What about affirmative action? [W:275,418]

[Jack Hays]

Is affirmative action a good thing? A bad thing? Something in between?

Arguments for and against affirmative action

In “For Discrimination,” Randall Kennedy offers an accessible, level-headed critique of affirmative action.eace

 

[thinkforyoursel]

It's a holiday weekend.....College football has started ......America is on the brink of a major military strike .... and you're out there some where worrying about affirmative action something that have no effect on you personally.

Remember how I keep saying America's 200+ years history can be summed up in slavery , Jim Crow and racism? Here is the proof ...it consumes you people, you wake up ..drink a cup a coffee and start thinking about racism.

Contrary to this are the Chinese and their 3000+ years of history that lend to their superior intellect. Because they don't think like you ...they have trains averaging 300 mph as they march in the 21st century. While were here stuck in the 19th century.

Can you not think about something else.....seriously?

 

[ttwtt78640]

My view of affirmative action (AA) is that it is being used as the "remedy" for an eternal class action in which neither the members of the plaintiff class nor the members of the defendent class were ever clearly defined and are constantly changing.

How can someone not yet even born when the AA "class action" event occurred possibly be in either in the plaintiff class or the defendent class?

If a person was not even in the U.S. when whatever "wrong" occured that required AA as the remedy then how can they be included in the "remedy"?

It seems to me that all white folks are (somehow) in the defendent class and that all non-white folks (except asians? somehow) are in the plaintiff class and that the "settlement" is that "good" discrimination (AA?) is allowed under the broad terms of AA remedy and may continue forever.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's a holiday weekend.....College football has started ......America is on the brink of a major military strike .... and you're out there some where worrying about affirmative action something that have no effect on you personally.

Remember how I keep saying America's 200+ years history can be summed up in slavery , Jim Crow and racism? Here is the proof ...it consumes you people, you wake up ..drink a cup a coffee and start thinking about racism.

Contrary to this are the Chinese and their 3000+ years of history that lend to their superior intellect. Because they don't think like you ...they have trains averaging 300 mph as they march in the 21st century. While were here stuck in the 19th century.

Can you not think about something else.....seriously?

Why are your feathers so ruffled by something that "has no effect on you"? You left out reparations, which may be what AA really is. Think before you drink, even Koolaid.

 

[Dooble]

Is affirmative action a good thing? A bad thing? Something in between?

Arguments for and against affirmative action

In “For Discrimination,” Randall Kennedy offers an accessible, level-headed critique of affirmative action.eace

I support anything that gets people working.

 

[Woodman909]

If I apply for a job, I expect to be considered because of my skill and experience, nothing else. But I also expect other candidates be considered in the same way. Anything less is unfair.

 

[Misterveritis]

It's a holiday weekend.....College football has started ......America is on the brink of a major military strike .... and you're out there some where worrying about affirmative action something that have no effect on you personally.
. . .
Can you not think about something else.....seriously?

And our president, the One, the Messiah, played golf. Seriously.

Are you arguing that injustice does not affect us?

 

[imagep]

I support anything that gets people working.

What if it prevents others from working?

AA does nothing to increase the total amount of workers, only the total amount of certain groups of workers. It's a zero sum game.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Just remember .....the group that most benefitted from affirmative action .....are white women!!

 

[ReformCollege]

My view of affirmative action (AA) is that it is being used as the "remedy" for an eternal class action in which neither the members of the plaintiff class nor the members of the defendent class were ever clearly defined and are constantly changing.

How can someone not yet even born when the AA "class action" event occurred possibly be in either in the plaintiff class or the defendent class?

If a person was not even in the U.S. when whatever "wrong" occured that required AA as the remedy then how can they be included in the "remedy"?

It seems to me that all white folks are (somehow) in the defendent class and that all non-white folks (except asians? somehow) are in the plaintiff class and that the "settlement" is that "good" discrimination (AA?) is allowed under the broad terms of AA remedy and may continue forever.

And it's a poor remedy at that which actually hurts both sides in the long run.

 

[ReformCollege]

What if it prevents others from working?

AA does nothing to increase the total amount of workers, only the total amount of certain groups of workers. It's a zero sum game.

Actually it's a negative sum game if it means that the we have a greater mismatch between skills and jobs.

 

[Dooble]

What if it prevents others from working?

Then it's not a very good program, and it's back to the drawing table.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

...yawn....no other group benefitted more from affirmative action ....than white women.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And it's a poor remedy at that which actually hurts both sides in the long run.

I tend to agree, with most versions of AA's implementation. The concept of targetting "special help" to those deemed to be most in need of it is not always a bad idea, but the devil is always in the actual implementation details.

 

[mike2810]

hire the best qualified person you can get for the job.

 

[P. Kersey]

Just remember .....the group that most benefitted from affirmative action .....are white women!!

So you agree that including negroes as a "protected class" isn't necessary or fair.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What if it prevents others from working?

AA does nothing to increase the total amount of workers, only the total amount of certain groups of workers. It's a zero sum game.

At best it is a zero sum game, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If the success (graduation/promotion rate) is the same for AA selected candidates as it was for the general group then it is a zero sum game, if not then it is a negative/positive sum game since the opportunity granted was wasted/rewarded at a different rate. If the employers/schools use the same resources regardless of the employees/students selected by AA yet achieve different rates of success then it is not a zero sum game.

 

[P. Kersey]

I tend to agree, with most versions of AA's implementation. The concept of targetting "special help" to those deemed to be most in need of it is not always a bad idea, but the devil is always in the actual implementation details.

Who gets to determine who needs "extra help"?

How much longer should this continue?
5 years? 50? a hundred? 500?..forever? (as Eric "my people" Holder advocates).

How about skills knowledge and aptitude being the only criteria?
People should be free to associate, live, hire, buy, sell, work wherever/whoever they want.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

no other group benefit more from affirmative action ....than white women.

I bet that put a damper of your morning racism ....now it's time to think about the noon day racism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Who gets to determine who needs "extra help"?

Obviously those doing the selecting, usually an employer or educational instituion.

How much longer should this continue?
5 years? 50? a hundred? 500?..forever? (as Eric "my people" Holder advocates).

Forever if it does not work, when "parity" is acheived if it does work.

How about skills knowledge and aptitude being the only criteria?
People should be free to associate, live, hire, buy, sell, work wherever/whoever they want.

If these "qualifications", that you speak of, can be shown to be vaild then yes, that is OK by me, however you cite many areas that seem to deviate from that. For example if what you want (see as a "qualified" candidate) is simply someone that looks, talks and dresses like you then that is hardly using a fair and objective "qualification" test - now is it?

 

[P. Kersey]

no other group benefit more from affirmative action ....than white women.

I bet that put a damper of your morning racism ....now it's time to think about the noon day racism.

Doesn't matter who "benefits" the most. It is exclusionary and arbitrary and dilutes the workforce.

Skills, knowledge and aptitude should be the only criteria.

 

[GottaGo]

When one person is selected over another solely based on a physical characteristic (race, skin color, gender, height, weight etc.) rather than knowledge and ability to do the job, it's discrimination.

It damages the other people for something they have no control over.

 

[Arbo]

Is affirmative action a good thing?

It is institutionalized racism.

It's a holiday weekend.....College football has started ......America is on the brink of a major military strike .... and you're out there some where worrying about affirmative action something that have no effect on you personally.

Remember how I keep saying America's 200+ years history can be summed up in slavery , Jim Crow and racism? Here is the proof ...it consumes you people, you wake up ..drink a cup a coffee and start thinking about racism.

Contrary to this are the Chinese and their 3000+ years of history that lend to their superior intellect. Because they don't think like you ...they have trains averaging 300 mph as they march in the 21st century. While were here stuck in the 19th century.

Can you not think about something else.....seriously?

How about rather than a moronic rant, you answer the questions asked?

 

[P. Kersey]

Obviously the one doing the selecting, usually an employer or educational instituion.

So there is no controlling authority? It comes down to whatever the leaders of these various places think needs to be done.

Forever if it does not work, when "parity" is acheived if it does work.

What is the definition of "parity" in this case?..and how is it determined to be "working"? Who decides? There is no set way to measure or quantify.

If these "qualifications" that you speak can be shown to be vaild then yes, that is OK by me, however you cite many areas that seem to deviate from that. For example if what you want (see as a "qualified" candidate) is simply someone that looks, talks and dresses like you that is hardly using a fair and objective "qualification" test - now is it?

Looks?, c'mon, man..that's a red herring.... Skills, knowledge, aptitude should be the sole criteria...There are ways to measure those qualifications and to compare.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When one person is selected over another solely based on a physical characteristic (race, skin color, gender, height, weight etc.) rather than knowledge and ability to do the job, it's discrimination.

It damages the other people for something they have no control over.

Not in all cases. If what I require is a candidate for training as a jockey then I am not apt to consider a 6' 4" person weighing 320 pounds as a good choice - now am I?

I will concede your point in many cases but not all, as there is also such a (legitimate) thing as being over-qualified. Why hire (and train) someone that you beleive will not stay long; e.g. hire a certified welder to install PVC irrigation systems?