I really really dislike how companies will hire someone because they are required by law to have a certain percentage of every minority. And that when you fill out information for a scholar ship, they ask you things like if you're black, Latino, Eskimoan, etc. and that there are scholarships specifically for minorities. And this is slightly unrelated, sports scholarships are stupid too. They give them to really good athletes because they want them at their school to win for them, and school is supposed to be about academics. Everything should be fair- you should get into a good school because you did well in school, you should get a job because you're more qualified than the other people who applied. I hate girls that are like "I can hold open the door myself" to boys. It's just a nice thing to do for anyone. I can understand wanting to pay for dates sometimes though. A guy wouldn't pay for everything him and his guy friend did, so it's not really the same as holding the door open. I personally don't mind though, I'm broke anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Check this out though, a lot of the scholarships and affirmative action hires, are to attempt to put everyone on a level playing field. There's no denying that the american system is a perpetuity of sorts, as in the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor due to funding, education and those type of things. The fact that minorities are starting from behind is the reason why those things happen. As for when on standardized tests and scholarships and things of that nature race is asked, as well as gender, that's for data collection purposes mostly. As for Athletic scholarships, school isn't solely about academics, it's about growth, academically, socially, and athletically and so just as some are gifted with incredible smarts, others are gifted with superior physical abilities. With I assume that you're a white guy who's not too good enough in sports to get a scholarship but smart enough to get in to college on academics, i might be wrong but that's the way you came off. Any scholarships you get for academics is the exact same as a scholarship for athletics. To be fair removing one would have to result in removing the other

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think racially based scholarships level the playing field. They actually make it in favor of minorities. And I think that while athletic scholarships are reasonable, they certainly aren't as important as academic, because I think college is more about academics than all those things you said athletic scholarships represent. They should still be allowed, though, they just aren't as important from a college's perspective

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think I agree with affirmative action because its trying to get people who were previously disadvantaged to get a chance to get ahead. I'm gonna use black people to explain what I mean: 1. Like a hundred and fifty years ago they were slaves and where treated like barbaric heathen that are only good for work 2. Then they are freed however they are still segregated and the famous "separate but equal" come about and they were still disadvantaged and treated like second class(that was like 50 years ago) 3. Currently they accommodate for a small minority in America however they are overlyrepresented in jail, minimum wage jobs, drop outs, living in ghettos...etc. so by giving them an advantage over their previously privileged white counterparts. I think by giving them this one advantage it allows them to "catch-up" and have higher ranks in society.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If black people are overly-represented in jail, white people must be underrepresented. Maybe we should make it easier for white people to be jailed. ... Seriously, how do you not understand the stupidity of affirmative action?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Please read this article I think it kind of explains it: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/ I guess because I look at the world differently then you do so I don't neccesarily a bad thing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The majority of those statistics are completely unrelated to racism. I mean come on, if "people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population [and] account for 60 percent of those imprisoned" it cannot be blamed on cops racial profiling. Minorities simply commit more crimes than white people, it's statistics. And the article supports treating all people as equals and not paying attention to their color, which is exactly what affirmative action goes against by considering their skin color.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes." "African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses" "report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police." These are all examples of racism, I asked you to read the article not skim it and get the gist. This article is taking about racial disparities inherent in the american justic system.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I did read it. I'm saying those might account for a small percentage of the difference between imprisoned blacks and whites, but certainly not the whole difference.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

do you mind rephrasing what you are trying to say, because it's a little unclear to me!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm saying that those statistics, if true, couldn't possibly account for the entire disparity between the number of minorities in jail compared to the number of whites in jail.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

All of those statistics are highly biased and I suspect some just completely fake. For example, the first one: Do you think they went through every single court case against a black person and asked themselves, who was involved? Premeditated? Evidence against and for them? Witnesses? Then went and found a white person and found a case exactly like it? Not likely. Let me continue onto the second statistic. If they knew exactly how many people of what race do drugs (also not accounting for the difference between the occasional weed smoker vs. heroin addict) then why aren't they all aloud to just walk around on the street?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You can't call a statistic biased. If it's biased, then it's not a statistic, and if it's a statistic, then it has no bias because it'd be pure fact

by Anonymous 11 years ago