Should affirmative action be legal? Wikipedia: The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races) intended to promote access to education or employment Dumbed down terms: Giving minorities an easier chance in getting into a school or a job (i.e. a white person needs a 3.8 GPA while a black person would only need a 3.5)
I completely disagree. This is completely unfair. There is no prejudice in college admissions anymore, and this doesn't boost minorities to an equal level- it gives them an unfair ADVANTAGE over others.
I second that. Say that minorities were admitted for lower standards, how unfair would that be to the others who have the better grades etc. They wouldn't get in b/c of this.
I also agree with the above posters. In my opinion, it's hard to justify affirmative action without being openly racist. The other semi-legitimate non-racist argument I've heard is that AA is meant to make up for past wrongdoings. That's a pretty BS argument imo too though -- You shouldn't penalize people for something they didn't do.
That's another thing- there's so many associations for the advancement of minorities, and minority race only societies, events, etc. but they're not considered racist? It's so frustrating. And of course, saying anything against them makes you racist.
I don't think it should be allowed, at all. I'm technically an 'immigrant' myself I guess, haha. But really, a lot of minorities are complaining about racism and opportunities being unfair. I think countries like the UK and USA may be taking it too far to try and remove this view. For example, in many places, if 2 people were applying for a job, with exactly the same qualifications. If one was a minority, they may be more likely to get the job, just so the company doesn't appear racist. Although, in a way, that would mean the company is being racist towards white people. Although it is most useful at times, haha. Like if I have no ID to get in somewhere, 'IS IT BECAUSE I'M CHINESE!?' usually works. xD
This is a very relevant topic, where I live affirmitive action is used at many times to get women to higher positions. I do not agree with this since the person should be judged by his or her qualifications, not gender or race. It will just mean that the corporation will work less sufficent than it would have. Instead, try and get a third party to judge the qualifications of the applicant. Let the applicant have meetings with this person, and let this objective third party base his or her opinion on the applicant. Because you are going to want to actually meet the person who is getting the job if you're the boss. Of course, this solution comes with some problems, but surely it can be solved in other ways? The domination of men on high positions is slowly dying out and the next generation that steps up and take their place, may them be men emplyed because they are men or not, will hopefully not be as judgmental. But one must also recognize the difference between the genders and the races. I'm not talking about actors, but also the spokesperson at a company or ministry because there will always be this connection between men that cannot be had between men and women and vice versa. If you're black, you will respond differently to a black person in a high position than you would to a white person and vice versa. For me, I get excited to see say an Iraqi man who has gotten a good job such as president of a corporation. I get proud of my country for being able to take refugees (assuming that was his background) and our educational system. If it's "just" a white person, I don't think much of it.
Isn't this another form of discrimination? The rights of one group should not be given up to benefit another group. If this is another way to promote equality, they don't have the right idea. I would think that it would somehow increase racial prejudice, because people who have been affected by the policy in a negative way may not hold the beneficiaries in such a good light. Not to mention the program could demean the actual degree or certificate. An employer might not hold a degree gained through the program vs one gained without affirmative action equally. Perhaps they should consider educational and economic status, not race.
I don't think affirmative action is a wonderful thing, but in no way do I think it should be illegal. I think that it's unfair in a lot of ways that two people with almost the same qualification, one having a bit more...the one with less qualification will probably get the job if he/she is a minority and the other isn't. It should be about qualifications and nothing to do with race/gender/etc. But, we don't live in a utopian society, and unfortunately there are still WAY to many bigoted people in positions of power out there...so in some ways we should keep it. If that doesn't make much sense, I apologize...haven't been able to sleep very well the past few days LOL
Educational and economic status? Absolutely not. Either way you're giving an advantage to- the smarter, the dumber, the richer, the poorer, it's not fair at all. People with good grades WORK for them. They're not just "lucky." Anyone can be smart, it just matters whether you study and apply yourself or not. As for finance, it's just a ridiculous notion to take economic status into consideration. A poorer person can play the pity card? Unfair.
but two wrongs make a right, right? if in the post, certain minorities were discriminated, we have to compensate that by discriminating the undiscriminated of the past.
You're not going to erase the wrongdoings of the past by trying to make it up now. Say your grandparents didn't hire a black fellow because of the colour of his skin. Does this mean that you should hire his grandson when there are more competent people applying for the job? You don't help when you do something like this, it will just mean that people who can play the race/sex/religion card will get lazy and the old prejudices will be fullfilled, creating a catch 22.
No, not everyone can be smart. There certainly are different degrees of intelligence. Not matter how much you study, there will be a maximum level you can reach. Yes, studying and hard work is extremely important, and of course it can increase your grades. But if we follow your definition, anyone could become an Einstein or Edison as long as they study hard enough. But you need the talent to begin with. A teacher will explain something such as differentiation. Some people will understand it straight away, other people won't. I know people who have cruised through subjects in the past, and not put any real work into it. They still get higher marks than people who actually try hard. Why should it be unfair that a poorer person can be given a chance? What if a person with real potential gets the grades, perhaps even a substantial amount higher than the cut off mark, but cannot get in because that person can't afford it? Would you say it is fair that the person can't get in because he can't pay the fees? That's why I think that economic status is a factor to take in consideration, in fact, something they do take into consideration. That's what certain scholarships are for, in school and in universities and I think it's a more effective and fair way to get people the education they deserve. The school I went to had an entrance exam for it, so it accepted people on grades rather than on who could pay the fees. Where I'm from, we have Private and State schools. Private schools are schools with high standards, with a sharp uniform, and a high school fee. State schools are subsidized by the state, with a limited budget. So there is only so much they can do with that budget. I don't think that it would be unfair to give a scholarship to a person who truly deserves to go to a better university, but can't afford it. Universities want these sorts of people. They want bright minds in their courses. This is why scholarships are offered. It's giving everyone a fair chance, not just people who can pay their way into it. I think it would be more unfair if this was not in existence.
I think lowering the GPA requirements for certain minorities is not only unfair, but almost insulting. To me its like saying that a minority cant achieve the same scores, or accomplish as much as other ethnic groups, so we lower the standards for them and call it "equality". To me that is saying minorities are stupid and need lower standards in order to be equal. As an employer, I would look for the best candidate for the job based on that persons qualifications, not race.
actually i dont think this is unfair i actually agree because think about it, i heard mexicans have a better shot with a 3.5 to enter a good college then a white person. it just i see it as whites have amore advantage than a mexican or black its true they're just favoed more -softball
Since I live in South Africa (okay, anyone who doesn't know this yet? :arf: ), this is a topic especially topical here. The problem with Affirmative action as it is applied here (i.e. to get previously disadvantaged groups into management and high positions and sports teams) is that a.) It doesn't help the people who actually *need* help accessing jobs and so on, since the ones getting the appointments are usually moderately well-off b.) Sometimes, an unqualified person gets the job just because they're black, and this creates a LOT of tension and unrest in the workplace in the workplace and society as a whole c.) Because of (b), there is a perception that any black person who did get a good appointment got it ONLY because of AA, and that person has to work 3 times as hard to convince everyone that they actually deserve it, a task that's mostly impossible d.) I agree: it can be insulting. In our cricket team, one (speed? spin? I forget) bowler (Charl Langeveldt) was included in the National team, while another bowler of the same type (i.e. speed/spin/ whatever it is), Andre Nel, was left out. Langeveldt was included because he is considered "coloured", Nel excluded because he's white. Langeveldt REFUSED to tour with the side, because he says he KNOWS that Andre is the better one of them at this stage, and he *does not* want to be in the team on anything other than his merit (which he has tons of, he's a great bowler, just a bit off form this year). The other side of the argument is that something like this is REALLY necessary to redress equality issues. The problem: Person A grew up with access to education being very limited. Further more, he grew up in what is called a "township" (where MOST, I'm not going to make up a figure, but it really is the GREATEST majority of people in South Africa live in these conditions), in a shack with NO electricity or even running water, basically just 4 sheets of metal with one on top held with rocks to prevent it flying off. There was no way he could do well in school, since his school was a 5 hour walk away (obviously he has no other mode of transport than his feet), he seldom had enough to eat (so he was constantly hungry and had trouble concentrating) and he got educated in his 3rd or 4th language. From the age of about 12, he has to do some kind of job just to keep his family fed, since unemployment is rife (something ridiculous like 50-60% was the last I heard) and because of that, wages are at a minimum (coz people can't afford to say NO to any job, no matter how ***ty the pay). So A has to get some kind of job, work his tiny butt off, and still go to school, do homework, study for tests and exams (out of non-existant books, may I add, since A certainly can't buy them for himself, and the education system is not so good at providing the necessary study materials, especially to the schools in the most impoverished regions). Despite these challenges, A passed matric and enters the job market. He OBVIOUSLY can't attend university, he can't even dream of it. It's just too expensive, and he has to earn money to help his family out, since jobs are so scarce and money even more so. He has one set of clothes, no access to running water to bath, no transportation to get to interviews, no PC facilities to even compile, never mind print out a CV... you see what I mean. On the other hand, you have B. B's parents are well off, because during the Apartheid era, when only whites were allowed any job that was not manual (and therefore minimum wage) labour and "bantu education" that was available to all considered "non-white" was in a very, very poor state, while "white education" was ridiculously excellent, his parents and their parents and *their* parents were all employed and educated, and could build a great life for themselves and for him. So he does OK in school, hangs out with friends, all the usual stuff. After school he goes to University (because he can afford it), graduates after a few years and enters the job market. Which of these are more likely to be appointed? B, right? And is that fair? He got an unfair advantage, based on the oppression of A's predecessors. Or to put it another way, where both A and B's family could have gotten 1 rand each a day three generations back, the oppressive system caused B's people to be able to get their R1 AND take about 80 extra cents from A's predecessor's, because their success was built on A's predecessors' minimum waged manual labour. So even though B had no hand in Apartheid and racisim, is in fact an avid left-winger and crusader for equal rights and ends to racism, he is *still* benefitting from a system that benefitted his predecessors by exploiting masses. The fact is: it *IS* unfair. A will *almost never* be able to build a moderately un-impoverished life with better opportunities for himself or his family. And remember, this is the situation for the GREAT majority (and I'm talking about up to 75%, under correction) of people in this country. Because of a system which built the wealth of a few on the labour and exploitation of the many. B will almost always feel a chip on his shoulder, not to mention he would be discriminated against because of HIS skin colour, because even though "he didn't have anything to do with apartheid", he must pay for the stupidity and just plain... there's not even a polite word strong enough to describe the idiocy of those generations who messed up before him. So YES, something MUST be done, it IS necessary... but I don't have the answer as to WHAT that should be, other than *Prioritising* public education in a MAJOR way, and with that, the training and recruitment of competent teachers. This strategy, however, would take at least another generation to bear returns, and in the meanwhile, the greatest majority of this country who were previously oppressed are only better of in that they can now vote, but that fact (voting in itself) doesn't change the basic poverty and misery of their lives, while their oppressors mostly live (by the majority's standards) in lavish luxury. Can you spell "Civil War / unrest"?
The South African situation is far different than that of the U.S., though, as far as I'm aware, because extreme rascism is likely still far more prevelant there than in the U.S.. As someone alluded to earlier, if you're a minority who benefits from Affirmative Action, are you not insulted by it? Would you not rather get whatever based on your own merits? Because Affirmative Action basically says that you aren't good enough to.
I am generaly against affirmative action because I feel that people should get things based off of merit. However, I can also see how logical the other side of the argument is. I'm sure we can all agree that minority groups tend to score lower of standardized tests, hold lower paying jobs, etc (I am generalizing a lot). Well, people tend to hang around and be with people like themselves (also a big generalization). This kind of peer pressure puts minorities at a disadvantage. Now, ask yourselves, why were minorities in the beginning not as "smart" as the majority group? It was because they were oppressed in the past. So essentially, we are still feeling the backlash of the oppression of minorities 100 years ago. Although de jure segregation is more or less gone (in the US at least), de facto segregation still exists as a result of habit accumulated throughout history. Yeah, I generalized A LOT in that brief little explanation and I have no doubt that this is not universally true. Some of the words I used probably were not the best ones (I'm tired and can't think of better terms) and may have seemed a little (unintentially) harsh. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument so as to give the other side a fair chance. People make too many rash decisions without even understanding the opposing view. This is very narrow-minded and is quite annoying
I think you hit on a key issue here -- is de facto oppression/segregation over and done with? I would say pretty much (at least its impact has been minimalized), but there's probably many pro-AA people who would vehemently disagree.