CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Good only for the era in which it was started. Bad for the present, because it is a form of discrimination. All Americans, Canadians, and civilized countries count all its' people as citizens and evoke the law accordingly. Uncivilized countries can only fight among themselves until equality is law.
To understand affirmative action and its effects in the USA, one has to know its past.
It's still necessary in large part in corporate America especially which often uses a buddy system for advancement wherein due perhaps to remnants or racism, or more likely simply Africans and other minorities are not part of the "buddy" circle already and so would automatically be excluded regardless of credentials.
In a far higher percentage, minorities are still born into poverty, and in areas with very poor education systems through no fault of their own (obviously having just been born).
This feeds a vicious cycle in two ways:
1. It creates an atmosphere where individuals fairly or not feel that because of their race, even if they were to try, they would fail automatically.
2. It feeds the already existing racism in America, a system where many still to this day blame the victim's for being born in these poor areas, insisting they "pull themselves up by their boot straps" when in fact, any human of any race if the situations were reversed, would find them selves, percentage wise to the population, in the exact same seemingly hopeless circumstance.
Affirmative action, or some other similar system must be implemented to encourage further equality.
We will know when Affirmative action is no longer needed when percentage wise we can say prisons, CEO's, Doctors, Lawyers etc are all represented approximately equally percentage-wise according the the population as a whole, among the different skin tones one can see about them.
We know this to be the case because we know that beyond the generic differences in outward appearance, all humans are basically the exact same minus short term genetics. Something like 98% the same according to DNA
As such there is no reason beyond social that there should be a difference among people who display these generic physical differences such as skin tone in something like say the prison population.
That people are the same, and that prisons for example have an overwhelming number of African Americans, or that while African Americans make up 18% of the overall population they make up only around 1% of CEO's tells us it is something inherently wrong with a system in specific areas that is leading to this.
It actually creates reverse discrimination against Caucasians.
I agree. But that's a good thing, because it's that sense of white, male entitlement(1) that affirmative action seeks to resolve. It can only be reverse discrimination if you assume that some job or access is inherently yours and you're being denied it. If it's not inherently yours, then you're not being reverse-discriminated against by virtue of your race or sex.
It's also difficult to argue an actual (as opposed to perceived) reverse-discrimination when, for example, in the low wage labor market, whites are 2.04 times more likely to be hired for work than blacks, and 1.23 times more likely than Latinos even among equally qualified workers. And blacks without a criminal record (specifically) don't even have a statistical advantage over white ex-convicts just coming out of jail (2).
Whites are also essentially hired at the same rates pre and post 1970, and white representation in the labor force has remained statistically the same since the institution of Affirmative action(3). Women and other minorities are also seeing increased downward mobility in white collar labor (4)(See: "Downward Mobility of Women from White-Collar Employment: Determinants and Timing by Race"). And overall, white men have seen very little to no statistical disadvantage since affirmative action was instituted (5)(See: Managing Privilege: The Stable Advantage of White Males in U.S. Private Sector Employment, 1966-2000).
So, either the reverse-discrimination isn't actually working as you perceive it to be or you want an even greater advantage in the labor market, which, again, would tell us that we still need affirmative action and it's a good idea... because white males are engendering and perpetuating a kind of racial and cultural nepotism. And when that nepotism is under threat, all you hear is screaming about a reverse-discrimination that isn't actually occurring, and there still exists an overwhelming advantage for one group over another for no to little legitimate reason. The basic point is that while you and other white males "perceive" some form of discrimination, in practice it's basically non-existent.
Reverse discrimination exists, and it is a fact of life since affirmative action.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of firefighters in a reverse discrimination case where in the split 5-4 vote, a majority of the justices ruled that the city of New Haven, Connecticut discrimated based on race.
What is not surprising? Justice Sonia Sotomayor was on the dissenting side of the case.
"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." Firefighters
Reverse discrimination exists, and it is a fact of life since affirmative action.
"Reverse discrimination" is an emotional, rhetorical tool, to which I think I've adequately addressed in my first post. It can't be "reverse" discrimination unless you think you're entitled to some position or some form of access, which you are being denied. And I don't think that many people, including you, hold that level of entitlement. The Destefano case was just a very regular discrimination suit - not a "reverse" discrimination suit. And, to wit: Ruth Bader Ginsberg also dissented when it reached the Supreme Court, in fact, Sotomayor was one of seven people to reject the case when it was first heard, so I don't see your point as particularly poignant.
Now, is it a "fact of life"? Not really. The large body of research, some of which I have provided in my first post and you have clearly ignored suggests otherwise (I can understand why; it disconfirms your perceptions of white, male discrimination): that both the white collar and blue collar labor markets disproportionately favor white males. White males still have overwhelming advantage and privilege when compared to women, minorities and the disabled. Not only has white representation remained statistically disproportionately higher, but white male pay has increased disproportionate to representation, and even with the existence of affirmative action, women and minorities are still seeing downward mobility.
The researched labor market trends suggest that your perception of discrimination does not match with the reality of the labor market and its hiring and pay practices. Your opining is one of the reasons why I posted the first, linked article for you to read: Resisting Threats to Privilege: Various White Men’s Movements Resist Confronting Oppression, by Abby L. Ferber. It was my (1) citation, but it disappeared, I've reposted it. I would also suggest that you read the other research I have provided, letting me know which links work and which links don't, so you don't just have to argue from your opinion, but you can review the research done into the studied impact of affirmative action and white perception of discrimination. It just doesn't bear out as well as you seem think.
All the research will suggest that affirmative action is based on fairness because that is what affirmative action goal is, and it is another liberal viewpoint of equality of outcome rather than eqaulity of oppournity.
Affirmative action is not based on the best applicants either for school or job opportunities because what affirmative action does is it actually thwarts who are the very best for those jobs or school applicants due to equality.
The Destefano case was just a very regular discrimination suit - not a "reverse" discrimination suit.
"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.
How is this not reverse discrimination? Pure example of why the best applicants were ignored because of affirmative action.
The researched labor market trends suggest that your perception of discrimination does not match with the reality of the labor market and its hiring and pay practices.
The labor market and its hiring pay practices is actually based and skills and talents rather than segregation.
All the research will suggest that affirmative action is based on fairness because that is what affirmative action goal is, and it is another liberal viewpoint of equality of outcome rather than eqaulity of oppournity.
...And then I realized that you don't care about the reality of things. You believe with religious conviction, and deny all evidence to the contrary of that belief. So, I'm not going to try anymore.
Affirmative action is not based on the best applicants either for school or job opportunities because what affirmative action does is it actually thwarts who are the very best for those jobs or school applicants due to equality.
Because there's ultimately no such thing. What you call "reverse discrimination" is just simple, regular discrimination. The whole "reverse" part of it is just an emotional ploy that has no basis in any context outside of an emotional ploy.
Pure example of why the best applicants were ignored because of affirmative action.
Not really. At issue was Title VII: disparate-impact/treatment and not really affirmative action. I don't expect you, at this point, to understand the difference. So, you don't have to bother replying to this point.
The labor market and its hiring pay practices is actually based and skills and talents rather than segregation.
Went right over your head, I see.
You can have the last go. Allow me to poison the well by suggesting that I don't have any real confidence that you're addressing the issue of affirmative action and its actual versus perceived impact on one group over another, and you're not in the least bit interested in evaluating its impact in an honest light.
Affirmative Action seeks to reconcile the injustices of the past. The horrible atrocities of the past, including slavery and the refusal to grant women and minorities the right to vote, cast an ugly shadow on the history of our nation. But affirmative action cannot erase what our ancestors did years ago. Instead of trying to reconcile the oppression of the past, we should try to lend a hand to young minorities that want to learn and be successful, but lack the resources they need to accomplish their goals.
Ipse-dixitism?? Way to resort to name calling.
Not really. At issue was Title VII: disparate-impact/treatment and not really affirmative action. I don't expect you, at this point, to understand the difference. So, you don't have to bother replying to this point.
I hate when people insult other people's intelligence. I didn't do that to you, but I guess it is different for liberals.
I know what is entailed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So there has never been discrimination by employers of hiring employees or student admission on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Never ever!!! Can you prove that?
There is a difference in law, and that is de facto and de jure.
Well, those firefighters did in that case. The city rejected the test results because those scores were higher. That is discrimination.
Mockery aside, I have already possessed you of my feelings on this matter. I can only hope that you take the time to reply and debate the moral implications of affirmative action, rather than its effects, as you are perhaps the only person here who I consider mature enough to debate the issue properly.
It can't be "reverse" discrimination unless you think you're entitled to some position or some form of access
We are entitled to access, just as the blacks are and should be. Affirmative action, however, removes whites' chances of obtaining certain positions and jobs and grants them to others based on their ethnicity (or other considerations, modify "whites'" accordingly). This strikes me as discriminatory not just to whites but to all races except those to whom the laws are tailored. All citizens in a democratic state should be equal under the eyes of the law, therefore no law should take ethnicity/gender/religion into account.
The large body of research, some of which I have provided in my first post and you have clearly ignored suggests otherwise
The links do not work.
White males still have overwhelming advantage and privilege when compared to women, minorities and the disabled.
White man's world, white man's rules. It isn't fair or right, it simply is. It is discriminatory, but so is affirmative action. We should strive for equality, but laws should reflect that, and to that end should take no personal attributes into account, other than skills and education (mental and physical health are also important). A school should have 200 places, not 50 each for Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Asians. If there were no spaces left for Asians, how would you tell any superfluous Asian applicants that they cannot attend? "Sorry, but you are neither Black, White nor Hispanic, you are Asian. Therefore you cannot attend this school, we have enough of your lot"?
even with the existence of affirmative action, women and minorities are still seeing downward mobility.
So why bother with it at all (Note I take issue with the underlying principles, not its effects or lack thereof)?
Affirmative action, however, removes whites' chances of obtaining certain positions and jobs and grants them to others based on their ethnicity...
Affirmative action doesn't even remotely come close to removing those chances. Nor does it even meaningfully reduce them(1)(2).
This strikes me as discriminatory not just to whites but to all races except those to whom the laws are tailored.
There can be little meaningful discussion about affirmative action when the idea of the "underlying principle" and its effect on the white population does not coincide with the reality of its practice. That being said, white males have privilege, an unearned advantage over others by no virtue other than their (and in this case "your") white maleness.
Affirmative action seeks to reduce the disparate impact of that unearned advantage by increasing the pool of employment competition. What was once de rigeur and nepotistic white privilege and entitlement is now principally balanced by the enforced consideration of non-whites (specifically male) for gainful employment and opportunity. it is a simple fact that white men no longer have the privilege of assuming that employment is solely theirs.
It is discriminatory, but so is affirmative action.
It's actually compensatory justice. White men are prohibited from working at any level of employment. It's just that other groups have gained the right to do what white men have been privileged with for centuries. Increasing competition in a finite pool will necessarily lower (but not remove) the advantage of the privileged membership and end in some form of "discrimination". But it's not the same kind or of similar effect to the discrimination that Affirmative Action seeks to undermine. It's apples and oranges: both species of fruit, but of a completely different genus.
A school should have 200 places, not 50 each for Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Asians.
I'm not sure if you're equating affirmative action with a quota system, but that's illegal under US law except in rare occasions where a business or employer has been found guilty by a judge of extreme discriminatory practices. The calculus for appropriate representation is based on the aggregate number of qualified people in the employment pool.
For example, if there are 100 people in a pretend State: 61% are Caucasian, 23% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 5% Negro and 2% Other (Amerindians), then the employment records should portray this stratification at least adequately, and employers are only charged to make a meaningful effort to that end. This is also roughly the same for educators.
So why bother with it at all?
Because, for those gender, ability and racial minorities who do benefit from its practice, it is extremely helpful and ultimately beneficial to all of society to have a larger educated and working population, in spite of its shortcomings.
(2) Pager, D. and Bruce Western. Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets: Results from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 12, 2005.
Affirmative action doesn't even remotely come close to removing those chances. Nor does it even meaningfully reduce them(1)(2).
You cannot increase one individual's chances at something without reducing those of another. Affirmative action is legalised favouritism and runs contrary to the ideals of legal equality. Law should not take ethnicity into account. To do so negatively or positively is discrimination, something affirmative action is allegedly opposed to.
There can be little meaningful discussion about affirmative action when the idea of the "underlying principle" and its effect on the white population does not coincide with the reality of its practice.
This is not about white versus black. This is about equality. Laws based upon statistics are uniformly unfair. African-American males in the U.S.A for example, have a higher rate of arrests for gun-related crimes than white males. That is not, however, grounds for the proposal of a law banning gun-ownership for black males is it? In the same way, affirmative action is a reaction to inequality that is every bit as perceived and biased as the predominantly white idea of reverse-discrimination, though, like for like, not entirely false.
That being said, white males have privilege, an unearned advantage over others by no virtue other than their (and in this case "your") white maleness.
The privilege of white males is the result of their ancestors' success. The majority of U.S citizens are white, and yet you find it strange that whites are privileged within it? If I could better one race, just one, I would better my own. Would you not do the same? Saying that whites do not deserve privilege is like saying that 21st Century people do not deserve to live comfortably because of the innovation of their ancestors. If I went to India I would expect Indians' rights to be held in higher regard than my own. It is not, unfortunately, an ideal world. It could be argued that whites deserve to be privileged in "their own" countries, considering the massive contributions their ancestors made to the world. I do not hold to such beliefs, but then I am a constitutional democrat: I believe in equality. To that end, laws tailored to ethnicity should be dissolved. It is the only way to equality. (Note that whilst your nation, the U.S.A, professes to be a haven for all races, it is in reality a "white" country).
It's actually compensatory justice.
No, it is replacing illegal discrimination with legal discrimination. For example,
"in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin".
Do you notice the irony? Take "race, religion and national origin into consideration" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. Utter hypocrisy.
I'm not sure if you're equating affirmative action with a quota system, but that's illegal under US law
You cannot increase one individual's chances at something without reducing those of another.
In some cases, this is necessarily true. Men had this very problem when women began to push for labor opportunities, particularly from World War I onwards (and to essentially not be fired by default once the war(s) were over). I don't think that in the grand scheme of things that this, however, is a legitimate reason to deny women working opportunities, anymore than I think that it is a legitimate reason to reject necessary multicultural initiatives like affirmative action, wherever it is enacted.
If you think otherwise, then what I have to conclude is that you believe that no one in a position of power should ever be "discomforted" or have their power legitimately decreased until they are themselves ready for change. But, like Martin Luther King Jr. proposed: "we" (minorities, women-as-minorities, the disabled etc. etc.) can't wait for those people to feel comfortable with progress.
So you're going to have to excuse me if I don't care that instead of a ten-fold advantage in the job market over equally qualified minorities and women, white men have a two-fold advantage just because they're white males. Nor do I care that rich Asian families have their legacies fractionally reduced because of incentives for poor, rural school children. Cry me a river. Honestly.
Law should not take ethnicity into account.
The law, in this case, happens to be a direct response to racial/ethnic and gender biases in the labor and education markets. So, it necessarily has to take race, or lack thereof, into account.
To do so negatively or positively is discrimination, something affirmative action is allegedly opposed to.
Increasing competition is necessarily discriminatory in that it reduces the chances of opportunities being available to a given group of people. So, again, I don't see this as a legitimate criticism. You're just making an excellent argument as to why nothing at all should have been done in the first place. Every action that does not directly benefit the empowered will somehow "discriminate". Women shouldn't be allowed political office because that would reduce a man's chance of getting the position. Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to work because that would reduce the chances of adults getting a job.
This is not about white versus black.
I've been pretty clear that it isn't. I've consistently alluded to the problem of women and the disabled as well. If you want me to go further, we can talk about how the urban and rural poor in a multitude of countries have been overlooked for education opportunities because of legacy opportunities.
This is about equality.
Exactly.
Laws based upon statistics are uniformly unfair. African-American males in the U.S.A for example, have a higher rate of arrests for gun-related crimes than white males.
The law isn't based on statistics, but conforms to compensatory justice issues brought on by historical mistreatment of groups of people. So I'll take your point and note that it's moot.
The privilege of white males is the result of their ancestors' success.
I find the use of the term "success" here somewhat insidious, because it implies that historical enslavement and repression are justified, and that ancestral success can legitimately warrant preferential treatment to undeserving people. But if that's the case, then Blacks all around should have preferred treatment for certain heart surgeries or blood transfusions because of the "success" of past African Americans. But that's absurd.
The majority of U.S citizens are white, and yet you find it strange that whites are privileged within it?
I don't find it strange, and it seems that the point I've made has gone over your head.
Saying that whites do not deserve privilege is like saying that 21st Century people do not deserve to live comfortably because of the innovation of their ancestors.
No, it's not.
It could be argued that whites deserve to be privileged in "their own" countries, considering the massive contributions their ancestors made to the world.
This sentiment, whether you hold it untrue or not, stems from a white mythopoetic movement. Margaret Thatcher made a similar statement when she stated that nothing of any significance had come from outside the English speaking world. Whites are not the only peoples who have contributed "massively" to the world. Not in classical history or in modern history.
Utter hypocrisy.
I would suggest that you read the actual legislation and not the non-legal rhetoric of the President to discern whether or not it is utterly hypocritical.
I don't think that in the grand scheme of things that this, however, is a legitimate reason to deny women working opportunities, anymore than I think that it is a legitimate reason to reject necessary multicultural initiatives like affirmative action, wherever it is enacted.
Neither do I. I was merely pointing out a fact.
The law, in this case, happens to be a direct response to racial/ethnic and gender biases in the labor and education markets. So, it necessarily has to take race, or lack thereof, into account.
One law for some and another for others is not "equal under the eyes under the law".
Increasing competition is necessarily discriminatory in that it reduces the chances of opportunities being available to a given group of people.
Affirmative action takes perceived racial discrimination and fights it with legally enforced racial discrimination.
Women shouldn't be allowed political office because that would reduce a man's chance of getting the position. Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to work because that would reduce the chances of adults getting a job.
That is not what I am saying. I believe ALL should be given an equal footing as far as the law is concerned. To this end, laws pertaining to only one race/gender should be scrapped. Equality cannot emerge until laws are not discriminatory in any way.
I've been pretty clear that it isn't. I've consistently alluded to the problem of women and the disabled as well.
You view it as "White men versus everyone else"?
Exactly.
Then why do you support unequal laws? You cannot fight discrimination with discrimination. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
The law isn't based on statistics, but conforms to compensatory justice issues brought on by historical mistreatment of groups of people.
Under such reasoning, I could enforce a restraining order on all Germans from being within 500 miles of Jews.
I don't find it strange, and it seems that the point I've made has gone over your head.
Then what was your point?
No, it's not.
Matter of opinion. Grey squirrels outperform Red squirrels, to the detriment of the latter and the advancement of the former. Same with humans. We do need to change this, but affirmative action will only lead to more resentment.
Margaret Thatcher made a similar statement when she stated that nothing of any significance had come from outside the English speaking world.
Born and bred Thatcherite.
I would suggest that you read the actual legislation and not the non-legal rhetoric of the President to discern whether or not it is utterly hypocritical.
Mostly hypocritical.
Yes it is.
Then realise that affirmative action is causing discrimination in other countries. As seen in England's educational quota system.
If it's not inherently yours, then you're not being reverse-discriminated against by virtue of your race or sex.
Surely affirmative actions makes a portion jobs inherent to certain ethnic groups?
white males are engendering and perpetuating a kind of racial and cultural nepotism.
Affirmative action operates on the same principles.
The basic point is that while you and other white males "perceive" some form of discrimination, in practice it's basically non-existent.
Any law that takes ethnicity into account is fundamentally discriminatory. Besides, at the beginning of your argument, you agree that reverse-discrimination is happening.
I don't think anybody would dispute that the intentions behind affirmative action are good intentions. The problem I see with affirmative actions is that it is too mechanical. Affirmative Action intends to help disadvantaged minorities, but ends up helping all minorities even those who aren't disadvantaged.
What I think would be a good alternative to affirmative action is a system that helps people on the basis of how much of a disadvantaged they have, not on a race-by-race basis. Affirmative action only takes race into account it DOES NOT take the individual into account which I believe is the fundamental flaw.
By reinforcing these racial boundaries and treating people differently based on skin color you are causing the very same problem you are intending on fixing.
Personally, I think it is very bad. Instead of stopping racism, it simply changes it in the opposite direction. Choosing people based on their race, gender, or social status is very wrong. Qualifications are what should determine job acceptances.
While in general I agree with you that qualifications should determine who gets a job, don't you think there should be something to even the playing field?
I mean, if you were whaling on someone's kneecaps with a baseball bat, and then challenged them to a race, that race wouldn't exactly be fair, would it?
I agree that there is an inherent unfairness, and that something should be done to rectify the situation. I however, do not see affirmative action as the best way to solve such a problem. Many would argue that affirmative action is just as unfair as what it is supposed to be replacing.
I mean, if you were whaling on someone's kneecaps with a baseball bat, and then challenged them to a race, that race wouldn't exactly be fair, would it?
That sounds as much like a non sequiter to me as saying: My mother likes picking tomatoes, except when there are squirrels in my television cable line.
I thought it was clear enough to follow, but I can explain it if you want.
What I was saying is that it is not fair to have people who have suffered from government sanctioned oppression to compete on a level playing field with people who benefitted from such practices. African-Americans and other minorities were excluded from job opportunities and the ability to live in wherever they wanted. In addition, the whole legal system in parts of the country made it virtually impossible to get a fair trial. The economic legacy of this discrimination lives on today, and can be seen at the income gap between minorities and whites.
In other words: "someone" = minorities, and person "whaling on kneecaps" = racist system of laws.
I thought it was clear enough to follow, but I can explain it if you want.
It was a poor analogy.
What I was saying is that it is not fair to have people who have suffered from government sanctioned oppression
Don't you see it? White males are now suffering from government-sanctioned oppression!
African-Americans and other minorities were excluded from job opportunities and the ability to live in wherever they wanted.
Did you mean to write were?
You stated that they were excluded; thus, you admitted yourself that they are not discriminated against as badly in such a manner as before.
Job opportunities:
So, because their parents or grandparents were discriminated against, they should be discriminated 'for'? If a white person, and a Latino, or a Negroid, or any other 'protected class' is trying to get a job - even if the white person is the best person for said job - you believe it should go to minority?
Why?
Is it because of historical prejudice?
What happened in history is done with; however, there is a trend of anti-white discrimination 'in the workplace' because of Affirmative Action.
Let me ask you this:
If a man and a woman are both trying to get a job as a firefighter - both are equally qualified except for that the woman has much less strength than the man - who should get the job?
Affirmative Action says that the woman should get the job because they are 'protected' and 'historically discriminated against'.
Common Sense - coupled with the main goal of the fire department: To save lives - says that the man should get the job because he is most capable of saving lives as a firefighter.
It's completely unfair. I may be biased because I'm white, but think about it, hypothetically: I apply for a job or school and so does a minority (any minority really). We are both relatively equal in past experience, GPA, etc, but I have a few little points that make me believe I should beat him out. However, affirmative action makes the employer or school choose him because they need a quota of black students/employees or something. How is this fair?
The way I see it, companies, schools, and even the military should be founded upon the "best and brightest" people that apply to work or study there. Race and gender should NOT play any role in these decisions, except for a few cases of course.
All Citizens should be seen as equal under the eyes of the law, regardless of gender, religion or ethnicity. Any policies that take any of the above into consideration would be fundamentally discriminatory.
Now it's not so great. It was good, perhaps, in the beginning just after and during the civil right's movement. Now however, as other's have stated, it gives an unfair advantage of a minority over a Caucasian, using simply race as a basis for judgement rather than specific disadvantages. Other criteria would be better to judge upon than race, as Affirmative Action does now: perhaps judge based on economic status (lower, middle, upper class), geographic locality in relation to "good" schools, family status (divorced, married, separated, etc.) among other factors that have been known to affect students in a positive or negative manner. Race is not a good guideline for the environmental (dis)advantages of a given person.
Sure, back when Jim Crow Laws were just ending and people were trying to get jobs or education after being segregated.
But that hasn't existed for decades... and slavery hasn't existed for over a century.
So why continue Affirmative Action? Because Liberals like to feel like minorities are still being oppressed. Why do they like to feel that way? Because it will make them seem like THEY'RE fighting to equalize minorities while Conservatives and Libertarians are merely trying to oppress them. It's like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson thinking that they have their own version of the Civil Rights movement, even though racism isn't how it used to be (in that, government isn't racist and white people receive more shit now). People want to go down in history as civil rights activists. I can see them all talking now "People are going to remember what we did here, and they're going to put us up in the ranks of Lincoln and Dr. King".
What Affirmative Action does is create a criteria for the color of someone's skin instead of the actual work that they get done. A business MUST hire a certain amount of people based on their race or gender. So they do that. They give them whatever bullshit job and pray to God that they're qualified. A white kid might not even get into a College of his choice (even though he may graduate Valedictorian) because that college HAS to accept a certain amount of blacks, first.
Davidh mentioned a "buddy" system. okay, I'll skip the whole "burden of proof" thing, because I know how much arguments like that bother people like him, so I'll just go straight to the whole "private property" argument.
Here it is:
their property, their decision. ooooooooo, got you there.
Andsoccer mentioned equalizing the playing field. The same argument I have to put whenever anyone says that:
It's not leveling the playing field. It's tilting it so that the shitty team can win.
One would call that cheating, but to each his own. Maybe pumping up one team with steroids just because their records are complete failures is okay in sports. IDK, I haven't been following lately.
