The fact that minorities can't compete is not their fault. Our society has oppressed them to the point where they have not had their fair shake. The fact that we can use our laws to give these people a hand up is a moral obligation.

The only way to true equality is to treat people EQUALLY.
Tons of people have difficult lives that make progress a little harder to achieve... but suprise- NOT all of these people are minorities. It's racist to give a hand up to one group because of their "difficulties"... it's basically assuming that the rest of us have it easy. We don't.

Let's just go back to the 1950's when men were men and everyone else knew their place.

I am all for leveling the playing field. But when my personal success is limited by the fact that I'm white and others get privileges that put themselves above me despite the fact that his or her credentials are lower, that makes me mad. Maybe we should look at ways that can increase the skills of groups that typically perform lower (i.e. working to make the SAT more fair, since minorities typically score markedly lower despite comparable grades) instead of keeping others down so they can get up.

Affirmative action is a tough and complex issue. I've studied it fairly seriously and still don't have a strong stance, though I am for it. What I don't appreciate is when people that are against affirmative action over-simplify the issue. If you're ignoring history and complex social structures that exist in society today you're argument loses all legitimacy. The fact that non-minorities have difficulties is not a valid reason to abolish affirmative action.

sassy has a good point about the SAT. We need to implement a system that adjusts the scores of minorities (who typically score lower) upward so that the playing field will be more level when it comes time for college.

I know it's going to get heated in here, so I'm going to put in my 2 cents early and never look back.

I'm for affirmative action mostly. I think it helps bring up certain groups of people who REALLY need it.

Nice picture Wadewifey.

Nice picture Wadewifey.

Em, if anyone really wanted to help minorities they'd HELP them in life, not HELP them by handing them jobs.
Besides, how do you figure that's not a valid argument? Please, explain.
The fact is, it's not invalid because it doesn't really matter WHERE someones problems originate (racism, a crackhead mother, inherited poverty), in the end they are ALL difficult in one's life and they ALL create problems down the road, regardless of skin color.

foxie, the fact is these people do not have skills or abilities that are on par with caucasions. This is NOT their fault. It is the fault of 200 years of oppression and poverty. We brought some of these people from Africa and we owe them our care and understanding. It's our responsibility to make sure that all of the people in this country are guaranteed a job, a living wage, and the ability to enjoy the American dream. It's important to consider what's best for poor people.

Negative. We don't guarantee ANYONE a job in life, we guarantee their freedom. And, quite frankly, they certainly wouldn't have the freedom and opportunities they do NOW if we hadn't "brought them over from Africa." Our past treatment to black people is sickening, but we are righting our wrongs, and I don't owe a minority my job because of it.
The bulk of the problem is class, not race. Heck, you just said it yourself. We should be helping the lower class (NOT JUST MINORITIES) by giving them the tools it takes to succeed, not just by pretending they are succeeding.

You're right that we should give them the tools. The problem is that it's not an instant solution. If we put minorities in positions of success now, it will send the right message to the youth. You have to understand that these people are so oppressed that they not only can't succeed, but don't want to succeed.

They're like children. They depend on us to be their guiding light and to make their decisions for them. And you're right that it's not just minorities, all poor people need the government. Try to be more compassionate.

When I saw this post I remembered a study from a few years ago.

Economic Scene; Sticks and stones can break bones, but the wrong name can make a job hard to find.

"Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.
The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.
Within racial groups, applications with men's or women's names were equally likely to result in calls for interviews, providing little evidence of discrimination based on sex in these entry-level jobs."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A...

organicsugar you are becoming offensive.

I'm sorry that you find compassion offensive.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Foxie here on this one. The government shouldn't guarantee someone a job (or anything for that matter) because they have a different color skin other than white. And isn't it a little racist to say Organicsugar "the fact is these people do not have skills or abilities that are on par with caucasions"? Really? My husband's family is Mexican so by your rationale they don't have the same skills as my white family? That's just silly. And anyone can have the skills for whatever job they so desire if they work for it. Just study hard, it can be done I've seen it happen for some of the poorest. So don't tell me that because people are poor or a minority that they don't have the same skills, they only don't if they didn't try.

I'm white and I found this offensive: "They're like children. They depend on us to be their guiding light and to make their decisions for them."

Honestly I think you might need the lesson in compassion as you see them like that.

I'm plenty compassionate. I'm the one who wants people to actually succeed instead of relying on oh-so-generous handouts from the big guys. I'm the one who thinks minorities can do it on their own, and HAVE done it on their own. I'm not the one comparing minorities to helpless children who can't make decisions for themselves. I hold them to the same standards I would hold myself to, because we're EQUAL.

To say that you're equal is to ignore the oppression that certain groups have endured for two hundred years. Give them a hand up.

Your frame of mind of thinking about people as individuals who should have the ability to make all self regarding decisions is absurd. I can't believe that someone would be so outrageous as to think that any sort of welfare or affirmative action is rooted in the belief inadequacy. That is to say: I don't think you could earn this, so here it is.

Just to think that someone would find that concept of implied inadequacy offensive boggles the mind.

I think I've stepped into the twilight zone.

some of these comments are outrageous. are we really being honest when say that the american socioeconomic system is set up fairly?

What people don't understand about the Affirmative Action in play is that it takes away grants and scholarships from publicly funded sources that are geared specifically for women and ethnic minorities. Its not always about admission quotas.

Also, it means that if there's a sexist/racist official controlling city/state/other government contracts with private companies, they can choose to work with their friends and not a set diverse group.

Translation: say you are a woman who just started a contracting company and you're in Detroit. Our city council can say they don't want to work with you and work with someone who grew up with the mayor who is a white male over you and use his company for EVERY contract. Affirmative action is a ban on that, forcing diversity among companies hired for those contracts.

(I suck at explaining things, I hope you understood what I meant by that...)

I totally agree with em113.

organicsugar, i'm surprised that you're for affirmative action, being that your opinions toward minorities are so incredibly demeaning. your argument has a very "white man's burden" tone to it.

girlgreen what's your reason for being for it?

Organic, I don't think it's the best solution, but I think it makes some headway in the form of social change. Obviously, what we need is systemic change in terms of race/class issues, but that takes generations of people and institutions changing their way of thinking and acting. Affirmative action is a short term way to address a very deeply rooted problem. So obviously I don't think it will work forever, and I hope we don't need it forever - but I do think we need it now.

So what is the problem, girlgreen?

the "deeply rooted problem" that is

I didn't realize I had to spell it out. I feel that certain minorities in this country have a history of oppression that has severely limited their opportunities for gaining equal educational, social, and economic footing. Because we can't take into account present circumstances without looking back at what caused them, I think we have to do our best to rectify things now.

I DO NOT think that minorities are "children" who need to be led or directed or patted on the head like a nice little doggie.

So you agree that their skills are not valuable enough to overcome this racism on their own. That's why we need the government to intervene, right?

i'm done. what you said does not even make sense to me.

Checkmate.

I totally agree with girlgreen and foxie. And yes organicsugr, you are incredibly demeaning when talking about minorities. The fact that you don't think of them as equal is quite disturbing.

AND...you want to ADJUST the scores of minorities on the SAT's? That's hilarious! How do you expect them to get ahead when you don't give them the chance and you just hand whatever it is to them. I can just about guarantee Sassy didn't mean it that way.

I think maybe some of you have not been reading recent posts. Our friend organic is trying to be satirical. An outrageous view that we're supposed to pretend is very, very serious.

"church homeless shelters should be shut down because we ought to rely on the government for help."

"we shouldn't deport sick people because everyone has a right to feel good all of the time"

"we should give minorities a leg up because they're inferior"

But it's not even well done satire, beause people get confused and think it's serious. It just ends up being distracting like on the post about deporting sick illegal immigrants because no one can tell if it's sarcastic or just plain crazy.

I'd like to see data on the pros and cons of affirmative action.
I am interested (for example) to know how many qualified non-minority candidates have lost a job or placement at a school because of it. I'd also like to see how many families have been able to break the cycle of poverty because of affirmative action.

I believe that AA doesn't come into play as often as people think, especially in the current job market. Example: Most companies have an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) policy, that just states that they will not discriminate based on gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Depending on which state you are in, that lists gets more extensive. I would like to know how many employers actually have a "quota" for minority hiring.

Hey Torg, the best satire is confusing and seemingly serious to the majority. Besides, don't you agree with all those statements?

Let's try to stay on topic here guys.

Torg,

It is a myth that minorities are the only beneficiaries of affirmative action. The fact of the matter is it is White women, not African Americans, not Asian Americans, not Hispanic Americans, not Middle eastern Americans, not Native Americans, but American White women who are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.

Affirmative action does not take jobs away from qualified applicants it widens the field to include applicants that are sometimes overlooked or won't be looked at because of ingrained bias. An employer who hires a women or a minority who is unqualified is just as likely (and has in the past) hire unqualified white people just because they can (and quite frankly is shooting themselves in the foot).

Affirmative action is not about handing out jobs to those people and not you it is about providing opportunities.

"And, quite frankly, they certainly wouldn't have the freedom and opportunities they do NOW if we hadn't "brought them over from Africa."

WOW. That is all I have to say about that, wow.

As for the issue as a whole, I do think there is a benefit to making sure that people aren't being discriminated against, and that people that are underprivileged have the chance to put their hard work towards being self sufficient and productive members of society. I think that it is beneficial for our educational systems to not limit their enrollment to one "type". However, I don't think that it should be only race based. I think that our educational system right now is so grossly slanted against people who have low incomes, and that includes low income white people.

(and I just gotta throw it in, but I believe that Obama thinks that affirmative action should factor in economic status as well. I could be wrong, though).

I think there are problems with affirmative action being tied to ending racism and to me it's government interference in a social problem. Theoretically, institutional racism no longer exists, yet institutions still operate as though it does through affirmative action. To me, therefore, I think if we ended the notion of institutional race/gender reward systems, perhaps then they may be free to pursue a more solely based merit system.

@ Jillness...I think that Affirmative action does factor in socio-economic in some instances, such as school admissions. But I could be wrong...

"American White women who are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action."

Very good point.
From a business stand point, why hire any women at all if they come with the inherent risk that they will have to be out for 6 months on maternity leave?

This conversations make me think about the primary results in some states this year that showed HUGE percentages of people saying that race and gender played the biggest role in who they voted for. Prejudice of all types is very strong in our country today.

Michelin--I hope you're joking. Satire is not supposed to be confusing. It's supposed to illuminate the hypocrisies and other various lunacies of the position or group you're satirizing.

thanks for clarifying, torgelson. i wish i wouldn't have wasted my time!

juju, you bring up interesting points. i like to think that my family exemplifies the benefits of this policy. i'm black, and both my parents grew up poor in the south. my dad is a really smart guy, and was able to go to college on a full scholarship and become a CPA. he's done very well for himself, and because of that was able to give me and my sisters a much better education. my older sister just became a doctor, and i just graduated from a great college. I think a large part of his success is due to his work ethic, but i do know that affirmative action played a role as well.

I wonder if anyone has come up with an algorithm that yields exactly the amount of disadvantaged someone is. You factor in race, gender, country of origin, parental involvement, and physical fitness. That way their pay could be adjusted to how we collectively feel about them.

"to me it's government interference in a social problem."

I see your point, but to me, it is still allowing you to not "like" someone...you just can't refuse to hire them because of it.

>From a business stand point, why hire any women at all if they come with the inherent risk that they will have to be out for 6 months on maternity leave?

First of all, who gets six months of maternity leave?

Second of all, I think think some discernment based on plans to have children in very limited cases is not so bad. Children are a lifestyle choice, not something you're born with and can't control.

Torg, I think maybe Organic did just that.

The hypocrisy is that affirmative action seeks to help minorities (and perhaps women) but assumes that these groups are not intelligent or skilled enough to make progress without government interference.

Satire is only confusing if it's over your head. If Organic's comments confused you, it's because you don't see the hypocrisy.

GREAT POST JUJU!!

Seriously...you sound like you know your stuff. A little bit of fact is so helpful in discussions like these!