Affirmative Action

[ivar]

Perhaps the accessibility of this issue will make for a more successful thread than my previous. But don't think accessibility equates to triviality; this is an important issue (and one many just have the wrong idea about).

If you are unfamiliar with affirmative action, it can be defined in two broad ways (as per the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy): (1) "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded" and/or (2) "preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity".

(1) is certainly agreeable (unless you're a (BAN ME PLEASE) hating racist), but (2), the dominant form of affirmative action, really gets my panties in a bunch. Simply put, (2) is racist, but instead of favoring white majorities, minorities are favored. Which ever way you slice it though, quotas are being established due to affirmative action, discriminating on the basis of ethnicity. Reducing racism and sexism (especially when the minority candidate is the more qualified) is a positive step, but deviating in any shape or form from a pure meritocracy is both inefficient and unfair. But this seems to be the direction which affirmative action is taking us, and those in a position to say, "Hey, this is kind of hypocritical" are too afriad of whatever unfounded racist accusations (and subsequent loss of jobs) to do anything about it. We've become a colour sensitive society, when we should be colour blind. And it pisses me off. This is bastardized liberalism (this coming from someone who considers himself socially progressive, though fiscally conservative).

Seems obvious, no? Apparently not to the student councils of my university, nor the hipsters at Starbucks. Sure, they can't do anything about it, but it sickens me that people think affirmative action is fair; it's not. Oh yeah, I also forgot about the people of Colorado:

Opponents called the amendment deceptive because, while packaged as a measure to outlaw discrimination, its aim was to ban "preferential treatment" by government, effectively ending affirmative action programs.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/06/colorado-voters-preserve-affirmative-action/

Um yeah, Colorado, getting rid of "preferential treatment" is kind of the fuckin' point, so things are a bit more... fair and not... discriminatory?

I'll elaborate more on this later (with some more links), but I have to go now. Hopefully this is enough, however, to fuel some debate.

 

[Misty Swims]

I live in Michigan. A few years ago, affirmative action was put to a vote for our state. It was SOUNDLY defeated, and Detroit let out a primal roar of protest. But nevertheless, affirmative action is no longer legal in our state.

 

[Syberia]

Affirmative action is racism, no less than Jim Crow and such was 50-100 years ago. Of course, I take no issue with allowing minorities to succeed on their own merit. In fact, it should be encouraged. However, the way to do this is not by simply pushing them ahead of everyone else when their abilities do not warrant it.

If minorities are being denied acceptance to schools because their abilities can't compete with whites, the proper solution is to take steps to ensure that they develop the same abilities, not by pushing them ahead despite lower achievement. Cleaning up rampant crime in bad areas and improving the jokes that pass for "ghetto" schools is a good start.

A quote from Fredrick Douglass:

What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!

Do nothing. Race doesn't even need to be a criteria on college applications; let an applicant's merits speak for themselves. Babying a certain group of people does nothing but breed feelings of entitlement.

 

[Reaver12]

Ok, while Affirmative Action may seem to be extremely hypocritical it's intentions are for the best. The government can't pass a law saying, "hey employers, don't be racist/sexist". To ensure that minorities and women are not discriminated against requires quotas, for now. The hope is that in the future these can be lifted because minorities and women are seen as equals to white men in the eyes of employers. Until business owners really hire based entirely on merit and not on color or sex the government will push affirmative action to ensure that everyone has a chance to get hired. While this may mean that a more qualified white man isn't hired and a less qualified woman is hired so that the company may meet it's quota is a regrettable side effect. Eventually this will be in the past and people will actually be hired based off of their skills and personality alone.

 

[akuchi]

I don't know, I'm honestly divided on it. Whilst it's unfair to discriminate against anyone on basis of gender, I'm not sure things will change until we push them to change.

 

[Syberia]

While this may mean that a more qualified white man isn't hired and a less qualified woman is hired so that the company may meet it's quota is a regrettable side effect.

Discrimination in the name of justice? What a wonderful contradiction. True equality would mean that the person who's more qualified, in this case the man, is the one who gets hired.

The imprisonment of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans was a "regrettable side effect" of WWII. But we won the war, so that small injustice must be acceptable to you.

 

[DM]

I find affirmative action to be utterly repulsive. No matter what good intentions it might have been founded upon it is unconstitutional and I'm amazed it has lasted this long.

 

[Kay [Old]]

Ok, while Affirmative Action may seem to be extremely hypocritical it's intentions are for the best.

...Do I really need to point out all the terrible things throughout history that were done with good intentions?

The hope is that in the future these can be lifted because minorities and women are seen as equals to white men in the eyes of employers.

"There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program" - Milton Friedman.
Honestly, you cannot argue that racism is anywhere nearly as pervasive as it was during the Jim Crow era, so why should we punishing white men? Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who it is against.

Until business owners really hire based entirely on merit and not on color or sex the government will push affirmative action to ensure that everyone has a chance to get hired.

Prove that they don't currently.

 

[Lexite]

I don't know, I'm honestly divided on it. Whilst it's unfair to discriminate against anyone on basis of gender, I'm not sure things will change until we push them to change.

You cannot push some job sites to hire more women. Not all women can work at a heavy duty construction site and most women never will be able to ever do the work. Women are better then men at some things and men are better then women at others, there is no arguing that and you cannot force a business to hire someone that is not efficient at doing the work for a specific job.

 

[Staraptor Call]

I also do not support affirmative action; hiring practices should be as if race did not exist.

 

[y2zipper]

You cannot push some job sites to hire more women. Not all women can work at a heavy duty construction site and most women never will be able to ever do the work. Women are better then men at some things and men are better then women at others, there is no arguing that and you cannot force a business to hire someone that is not efficient at doing the work for a specific job.

No they aren't. This is a just a pre-conceived notion that's brought on by popular culture and society. It is a biological fact that outside of a few select areas (namely reproduction), that men and women are practically the same. Sure, it's less likely that you will find a woman to work on that job site as opposed to a man, but they are there and shouldn't be discriminated against. The point is that there isn't anything that a man can do and a woman can't work-wise, and vice versa.

The problem, at least in American society, is that people are routinely judged on how they look. Employers will routinely hire people based on religion, race, gender, or any other pre-concieved notion. If I'm a Catholic and job requires me to work Sundays, I won't be hired because of my religion. If I'm a pregnant woman who's going to need some time off, good luck getting past people who aren't. If I live in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood, I'm going to have a tough time getting a job where I have to deal with the general public. Age discrimination is also becoming a huge issue here. The second you walk into an interview, the person who meets you is going to decide whether they are hiring you or firing you within the first 12 seconds. It happens all the time and is the nature of things, whether that is right or it is wrong.

People can be fired because of their race, too. In at-will employment, this isn't even illegal. It's never said, but I live in California. My employer could fire me because he doesn't like white people, and there wouldn't be a damn thing I could about it. I would never be told this, but I'm sure it happens. Look at when companies do lay-offs. On the flipside, I can leave the job for any reason without notice.

I've always felt that the big problem is we don't have enough minorities running businesses. Most of the large corporations are run by people who are or were raised by the same racists who were around in the 1960's, and as long as these people have the power, the issue is going to be around. Encouraging "minorities" (for lack of a better word) to start businesses and giving them a push towards the top of the corporate world would help allieviate some of the discrimination.

I'm against Affirmative Action myself (if only for selfish reasons), but the OP failed to point out is that the goal of Affirmative Action is not to push people who are less qualified over people who are more qualified, but to lean preferential treatment that is already given in another direction. It's designed to make the decision on who to accept into our college if we have 2 applicants who we otherwise couldn't differentiate between. In that situation, the decider is going to make a preferential difference.

 

[Lexite]

Are you just dense? A 5'4, 130lb woman cannot physically lift as much as a man can unless the woman is freckishly buff and is chemically altered. Men and woman have many many physical differences aside from reproduction. Men have more muscle mass them women do genetically. Seriously, go take a health class because you clearly do not know anyhting about men and women. Men ad women are differnt chemically, women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone, that is a biological differnece. Men and women have differnt hair and skin, that is a biological difference. Men and women think differently, how can you argue that. Go take a health class since you clearly know nothing of the topic.

And are you really that sheltered and protected that you do not understand, You are never entitled to a job, you earn a job, If you cannot do the work, you will not get the job. If an business needs a person for the weekends and you cannot work the weekends there should never ever be a reason that they are forced to hire you. How can you be that dense? If you cannot meet the requirements that the job has then you do not get it. These people own the businesses, it is theres, is it right for someone to come in and tell them that they have to do somehting that will make them lose money? How would you like it if you owned a business and were told that you had to hire some drug addict that never shows up to work? Grow up and get a clue in life.

 

[Polis4rule]

Affirmative Action people try to bring notice that in this last election 88% of all white Mississippians voted for McCain, and claim they want more "integration," but fail to realize that ALL Black voters in the US voted for Obama on a 97% majority.

Affirmative Action is hypocritical, imo

 

[jamespicone]

Disturbingly, Lexite is partially right - when it comes to sheer physical strength, women are weaker than men - on average. And by enough that it's relevant.

When it comes to any mental measure, you'll find that one gender is generally ahead of the other, on average, but generally by so little that it's irrelevant - we're talking less than one standard deviation.

I think the idea, Lexite, is that not hiring a women to do construction work /because she's female/ is wrong. And it is, no question about it. Not hiring a women to do construction work because you don't think she's qualified (i.e., not strong enough)? Not so much bad. Of course, the issue is that the former often masquerades as the latter. And raw physical strength really isn't terribly necessary in construction anyway. And if the women in question has experience in the field (She is going for a job in it, yes?), she's probably quite strong thanks to the workout it provides.

Affirmative action of the second type can also be present for one other reason - to attempt to drag poverty-stricken groups out of poverty. That's obviously not applicable when it comes to women, but black people in America are statistically poorer than white people. Encouraging education for the group by biasing the selection process in their favour can help deal with this. Is that fair? Dunno. But at least there's a reason behind it.

 

[ivar]

I'm against Affirmative Action myself (if only for selfish reasons), but the OP failed to point out is that the goal of Affirmative Action is not to push people who are less qualified over people who are more qualified, but to lean preferential treatment that is already given in another direction.

That's exactly what preferential treatment leads to; pushing people with greater merit out due to the necessity of meeting affirmative action quotas.

It's designed to make the decision on who to accept into our college if we have 2 applicants who we otherwise couldn't differentiate between. In that situation, the decider is going to make a preferential difference.

Wrong. That's not what affirmative action is; well, I will concede that it could be what it is at times, but, more often than not, that is not the case. Often, the affirmative action students are clearly the inferior; they are just the best amongst their minority crop. Affirmative action is often not about giving preferential treatment to equally merited applicants (be it school, or a job opportunity), but it is giving preferential treatment to minorities to fill up quotas (even when they are clearly inferior applicants), in order to satisfy new diversity based initiatives.

It's not nearly as nice as you make it seem; it's actually totally fucked up. But those dumbass fuckin' hippies at my university support it (okay, that's just my own anger talking, rather than a rational agent).

I don't know, I'm honestly divided on it. Whilst it's unfair to discriminate against anyone on basis of gender, I'm not sure things will change until we push them to change.

That's an ass backwards line of thought and the complete antithesis to social progress (at least you're divided about it). When equality is pushed for, the process becomes counter-intuitive; instead, we give out handicaps, artificially equalizing. Not only does this completely fuck up any competitive balance, but it also takes away from efficiency. There are currently a lot of affirmative action initiatives undergoing in the hard sciences, to encourage women to enter the field (for there is a severe lack of women in the hard sciences). Nothing wrong with creating an equal environment for women to succeed in such professions, but it becomes seriously fucked up when the inferior students receive preferential treatment over their superiors on minority based initiatives. Especially in the hard sciences, where it is clearly impossible that there is any discrimination (instead of, say, the humanities, where essays could be subjectively judged upon). Like Math, you're right or wrong. And these are the people that are most important for the very advancement of society! We need the best engineers, and doctors, not the best Hispanic female engineers (unless they are amongst the best in their field, taking into account an equal playing field).

 

[y2zipper]

Are you just dense? A 5'4, 130lb woman cannot physically lift as much as a man can unless the woman is freckishly buff and is chemically altered. Men and woman have many many physical differences aside from reproduction. Men have more muscle mass them women do genetically. Seriously, go take a health class because you clearly do not know anyhting about men and women. Men ad women are differnt chemically, women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone, that is a biological differnece. Men and women have differnt hair and skin, that is a biological difference. Men and women think differently, how can you argue that. Go take a health class since you clearly know nothing of the topic.

What about a 6'3, 250 lb. woman? I would certainly say that it isn't the average, but women like that do exist. The point is that women can develop strength just the same as men, as someone said earlier. Men and women are structurally a little bit different, but your construction site example is a shitty one in the first place.

And are you really that sheltered and protected that you do not understand, You are never entitled to a job, you earn a job, If you cannot do the work, you will not get the job. If an business needs a person for the weekends and you cannot work the weekends there should never ever be a reason that they are forced to hire you. How can you be that dense? If you cannot meet the requirements that the job has then you do not get it. These people own the businesses, it is theres, is it right for someone to come in and tell them that they have to do somehting that will make them lose money? How would you like it if you owned a business and were told that you had to hire some drug addict that never shows up to work? Grow up and get a clue in life.

I didn't say that people shouldn't earn jobs or that they should be forced to hire anyone. I was only bringing to the table the point that people get hired and fired for different reasons having nothing to with their merits or qualifications for a job all the time.

That's exactly what preferential treatment leads to; pushing people with greater merit out due to the necessity of meeting affirmative action quotas.

Wrong. That's not what affirmative action is; well, I will concede that it could be what it is at times, but, more often than not, that is not the case. Often, the affirmative action students are clearly the inferior; they are just the best amongst their minority crop. Affirmative action is often not about giving preferential treatment to equally merited applicants (be it school, or a job opportunity), but it is giving preferential treatment to minorities to fill up quotas (even when they are clearly inferior applicants), in order to satisfy new diversity based initiatives.

It's not nearly as nice as you make it seem; it's actually totally fucked up. But those dumbass fuckin' hippies at my university support it (okay, that's just my own anger talking, rather than a rational agent).

What I posted is the original intention, although I'd buy that it may not always be practiced like that and it is a problem when quotas are put in place and minority candidates are very inferior.

 

[Lexite]

Disturbingly, Lexite is partially right - when it comes to sheer physical strength, women are weaker than men - on average. And by enough that it's relevant.

I am only talking about things women simply cannot do ever. Not they cant do because they arent allowed to, they cant because they just cant physically. Your average woman cannot physically lift and carry 200lbs, they just cant. Of course women can have jobs in the construction business, they just cant have jobs in the construction business that requires them to lift more then they are capable of lifting. It is wrong to not hire a women for a construction job because she is a woman, not all construction requires heavy labor, but it is not wrong to not hire a woman for a position that does require that which she cannot preform. But one of the books Syberia had to read for college suggested getting rid of such a job since the woman will not be able to do the job and will not be hired, that or just hire the women and pay them for a job they are not preforming. That is the stupid approach.

There are biological differences between men and women and there are jobs that a man will never be able to preform and there are jobs that a woman will never be able to preform. It is not sexist it is simply how nature works. I am all for equal opportunities but not for forcing someone to hire a person that will not be efficient, that doesnt help anyone and there is a difference.



And Y2zipper, yes I am only talking about the average woman. Yes there are some that will be able to just as there are some men that wont be able to, but on average a woman cannot and average is all that matters in this discussion. If a woman is able to then yes, she should be hired if she will be able to do the job no problem, but a 6'3 woman is very rare. And how is a construction job a shitty example? It is a job that often requires heavy lifting, that is just the first thing that comes to mind when I think of heavy lifting jobs. Give a better example if you even can.


If a person cannot preform a task that does effect their merit. You gave examples of people that would not be able to preform a task and as a result their merit does not look as good as anothers might.

And to DeBossMan, very good last paragraph, that says everything.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I am also really divided on AA. On one hand, forcing people to hire others is kind of wrong, but on the other hand, this thread reeks of "straight white teenage boy" philosophy.

Simply put, racism and hatred are both still extremely strong in this country whether you choose to accept it or not. Hating blacks, Jews and women isn't as fashionable anymore, now homosexuals and Muslims get a taste of what its like. In fact, it is still entirely legal in most states to discriminate based on sexual orientation. AA might not be as relevant anymore, but it is still the necessary push that people need to try and cut this crap out. I would support removing AA if I didn't see people discriminated against every day. I would support AA if the United States was actually a meritocracy, and every "best candidate" was hired for every job. Obviously, that isn't the case. Even though I think AA should be updated for today's society and weakened, you can't seriously say that AA's intentions aren't valid.

I know people are going to take my post apart sentence by sentence analyzing it instead of trying to grasp my overall point, so I'm going to outline it here: I would support removing AA if I thought that doing so would help people. Unfortunately, America is not a meritocracy. Can we please stop pretending that it is a free market 100% capitalist meritocracy where everything works like it should? The best person doesn't always get hired. Racism is alive and well. In a perfect world, I agree, we wouldn't have to go to such extremes to ensure equality. However, this is a far from perfect world, and whether you choose to accept it, minorities, women and the poor need a step up so that they can actually have a chance to get to the same place as the majority of people. Not only that, but AA encourages more people to get into certain fields, making the pool of workers better in a place where there would be an utter lack of competition. If women were still relegated to being secretaries, nurses and teachers, do you think there would be as much competition in the field of engineering? If white men were really more dominant in these fields as the anti-AA supporters would believe, they shouldnt even have to worry about an increased presence in minorities and women in the workplace.

For every white person that gets denied a job because of AA, there are at least a dozen women, blacks, hispanics, etc that would get denied a job without it. Can anybody post specific stats on how much the evil AA is actually harming white people? Those would be curious to see.

Lexite- how is "average" all that matters in this situation? A 6'3" woman might not be average, but she would obviously be a better candidate for the job than a 5'9" weaker man...yet because she is a woman there is a significant portion of blue collar industry that would not hire her (especially on a construction site, where any threat to masculinity is usually quelled on sight). I know you despise women's rights, but can you at least use a better argument than "its just nature"? On average, men are more likely to rape women more than women are likely to rape men. Does that mean that men should be punished less for sex crimes? It's nature, and averages are all that really matter, right? We should base all our decisions based on what is expected, right? I'm just looking for some consistency.

 

[Deck Knight]

I am also really divided on AA. On one hand, forcing people to hire others is kind of wrong, but on the other hand, this thread reeks of "straight white teenage boy" philosophy.

Clearly this thread needs a lesbian black senior-citizen female. Let us cancel all new registrations to Smogon until we find such a person. (I'm just being playful here).

Affirmative Action has outlived its usefulness. It is now nothing more than government mandated favoritism and a ponzi scheme for shakedown artists. The way to eliminate race-based preferences is to elminate race-based preferences.

Affirmative Action based on sexual orientation is an even bigger crock. If heaven forfend I am ever an employer and an employee I had to lay off tried to sue me on the basis I fired them because he/she was gay, my singular defense would be: prove you're gay.

"Your honor, how was I supposed to know my employee was gay? Can the plaintiff even prove they are gay?" Are you going to tell me that their affinity for designer clothing and their speech impediment was supposed to alert me? Then I would be sued under ADA instead."

I would love to hear the evidence that concretely proves gayness sufficient for a reasonable person to assume its presence played out in court. Otherwise it's a load of bullshit.

I know you despise women's rights

Yes, Lexite is one of those self-hating women, I imagine. Please don't employ that euphemism around me. If you mean abortion, use the A-word. If you don't then specifically castigate Lexite for opposing women entering into work at construction sites. "Women's Rights" is a sloppy and meaningless term, unless you believe America still opposes suffrage and equal opportunity employment for women 80 years after its legal recognition.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Affirmative Action has outlived its usefulness. It is now nothing more than government mandated favoritism and a ponzi scheme for shakedown artists. The way to eliminate race-based preferences is to elminate race-based preferences.

While I already said I agree that race-based preferences would be a great thing to not need, it is impossible to eliminate race-based preferences. I would support removing AA if there was a reasonable way of going about it, but this black and white approach that people are taking here is completely inconsistent with reality. "Ok, we've been trying to look out for your rights for a few decades now...but now we don't think that making sure you get a fair shake in life is as important anymore. Sorry". Like I said, I would agree with you completely if prejudice was not a very real threat to millions of Americans.

The amount of hate crimes in America is rising, not dropping. Obviously SOMEBODY's racial preferences are being voiced quite loud and quite clear. What makes you believe that any good would come out of completely eliminating AA? Philosophical purity is a great thing to strive for, but people's lives and jobs are at stake here.

Affirmative Action based on sexual orientation is an even bigger crock. If heaven forfend I am ever an employer and an employee I had to lay off tried to sue me on the basis I fired them because he/she was gay, my singular defense would be: prove you're gay.

I would love to hear the evidence that concretely proves gayness sufficient for a reasonable person to assume its presence played out in court. Otherwise it's a load of bullshit.

I clearly said that I thought AA should be weakened, not even more encompassing. I was just commenting on the fact that beating a black man to death because you are a racist would be considered a hate crime, but beating a gay man to death because you are a homophobe would not be. It was more of me illustrating how ridiculously biased huge portions of our country is in regards to minority rights, in order to show that the foundation of why AA was created still exists today. AA may need an overhaul, but it is far from irrelevant or outdated.

Yes, Lexite is one of those self-hating women, I imagine. Please don't employ that euphemism around me. If you mean abortion, use the A-word. If you don't then specifically castigate Lexite for opposing women entering into work at construction sites. "Women's Rights" is a sloppy and meaningless term, unless you believe America still opposes suffrage and equal opportunity employment for women 80 years after its legal recognition.

I was clearly saying that her position that "women are weaker than men on average so it makes sense for men to be entitled to more" is ridiculous. I wasn't talking about anything in particular, just that fallacious line of reasoning.

And there are plenty of things that Americans oppose despite complete legal recognition. For example, legalizing marijuana is currently more popular than the Republican party.

I realize that I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for supporting the principles of AA, but someone needs to fight for the people who actually need fighting for and advocate a reasonable approach to this.

 

[Lexite]

Lexite- how is "average" all that matters in this situation? A 6'3" woman might not be average, but she would obviously be a better candidate for the job than a 5'9" weaker man...yet because she is a woman there is a significant portion of blue collar industry that would not hire her (especially on a construction site, where any threat to masculinity is usually quelled on sight).

That is not what i said. I said the job should go to whoever is more qualified. If she is more qualified she should get the job.

Forcing sex-based quotas is not the solution because in order to meet them employers will have to hire workers who are not qualified.

I do not despise womens rights. But it's more important that a child who is incapable of having a say in the matter have a right to life than someone who could have avoided becoming pregnant have a "right to choose." Thats different in the case of rape or when a womans health is in danger from the pregnancy.

And no I do not despise woman's rights, I am a woman, I despise the fact that feminists want to take advantage of the situations and create even more unfair and unpractical outcomes. Why would I have women's rights if I am a woman? That is just dumb. And clearly there is a difference between wanting equal rights and wanting more then your fair share.

 

[obi]

Can we please not turn this into an abortion debate? Start a new topic for that.

Jrrr, your characterization of Lexite's post makes no sense. No where does she say "Women shouldn't be hired because they're weaker on average.", in fact she says exactly the opposite:

If a woman is able to then yes, she should be hired if she will be able to do the job no problem

If you want to argue that we can't get rid of Affirmative Action because it harms the rights of minorities, first you're going to have to prove that Affirmative Action currently helps minorities. Otherwise, your argument is no more sound than "We can't serve pancakes because it harms the rights of minorities.".

 

[ivar]

I know people are going to take my post apart sentence by sentence

...

I would support AA if the United States was actually a meritocracy, and every "best candidate" was hired for every job. Obviously, that isn't the case.

I understand that sweeping statements such as these are often made (I'm sure I've made a few myself), but when they go against all intuition, they need some proof. It isn't obviously the case that the US is not a meritocracy; in fact, I don't see why a company concerned with maximizing worker efficiency wouldn't want the best workers. A link of some sorts would be necessary to back this claim up (since the onus is on you for going against conventional, hiring procedure--procedure that benefits employers and procedure that contradicts your claim). Also, you can expect me to closely analyze your source!

Even though I think AA should be updated for today's society and weakened, you can't seriously say that AA's intentions aren't valid.

Intentions alone are not a valid enough reason for the continuation of AA (why didn't I think of this short form?). Policy needs to be judged according to an independent standard.

As an aside, I think the best alternative to AA (in order to achieve what I think is the best possible fairness) would be to have the gender, ethnic and sexual identities of all candidates confidential. You become a mere number, without a name or a face (and interviews can be conducted over online messaging, or some voice communication, where the voices are distorted enough to make accents indistinguishable). This would make admissions processes truly blind to minorities and majorities (albeit more complex). Of course, this possibility is never even discussed; instead, people take the easy way out and push forward unjust AA initiatives. I hate to dip into the well of overused expressions, but two wrongs DO NOT make a right. Alternatives ALWAYS need to be considered, for false dichotomies are often presented.

 

[Syberia]

As an aside, I think the best alternative to AA (in order to achieve what I think is the best possible fairness) would be to have the gender, ethnic and sexual identities of all candidates confidential. You become a mere number, without a name or a face (and interviews can be conducted over online messaging, or some voice communication, where the voices are distorted enough to make accents indistinguishable). This would make admissions processes truly blind to minorities and majorities (albeit more complex). Of course, this possibility is never even discussed; instead, people take the easy way out and push forward unjust AA initiatives. I hate to dip into the well of overused expressions, but two wrongs DO NOT make a right. Alternatives ALWAYS need to be considered, for false dichotomies are often presented.

For college applications (which are primarily what I think of when I think of affirmative action), all you'd have to do is take the "race" checkbox off of the application. Discrimination against a certain group (first blacks, now whites) is the only reason that information would need to be known for the purpose of selecting applicants anyways.

 

[Ancien Régime]

"what's the solution to racism? more racism! great idea!"