CDZ Is Affirmative Action racist?

[Lucy Hamilton]

No, affirmative action programs are not racist. They are not because racism is a set of beliefs and for an program, pogrom or other deed to be racist, it must be inspired by those beliefs in order to qualify as a racist one. Affirmative action does discriminate in terms of to whom its favors are granted. Discrimination, however, is not always inspired by racism. In the case of affirmative action, racist beliefs and the desire/will to act on them are not what inspires it.

I would consider the belief that a minority group is unable to excel without your help a rather racist belief and the underscoring belief that inspires AA.

That's not the "underlying belief that inspires AA".

The underlying belief of affirmative action is that the system itself is flawed, and needs a correction.

Yes it is the underlying belief and what you just stated is the same thing. The 'system' is flawed so minorities cannot excel.

That is blatantly incorrect IMO.

"The 'system' is flawed so minorities cannot excel."

The argument is not that minorities "cannot" excel within the system, the argument is that it's just harder for them.

Why is it harder for them? Also it seems that even with 50 years of Affirmative Action, even that hasn't helped the majority of black people "excel", if it had of, then we would have these results.

Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still Gaping

After 50 years, the achievement gap between white and black students has barely narrowed.

Snip:

"The achievement gap between white students and black students has barely narrowed over the last 50 years, despite nearly a half century of supposed progress in race relations and an increased emphasis on closing such academic discrepancies between groups of students."

Here is full article:

Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still Gaping

 

[FA_Q2]

"The 'system' is flawed so minorities cannot excel."

The argument is not that minorities "cannot" excel within the system, the argument is that it's just harder for them.

It is harder for a lot of people. We do not set up AA for anything else.

As I said, I'm not arguing in favor of affirmative action. My opinions on it are not firm. I'm just arguing for keeping the discussion based in reality, rather than spin.

I just don't really see a hard difference between the two statements. Weather it is harder, impossible or what the mechanism is for that difficulty the driving thought behind AA is that some minorities are simply not able to compete.

If that is because the 'system' is dragging them down or because the minorities themselves are incapable is rather immaterial IMO - it is still a position that looks down on the minorities in question as they are unable to excel beyond it.

The difference between the viewpoints is ideological.

From the perspective of affirmative action advocates, extending additional help to minorities is more akin to building a handicap ramp to allow access to the disabled.

Do you think building a wheelchair ramp is "looking down" on those in wheelchairs?

No, I would not state that a wheelchair ramp is looking down on them. I also do not think that analogy fits. The problem is that a ramp is not additional help to allow them to COMPETE which is exactly what AA is. We are not talking about additional help to overcome a disability or some other block to doing something like entering a building. We are talking about additional help so that they can get a job over another person that is not 'disadvantaged' by bring a minority.

Here is the crux of why I see this as looking down - AA is set up so that a black person would receive a job in an instance that the supporters of the law believe a white person would have received it instead. Ergo, at its heart, it is steeped in the belief that person would not have been able to gain that job without additional help.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The argument is not that minorities "cannot" excel within the system, the argument is that it's just harder for them.

It is harder for a lot of people. We do not set up AA for anything else.

As I said, I'm not arguing in favor of affirmative action. My opinions on it are not firm. I'm just arguing for keeping the discussion based in reality, rather than spin.

I just don't really see a hard difference between the two statements. Weather it is harder, impossible or what the mechanism is for that difficulty the driving thought behind AA is that some minorities are simply not able to compete.

If that is because the 'system' is dragging them down or because the minorities themselves are incapable is rather immaterial IMO - it is still a position that looks down on the minorities in question as they are unable to excel beyond it.

The difference between the viewpoints is ideological.

From the perspective of affirmative action advocates, extending additional help to minorities is more akin to building a handicap ramp to allow access to the disabled.

Do you think building a wheelchair ramp is "looking down" on those in wheelchairs?

No, I would not state that a wheelchair ramp is looking down on them. I also do not think that analogy fits. The problem is that a ramp is not additional help to allow them to COMPETE which is exactly what AA is. We are not talking about additional help to overcome a disability or some other block to doing something like entering a building. We are talking about additional help so that they can get a job over another person that is not 'disadvantaged' by bring a minority.

Could a paraplegic "compete" for a job in a workplace without wheelchair ramps?

Here is the crux of why I see this as looking down - AA is set up so that a black person would receive a job in an instance that the supporters of the law believe a white person would have received it instead. Ergo, at its heart, it is steeped in the belief that person would not have been able to gain that job without additional help.

That perspective requires that you see "jobs" as zero-sum - that there are a finite number of jobs, and one person getting a job means that someone else then won't get a job.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is harder for a lot of people. We do not set up AA for anything else.

As I said, I'm not arguing in favor of affirmative action. My opinions on it are not firm. I'm just arguing for keeping the discussion based in reality, rather than spin.

I just don't really see a hard difference between the two statements. Weather it is harder, impossible or what the mechanism is for that difficulty the driving thought behind AA is that some minorities are simply not able to compete.

If that is because the 'system' is dragging them down or because the minorities themselves are incapable is rather immaterial IMO - it is still a position that looks down on the minorities in question as they are unable to excel beyond it.

The difference between the viewpoints is ideological.

From the perspective of affirmative action advocates, extending additional help to minorities is more akin to building a handicap ramp to allow access to the disabled.

Do you think building a wheelchair ramp is "looking down" on those in wheelchairs?

No, I would not state that a wheelchair ramp is looking down on them. I also do not think that analogy fits. The problem is that a ramp is not additional help to allow them to COMPETE which is exactly what AA is. We are not talking about additional help to overcome a disability or some other block to doing something like entering a building. We are talking about additional help so that they can get a job over another person that is not 'disadvantaged' by bring a minority.

Could a paraplegic "compete" for a job in a workplace without wheelchair ramps?

Nope. Your point?

A paraplegic cannot compete for many different jobs and at the end of the day we do not make laws so that they can. I have yet to meet a paralyzed construction worker. Ramps are not installed to make it easier for disabled people to obtain jobs, period.

Here is the crux of why I see this as looking down - AA is set up so that a black person would receive a job in an instance that the supporters of the law believe a white person would have received it instead. Ergo, at its heart, it is steeped in the belief that person would not have been able to gain that job without additional help.

That perspective requires that you see "jobs" as zero-sum - that there are a finite number of jobs, and one person getting a job means that someone else then won't get a job.

In this context they are 'zero sum.' AA does not create more jobs and does not endeavor to do so. It does not attempt to create a single job for minorities. What it does try to do is get minorities into some of those jobs that would otherwise not be occupied by them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What created the need for AA is what's racist. The GOP treatment of the first black president substantiates that claim.

I don't think people dislike Obama because he's black. I think they dislike him for numerous reasons, such as his policies are Quasi-Marxist and he acts like a Dictator with all the Executive Orders and ignoring Congress.

There are some that hate him because of the color of his skin, but I do not believe the GOP in whole subscribes to this thought process and is just a race bait topic for some on the Progressive Left.

Former President Clinton was hated by the GOP and he is white, so the race card is sad and pathetic when used by those on the Progressive Left.

As for AA, well it was created during a time when America was still segregated and it was used to give the minority community a better chance, but I believe in today time it is outdated and not needed.

My opinion and I will be labeled a racist for this...

No you won't. You may be labeled ignorant because you think America is no longer segregated. It is....and legally so.

But....why are you so sensitive to being labeled a racist? Lots of people who conside themselves to be independent minded suffer from this malady. Can you explain?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is Affirmative Action racist? I think it is. The whole issue is that minorities, mainly black people, use this to not get somewhere on merit, like non-minorities do, but to get somewhere based on the colour of their skin....with the quotas etc.

So, Affirmative Action by it's very nature therefore, is actually racist.

Define "racism".

Well I don't know these days, it seems the sheer fact of being a white person is now pretty much "racist". This is how absurd the issue has now become.

Nope. I'm white. I've never been considered a racist by anybody in my adult life. I was a little racist prick as a kid, though.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, affirmative action programs are not racist. They are not because racism is a set of beliefs and for an program, pogrom or other deed to be racist, it must be inspired by those beliefs in order to qualify as a racist one. Affirmative action does discriminate in terms of to whom its favors are granted. Discrimination, however, is not always inspired by racism. In the case of affirmative action, racist beliefs and the desire/will to act on them are not what inspires it.

I would consider the belief that a minority group is unable to excel without your help a rather racist belief and the underscoring belief that inspires AA.

Hmmmmm. I wonder which end of the political spectrum believes that black people cannot excel without help?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is Affirmative Action racist? I think it is. The whole issue is that minorities, mainly black people, use this to not get somewhere on merit, like non-minorities do, but to get somewhere based on the colour of their skin....with the quotas etc.

So, Affirmative Action by it's very nature therefore, is actually racist.

Define "racism".

Well I don't know these days, it seems the sheer fact of being a white person is now pretty much "racist". This is how absurd the issue has now become.

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

Of course. You have never had to draw attention to your skin color in order to achieve equality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is Affirmative Action racist? [...]

I can't offer an answer to your (very good) question because I honestly don't know what "racism" is. And I believe if you ask a dozen different people, six Black and six White, what they believe racism is you will receive a dozen answers ranging from dissimilar to totally different.

As regards Affirmative Action; I believe there was an acceptable reason for it during those years immediately following the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But I believe the essential purpose for that reason expired at some point within the '70s and is no longer valid.

I believe competing for advancement in contemporary American society is especially hard for Blacks. But it is far from as difficult as it once was and certainly is not impossible. I believe providing Blacks with preferential treatment because of their ethnicity is patently unfair, a counterproductive mistake, and is no longer tolerable. But whether it qualifies as "racism" is, to me, questionable.

Blacks?

Start there.

 

[320 Years of History]

I would consider the belief that a minority group is unable to excel without your help a rather racist belief and the underscoring belief that inspires AA.

That's not the "underlying belief that inspires AA".

The underlying belief of affirmative action is that the system itself is flawed, and needs a correction.

Yes it is the underlying belief and what you just stated is the same thing. The 'system' is flawed so minorities cannot excel.

That is blatantly incorrect IMO.

"The 'system' is flawed so minorities cannot excel."

The argument is not that minorities "cannot" excel within the system, the argument is that it's just harder for them.

The argument is that "certain" minorities cannot compete in a meritocracy. Clearly, AA would not exist if they could.

Affirmative action programs are not about whether one can or cannot excel/complete effectively. They are about ensuring access to resources and opportunities.

• "An affirmative action program is to ensure that all persons have equal opportunities in recruitment, selection, appointment, promotion, training, discipline and related employment areas."

Were it possible to definitively assert that every person having the authority to grant employment and admission to schools does so absent any racist beliefs driving their decision to grant those things to "person W" and not to "person B," there'd be no need for affirmative action programs. Unfortunately:

• One's race isn't often difficult to notice, notwithstanding the relatively small quantity of folks who appear, for example, to be white, but who, per our society's custom are considered black. Black blood is apparently so powerful that even looking like a non-black person, just having it in one's veins makes one black, and not a member of the other race(s) that flow in through their body. Similarly, most black Americans have white blood in them, yet they were when the white blood first appeared and today remain black.
• Racism is such that it's impossible to have much certainty about who does and who does not harbor racist beliefs, and it is possible, given the subjectivity inherent in such choices as noted above, for one who harbors racist beliefs to act on them so as to, based solely on race and their beliefs about it, deny opportunities to folks in accordance with their racist beliefs.
• Racism is something that is taught...it's long been understood that children don't at all display signs of racism and its effects until they've been exposed to it. This is important because one may be of no particular note and have racist beliefs; however, if one has them and teaches them to one's kids, they too will have them. If those kids rise to a position of authority (hiring, admissions, judicial, etc.), they then can act on their beliefs. Moreover, the vast majority of them will teach those beliefs to their kids, thus perpetuating the racism.
• The U.S. has a very long history of systemic societal racism that has been taught generation after generation.

Like Justice O'Conner, I think the time will come that affirmative action will no longer be needed to ensure that people of color receive their fair share of access to opportunities. It's not clear to me when that day will come, but I feel (and hope) it will. I simply know that today is not that day, and neither is it likely to be next year. It isn't because the thing that determines when affirmative action programs can be dispensed with is the plausibility of persons in authority (1) overwhelmingly don't harbor racist beliefs, and (2) they can be relied upon to act without regard to race. The fact of the matter is that among folks having racist ideas, the most damaging thing that occurs is those persons rising to positions whereby they can freely act upon and in accordance with those beliefs. And let's face facts, we all know that people act mostly on their beliefs, regardless of whether reason suggests an alternative course of action may be warranted.

One example that tells me that day is not terribly near is the discussion in this forum alone regarding gun control/rights. Look at how often folks one way or another mention what black folks do regarding violence. Quite often, but not always, the tone, if not always the literality of the words, of their remarks suggests that whatever gun related violence black individuals commit is somehow associated with one or more cultural values espoused by black people on the whole. Might it be that the tone I've gleaned is not the one the writer(s) intended? It might, but then I'd say that it's incumbent upon the writer to express their ideas unambiguously so that inferring a racist undertone isn't among the plausible thoughts a reader might have.

 

[Pogo]

Is Affirmative Action racist? I think it is. The whole issue is that minorities, mainly black people, use this to not get somewhere on merit, like non-minorities do, but to get somewhere based on the colour of their skin....with the quotas etc.

So, Affirmative Action by it's very nature therefore, is actually racist.

Not "racist" in the strict sense of the word, no. "Racism" means the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. The basis of AA isn't that, but a belief that government must step in and re-balance a past imbalance. I understand the logic but I don't agree with it. Rather than "racist" I call it "leftist".

My go-to example defining Liberalism for those who insist on misusing the term is: to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to then force it to happen via AA quotas is leftism.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Is Affirmative Action racist? I think it is. The whole issue is that minorities, mainly black people, use this to not get somewhere on merit, like non-minorities do, but to get somewhere based on the colour of their skin....with the quotas etc.

So, Affirmative Action by it's very nature therefore, is actually racist.

Define "racism".

Well I don't know these days, it seems the sheer fact of being a white person is now pretty much "racist". This is how absurd the issue has now become.

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

Of course. You have never had to draw attention to your skin color in order to achieve equality.

 

[Pogo]

Define "racism".

Well I don't know these days, it seems the sheer fact of being a white person is now pretty much "racist". This is how absurd the issue has now become.

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

You are saying that just mentioning race is "racism"?

Yes I am. Why should race even matter? What should matter is merit.

Can't agree there. Simply mentioning a race is a simple classification, same as "blond" or "female" or "tall".

"That guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car because that's what blacks do" --- Racist.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

As I said, I'm not arguing in favor of affirmative action. My opinions on it are not firm. I'm just arguing for keeping the discussion based in reality, rather than spin.

I just don't really see a hard difference between the two statements. Weather it is harder, impossible or what the mechanism is for that difficulty the driving thought behind AA is that some minorities are simply not able to compete.

If that is because the 'system' is dragging them down or because the minorities themselves are incapable is rather immaterial IMO - it is still a position that looks down on the minorities in question as they are unable to excel beyond it.

The difference between the viewpoints is ideological.

From the perspective of affirmative action advocates, extending additional help to minorities is more akin to building a handicap ramp to allow access to the disabled.

Do you think building a wheelchair ramp is "looking down" on those in wheelchairs?

No, I would not state that a wheelchair ramp is looking down on them. I also do not think that analogy fits. The problem is that a ramp is not additional help to allow them to COMPETE which is exactly what AA is. We are not talking about additional help to overcome a disability or some other block to doing something like entering a building. We are talking about additional help so that they can get a job over another person that is not 'disadvantaged' by bring a minority.

Could a paraplegic "compete" for a job in a workplace without wheelchair ramps?

Nope. Your point?

A paraplegic cannot compete for many different jobs and at the end of the day we do not make laws so that they can. I have yet to meet a paralyzed construction worker. Ramps are not installed to make it easier for disabled people to obtain jobs, period.

Here is the crux of why I see this as looking down - AA is set up so that a black person would receive a job in an instance that the supporters of the law believe a white person would have received it instead. Ergo, at its heart, it is steeped in the belief that person would not have been able to gain that job without additional help.

That perspective requires that you see "jobs" as zero-sum - that there are a finite number of jobs, and one person getting a job means that someone else then won't get a job.

In this context they are 'zero sum.' AA does not create more jobs and does not endeavor to do so. It does not attempt to create a single job for minorities. What it does try to do is get minorities into some of those jobs that would otherwise not be occupied by them.

I have now lost track of my own thread, what's a girl to do?

So Affirmative Action is also for people in wheelchairs?

 

[320 Years of History]

No, affirmative action programs are not racist. They are not because racism is a set of beliefs and for an program, pogrom or other deed to be racist, it must be inspired by those beliefs in order to qualify as a racist one. Affirmative action does discriminate in terms of to whom its favors are granted. Discrimination, however, is not always inspired by racism. In the case of affirmative action, racist beliefs and the desire/will to act on them are not what inspires it.

I would consider the belief that a minority group is unable to excel without your help a rather racist belief and the underscoring belief that inspires AA.

Hmmmmm. I wonder which end of the political spectrum believes that black people cannot excel without help?

I don't know....

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Well I don't know these days, it seems the sheer fact of being a white person is now pretty much "racist". This is how absurd the issue has now become.

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

You are saying that just mentioning race is "racism"?

Yes I am. Why should race even matter? What should matter is merit.

Can't agree there. Simply mentioning a race is a simple classification, same as "blond" or "female" or "tall".

"That guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car because that's what blacks do" --- Racist.

But many think saying "that black guy" and "that black guy stole my car" is racist, because they'd say "why do you have to mention his colour?"

This is what I mean, it's getting silly now.

 

[Pogo]

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

You are saying that just mentioning race is "racism"?

Yes I am. Why should race even matter? What should matter is merit.

Can't agree there. Simply mentioning a race is a simple classification, same as "blond" or "female" or "tall".

"That guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car because that's what blacks do" --- Racist.

But many think saying "that black guy" and "that black guy stole my car" is racist, because they'd say "why do you have to mention his colour?"

This is what I mean, it's getting silly now.

That is silly, agreed. I don't know why this definition should be murky --- it requires a value judgment about that race. If a mention of race does not also include a value judgment, it can't be racism. Simple.

However, the protest "why do you have to mention his colour" doesn't necessarily mean the protestor perceives racism. I think you're making a leap there.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

You are saying that just mentioning race is "racism"?

Yes I am. Why should race even matter? What should matter is merit.

Can't agree there. Simply mentioning a race is a simple classification, same as "blond" or "female" or "tall".

"That guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car because that's what blacks do" --- Racist.

But many think saying "that black guy" and "that black guy stole my car" is racist, because they'd say "why do you have to mention his colour?"

This is what I mean, it's getting silly now.

That is silly, agreed. I don't know why this definition should be murky --- it requires a value judgment about that race. If a mention of race does not also include a value judgment, it can't be racism. Simple.

However, the protest "why do you have to mention his colour" doesn't necessarily mean the protestor perceives racism. I think you're making a leap there.

This is why this horsecrap must stop, because soon people are going to be almost afraid to speak in case of being accused of being racist. What we understand is that too many people are mega sensitive to point of being nearly constantly offended.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm asking how you define it, in the context of your OP.

To me racism is drawing attention to the skin colour in itself, this is racism. So eg. Black Lives Matter, NAACP are racist as is the term "White Privilege"

You are saying that just mentioning race is "racism"?

Yes I am. Why should race even matter? What should matter is merit.

Can't agree there. Simply mentioning a race is a simple classification, same as "blond" or "female" or "tall".

"That guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car" --- not racist.
"That black guy stole my car because that's what blacks do" --- Racist.

But many think saying "that black guy" and "that black guy stole my car" is racist, because they'd say "why do you have to mention his colour?"

This is what I mean, it's getting silly now.

Nope. That's not true.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Racism is a mindset, not a set of actions.