• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Affirmative Action

Is affirmative action necessary in today's society?

  • Yes, it bridges the disparity between minority and non-minority students and workers

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • Yes, it is important for the social welfare and diversity of the country

    Votes: 4 6.8%
  • No, it encourages individuals to identify themselves as "disadvantaged"

    Votes: 25 42.4%
  • No, it provides a basis for "reverse-discrimination"

    Votes: 34 57.6%
  • No, it is devalues the accomplishments of both those who it benefits and those it does not

    Votes: 31 52.5%
  • It is necessary for gender, but not race

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • It is necessary for race, but not gender

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Other, please specify

    Votes: 9 15.3%

  • Total voters
    59
Catz said:
So, do children choose their home environment?

No.

You're missing the point though. I said it's tougher. Tougher is not synonymous with impossible. You can "get out of the ghetto" if you want to, through hard work. Yeah, it'll be harder than the white blonde kid on the posh side of town who grew up in the mansion with the millionaire parents. Still possible though.

When we get kids who have no chance and they can't help it, such as the retarded, I'll pull for it.
 
The only "racial rift" it creates is by people who are racist and do not understand this problem.

actually the biggest problem is people screaming racism rather than honestly addressing various social pathologies. Liberals tend to use the charge of racism as a neutron bomb when they have lost the war of words or ideas
 
actually the biggest problem is people screaming racism rather than honestly addressing various social pathologies. Liberals tend to use the charge of racism as a neutron bomb when they have lost the war of words or ideas

actually, i find it is the racists who run from the idea that such descriptions are quite valid
 
actually, i find it is the racists who run from the idea that such descriptions are quite valid

No. They are excuses for failure in an attempt to garner more.
 
actually, i find it is the racists who run from the idea that such descriptions are quite valid


I find otherwise. And the real racists are ones who believe Blacks cannot make it without treating them like dependent little children. Of course, keeping blacks dependent on the dem party is part of the dem party's agenda.
 
Affirmative action may have accomplished its goals, it may be time to bring this to an end. Of course, I have not studied this, its only my opinion, based on what little I have seen.
 
Affirmative action may have accomplished its goals, it may be time to bring this to an end. Of course, I have not studied this, its only my opinion, based on what little I have seen.

you mean there is no more racism at present
that is the only circumstance in which a concerted effort to mitigate the negative effects of racial bias would no longer serve a legitimate purpose
 
you mean there is no more racism at present
that is the only circumstance in which a concerted effort to mitigate the negative effects of racial bias would no longer serve a legitimate purpose

wrong. There's no more systematic racism or sexism. That's more than enough reason to get rid of the federally mandated sexism and racism that is AA. Individual racism and sexism will *always* exist.
 
Here lies the problem.

If the anecdotal evidence from this thread is anything to go by, the major benefitors of AA are middle class African-Americans. Now granted that this demographic may be relatively small compared to the wider African-American community, but the point is this. AA does not help the poor kids in the 'ghetto'.

Why?

Because, those kids are statistically unlikely to finish High School or at least to do degree that will prepare them sufficiently for Higher Education. Thus AA becomes a privilege not for all African Americans but for the small percentage that don't have to deal with the same crappy start to life as other poorer Americans. If that is the case, then AA benefits people that have by in large beaten or have not been exposed to the kind of poverty that has been discussed in this thread. Consequently middle class African American experience is probably a lot closer to any other racial subset of middle America, than it is with poor African-Americans; or poor whites for that matter.

If you really want to get rid of systemic poverty in African American communities, you don't do so by giving lift ups to a different demographic. If we apply AA in concert with the pyramid of needs, it becomes apparent that we are putting the cart before the course.

If poverty and a lack of education is widespread within African American communities, then we need to deal with those issues first. You cannot jump to Higher Education, without first establishing that the general population has sufficient literacy and maths skills, aka they have obtained a certain level of intermediate level of education. AA misses this because it only deals with the very end point, it does not deal with the massive issues at the lower end of the hierarchy of needs.

Thus I would argue that AA benefits a certain demographic of the African-American community, but it does not have any positive affect to the people that REALLY DO need URGENT help.

Finally maybe I should say a little a bit about myself, to put my learning experience in context.

I am currently studying law as a J.D student at the University of Melbourne Australia. In terms of applicants my LSAT test was significantly lower than many of the other candidates. But I got in because I was fortunate enough that at the time that demand for J.D positions was low (most law degrees in Australia are undergraduate, thus the new system is still foreign to us Aussies).

Anyway I readily admit that I am not the smartest guy in the room. And many of the people around me are geniuses. To get marks remotely anywhere near my more talented colleges, I have to work my ass off.

Because my marks were at the time (not good enough at the time) for a summer internship, and therefore I am not eligible for big commercial firms; I am volunteering at a local community legal centre, I have provided pro-bono research for a barrister, and I am competing in the various legal competitions.

Why am I doing this? I know that I am competing against colleagues with much better marks, and therefore at any job interview I have to bring something else to the table. I know that finding a job will not be as easy as others, but I would never ask for any special privileges because I went to a crap state school, whilst most of my colleagues went to the finest private schools in Melbourne. I want a job and I am willing to work my ass off. Period.

Finally, one of my mates (remember Aussie slang not the literal meaning) in the course, is part Aboriginal and under the University of Melbourne guidelines he is granted some privileges that I am not granted. Throughout the course he has at times shown an attitude of can't be ****ed, or alternately "what is the easier way of doing things?" I would stay up till 1 am going over a problem, while he would leave at 8 pm because he is tired.

However things have recently changed. My friend just got back from a term studying overseas and suddenly he has gotten very serious about his studies. Why is this so? We'll unlike Australia, in the Netherlands the Dutch University would have considered him as an Australian and would have not given a rats arse about his Aboriginal background. Thus he had to work as hard as any of the other students. There was no free passes. Upon arriving back to Australia, I think that this high standard has had a positive impact on him.

Moral of the story. Nothing in life is easy, especially in the professions like law, and there is nothing more rewarding than the sweet outcome of success especially when you and you alone busted your balls to achieve it. I would argue, that such an outcome is important in terms of self worth, ambition, ego and career. Thus outcomes not based on merit, virtue or tenacity can be corrosive to ones self worth and sense of achievement; something that is applicable to all people regardless of sex or skin colour.

P.S my apologies for such a long winded post.
 
Last edited:
Thus I would argue that AA benefits a certain demographic of the African-American community, but it does not have any positive affect to the people that REALLY DO need URGENT help.

You've really summed it up there. I completely agree.

Like someone said before, this is just a cover over the problem, the real issue is barely addressed.

P.S my apologies for such a long winded post.

No, I think you deserve a beer.
 
If my understanding of the current and past forms in which Affirmative Action (hereafter "AA") was applied in the USA, I would not support it then or now.

My reasons would be that the methods it used and is using to achieve it's goals are counter-productive (not to mention counter-intuitive).

As I understand the purpose of AA, it was intended to correct bigoted selection processes, or “level the playing field” for minorities, allowing those with equal abilities to obtain positions and/or services that they would otherwise be denied due to their minority status.

The methods used, however, seem nonsensical to me.

If I were attempting to counter bigoted selection procedures, I would require that any given entity not count minority status as a factor in their selection of a person. If two or more persons of completely equal ability were up for selection, random selection would seem reasonable.

“I’m going to roll a 2D6, and X result(s) = Y person(s) get(s) selected” :mrgreen:

If a major disparity between majority and minority representation existed in a given entity, requiring selection of a minority candidate over a equally qualified majority candidate might be acceptable.

But as described previously by some on this board, selection of a less qualified minority candidate over a more qualified majority candidate seems ridiculous.

I can readily accept the argument that such methods cause side effects that not only counter the attempted results, but cause additional issues.

Finally, it seems obvious to me that socioeconomic issues (as in, poor persons) have been and will continue to have a much greater effect on a given individual than any bigotry.

Thus, those who suggest AA be adjusted to support candidates originating from a low socioeconomic background over equally qualified candidates originating from other socioeconomic backgrounds may be on to something.

Additionally, doing something about the relatively poor quality of education available in areas with a low socioeconomic level seems key to any such attempt. But that's another debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom