Affirmative Action

I would just like to hear everyone's opinions on affirmative action. I live in Michigan where we will be voting on the issue soon and I want to make an informed decision. My current opinion is that affirmative action does more harm than good, but I haven't really heard many arguments from the other camp.OT Remark:
I don't post here all that much, but I do my share of lurking. Even if I don't reply to your post, I will read and consider it.

Just to let you know there was a brief thread on that topic a short while back. Maybe it will give you some info/insight into feelings here.Personally the term is so broad that I cannot make generalized statements on whether it does more harm than good. It will always come down to specific cases. Perhaps you could share what is going on in Michigan.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree with affirmative action, at least for education.On the other hand, it should not be based on race/ethnic origin, but on econonmics.It would accomplish the same thing, but would not have the emotional baggage of the race issue.

I think you'd have to show that gender and race are not issues in keeping people from equal access even when they are economically similar.I'm not sure that is the case.

I am sure that it is. However,not nearly as much as it used to be. I think there is a difference between anti-discrimination laws, and affirmative action though.The trouble I see with some of the way some of the affirmative action/discrimation laws are implimented is that some indviduals that are incompetant use those laws as a threat to keep their jobs.I think in the current economic climate, if people can get equal access to education, competency can and should be the overriding factor.I don't like the way affirmative action is implimented. On the other hand, I would rather it implimented the way it is now rather than have
nothing.A contributing factor for women not advancing as far in the corporate worlds is that fact many women choose to take some time off to be mothers. This time off interrupts their advancement in business. That is not to say that there isn't a chauvanistic attitude among the business community also.

quote:

---

The trouble I see with some of the way some of the affirmative action/discrimation laws are implimented is that some indviduals that are incompetant use those laws as a threat to keep their jobs.

---

I hear things like this, too, but is this really a pervasive, widespread problem? Or are we in danger of eliminating useful programs because a few people manage to abuse the system?

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

From my experiance, it is too common. Of course, you only need one or two people like that to make a big impression. I have seen it too many times, and know other people who have been affected by that in their jobs too.Of course, you don't need a very high percentage to make a big impression. Nobody notices the competent people who just do their jobs. You tend to notice the incompetent people who make a splash about something.

What's your evidence for that? What makes you think it isn't? What makes you think that affirmative action isn't having that exact effect?It seems that your implication is that affirmative action privileges unqualified minorities over qualified white people. What's your evidence that that is the case?

I'm not sure how common it is, but it is common enough that I have seen some cases of what would essentially be "reverse descrimination". To me any amount is one too many, but I can't say "Affirmative Action" is the problem, rather than specific manifestations of it.Earlier you mentioned economic criteria and I tend to agree with that. Setting race or gender alone as criteria has meant that poor members of those communities can lose out to rich members of those communities, which undercuts the point of AA.If minorities are disproportionately in need, then setting economic criteria should help them just the same, or at the very least combining race/gender and economic criteria.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I will also say that I have seen some claims of 'reverse discrimination' that are no such thing. They were very vocal about being 'left behind' because of their claim of race/gender preferences.On the other hand, since I knew them,and new the person that got promoted over them, I can safely say that the person who got promoted was much more competent than the person who claimed 'reverse discrimination'.

I agree. Not that anyone has to take my word for it, but I've been party to discussions by people that knew they got positions/benefits they did not deserve and in fact cut out others that could have used it more.It was interesting to listen to that essentially moral debate. If one is given an opportunity over others based on a characteristic which is not pertinent to the position, is it ethical to take it?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The problem with this is that the majority of those who live in poverty in this country are white. Using economic criteria would mean that white folks would benefit, which would drive left-wingnuts crazy. They think only "minorities" should benefit from governmental largess. Now, this may put them ahead of right-wingnuts, who think churches should benefit from governmental largess, but it doesn't make them right.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Using economic criteria would mean that white folks would benefit, which would drive left-wingnuts crazy.

---

Heh. Yeah, we left-wingnuts hate white people. We hate kids too, except when they have two gay parents.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Well I'm not a leftwing nut, but I have to agree that wouldn't seem to make much sense. Frankly I'd rather see the economically disadvantaged get help regardless of race or gender, but I was working within the argument that some minorities need more of a help up than poor white males.I don't think it would be right to favor poor white males over others and so if there was likely to be a disparity (perhaps based on numbers of applicants) it might make sense to have AA rules which artificially select others so that more of a cross section is helped out.In any case I did mention the possibility of AA requirements using both race AND economic criteria, so as to avoid the current problems being seen.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)