So favoring one person over another purely due to the color of their skin isn't racist? Good to know.
I KNEW OBAMA WAS A MUSLIM
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, it's not like there's any historical reason why some minorities might need to be afforded more protection under the law against discrimination then the majority.
I mean if there are two people just as qualified for a position and i always choose the white one that's not indicative of any bias on my part at all.
Yeah, just because affirmative action isn't perfect doesn't mean you can get rid of it without replacing with something else to offset the discrimination.
I get so tired of the "gotcha" of affirmative action being itself racist.
Affirmative action doesn't promote people because of the color of their skin(racist), it affords them opportunities that would otherwise be denied them because of the color of their skin(equal opportunity). There's a world of difference between the two.
Affirmative action doesn't promote people because of the color of their skin(racist), it affords them opportunities that would otherwise be denied them because of the color of their skin(equal opportunity). There's a world of difference between the two.
It may not be racist, per se, but it is prejudiced. It pre-judges people based upon their role as a member of a group, rather than their strengths and weaknesses as an individual. Affirmative action seeks to solve a problem (I won't hire you because you're this race/sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation) by applying the same problem in reverse (I have to hire a certain number of this race/sex/ethnicity/orientation). This does not result in more equality - at best, it's a break even, and at worst, it could result in the hiring of people unqualified to hold a position, just to meet a quota.
Affirmative action is a band-aid on top of a festering infection - it doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it for a while. Discrimination will always be present, and forcing those who would not hire (or promote, or admit, etc) a black man (for instance) to do so won't change that fact. In fact, it makes it worse - that person then carries with them the stigma of being hired/promoted/admitted within a system that uses affirmative action, and everyone, including himself, will wonder if he actually earned it or if he was just one of a number.
Which is totally why doing nothing is so much better...
If anything just by forcing people to interact with a minority it has a positive impact (there's a reason why segregated schools existed, much easier to dismiss someone you don't interact with).
Also, actual quotas are illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Quotas
Affirmative action specifically only requires that workplaces and colleges don't discriminate against race. There's nothing about quotas etc... That's all red-tap crap universities make up internally so they can say they follow Affirmative action guidelines.
But I thought racial discrimination was already prohibited by the civil rights act? Why pass multiple laws that prohibit the same thing? Or is "affirmative action" the name for policies implemented to comply with the CRA?
"Affirmative action" sounds to me like it was so named because the intent is to take action to affirm those who are members of a demographic that has historically been downtrodden. Either that, or to point out that this implementation is active (requiring a specific behavior) rather than passive (prohibiting a specific behavior). I honestly don't know. Regardless, I think it's treating a symptom rather than the disease.
If what Silent Bob says is true, then I should clarify my statement so that it applies to the implementation of it.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
"Affirmative action" sounds to me like it was so named because the intent is to take action to affirm those who are members of a demographic that has historically been downtrodden. Either that, or to point out that this implementation is active (requiring a specific behavior) rather than passive (prohibiting a specific behavior). I honestly don't know. Regardless, I think it's treating a symptom rather than the disease.
If what Silent Bob says is true, then I should clarify my statement so that it applies to the implementation of it.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
civil rights just allowed an end to segregation. It didn't force companies to actually hire black people.
I'm okay with affirmative action, but I don't like it when under achievers get it. I knew a guy who had an Affirmative action scholarship for Drexel, wasted it all on drugs & cheap alcohol.
everyone stop the presses, whew, thank god papachronos is here to let us know that racism is over
unfurls banner "RACISM IS OVER", confetti goes off everywhere that hispanic people clean up later
unfurls banner "RACISM IS OVER", confetti goes off everywhere that hispanic people clean up later
spoiler: everyone wastes scholarships, not just minorities. I'm a white dude with privilege bingo and I got a full ride and almost kicked out after 2 semesters.
Now, Charlie, you seem like a decent guy, and I think that your concern is probably honest. But I don't know why you seem to enjoy creating discord around here. You know very well that I never said racism is over, but you put those words in my mouth anyway. So I go back to that old chestnut:
STFU Charlie.
As an aside, anyone else find that the word "racism" is starting to reach the point of verbal satiation? Repeated so often that it's ceased to have any meaning? There's plenty of bigotry still around, and prejudice along cultural lines, and those problems need to be addressed. But seriously, stop crying RACISM over every perceived injustice. It's getting old.
I agree. Often times you see the "race card" played when a swindler's bluff is called. For example: I've worked the returns counter at Wal-Mart as a kid; a black lady attempting to return obviously worn and used items for store credit and being refused will instantly devolve into an argument of discrimination and require management to get involved. It's almost like clockwork, if you call-out a con artist or a thief, they get embarrassed and try to slough off that shame onto you (or they kick and scream until they get their way).
No ma'am, I'm hardly a racist, but you are a thief and a liar.
Not everyone wastes scholarships....right? Come on, someone help my all-ready fading trust in the educational system! And by "fading" I mean knocked down at least 300 pegs.
GasBandit
Staff member
So check out what the Florida board of education is doing. Racism isn't over, it's just been undercut by the left's "soft" racism of lowered expectations.
As someone who lives in a country with almost no black people i can tell you that education getting worse is just a global thing...
To anyone who opposes affirmative action on its face (not how it gets implemented,d not specific policies, but the very concept) I ask one simple question: Do you really believe that that 350-ish years worth of legal oppression, discrimination, and abuses (250 years of Slavery, 100 of general inequality and denial of Civil Rights) has been undone in the last fifty-ish years? That the inequalities built into the system and the cultural biases that accumulated have been satisfactorily eliminated? If you answer yes, then you're heart's in the right place but I question your understanding of the issues at play. If your answer is no, I have to wonder what you'd replace it with to correct for those issues.
No, but two wrongs does not make a right. Just because somebody did not start on equal footing with me does not mean that it's right to give the other an advantage to make up for the built-in disadvantage they started with. Yes it sucks, but taking from me for no reason but my race is wrong, even if I started out with an advantage due to "cultural biases" or anything else. I didn't do anything, and I'm playing by the rules, thus it's not just to treat me differently, good or bad. You don't get to "correct for those issues" after-the-fact by doing wrong things more, just to somebody else, usually who had nothing to do with the original acts.
Then the issues will never be corrected. Or at least not for many generations.
Additionally, in terms of higher education, the Supreme Court has laid down rules regarding the use of Affirmative Action in the selection of students. Giving someone points just for their race is unconstitutional, considering race as a factor is not. The idea being that, when things are roughly equal, they can go with the black kid. I don't find that to be particularly unfair to white applicants.
My question, then, is what is a fair proportion of white vs. minority, assuming things are "roughly equal"? Do they go with the black kid 60% of the time? 80%? What percentage equals out the disadvantages faced by everyone in the minority demographic? How is this percentage determined? Because if it's just enacted on a basis of "until it looks/feels right" then whatever "feels right" will differ depending on the preferences and prejudices of the people on the admissions board - which leaves it open to abuse on one side or the other, and kind of defeats the purpose.
A little more research showed that the State of Michigan outlawed affirmative action in 2006 subsequent to the 2003 Supreme Court rulings, based on the University of Michigan's policies, that defined the use of affirmative action in university admissions. The very next year, minority admissions to U of M dropped by 25%. But hey, things were a little more fair to white people, so justice was done.
GasBandit
Staff member
So you mean when a policy that expressly benefited the admission of one group and artificially raised it regardless of merit was removed, that one group's admission went down? Shocking.
I love that we as a culture ask people to pull themselves up by their boot straps, when they have no shoes, and we as a culture are standing on their necks.
I know snark is the common language of Halforums, but I actually have hope that some understanding can be gained here - I'm simply asking what percentage of time taking the black kid over the white kid is "fair."
Regarding the study you cited - did the State of Michigan outlaw affirmative action for the UM-Ann Arbor alone, or the entire UM system statewide, or all state-funded universities? What was the effect of the legislation on overall minority admissions to all state universities in Michigan? You can't cherry pick the stats for UM-Ann Arbor if the legislation affected all state-funded universities in Michigan.
BTW, I'm asking these questions honestly - unlike a lot of folks who seem to beat their heads together about political things, I'm willing to change my opinion if I can be convinced. I'm arguing from what seems logical to me right now, not because of any "right vs left" thing.
Also, I've been hanging around for a long time, but you're all just icons to me - are there any minorities on the board who have an opinion and are willing to share it? Right now it seems like a lot of folks who aren't terribly affected one way or the other arguing over this - but what more should I expect in a political subforum?
GasBandit
Staff member
The white guilt! It burns! It burns!
Let me riposte in kind then - I love how the narrative is that it is impossible for anyone who isn't white to achieve anything on their own, so they need their (largely white) government benefactors to manage their lives, provide their choices, opportunities and achievements for them, because they can't be expected to function as adult human beings.
Or you know, counteract the bullshit that we do.
GasBandit
Staff member
Speak for yourself, bud.
You should just stop being a racist then. This way we wouldn't need to counteract your bullshit!
GasBandit
Staff member
Is it fair that because of race quotas, Asian students have to score significantly higher on the SAT to have a hope of admission?
I just imagine the whole Affirmative Action thing to be about the standard D&D races and it suddenly seems much funnier and less depressing.
I had to start limiting the number of elves in my parties, because they are too bloody boring. Not to mention the players that run them tend to be rules rapists.
So if you start with an advantage you should keep it as long as you weren't directly responsible for that advantage?
See, the thing is that affirmative action is supposed to simply level the playing field... the fact that in real life it doesn't always do that, because there's no such thing as a perfect solution irl, isn't an argument against it's existence any more then the fact that some people are allergic to antibiotics is a reason not to use antibiotics.Identifying the people that are allergic and giving them an alternative treatment is the better solution imo.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I actually instituted an "at least one human" quota for my Pathfinder group because the gamers - friends of mine and tabletop RPG newbies - just went crazy with new races.
The current team composition: a gay half-elf rogue, a half-elf druid whose player decided his character's gender and name five minutes before the game, a tiefling sorceress and a human priestess of the sun goddess.
The current team composition: a gay half-elf rogue, a half-elf druid whose player decided his character's gender and name five minutes before the game, a tiefling sorceress and a human priestess of the sun goddess.
Halforums: A forum where a topic about Obama's religion can lead to discussions about table top role-playing games. So pretty much the best forum in the world.
I bet that human spent all his loot on mead and wenches instead of bettering himself.
- Status