Affirmative action: Blessing or a curse

[Syzygy]

I recently did an essay for school on this.

So, I'm interested. Anyone want to discuss their opinions on the matter and why.

[perchorin]

I'm curious as to why you think you'll get a worthwile answer here...

[Syzygy]

Good point.

There are one or two people here that could make a good arguement though.

[Spuzzell]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Affirmative action is the definition of "two wrongs make a right", and is a bad thing.. applicants should be judged solely on ability.

Anything else is counter-productive. You end up with people in jobs they aren't quite ready for which harms their future prospects and their employers current prospects, which leads to resentment on both parts, which leads to prejudice and the cycle begins again.

Make the penalties for discrimination harsher, don't make employers hire anyone but the best option for a job.

[Anarkistsdream]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Affirmative action is the definition of "two wrongs make a right", and is a bad thing.. applicants should be judged solely on ability.

Anything else is counter-productive. You end up with people in jobs they aren't quite ready for which harms their future prospects and their employers current prospects, which leads to resentment on both parts, which leads to prejudice and the cycle begins again.

Make the penalties for discrimination harsher, don't make employers hire anyone but the best option for a job.

VERY well said, SPuzz.... I agree.

And I think it hits us even harder in America due to the outrageous biases that stem from Americans about other people... It seems that racism is much less predominant in most European countries, and even in places like India...

I'd say the U.S. and South Africa suffer the worst from it, but these are the places where affirmative action are getting out of hand.

[Syzygy]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Affirmative action is the definition of "two wrongs make a right", and is a bad thing.. applicants should be judged solely on ability.

Anything else is counter-productive. You end up with people in jobs they aren't quite ready for which harms their future prospects and their employers current prospects, which leads to resentment on both parts, which leads to prejudice and the cycle begins again.

Make the penalties for discrimination harsher, don't make employers hire anyone but the best option for a job.

VERY well said, SPuzz.... I agree.

And I think it hits us even harder in America due to the outrageous biases that stem from Americans about other people... It seems that racism is much less predominant in most European countries, and even in places like India...

I'd say the U.S. and South Africa suffer the worst from it, but these are the places where affirmative action are getting out of hand.

India has had a lot of issues regarding the caste system.

I agree with regards to South Africa. AA benifits only the upper and middle class blacks, whilst the poorest of the poor (who need the most help) tend to get very little.

Also (in SA) some of the government departments deem it necessary to not only favour black people for a certain job, but also to pay up to six times the salary if their employee is a black man or woman. This, IMO, is ridiculous.

[luns101]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Affirmative action is the definition of "two wrongs make a right", and is a bad thing.. applicants should be judged solely on ability.

Anything else is counter-productive. You end up with people in jobs they aren't quite ready for which harms their future prospects and their employers current prospects, which leads to resentment on both parts, which leads to prejudice and the cycle begins again.

Make the penalties for discrimination harsher, don't make employers hire anyone but the best option for a job.

That's a very good argument. Are you sure you're the same Spuzzell who disagrees with me about 80% of the time...lol. In our country, there was a man named Allan Bakke who was denied admission to medical school at the University of California - Davis in 1973. Bakke vs. Regents of the Univserity of California

Our Supreme Court at that time said that while race can be used as "a" factor in considering admissions, it cannot be the "sole" factor. The court sided with Bakke.

African-Americans have been denied access to public services/facilities in our country until the civil rights movement of the 1950's - 60's exposed it. In principle, I support "leveling the playing field". But I readily admit that I know of no concrete program which could do that without establishing quotas. It's such a tough situation...I really don't have an answer.

I'm curious...you Brits seem to be well-schooled about our history. Is it a mandatory part of the curriculum in your schools to learn about American history?

[Stopper]

I'm curious...you Brits seem to be well-schooled about our history. Is it a mandatory part of the curriculum in your schools to learn about American history?

I don't know about others, but for my history GCSE (14y.o.-16y.o.), 15 years ago, I studied the USA (19th cent) and China (20th cent). Nothing on Britain.

Not that I cared, there's no cowboys or Communist revolutionaries in British history - boooring.

[Serbia]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Affirmative action is the definition of "two wrongs make a right", and is a bad thing.. applicants should be judged solely on ability.

Anything else is counter-productive. You end up with people in jobs they aren't quite ready for which harms their future prospects and their employers current prospects, which leads to resentment on both parts, which leads to prejudice and the cycle begins again.

Make the penalties for discrimination harsher, don't make employers hire anyone but the best option for a job.

That's a very good argument. Are you sure you're the same Spuzzell who disagrees with me about 80% of the time...lol. In our country, there was a man named Allan Bakke who was denied admission to medical school at the University of California - Davis in 1973. Bakke vs. Regents of the Univserity of California

Our Supreme Court at that time said that while race can be used as "a" factor in considering admissions, it cannot be the "sole" factor. The court sided with Bakke.

African-Americans have been denied access to public services/facilities in our country until the civil rights movement of the 1950's - 60's exposed it. In principle, I support "leveling the playing field". But I readily admit that I know of no concrete program which could do that without establishing quotas. It's such a tough situation...I really don't have an answer.

I'm curious...you Brits seem to be well-schooled about our history. Is it a mandatory part of the curriculum in your schools to learn about American history?

I was surprised that Spuzzell wrote this too! Very good arguement.

[Stopper]

Bloody hell! I was going to ignore this thread, but, get a grip, the lot of you.

Spuzzell's "argument" would work very nicely in an ideal world where employers/universities are all colour-blind, and choose employees/students who show the best ability, there's no old-boy network, blah blah la-de-da. Yeah, and pigs might fly.

I'll take the Police Service of Northern Ireland as an example. This in its old form (the RUC) had been heavily dominated by Protestants (approx 92% in 1998), in a province where 40% of the population is Catholic.

Now, they are having to prioritise recruitment of Catholics, until the overall numbers normalise. Now, considering the IQ of your average copper is not very high, and cannot be, or they would realise what they were doing is stupid, and leave, there isn't much variation in the quality of your average recruit.

Most people would think that having an imbalance of Protestants in a police force - in an area which has a long, and recent, history of all sorts of discrimination against Catholics - would be something that ought to be corrected. Otherwise, Catholics in general could continue to harbour resentment against the Police, which would not be good for the harmony of the community, to say the least.

Still, many Protestants complain, very much along the lines we hear everywhere - not the best man for the job, blah blah blah, but no reason is ever given for the original overabundance of Protestants in the first place, nor why it should be allowed to continue. Are Protestants inherently better policemen than Catholics? Of course not. So why should they be allowed to continue to dominate the force?

[b.k. barunt]

There is no simple response to this question. There is a basic need in america (can't speak for other countries) to "level the playing field" because of past wrongs. This is only a case of "2 wrongs making a right" if you assume that affirmative action is wrong. The problem is how it is implemented - very tricky. The same goes for unions - they are necessary, but when abused can really muck things up. America has the worst history of bigotry by far of any country, and i am ashamed enough of this to at least try the affirmative action. I have worked as a union officer and as an EEO representative, and have suffered attacks from both sides when i tried to act fairly, so like i say, there is no simple answer to this one. I didn't vote because it is neither a blessing or a curse, and it is both a blessing and a curse.