If I recall, a few years back, a white guy who applied to medical school (at Michigan State I believe) was denied acceptance, but a black guy whose qualifications were substantially less got in. The case was brought to court, and the court decided that it was indeed racist, and the white student got into the medical program: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html. However, the court did say that this was one of only a few isolated incidents, and that this case would not be the precedent for all cases of this kind.

[Kojiro]

Well, that's kind of counterintuitive. I didn't even know that affirmative action targeted women. Do you have links to any articles on that?

I don't have a citable source available without some research but I recall a friend of mine who, fresh out of uni with a Computer Engineering degree got knocked back for at least two jobs. Each time the reason given to him was 'we have a quota of females to fill'. This particularly incensed him since he said that his class only had something like a 5% female content.

Personally I'd assume that if there simply are no other applicants period he'd get the job but apparently not. Sounds to me like they're trying to let him down softly. Either way he was really pissed the first time and absolutely livid the second.

[Darth Servo]

if one doesn't have to put their race on a college application, what factor would race then play? In an application to a state school (in California at least) no interview is needed for admission. So, if not given the opportunity to be racist, how then would people be turned away because of their race!? That part of your refute is a bit lacking...

Most applications I've seen still require the person's NAME and while it is racist to assume everyone of a particular race adheres to the names stereotyped with their race, a large number of people do precisely that.

[Darth Wong]

Well, that's kind of counterintuitive. I didn't even know that affirmative action targeted women. Do you have links to any articles on that?

I don't have a citable source available without some research but I recall a friend of mine who, fresh out of uni with a Computer Engineering degree got knocked back for at least two jobs. Each time the reason given to him was 'we have a quota of females to fill'. This particularly incensed him since he said that his class only had something like a 5% female content.

Personally I'd assume that if there simply are no other applicants period he'd get the job but apparently not. Sounds to me like they're trying to let him down softly. Either way he was really pissed the first time and absolutely livid the second.

It was common knowledge among my engineering class that the two female graduates were literally swamped with job offers without even having to lift a finger (they made no attempt to hide it) while the males had to go looking for work. Female mechanical engineers are a rare breed and plenty of companies wanted to recruit them just for their chromosome count.