PAPER TOPIC: Affirmative Action
Replies
-
I agree - I expect liberty and protection of personal property. However, I also expect my government to protect the civil rights of all its inhabitants (majority or minority) as well as do its best to mitigate inequalities between majority and minority groups.
Simply put - what I expect of my government is different than what you expect of yours.0 -
I would be left wondering;
Did I get the job because I had boobs and they have a quota to fill, or was it because I was the best applicant.0 -
I wrote my senior research paper for my B.A. on this very topic. It does not belong in our society and it serves to further discrimination and often contributes to a hostile work environment. I feel that it is a tool built out of white upper class liberal guilt. This is based on a lot of research over the course of an entire semester. Some things are just better in theory than in practice and this is a prime example.0
-
I see affirmative action as an imperfect solution to a very serious and very real problem. Regardless of the fact that many people (some in this thread) choose to believe that racism isn't real anymore and doesn't really matter and would just go away if we stopped mentioning it, in the real world, the poorer-performing and most underfunded schools have a grossly disproportionate number of minority students. Affirmative action is an attempt to prevent denial of opportunities to kids who, through no fault of their own, would be unable to compete with kids who were born into better circumstances (regardless of ability).
The problem is the mechanism. There is (like it or not) a correlation between race and these sorts of socioeconomic factors; on average, the better schools and neighborhoods have a higher white population while the worse ones have a much higher minority representation. So affirmative action plays the odds game.
The result is far from ideal, but I don't support ending it without having a replacement plan. Even if it's not perfect, it's better than nothing. Denying the problem won't make it any less real.0 -
By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.0 -
I see affirmative action as an imperfect solution to a very serious and very real problem. Regardless of the fact that many people (some in this thread) choose to believe that racism isn't real anymore and doesn't really matter and would just go away if we stopped mentioning it, in the real world, the poorer-performing and most underfunded schools have a grossly disproportionate number of minority students. Affirmative action is an attempt to prevent denial of opportunities to kids who, through no fault of their own, would be unable to compete with kids who were born into better circumstances (regardless of ability).
The problem is the mechanism. There is (like it or not) a correlation between race and these sorts of socioeconomic factors; on average, the better schools and neighborhoods have a higher white population while the worse ones have a much higher minority representation. So affirmative action plays the odds game.
The result is far from ideal, but I don't support ending it without having a replacement plan. Even if it's not perfect, it's better than nothing. Denying the problem won't make it any less real.
This!0 -
By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.0 -
0 -
That's necessarily untrue because, by definition, not everyone can get to the top. Take a look around; it's obvious that there is no direct correlation between hard work and financial success and stability. If there were, single moms who work 80 hours a week and put everything into caring for their kids would be the richest among us.By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
Government should not play into the game of winners and losers; its role should be to shield people from that. The idea of socialism isn't to enforce uniformity but rather to ensure that people have what they need, regardless of circumstances. People will be more inclined to find what they're good at and try to excel when they're not afraid of being homeless or not being able to feed their families. When survival is in question, you do what is necessary rather than what might be ideal.0 -
By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
people are always progressing, just not in terms of profits. so....
0 -
That's necessarily untrue because, by definition, not everyone can get to the top. Take a look around; it's obvious that there is no direct correlation between hard work and financial success and stability. If there were, single moms who work 80 hours a week and put everything into caring for their kids would be the richest among us.By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
Government should not play into the game of winners and losers; its role should be to shield people from that. The idea of socialism isn't to enforce uniformity but rather to ensure that people have what they need, regardless of circumstances. People will be more inclined to find what they're good at and try to excel when they're not afraid of being homeless or not being able to feed their families. When survival is in question, you do what is necessary rather than what might be ideal.
this.0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT0 -
That's necessarily untrue because, by definition, not everyone can get to the top. Take a look around; it's obvious that there is no direct correlation between hard work and financial success and stability. If there were, single moms who work 80 hours a week and put everything into caring for their kids would be the richest among us.By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
Government should not play into the game of winners and losers; its role should be to shield people from that. The idea of socialism isn't to enforce uniformity but rather to ensure that people have what they need, regardless of circumstances. People will be more inclined to find what they're good at and try to excel when they're not afraid of being homeless or not being able to feed their families. When survival is in question, you do what is necessary rather than what might be ideal.
Life is not fair, some people will always do better than others but the efforts of those who work harder, are smarter, and more talented, are more likely to be rewarded under capitalsm than any other system.
If you have what you need regardless of what effort you put out why would you put out any at all? That is the question that has killed productivity in socialist countries. The 80 / 20 rule is not because people are not "protected" it is because the majority of people are willing to settle for what they can get with minimal effort.0 -
That's necessarily untrue because, by definition, not everyone can get to the top. Take a look around; it's obvious that there is no direct correlation between hard work and financial success and stability. If there were, single moms who work 80 hours a week and put everything into caring for their kids would be the richest among us.By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
Government should not play into the game of winners and losers; its role should be to shield people from that. The idea of socialism isn't to enforce uniformity but rather to ensure that people have what they need, regardless of circumstances. People will be more inclined to find what they're good at and try to excel when they're not afraid of being homeless or not being able to feed their families. When survival is in question, you do what is necessary rather than what might be ideal.
Life is not fair, some people will always do better than others but the efforts of those who work harder, are smarter, and more talented are more likely to be reqarded under capitalsm than any other system.
If you have what you need regardless of what effort you put out why would you put out any at all? That is the question that has killed productivity in socialist countries. The 80 / 20 rule is not because people are not "protected" it is because the majority of people are willing to settle for what they can get with minimal effort.
they wouldn't be concerned about productivity if they weren't concerned with profit.
edit: and saying that people who work harder, are smarter, and more talented are more likely to be regarded is also a really loaded statement. white men are more likely to be given opportunities to learn, and are also given higher paid jobs across the board with a fancier title and they don't necessarily work harder. i would argue that latina maids across the united states work way harder than their rich employers, and they sure as hell aren't regarded very highly or given nearly as many opportunities as other classes.0 -
Life is not fair, some people will always do better than others but the efforts of those who work harder, are smarter, and more talented, are more likely to be rewarded under capitalsm than any other system.
If you have what you need regardless of what effort you put out why would you put out any at all? That is the question that has killed productivity in socialist countries. The 80 / 20 rule is not because people are not "protected" it is because the majority of people are willing to settle for what they can get with minimal effort.
^^^ PREACH!0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.0 -
Life is not fair, some people will always do better than others but the efforts of those who work harder, are smarter, and more talented, are more likely to be rewarded under capitalsm than any other system.
If you have what you need regardless of what effort you put out why would you put out any at all? That is the question that has killed productivity in socialist countries. The 80 / 20 rule is not because people are not "protected" it is because the majority of people are willing to settle for what they can get with minimal effort.
^^^ PREACH!
i think both of you should read: http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/WhitePrivilege-MalePrivilege.html
and that was the one website that didn't pdf it, or i would have linked to another one, so don't slam feminism0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.
exactly... so the title could go both ways right??? so u just pick which one u want.0 -
It's an issue of our nature battling our virtues, in my opinion. Let's look at the nature - a multicultural high school cafeteria is largely self-segregated. A single race high school cafeteria is also self- segregated by class (rich, poor, popular, nerds, etc.). A single culture, single class high school create arbitrary divisions with which to segregate - gang affiliation, team sport, neighborhood, whatever). Let's look at our virtues - many, if not most people have people they respect, like or admire that is of a different race and wants them to be treated well and without segregating. If they desire good treatment for that person by others, then they must extend that desire to other members of that race ( because strangers only see the persons race, not their admirable qualities). Whether from guilt or basic human decency, they understand that the person they enjoy would not be accepted by their own group immediately, unless they are given an opportunity to get to know them. That would require an advocate - someone on the inside group bringing in the person from outside the group. Affirmative action acts as the advocate.
Where people bristle regarding affirmative action is the perception that hard working, highly qualified individuals are turned down for a less qualified candidate, because the virtue of American thought is that we live in a meritocracy, and merit should be merited. This thought does not take human nature into consideration. American idealism is meritocratic. American realism is that the system is based on nepotism. If who you know didn't matter in the American workplace, networking wouldnt be so popular. Affirmative action (in theory anyway), eases the nepotism, and invites the great guy to the lunch table.
None of it - our nature and our attempts at overcoming it through idealism, really solves the root of the problem. I recognize this, which is why I don't look to human constructs to solve the problem of human nature. I am pretty apolitical - as I tend to see the merits of both democrats and republicans, of Affirmative action and meritocratic ideas. I look to Jesus Christ, who solves the problems of human nature by making us realize the real problem is not the government, or the policy, or the taxes, or the entitlements, race, class, etc. Jesus showed us to fix the "problem within" to effect change on the problems outside. The problem with government is that it's filled with people that have problems within - just like we do. It's a revolutionary idea, and still creates a stir thousands of years after we first heard of it.
Edited to add that we how we fix the problem is to acknowledge our own sins, repent and believe that God saves us from ourselves through the sacrifice of Jesus.0 -
As a person who's profession requires me to depend on the person beside me to keep me alive, I'd prefer the best person get the job and not someone hired to fulfill a quota.0
-
pleanty of poor whites out there who cant go to college...0
-
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.
it is actually a pretty uninformed title, i can just see the paper now0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.
it is actually a pretty uninformed title, i can just see the paper now
are you voting for Socialism 2012?0 -
those poor white kids! they are also probably more likely to get accepted for a loan!pleanty of poor whites out there who cant go to college...
things aren't black and white, i recommend you read that article. unless you understand privilege i honestly doubt you would see the benefit in, or understand, anti-oppression.0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.
it is actually a pretty uninformed title, i can just see the paper now
are you voting for Socialism 2012?
under a non-dictatorial government, i totally would. i live in canada, and that won't happen for a long long long time.0 -
If you have what you need, then you would put out effort because you don't want to live a boring life. When I say "need," I'm referring to the basics that anyone in a functioning society should have access to: food, water, shelter, healthcare, education. Most people wouldn't be satisfied with only that, but everyone should have at least that.
That's necessarily untrue because, by definition, not everyone can get to the top. Take a look around; it's obvious that there is no direct correlation between hard work and financial success and stability. If there were, single moms who work 80 hours a week and put everything into caring for their kids would be the richest among us.By protecting liberty and personal property. Nothing more. There will always be socioeconomic inequality. The role of government is absolutely not to to determine adequate levels of social equality and correct them through social justice programs and legislation.
Very well said. Thank you for giving me your perspective. The most coherent opinion here!
this is false. capitalism creates socioeconomic inequalities. and the role of government can serve to correct injustices that they create.
and don't get me started on "liberty" and personal property. how both of those notions are acquired is the sole premise of oppression. property is and has always been theft and a social construction.
And tell me something that works better than capitalism???
Yes, there are injustices in this world. However, generally speaking you get farther if you have a good work ethic, attitude, and ability, under capitalism than any other form of social contract. Socialism as a social construct does not promote production and does not cause people to excel personally or professionally since if you exist you are "supposed" to be on the same level no matter how much effort you put out.
If, however, you do not have a good work ethic, attitude and ability then I am sure some other form of society would benefit you more (just not those who are driven, industrious, and excellent in their field of expertise.
Government should not play into the game of winners and losers; its role should be to shield people from that. The idea of socialism isn't to enforce uniformity but rather to ensure that people have what they need, regardless of circumstances. People will be more inclined to find what they're good at and try to excel when they're not afraid of being homeless or not being able to feed their families. When survival is in question, you do what is necessary rather than what might be ideal.
Life is not fair, some people will always do better than others but the efforts of those who work harder, are smarter, and more talented are more likely to be reqarded under capitalsm than any other system.
If you have what you need regardless of what effort you put out why would you put out any at all? That is the question that has killed productivity in socialist countries. The 80 / 20 rule is not because people are not "protected" it is because the majority of people are willing to settle for what they can get with minimal effort.
If you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from (or when), you can focus on building your skills and following your own natural talents and passions. Do you really believe that no one dedicates their lives to a career simply because they have a passion for it, that getting rich is the only reason we have the drive for innovation? You can't stop a writer from writing, or a musician from playing, or a doctor from healing the sick; it's who they are and what they want to do.
If someone is willing to settle for the bare minimum, how does that have anything to do with you? Would your dreams and accomplishments be somehow less important or meaningful just because other people wouldn't be forced into homelessness? Would it really be so awful if everyone had a roof over their head and food on the table and treatment for their illnesses?0 -
As a person who's profession requires me to depend on the person beside me to keep me alive, I'd prefer the best person get the job and not someone hired to fulfill a quota.
i agree, it is too bad that there are marginalized communities who live in shelters that actually have a medical degree.0 -
I agree - I expect liberty and protection of personal property. However, I also expect my government to protect the civil rights of all its inhabitants (majority or minority) as well as do its best to mitigate inequalities between majority and minority groups.
Simply put - what I expect of my government is different than what you expect of yours.
Except that your expectation tramples all over my rights - rights which are negative rights as opposed to positive rights. Positive rights are an insanely illogical and contradictory notion.0 -
paper title:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HOW THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB DOESNT ALWAYS GET IT
I don't like that title at all. It implies that without affirmative action the best person for the job WOULD get it and we both know that the world is not that simple.
it is actually a pretty uninformed title, i can just see the paper now
are you voting for Socialism 2012?
under a non-dictatorial government, i totally would. i live in canada, and that won't happen for a long long long time.
k well atleast you can admit to it, Americans usually wont. our philosophies our completely different which is fine, we just will probably never agree on things politically but atleast you are consistant with what you believe and i applaud you with all sincerity.0 -
As a person who's profession requires me to depend on the person beside me to keep me alive, I'd prefer the best person get the job and not someone hired to fulfill a quota.
i agree, it is too bad that there are marginalized communities who live in shelters that actually have a medical degree.
I would respond to this, but you used big words and now I'm confused.
Not really...but I'm in Canada and I don't know what you mean.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions