Affirmative Action vs Reverse Discrimination

Ahnimus

So, what does everyone think by now, is Affirmative Action really Reverse Discrimination. I think so and here is why. Racial Quotas ensure minorities are hired to a certain percentage or quota, but ignores the qualifications to do the job, while there is no quota for hiring some races. It is typically only for African-American, Latin-American and Women.

In the early 20th century, as numerous societies and countries began to believe that both contemporary and historic discrimination had resulted in an unfair and unjust social structure, some governments and companies instituted policies intended to redress this imbalance. Some minority advocacy groups argued that reversal policies were needed.[citation needed]

In the UK, employers may offer benefits such as training solely to disadvantaged races or classes, where a given job role is not held by a notable proportion of members of that group.[citation needed]

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. These quotas are determined by governmental authority and are backed by governmental sanctions.

Advocates of affirmative action programs in the United States deny that such programs involve "quotas", and regard the term "racial quotas" as particularly divisive. They prefer the use of "goal" to "quota". Whereas, in India, the main feature of affirmative action programs are the allocations of "quotas" to a fixed community group based on caste. In general, affirmative action places no limit on the growth of a single group's dominance, unlike a quota.

Anyway, even a simple statment like "White men don't like black people" is reverse discrimination.

Further, I've worked places that are blatantly discriminate. For some reason the laws don't affect people. Because honest decent people don't discriminate, and those that do discriminate don't follow laws.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Anyway, even a simple statment like "White men don't like black people" is reverse discrimination.

actually i'd say that comment was blatantly racist.

but seeings how i believe race to be a social construct, i'll go with it's just plain discriminatory.

PaperPlates

Ahnimus wrote:

So, what does everyone think by now, is Affirmative Action really Reverse Discrimination. I think so and here is why. Racial Quotas ensure minorities are hired to a certain percentage or quota, but ignores the qualifications to do the job, while there is no quota for hiring some races. It is typically only for African-American, Latin-American and Women.

In the early 20th century, as numerous societies and countries began to believe that both contemporary and historic discrimination had resulted in an unfair and unjust social structure, some governments and companies instituted policies intended to redress this imbalance. Some minority advocacy groups argued that reversal policies were needed.[citation needed]

In the UK, employers may offer benefits such as training solely to disadvantaged races or classes, where a given job role is not held by a notable proportion of members of that group.[citation needed]

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. These quotas are determined by governmental authority and are backed by governmental sanctions.

Advocates of affirmative action programs in the United States deny that such programs involve "quotas", and regard the term "racial quotas" as particularly divisive. They prefer the use of "goal" to "quota". Whereas, in India, the main feature of affirmative action programs are the allocations of "quotas" to a fixed community group based on caste. In general, affirmative action places no limit on the growth of a single group's dominance, unlike a quota.

Anyway, even a simple statment like "White men don't like black people" is reverse discrimination.

Further, I've worked places that are blatantly discriminate. For some reason the laws don't affect people. Because honest decent people don't discriminate, and those that do discriminate don't follow laws.

Ever hear of someone complaining they got fired because they were white? Me either.

Ever hear of someone complaining they probably didnt get that job because they were white? Me either.


Ever hear of someone saying they probably got pulled over and ticketed because they were white? Me either.

Give it ten years. And a Democrat victory or two. The WMA will soon be the one's being persecuted. :(

Ahnimus

PaperPlates wrote:

Ever hear of someone complaining they got fired because they were white? Me either.

Ever hear of someone complaining they probably didnt get that job because they were white? Me either.


Ever hear of someone saying they probably got pulled over and ticketed because they were white? Me either.

Give it ten years. And a Democrat victory or two. The WMA will soon be the one's being persecuted. :(

I don't know, I'm sure it happens.

Though I do know if you are white you don't dare set foot in a ghetto, you get lynched these days.

Vedderlution_Baby

Ahnimus wrote:

So, what does everyone think by now, is Affirmative Action really Reverse Discrimination. I think so and here is why. Racial Quotas ensure minorities are hired to a certain percentage or quota, but ignores the qualifications to do the job, while there is no quota for hiring some races. It is typically only for African-American, Latin-American and Women.

In the early 20th century, as numerous societies and countries began to believe that both contemporary and historic discrimination had resulted in an unfair and unjust social structure, some governments and companies instituted policies intended to redress this imbalance. Some minority advocacy groups argued that reversal policies were needed.[citation needed]

In the UK, employers may offer benefits such as training solely to disadvantaged races or classes, where a given job role is not held by a notable proportion of members of that group.[citation needed]

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. These quotas are determined by governmental authority and are backed by governmental sanctions.

Advocates of affirmative action programs in the United States deny that such programs involve "quotas", and regard the term "racial quotas" as particularly divisive. They prefer the use of "goal" to "quota". Whereas, in India, the main feature of affirmative action programs are the allocations of "quotas" to a fixed community group based on caste. In general, affirmative action places no limit on the growth of a single group's dominance, unlike a quota.

Anyway, even a simple statment like "White men don't like black people" is reverse discrimination.

Further, I've worked places that are blatantly discriminate. For some reason the laws don't affect people. Because honest decent people don't discriminate, and those that do discriminate don't follow laws.

I think it was a good idea that turned out to suck. While it's kept Bubba Jim bo from hiring all his buddies because "he don't like the blackies and they're lazy asses just wantin the welfare...where tha hell did my john deer cap git off ta?" it's also replaced a lot of poeple who COULD do the job better and deserved it more. Good plan, bad execution. But I can't figure out a way you coulda pulled this off well.

jlew24asu

I was always against AA because job qualifications should come first before race. but I wont complain that its there. I'm a hard working white man who has a great job. my hard work has gotten me to where I am. If a minority needs some help getting their foot in the door, ok fine. that will have to make me work harder. in the end, hard work and intelligence will prevail. that could go either way. mine or a minority

rebornFixer

I am with Ahnimus on this one, whole-heartedly. Even if society deems that I have no right to whine because of my supposedly powerful status.

I thought his point about quotas only for certain races was particularly telling. I have a more general question ...

Why is "minority" in the U.S. synonomous with "black"? Blacks aren't even the most numerous minority in the U.S.

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

I was always against AA because job qualifications should come first before race. but I wont complain that its there. I'm a hard working white man who has a great job. my hard work has gotten me to where I am. If a minority needs some help getting their foot in the door, ok fine. that will have to make me work harder. in the end, hard work and intelligence will prevail. that could go either way. mine or a minority

Yea, think is we have a lot of racial tension still. It's not getting any better. I mean congresswoman saying she is discriminated against because she is black. If you fire a black dude, he might play the race card.

It's just, I don't know. We aren't solving anything. We are just making it acceptable to use minority status as leverage. Meanwhile, the people that do discriminate, are still going to do it.

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

Ever hear of someone complaining they got fired because they were white? Me either.

Ever hear of someone complaining they probably didnt get that job because they were white? Me either.


Ever hear of someone saying they probably got pulled over and ticketed because they were white? Me either.

Give it ten years. And a Democrat victory or two. The WMA will soon be the one's being persecuted. :(

...
There used to be the days where signs read, "Now Hiring. Irish Need Not Apply"... or "Jews Need Not Apply"... or "Japs Need Not Apply".
And you know what? That was the norm until people said, 'Hey... that ain't right'.

rebornFixer

jlew24asu wrote:

I was always against AA because job qualifications should come first before race. but I wont complain that its there. I'm a hard working white man who has a great job. my hard work has gotten me to where I am. If a minority needs some help getting their foot in the door, ok fine. that will have to make me work harder. in the end, hard work and intelligence will prevail. that could go either way. mine or a minority

Good post, and admittedly, I've never been screwed due to race, in a job or educational capacity. What probably is true is that what I needed tons and tons of hard work to do, others could probably get with less hard work. This inflames my sense of justice, but then again, there are many so-called minorities who would do great things with the opportunities afforded by A-A, and good for them, honestly.

jlew24asu

reborncareerist wrote:

I am with Ahnimus on this one, whole-heartedly. Even if society deems that I have no right to whine because of my supposedly powerful status.

I thought his point about quotas only for certain races was particularly telling. I have a more general question ...

Why is "minority" in the U.S. synonomous with "black"? Blacks aren't even the most numerous minority in the U.S.

I am pretty sure in Arizona the white man is the minority. 51% mexican last I heard

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

I am pretty sure in Arizona the white man is the minority. 51% mexican last I heard

I was reading an article that said like five or six states white people were minorities. Also it's changing in other states where whites are becoming the minority.

rebornFixer

jlew24asu wrote:

I am pretty sure in Arizona the white man is the minority. 51% mexican last I heard

Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the U.S. right now, with most other groups stable or actually declining. And Hispanics are already the most numerous group after non-Hispanic whites.

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
There used to be the days where signs read, "Now Hiring. Irish Need Not Apply"... or "Jews Need Not Apply"... or "Japs Need Not Apply".
And you know what? That was the norm until people said, 'Hey... that ain't right'.

But those people who were being discriminated against THEN aren't getting jobs/schooling/aid ONLY because of their skin color NOW. Its a tad different in Ahnimus's points.

And it wasn't right. Anymore than its right to not hire someone based soley on skin. Anymore than its right TO hire someone based upon their skin.

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

I was reading an article that said like five or six states white people were minorities. Also it's changing in other states where whites are becoming the minority.

These states are all those with large Hispanic populations ... California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.

Ahnimus

I always wondered why Women were considered minorities. I live in a city where the ratio of Women to Men is 4 to 1.

Just imagine being the guy in a domestic violence case, or a child custody battle when 4 out of 5 of the jury are women. Imagine being one of the guys in the jury.

Vedderlution_Baby

Ahnimus wrote:

I always wondered why Women were considered minorities. I live in a city where the ratio of Women to Men is 4 to 1.

Just imagine being the guy in a domestic violence case, or a child custody battle when 4 out of 5 of the jury are women. Imagine being one of the guys in the jury.

Even when the ratio is quite that high, the men still have the more than likely chance to lose the kid. It's getting to ridiculous levels. Any statstics comparing what a woman has to pay in child support compared to a man in the same situation?

(And if they are stats on that, and the woman's payment is lower, is it because women generally earn less than men?)

Ahnimus

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Even when the ratio is quite that high, the men still have the more than likely chance to lose the kid. It's getting to ridiculous levels. Any statstics comparing what a woman has to pay in child support compared to a man in the same situation?

(And if they are stats on that, and the woman's payment is lower, is it because women generally earn less than men?)

Ha, I don't know man, I've never heard of a woman paying child support. I do know people that pay way too much though.

Vedderlution_Baby

Ahnimus wrote:

Ha, I don't know man, I've never heard of a woman paying child support. I do know people that pay way too much though.

I heard of one case where a guy makes around 1600 a month and has to give 1200 in child support. Good lord! How can you live off that? I'm not against child support but jesus christ...the dude has to eat too. Plus I doubt that all that money was going into the kids college fund.

PaperPlates

Child support should be given to the woman in vouchers, that can only be used as rent credit, at food stores, or at a children's clothing store. Not at best buy, not at boscov's, not at victoria's secret.

Ahnimus

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I heard of one case where a guy makes around 1600 a month and has to give 1200 in child support. Good lord! How can you live off that? I'm not against child support but jesus christ...the dude has to eat too. Plus I doubt that all that money was going into the kids college fund.

Yea, I've personally known a guy that barely survived while he paid child support. He had joint custody too, but he couldn't buy his kids anything directly because all of his funds went to his ex-wife. So she was the one spoiling their kids and herself.

It's not always the case, but it does happen, a lot. I knew a girl that had 3 kids, 3 different fathers, she was collecting support from all 3 of them, while still playing the one guy, she kept breaking up with him and stuff, but still seeing him and using him for child support. She also cheated the government into believing she couldn't read and collected disability on top of all the other stuff.