Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

extra medium. I agree.

I agree with you 100% here, JL. Any child of professional parents already has a leg up, as far as I'm concerned. Our country has been very successful because of people like that professor you mentioned; how many like him had potential, but fell thru the cracks? I am all for AA if it is applied to poor people who have potential but no other means. I actually support a 'point' system if income and family situation is used instead of just a blanket race system.



Very true once again. Everyday I tell my children to be thankful that they, I and their mother were born on this side of the border. If my family was living in conditions like some do in Mexico, you couldn't keep me from doing anything I could to get here. While there are certainly many illegal immigrants here who are making and selling drugs and doing robberies and all that, they are a minority. Most of the people I run across who are here illegally from Mexico or any other country are here to make their lives better; who can dislike that?

On the other hand, I think it is important for the US to increase border security. I do think this is a matter of national defense. But at the same time, make the immigration process easier for those who want to come here for the right reasons....

Lone Wolf, I agree again. One point I'd like to emphasize, however: the "illegals" come here to work, not to rob. Of course, there are exceptions, even among legals of all ethnic groups. Even CEOs of Enron.

This is very interesting, JL. We do not seem to be very far apart in our thoughts as to AA and immigration issues, but there are politicians who probably have our same beliefs who are trading knuckles and snot over these same issues.

Not to go off on a huge tangent here, but why do you think this is such a divisive issue in America today? I for one blame our media. Any extremist can hold a press conference and get his opinion printed or broadcast. I believe both parties use these issues as wedge issues, trying to solidify their base.

If only the world's problems could be settled here on the boards....

Back to the original question: Affirmative action is quite unfair to some people and slightly unfair to a lot of people. Same goes for illegal aliens, dope pedlers, people who knowingly sell stolen goods, advertisements which claim or infer mediocre and worse products are outstanding....
Almost everyone is treated unfairly in some respects, so we do well if we hurtle the barriers and go for the gold.
Affirmative action was, perhaps, justified in 1970, but the majority has subsidized the minorities long enough, to more than pay for the very small part in which modern majorities have been unfair to modern minorities. If you feel inclined to do some personal affirmative action or set asides that will usually be your business, but I think it is wrong for (Government in our face) to burden us with complex, inconsistent rules that force affirmative action on colleges and business who would rather admit, retain, hire and promote on merit. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to exempt colleges and businesses units which gross less than one million dollars per year, from affirmative action, set asides and most all federal and state paperwork requirements. Neil

Every time I see an argument like this one I'm reminded of Justice Bradley's statement in the Civil Rights Cases:

When a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected.

Bradley apparently thought that the moment had arrived for blacks to cease being the "special favorites of the laws" -- in other words, blacks had benefitted from "special rights" for too long. The playing field had been levelled; it was time for the laws to stop treating them so well.

That was in 1883.

Joe, that's what I call a perfect response.

I think there is one thing I hate. And that is double standards. One thing I don't understand is how people can 'create' equal opportunities by taking those same opportunities away? If your father was a killer, and died in prison, you would be discriminated against, I'm sure. Imagine walking into school in a small town where everyone knows everyone. You are standing in line at the drinking fountain, waiting patiently. Your teacher feels bad for oen of your classmates, the nephew of the man your father killed. She let's him cut in front of you in line, over and over again. Do you deserve to be cut in front of? Of course not.

Another point, not ALL black people in America have ancestors who were enslaved. Some immigrated here after slavery was ended, some may have lived in Canada, it doesn't matter, either way, all blacks shouldn't be included in something they may not have even suffered. . .oh wait I'm sorry, they didn't even suffer it, generations past did. Why should they get a leg up from white peole who's forefathers weren't even slaveowners?

Trying to argue against this is just absurd. AA is a stupid way to appease black people who live on welfare and won't go out and get a real job, but why shoud they? The government pays for thier housing, food stamps, healthcare, the list goes on. Where is the motivation for blacks to get out the ghetto and get an education just like the white people have to?

What about reperations for people who can trace back roots to an ancestor who fought in the civil war, for the north? Shouldn't they get something?

Carbon, yes, not all blacks are descended from slaves. But all blacks are perceived as descended from slaves, and this perception is part of the basis (in addition to economic motivations) for chronic discrimination. Not all whites are descended from immigrants arriving on the Mayflower. But whites in general have benefitted from the perception that they are of the same "breed" as those of the Mayflower. Afflirmative action conpensation is not intended to reward people for having had slave ancestors; it is intended to compensate with regard to opportunity, to give them a "leg up" assistance in compenstation for chronic discrimination. AA should apply ONLY to educational opportunity, to methods of assisting individuals get out of "ghettos" and off welfare. It is not welfare itself, nor is it purely a form of reparation; it's a way to get able people into the mainstream, to develop their talents so that they can contribute to the national success.

I don't disagree that whatever pereceptions about blacks exist and make it harder for them to get into a college, but weighting the scores by race is not a way to fix that. The real opportunities that they don't get should be made available; they shouldn't be given a free acceptance into college because of it. That's like saying, well, you weren't allowed to study for your final, but I'm sure you would have passed so I'm going to give you an A on it anyway.

That's very true. Also, giving a leg up isn't any kind of motivation. If I knew I could get into a good university with sub-par scores, I wouldn't spend those extra hours studying if I was in anyways. Therefore, giving blacks a leg up can't very well help get them out of the ghettos if they can get into college while in the ghettos.

If all they needed to get out of ghettos was motivation, I think they would be out by now. Motivation is what it takes (in theory) to get into college, which is the domain of AA. Getting into a college doesn't neccessitate that your whole life changes though.

The trouble with affirmative action programs is that they are not always affirmative enough. I have served on university affirmative action committees, and I can attest to the fact that the program and its equal opportunity--affirmative action officer are far more concerned to protect the university from being sued that he or she is to make sure that the school is beating the bushes for motivated and talented individuals who need extra assistance due to a history of unfair disadvantages.

So you're saying there should be more people helped out by affirmative action? Eventually if we give everyone who has had some disadvantage in their life a leg up, then the playing field would be evened, why not just get rid of AA to begin with?

I've always said that affirmative action should apply to class primarily. Ethnicity is relevant only to the extent that it is class related. Noone should think that wealthy minorities should receive a "leg up." Affirmative action pertains to two diminsions of social life: social justice and the need for talent to be realized and put to social ends. This applies, of course to women (who have been historically disadvantaged) as well as minorities and the poor. Imagine the amount of talent lost to the nation as a result of unjust and counter-productive discrimination.
Carbon, I would answer your rhetorical question if I understood it.

Imagine the amount of potential lost by letting a less qulaified black into a college, setting back the better individual, and them never getting the opportunity they deserve and have worked so hard for. They may have become the head of a major corporation and made a huge impact.

Carbon, do you really think that well-qualified majority group members are being deprived of an education because of AA? It may be that some marginally qualified whites have more difficulty slipping through and then blame their rejection on minorities. But "reverse discrimination" is an exaggeration designed to thwart the success of affirmative action. Where have the critics of reverse discrimination been all the years of racial and gender discrimination? In any case, I do agree with one aspect of your complaint. I have always argued that AA should not be a zero-sum situation. If we as a nation want to permit qualified historically disadvantaged minorities and women to receive better and more education we should increase the size of the pie by putting more money into education rather than turning majority and minority group members into competing interest groups. The latter serves no national interest. It does quite the reverse.

Growing up a minority is probably significantly different than growing up poor, but the main barrier to colleges is monetary, which is where scholarships come in.... of course, minority kids don't always get access to the best possible high schools and resources when they grow up, either, which probably contributes significantly to their not getting into college. Also, what a person's parents encourage their kids to do has a LOT to do with what they "choose". True, minorities who aren't poor or lower class probably have it better, and I would be fine with a class-based AA. But people who go to college and get good grades in high school who went to the best high school and had parents who shoved them through it and into college whether they wanted to go or not are not neccessarily "better" people than the oines who weren't encouraged. In fact, the ones who weren't encouraged and did a half-decent job anyway probably make better citizens than the people who were expected to get straight As or be disowned. Speaking as one such person, of course.

The issue is not letting "better" people get into college, the issue is that college is by and large a luxury for those who work for it. If you were born into a situation where other possibilities didn't exist (besides college) you still worked for that. If you didn't grow up there, than you didn't work for it, so you didn't get in - but in a twisted way, neither of those people was given a choice, really. If ALL the options were open to EVERYONE from the beginning, than the people who really wanted to go to college would go, and the people who didn't would do something else. We wouldn't get poor, minority kids who really should be in college working at McDonalds, and we wouldn't get rich white straight-A ****-offs taking up space on a campus because they want to party and smoke weed.