I am on the fence on affirmative action

[boolean]

I am neither for nor against it, because I don't know anything about it. Full disclosure: I'm white. (Duh)

What are the reasons behind it, and why should we as liberals support it? My understanding of it is that in order to fight against the institutional racism that does still exist (and PLEASE don't try to convince me otherwise of THAT, because we all know it does), affirmative action is necessary to "level the playing field", or so they say. What I don't understand is how that really accomplishes anything other than to give the racists more ammunition. Now THEY can scream "racism"! It allows black people who would otherwise not be given the opportunities to advance forward, but then it taints them with the fact that they're only there because of affirmative action, not because of their ability (Whatever THAT means).

I'm completely conflicted here. Convince me one way or the other. I see why it's a good thing, but I also see why it's a bad thing, and I don't know which way to go. If it exists, I don't care, if it doesn't exist, I don't care, because both arguments seem to cancel each other out to me.

[Annces]

1. I have found that many white people who do not understand

affirmative action, also do not have a grasp of history and its ramifications. They usually don't understand the effects of slavery, and the whole cultural revolution of the 60s with the marches and such. I worked for one doctor who was like this. He really went through life with his head in the sand. I had many discussions with him and was amazed at his naivety. He got as far as he did in life, because of his being white, and having a mother and father with the where-with-all to provide for him and get him an education, and let him feel competent in the world. And his parent's parents also had this. Whereas a black person his age would not have these benefits. He did end up hiring a black woman for the clinic he was the director of at a University, and this woman also had her son attend the University, which was probably 100% white or Asian as far as I could tell.

I also used to make slides for him and another white doctor for their continuing education shows and I would make extra slides on the extreme effects that some diseases like HIV has on the black population and Hispanic population because that was quite relevant. I don't know if they used the slides though.



I also would add, related to the Seinfeld guy who had the racist fit, that that guy Jerry Seinfeld was on the Letterman show and after discussing his friend and the troubles, they went on to other topics. Letterman asked Seinfeld about the elections, and Seinfeld said he didn't know and didn't care. In my mind, that is part of the reason they didn't bother to have social messages on the Seinfeld show, head in sand.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. It's also helped white women

helps even the playing field.

edit: spelling :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. As I understand it,

affirmative action helps level the playing field, and not just in college admissions, but in companies bidding to get government contracts(I'll talk on this in a minute).

First of all, what affirmative action DOESN'T mean is that someone of color who is LESS qualified gets in while a MORE qualified white person is denied entry to a school. In other words, color of skin is considered one of the factors determining whether a person gets into a college, but it is by no means the only one. It becomes the deciding factor only if two candidates are equally qualified. What bugs me is the practice of Ivy League schools to let the sons and daughters of alumni automatically get in, no matter what their gpa. Don't tell me that when Bush applied to Yale there weren't several other applicants who were academically superior to him, but were pushed aside because Bush had connections. As a white woman who got to university on scholarship, I get really infuriated at people who don't take the opportunity seriously, and spend four years partying away their time. Their place would better go to someone who understands the meaning and worth of a college degree.

Second of all, affirmative action has helped some start-up companies run by women and minorities get a chance to make it. I have a friend who is a heavy equipment operator, and wanted to start her own company. It wasn't easy, but with a couple government contracts to start her off, she was able to prove the quality of her work-don't think that now her gender is a factor when she makes bids--people know what she's capable of doing. Without affirmative action, I fear that she would have never had a chance to prove her worth.

[Warpy]

13. Another point needs to be made here

and that is that affirmative action will open the door for you, but only hard work and competence will keep you inside it.

[Cleita]

26. Yes, but locking the door isn't going to to anything for you

no matter how hard working and competent you are when you can't even show what you can do.

[Warpy]

27. Heh

No shit, Sherlock.

[wryter2000]

4. It isn't only to benefit the recipients

We all benefit when we mix with all kinds of people. How on Earth are you going to train a doctor or firefighter or police officer if they only work with people who look like them and have the same culture?

Bum Phillips (from the real Houston Oilers) used to assign seats at lunch because he knew it's natural for people to gravite to other people like themselves. That's true for AA people as well as whites. If they were going to act as a team, there couldn't be divisions within the team, no matter how innocent. Ol' Bum never won a Superbowl, but he did some amazing things with the team he head. Earl Campbell helped, of course. :evilgrin:

[ecstatic]

5. Affirmative action has benefited white women the most

Are you male or female? If you are a woman, are you working in a technical or medical or legal field that was male dominated, just 50 years ago? Affirmative action is supposed to address racist and sexist attitudes, not give a lesser qualified person a "leg up," as many people argue. Unfortunately, when you are a member of a minority group, being just as good or even way better than the competition is not always enough to combat ingrained racist and sexist attitudes.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Do you have stats on this?

I have heard this claim a lot, but allowing for the differences in the sizes of relative populations, I don't know how true it is. I'm not flaming or trying to annoy you. I'd really like some statistical evidence for the claim.

Thanks.

[ecstatic]

15. a couple articles

Although, I must ask--Isn't the change in the role of women in the workplace over the past few decades obvious? :shrug: Back in the day, women were mainly teachers and nurses, right? Engineering schools like Georgia Tech that were once 100% male, are now up to 25% female, in the course of 50 years. http://www.gatech.edu/50yearsofwomen/

It's funny how some people view the sudden shift of women into highly male dominated fields like engineering, medicine, and law as just a shift in the merits of women, and not a phenomenon that was encouraged to happen at the University level.

Nevertheless...

http://www.aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1442

Oh, by the way, I'm not annoyed, just intrigued... :hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

18. I prefer actual studies and numbers with issues like these.

I am looking at your links here.

The first one doesn't give any info on African American statistics. It seems chiefly an activist PR vehicle, which is just fine, but there's no way to make numerical or statistical comparisons with it.

The second one is a great media analysis, but here again, no useful stats.

The measurements one chooses to make and the comparisons one chooses to make are very important. Let us say that African Americans make up about 12% of the population. Assume that half of these are women. Then say that white women comprise 30% of the population. If the government wants representative numbers of women and minorities in a given field, like medicine, then a medical school should have the following proportion of students: 12% African American (6%, male, 6% female), 30% white women, 58% other (white men, Asian, etc.) In fact, this used to be how a lot of school admissions worked. Now, on the surface, it looks like there's lots of white women who benefitted--that they are the primary beneficiaries, in raw numbers. But in terms of representation in the greater population, each group has been treated fairly. They are represented in proportion to the size of their population in the larger community.

I am not saying that this is necessary good, fair, or moral. I am saying that this is how a lot of affirmative action programs decided on their targets ("quotas"). It was a big problem in the UC system out here in California. Asian students made up less of the population than African American students in the early 90s but often, the Asian students had the highest grades/SAT score combinations, above all competing groups. There was actually a lawsuit brought about this in the 1990s. Around that time, Oprah did a show on college admissions and II remember hearing a UPenn recruiter on Oprah say that if the colleges went strictly by test scores (and not the principle of equal representation), 40% of incoming college freshmen in top tier schools would be Asian/Asian-American. One could argue that Asians have actually suffered under affirmative action, since their quantitative measures were higher.

The long and the short of this post is that raw numbers are not enough to make a judgement. You need to see if, in fact, each group is PROPORTIONALLY equal. If 12% of your doctors are African American and 30% are white women, it is not because affirmative action is deliberately favoring white women. It is because affirmative action works on the principle of proportional representation, even when it operates underground without official quotas. This, by the way, is a principled reason to be against it, and many people have just this reason underlying their concerns about affirmative action.

That said, I do agree that affirmative action IS sold as an African American program. Other beneficiaries are often ignored. You have to wonder why the media protrays it this way.

[Greybnk48]

6. One often miunderstood element of AA

I hear this all the time from the students I teach. "Why should I be punished for the sins of our fathers?" My response (not original to me) is that no

one is being punished by AA. It just feels like you are being punished once the advantages and entitlements that you were given are removed.

Advantages and entitlements that you did not earn, but were granted to you merely because you were white and male. No other reason.

[Onlooker]

7. Affirmative action is a cheap solution to a bigger problem

Ideally, we should invest heavily in poor areas so that people get a good education, a safe environment, access to the complete set of tools and opportunities that middle class America has. But, that would require increased taxes and "more government."

So, along comes affirmative action. Originally, the idea was simply that companies and schools would take affirmative action to recruit minority students. When that didn't work, quotas were introduced. When quotas didn't work (because it offended many white people), affirmative action became a sort institutionalized favoritivism. It's a lousy solution, but it's better than nothing.

[DURHAM D]

12. Minorities students? Women are/were the majority but

still not allowed into professional programs until AA.

[Boojatta]

8. Maybe a supply and demand approach is possible?

It allows black people who would otherwise not be given the opportunities to advance forward, but then it taints them with the fact that they're only there because of affirmative action, not because of their ability

If one offered higher wages to black applicants for a given job, then one could induce more blacks to apply. Then one could use color-blind criteria for judging the applicants and simply hire the best applicant.

In that case, black people who are hired will only be tainted by the fact that those who would have applied had they been offered the higher wage might be jealous. However, one could ask those jealous people a question. What justifies higher wages for clerical workers in the federal government than they earn in the private sector?

Does that make any sense? I'm basically just thinking out loud.

[twilight_sailing]

9. Wealth creation needed

Back in the 60's when I was a kid the amount of wealth in the black community was nil. I am not talking about Bill Gates' kind of wealth, I am talking about the kind of wealth your folks or your grandparents might have - a house in a middle-class neighborhood, maybe. Maybe a stack of old Savings Bonds. You know, just normal, middle class money.

Jim Crow was not that long ago, boolean. It was when I was a kid and I not THAT goddamn old. ;) And it is going to take time for things to even out.

So, my opinion on affirmative action is that we need to keep it running for another 20 or 30 years. We have come a long way but things will be more equal when everybody's Granddad can slip you a 20 so you can go to the movies.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. It would certainly help if we invested in education

I fear that in 20 to 30 years things will be the same as they are now.

[Cleita]

14. I used to be on the fence until I saw actual bigoted actions in

the workplace first hand and from workplaces that had a policy of being equal opportunity employers. Since I often worked as an office manager or department manager, one of my duties was to screen job applicants before they met with the boss.

These are the excuses I got for perfectly well qualified applicants.

"She speaks English with an accent." (Referring to Hispanic applicants, Swedes or Germans were okay, :shrug:).

"She's too fat. She could fall down the stairs and sue us."

About a Black applicant.

"She doesn't type fast enough. (Applicant typed 80WPM)"

Actually, many original tests and questions were devised and invented on the spot for making the job almost impossible for Black, Hispanic, and forty plus in age or fat women applicants but the bar was lowered when the applicant was white, thin and young.

I wholly support affirmative action now. Bigotry will have to end by integrating all facets of society by force because it will never end voluntarily by those who feel entitled to keep certain segments of the population out.

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Your experience rings true here. I remember

having to hire secretaries for local companies as a recruiter. I would get an African American secretary with great skills, appearance and professional manner, and send her to one company in particular, only to hear from that one company that she was totally unskilled, unprofessional, and "not front desk". It was like clockwork--totally predictable. Because we were the official employer, and we didn't discriminate, we couldn't do anything aboujt that one company except send them what they wanted. Our boss wouldn't let us file a complaint. So, I used to work extra hard to get really good jobs for these secretaries, out of a sense of justice and frustration.

[Cleita]

25. It's so blatant and I'm sure it still goes on.

Only just laws and stiff fines for breaking them will stop it.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. It's amazing....

how many people lose sleep over the notion that somewhere in the world, a minority is catching a break.

If your Dad went to Yale or Harvard, you have an automatic advantage in getting admitted - you're a legacy. If your Dad works on Wall Street, you have an automatic advantage in getting into a firm. If your folks are affluent, you have an automatic advantage in education, nutrition and healthcare. Nobody perceives these things as unfair advantages, but they most certainly are.

Your name alone can be advantage. Studies shown that identical resumes sent by people with different names get very different results. Send it as Chad Carpenter, and you're a LOT more likely to get an interview than if your name is Pedro Gutierrez or Shaniqua Washington.

Those opposed to affirmative action presume that the playing field is ALREADY level, and therefore, nobody deserves a special boost up. That is false.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Affirmative Action is the only direct, immediate remedy we have

available to undermine the unfair practices of backroom cronyism. Right now, the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are minorities and women, because the center of power is currently in the hands of white males, but that will change.

In fifty years, with the changing demographics in the U.S.A., white men will find that Affirmative Action will become their best friend. That moment will come when they realize that it may be the only way they will get a fair chance at jobs in ethnic enclaves that develop in this country. At that point, expect them to demand that Affirmative Action be written into the Constitution.

And why should the Democrats care about Affirmative Action? Because it is the key to getting votes from minority groups, which are an emerging voting sector.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Your first sentence says a mouthful. Thanks.

The rest of your post is food for thought.

[ninkasi]

21. I have one interesting nugget to contribute

I retired several years ago, from a union company with mostly women filling the position I held. It wasn't that men were discriminated against, it was that the role of service rep involved our taking a lot of verbal abuse, and women seemed to be able to cope with it better than men. Men usually transferred to craft or plant positions. Because we were a large company, EEOC requirements dictated that our work force be as fairly distributed as possible.

I started work in 1974, and our business office was fairly well divided between white, black, and latino workers. The one factor which seemed to determine which groups got together at lunch, and breaks, was not race, or sex. It was divided, especially as the rules against smoking tightened, by smokers vs. non-smokers.

It was common to see a racially mixed group of people standing outside the building laughing, and talking on breaks, and smoking. It was common to go into the lunchroom, and see the same division of workers chatting and eating together, and not smoking. Our personal habits proved to be a stronger motivator of which group we congregated with than our race, or sex. I offer that as proof of absolutely nothing, because it might have been a local phenomena. I just thought I'd share that with the rest of you.

There were two friends who were one of the oddest, I'm sure to other people, friends I've seen. One was a white woman, not 5 ft', and dressed in kicker clothes, including the big belt with her name on it. The other was a black woman, tall, elegant, and graceful, who would not have listened to country music on threat of bodily harm. They went everywhere together, both at work and in their private lives. They were best friends, and it was something that was really fairly common, if people cared to look beneath the surface.

Attitudes and prejudices are not very easy to predict. I have seen, in person, the outcome of affirmative action, and have seen many well qualified, and intelligent people who have been able to achieve success because of it. They deserved, and earned their successes, but what affirmative action did was to enable them to try for their positions, instead of denying them because of race or sex.

[eggbeater]

22. What a shame

That any country can come to a point where a program such as this even has the need to be discussed.

Treat everyone equally and such things would never come to pass.

[Selatius]

23. I believe Affirmative Action is incomplete

My idea of Affirmative Action is to aim the program at the bottom 30 percent of the US population as far as income and wealth are concerned regardless of skin color, race, religion, national origin, and gender. The aim is to provide an opportunity to help those up who need help the most be that person a poor Black or a poor White or somebody else.

I want to expand it to include all the poor who have been forgotten.

[SoCalDem]

24. Think of a pyramid..

The top of the pyramid could not be where it is today, had the stones under it not been carefully placed.

There are chi-chi rich folks today, whose jumpstart was achieved by their ancestors who enslaved people, thus avoiding the nasty little part of owning a business that most people accept as a given today...WAGES..

The person who worked a lifetime as a slave, had NOTHING monetary to leave to his/her children, so THEY started out poor, and uneducated, so THEY had nothing to leave to give help etc etc etc etc (channeling Yul Brynner)

Affrimative action was a passive-aggressive program that, on the surface, looked as if it would finally "solve" the problem of the unequal playing field. In theory it did, and some did benefit (think Condi), but for most people mired deep in poverty, it was lipservice. At about the time of AA, the white-flight was rampant, and what good is affirmative action if you've got a substandard education and the factories and stores in your communities have all left?

And when so many "failed" to advance, we had presidents (think Reagan) who were only too eager to tell us all that "it's their own fault..they are lazy welfare cheats with 11 children"

Our "modern" society loves to use the bootstrap myth, but first you gotta HAVE a BOOT..

[BlooInBloo]

28. Possibly that's because you aren't aware of just HOW large the black....

... middle class has become.

There aren't, in fact, any ifs, ands or buts about it: AA has been a smashing success.

Those white folks who question the value of a black person because of the possibility of AA-influence are simply bigots. Harsh, but true. Those black folks who do the same are overly impressed by white authoritative-sounding voices, and are trying really hard to be one of the "good blacks" in the eyes of white folks. That, or they're just assholes. lol!

If I had to surmise, I would say that the biggest problem with AA is it's side-effect of exacerbating a haves/have-nots situation among black folks. To adapt John Edwards' line, there are two black Americas - and that's a major source of friction.

As is common, things are simpler for white folks than the actual reality of it: to white folks, there's more-or-less only ONE black America - the ghetto, the crack dealing, the projects, and the like.

[applegrove]

29. Look at it like society spends millions on education and paying people

to work for government. That money should find its way into all communities. It isn't about any one person. It is about what each community gets out of their local university and local government. The same decision is made when they decide not to have millions of more plastic surgeons than general practitioners. These decisions on priorities make it into policy every single day. To pull out the priorities which aid minorities vs. say the priority policies which benefit building of bricks (trucks tear up the highways 100 times faster than cars do..so the brick maker gets subsidized when the government builds the highway they use). Why focus on policy that affects minorities. If things cannot be afforded..why not tax transportation trucks more? Why not? Because that would cost the brick company and the housing industry too much ... it has been decided. And Society benefits from the transportation of stuff. Communities benefit from new housing and solid buildings. So too affirmative action benefits all communities too. Not just the black or Latino or Asian communities.

Affirmative Action talk of the Bush WH is just another sly wedge issue. It isn't about the issue at all. It is about subtle racism.