• 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
Getting back to the issue of A.A. I simply cannot wrap my head around the "why" have an issue with it. Lots of people in this thread have made good points and ones I have heard before but it does not change the reality that AA is needed.

Why can't people understand it is needed? I think think this is the main reason WHY it is still needed is because people do not understand we still have racism.

The problem is that the AA that is "needed" has nothing in common with the AA that is actually practiced.
 
The problem is that the AA that is "needed" has nothing in common with the AA that is actually practiced.

I tend to agree. If AA programmes were reorganised to focus on economic deprivation, rather than social group membership, many of the gripes and anomalies would disappear. Of course, there would still be people who believe that society functions just fine without any intervention, but Rivrrat apart I think that widespread public support for such a move would result.
 
I tend to agree. If AA programmes were reorganised to focus on economic deprivation, rather than social group membership, many of the gripes and anomalies would disappear.

Instead why don't we base it on your qualifications to do the job? I know that sounds insane, but it mite just work.

Of course, there would still be people who believe that society functions just fine without any intervention, but Rivrrat apart I think that widespread public support for such a move would result.

It could not and would not. Being poor has nothing to do with your qualifications to do any job.

It would be a disaster.
 
Andalublue said:
I tend to agree. If AA programmes were reorganised to focus on economic deprivation, rather than social group membership, many of the gripes and anomalies would disappear. Of course, there would still be people who believe that society functions just fine without any intervention, but Rivrrat apart I think that widespread public support for such a move would result.

Problem - white people aren't immune to poverty. On this side of the pond, we refer to them as "white trash" or "trailer trash". Instead of rap, it's Kid Rock. Instead of malt liquor, it's Budweiser. Instead of basketball, it's NASCAR. Same premise though.

Should we not help poor white trash though? If strictly based on socioeconomic factors, they'd get help too, and we'd still get screams of racism by entitlement-desiring minorities.
 
Affirmative action is just as racist and denying someone a job because they are black. Essentially they are using racism to "fix" a racist (in their wrong opinion) workforce. We should have laws against discrimination, but we shouldn't have policies and incentives pushing more racism in the form of affirmative action. Also, I think it's wrong that there are "black only" scholarships.
 
Last edited:
Affirmative action is just as racist and denying someone a job because they are black. Essentially they are using racism to "fix" a racist (in their wrong opinion) workforce. We should have laws against discrimination, but we should have policies and incentives more pushing racism in the form of affirmative action. Also, I think it's wrong that there are "black only" scholarships.

Race based scholarships initially were because of the lack of funding for minority's back in the day when they literally had nothing available.

Now days anyone can set up any scholarship fund for any reason. So it is kind of a dead issue.

Of course I don't know if their are Federal or state scholarship funds that work this way. If scholarships are based on race by the government, that is wrong. If it is private, no problem at all.
 
Last edited:
Race based scholarships initially were because of the lack of funding for minority's back in the day when they literally had nothing available.

Now days anyone can set up any scholarship fund for any reason. So it is kind of a dead issue.

Even if minorities had nothing they still shouldn't have their own scholarship. Instead they should have made a scholarship for those who are poor regardless of race. We do have the Pell Grant (of which I am a receiver), but we also have scholarships for simply being African American. An ironic thing is that there was a white guy from South Africa who moved to the US. He signed up for the African American scholarship (because technically he is African American) and was denied it because he was white. Would it be racist if there was a whites only scholarship fund? Essentially they are giving free money to those of a certain race, while at the same time denying others that money because of their race and having less in other scholarships because the blacks only scholarship does suck up funding.
 
Even if minorities had nothing they still shouldn't have their own scholarship. Instead they should have made a scholarship for those who are poor regardless of race.

Whites already had a multitude of scholarships not available to minority's. So it would have been pointless. The United Negro college fund for instance was the only one available to blacks at the time, period. So no, your reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Not taking into account the timeline and the Jim Crow era is just one of them.

We do have the Pell Grant (of which I am a receiver), but we also have scholarships for simply being African American. An ironic thing is that there was a white guy from South Africa who moved to the US. He signed up for the African American scholarship (because technically he is African American) and was denied it because he was white. Would it be racist if there was a whites only scholarship fund?

You have to go back a little farther than 1980 to 1990 to understand they why of it. I am not trying to sound condescending, but you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

If it is a private scholarship it would not be a problem.

Essentially they are giving free money to those of a certain race, while at the same time denying others that money because of their race and having less in other scholarships because the blacks only scholarship does suck up funding.

As a private institution they are well within their rights.

If it is a government institution, well that is a horse of a different color and it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the issue of A.A. I simply cannot wrap my head around the "why" have an issue with it. Lots of people in this thread have made good points and ones I have heard before but it does not change the reality that AA is needed.

Why can't people understand it is needed? I think think this is the main reason WHY it is still needed is because people do not understand we still have racism.

Racism and sexism are needed? Since when?
 
Even if minorities had nothing they still shouldn't have their own scholarship. Instead they should have made a scholarship for those who are poor regardless of race. We do have the Pell Grant (of which I am a receiver), but we also have scholarships for simply being African American. An ironic thing is that there was a white guy from South Africa who moved to the US. He signed up for the African American scholarship (because technically he is African American) and was denied it because he was white. Would it be racist if there was a whites only scholarship fund? Essentially they are giving free money to those of a certain race, while at the same time denying others that money because of their race and having less in other scholarships because the blacks only scholarship does suck up funding.

If it's a public scholarship, that's wrong. I believe though that it's a private scholarship so they can do whatever they want. If I want to set up a scholarship for white, female, Wiccan triathletes it's my money and my choice.
 
If it's a public scholarship, that's wrong. I believe though that it's a private scholarship so they can do whatever they want. If I want to set up a scholarship for white, female, Wiccan triathletes it's my money and my choice.

Correct! :thumbs:
 
Racism and sexism are needed? Since when?

no they are not, which is why AA was established to level the playing field for all races and genders
glad you finally agree
 
no they are not, which is why AA was established to level the playing field for all races and genders
glad you finally agree

AA IS racism and sexism. So it's kind of contradictory to say that racism and sexism aren't needed but yet racism and sexism are needed.

You can't fight racism/sexism WITH racism and sexism.

And once more, we don't need the training wheels or step stools. We are quite capable of succeeding on our own merit and skills, and do not, by any means, require the government to force people to hire us.

Thanks but no thanks for the condensation and pity. We don't need it.
 
I tend to agree. If AA programmes were reorganised to focus on economic deprivation, rather than social group membership, many of the gripes and anomalies would disappear. Of course, there would still be people who believe that society functions just fine without any intervention, but Rivrrat apart I think that widespread public support for such a move would result.

But as I pointed out people would just bitch and gripe about helping poor people. They already do in reguards to a lot of social programs and welfare. People would just resent and hate poor people even more than they already do:(
 
Racism and sexism are needed? Since when?

I do not consider it racism and sexism. You do. The reason we need it is because people who are doing the hiring think like some of you in this thread. This thread is a major prime example of the WHY we need AA. :(
 
no they are not, which is why AA was established to level the playing field for all races and genders
glad you finally agree

Well said! I find this thread sad but it is nice to see others here that do understand this whole thing:)
 
But as I pointed out people would just bitch and gripe about helping poor people.

No. People would bitch and gripe about people unqualified to do the job. :roll:

They already do in reguards to a lot of social programs and welfare. People would just resent and hate poor people even more than they already do:(

No one resents or hates people simply based on them being poor. This is a really lame argument and completely and utterly false.

Please feel free to point out who has said this?
 
I do not consider it racism and sexism. You do. The reason we need it is because people who are doing the hiring think like some of you in this thread. This thread is a major prime example of the WHY we need AA. :(

Wow thats a hell of an argument.

This thread is exactly why we no longer need it.
 
I do not consider it racism and sexism. You do. The reason we need it is because people who are doing the hiring think like some of you in this thread.

You may not consider it such, but it is. Hiring someone based on their race or gender is racism/sexism. I'd love to see the logical explanation of how it's NOT.

This thread is a major prime example of the WHY we need AA. :(
What precisely are examples in this thread of why we need AA? Minorities in this thread explaining how condescending and insulting it is? People in this thread with the knowledge that minorities are quite capable of handling their lives without the government requiring people to hire them?

Who is it here that thinks minorities aren't good enough on their own and that they need government help to "even the playing field"? It's surely not those of us against AA. Those of us against AA think minorities have what it takes to stand on their own two feet. What I think is sad is that you, and others in this thread, do not think that they have what it takes.
 
Last edited:
What I'd prefer to see in place of AA, Welfare and a whole lot of other crap, is a program designed to help someone who doesn't have marketable job skills. Get them retrained to do another job, one that is in demand, and back in the workforce being productive. That's a hand UP instead of a handOUT.

THAT kind of social safety net is one I could live with.

Possibly there was a need for AA back forty years ago... I believe that need has evaporated with changes in our society.
 
What I'd prefer to see in place of AA, Welfare and a whole lot of other crap, is a program designed to help someone who doesn't have marketable job skills. Get them retrained to do another job, one that is in demand, and back in the workforce being productive. That's a hand UP instead of a handOUT.

THAT kind of social safety net is one I could live with.

Possibly there was a need for AA back forty years ago... I believe that need has evaporated with changes in our society.

I agree that AA was once needed but never in the way it was practiced. Telling second generation American Jewish boys they can't get into Harvard or Michigan Law with 4-0 averages because some black loafer with a 3.0 needed that slot more because his great great great great great grandparent was sold into slavery by his great great great great great great second cousin and because the Jewish Guy's ancestors were in poland when that stuff was going on (but hey he is white so he must have been Robert E Lee's direct descendent) is complete and utter BS and racist.
 
I agree that AA was once needed but never in the way it was practiced. Telling second generation American Jewish boys they can't get into Harvard or Michigan Law with 4-0 averages because some black loafer with a 3.0 needed that slot more because his great great great great great grandparent was sold into slavery by his great great great great great great second cousin and because the Jewish Guy's ancestors were in poland when that stuff was going on (but hey he is white so he must have been Robert E Lee's direct descendent) is complete and utter BS and racist.

Some black loafer with a 3.0? I held a 3.8 and I worked my ass off.

You are really close to the edge with that off color comment.
 
Please, you know it happens.

I want everyone to go on College Confidential, or a similar site, and see what the posted SAT/ACT/GPAs are. Then, see the ethnicity.

There's cases of Hispanics and Blacks getting into competitive schools with SATs/ACTs substantially lower than white counterparts; for little or no reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom