Affirmative Action: Racist or Not? - Page 2

jillio · 05-26-2011, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

And why would ask such a question when quoting a statement that said making a decision based on race is wrong? Perhaps you are having a tough time understanding what you read.

I asked the question because white is a race and male is a gender. Or did you not know that?

Were you also aware that Affirmative Action covers disabled veterans with a more than 30% disability?

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That has virtually nothing to do with the situation Vampy was describing and Jiro was responding to. The issue there was if the testing procedures used were biased against minorities. It was decided they were not. So Affirmative Action worked in that case. No one was promoted based on race only, but solely on qualification.

From a liberal rag....

Quote:

I'm not sure the Supreme Court's ruling in the New Haven firefighters case will do a lot to change that dynamic. This was a narrow ruling that overturned the city's affirmative action plan which led to whites with higher test scores being passed over. It also was a rebuke to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor who ruled in the city's favor as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

After New Haven, Affirmative Action Is Not Back - Matthew Cooper - Politics - The Atlantic

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I asked the question because white is a race and male is a gender. Or did you not know that?

was this so unclear to you that you had to ask?

Quote:

Oh well. enough said.....Decisions made based on race....are racist and wrong

Quote:

Were you also aware that Affirmative Action covers disabled veterans with a more than 30% disability?

ADA....

jillio · 05-26-2011, 08:52 PM

Affirmative action emerged in the 1960s as a result of efforts by the civil rights movement to get America to honor its original contract, that "all [people] are created equal." In addition the Pledge of Allegiance promises "liberty and justice for all." This idealism is a promise of equal opportunity for all individuals regardless of color, national origin, race, religion and sex, which up to this point in history had not been honored for people of color. While first addressed to the needs of African-Americans, later on the needs of American Indians, Asian-Americans and Latinos were added. For this and other "unalienable rights," the founders and followers of the civil rights movement marched and died, and finally obtained the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, such action by itself, prohibiting discrimination in the present and in the future, did not necessarily correct past inequities. So what if people now had equal access, the advantage would still go to those who had benefited the longest and most from past discrimination. I may have equal access to get in the same boxing ring with Mike Tyson, but that¹s no guarantee of an equal opportunity of winning. The odds are stacked in favor of failure. Therefore in order to correct for such inequities, especially in the areas of housing, education, and employment, steps were taken to ensure that those groups that historically had been excluded or given limited access to societal rewards, were now given an opportunity to catch up. Thus, affirmative action refers to social policies encouraging favorable treatment of socially disadvantaged groups, especially in employment, education, and housing, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in order to reverse historical trends of discrimination and to create equality of opportunity for qualified persons.

Keep in mind that affirmative action is essentially a "race/gender solution" to a "race/gender problem," with middle class white women as the greatest beneficiaries. The latter have benefited most as a result of a "minority" status, which gives them a decided advantage over African-Americans and Latinos in obtaining contracts, entitlements, set asides and executive positions, when the concern of those in power is to keep access to privilege in the hands of "whites." This is why the term "people of color" emerged in the late Œ80s early Œ90s, to differentiate white women from racial/ethnic groups, since both are designated as "minority." There is no such thing, however, as a race/gender solution to a race/gender problem, since "race" and "gender " are not the problem. If they were then all one would need to do is to change one¹s race and/or gender. The problem is racism as the deliberate structuring of privilege by means of an objective, differential and unequal treatment of people, for the purpose of social advantage over scarce resources, resulting in an ideology of supremacy which justifies power of position by placing a negative meaning on perceived or actual biological/cultural differences.

Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?

jillio · 05-26-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

From a liberal rag....

After New Haven, Affirmative Action Is Not Back - Matthew Cooper - Politics - The Atlantic

Again, this was about the inherent bias in testing procedures. Do you understand how that fact would lead to problems with the city's affirmative action policy?

Tell me, what group do you think has benefited the most from Affirmative Action laws?

jillio · 05-26-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

was this so unclear to you that you had to ask?

ADA....

The ADA does not provide for the same things that Affirmative Action does, unless you consider being a middle class white female to be a disability.

jillio · 05-26-2011, 09:05 PM

At the heart of "justice as fairness" lies equal treatment, which wrongly assumes everyone is the same and thus the need for "fair play," which we all learn from childhood. But socio-historical circumstances preclude equality. This is why in some track and field events, the starting blocks are staggered, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity. Affirmative action, then, is equitable measures(short of restructuring society)which seek to make for a level playing field. Why? Because as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals."

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Again, this was about the inherent bias in testing procedures. ?

That were part of the city's affirmative action plan........ Those well qualified firefighters had to wait 6 years because of the city's affirmative action plan.

Case closed.

jillio · 05-26-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

That were part of the city's affirmative action plan........ Those well qualified firefighters had to wait 6 years because of the city's affirmative action plan.

Case closed.

Because the tests had to be proven not to be biased against the minority candidates. Again, Affrmative Action worked in this case. No one was promoted based on race, because the tests were shown to be fair to minority candidates. Therefore, promotions were made based on achievement and qualification. That is the part of Affirmative Action that you don't seem to grasp.

Why did you skip the question that was asked in the post you quoted in your reply? Which group do you think has received the most benefit from Affirmative Action?

jillio · 05-26-2011, 09:32 PM

Well, it looks like it is going to take you awhile to answer that question, too; if you ever do. I'll be back tomorrow.

**Beowulf** · 05-26-2011, 10:04 PM

Interesting thread. I quickly read through all the posts, and I have always felt that Affirmative Action was a necessary evil, that it didn't apply only to blacks, though at times it seems so. Where would we be if we never had Affirmative Action? I know many people it has helped (and it helped me as well), and pointing at one negative part of it overlooks the whole picture. I haven't really thought about this, and I guess it is time to do so, since I confess my knowledge is lacking, which most likely affected my behavior. Thanks for the thread and all those who replied.

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 10:11 PM

Thought I would post the Federal Government site as opposed to fluff.

Sure sounds a whole lot like quotas.... This is just the FAQs.

Department of Labor - Frequently Asked Questions for the Employer

the whole site is a bucket of fun.... Especially if you read between the fluff

**TXgolfer** · 05-26-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Because the tests had to be proven not to be biased against the minority candidates. Again, Affrmative Action worked in this case. No one was promoted based on race, because the tests were shown to be fair to minority candidates. Therefore, promotions were made based on achievement and qualification. That is the part of Affirmative Action that you don't seem to grasp.

Why did you skip the question that was asked in the post you quoted in your reply? Which group do you think has received the most benefit from Affirmative Action?

Umm no....the court system worked. AA failed

as for your question. No groups benefited from AA.... Racism hurts everyone.

Liza · 05-26-2011, 10:15 PM

I think affirmative action is a good thing, especially with ignorant people around in the positions of employer.

**Beowulf** · 05-26-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Umm no....the court system worked. AA failed

as for your question. No groups benefited from AA.... Racism hurts everyone.

The whole good ole USA benefited from it, and the USA is made up of groups, no escaping that.

**Jiro** · 05-27-2011, 01:55 AM

ADA prevents disability discrimination.
AA prevents racial discrimination.

Discrimination EXCLUDES a certain type of people.
ADA/AA INCLUDES a certain type of people.

That very distinction is the reason why AA is confusingly viewed as "reverse discrimination" or "fight discrimination with discrimination". People forget that there is already a federal law prohibiting discrimination.

**Jiro** · 05-27-2011, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Umm no....the court system worked. AA failed

as for your question. No groups benefited from AA.... Racism hurts everyone.

nope. the research and statistic says otherwise.

**Jiro** · 05-27-2011, 02:05 AM

"Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action" - HigherEdJobs

Quote:

Myth: Affirmative Action means hiring individuals who are less qualified than other candidates because of race and/or gender.

Fact: This is unlawful. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you cannot base a hiring decision, in whole or in part, on a person's race or gender. In addition, under Executive Order 11246, a college or university must take affirmative steps to ensure its hiring practices are fair, equitable, and free from discrimination. It must also take steps to get the word out about open positions and target outreach efforts to ensure the applicant pool is as diverse and qualified as possible. In the end, the most qualified person is hired.

Quote:

Myth: Affirmative action, civil rights and diversity are the same thing.

Fact: While there are many ways to define these three terms, they are not the same. I define them in the following way: Affirmative action is a federally mandated program for federal contractors as it relates to employment. Civil rights result from a series of federal and state civil rights laws and provide protection from discrimination and harassment on a variety of bases, including race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, religion and veteran status. Diversity can be defined in many ways, including diversity of thought, experiences, and backgrounds. Together, all three can contribute to a more welcoming, inclusive, supportive, diverse, and respectful working and learning environment that is free from discrimination and harassment.

Affirmative action helps create a level playing field that gives everyone an equal opportunity to compete for a job and career. It ensures that no person is disadvantaged or treated unfairly during the hiring process because of their race, ethnicity or gender. It is about fairness and justice for all. Who could be against that?

Talking About Affirmative Action

Quote:

Myth: My son can't get into a good school because of affirmative action.

Fact: If half of the people of color who are admitted to schools under affirmative action programs were cut, the acceptance rates of white men would only increase by 2%.

Women still face barriers in schools. In Washington, women receive only 12% of doctorates in engineering, and women are substantially under-represented in computer science nationwide.

Myth: Nobody else gets special consideration when applying to a college or for a job. Why should all women and people of color?

Fact: Lots of people get "special" consideration when applying for jobs or to schools.

Veterans often get preferences in workplaces and on campuses — which usually benefit men more than women. The children of alumni get preferential treatment over others in admission to college. Friends help friends and acquaintances get jobs. Affirmative Action helps open doors for women and people of color who often don't have those connections.

**Jiro** · 05-27-2011, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Thought I would post the Federal Government site as opposed to fluff.

Sure sounds a whole lot like quotas.... This is just the FAQs.

Department of Labor - Frequently Asked Questions for the Employer

the whole site is a bucket of fun.... Especially if you read between the fluff

I see no such thing. In case you didn't know... "quotas" system is illegal. Affirmative Action does not support it.

From same source as yours - U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) - Facts on Executive Order 11246 — Affirmative Action

Quote:

Successes
OFCCP efforts benefit real people through systemic contractor investigations and through partnerships with private industry and state and local agencies.

In general, OFCCP programs helped many Fortune 1,000 companies and other major corporations break the glass ceiling for women and minorities. In 1970, women accounted for 10.2 percent of the officials and managers reported on the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) form submitted by federal contractors. In 1993, women were 29.9 percent of all officials and managers, according to the EEO-1 data.

Many minorities and women have gained access to employment on large construction projects because of the Department's construction mega-projects. For example, on the Oakland Federal Building project, eight percent of the hours worked on the site were by women. On the New York Federal Courthouse project, 35 percent of the hours were worked by minorities and approximately six percent by women. In addition, OFCCP has recognized the affirmative action efforts of award recipient construction contractors like the Hyman Construction of Manhattan, New York and the Law Company of Kansas.

Working women moved from welfare to forklift operator jobs and other non-traditional construction jobs in Philadelphia and Chicago through OFCCP outreach efforts.

Native Americans are now employed on federal highway construction projects in conjunction with the Council for Tribal Employment Rights and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Both received Department EPIC awards for their efforts.

More than 70 individuals with disabilities have been employed in computer positions in Columbus, Ohio through a partnership between the department and Goodwill Industries. This cooperative agreement has resulted in prototypes of workplaces specifically designed to welcome persons with severe disabilities.

After highly publicized cases in which veterans were unaware of job openings, a Seattle company hired a specialist to address Vietnam-era veterans' issues.

Because of affirmative action requirements, federal contractors are reviewing their employment policies, including compensation systems, and training their managers and supervisors to identify and correct discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Quote:

Affirmative action is necessary to prevent discrimination and to address stereotypical thinking and biases that still impede employment opportunity.

Overall findings from a DOL survey found that women advanced more quickly in contractor firms than in non-contractor firms.

Federal contractors have changed the corporate climate in ways that are not statistically measurable because of the requirements of Executive Order 11246 and other laws enforced by OFCCP. For example, corporations now post job announcements and do not rely solely on word of mouth recruitment. Corporate sensitivity to issues like sex and race harassment and wage discrimination has increased, as has the awareness of the benefits of a family friendly environment. Employers now view ability, not disability.

**TXgolfer** · 05-27-2011, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I see no such thing. In case you didn't know... "quotas" system is illegal. Affirmative Action does not support it.

From same source as yours - U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) - Facts on Executive Order 11246 — Affirmative Action

Compliance, Employment records, census data.....

Thank God the courts saved the Firefighters from New Haven's affirmative action plan. Too bad it took years.

Nothing else to say here..... If that doesn't convince you, nothing will

**Jiro** · 05-27-2011, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Compliance, Employment records, census data.....

Thank God the courts saved the Firefighters from New Haven's affirmative action plan. Too bad it took years.

Nothing else to say here..... If that doesn't convince you, nothing will

right. there's nothing to say in here either because I see nothing that supports your claim. neither does court

kokonut · 05-27-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Compliance, Employment records, census data.....

Thank God the courts saved the Firefighters from New Haven's affirmative action plan. Too bad it took years.

Nothing else to say here..... If that doesn't convince you, nothing will

Sometimes an Executive Order by the president requires that A.A. be implemented such as hiring more people with disabilities.

Affirmative Action News: Increasing Employment of People with Disabilities in Federal Agencies

Hiring 100,000 more people with disabilities certainly sounds like a quota to me.

**Beowulf** · 05-27-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Sometimes an Executive Order by the president requires that A.A. be implemented such as hiring more people with disabilities.

Affirmative Action News: Increasing Employment of People with Disabilities in Federal Agencies

Hiring 100,000 more people with disabilities certainly sounds like a quota to me.

So, it is okay with you to have women and minorities underrepresented in all job capacities?

**Beowulf** · 05-27-2011, 10:20 AM

Just read this and found it interesting.

8. FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

**Daredevel7** · 05-27-2011, 10:23 AM

My personal opinion: TECHNICALLY Affirmative action is racist. But honestly, that's just semantics. I think of it this way, the ACTION of AA is racist, but the INTENT is not.

Kinda like taking privileges away from a child. If you do it for no reason (or out of malice), it's child abuse/cruelty. If you do it to teach him a lesson (he did something bad), it's discipline.

Same action, different intent.

I do firmly believe that it should be temporary only. It was meant to force white people to grudgingly accept the minorities into the workplace when it was glaringly obvious that they were not hiring them out of racism or simply afraid "of dem suspicious colored folks." . After they realized that they aren't all that bad.... AA should be taken away.

I was a result of somewhat "affirmative action." My resume was found through "special means" (I THINK Schedule A or something like that). I am willing to bet my life that I would have NEVER been hired if it weren't for something like this. Even though I got my Master's, I don't have a 4.0 GPA and interviews with companies can be somewhat awkward since most HR/managers (in engineering industry) have never dealt with a deaf person before.

I think its nice to think that the world isn't racist or discriminatory anymore and that if you "work hard enough", your hard work will outshine any doubts about you because of race, handicap, or whatever. However, I find it really naive and well meaning intent gone bad.

I do want to add on the flip side of the coin, I have a coworker here who is African-American and in a wheelchair. Frankly, he sucks as a coworker. He tries to get away with things and he talks so much at work, talking about politics, blah blah. But he will NEVER be fired (unless he does something really bad). However, I DO think it is unfair that because of people like him, people look down on affirmative action.

PS... as a white person, who do you think you're going to experience/see more: the annoying minority person at work, or the hardworking minority that never got hired?

jillio · 05-27-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Compliance, Employment records, census data.....

Thank God the courts saved the Firefighters from New Haven's affirmative action plan. Too bad it took years.

Nothing else to say here..... If that doesn't convince you, nothing will

Still unable to answer direct questions, I see. Well, I'll make it easy for you. The group that has benefited the most from AA is white, middle class women.

Not Black males as you seem to believe.

**Daredevel7** · 05-27-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Still unable to answer direct questions, I see. Well, I'll make it easy for you. The group that has benefited the most from AA is white, middle class women.

Not Black males as you seem to believe.

As a Hispanic, female, and deaf person, I satisfy at least 3 "minorities" all at once.

jillio · 05-27-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

My personal opinion: TECHNICALLY Affirmative action is racist. But honestly, that's just semantics. I think of it this way, the ACTION of AA is racist, but the INTENT is not.

Kinda like taking privileges away from a child. If you do it for no reason (or out of malice), it's child abuse/cruelty. If you do it to teach him a lesson (he did something bad), it's discipline.

Same action, different intent.

I do firmly believe that it should be temporary only. It was meant to force white people to grudgingly accept the minorities into the workplace when it was glaringly obvious that they were not hiring them out of racism or simply afraid "of dem suspicious colored folks." . After they realized that they aren't all that bad.... AA should be taken away.

I was a result of somewhat "affirmative action." My resume was found through "special means" (I THINK Schedule A or something like that). I am willing to bet my life that I would have NEVER been hired if it weren't for something like this. Even though I got my Master's, I don't have a 4.0 GPA and interviews with companies can be somewhat awkward since most HR/managers (in engineering industry) have never dealt with a deaf person before.

I think its nice to think that the world isn't racist or discriminatory anymore and that if you "work hard enough", your hard work will outshine any doubts about you because of race, handicap, or whatever. However, I find it really naive and well meaning intent gone bad.

I do want to add on the flip side of the coin, I have a coworker here who is African-American and in a wheelchair. Frankly, he sucks as a coworker. He tries to get away with things and he talks so much at work, talking about politics, blah blah. But he will NEVER be fired (unless he does something really bad). However, I DO think it is unfair that because of people like him, people look down on affirmative action.

PS... as a white person, who do you think you're going to experience/see more: the annoying minority person at work, or the hardworking minority that never got hired?

Excellent analogy. And I do believe if we, as a society, ever advance past the racism and sexism that has resulted in underrepresentation, AA will no longer be necessary, and will become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not yet reached that point.

The result of AA may appear to be racist to some, but I firmly believe that the majority of those who see it as racist are simply those who have been beneficiaries of white male priviledge their entire lives, and are upset that the stratification in their favor is being challanged.

jillio · 05-27-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

As a Hispanic, female, and deaf person, I satisfy at least 3 "minorities" all at once.

You've got it made, girl!

I satisfy 2 of them.

But the point is, no matter how many categories we satisfy, we are never going to get a job based on that alone. We also have to be able to show that we have the education and qualifications to meet the job requirements. And even then, our pay will be less than a white male in the same position. The old glass ceiling.

**Beowulf** · 05-27-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Excellent analogy. And I do believe if we, as a society, ever advance past the racism and sexism that has resulted in underrepresentation, AA will no longer be necessary, and will become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not yet reached that point.

The result of AA may appear to be racist to some, but I firmly believe that the majority of those who see it as racist are simply those who have been beneficiaries of white male priviledge their entire lives, and are upset that the stratification in their favor is being challanged.

Absolutely. Unfortunately I am one of them and ideally I should find a better circle of friends than those who constantly squawk their bitterness to all and sundry.
Good grief, now I am talking like them!

05-26-2011, 10:04 PM	#41 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,515	Interesting thread. I quickly read through all the posts, and I have always felt that Affirmative Action was a necessary evil, that it didn't apply only to blacks, though at times it seems so. Where would we be if we never had Affirmative Action? I know many people it has helped (and it helped me as well), and pointing at one negative part of it overlooks the whole picture. I haven't really thought about this, and I guess it is time to do so, since I confess my knowledge is lacking, which most likely affected my behavior. Thanks for the thread and all those who replied. jillio likes this.

05-26-2011, 10:11 PM	#42 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,694	Thought I would post the Federal Government site as opposed to fluff. Sure sounds a whole lot like quotas.... This is just the FAQs. Department of Labor - Frequently Asked Questions for the Employer the whole site is a bucket of fun.... Especially if you read between the fluff __________________ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21 Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

05-27-2011, 01:55 AM	#46 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,590	ADA prevents disability discrimination. AA prevents racial discrimination. Discrimination EXCLUDES a certain type of people. ADA/AA INCLUDES a certain type of people. That very distinction is the reason why AA is confusingly viewed as "reverse discrimination" or "fight discrimination with discrimination". People forget that there is already a federal law prohibiting discrimination. jillio likes this. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

05-27-2011, 10:23 AM	#55 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	My personal opinion: TECHNICALLY Affirmative action is racist. But honestly, that's just semantics. I think of it this way, the ACTION of AA is racist, but the INTENT is not. Kinda like taking privileges away from a child. If you do it for no reason (or out of malice), it's child abuse/cruelty. If you do it to teach him a lesson (he did something bad), it's discipline. Same action, different intent. I do firmly believe that it should be temporary only. It was meant to force white people to grudgingly accept the minorities into the workplace when it was glaringly obvious that they were not hiring them out of racism or simply afraid "of dem suspicious colored folks." . After they realized that they aren't all that bad.... AA should be taken away. I was a result of somewhat "affirmative action." My resume was found through "special means" (I THINK Schedule A or something like that). I am willing to bet my life that I would have NEVER been hired if it weren't for something like this. Even though I got my Master's, I don't have a 4.0 GPA and interviews with companies can be somewhat awkward since most HR/managers (in engineering industry) have never dealt with a deaf person before. I think its nice to think that the world isn't racist or discriminatory anymore and that if you "work hard enough", your hard work will outshine any doubts about you because of race, handicap, or whatever. However, I find it really naive and well meaning intent gone bad. I do want to add on the flip side of the coin, I have a coworker here who is African-American and in a wheelchair. Frankly, he sucks as a coworker. He tries to get away with things and he talks so much at work, talking about politics, blah blah. But he will NEVER be fired (unless he does something really bad). However, I DO think it is unfair that because of people like him, people look down on affirmative action. PS... as a white person, who do you think you're going to experience/see more: the annoying minority person at work, or the hardworking minority that never got hired? jillio likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-26-2011, 08:52 PM	#34 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Affirmative action emerged in the 1960s as a result of efforts by the civil rights movement to get America to honor its original contract, that "all [people] are created equal." In addition the Pledge of Allegiance promises "liberty and justice for all." This idealism is a promise of equal opportunity for all individuals regardless of color, national origin, race, religion and sex, which up to this point in history had not been honored for people of color. While first addressed to the needs of African-Americans, later on the needs of American Indians, Asian-Americans and Latinos were added. For this and other "unalienable rights," the founders and followers of the civil rights movement marched and died, and finally obtained the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, such action by itself, prohibiting discrimination in the present and in the future, did not necessarily correct past inequities. So what if people now had equal access, the advantage would still go to those who had benefited the longest and most from past discrimination. I may have equal access to get in the same boxing ring with Mike Tyson, but that¹s no guarantee of an equal opportunity of winning. The odds are stacked in favor of failure. Therefore in order to correct for such inequities, especially in the areas of housing, education, and employment, steps were taken to ensure that those groups that historically had been excluded or given limited access to societal rewards, were now given an opportunity to catch up. Thus, affirmative action refers to social policies encouraging favorable treatment of socially disadvantaged groups, especially in employment, education, and housing, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in order to reverse historical trends of discrimination and to create equality of opportunity for qualified persons. Keep in mind that affirmative action is essentially a "race/gender solution" to a "race/gender problem," with middle class white women as the greatest beneficiaries. The latter have benefited most as a result of a "minority" status, which gives them a decided advantage over African-Americans and Latinos in obtaining contracts, entitlements, set asides and executive positions, when the concern of those in power is to keep access to privilege in the hands of "whites." This is why the term "people of color" emerged in the late Œ80s early Œ90s, to differentiate white women from racial/ethnic groups, since both are designated as "minority." There is no such thing, however, as a race/gender solution to a race/gender problem, since "race" and "gender " are not the problem. If they were then all one would need to do is to change one¹s race and/or gender. The problem is racism as the deliberate structuring of privilege by means of an objective, differential and unequal treatment of people, for the purpose of social advantage over scarce resources, resulting in an ideology of supremacy which justifies power of position by placing a negative meaning on perceived or actual biological/cultural differences. Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?

05-26-2011, 09:05 PM	#37 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	At the heart of "justice as fairness" lies equal treatment, which wrongly assumes everyone is the same and thus the need for "fair play," which we all learn from childhood. But socio-historical circumstances preclude equality. This is why in some track and field events, the starting blocks are staggered, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity. Affirmative action, then, is equitable measures(short of restructuring society)which seek to make for a level playing field. Why? Because as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals."

05-26-2011, 09:32 PM	#40 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Well, it looks like it is going to take you awhile to answer that question, too; if you ever do. I'll be back tomorrow.

05-26-2011, 10:15 PM	#44 (permalink)
Liza Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 4,367 Blog Entries: 2	I think affirmative action is a good thing, especially with ignorant people around in the positions of employer.

05-27-2011, 10:20 AM	#54 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,515	Just read this and found it interesting. 8. FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION