Affirmative Action

I like it, as originally intended. I'm not a fan of what it has become.

 

Affirmative Action is Discrimination with a nicer sounding name.
I have absolutely no problem with programs aimed at helping the disadvantaged catch up. Those programs will disproportionally help minorities, because they will logically be largely targeted at poorer areas, which often have a disproportional minority population. That's totally fine. I want everyone to have a chance to succeed. But choosing one person over another for anything based solely on race is an entirely different matter. It's no better to choose an African-American for a job or a place at a college because of their color than it is to choose a white person for that reason. I believe in judging by achievement, regardless of race (or gender for that matter), and harsh punishment for cases of clear discrimination in either direction.
Obviously, the Dems support of AA is one of the reasons blacks vote for Dems in such high percentages, even tho AA actually hurts their race in the long run rather than helping.

 

I don't agree with AA.

I think it should be the best person, period.

I hate being the token person.

 

The best person for the job or slot in college should be rewarded and not someone just because they are a woman or minority.

I am opposed to A.A.

 

Affirmative action (an innovation of the Reagan Administration, BTW) was intended to level the playing field where it could be shown that the effects of past discrimination continued to hinder minorities. For example, if a police department had previously had a policy of placing only whites in supervisory positions, the law allowed this to be taken into account when filling future positions.

What it's become, in some places, is something quite different.

 

Gasp! I didn't know that, Galatian. Was that the same time span when he granted amnesty to the millions of illegals? Beginnings of Alzheimer's, I presume, impairing judgment.

I have always been opposed to AA. It has become reverse discrimination. Minorities should feel insulted by it if they have any self respect.

I'm not sure if AA covers a certain number of people who have served in the military, or if that is covered somewhere else, but the only "preference" I would be for would be if someone has served in the military, they should be bumped ahead of the herd, so to speak.

 

Er, I misspoke. Turns out affirmative action was first mentioned by John Kennedy. There were no formal "affirmative action" programs at that time, however. They were private initiatives.

In 1965, President Johnson came up with set-asides to assure that a minimum number of minority contractors would be hired for federal projects and in 1967, Reagan was still pretty alert when he came up with the first government-mandated affirmative action program as governor of California. I don't think we can blame it on dementia.

In 1985, Reagan tried to eliminate set-asides, but did not try to end affirmative action.

 

AA worked as a crowbar to open doors held shut as a conscious or even unconscious practice to effectually exclude or bar certain groups from attaining certain positions or opportunities. There was a definite time when it was necessary. As a continuing policy, I think it fails miserably. "Lowering the bar" is no answer. It says: "it's okay, you can't get there on your own so we'll make it easier for you because you're (insert group in heed of help here)," and that IS insulting. Going back to the beginning solving the education problems should do away with the need for affirmative action in schools, but that seems to be either too complex a problem, too expensive, or "not considered fair" by others. AA looks attractive when compared with fixing the underlying problems; but as a long term program, AA seems more like a "band aid on a bullet hole." You never equip the potential recipients of AA to compete on the level playing field. It remains "tilted."

Brett

 

AA was bad as conceived, and is still bad.

It is not right for someone to treat another unfairly for any reason, including their race or sex. But neither is it right for the government to tell someone who they must hire or admit. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

AA as originally conceived basically said that when a position is open, the person hiring should recruit minorities, and give them the tools to be hired and advance. It included training for minorities, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. The intent wasn't to force people to hire black people, but to increase the pool of qualified job applicants.

It doesn't mean quotas (or at least as first written - I'm not defending where it is.) I went to a medium-sized Baptist school with a very low percentage of African-American students. I became friends with many of them. One of my best friends became a college recruiter who actually fought for being allowed to go into more urban schools to recruit more African-American students. While the school has no affirmative action policy in place as far as quotas or giving black students preference that I know of, the number of black students is slowly increasing, in no small part to my friend. Diversity led to a more rich educational environment for me and for others.

That's what affirmative action originally intended, and I advocate such methods. Hiring a lower-qualified minority over a more-qualified white person doesn't make much sense to me. Instead we should hire the qualified person and train the lower-qualified one to be able to get a good job and be able to advance up the ladder.

 

I agree with the stated goal of the original AA, but disagree that the government has any right to legislate such a program.

 

I am for AA in the sense that it is bad for Democrats but as a Christian I am against it as everyone should be treated the same. In a larger sense, AA is bad for the USA. However, the political reality is that AA cannot be revoked; most African-Americans deny that it has helped them but insist that it would be racist to remove the program. It is foolish to even discuss the subject except among friends.

 

Everyone should be treated fairly. AA was initiated because people were obviously not. Those who claimed to be Christians were at the forefront as those causing the injustice. In the 60's, in many parts of the country, minorities truly were the least of these. And many (not all) Christians turned their backs.

 

Well, the real cure is to treat everyone fairly not to have a government program to give some people preference even if that same program is unfair to other people. When the Communists took China, they made janitors to be doctors and doctors to be janitors, for example, but such government regulation of fairness is only a formula for long-term disaster. AA breeds distrust.

 

So, you are also in favor of the government forcing everyone to be fair?

 

Nowadays it is the Christian who is often treated unfairly.

 

I'm in favor of the church speaking out on fairness and for the Christians of the nation to lead in this area. We should maintain that in Christ, there is no slave or free, no male or female, or black people or white people. I'm in favor of the government granting black people the rights that many white Christian men and women took away.

 

If it is true that God granted a person his or her rights, then how can the government grant them again? The job of the government is to punish those who violate other's God-given rights. In that regard, the government should punish local government policy that allows a woman in Indianapolis, for example, to be fired from her government job for saying "God Bless You."

As for AA, it only favors one group. It leaves out Jews, Asians, Catholics, Latinos, and homosexuals, for example.

 

If the government takes it away, then is it not the government's responsibility to return those rights back?