Affirmative Action vs Reverse Discrimination
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
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.
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 necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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. :(
www.myspace.com/jensvad
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
These states are all those with large Hispanic populations ... California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
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?)
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.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
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.
Yup, I didn't see her with her kids very often either. She pawned them off on her sister or her mother, or sometimes even left them in the care of a 13 year old. I only knew one of the men, but I argue he may have been a better legal guardian.
So you don't think mandating prejudice is unjustified?
The first poster began by complaining about quotas.
I don't know what's happening outside of the US, but the Supreme Court has ruled out the use of quotas consistently since the 1970's. Most recently, they told the University of Michigan that setting aside any minority places for admissions at all was unacceptable, and they had to revise their admissions process.
And private employers don't have to do this at all, unless they have government contracts.
So could someone please give a specific example of a quota?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Hey well, I'm Canadian. You are right, the court has ruled it out.
My point is Affirmative Action in general targets a specific group in an attempt to stop the individual from targetting other groups. It's a hipocritical approach to equality. It's racism to battle racism, sexism to battle sexism. It's not any better, it's all just reverse discrimination.
Okay, so the first thing that we've established is that you don't know of any specific examples of quotas. Anyone else have an example?
But moving on to your next point -- I don't really follow your version of how affirmative action works, but let me tell you what I know about how it works here in the US.
The University of Michigan Law School had an admissions policy that survived (where the undergraduate one got struck down). Their admissions officers had a gestalt approach. Race was one of a list of different factors that admissions officers considered -- like playing in the band or having another graduate degree or the region of the country they came from and so on. It is true that minorities got a bump on their LSAT scores in this process. But after that, race is just another factor that gets taken into consideration. It's hardly "racism fighting racism."
The Supreme Court said that what they cared about was fixing past discrimination. So they added a requirement that universities and employers have to show that they adopted these affirmative action policies because of a history of discrimination at the school or in the industry. So unless an employer or university can show that there's this history -- no more affirmative action.
Let's face it -- the Bush Administration has basically killed affirmative action, and still there's all this pissing and moaning about how unfair it is. Honestly . . .
I imagine that I've lost out along the way to African-Americans because of affirmative action, but I've done okay for myself. It's hard to say I've lost anything. And speaking from experience, I like working in places with affirmative action better in places that don't have it. I learn a lot from interacting with people who aren't just like me. It makes me more empathetic. And white people -- when left to their own devices -- say the most shocking things . . .
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
See that is a generalization.
Now, I don't know if my employer has this affirmative action thing. But I do know I was hired by a woman, my previous boss was a woman, the legal department is all women and the data group is mostly all women. My current boss is Philipino, the HR manager is Chinese (female), the Secuity guard is Portuguese, there are a handful of Asian-Canadian and African-Canadian people that work here. There are some really fruity guys here in high positions, like Dept. Managers. There was one guy that was transgender, but he is gone now. I'm not sure why he was fired though.
All in all, there are a lot of so-called minorities above me in this company.
Considering the demographics here I am actually a minority for both being non-hispanic white and for being a man.
The only place I've worked that actually discriminated against people was a backwards ass hick company and no amount of laws or affirmative action is going to change them.
Regardless of laws, the whole concept is bad. It's like woman's rights groups. It's a totally situational and bias organization. Just like men's rights groups or anything like that. Anything that seperates people into groups based on ethnicity, gender, age, etc.. are prejudice. That is the deffinition of prejudice.
you really do hate women. did she beat you with a shoe?
your not seeing the bigger picture. and besides that, you only seemed to be concerned that women are given jobs in your company. hippiemom was right, you really hate women.