Affirmative Action (nwr, please)

Over in another thread nwr, said this We don't really have "affirmative action" over here, so I'd like to know what actual steps are being taken in the US; how an affirmative action program actually works.As I understand it what happens (in a college) is that a number of college places are specifically ear-marked for black students and a quantity of money is placed aside specifically to assist the financial situation of those students.Is this correct?

Just to give you a head start before NWR comes around... AA in the US encompasses many different programs, or practical results of policies/legal decisions. Here is a Wiki page on that topic and I am not sure that it is complete at all.As far as a nod toward the schooling issue... I noticed on another Wiki page the suggestion that such programs are refered to as "positive discrimination" by brits?In any case, just adding info that is perhaps helpful to both sides, and now I withdraw...

---

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

Thanks, Holmes.

The wiki page that Holmes cited probably has better and more complete information than I can provide.I don't doubt that AA implementations have sometimed been handled in a heavy handed way. But it isn't just a quota system. That's probably an overly simplistic way of describing it.As far as I know, the law requires that colleges have an affirmative action program, but does not dictate the details. So the way it is implemented will vary a lot between colleges. I doubt that they use earmarked places - they would probably be sued for reverse discrimination for that.Where I know most about the implementation is in faculty hiring. AA requirments have never prevented us from hiring who we wanted. But they do generate a lot of red tape, as we have to document everything to demonstrate that there are no discriminatory aspects of our hiring practices.When AA programs were started, the assumption was that they would provide a short term stop gap, until things settled down. It is regrettable that they are still needed. However, it's an observable fact that there is still a lot of racism in American society. There are deeply ingrained cultural assumptions that lead to racism, often with people not aware of the extent to which they are following discriminatory practices. Experience shows that these cultural assumptions change quite slowly.

Ok, I see.We have a very similar setup here; we call it "Equal Opportunities". I understood Affirmative Action to be reverse discrimination (= positive discrimination). I think it's fairly obvious the two are very different beasts.

discrimination is wrong no matter what you call it.If I am denied a job soley because the quota is off, I feel I have a legitimate grievance. I dont see any other easy solutions, though.Its like at my workplace. They prefer to hire girls as cashiers. I am a cashier yet am subtley being told to step aside for the new girls.
Of course I resist. Its not right.

Absolutely.But Equal Opportunities schemes don't do that. What they do is monitor the situation so that occurances were people have been discriminated against because of their race/sex/whatever can be identified and the problem then corrected.

AA represents itself as giving a leg up to those disenfranchized, unfortunate members of society that do not have a voice. I'm all for somebody voiving the concerns for the voiceless. I also advocate the abolishment of all forms of racism. So, why then would I object to Affirmative Action which is only trying to alleviate the disparity? The Wiki article Holmes posted represents a few of my objections:Accusasions of racism and cultural insensitivity"One argument against AA (affirmative action) is that it represents government sanctioned racial discrimination, and is demeaning to members of minority groups - that affirmative action wrongly sends a condescending message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits. If this argument is to be believed, AA promotes the idea that African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and other often underrepresented minorities do not and can not emphasize education and high academic achievement as much as whites or Asians or "Model Minorites." This is a reaction to the criticism that hip hop culture (gangsta rap culture in particular) encourage substandard achievement. (In fact, crime rates and economic conditions were better in the 1990s, the height of the rap movement, than during the 1980s during gang wars in California and general economic instability). It argues that anti-establishment mentality, high family instability, and excessive economic materialism or consumerism are not among the cultural factors that have prevented blacks from achieving the same economic opportunity as whites, but that a culture of mediocrity (and government programs, such as AA, which promote it) are.

​

Thus, the minority community, not the government, needs to be empowered and held responsible for eliminating any economic disparity between the races through cultural reform. Many supporters of affirmative action charge that those who make this argument are being ethnocentric and are disingenuously trying to deflect or downplay the role of past and current institutional discrimination of minorities. These critics believe that these proponents are trying to shift the blame onto the victim who was discriminated against in the first place in order to justify rolling back government civil rights policies. Furthermore, many critics believe that those who make this argument are being naive, hypocritical, or vague in their quest to 'change the cultural values' of the black community Other supporters of affirmative action argue that it benefits society as a whole. They argue that the end goal of AA should not be one culture, but an embrace of all cultural heritages (warts and all) and, by doing so, we increase the quality of the society. This is widely argued in the realm of education.

​

An example of support for this is a study done by Patricia Gurin, who is part of the American Psychological Association. Gurin found that students who are from a more diverse educational setting had better results in tests designed to measure complex thinking, were more motivated to understand other people’s points of view, were more understanding of differences in cultural environments, and were more confident in their intellectual ability."Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action are NOT the same thing. An Equal Opportunity employer is giving you their word that they are not bound by any "quota" system in their hiring process, nor will race, creed, or religion prohibit your chances of getting hired, as it is irrelevant to your abilities. Affirmative Action says, "You need this many black people in your company, this many Hispanics, this many, Asians, this many Semites, and this many whites," and irrespective of their qualifications, you must do this or you will be fined. That's stupid! That's racist! They are just trying to be PC. Its diengenuous rhetoric and it isn't stopping racism, its breeding it.I hope you can see the difference between AA and EO. I agree 100% with Equal Opportunity employing, but AA is refuse. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italicsEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

quote:

---

Affirmative Action says, "You need this many black people in your company, this many Hispanics, this many, Asians, this many Semites, and this many whites," and irrespective of their qualifications, you must do this or you will be fined.

---

Actually, that is not what Affirmative Action says at all. In fact, in the U.S. quotas have been ruled illegal in several Supreme Court cases. If this were Affirmative Action, then the point is moot since now this is illegal.

---

"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

That's exactly what AA is. I think you may be confusing AA with EO. If th courts are striking down decisions against AA then I'm quite happy with that because its pretty much a joke IMO.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

No, that is not what AA is. Rather, it is what the dogma of the political right claims AA is.At least you are consistent. You go with dogma in preference to evidence with AA as with evolution.

AA is discrimination, plain and simple. Equal Opportunity employing is a good idea. AA is radical promotion of the idea. You really don't see the difference? If I'm consistent with my Right-wing dogma does that mean you are consistent with your left-wing dogma?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

I have never been impressed by left wing dogma.

....

Yes. And, AA has evolved. It started with quotas, and when that was struck down by the Supremes, it eventually evolved to "diversity is good". This promotes hiring of different races & cultures (as a criteria weighted over qualifications) without specifically stating a quota, but implying one.IMO, this type of thinking and promotion has led the country away from a "melting pot" to retention of culture ("multiculturalism"). History shows that this inevitably leads to violent conflict. Many in America, of course, think we are more sophisticated and tolerant nowadays to let that become a problem.