Is affirmative action still effective?
- Thread starter foodtaster
- Start date
- Status
Night_Trekker
Member
That depends on what you think the goal of affirmative action is.
And with that, I'm out of this future shitstorm of a thread!
And with that, I'm out of this future shitstorm of a thread!
Dreams-Visions
Member
yep. with caveats.
Chuck (Old)
Banned
I'd say it is.
Can't think of any subject I've flip flopped more on than affirmative action.
Seen too many instances of it cause issues.
Seen too many instances of NOT having it causing issues.
Basically it's great if the people in the situation are racist, but it's awful if they aren't racist.
So instead of a great or shit situation you get a uniformly "meh" situation.
Seen too many instances of it cause issues.
Seen too many instances of NOT having it causing issues.
Basically it's great if the people in the situation are racist, but it's awful if they aren't racist.
So instead of a great or shit situation you get a uniformly "meh" situation.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Hells yeah...now if only people like Herman Cain didn't get through.
foodtaster
Banned
Cain went to a historically black college IIRC.
Surely you don't really believe this.
The question is if it was ever effective. Is it necessary? Absolutely. Does it address the fundamental problems of institutionalized racism and marginalization that occur within our culture and society? Nope.
I think it's treating a symptom and not nearly enough, but I think it's better than nothing.
I think it's treating a symptom and not nearly enough, but I think it's better than nothing.
Your comma splice pales in ugliness only in comparison to your sentiment.
Lionheart1337
Member
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Wait, so with affirmative action 27 percent of blacks accepted into those stated colleges are from well off homes, comparatively whites who do not benefit from affirmative action have 27 percent of them coming from well off homes?
Wouldn't that mean without affirmative action that 27% figure for blacks shoots up?
It seems it is doing its job.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the data, correct me if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't that mean without affirmative action that 27% figure for blacks shoots up?
It seems it is doing its job.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the data, correct me if I'm wrong.
foodtaster
Banned
That's not the purpose of affirmative action. Its true purpose is to reverse past discrimination.
odin toelust
Member
i have no opinion because i know little to nothing about it
PhoenixDark
Banned
IMO affirmative action should solely be based on income (for college)
OJdaKiller
Member
I don't see how it could be doing its job as it's supposed to "even the playing field" and somehow make things more fair, yet racism, and the results of racism in the workplace, are still one the largest hot button/debated issues of this day. So based on anticipated results...No. It's not doing its job. Or it is doing its job, but not a very good one.
Were rich black people not just as discriminated against as the poor?
aronnov reborn
Banned
Come to the west side and south side of Chicago and tell me that it's making a difference. It could do some great things, but many never even get a chance to take advantage of affirmative action. One of my best friend's cousins goes to a school on the west side that hasn't used math textbooks in three years, because they can't afford it. This poor kid is never going to get a chance to let affirmative action help him. Many treat it like a solution, when it's only a band aid over a serious wound. Put some real effort into helping them from birth to college, not just help those who actually get a chance to apply to college.
"Reverse racism" is such a crock of shit, and it is almost always touted by white men who, largely due to their positions of social and cultural privilege and empowerment, are blind to cultural power dynamics.
You can't practice racism against white people. Racism doesn't just mean discrimination (the act of utilizing a defining characteristic, be it skin color, gender, etc., to determine specialized treatment, behavior, etc.), but it means discrimination with a specific power dynamic involved. White people are historically, currently, culturally empowered and exist in a fairly white-washed world. One cannot dis-empower them based on their skin color because the white identity is the identity of empowerment. Racism is used against people of color because it is a combination of discriminating based upon color, combined with dis-empowerment because of cultural power dynamics.
So no, affirmative action isn't racism of any kind. It is action/policy that is BASED on race, on empirical data and evidence that has stemmed from countless studies for decades showing that institutionalized racism is a serious problem, and therefore suggesting that institutional solutions may be useful.
Also, don't conflate this with economic status. While the two are often very much related, and anyone of any race suffers statistically when economic status drops, the problem is that people of color suffer disproportionately, with skin color being the cause. Not simple economic hardship.
Again, the question is whether or not it is effective. I guess we should ask "effective at what?" If asking about effectiveness in getting people of color into school and the workplace, maybe. If asking about effectiveness in combating institutionalized racism and marginalization, no. But it can't be effective at that, I don't think, because it doesn't actually address the root problems. It addresses symptoms. People often think that by effecting education and work environments, strategic points are being leveraged against to promote institutional change, but the reality is that the institutions are far more complete and unresponsive than that. Therefore, affirmative action gets touted as a solid effort to fight racism, but in reality, it's just (in my opinion) more liberal back patting.
More radical addressing of the system is need, I believe, for power dynamics to be effectively addressed.
That being said, I'm all for affirmative action in the meantime.
You can't practice racism against white people. Racism doesn't just mean discrimination (the act of utilizing a defining characteristic, be it skin color, gender, etc., to determine specialized treatment, behavior, etc.), but it means discrimination with a specific power dynamic involved. White people are historically, currently, culturally empowered and exist in a fairly white-washed world. One cannot dis-empower them based on their skin color because the white identity is the identity of empowerment. Racism is used against people of color because it is a combination of discriminating based upon color, combined with dis-empowerment because of cultural power dynamics.
So no, affirmative action isn't racism of any kind. It is action/policy that is BASED on race, on empirical data and evidence that has stemmed from countless studies for decades showing that institutionalized racism is a serious problem, and therefore suggesting that institutional solutions may be useful.
Also, don't conflate this with economic status. While the two are often very much related, and anyone of any race suffers statistically when economic status drops, the problem is that people of color suffer disproportionately, with skin color being the cause. Not simple economic hardship.
Again, the question is whether or not it is effective. I guess we should ask "effective at what?" If asking about effectiveness in getting people of color into school and the workplace, maybe. If asking about effectiveness in combating institutionalized racism and marginalization, no. But it can't be effective at that, I don't think, because it doesn't actually address the root problems. It addresses symptoms. People often think that by effecting education and work environments, strategic points are being leveraged against to promote institutional change, but the reality is that the institutions are far more complete and unresponsive than that. Therefore, affirmative action gets touted as a solid effort to fight racism, but in reality, it's just (in my opinion) more liberal back patting.
More radical addressing of the system is need, I believe, for power dynamics to be effectively addressed.
That being said, I'm all for affirmative action in the meantime.
Word.
My point is that it's treated as a solution to a problem that necessitates more fundamental solutions. Underprivileged minorities need better schools, homes, neighborhoods, not just a better chance at entrance to college, which I feel can come too late in a person's lifetime to make a true difference. Especially since college isn't exactly a cure for economic woes, these days.
Phoenix
Member
Absolutely.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Well said.
Yeah, except economic discrimination isn't as persistent as racial and ethnic discrimination.
OJdaKiller
Member
Whose responsibility is it to provide this?
cooljeanius
Member
I've always wondered what would have happened if I, as a white student, had applied to a HBCU like Howard or something. I doubt affirmative action would have come into play at all.
Whose responsibility is it to stop preventing that?
When looking at sentencing inequalities, conviction inequalities, education opportunity inequalities, and a HORDE of other abuses that people of color are forced to contend with, obvious answers become apparent.
Well, affirmative action was never characterized as the end all be all. It was a huge piece in the puzzle regarding hiring practices though and for that purpose, it's doing it's job.
It attempts to take racism out of the picture. You may very well be racist, but that won't be the reason for not hiring this person. Anyone who does business with the government has to comply. That is pretty huge imo. The other problems need to be sorted out too, but that isn't done by minimizing the import of affirmative action.
The main problem is that smaller companies are under no obligations or perhaps don't have the means to do so which drives more minorities to big businesses (Who are pros at recruiting minorities) rather than the smaller busines which drive a huge portion of the country but may shut out minorities (Intentionally or not).
You likely would have been eligible for a minority scholarship (if those are historically black schools you have listed) which is completely fucked up, but likely.
More importantly, affirmative action would not have come into play at all, because you are white, and there is no institutional action needed to address systemic, institutional disadvantages that you face based on your race.
OJdaKiller
Member
Hey, I'm just looking at the statement a few posters seemed to agree with...That better homes and neighborhoods are needed...Who does this responsibility fall upon?
Neighborhoods? Government has a huge role to play. Once again, I'm speaking from a Chicago perspective, but in this city, greater police presence is given to richer neighborhoods than poorer ones.
And I answered your question. The responsibility lies upon that which is preventing better homes, neighborhoods, etc.: the fundamental structure of our institutions and society. If fundamentally and systemically you are oppressed, marginalized, and dis-empowered, then you aren't going to be able to do much for yourself in those settings. If we remove these institutional and systemic forms of oppression, then these things become possible. Do you think people LIKE living in poverty and violence?
Women of all races have also suffered historical and modern oppression on a systemic and institutional (i.e. fundamental) level. They too are deserving of institutional assistance.
An Ex girlfriend's father coming at me with a baseball bat and calling me "white devil" says otherwise. Just because it's less prevalent doesn't mean that there aren't people who hate white people just for being white. That said this has nothing to do with the OP so if you think I'm some angry white guy check my first post in the thread.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
He answered you.
Homes and neighborhoods would improve over time after you remove racial bias in the judicial system and improve schools in minority neighborhoods.
Very well said.
OJdaKiller
Member
So there's no personality responsibility in improving a person's home and/or their neighborhood? So I guess we just wait for the government (someone else) to make it better. Maybe somehow make life more fair and then things will magically be okay..Seems like kind of a predetermined and misguided attitude for failure if you're waiting for government to make your life better.
That's not racism. That's hateful action using a discrimination which was meant to be observed negatively. Racism is prejudice PLUS power. You weren't being dis-empowered because or through your whiteness.
Also, how'd that work out for you? I've been threatened with a bat once, too. I wanted to call his bluff, but he was a seriously huge Cajun guy who was more than a little crazy . . .
MorisUkunRasik
Member
It's not waiting for the government to make things better, it's hoping the government stops making things unfair.
People in bad neighborhoods aren't just sitting around waiting for the government to step in, they're living and doing what they can but are often victims of a system that treats them unfairly.
I don't remember saying that at all. But it sounds like typical racist conservative dribble.
You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps out of deep, fundamental oppression and marginalization. You can't individually combat the massive power structures of an entire society. You can certainly carve out the best existence for yourself possible, but when your options are systematically limited, you can only do so much.
Your assumption that people of color AREN'T ALREADY ACTING IN THEIR OWN FAVOR is incredibly racist. Do you think people of color are just lazy and aren't taking responsibility? That they all want fat government money and welfare checks? What the fuck, mate? You are blinding yourself to the reality of the situation: people of color (and women, and a few other social groups) are dis-empowered and have a very different reality than white people, who are socially empowered by their race (which, in reality, is a social and cultural construct, not a biological one . . . at one point Italians and Irish weren't "white" either . . . race is just a way we divide and dis-empower).
Well said.
I'd say the person with the bat had the power in that situation, if your definition was even true.
We're talking about on a cultural, societal scale, and I doubt he was going after the poster due to his race. I bet somebody was questing after a little forbidden fruit
OJdaKiller
Member
Well that's a pretty typical blame others response. You didn't mention anything about personal responsibility and that's why I mentioned it. You fill in the blanks (with beliefs about me/society/the world) to make your world view seem to make sense.
No one growing up in poverty and violence has a high likelihood of succeeding in life (define success however you will). Though, having unprotected sex with numerous people and having children with no means to raise them is about personal responsibility. Growing up in a poor neighborhood and deciding that because I don't have something (a car, money, whatever), doesn't give me the right to take it by force from someone else (commit a crime). That is about personal responsibility. Knowing that idle time is the devil's plaything is a very real concept, and is even more important, when there are more forces at will looking to distract your child into negative behaviors. Whose job is it to teach these things? Whose job is it to monitor the kids growing up? This job falls primarily on the parents.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you wantt neighborhoods/homes to improve, expecting the government to step in will leave you pretty disappointed. As cliche as it sounds, it all starts in the home. And this doesn't have much to do about race as you'll see the same type of dysfunctional families living in poverty and violence.
Pollux
Member
I'm not even going to say what I think, as I do recall I told magic here that I wouldn't muck up these threads anymore.
However, glad to see you're still around, haven't seen you posting in a while.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Affirmative Action should be based on both socioeconomic situation AND race.
In the modern day, I would argue that socioeconomic class has more to do with lack of opportunities for advancement than race does.
Minorities that are socioeconomically successful are actually looked up to by most people. So I think it's only fair to reward people that are discriminated both based on race and based on class.
If you think it should be entirely based on race, do you think Indians and Asians should gain the benefits of affirmative action as well?
They currently do not. Despite the fact that one could easily argue that Indian people are not culturally empowered in a fairly white-washed world either.
In the modern day, I would argue that socioeconomic class has more to do with lack of opportunities for advancement than race does.
Minorities that are socioeconomically successful are actually looked up to by most people. So I think it's only fair to reward people that are discriminated both based on race and based on class.
If you think it should be entirely based on race, do you think Indians and Asians should gain the benefits of affirmative action as well?
They currently do not. Despite the fact that one could easily argue that Indian people are not culturally empowered in a fairly white-washed world either.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This is my position as well.
- Status