PAPER TOPIC: Affirmative Action
Replies
-
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.
For decades, women, jews, and minorities were excluded from educational and employment opportunities. Did the white men sit around scratching their heads because they weren't sure whether they got into Harvard because of what was in their pants? No. Did you ever say, "so and so's grandfather only got into Harvard because he was white and they weren't letting black people in..." No! Because people only bring that up when someone who isn't "entitled" to be there (women, black people, etc) show up.
I am Asian and theoretically am hurt by affirmative action. I went to the University of Michigan and was part of the class that was at issue in the lawsuit. And I fully support affirmative action, and i look forward to a time when it is no longer necessary.0 -
*pulls out business and society notes* Knew I took them for a reason because last class we talked about affirmative action and the types they have.
The most basic level of type affirmative action passive nondiscrimination, basically treat everyone fairly. That is something I agree with.
The second type is preferential AA. In the business world the applicant pool is expanded to include protected classes by advertisement of openings and encourage protected classes who qualify to apply for the job. They are in turn favored for in hiring and HR actions. This one is a tough one because it takes into consideration skill as well as protected class. It basically boils down to this. You have a person who belongs to the non protected class and another who belongs to the protected class. Their skills are equivalent. Who do you hire? Well with preferential AA you hire the person who is of the protected class. This is one a stinker because it's a damn if you do, damn if you don't situation if it is discovered that the protected class person was hired because he was a member of the protected class. Bad press for business which is probably why they never tell you why you didn't get hired.
The third one is quotas. When people think of AA they think of this because public institutions, specifically universities, used to do this. I think quotas are just another form of discrimination and this abhorrent practiced was officially banned under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.0 -
To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child.
CICERO
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.
(Proverbs in Prose, 1819)”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.
Oscar Wilde
History, n. an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. AMBROSE BIERCE, The Devil's Dictionary
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice
MARK TWAIN, Following the Equator
We cannot escape history.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, annual message, Dec. 1, 1862
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know.”
― Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl
“Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.”
― John Lennon
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking0 -
you should spend sometime helping youth in a more marginalized community, maybe it will help you understand. or at a food bank. or abused women's shelter. or a walk-through the financial districts.....oh wait, that part will probably make you think how hard all those white suits worked for their cushy desk jobs.
I have spent time in disadvantaged communities (and have lived that life style myself at times in the past)... In addition, I have been around and had to deal with people who are classified as economically disadvantaged. This is often (not always) in association with a single parent household, where the parent is unemployed, under employed, or working in a base paying job. What I see over and over, especially in households where the parent is unemployed is a child who is not interested in school in the first place and there is nothing the government can do to change that lack of desire... Unfortunately, the interests often are in areas that are self destructive and criminal in nature.
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Maybe because changing X has disastrous unintended consequences, violates certain clauses of the constitution, and restricts the freedom of everyone else?
How would changing the system (whereby unemployed, underemployed, or simply low paid single parent homes are raising children who disproportionately subscribe to ideologies/perspectives/life avenues that will keep them impoverished and/or imprisoned) infringe on anyone's freedom?
Depends on how you do it. I thought you meant with respect to affirmative action or some government program.
Of course, you could technically affect the input of X via charity, which wouldn't do what I said. so then, yes by all means it can be changed.0 -
I think it's a nice idea, but it leaves out too many people and includes too many. I went to school with somebody who appeared to be white, but a scholarship for being Native American. He claimed to be 1/18 Native American. The thing is, nobody is going to discriminate against him for being Native American if he doesn't look like he is. Also, disabled people aren't protected under Affirmative Action. I would argue that people with disabilities face more discrimination than any other minority, and they're left out. I wrote a paper about Affirmative Action once, and I didn't give a **** about what the professor thought (probably agreed with me on most accounts, because he was disabled) but mine was more of an analytical paper, discussing the pros and cons of it.0
-
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.0 -
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.
I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.0 -
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.
Well, I'm not for punishing the child for the parents' stupidity. Sorry, never will be. I've done damn well for myself--overcome many obstacles but just because I was a "special snowflake" doesn't mean I'm delusional enough to think that without intervention we are basically signing these kids up for a life that NO ONE WOULD CHOOSE IF THEY KNEW THEY ACTUALLY HAD A CHOICE.0 -
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.
I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.
What is your definition?0 -
So your dad, who by the sound of it was a hardworking, ethical person, made some mistakes and got screwed by unscrupulous people. How is it fair that he lost his house, that he had to worry about his kids not being taken care of, that you had to grow up without basic medical care or even a feeling of security? Why should the system punish good people who have bad things happen to them?Your dad had to work harder because he chose to go into business with a bad partner. Some people suck at their jobs, some businesses fail; that's true in any system that allows for private enterprise. But to my point, someone picking the wrong business partner isn't going to pay for it with their house, food security, or life. Under a purely capitalist system, losing the business means you lose everything, it means going destitute, it means actual danger for your family. When the concept of a safety net is considered wrong and unfair, a mistake like the one your dad made can destroy entire lives.
Alternatively, if the dissolution of a business doesn't mean losing access to food or housing or medicine, it actually encourages risk-taking and innovation in business. There is a difference between losing the business and losing everything. Someone else's bad acts will not mean the destruction of your entire life and that of your family.
I don't advocate pure Communism (as in government ownership of everything) any more than I advocate pure capitalism (as in pure private and market control). The bare minimum should be guaranteed, and whatever extra you desire would be up to you to work toward and get for yourself.
My dad was very good at his job but not the best judge of charactor. He did lose his house (and business) eventually when he met up with someone who didn't pay for a number of houses that he built and strung him along for a year. I happen to know what it is like growing up without a safety net, no health insurance, no dental insurance, and no public benefits. The one time my dad asked for help because a general contractor paid him with a bad check the government said that he made too much (not recognizing that he did not actually get paid).
Still, please show me any studies where the majority of people who have every need taken care of, whether they work or not, put in the effort of a true capitalist business person who is starting their own business. Sane people will not do this generally because it is not in their nature. The majority of people do not perform. You see this in the education system. I lived off of it in college where I knew that very few people out there were putting out there best effort. I got rewarded with A's and most were happy getting C's as long as they got to socialize all week and party on the weekends.
I can't think of any studies that would show what you're asking for and can't even think of how one would be conducted. We can look to history though to show that a safety net can improve lives and nations rather than making things worse. People decried FDR's reforms as government overreach and socialistic, but there's no denying that they were instrumental in allowing the US to rebuild its prosperity. They put people back to work, saved lives, and revived economies. That's not a bad thing.0 -
So your dad, who by the sound of it was a hardworking, ethical person, made some mistakes and got screwed by unscrupulous people. How is it fair that he lost his house, that he had to worry about his kids not being taken care of, that you had to grow up without basic medical care or even a feeling of security? Why should the system punish good people who have bad things happen to them?Your dad had to work harder because he chose to go into business with a bad partner. Some people suck at their jobs, some businesses fail; that's true in any system that allows for private enterprise. But to my point, someone picking the wrong business partner isn't going to pay for it with their house, food security, or life. Under a purely capitalist system, losing the business means you lose everything, it means going destitute, it means actual danger for your family. When the concept of a safety net is considered wrong and unfair, a mistake like the one your dad made can destroy entire lives.
Alternatively, if the dissolution of a business doesn't mean losing access to food or housing or medicine, it actually encourages risk-taking and innovation in business. There is a difference between losing the business and losing everything. Someone else's bad acts will not mean the destruction of your entire life and that of your family.
I don't advocate pure Communism (as in government ownership of everything) any more than I advocate pure capitalism (as in pure private and market control). The bare minimum should be guaranteed, and whatever extra you desire would be up to you to work toward and get for yourself.
My dad was very good at his job but not the best judge of charactor. He did lose his house (and business) eventually when he met up with someone who didn't pay for a number of houses that he built and strung him along for a year. I happen to know what it is like growing up without a safety net, no health insurance, no dental insurance, and no public benefits. The one time my dad asked for help because a general contractor paid him with a bad check the government said that he made too much (not recognizing that he did not actually get paid).
Still, please show me any studies where the majority of people who have every need taken care of, whether they work or not, put in the effort of a true capitalist business person who is starting their own business. Sane people will not do this generally because it is not in their nature. The majority of people do not perform. You see this in the education system. I lived off of it in college where I knew that very few people out there were putting out there best effort. I got rewarded with A's and most were happy getting C's as long as they got to socialize all week and party on the weekends.
I can't think of any studies that would show what you're asking for and can't even think of how one would be conducted. We can look to history though to show that a safety net can improve lives and nations rather than making things worse. People decried FDR's reforms as government overreach and socialistic, but there's no denying that they were instrumental in allowing the US to rebuild its prosperity. They put people back to work, saved lives, and revived economies. That's not a bad thing.
FDR's policies impoverished millions of Americans and extended the depression by 10 years. His own Treasury Secretary stated in 1939 that the entire new deal was a failure. A social net has numerous temporary benefits...but the long term damage is always far greater. Every case in history shows this.
Re your first point. It's not fair he lost his house, his kids struggled, etc. But how is it fair to take from others to mitigate his losses? At least in the first case, the losses were the unfortunate consequence of a person's choices. Taking from others merely spreads his losses to those who had no hand in their making.
How about a text book definition instead? "An economic and governmental system based on public ownership of the means of production and exchange"
Yes, and that results in exactly what he said it did. Public ownership takes from some and gives to others, by definition. hardly a "fox news" definition.0 -
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.
I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.
What is your definition?
How about a text book definition instead? "An economic and governmental system based on public ownership of the means of production and exchange"0 -
I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.
BA in Political Science (BS in Psychology) in addition to a minor in History with an emphasis on Western Europe before law school - I think I might have an idea about what socialism and communism are founded on.0 -
if you notice the pattern of these children being raised in an impoverished environment inadvertently turning to extralegal activities then how can you honestly believe that the government cannot change this. If X, then Y. Change X and you have a shot at changing Y. You won't ALWAYS be successful but if given X it is consistently the case that Y occurs with great regularity then why not change X?
Because those attitude pre-exist the school years. Face it, the government cannot raise your children for you that is your responsibility and way too many people do not take it seriously. They do not even consider it a responsibility. When you see two year olds wearing colors (I have) and holding guns (I have) how do you expect they will turn out? BTW - that kid will grow up and have to take responsiblity for their actions some day and the parent may not understand but if they feel anything at all they will suffer most likely never knowing they set that ball in motion.
Back to reality, the world is not perfect and the government cannot make it perfect. Luck helps but you cannot rely on it. Hard work, extreme effort, and talent will make things happen more effectively than no effort, no talent, and no attempt at trying. Capitalism is more likely to reward hard work, extreme effort and talent than any type of socialism. On the other hand, socialism is likely to reward lack of talent, lack of effort, and general lack of desire by taking from those with those qualities and handing it to those who do not have them.
I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.
What is your definition?
How about a text book definition instead? "An economic and governmental system based on public ownership of the means of production and exchange"
I didn't ask for a text book definition, I asked for your's.
I'm not being snarky here. Just curious.0 -
:laugh: Don't you just love it when that happens?I'm not sure if you actually know the definition of Socialism. I'll give you a hint, though, it's not what Fox News spouts off about all the time.
BA in Political Science (BS in Psychology) in addition to a minor in History with an emphasis on Western Europe before law school - I think I might have an idea about what socialism and communism are founded on.0 -
A famous person once said, "Can't we all just get along?"
No, because we are human beings at odds with our own selves - what we know to be good and what we do instead. We can argue all the day long about programs and policies, but one thing remains - no matter the policy, there will be problems with it. Whether you watch Fox ( faux news) or MSNBC (mess n bull cr--), or read the Wall Street (all about the money) Journal, we still aren't going to come up with a "solution" ourselves.
I believe God really is the correct answer to all of our problems. I am so thankful to God for that! I've had health problems that God fixed, relationship problems that God fixed, and God provides for me. Who can claim credit for simply using the resources handed to them as a gift from the hand of God? For from Him and by Him were all things created.0 -
Well, I'm not for punishing the child for the parents' stupidity. Sorry, never will be. I've done damn well for myself--overcome many obstacles but just because I was a "special snowflake" doesn't mean I'm delusional enough to think that without intervention we are basically signing these kids up for a life that NO ONE WOULD CHOOSE IF THEY KNEW THEY ACTUALLY HAD A CHOICE.
When the child gets to first grade with no interest in school, no interest in homework and no parent to "suggest" it should get done but has an interest in being violent which is encouraged at home, not to mention basic criminal attitudes, you don't have to punish the parent - if they care at all they get punished along with the child when the child finally does something so bad and gets caught that he or she ends up in prison. Neither the child or parent will likely recognize it for what it is though - just like neither will recognize that it is the responsibility of both parent and child to get an education that was offered and ignored, resulting in a lack of opportunity.0 -
So your dad, who by the sound of it was a hardworking, ethical person, made some mistakes and got screwed by unscrupulous people. How is it fair that he lost his house, that he had to worry about his kids not being taken care of, that you had to grow up without basic medical care or even a feeling of security? Why should the system punish good people who have bad things happen to them?
I can't think of any studies that would show what you're asking for and can't even think of how one would be conducted. We can look to history though to show that a safety net can improve lives and nations rather than making things worse. People decried FDR's reforms as government overreach and socialistic, but there's no denying that they were instrumental in allowing the US to rebuild its prosperity. They put people back to work, saved lives, and revived economies. That's not a bad thing.
Life is unfair and he was and is too trusting. I would rather a system that let him succeed at times and lose at times than bring everyone to a level of mediocrity that is promoted by pretending that actions (including his own) do not have consequences.
Rather than make sure his business "succeeded" I would be happier if the government did what it is supposed to and prosecuted the people who gave him rubber checks... last I checked writing bad checks is in fact criminal.0 -
To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child.
CICERO
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.
(Proverbs in Prose, 1819)”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.
Oscar Wilde
History, n. an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. AMBROSE BIERCE, The Devil's Dictionary
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice
MARK TWAIN, Following the Equator
We cannot escape history.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, annual message, Dec. 1, 1862
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know.”
― Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl
“Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.”
― John Lennon
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking
Do you have an original thought or do you let everyone else think for you?0 -
That's a witless question(s).
Of course I have an original thought, a tremendous amount of them as a matter of fact. As far as do I let everyone else think for me, that is an equally foolish and childish question. frankly, too insulting for me to give you a proper answer. Should you choose to communicate with me in an intelligent and respectful manner however, I'll gladly engage you in some "decent" chat. Otherwise (if you choose to or are unable to address me in a more civil tone and way)--you may believe of me what you will--more power to you.
0 -
To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child.
CICERO
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.
(Proverbs in Prose, 1819)”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.
Oscar Wilde
History, n. an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. AMBROSE BIERCE, The Devil's Dictionary
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice
MARK TWAIN, Following the Equator
We cannot escape history.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, annual message, Dec. 1, 1862
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know.”
― Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl
“Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.”
― John Lennon
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking
Do you have an original thought or do you let everyone else think for you?
That's a witless question(s).
Of course I have an original thought, a tremendous amount of them as a matter of fact. As far as do I let everyone else think for me, that is an equally foolish and childish question. frankly, too insulting for me to give you a proper answer. Should you choose to communicate with me in an intelligent and respectful manner however, I'll gladly engage you in some "decent" chat. Otherwise (if you choose to or are unable to address me in a more civil tone and way)--you may believe of me what you will--more power to you. 0 -
To Clarify my earlier statement, Affirmative Action itself is racist. and supporting gives the suggestion that people of 'minority' races require special help to be as 'good' as a white person.
That simply isn't true. We are all equal and setting up a system to say otherwise is a disservice. Saying that the way for a group of people to achieve anything is by giving them a crutch when they have the ability to do things without the crutch is what helps racism stay alive and strong in our world.
Also, Affirmative Action isn't just about Race... it's there for Gender as well. As a woman I'm deeply offended that women require "Handicaps" to perform certain tasks. Affirmative Action is sexist as well.
I want the best qualified firefighter saving my *kitten*, not someone who was given a handicap because of their race or gender.
Affirmative Action teaches people that all people are not equal and that if you are someone who has to use it? It is a blow to self-esteem.
I'm a firm believer in what is good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa.0 -
I'm totally against race based affirmative action.... as a white person... that's right I admit it.... I'm white... .I was raised by my parents to be tolerant of all races..... and I grew up believing that all races are equal. fundamentally I still believe that
... however... as an adult.... I am so sick and tired of having racism shoved down my throat....I am sick of making allowances for people because of their race and culture.... I am tired of having to look the other way and turn the other cheek when people of a different race or god forbid religion are just flat out RUDE.... now I know that white people are rude too... but when a white person makes the slightest misstep they are castigated as being racist to the point where it is no longer safe to even make THIS statement..... someone somewhere will have already decided based on what I just wrote that I too am a racist.....
I'm not racist I believe that every individual on earth has the capacity be either good or bad....and I believe that people should be judged on who they are , how they behave and what they think..... and that should be in all situations... whether it's employment, education or social situations.... and I'm tired of people using this as an excuse to get benefits that they simply are not entitled to.....
we will NOT be equal until we ACCEPT that we are, as individuals and as a society as a whole... it cannot be legislated....
ducks :flowerforyou:
Amen!0 -
Hi! What are you guys talking about?0
-
Hi! What are you guys talking about?
Quick! Take my ten ft pole and run as fast as you can!0 -
So, a thread asking vegetarians a question got shut down, but THIS thread is still going? :huh:
Also, I find that you shouldn't use the internet to gauge how people feel about something. In general, people are 53X more likely to be *kitten* on internet forums.*
*Bureau of Made-Up Statistics (2012)0 -
So, a thread asking vegetarians a question got shut down, but THIS thread is still going? :huh:
I know, right?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.
If implemented as it was intended, you got the job because you were at least equally qualified, but your boobs were definately the tiebreaker, because boobs happen to be rare in your job and they'd like to encourage more of them. All other things being equal, wouldn't it be nice to have a few more boobs around in a vast sea of booblessness? I think some people get offended because they somehow think someone "lesser" than themselves might be getting an unfair advantage. I've never personally felt threatened or harmed by this policy, but that doesn't mean abuses don't happen.0 -
To Clarify my earlier statement, Affirmative Action itself is racist. and supporting gives the suggestion that people of 'minority' races require special help to be as 'good' as a white person.
That simply isn't true. We are all equal and setting up a system to say otherwise is a disservice. Saying that the way for a group of people to achieve anything is by giving them a crutch when they have the ability to do things without the crutch is what helps racism stay alive and strong in our world.
Also, Affirmative Action isn't just about Race... it's there for Gender as well. As a woman I'm deeply offended that women require "Handicaps" to perform certain tasks. Affirmative Action is sexist as well.
I want the best qualified firefighter saving my *kitten*, not someone who was given a handicap because of their race or gender.
Affirmative Action teaches people that all people are not equal and that if you are someone who has to use it? It is a blow to self-esteem.
I'm a firm believer in what is good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa.
I agree, but I also disagree. Affirmative action does assume that all people aren't equal, and guess what... that is true.
Women in the same position earn less than men. The same resume submitted with a "black name" and a "white name" will get a call back more frequently for the white name. Society is racist and sexist. I've even seen studies that have shown that minorities are biased against minorities. Hell, I'm a scientist, and I was talking to a female sexist coworker and I said something along the lines of "The speaker I saw today was doing such impressive science" and she said "Who was he?" While we're talking about science, how about how there are roughly equal numbers of men and women faculty members at my institution (and many others), yet all the positions of power, aside from one woman and a couple non-white people, are white men.
Affirmative action shouldn't be "you're a woman, so here, take this position over the way more qualified man" but I think it should be "your grades aren't quite as good as his, but you had to work to support yourself while his family paid for his awesome tutors, so we will interview you and give you a chance to prove that you deserve to be here."
I know that's a wishy washy position... because I agree that as long as we highlight differences, we can't really fix race relations... but the system is broken right now. It's set up so that those at the bottom have the illusion of opportunity rather than actually having opportunities. And those opportunities do make a large difference. I had no clue how to study when I graduated high school because I went to the worst high school in my district. The one with metal detectors. The only one that you could transfer into but not out of. We didn't have AP courses, but I took the most advanced classes I could. They just weren't good enough. I got a scholarship and got into my first choice college (while checking "not disclosed" for race because I didn't want any advantage, I'm bi-racial). And I was in way too deep. I had to work to support myself, I had never studied before in my life, so I gave up. Then I realized that was stupid and I did great after that. When I applied to grad school, I did check bi-racial. I wasn't sure that my grades would be good enough because I floundered at first. If I were a rich white kid, I wouldn't have floundered. If I were a poor white kid, I still would have floundered. So while race isn't the best determinant, there does need to be a mechanism to account for the fact that there are differences. I think there should basically be a socio-economic booster whereby if you are qualified, if there is every indication that you will succeed, and I can explain away flaws because of your background, I'll interview you. At least in my field, an inquisitive nature and logical reasoning skills are really the most valuable traits, and they are more or less independent of factoid-type knowledge, so in an interview, you can tell who regurgitates information and who really thinks. And then accept the best thinkers even if that means you don't have minorities. I think it should just get you to the door, and you still have to open the door yourself, rather than making it an automatic opening door.0 -
...
And those opportunities do make a large difference. I had no clue how to study when I graduated high school because I went to the worst high school in my district. The one with metal detectors. The only one that you could transfer into but not out of. We didn't have AP courses, but I took the most advanced classes I could. They just weren't good enough. I got a scholarship and got into my first choice college (while checking "not disclosed" for race because I didn't want any advantage, I'm bi-racial). And I was in way too deep. I had to work to support myself, I had never studied before in my life, so I gave up. Then I realized that was stupid and I did great after that. When I applied to grad school, I did check bi-racial. I wasn't sure that my grades would be good enough because I floundered at first. If I were a rich white kid, I wouldn't have floundered. If I were a poor white kid, I still would have floundered.
...
Most white kids do not have tutors, most do not know how to study and apply themselves when they get out of High School either, significant portion do not go to college and I attended college with plenty of rich kids who were in college for one thing onlyy and that was to have fun with no real concern over grades.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