Should we get rid of affirmative action and other race-based laws?
Our government made race discrimination illegal with the civil rights laws of the '60s, which I totally agree with. No one should be treated unfairly because of race, sex or religion. However, our same government gives special treatment to minorities for government jobs, loans, even housing. If a private employer asked a person for their race on a job application, they would be sued for racial discrimination, but our government can and DOES consider race when giving out govern. jobs, or loans, housing. I even applied for a loan at a private bank online once and they asked me for my race, which I couldn't believe was even possible.
I think special treatment race-based laws do more harm than good. It causes minorities to depend on their skin color and not their skills, which in the long run does serious damage to them. Why the double standard?
Why the double standard? I have to admit that I took advantage of AA laws to make it though a good school and get a mortgage.
I agree that in some cases they do more harm than good in that it perpetuates a victim mentality that many Americans (not just minorities) seem to thrive off of today. No one is responsible for anything. We're blaming slavery, our parents, religion, blah blah blah. There are plenty of people who have done amazing things with there lives without a hand out.
I'm grateful for the financial aid that I received (and it only paid a fraction of my tuition, but it was better than $0), but I did feel uncomfortable when I learned that I only needed a C average to get into great schools while my white friends had to have a near perfect GPA and SAT scores. I don't want to get things because of the color of my skin - it breeds resentment in others and I have to work 10 x harder to prove myself to over come the perceived favoritism and the negative stereotypes plaguing the black community.
However, I've also know people who for reasons beyond their control (disfuctional home life) who got bad grades, etc, and AA gave them a 2nd chance to get out and get up.
So, I can see the role, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's outlived it's usefulness, especially in a society when the white population will soon only be 50% of the entire population.
Why the double standard? Affirmitive Action exists to apease the blacks that complain about everything.
You should read Kevin Blakistone in the Dallas Morning News. He complains just as much as any black person I know.
Why the double standard? I think Affirmative Action is reversed discrimination.
Why the double standard? The double standard is there that the government feels pressure to have its officials and employees reflect the ethnic diversity in the nation.
For loans and housing- Perhaps, although I haven't come across it. Perhaps less minorities apply for housing and loans than what is their part of the population- in such a case the government could feel- perhaps unjustly to favour minorities.
Why the double standard? jobs shoud go to the people that can do them the best . Race , Religion , sex nor age shoud have nothing to do with the pick
In fact the only questions on the application shou deal with the job and nothing dealing with the person. Not even a name.. Just numbered applications.
Why the double standard? It not only is wrong but doesn't even then make these minorities happy, they still want more! Worse our tax dollars goes into this and then they turn around and slap me in the face saying it isn't good enough! I think people need to step up and start protesting this and get more people aware of whats going on.
Why the double standard? Amen brother!
Why the double standard? The UK has just introduced a whole new raft of discrimination laws that are intended to promote fairness in the workplace. These include measures to prevent discrimination against race, sex and now age. These attributes are to be ignored when vetting for prospective employees.
However, these practices are, in part, unworkable. Although an employer cannot discriminate against sex and race it is almost impossible to guarantee that this is the case. When looking through a pile of resumes it can be obvious that prospective candidates will fit certain profiles - variations in names along racial lines, etc.
It may be that there is still discrimination in place on a subconsious level in some cases. I think that this is where positive discrimination comes to the fore. In countries like the US, where litigation is so prevalent, some companies (and the government also) are paranoid about getting busted for discrimination. They put these measures in place as a safety net, but at the same time they are causing friction.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need these measures, and we will all live in the most perfect meritocracy. However, we are far from this state, so these policies are keeping us all in check.
Why the double standard? I think is was necessary up until about five years ago. Now I see so many successful people of color, starting their own companies and going to college and doing well by any standard, that I see less of a necessity for it. But I still think it should be tracked to make sure bias won't reappear for a while yet. Yes, its true that there is still disproportionate poverty, but I really don't think that's going to have a solution outside of the community these people (and I mean any group of people here so don't get angry)are in. When one of your own tells you to buckle down, go to school, do well, go to college, don't have babies before marriage, it means so much more than an outsider or dogooder sticking her nose in.
Why the double standard? Affirmative action began as a corrective measure for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that are said to have been subjected to prejudice in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of Affirmative Action is to sufficiently counter past discrimination such that a strategy will no longer be necessary: the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large.
Targetted groups may be characterized by race, gender, or ethnicity. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing caste discrimination. In South Africa, the focus has been primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, sex-based discimination. When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that other groups are said to have had (such as through institutional racism or institutional sexism or historical circumstances).
The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:
Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.
Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. [2] They may argue that the end result 閳?a more diversified student body, police-force or other group 閳?justifies the means.
Many claim that it has unintended and undesireable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it can act as reverse discrimination, perpetrate new wrongs to counter old ones, and instill a sense of victimhood in the majority. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as poor whites). In the British 2001 Summer Of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas.
There are also claims that the practice is itself racist and/or sexist. Finally critics and supporters disagree on the economic effects of affirmative action. Others believe that programmes may be motivated by political considerations.
Affirmative action in international human rights law
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programmes may be required of states that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states however that such programmes %26quot;shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved%26quot;. Positive discrimination, on the other hand, even if intended to improve the lot of disadvantaged groups, is considered illegal in international human rights law, as is any kind of discrimination.
An in-depth examination of the legal status of affirmative action, and the different kinds of programmes that exist and their pros and cons, can be found in a paper written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt[3].
Implementation worldwide
In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being %26quot;race-blind%26quot;, in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.
In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as %26quot;positive action%26quot;, as opposed to %26quot;positive discrimination%26quot;.
In the United States, affirmative action mostly applies at transition points閳ユ敄imes when individuals are changing their employment or enrollment. Employers and universities often have policies favoring black, hispanic or female applicants. In states like California and New York, immigrants, both legal and illegal, receive affirmative action benefits as well.
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. Writing in 1998, L. Anita Richardson commented that U.S. courts have generally accepted affirmative action as a remedy for actual present-time discrimination; rejected it outright for the goal of simply promoting diversity; and that %26quot;There is much debate閳?about dealing with the lingering, pernicious effects of past racial discrimination%26quot;.
Why the double standard? You are viewing this the wrong way altogether. First off skin color has nothing to do with it, I am a Mexican woman, and I am not brown. I have light colored skin. And your talking about the whole race, do you not realize that there is more to each race than what you are made to see? And the few people that do take advantage of what the government offers, and let me make it clear that %26quot;white people%26quot; do exactly the same thing, do not represent a race as a whole.
I agree with you on the fact that no, race should not play a factor in many of the things you mentioned. But unfortunately it does, and its not the people who have made it that way. The government makes their own rules, their own requirements, if the government wouldn't facilitate all of these things would they be happening??
Why the double standard? You have two ways to look at it. The first is the concept of social darwinism. If you're good enough, you'll succeed and no help is ever needed.
However, it's hard to argue that it's more difficult to succeed as the first of any group. Affirmative action programs have encouraged companies to spend a little more effort to find qualified canidates that may not look the same as all the people they already have. Over time, it's helped people come to the understanding that you can have competent (and incompetent) people from any group.
Is affirmative action still needed is a hard question to prove one way or another. But without the push to try, we may not have the variety of professionals we have today. Female doctors, black lawyers, chinese architects etc are all part of our work force and we have the chance to take advantage of the skills of best our country can find.
Now, just about anyone can claim some form of minority status, and I don't know of too many serious abuses of diversity programs in corporate america today. I know I think it helped that my college tried to get a diverse mix. Did some white person of equal qualifications have to go to another school? Possibly. But having the collection of the diverse backgrounds was a learning experience for me that I'm grateful for.
Why the double standard? The %26quot;double standard%26quot; is the most important part of politics and government. %26quot; Do as I say, not as I do%26quot; These laws do much more good for government than they do for anyone else. This technique perpetuates discrimination between the little guy ( The People ) while the ruling power can claim to be only trying to %26quot;Fix%26quot; the problem, while the little guy bickers and grows more discriminative because of the supposed %26quot;special favors%26quot; ( because they care so much ) the government puts out there.
All pat of the %26quot; Manipulation Game %26quot;
All humans DNA is 99.9% exactly the same, also out of 35,000 genes, only 10 represent color.
Race is not the problem, the problem is our willingness to be %26quot;Sheeple%26quot;
