CDZ Is Affirmative Action racist?

[FA_Q2]

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.

So if this is case, why keep Affirmative Action, why is it still used?

Political deference to the minority lobby.

This is it.

It is politically untenable to eliminate AA and it is still used as a tool to garner votes.

 

[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."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I'm not saying that it's "correct", but what I said and what you said are in no way "the same thing".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Whether or not it "should" matter is irrelevant. In many ways it does matter, and ignoring it is either naive or politically motivated.

 

[Meathead]

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.

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

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

No, that's spin.

It's making up narratives and motivations for the other side in order to bolster your own position.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

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.

 

[Fishlore]

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.

If by "racist" you mean shaped in whole or part by issues of race, then affirmative action is racist. BUT there is scarcely a law on the books in all the long history of the United States which is not similarly racist because America's Constitution and its laws have been racist from the git-go.

What some people don't realize is that the XIII Amendment did not "end" racism in the American system, nor did the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The racism in our laws was created by, and in turn sustains, the racism in our society, in our families and in our minds.

Our racist past is like those lead pipes in Flint, that taint and poison everything that passes through them unless deliberate, conscious purification and filtration efforts are made. Affirmative action is such an effort.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin, even if it is politically advantageous.

Either we're consistent about this or we are not.
.

Implementing affirmative action policies is just one illustration of how our society and most people in it lack consistency in their acts and thoughts.

Take the gun debate for example. Many people believe the U.S. should not limit one's access to guns, that background testing should not be expanded, that no tracking of who has possession of one or more guns should occur. Look at what amounts to being just a bigger gun -- nuclear weapons -- and those folks miraculously have a change of heart -- that is, the fundamental principles that drive their view re: gun control/rights no longer applies -- when it comes to other nations having possession of and access to them.

How does that make any sense? How can they have a carefully arrived at principle driving their view on guns yet apply both treatments? Is a sound principle in the U.S. is not sound outside the U.S? Is the principle(s) only applicable because the U.S. happens to have a 2nd Amendment? Do the folks who argue against gun control not cite "inalienable rights" as part of their argument? "Inalienable rights" don't need the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence to be be inalienable, now do they?

If one is going to argue that consistency is important, I'd expect that one would at least be consistent in applying their principles. (Marc1958, I haven't reviewed your specific remarks to see whether they reflect the application of a consistent set of principles across disparate concepts.) If one is going to tell me "well, you have to start somewhere" with being consistent, I'd reply, "Why start with affirmative action as opposed to any number of other places?" How about starting by demanding our political candidates be consistent or at least show the highest levels of integrity? What makes starting with affirmative action "the" place to begin being consistent? That one happens to oppose affirmative action and one favors "guns for all?" Surely not.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[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.

If by "racist" you mean shaped in whole or part by issues of race, then affirmative action is racist. BUT there is scarcely a law on the books in all the long history of the United States which is not similarly racist because America's Constitution and its laws have been racist from the git-go.

What some people don't realize is that the XIII Amendment did not "end" racism in the American system, nor did the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The racism in our laws was created by, and in turn sustains, the racism in our society, in our families and in our minds.

Our racist past is like those lead pipes in Flint, that taint and poison everything that passes through them unless deliberate, conscious purification and filtration efforts are made. Affirmative action is such an effort.

How is the American Constitution racist?

 

[320 Years of History]

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".

A set of beliefs whereby one group or individual is perceived and treated as though s/he/it is inferior to another based on the quality of the inferior person's belonging to a race other than that of the person/group holding the belief that s/he/they are superior.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

If by "racist" you mean shaped in whole or part by issues of race, then affirmative action is racist. BUT there is scarcely a law on the books in all the long history of the United States which is not similarly racist because America's Constitution and its laws have been racist from the git-go.

What some people don't realize is that the XIII Amendment did not "end" racism in the American system, nor did the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The racism in our laws was created by, and in turn sustains, the racism in our society, in our families and in our minds.

Our racist past is like those lead pipes in Flint, that taint and poison everything that passes through them unless deliberate, conscious purification and filtration efforts are made. Affirmative action is such an effort.

The 'everything is racist' stance is silly. There is not a scarcity of laws on the books that are racist - there is scarcely a law on the books that is. The vast majority of laws are not racist by any reasonable definition. We have some issues with race to this day (and always will as long as humanity is part of the process) but the vast majority of racist law and process has been dealt with.

 

[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.

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

 

[FA_Q2]

It's wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin, even if it is politically advantageous.

Either we're consistent about this or we are not.
.

Implementing affirmative action policies is just one illustration of how our society and most people in it lack consistency in their acts and thoughts.

Take the gun debate for example. Many people believe the U.S. should not limit one's access to guns, that background testing should not be expanded, that no tracking of who has possession of one or more guns should occur. Look at what amounts to being just a bigger gun -- nuclear weapons -- and those folks miraculously have a change of heart -- that is, the fundamental principles that drive their view re: gun control/rights no longer applies -- when it comes to other nations having possession of and access to them.

How does that make any sense? How can they have a carefully arrived at principle driving their view on guns yet apply both treatments? Is a sound principle in the U.S. is not sound outside the U.S? Is the principle(s) only applicable because the U.S. happens to have a 2nd Amendment? Do the folks who argue against gun control not cite "inalienable rights" as part of their argument? "Inalienable rights" don't need the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence to be be inalienable, now do they?

If one is going to argue that consistency is important, I'd expect that one would at least be consistent in applying their principles. (Marc1958, I haven't reviewed your specific remarks to see whether they reflect the application of a consistent set of principles across disparate concepts.) If one is going to tell me "well, you have to start somewhere" with being consistent, I'd reply, "Why start with affirmative action as opposed to any number of other places?" How about starting by demanding our political candidates be consistent or at least show the highest levels of integrity? What makes starting with affirmative action "the" place to begin being consistent? That one happens to oppose affirmative action and one favors "guns for all?" Surely not.

While I can agree there are many inconsistencies within the nation your example is nonsensical to say the least.

 

[Meathead]

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.

No, that's spin.

It's making up narratives and motivations for the other side in order to bolster your own position.

It is not spin, it's practically a tautology. Arguing with the obvious is a fool's errand.

 

[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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

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?