http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm make sure to scroll down to the details

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I read it, and I kind of see how it is "needed to show how minorities are just as capable as whites" and that is a wonderful thing if it shows that. However, I strongly disagree that it is needed to make up for oppression. You don't deserve better opportunities because your ancestors were oppressed. You may have shitty living and education conditions because your ancestors were oppressed, and you may have shitty living and education conditions even though your ancestors weren't oppressed. You may have wonderful living and education opportunities even if your ancestors were oppressed. Point is, race needs to be left out of the decision making and it should be solely to who is most disadvantaged without assuming the minority is more disadvantaged than the non minority. Someone with a past of oppressed ancestors is no more disadvantaged as someone of the same current background but without the recently oppressed ancestors, and it's racist to assume one needs more help than the other.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think the policy should be removed completely I think it needs modifications though and the ancestor thing was one of the points that was made the last one here are some myth busters to check out http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/affirm/myth.asp

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, affirmative action is not just a race thing it goes for the disabled, women, etc. here are some myth busters for the disabled http://test.afsc.org/affirmative-action-mythbusters-people-disabilities it's past my bedtime we talk later

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think the one toward people with disabilities need to be more well known- that all people (this includes employers) be more educated on physical and mental disabilities, and that employers know which sort of jobs people with disabilities of the most common can't do and the jobs they can do, and unless the entire/almost entire job would not be able to be done with a certain disability (ex: a deaf person being a DJ), then they should be eligible for employment with reasonable accommodations. As for toward women, I've read many thing about how much less women make and other such disadvantages, and I've also read a lot of things about how this could be because women are naturally less confrontational than men, ex: a woman might be less likely to ask for a raise than a man. However, I do consider that there's a good possibility that women make on average less than men for the same job and make up much less of the work force for certain jobs, this could be because the social ideal of what a woman should be is enforced into a girl's mind ("I must be agreeable, and not like engineering, math, science, etc. Because I am a girl" might be some of their thoughts) I think that there's a lo

by Anonymous 12 years ago

t of very different thoughts that go through people's head when they are either directly effected by the above or when they are just talking about the above. But I think the best way to start eradicating prejudices is to quit making other prejudices to make up for the original prejudice (reverse racism, reverse sexism. That's what they're called. I think it only reinforces the idea that sexism isn't toward men and racism isn't toward whites, that if you're not either of those, if you're called the opposite of one of those, that it's an insult.) And that maybe not everyone from the alive generations today will quit seeing women as less capable than men and minorities being less capable than whites- our children will see everyone as being even with no prejudiced of any sorts in the law, it will show that all people are equal and eradicate the belief that they're not.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't think the term reverse added was offensive not when I made this: http://amirite.com/748286-to-fix-discrimination-affirmative-action-came-about-this-policy-led-to-reverse I mean that shows I get what you mean I just use the terms I read about but now I understand how it can be found offensive what if they added socioeconomic status on to the list along with the others as a modification? it's just that I think the general public thinks that affirmative action influences a lot more than the policy actually does and I think the functions of the policy is misunderstood too (as seen in the myth busters) I feel like taking the policy away could mean less opportunities overall leading to a more skewed population in the education and work field or maybe everyone would be fine without it I think it'd be great if our children were able to see things evenly like you said and if taking away the policy was enough to do it than I'd definitely find the removal more appealing and I also thing if removal were to occur that it should be a gradual process and not something that takes place at once

by Anonymous 12 years ago

(continued) and what about this? "Myth: There are already laws against discrimination in employment. We don’t need affirmative action, too. Reality: Civil rights laws don’t address subtle institutional discrimination. Through affirmative action, employers and educational institutions engage in outreach, recruitment, and training to remedy past and existing discrimination." http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/affirm/myth.asp it doesn't just talk about past discrimination it's about the existing discrimination too if it stays, people will see it as unfair if the affirmative action is removed, people will see it as unfair

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think any policy about race equality should be removed, I simply think the policy should be "you can't not hire someone because of their race, you can't hire someone over someone else because of their race, hire the person who deserves it, give help to people who need it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think any policy about race equality should be removed, I simply think the policy should be "you can't not hire someone because of their race, you can't hire someone over someone else because of their race, hire the person who deserves it, give help to people who need it."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think any policy about race equality should be removed, I simply think the policy should be "you can't not hire someone because of their race, you can't hire someone over someone else because of their race, hire the person who deserves it, give help to people who need it."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think any policy about race equality should be removed, I simply think the policy should be "you can't not hire someone because of their race, you can't hire someone over someone else because of their race, hire the person who deserves it, give help to people who need it."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

that's the thing though the reality part talks about subtle discrimination in institutions that the law doesn't catch the policy helps to hinder this if everyone followed what you said then it'd be fine but that's not the way it goes down we can't stop people from discriminating if they want to do it they'll do it in ways that it's difficult to get caught

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'd rather have subtle discrimination that doesn't get picked up that a policy that is blatant discrimination worse that what it was trying to prevent and is only going to perpetuate racism rather than just taking the proper steps to end it now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

you mean the subtle discrimination that turns away certain people from jobs or the subtle discrimination that pays lower wages to certain people? by subtle I mean it's done in a way that puts groups at a disadvantage but the laws is not able to catch it the policy is to combat //existing// discrimination just look at job wages and the difference in pay between groups

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know what you meant by subtle, and I'd rather have that than a policy that perpetuates racism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

that would just skew the wages more and hinder even more opportunities putting the groups at an even greater disadvantage than they already are at even though the people are qualified all because they're different

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So be it. Maybe that needs to happen for people to find a policy that actually gets rid of racism instead of perpetuates it. When children grow up not seeing racism in the laws, they won't be racist. When children grow up seeing minorities get advantages, they're going to think being a minority means you need the extra advantage, even if they don't. Racist laws make racist people. Laws should be fair, no race gets any advantages over any other race.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

how is removing the policy going to do that? won't the children grow up seeing the skewed wages and look at the statistics and think "hmm why is this group getting so much more pay than the other for doing the same job?"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not even the same thing. Most people aren't looking at wage statistics and form opinion on them. Most people do know about a well known policy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think most people know that wages are skewed and those who get the lower wages will protest to make sure that the public is aware and does it matter what most people know and don't know? shouldn't the children growing up be aware of the truth that wages are skewed? if they don't know they're not going to know there's a problem then they won't think to fix things I don't want them to be ignorant about this

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said people shouldn't know or that it doesn't matter. You made a comparison, I told you how they're not the same thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said people shouldn't know or that it doesn't matter. You made a comparison, I told you how they're not the same thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said people shouldn't know or that it doesn't matter. You made a comparison, I told you how they're not the same thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

fair enough it's going to be unfair whether the policy is there or not if there was something else to combat discrimination I'd say it was fine but if the policy is removed the disadvantages as a whole outweigh the disadvantages the policy brings even with the policy wages are skewed It's the lesser of two evils EDIT: I've been looking at some things and I don't mind if the policy is removed as long as there is something to discourage the skew like more strictly enforcing things like equal pay

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said people shouldn't know or that it doesn't matter. You made a comparison, I told you how they're not the same thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not even the same thing. Most people aren't looking at wage statistics and form opinion on them. Most people do know about a well known policy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So be it. Maybe that needs to happen for people to find a policy that actually gets rid of racism instead of perpetuates it. When children grow up not seeing racism in the laws, they won't be racist. When children grow up seeing minorities get advantages, they're going to think being a minority means you need the extra advantage, even if they don't. Racist laws make racist people. Laws should be fair, no race gets any advantages over any other race.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Both. I know what you meant by subtle, and I'd rather have that than a policy that perpetuates racism. I'd rather have individual people be racist instead of an entire policy. I know the policy is meant to combat that, but it doesn't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, like I said, I kind KIND OF see how is shows minorities are just as capable as whites, but I think it shows the opposite. It says "Minority students, generally speaking, start out at a disadvantage in their college or job application process. They usually come from lower income families and have less opportunity to go to private schools as white students. Some inner city youths must also live their childhoods in high crime, drug-infested areas. Sincere, hard-working minority students are every bit as capable as white students, but because of these disadvantages, they may not have the same paper qualifications. Affirmative action evens the playing field a bit." but I don't think all minorities should get an advantage just because they're statistically more likely to be worse off than whites. If they are disadvantaged, give them an advantaged. If they're not, then don't. Fuck race. Just because minorities are more likely to be disadvantaged than whites doesn't mean they ALL need an advantage, I think minorities should only get an advantage if they are disadvantaged and I believe the same for non minorities too. EDIT: Just got your new response, I'll read that and respond in...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

a mo'.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Affirmative Action will be required until there is a black president or a hispanic pope.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There is a black president.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

and a hispanic pope

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You said or.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

we have both

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So why is there still affirmative action? Or is this a JFK quote you're proving wrong?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or neither. That's just what I guessed from the given context.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think that the idea is that "minorities" are less competent, it's that they will be discriminated against.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Affirmative action //is// discrimination. And I didn't mean that the idea of affirmative action is there because minorities are less competent, I said it reinforces that idea. Why do you have "minorities" in quotations?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So how would you propose choosing between the two students if they are equal in every way and there is only one spot? Colleges want to increase their diversity statistics (racial diversity, in this case). A school has 499 students, and the spot being vied for is #500. There are 400 white students and 99 black students, so the school goes 'eh, let's pick the black one' (the way we might pick a red shirt to an identical green one because we don't have enough of that color in our wardrobe). Maybe caring about statistics is shallow of the schools, but it is something people look at when applying and maybe gives slightly more benefit in the diversity department than, say, flipping a coin. I agree with your post, and I know most affirmative action isn't what I described. I'm just wondering about a scenario like this one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think they should look at extra curricular activities, references, special awards, etc. and that there probably wouldn't be two students with the exact same qualifications but if there were and race was the only determining factor I don't really know how I'd feel about that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"Myth: Affirmative action gives preference to undeserving women and people of color solely on the basis of their gender and/or race. Reality: Affirmative action does not mean the hiring of unqualified people. In fact, these activities are specifically prohibited by law. Affirmative action allows competent and qualified women and minorities to compete and excel in areas where they are or have been under-represented." http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/affirm/myth.asp

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, I know, but what if two people are equally qualified and equally disadvantaged? I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but I don't necessarily think looking at race is always contrived.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"Myth: There are already laws against discrimination in employment. We don’t need affirmative action, too. Reality: Civil rights laws don’t address subtle institutional discrimination. Through affirmative action, employers and educational institutions engage in outreach, recruitment, and training to remedy past and existing discrimination." http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/affirm/myth.asp like any policy there are pros and cons I think the pros outweigh the cons for affirmative action there is still existing discrimination getting rid of AA isn't gonna get rid of that discrimination that's why I think the policy should be kept but that modifications can be made such as adding socioeconomic status to the list so any disadvantaged people can have opportunities

by Anonymous 12 years ago

(continued) Also, the policy is not only a race thing it's for the disabled, women, etc. so it includes all races

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am of a race that is hurt by affirmative action, but I still support it. I think it's important to understand that certain cultures within America don't emphasize education as much as the others. The fact is that some races score lower than others, not because they're dumber, but because their environment on average values education less. Plus, these races also face worse economic and family situations. These people have had to overcome more difficult circumstances than others. I get what you're saying though, since race doesn't determine intelligence or things like that, but I feel like on average certain races value intelligence differently.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just because people of a certain race are more likely to be disadvantaged doesn't mean all people of that race need a leg up, any race can come from any disadvantaged area, even if one race is more statistically likely to come from that area, all those people from that area need help, not just people of a certain race from that area, you shouldn't just give someone a leg up because people of their race are statistically more likely to need it, that doesn't automatically mean everyone of that race does. Correlation=/=causation in statistics. It's important to look at the other factors. Ie: they don't need help because they're black, they need help because they're poor. They don't not need help because they're white, they don't need it because their family is well off. Instead of saying they need help because their race and they don't because of their race, look at the underlying factors and decide if they need it or not.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It sounds like I'm being discriminatory towards races, which is not what I'm trying to do. What I'm really saying is that CULTURE, which is mostly identified with race, causes a difference in scores/achievement. I'm not trying to say all members of a certain race value education the same way, nor that race causes intelligence, as you think I tried to say, but we all know how, for example, Asian Americans typically score higher than many other races, right? It's not that they're even smarter as a race, it's just a cultural thing that they value education more than others. I think many people look over the cultural sources of test scores. Culture is identified very much so with race, and I don't think that can be denied. I don't mean to say that some races don't care about intelligence but that it's not a central concern; success may be defined by much more than an IQ. Kids who grow up in this culture face these challenges, which are different than the typical Asian American whose parents play a heavy role. This isn't something you can quantitatively measure. You can't interview a parent about their involvement.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, I knew exactly what you meant and I didn't think it was racist. You completely missed the point of my comment, though. Correlation=/= causation and you can't go giving people advantages or disadvantages because or correlation, you have to do it based off causation, so while one race may be correlated with this, you don't go giving all people of that race because of that correlation, you find out why it's correlated (they go to shitty schools) and give people who go to shitty schools advantages.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I did not miss the point. I never said race causes difference in scoring. I said culture does, which I think can be best identified by race. I don't believe there's really a way to judge an applicant based on culture.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

From this comment, I can tell you definitely missed the point because you didn't even address it. Go back to my comment and replace the word race with culture, I think it might make the point more clear. There's not a way to judge an applicant on culture, so don't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I thought you were talking about something else..my bad. I still think that the more lower achieving minorities still should get the leg up because most of them face societal challenges that others can't understand. I get that not all of them face it, but it's obvious that there is still racism in the culture that may force some students to feel unworthy simply because of their race. I think it's important for colleges to recognize that and just consider it a bit when deciding.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I found another good link for this: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm thoughts?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm hispanic. While I agree that affirmative action is discrimination, I'm not going to fight it. College is a competitive world and I will take any advantage I can to ensure I'll be accepted. I'm a good student, but I'm sure there are a bunch of students just like me. If being Hispanic is what separates me from these students and gives me a better chance to get in, then I'm not going to complain.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

THANK YOU for addressing this. A girl I know got over 100,000 altogether in scholarship offers because of her race, while her equally-qualified peers got around 25,000 or less

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am in-between because I think there are multiple dilemmas in that scenario. It is best that the dilemmas be separated and evaluated in a more stable environment...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/three-myths-about-affirmative-action/32084

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I strongly agree. I understand schools want to be more diverse, but even the thought of wanting to be more diverse is like saying a certain group of people by race is smarter than another group of people by race. If people could realize that, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem. But what do I know? I'm not even in High School... So I truly don't fully understand the whole University thing... But when I've seen it on the news... I felt bothered by the whole case about that one girl who sued a school because she was white, mostly because of the excuses of the school. If a student is smart, applies well for the University in question, and is fully capable of doing well, why does it matter the race?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I disagree. Life is not fair.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Completely agree and I'm a minority!!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Completely agree and I'm a minority!!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That completely ignores the problem that created affirmative action in the first place. Discrimination.

by Anonymous 5 years ago