CDZ Is Affirmative Action racist?

[LoneLaugher]

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.

I never fear being accused of being racist. Why do you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I don't know anyone who lives in fear of being called a racist.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

I don't know anyone who lives in fear of being called a racist.

 

[MikeK]

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.

Okay. Negroes. How's that? Or do you have some other preference this year?

 

[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.

Okay. Negroes. How's that? Or do you have some other preference this year?

Exactly.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
The tone of your post suggests your heart may be in the right place, but that also your personal observations may not be broad enough to show you what is/was so and what is/was not so. I shared in a different thread a first hand experience from 1989 (An observation of racial discrimination) that illustrates clearly that racism had by no means "expired" in the 1970s. That experience further illustrates the clandestine nature of racism.

It may even be that racism is considerably more "undercover" here in the 21st century than it was in the late 20th, or even the early 20th when the KKK went about "openly," yet with hoods concealing their individual identities. That in an environment that by and large tolerated racism, at the very least by looking askance at manifestations of it. I don't know how on the "DL" racism is today, and I suspect neither do most folks. Therein lies a meaningful element in determining whether affirmative action (AA) remains needed to ensure access to opportunities.

Blue:
I don't think there's much to make of whether it's not "as difficult as it once was and...not impossible." It wasn't impossible 100 years ago either, but it was hard, harder too than it is today. I don't see the matter, that is, AA programs' existence and need for existing, as being about whether it's hard; I see it as being about whether it is comparably hard (or easy), on the class level, for blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, etc. Remember, the reason for AA is to ensure that entire classes of people are not, as classes, denied access to opportunity(s) . What any one individual who receives the opportunity does with it is up to them.

Green:
TY

Other (with a bit of "Red continued"):
When those of us in positions of authority find ourselves doling opportunity to others, we all would love the circumstances to be one whereby "all other things being equal," "other things" being the subjective detractors and attractors the candidates to whom we consider offering the benefits display. Well, that's just never the case, and at some point, one has to accept that one is going to form a preference for one individual over another based on one or more subjective qualities that person demonstrates.

For example, when interviewing candidates for a position with my firm, I favor folks having assertive and direct personalities. Some of my peers in the firm prefer a more mild mannered personality. The reality is that within the firm, we have folks at all levels who have either character style.

Now if on a given day, minority and non-minority persons (let's just assume one of each) interview with me and the person with the more assertive personality is the minority, I'll probably make them the first offer. Were the non-minority the bolder person, that's who'd get the first offer from me.

If the more mild mannered person had spent their entire life being inculcated with the values of reservedness, they might very well think I was unfair toward them, particularly if they had a chance to speak with the other candidate and observed that person's bolder approach.

Now is what I used to differentiate between two objectively comparable/qualified candidates subjective? Yes, without question. Race also has nothing to do with it. Seeing as I'm not a minority, were it the minority who didn't get the offer, might they surmise that I denied them the opportunity to join the firm because they are black? Yes, they might. Would they be correct? No. Would they have any way to know whether they are right or not? Most likely, no.

But that's the problem: the history -- distant and recent -- of racism and its expression in our society is such that people lack a good way to know, or even be very confident, whether someone's actions were motivated by racism. It's when, as a society, it becomes clear that we can be very confident that folks are not acting on racist beliefs in making what are necessarily important choices about who does and does not receive opportunities to advance themselves.

What's it going to take to arrive at such a conclusion? I don't know precisely what all the criteria might be, but some thoughts that come to mind are:

• As long as opponents of AA drive the discussion from the standpoint of the individual rather than from the standpoint of access to opportunity on a class level, we will not have reached the point whereby AA is no longer necessary. Why/how do I know that? Because opponents of AA who frame their opposition using a context other than that driving AA's purpose and raison d'etre, are being disingenuous by doing so. It makes them appear to have a goal that isn't at all egalitarian.
• As long as scores of whites, and most especially do so as part of the mantra of a major political party, deny/reject the credibility and experience scores of minorities -- not just poor and unlikely to "make something of themselves" ones, but scores of minorities who've "made it," so to speak -- scores of minorities attest to having had and observed first hand instances of racial discrimination, we will not have reached the point where programs like AA aren't necessary.
  
  Why? Well, because, quite frankly, to deny the veracity of someone's claims, to say nothing of a class of people's claims, about what they've observed is to tacitly show one has no regard for that person's cognitive ability to distinguish the nature of what they've observed. That's tantamount to outright calling them a fool, liar or both, not that it matters (re: the resulting effects) which one: they are still not going to believe one when one says "racism doesn't exist," "AA is no longer needed," or something akin to that.

 

[Jackson]

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.

That was once the case, but is no longer. Racism is unfairly discriminating against another race; an unfounded prejudice. Blacks have the same opportunities as the white or Asians. People of all ethnicities have to decide to take advantage of those opportunities.

 

[Jackson]

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.

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

There are whites who live in poverty and find it "difficult" to get out of that state. It's not just one race. We have examples of both blacks and whites coming out of poverty and making themselves valuable citizens in this country. They have done it without lowering the bar for them.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Read the quotes and you will understand where the analogy came from and why I am commenting on it. That is why we have the quote feature

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

It would be a leap if it were not a common charge. That very thing has already happened in this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

First, there's no question that assigning the causal generalization found in the fourth statement reflects, if not racism, clear and unfair bias. Would the speaker of such a remark be racist or simply not get out enough or something else? I don't know...I know only that I'd immediately end all unnecessary personal interaction with a speaker of a remark.


"Why must one mention race?" is not an unreasonable question to ask (with regard to the two middle statements), and, IMO, the reasonableness of asking it (or volunteering the race of the person who stole the car) depends on context. When the cops are trying to collect information to find the thief, the person's race, if known, is a relevant data point to share with them. In conversation where the thief's race has nothing to do with it, the critical listener has to wonder (even if they don't ask) why did the speaker share that the person involved was black.

That the customary hypothetical example offered when the person is black pertains to a negative situation should give one pause, if only to consider why things work that way. Might it be due to racism? I don't feel that it's a reflection of overt racist intent, but I do feel that it's a reflection of our culture's attitudes and widespread misunderstanding of the legitimate and illegitimate role race plays, attitudes that are so prevalent in our society that they were shown in the "Doll Test" to exist among blacks -- blacks who cannot even begin to articulate what racism is or what it's cultural impacts are -- even though the attitudes do not favor blacks.

I don't know who among you have seen the "Doll Test," but it poignantly tells just how insidious and early on one begins to learn to espouse racist beliefs. I'm sure that few if any among us would accuse a toddler of harboring racist ideas.



After watching the video, or even not having watched it, one has to realize that black folks probably don't actively teach their kids that being black is genuinely and naturally a reason to consider themselves bad, ugly, etc. The question must then be "how do people at toddler age come to believe that there is something negative about being black?" Now we can speculate, perhaps argue, all day over what the specific sources of it are and which ones have greater and lesser impacts in establishing that belief in kids, but what is undeniable is that if it's not the kid's parents and early life guides/mentors, that message must come from culture/society.

Getting back to the specific remarks above, and showing just one subtle way in which the attitudes depicted in the video manifest themselves even among folks who are usually careful not to be racist in their remarks and acts.....I would ask Pogo why it is that s/he didn't choose to write "That white guy stole my car because that's what whites do?" I suspect that the choice between writing "black" or "white" wasn't a conscious one but rather just a reflection of what seemed, for lack of a better term, "natural." The thing is that had s/he written, "That white guy stole my car because that's what whites do," might it have served equally well for the sake of the illustration? Would using "white" rather than "black," and could it, too have been perceived as a racist remark? If the answer be "yes," fine, insofar as there's at least equity in the perception of the remark. If the answer be "yes, depending on who uttered it," why would it depend on that? If the answer be "no," why not?

Lastly, am I chiding Pogo for choosing blacks rather than whites for his/her illustration? Am I intimating that he might be a willing racist? No, neither of those things. I'm merely pointing out one of the subtle ways in which racist bias can hide within our psyche and appears in our lives.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

On a practical level, I'm fairly certain that governments realize past "imbalances" cannot be altered ("re-balanced"), and that what they can do is take some steps to minimize the continued occurrence of them and the impact(s) of that continued occurrence. The "re-balancing" may be part of the ethical rationale for wanting to limit the ongoing incidence and impacts of racism, but that's about it.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Whether intended or not, your analogy seems, to me at least, to be equating being a "minority", with having a "disability". Here inlies the true problem. Many who support AA, IMO, view "minorities" as having somewhat of a disability, it's not physical, such as a parapalegic, it's not mental, such as someone who has Downs Syndrome, it's more of a "social disability". It is seen as a "disability" based on real, or perceived, socia norms, where a person from certain demograghics has a disadvantage in the acedemic and employment aspects of society, based on being part of that demograghic. IMO, that is the problem, when you look at a person's skin color/gender/ect., and make assumptions based in whole, or in part on that observation, you are, in fact falling prey to bigotry on one level or another.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

If that where true, why institute AA and other quotas? Why not simply take race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation/ect. out of the equation?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Were that the sole driver behind affirmative action programs, I'd concur with you, but it is not, so I don't.

Name another.

I note that you have not.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Whether intended or not, your analogy seems, to me at least, to be equating being a "minority", with having a "disability". Here inlies the true problem. Many who support AA, IMO, view "minorities" as having somewhat of a disability, it's not physical, such as a parapalegic, it's not mental, such as someone who has Downs Syndrome, it's more of a "social disability". It is seen as a "disability" based on real, or perceived, socia norms, where a person from certain demograghics has a disadvantage in the acedemic and employment aspects of society, based on being part of that demograghic. IMO, that is the problem, when you look at a person's skin color/gender/ect., and make assumptions based in whole, or in part on that observation, you are, in fact falling prey to bigotry on one level or another.

I think that the larger problem is that it continues the problem IMO.

It seems to me that the ideal - the goal if you will - is to become a post racial society where race is no longer a factor. Weather or not you believe this to even be possible it seems to me that such certainly is impossible or further out of reach as long as you are requiring by law for race to be a factor. I see such laws as exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Whether intended or not, your analogy seems, to me at least, to be equating being a "minority", with having a "disability". Here inlies the true problem. Many who support AA, IMO, view "minorities" as having somewhat of a disability, it's not physical, such as a parapalegic, it's not mental, such as someone who has Downs Syndrome, it's more of a "social disability". It is seen as a "disability" based on real, or perceived, socia norms, where a person from certain demograghics has a disadvantage in the acedemic and employment aspects of society, based on being part of that demograghic. IMO, that is the problem, when you look at a person's skin color/gender/ect., and make assumptions based in whole, or in part on that observation, you are, in fact falling prey to bigotry on one level or another.

I think that the larger problem is that it continues the problem IMO.

It seems to me that the ideal - the goal if you will - is to become a post racial society where race is no longer a factor. Weather or not you believe this to even be possible it seems to me that such certainly is impossible or further out of reach as long as you are requiring by law for race to be a factor. I see such laws as exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it.

Not being in a group that is traditionally considered a "minority" I cannot comment on this directly. However, I have, in the past, had the occation to discuss this with folks who are "minorities". Most of those who I have asked have said that they feel as though the federally mandated "voluntary" self-classifacation of a new employee on the basis of: race, ethicity, gender, veteran status and sexual orientation; does, by it's self, cause them to question not only why they where hired, but who will see the data, and how they will use it. I see this as another contributing factor in the overall issue of "race relations" in our country. I understand why the information is collected, how it is supposed to be used, as well as the steps taken to ensure "anonimity" of the data. However, being a hiring manager in the past, I also know that some organizations obtain this data on paper from one or two new hires at a time. I never reveiwed the documents myself, it's none of my business how the questionare was filled out, but I know how easy it would be for someone to do so. Those that are done on computer, just as easy, if you know how (or so I am told). I don't really know where I am going with this, just food for thought I guess.

 

[Militants]

No nazism hates are racism or times with Nazis like friends are real racism. Or hard rock music.

 

[Militants]

Hard rock music with other hard rocker are next or third highest racism.

 

[Militants]

Against mouslim or profit Muhammad or have fun are mostly racism.