I will post my thoughts later so not to bias.

 

Affirmative action (AA) is a moral and political question meant to rectify past wrongs against the wronged group.

I am against AA for many reasons but my main reasoning is that if we are to create a color blind society, then we really should be adopting color blind policies. You cant cure discrimination with more discrimination and supporting AA means supporting preferential treatment/selection process instead of who has the best qualifications. Quite a few minorities have been able to advance economically in the U.S. w/o the need for AA groups, proving thaey are not needed.

 

Dave did this a while back and it didn't catch on.

Yeah... it served it's purpose but racism in the workplace/schools has dwindled to a point where it can be taken on a case by case basis and if someone feels they are being descriminated against they can just sue.

 

Hmmm... who voted for it? Reasoning for your vote?

 

well i voted against it. As stated above, it does nothing but further encourage discrimination and separation.

 

I think it was a great idea, but it created the reverse effect where you could not hire the right person for the job in some instances.

For example: A white guy and a black guy go for the same job, the white guy is the much better candidate, but they are required by law to hire a black guy to meet an AA quota.

It's not racial discrimination, more along the lines of the law is telling you you have to let the best man for the job go because he won't meet your quota.

It's like the NJ state police. Me and my brother have both been told by black and white cops on the force that if you're a white guy, you have to do better than all the black guys if you are to be hired.

It's needed in some areas where there is still prejudice, but that doesn't mean they aren't implimenting it correctly.

 

So what do you do when you have person "A" that has all the privileges of upper middle class parents including the best schools in the area and tutors, and person "B" who went to the worst schools in the area and they are within 10 points of each other on the SAT?

 

I'd say to give it to person B, he obviously has the most potential and has shown he can overcome his obsticles.

Person A has unlimited resources and can only do 10 points better than a guy with NO resources? He won't do me much good unless it comes down to his rich parents giving my school or company a lot of money to run my business.

 

I didn't say which was higher, but you get my drift. This is the reason I voted that it's a great idea, but poorly implemented. The way the situation is now, the system assumes that B is black and A is white.

 

Which is wrong, for all we know it could be the black kid is the rich boy and it's some poor white kid who's family has a hard time making rent each month in the slums of the city.

 

Which is exactly why I said AA is good in idea, but is being implemented wrong. New variables need to be introduced that address what I'm speaking of. But this just shows how far we've come, and the level of success AA has had. It's now time to shift gears a bit.

 

What variables need introducing? I know for a fact that were it not for AA any college would consider said variables. Tell me what would go wrong were we to simply tell employers/schools to accept who they wanted?

 

The ones mentioned: geogrpahic location.

which is why we're talking about it.

They do now. The only government mandates for AA are for government employees and contracts. All other employers/universities set their own goals for what they consider a racially equal mix.

 

if I wasn't white I'd like it a whole lot more.

 

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION!!!???
Are you serious? So instead of considering applications based on race we should consider them based on where they come from? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! You never answered my question so I will pose it again. Why not just let everyone accept whom they please. And don't say that we live in a racist climate because we do not.

 

really AA is stupid, and can't be done in a way to promote racial diversity, without discriminating against someone. If you think adding "geographic address", fine great idea. So I'm a white male, and during high school, grew up 6 of us in a 2 bedroom mobile home, and me@14 and my mom both worked minimum wage jobs to support the rest of us. Few black kids my age grew up like that, with that amount of disadvantage on paper. But I wouldn't benefit from growing up like that in any way because of the color of my skin, right?

At 19, i've also applied into electrical unions here for entry level apprenticship (no experience needed), passed their tests with flying colors, paid their money, and was more qualified than any other applicant, with already 2 years under my belt, computer networking and programming. So far beyond any other applicant they had, but was told to my face, because of my status of being a white male, I would not be getting a call for atleast a year because they were grossly behind on acceiving a "diverse workforce, even though there was a shortage of workers. Never did get a call.

in seattle here, you should hear what goes on with our school districts, blacks can choose to get bussed from 15 miles away to "diversify" schools, and white kids who actually could see what should be their high school from their front yards are shipped to whereever there aren't too many kids of their color. what a great way to teach and perpetuate racism.
I have always thought the way public schools are funded is very biased, but it's about poor vs. rich, not white vs. black.

IMO, public schools in each state(or better yet, nationwide), all get the same crappy modular building. If a school has 1,000 kids in it, it gets plan A. If 2,000 plan B. If a school grows and needs room, add module A.1 to plan A, if it needs more add A.1 & A.2. In thirty years, if you have too many modules, bulldoze make plan B or C.

Same money is spent on each student statewide, and there is no "moving to a better school district for your kids". The only thing that makes a school "better" is a great teacher just so happens to work in that school district.

 

Please put your "Jump to Conclusions" mat away for the purpose of this conversation.

First off, nothing is based off of any one variable. Nothing. I am proposing that we stop assuming that all blacks and hispanics come from disadvantaged neighborhoods/homes and that all whites and Asians come from great homes located in great school districts.

BTW, if we allowed school choice, it would greatly diminish any argument that anyone has for AA.

That my friend, is where we strongly disagree. No, it isn't the 1950's any longer, but neither it is it a color blind utopia where nobody holds any prejuduces whatsoever. It simply isn't there yet, and it is most likely going to be another 100 years (minimum) before we are even close.

 

This is exactly my point. The current AA does not take this scenerio in to account.

 

LOL... I would soooo buy that mat.

Ok... Are there racist people? Yes. Enough that we need AA? I'll let you give your response.

And for a third time... What negative effectswould come of letting EVERYONE accept who they want?

 

no AA is ever going to help people that are "just poor", without them being of a certain color or sex.
But it really shouldn't either. I was in honors classes, and had the same access to school books and homework that everyone else had, while i worked a part time job. and i wasn't handing out free orange julius's at the mall to support my cell phone and clothes, it was either working junkyards sorting trash or running a burger stand with one other kid to get milk and diapers for my family.

Did work hard and get what you deserve go out of style with the 1960's?