2
   

To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the question

 
 
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 09:30 am
Edit: Moderator: Moved from Spirituality to Philosophy

I understand the value of diversity in our lives but what are your thoughts of forcing our American society to diversify? I for one am against forcing universities and workplaces to choose based on race rather then talent. your thoughts.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 6,538 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 10:21 am
I agree. As of this writing 100% of people agree with you and me Club. But, I'm the only one who's voted so far...
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 10:30 am
I think we all want equal opportunity for all in the US. The disagreement comes in how is the best way to do this.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 10:32 am
I agree with "equal opportunity" in terms of the strict definition of the word. However, I strongly disagree with affirmative action. I also disagree with the assumption that "diversity" means three majority-minority groups who unite based on general skin color.

The entire diversity trend is politics. It has nothing to do with equality or diversity. Diveristy includes all people on this earth and isn't color-specific (and biological diversity includes all species, for that matter.) That means that a native North Korean, someone with Irish descent, a black man living in England, a Latvian, a pacific-south islander, and a light -skinned little kid living in the Arizona desert are all equally "diverse."

The assumption is that 3 of what are currently considered ethinic groups are disprivlaged more than everyone else. The way to truly have equality is not to consider race at all in hiring, or standardized test scores. Meritt should be meritt alone. If you want to give benefits based on disadvantage, they should be given based on income and life experience.

The reason using the three blocks of "African-American" (I consider that to be a false term stemming from pan-Africanism. It makes the false assumption that everyone with very dark skin has African heritage, and also makes it sound like they are not belonging to the county in which they live.) "Hispanic" (does not include the Spanish, so I consider this an odd quadrant.) and Native American is because they make up large voting blocks and have enough political influence to influence voting patterns.

This whole issue is a good example of how politicians screw up social welfare. They are interested in politics and getting re-elected above what would actually be good for the country and its citizens.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 11:20 am
Re: To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the quest
clubernj wrote:
I understand the value of diversity in our lives but what are your thoughts of forcing our American society to diversify? I for one am against forcing universities and workplaces to choose based on race rather then talent. your thoughts.

What do you mean when you say that universities and employers are forced "to choose based on race rather than talent?" If a university, for instance, has two applicants, one black and one white and both equally qualified, would you permit the university to make race the "tie-breaker" between these two?
0 Replies
 
theollady
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 11:21 am
Diversity is a term that means many things, clubernj.

Universities and workplaces are required by laws like Affirmative Action to have a representative group of minorities among their numbers.
I really do not believe that brings about the 'diversity' we both enjoy and/or endure in our life, in this nation.
Desegregation of schools brought about the most diversity I have seen in my lifetime (and a good long lifetime it has been).
Society has come to accept ANYONE or ANYSTYLE of individual, so long as their beliefs and actions do not steal, kill or destroy property of another individual of group.
As in, the 70's started the What about ME? generation, and on through the 80's it was the ME philosophy. The nineties had, "if it feels good, do it" and morals were trampled underfoot, generally.
In this Twenty-First century, folks are finally saying WHAT?? WHAT??
LOOK HERE A MINUTE, LET'S SEE WHAT WERE DOING HERE!!!
All I say is, when the government tries to MAKE it happen, it is usually wrong.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 11:26 am
I don't agree with Affirmative Action because it is reverse discrimination. I'd be pissed if I didn't get the job because I was white. However, no one has come up with a better way. Is there a better way? Don't know.

Unfortunatly, even with AA, there is still a glass ceiling for minorities. You might get that job but will you be promoted? Having your foot in the door doesn't mean much. Notice how there are very few female, asian or black company leaders.

Until people (i.e those hiring) get their heads out of their asses there isn't a good answer.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:58 pm
Re: To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the quest
joefromchicago wrote:
clubernj wrote:
I understand the value of diversity in our lives but what are your thoughts of forcing our American society to diversify? I for one am against forcing universities and workplaces to choose based on race rather then talent. your thoughts.

What do you mean when you say that universities and employers are forced "to choose based on race rather than talent?" If a university, for instance, has two applicants, one black and one white and both equally qualified, would you permit the university to make race the "tie-breaker" between these two?


Absolutely not. And "tie breaker" is not usually the case with affirmative action. Affirmative action is a bad estimate of diversity providing a bad attempt at equality in employment. Employment, knowledge testing, and school applications shouldn't ask you anything but questions pertinent to the job. If you didn't get hired based on a qualia not pertinent to the job, sue their asses off.

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:01 pm
Re: To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the quest
Portal Star wrote:
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.


By reverse discrimination I mean, discrimination against those who were initally the ones doing the discriminating.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:50 pm
Portal Star wrote:
Absolutely not.

Why not?

Portal Star wrote:
And "tie breaker" is not usually the case with affirmative action.

You're wrong. That's exactly what affirmative action is.

Nevertheless, even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that AA isn't applied fairly in general, why should that affect any one college admission or employment decision in particular? In other words, even if others misuse AA, why shouldn't a college or an employer be allowed to use race or minority status as a "tie-breaker?"

Portal Star wrote:
Affirmative action is a bad estimate of diversity providing a bad attempt at equality in employment.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Portal Star wrote:
Employment, knowledge testing, and school applications shouldn't ask you anything but questions pertinent to the job.

Really? So what types of questions are pertinent to ask a college applicant?

Portal Star wrote:
If you didn't get hired based on a qualia not pertinent to the job, sue their asses off.

Not hiring someone based on their qualia? That would be a neat trick.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 04:52 pm
Re: To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the quest
Kristie wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.


By reverse discrimination I mean, discrimination against those who were initally the ones doing the discriminating.


I have light skin and I didn't discriminate against anyone.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 05:12 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
Absolutely not.

Why not?

Portal Star wrote:
And "tie breaker" is not usually the case with affirmative action.

You're wrong. That's exactly what affirmative action is.

Nevertheless, even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that AA isn't applied fairly in general, why should that affect any one college admission or employment decision in particular? In other words, even if others misuse AA, why shouldn't a college or an employer be allowed to use race or minority status as a "tie-breaker?"

If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay. Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

Portal Star wrote:
Affirmative action is a bad estimate of diversity providing a bad attempt at equality in employment.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

Portal Star wrote:
Employment, knowledge testing, and school applications shouldn't ask you anything but questions pertinent to the job.

Really? So what types of questions are pertinent to ask a college applicant?

Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

Portal Star wrote:
If you didn't get hired based on a qualia not pertinent to the job, sue their asses off.

Not hiring someone based on their qualia? That would be a neat trick.

qua·li·a (-l-)
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

For example, if an applicant has the quality of having heritage from Mexico and possesses dark skin, and the applicant is not hired based on racial preference even though clearly qualified, that applicant has the right to sue the employer for discrimination.


Another reason that I dislike affirmative action is that it makes the false assumption that individuals in these groups need more help than other individuals - when they are fully capable and up to achieving without special laws and programs.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 05:32 pm
Portal Star wrote:
If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay.

Why should a well-written essay be given any points at all?

Portal Star wrote:
Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

No, there aren't. Racial quotas are illegal.

Portal Star wrote:
They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

No, you're wrong again. The supreme court has specifically ruled that racial quotas violate the fourteenth amendment.

Portal Star wrote:
Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

Once again, you're wrong. Affirmative action can apply to any underrepresented minority.

Portal Star wrote:
It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

If they were equally qualified, why would it be discriminatory to give the job to the black applicant?

Portal Star wrote:
Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

How do hobbies and clubs reflect on a college applicant's ability to do well in college? And what if the applicant's personal essay focuses on the applicant's struggles against racism?

Portal Star wrote:
qua·li·a (-l-)
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

qualia: The subjective qualities of conscious experience (plural of Latin quale).
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 06:47 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay.

Why should a well-written essay be given any points at all?

writing is a skill one needs in college. It also speaks of the writers' intelligence and personality.

Portal Star wrote:
Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

No, there aren't. Racial quotas are illegal.

...sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?

Portal Star wrote:
They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

No, you're wrong again. The supreme court has specifically ruled that racial quotas violate the fourteenth amendment.

Portal Star wrote:
Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

Once again, you're wrong. Affirmative action can apply to any underrepresented minority.

I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Portal Star wrote:
It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

If they were equally qualified, why would it be discriminatory to give the job to the black applicant?

if the tie-braker were based entirely on his being black, that would be racially discriminatory.

Portal Star wrote:
Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

How do hobbies and clubs reflect on a college applicant's ability to do well in college? And what if the applicant's personal essay focuses on the applicant's struggles against racism?

That's a fine application. I'm not saying they would have to tiptoe around the subject, but skin color shouldn't be something awarded points on the application process. As for hobbies and clubs, it's good to know what an applicant is investing their time in. For example, someone who was applying to law school could show they had joined a debate team.

Portal Star wrote:
qua·li·a (-l-)
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

qualia: The subjective qualities of conscious experience (plural of Latin quale).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 08:31 am
Portal Star wrote:
..sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?


Portal Star wrote:
I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rather than base your opinions on what you think the law might be, why not spend a little time researching what the law actually is? Here are some good places to start:

Civil Rights and Racial Preferences: A Legal History of Affirmative Action

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action and Diversity Project
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 08:33 am
Re: To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the quest
Portal Star wrote:
Kristie wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.


By reverse discrimination I mean, discrimination against those who were initally the ones doing the discriminating.


I have light skin and I didn't discriminate against anyone.


I didn't say you did. I was clarifying my earlier statement.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 10:06 am
Equal opportunity is silly. First of all, people aren't equal. If they were, than it would be a travasty that some got into universities while some didn't. Second of all, it doesn't have anything to do with opportunities - just results. If they want to give everyone an equal opportunity, we should start with an equal education and equal living conditions.
0 Replies
 
clubernj
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 12:45 pm
You guys all make great arguments, slavery was over 100 years ago, equal rights movement was about 40 years ago. Even if you beleive AA is the solution, how much longer should we keep it? for ever? Who determned when to stop it? and how?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 12:53 pm
affirmative Action has nothing to do with slavery or the past existence of slavery. It has everything to do with population diversity and the demand that employment opportunities reflect that diversity.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 01:05 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
..sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?


Portal Star wrote:
I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rather than base your opinions on what you think the law might be, why not spend a little time researching what the law actually is? Here are some good places to start:

Civil Rights and Racial Preferences: A Legal History of Affirmative Action

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action and Diversity Project


Joe, I appreciate the links.

After checking them out, I still don't see more than "majority minority" groups being represented. I also think the idea of enforcing equality on an unequal populus is a ridiculus idea. Especially because disadvantage is not linked to race as strongly as it is to income.

Did you know that the largest and poorest race-assiciated poverty group in the US are rural whites?

Please keep in mind that this forum -is- about opinion, and I have not throughouly researched the standing laws as I would for a formal debate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the question
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 09:22:33