Affirmative Action

[.dre.]

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

[gtamann123]

 

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption. And no one would have been complaining about discrimination against whites if that happened.

Edited May 7, 2013 by gtamann123

[.dre.]

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption.

How many Black business owners do you know to based this assumption on?

[gtamann123]

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption.

How many Black business owners do you know to based this assumption on?

If a black business owner would have not called the black applicant more often I guess that just means blacks are not even trusted by their own race. Meaning there is an even bigger issue here than just discrimination based on race.

[.dre.]

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption.

How many Black business owners do you know to based this assumption on?

If a black business owner would have not called the black applicant more often I guess that just means blacks are not even trusted by their own race. Meaning there is an even bigger issue here than just discrimination based on race.

Not trusted by their own race? What kind of dumb thinking is that? You have no proof that Black employers would hire Blacks more than Whites so now you're saying if they didn't they wouldn't be trustworthy? There is no allegiance to a race. It's called doing what's right. Hiring somebody because they have the degree and the resume that is right for the job not siding with one to go against the other. This kind of thinking is the reason why discrimination exits. We are one person. We don't belong to a color. We should all be given an equal and fair chance.

[Urban Legend]

Sooo who's idea was affirmative action and how do we stop it?

 

I'm so ready for this country to collapse.

[Mr.Mordecai]

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption. And no one would have been complaining about discrimination against whites if that happened.

Ya but the "freedome of association" is still somewhat racist if a John Smith is picked over Tyrone Williams.

[lil weasel]

Sooo who's idea was affirmative action and how do we stop it?

 

The "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961.

Which might have been another reason for him being shot.

It was developed and enforced for the first time by President Johnson.

Around 1973 the Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs, which had caused 'reverse' discrimination.

 

 

 

 

[RomansMoobs]

Being from a 99% white community (poor, mind you, not fancy, nowhere any of you would want to live) they face the same problem people in my city face. The educational system doesn't work for them, neither does the hiring process. Just because they're a different race doesn't mean a thing. And if an employer discriminates against the race, why the f*ck would you want to work for them in the first place!? So now you're forcing the employer to hire a race he doesn't like, instead of fixing the real problem? (The employer!)

 

The fact is, there are way too many stupid/ignorant people running businesses.

[thecommander]

@ Trip. That ex mayor is my urban politics professor at a certain university in that certain city.

 

My grandparents are from West Philadelphia, but moved to a bordering township (white flight), then they white flew(?) again once that neighborhood began to change. Nothing to do with black people, but crime started to rise and they're too old to live in fear in their own house.

 

Are you in favor or against gentrification? And I'm beginning to notice a lot of gentrification along Girard Ave.

 

On topic- when it's a job about public safety or when someone's life could be in danger, I believe the best man or woman for the job. Unqualified people in those jobs can lead to tragedy.

[Harley]

 

So a Black woman applied for jobs online as a Caucasian and as an African-American. Nobody called the African-American applicant, but they sure did for the Caucasian applicant. This study was done over and over again and concluded more of the same result. Same degree, same resume.

If you want to be angry at AA, first be angry that there is still discrimination in 2013. For the people who discriminate were the cause of AA in the first place. Hell, it's not even used that much as you can see.

I heard that same study as well. Except it was a black man who submitted the apps and changed nothing but the name. Doesn't change my opinion though. It's a bout freedom if association. I'm pretty sure a black business owner would have called the black applicant more often but that's just my assumption.

How many Black business owners do you know to based this assumption on?

If a black business owner would have not called the black applicant more often I guess that just means blacks are not even trusted by their own race. Meaning there is an even bigger issue here than just discrimination based on race.

Holy f*cking sh*t. Yeah there is a bigger issue here, your promotion of racial segregation.

 

 

Freedom of Association- without it America is not the land of the free but a bureaucratic Marxist state. There is also job performance, intelligence and criminal tendencies to consider.

 

Every time someone advocates "freedom of association" in here, it just sounds like "I'd rather not work with niggers". Your entire post is so ridiculously small minded and tragic I don't know whether to laugh or cry that people are still being raised with those views.

 

I don't really agree with affirmative action, but it's necessary when we have such xenophobic employers. In a perfect (or just intelligent) world, race would have no bearing on the hiring process.

 

 

Being from a 99% white community (poor, mind you, not fancy, nowhere any of you would want to live) they face the same problem people in my city face. The educational system doesn't work for them, neither does the hiring process. Just because they're a different race doesn't mean a thing. And if an employer discriminates against the race, why the f*ck would you want to work for them in the first place!? So now you're forcing the employer to hire a race he doesn't like, instead of fixing the real problem? (The employer!)

 

The fact is, there are way too many stupid/ignorant people running businesses.

Agreed. Unfortunately though we don't live in a financial climate where we can be so fastidious about where we work.

[BrownBear]

The level of hypocrisy here is great. For hundreds of years, until only a few decades ago, black people have been discriminated against, lacking job opportunities doesn't begin to describe the injustices inflicted upon them. Now, merely a few decades after we saw "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" hung in shop windows, they are given a slight "advantage" in the job market and people complain about "inequality", the irony and sheer stupidity of this claim is beyond a joke.

And to anyone who denies that institutional racism exists in 2013, is either extremely naive or extremely stupid.

Edited May 7, 2013 by brownbear

[gta 4 gamer]

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

[sivispacem]

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

Wait, what?

[gta 4 gamer]

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

Wait, what?

Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

 

 

[rudy]

 

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

Wait, what?

Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

Are you also implying that white people will get discriminated eventually?

 

If that's so, wouldn't it still count as AA?

Edited May 7, 2013 by rudy.

[Typhus]

I could accept Affirmative Action far more readily if its adherents were not so openly contemptuous of white people.

Throwing historical injustices in our face does not make you look tolerant or enlightened, it makes you look like a racist. The idea that in the 21st Century, a white person can be told that he is a benefactor of slavery is sickening. And the result? A program designed to genuinely help the disadvantaged and impoverished is bogged down in the accumulated bile of so many leftist radicals who use the whole thing as just another way of critiquing Western civilisation.

 

When you challenge the idea of Affirmative Action, you have the past thrown in your face, the blood of slaves slathered all over you. I have seen it time and time again and it never fails to disgust me.

By all means, talk about the racists who plague our society now, because they damn sure exist. But don't try to emotionally blackmail people into accepting something you cannot argue for with logic and reason.

Racism stems from a larger issue of male gender roles - insular, resistant to change, overly competitive. Racial prejudice is simply a manifestation these virtues.

Good luck changing them.

[gta 4 gamer]

 

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

Wait, what?

Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

Are you also implying that white people will get discriminated eventually?

 

If that's so, wouldn't it still count as AA?

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the interpretation of your post, but there is no discrimination if Asians, instead of whites, get the spots at these top schools. It's called merit and scholastic achievement.

[rudy]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the interpretation of your post, but there is no discrimination if Asians, instead of whites, get the spots at these top schools. It's called merit and scholastic achievement.

 

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage.

Care to elaborate the "disadvantage" part?

 

I don't see how whites would be "at a disadvantage" if there's no AA.

[Saggy]

Meanwhile half the thread forgets affirmative action doesn't apply to just black people...

 

And no, affirmative action isn't fair, but nobody is saying that it's there to be fair and make the world a happy hunky dory place. It's there because the world is unfair. As a minority, you have less of a chance of getting a job, the playing field is slated against you. That is why affirmative action hires are necessary, because if you have a company that's ran by a bunch of rich white guys, then those rich white guys will hire other rich white guys until there's a lineage of nothing but old white f*cks at the head of every company. Multiply that effect and soon you'll start seeing the entire corporate/working world full of people who have hired others because they're like them.

 

Affirmative action effects the disabled and women too, not just people of certain ethnicities, heritage or nationality.

[gta 4 gamer]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the interpretation of your post, but there is no discrimination if Asians, instead of whites, get the spots at these top schools. It's called merit and scholastic achievement.

 

If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage.

Care to elaborate the "disadvantage" part?

 

I don't see how whites would be "at a disadvantage" if there's no AA.

A white student who scores a 1800 on his SAT will be on par with an Asian who scores 2000 or 2100 on the SAT in university admissions due to AA.

 

If AA is removed, and no discrimination is shown in the admissions process, then whites will have a harder time gaining admission to top educational institutions.

 

I see white people (I'm white too!) complaining about AA and African Americans/minorities taking up their place, but many white people will be f*cked if AA is removed.

 

Little do white people know that AA does in fact have benefits for them.

[sivispacem]

Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

Would they? Got any evidence to support this hypothesis because it seems utterly absurd to me.

[gta 4 gamer]

Got any evidence? Here it is.

 

Click here.

 

If you're too lazy to read the whole thing: Read the last 7 paragraphs. Or, just read the 5th to the last paragraph if you're really short on time.

[rudy]

 

Got any evidence? Here it is.

 

Click here.

 

If you're too lazy to read the whole thing: Read the last 7 paragraphs. Or, just read the 5th to the last paragraph if you're really short on time.

It doesn't prove anything you've stated.

 

Besides it's just an article written by some xenophobic politician spectulating what will happen if AA's gonna be scraped.

Edited May 7, 2013 by rudy.

[gta 4 gamer]

 

Got any evidence? Here it is.

 

Click here.

 

If you're too lazy to read the whole thing: Read the last 7 paragraphs. Or, just read the 5th to the last paragraph if you're really short on time.

It doesn't prove anything you've stated.

 

Besides it's just an article written by some xenophobia politician spectulating what will happen if AA's gonna be scraped.

Yes, this article does prove what I said. You just have to interpret and analyze the information accordingly.

 

 

Commenting on similar efforts involving Asian applicants, Rod Bugarin, a former admissions officer at Wesleyan, Brown and Columbia, said: “The bar is different for every group. Anyone who works in the industry knows that.”

 

 

Asians and whites and other groups have different admission standards. This proves my point because it shows that some groups are held to different merit and scholastic standards than other groups. Also, according to the article, Asians score 60+ points more on the SAT than whites. If analyzed properly (something you haven't done), then AA will screw whites because Asians are smarter in their studies (obviously, not all the time) and there will be no different groups to categorize students.

 

 

EDIT: The student with the higher academic achievements will get accepted if discrimination was not an issue.

Edited May 7, 2013 by gta 4 gamer

[sivispacem]

 

Got any evidence? Here it is.

There's absolutely no evidence in that editorial which even demonstrates your argument, much less proves it. You've interpreted the article that way, yes, but it doesn't actually say that. The only bit of the entire thing which directly refers to the point your making, as far as I can discern, is this-

 

 

On the one hand, some ambitious and disciplined students from India, South Korea and China see themselves as victims of race-conscious admissions, their numbers kept artificially low to keep a more demographically balanced campus.

Which doesn't prove anything- it's just the opinions of a group of people.

 

Nothing in that editorial even makes the claim that Asian would be over-represented if affirmative action was removed, much less the utterly idiotic notion that they'd be the sole participants in the higher education system if AA ceasted to exist. I've got absolutely no idea where you got that idea from but it certainly isn't from the apparent source you've provided. In future, I strongly suggest that when you wish to argue a point and substantiate it with evidence, you use something which even vaguely relates to the point you are making; moreover, without any kind of hard statistical information present even if the article you posted did relate to your argument, it wouldn't really constitute evidence. Just someone's opinion.

 

And then you go and finish it off by making the ludicrous claim that Asian are "smarter" as an entire ethnic group. That's completely without basis in fact. Asians in the US tend to do disproportionately well in their studies primarily because the sub-group with a particular interest in higher education in the US are typically high-income, upper-middle-class families who are disproportionately represented at higher education institutions anyway. It's got little, if anything, to do with their ethnic status.

Edited May 7, 2013 by sivispacem

[gta 4 gamer]

 

Got any evidence? Here it is.

There's absolutely no evidence in that editorial which even demonstrates your argument, much less proves it. You've interpreted the article that way, yes, but it doesn't actually say that. The only bit of the entire thing which directly refers to the point your making, as far as I can discern, is this-

 

 

On the one hand, some ambitious and disciplined students from India, South Korea and China see themselves as victims of race-conscious admissions, their numbers kept artificially low to keep a more demographically balanced campus.

Which doesn't prove anything- it's just the opinions of a group of people.

 

Nothing in that editorial even makes the claim that Asian would be over-represented if affirmative action was removed, much less the utterly idiotic notion that they'd be the sole participants in the higher education system if AA ceasted to exist. I've got absolutely no idea where you got that idea from but it certainly isn't from the apparent source you've provided. In future, I strongly suggest that when you wish to argue a point and substantiate it with evidence, you use something which even vaguely relates to the point you are making; moreover, without any kind of hard statistical information present even if the article you posted did relate to your argument, it wouldn't really constitute evidence. Just someone's opinion.

 

And then you go and finish it off by making the ludicrous claim that Asian are "smarter" as an entire ethnic group. That's completely without basis in fact. Asians in the US tend to do disproportionately well in their studies primarily because the sub-group with a particular interest in higher education in the US are typically high-income, upper-middle-class families who are disproportionately represented at higher education institutions anyway. It's got little, if anything, to do with their ethnic status.

You went on to say that it was "ludicrous" that I stated Asians are smarter as an entire ethnic group. I did not say that. Please take 3 seconds to reread the following:

 

 

because Asians are smarter in their studies (obviously, not all the time)

 

Notice it now or not?

 

I linked that article above because it was accurate with its claims (especially the sections I told you to read). If you can't analyze an article, then I worry for you. But if this article isn't enough, please continue reading this post.

 

Educational institutions that removed AA do have many more Asians than whites ("many" is an amount that varies from person to person, mind you). Just look at the public universities in the highly regarded University of California system for evidence. At the undergraduate level (when AA is most influential), the results are astonishing.

 

It is not important whether Asians come from upper/upper middle class families or not. What is important, however, is that Asians score better on standardized tests and in school according to college enrollment.

 

If you want facts about the impact of removing AA on Asian vs White college enrollment at the undergraduate level, just look at UCLA, UCSD, UCBerkeley, and UCD for examples. Then come back and discuss with me. In the event that you do not look up these statistics, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Edited May 7, 2013 by gta 4 gamer

[Chunkyman]

So if people shouldn't be allowed to freely associate because they might act racist, then by all means we should start banning books and prohibiting free expression if we want to maintain consistency.

[Typhus]

 

So if people shouldn't be allowed to freely associate because they might act racist, then by all means we should start banning books and prohibiting free expression if we want to maintain consistency.

Funnily enough, to actually stamp out racism, I have the distinct feeling that you'll eventually have to ban free expression to a certain degree. The process of changing people is glacially slow, getting past their hang-ups, re-educating them, it all takes a long, long time. Too long, for my tastes.

 

To speed up the process would require a level of power democratic governments simply do not have and a level of compliance no citizen in a democracy would permit without violent insurrection.

[Clem Fandango]

 

So if people shouldn't be allowed to freely associate because they might act racist, then by all means we should start banning books and prohibiting free expression if we want to maintain consistency.

I like how you seem to genuinely believe that we should live in a hellish society with no equality of opportunity and where all the power belongs to white blue bloods, because any steps to prevent that are inherently unethical.

 

People have a right to freedom from discrimination. People do not have a right to "freedom of association."

 

You also need to understand the employer-employee dynamic isn't one of someone trading their time for money like pokemon cards. The employer is in a position of power, which was afforded to him through societal privilege, and that he maintains because of society's help (unless a business exists on an island somewhere with its own police force and army, it relies on public infrastructure). This idea that a business exists in hammer space somewhere and therefore any attempt to regulate them is a violent attack on everyone's freedom is so warped and far removed from reality that I can't believe people actually espouse it.

 

But hey, I'm sure if this Libertarian society did exist, all the hordes of unemployed and persecuted minorities would be happy they live in a society with freedom of association! After all, what better cure for the poverty blues than knowing your society adheres to an arbitrary and nonsensical moral standard!