The debate "Affirmative Action is hypocritical and an insult to all African Americans and women" was started by
June 23, 2019, 2:16 am.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
boispendaddy posted 6 arguments, Allirix posted 4 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, mwest0097 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
boispendaddy, JDAWG9693, Allirix, MADHURA, sssk, Deat, GotWood, Communistguy, mtbtheboss, MightyJackalope and 8 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, mwest0097 and 8 visitors disagree.
it should ideally be a coin flip, but in many instances it is not. affirmative action may favor the minority, but the market and society as a whole favors the white applicant. thus affirmative action simply balances out an already existent preference.
I would prefer an alternative method, but can you honestly say eliminating affirmative action without implementing any form of replacement well make the situation fair?
by removing a counterbalance, you do not attain equilibrium.
The latter does commonly happen. However, I would still argue that the former is just discrimination against the white candidate. If they are truly, perfectly equal, then it should be more of a coin flip and race should never even be considered
It depends entirely on how it's carried out. If you have two applicants who are equally qualified, one is white and the other a person of color, I think it is fair to choose the person of color. The reason I feel this way is because there is more chance of a person of color being discriminated against because of their color, but little chance of a well qualified white person being denied jobs because of their color wherever else they look.
However, if anyone is choosing applicants of color over better qualified candidates, I do find that unfair and insulting. Not to mention, we should all want the best qualified people in any position so the job will be done well. Being a certain demographic should never be able to make up for not making the cut otherwise.
As far as I know, the former situation is the one spelled out by Affirmative Action policies, so I'm fine with it.
Affirmative action is NEEDED when you live in a world filled with white supremacy and white privilege.
most victims of white crimes and the many white serial killers are white. most victims of Chinese crimes are Chinese, most victims of Arab crimes are Arab. more crimes are local and happen within their communities.
white people are not a common enemy. the resume study did not know or see the race of those who discriminated. it did however objectively find discrimination, what do you suppose we do with that information?
I am a black person but I believe that every black person is on their own in this world & everyone has to fight to stake their claim in world. Quite frankly, how am I supposed to believe that we as black people are one when we are out here killing each other & the only thing that brings us together,"momentarily" I might add, is our "common enemy", "The White Man". It's useless
The point of affirmative action isn't to help poor people, there's other systems for that, it's to correct for racial biases in recruitment and promotions. I agree that class differences are far more important to correct for but that's why welfare, and equity bursaries and scholarships exist.
Also, to your point 2, Unconscious bias training already exists and is often taken by professionals to meet professional development requirements to remain certified. Not everyone is a professional and is trained to recognise their biases though and you can't force non-professional to do professional development.
Also, you cannot just "tell everyone about a study" either, nor will telling everyone actually solve anything. Recognising subconscious bias is far more difficult than just acknowledging they exist, that's why expensive training programs exist. So your solution is a bit too idealistic in thinking the issues highlighted by the resume study will be resolved by telling people about it.
Yeah, the question isn't asking about its removal though. Only that it's hypocritical and can be insulting and I agree with that.
The questioner probably supports its abolishment, and you're probably disagreeing with that but I'm being literal lol.
My solution is this:
1.) Completely disregard race and sex in all admission processes. By disregarding race and sex, you are eliminating what most Republicans do not like about AA, making the whole issue somewhat less controversial.
2.) Make all employers know about studies such as the resume study. This is to let them know how their own human psychology can be unintentionally discriminatory sometimes.
3.) Instead of affirmative action for specific demographics, apply financial aid for those who need it in preparation for the job. With this, I am not saying to give them extra money so they do not feel bad they don't get it, I'm saying that certain prep courses are inaccessible due to certain people not being able to afford them. People say that affirmative action is based off of financial situations only, but then why is it white men are neglected this boost when they may be in more of need? My favorite example of this is SAT prep courses. There are certain prep courses which are up thousands of dollars, and certain individuals can only afford the 5 dollar one. Now, I am not saying to implement socialism into these SAT prep courses, but it would be nice if there were either a free course which is top of the line, or financial aid for those deserving, those of merit.
indeed, a bandaid is an excellent analogy. however, a bandaid is better then an open wound. I would not support its removal, barely effective as it is, until proper solutions are started.
I also believe it is hypocritical. Discrimination solves discrimination? It's like applying a band-aid to a bullet wound. There's a lot more that needs to be done and this solution can make things worse if it's believed to be a good long term solution.
exactly. I would prefer a more neutral equalization, such as prosecuting those who discriminate, but I would not remove AA until some alternative is in place.
What's insulting is subjective so some would agree that being deemed in need of a boost to be equal as insulting. But the reality is (shown by how easy the resume study is to replicate) that there are biases against hiring certain groups so the extra boost helps equalise the playing field.
does the fact that discrimination was worse in the past mean that there is no discrimination today?
that is called the all or nothing fallacy
The KKK was once one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, cults in the country about 100 years ago. What happened? Why did this extremely powerful cult die down only in the matter of less than a century? Discrimination is your answer: in modern terms, it ain't in style anymore. Constitutionally, racial discrimination is illegal, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There have been many other things that drove racial discrimination out of this country as well. To add, the KKK at its highest point was up to 6 million members. That is 6 million people willing to burn, lynch, and torture innocent people solely on their ethnic background. Today, there are roughly 5,000 members. Luckily, the last 100 years have been kind enough to us to whittle down this racist group, as well as its many correlated ideologies it holds. Granted, is the KKK membership definitive of all racists in the country? No, there is no way of statistically proving how many there are. However the KKK argument still stands, as the member count is symbolic and representative of how much of a decline racism and discrimination has gone through, stepping the U.S. furthermore in the right direction.
I agree with you on your second paragraph actually. The physiological and subliminal bias still stands against black people as Hollywood and the industry have provided us with a tainted view of black people. However I would argue that pack mentality is also a driving factor, for reasons I have previously stated. The important part about this is it isn't intentional, thankfully.
Affirmative action, as I would like to conclude, does not work. The initial argument is that it is an insult to women and African Americans because one of the main reasons affirmative action was set in place was to repay and rebuild any past faults in which happened to their ancestors. Furthermore, the reasoning goes on saying that they are less capable because of said faults from 200 years ago, and that is racism/sexism. They use slavery/women's rights as a justification to condone affirmative action because it cover's up them directly calling them inferior. I believe these people are not inferior, and the resume study isn't nearly bad enough to justify an entire system built off of racist values to be instilled in companies/schools admission processes. However this is my philosophy, there is no changing mine and there is no changing yours.
discrimination is at the point of irrelevance based on what? I'm sure you know many would disagree. you provide no reason for anyone to agree with you. just an opinion statement, an opinion that the resume study, many statistics about the justice system, political representation, and medical trials all prove wrong.
would black people discriminate against whites? maybe, maybe not. again, your just guessing. it isn't about pack mentality. it is a pop culture assumption that black people are lazy, stupid, or criminal. we know this not because of any real world experience, but because of TV experience. most experiments show that even black people are biased against black people. like tipping them the less. most likely black owners would hire white names based on the assumption that they are smarter and harder working... which based on many people I know, is hilariously wrong.
and even if this is pack mentality, and one pack happens to own the vast majority of power in both the private and public spheres, then doesnt that make members of other packs even more disadvantaged and hopeless? your reasoning provides even more justification for affirmative action because instead of a few bigots, we got common human nature as the source of the inequality. and bad human nature (theft) must be contained by social laws. not that I agree with your premise.
Racial and sexual based discrimination is almost to the point of irrelevance today. Even if it hasn't, it has gotten a lot better. We are probably one of the least racist countries in the world in 2019. It is much better to live today as a black person than 50 years ago. Affirmative action now, was an attempt to eliminate discrimination 50 some odd years ago, when racism was on its downcline.
For the resume study, I would have found it interesting if the employers were black instead of white. Would they have discriminated against the white sounding names? My answer would be yes, they would, but this isn't really a bad thing. See, it's human nature to travel, associate with, or want to be a part of people alike you, or "your pack." Subliminally, we all look out for our own race rather than the next, and that is ok, it is not intentional. You will never erase human nature, and you will never erase psychology. Affirmative action today tries to do just that by trying to erase our extremely whittled down form of subconscious racial discrimination. It'll never do that.
I am all for jailing people who genuinely discriminate. There are people out there who are still genuine racists and believe their race is superior over their own. If they act upon these beliefs, they should be penalized by jail time as that violates the constitution.
I am all for enabling poor people of all colors to rise out of their situation, I'm just saying that fixing poverty was not the purpose of affirmative action. it was to fix discrimination.
as was proven by the resume study, even if a black person graduated from Harvard, he will still receive nearly 50% fewer call backs than the same *exact* resume with a white sounding name. it's a completely different issue.
I do not like race based policies. as I said before, I would prefer sting operations to jail or penalize discriminatory employers, but I would not approve getting rid of affirmative action without effective criminal action against those employers as it will make the whole system less fair, not more.
Either we can improve the system, or completely abolish it. We could, as I was suggesting, disregard the color of one's skin and give financial aid where financial aid is due. That is a perfectly reasonable form of affirmative action and does the exact thing it claims to do.
I have heard arguments in favor of affirmative action, they say that they look at black people and only help the ones who need the help. The problem we have here is what if there is a white person in an equal or worse situation and doesn't benefit? That, I would argue is discriminatory and by definition racism.
affirmative action is not meant to offset financial disadvantage, but bias aimed at certain groups, like black people. as was proven in the resume study I referenced earlier.
the resume study had identical resumes for people with white vs ethnic names. so having a better education wont help if someone simply refuses to call back someone with a non standard name.
I forgot, this financial aid could be for preparations for a job/school. To provide an example some people can afford SAT tutoring sessions but some other people cannot. This is obviously unfair and I would argue giving these people an equal preparation would even the playing field.
The main argument I have against affirmative action is the fact that I believe African Americans are just as capable as white Americans to obtain an equal level job or position, whatever that may be. Instead of affirmative action, which in some cases quite literally adds to SAT scores, I would support some sort of financial aid to families in need but NOT based off of the color of their skin or what gender they are.
This counters the argument that affirmative action is only set in place for people in financial deficit situations, however coincidentally only gives people under the racial or sexual demographic needed said financial reparations.
that depends. when you have studies like the resume study where identical applications, had vastly different call backs depending on how ethnic the name on the application sounded. I dont like the idea of affirmative action, but let's not pretend it will be fair without it.
I would much prefer a system where we would use similar methods to the resume study to rub sting operations and jail discriminatory employees, but until then affirmative action is the better then a hands off policy