Time To Scrap Affirmative Action?

But it is interesting to note that every name you posted, were either born or moved out of the south. Wonder why that was? You have any idea?

 

Are you saying that Affirmative Action is only applicable in the South?

Edit:
Yo Pennywhistle ... It would be kind of hard for them to move out of the North if they didn't live there to start with.

 

I don't recall saying that at all. But it is very interesting the trend of black people at that time having to move out of the south to become successful, almost as if there was something keeping them from being successful....wonder what that was?

 

AA is racism, plain and simple. I could stomach affirmative action if only private institutions did it, and racism favoring the privileged group would also be allowed in principle. But no government sponsored money or positions should be allocated based on race. Affirmative action should have stayed in the same form as originally envisioned by Executive Order 10925, that is to enforce that people are treated "without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". Not to reversibly discriminate, as it was changed in later years.

 

Of course you did Pennywhistle ... You said they only achieved what they did after they moved to the North.
That implies that Affirmative Action wasn't necessary in the North.

A bigot like you can get confused in a heartbeat.

 

You have a reading comprehension problem. I suggest some remedial reading courses to go along with your "history courses".

 

Considering your distorted take on things Pennywhistle ... and the fact all you can do is abort any attempt to justify your comments otherwise ... doesn't encourage me to investigate any of your recommended reading.
The fact you cannot even interpret the implications of what you said really doesn't speak to my comprehension skills.

 

In your mind it is distorted because you do not agree with it. I am sorry if the facts I present to you causes so much distress you have to resort to name calling, but don't worry, I have a thick skin and will not report it. It is a good indication of nothing to add on the matter, just like in the other thread.

 

Distressed ? ... Hell, I am amused ... and feel free to report whatever you think is a violation of protocol.
Otherwise, attempts to engage in personal attacks, and stray even further away from the topic of thread, probably won't bode well for your endeavors ... Pennywhistle.

 

pot, meet kettle.

feel like getting back on topic now?

 

I agree that we should focus on the US case of Affirmative Action as that is situation applicable to us and isn't reflected elsewhere in the world. I did find some serious flaws in the story related to Affirmative Action related to the United States.

The story wrongfully claims that Affirmative Action was created to "to atone for past injustices and ameliorate their legacy" but that was not the case in the United States. In the United States Affirmative Action was initially established to mitigate the effects of discrimination predominately related to denial of equality of opportunity in employment but also addressed denial of equality of opportunity in education.

Affirmative Action was addressing a violation to the Constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law which was being violated in education and employment. Affirmative Action was mitigating the violations of the Rights of Persons to be treated equally in the United States based upon race, predominately as it affected African-Americans, and gender, as it affected women. These violations of the Rights of the Person were not caused by government but instead caused by the People of the United States but they were still a violation of the inalienable Rights of the Person and the government intervened to mitigate the effects of this violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

From a pragamtic perspective the government has little influence related to racial or gender prejudice held by the People that results discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity. The government cannot "control" our thoughts nor would we want a government that could play "mind control" with us but it can mitigate the effects of our thoughts that affect our actions which violate the inalienable Rights of the Person and that is what Affirmative Action was created to address. Our government cannot eliminate racial or gender prejudice held by individuals that ultimately violate the Rights of the Person but it can mitigate the effects of that violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

The opinion expressed in the story says nothing about changes in the racial or gender prejudice that Affirmative Actions was created to mitigate. It does state that we can't attribute any reduction in discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity to Affirmative Action but that's not surprising for two reasons.

First of all that was never a goal of Affirmative Action as it does nothing to reduce the racial and gender prejudice held by individuals that is the "cause" behind the "effect" of discrimination and denial of opportunity. As noted the government is powerless to change the bigoted prejudicial beliefs of the American People that results in discrimination in employment and education and that violates their inalienable Right of Equality in America. Affirmative Action merely mitigates the violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person but is powerless to stop that violation.

It's up to us, the American People, to reduce and hopefully someday eliminate invidious bigoted racial and gender prejudice and not the US government. Our government isn't failing related to the violation of the inalienable Rights of the Person because of invidious bigoted gender and racial prejudice, we're failing to reduce and eliminate it and many seem to ignore that fact.

Next is the fact that we haven't had a significant reduction in racial and gender discrimination in the United States so we don't even have a case where any factor can be cited as reducing it. In fact a study in 2012 revealed that racial prejudice that lead to discrimination and violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person subjected to this discrimination is actually increasing in the United States.

The opinion in the story provides no arguments related to ending Affirmative Action because the very reason it was created (i.e. to mitigate the effects of racial and gender discrimination that results in the violation of the inalienable Rights of the Person) has basically remained unchanged. It does note some areas where Affirmative Action might be improved but provides no arguments for ending it because the "cause" of the problem remains unaddressed and only we, the People of the United States, can end the cause behind the violations of the Rights of the Person that Affirmative Action attempts to mitigate.

If we want to end Affirmative Action, and I believe that All Americans would like to see it go away, then we need to address the individual prejudice that results in the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person that Affirmative Action attempts to mitigate. That will never be something that our government can do and we can't expect it to. It is our responsibility as Americans to end our own racial and gender prejudice and we're not stepping up to the plate to end it. In fact its getting worse in some cases and not better.

 

Everyone was on topic until you came over shooting your mouth off, and resorted to crawfishing all over the place ... abandoning anything of substance.
If you expect me to let it slide ... Pennywhistle meet Yellow.

I am rather amused that people like you expect that your ideas and opinions are simply carte blanche ... and that you don't have to justify any of the habitual garbage you proclaim.

Now ... If you have anything to say about whether or not Affirmative Action should be scrapped or remain as it is (an opinion that you have yet to acknowledge this thread) ... Please Proceed.
I am sure that we all eager to hear your views on the matter.

 

Hahaha, touched a nerve again?

If you can't connect the dots to how affirmative action is related to racism (predominately in the south) during a time where it was the status quo, then you are beyond hope. Judging by your incoherent ad homs, I can understand how you don't grasp that concept.

It's pretty funny you "liked" Shiva's post, when it flies in the face of everything you've posted.

 

"These violations of the Rights of the Person were not caused by government..."

Taxcutter says:
Wrong! Jim Crow was nothing if not government-sanctioned racism applied with the coercive force that government can muster. When Kennedy started Affirmative Action, there was a great deal of Jim Crow still in operation in various levels of government.

But that was sixty years ago. Jim Crow has long been rooted out of all levels of government. Has been so for at least two generations. Maybe Affirmative Action ("reverse Jim Crow") had a use in the 1960s, but that time has long past and the time has come for color, gender, age, etc - blind government.

 

The US goverment was able to end discrimination under the law (i.e. the Jim Crow laws) but that did not stop the discrimination by individual prejudice that results in denial of equality of opportunity that violates the Rights of the Person. Let me provide an example.

In 2003, almost 40 years after a scientific study was done by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute related to hiring practices.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/

So all things were equal between two comparable groups (those with and those without criminal records) and based upon the call-back rate which is highly indicative of where a person would be hired the "white applicants" where over 2.4 times more likely to be hired than the "black applicants" for those without a criminal record and for those applicants that reported a criminal record on their applications the "white applicants" were 3.4 times more likely than the "black applicants" to hired. As the study noted, rather shockingly, is that while a criminal record cuts the probability of being hired dramatically a "white applicant" with a criminal record was still more likely to be hired than a "black applicant" without a criminal recored when all other factors were identical.

Other studies have confirmed this discrimination against African-Americans and have also confirmed that even if hired the African-American will be paid less and promoted less than their white counterparts in the American work force. It's now almost 50 years since discrimination based upon race became "illegal" in the United States under the law but that discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity has not fundamentally diminished in the private employment sector and it is being caused by ignorant bigoted racial prejudice by individuals that is on the rise and not declining in the United States.

That denial of equality of opportunity violates the fundamental Right of Equality of the Person and that is what Affirmative Action, to a very small degree, attempts to mitigate. Want to end Affirmative Action? End the ignorant and bigotied racial and gender prejudice of individuals that results on women only earning 78% of what a man earns for the same job and where a black person only earns 60% of what a white person earns for the same job.

It is somewhat ironic that those that call for an end to Affirmative Action while the documented discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity continues are really the "poster children" for why Affirmative Action is required because their arguments are founded on ignorant bigoted prejudice.

End discrimination that is based upon ignorant bigoted prejudice of over one-half of Americans and we can end Affirmative Action that is a minimal attempt to mitigate the effects of that discrimination. The government cannot end individual ignorant bigoted prejudice and that is our responsibility to address as Americans and not the government's. Stop complaining that our government isn't fixing the problem the we're individually responsible for.

 

So your solution is to replace de facto discrimination with de jure discrimination? In short a revival of Jim Crow but with a different target color?

The new "Jim Crow" retains the government coercive power that the old Jim Crow had, thus it is far worse than the symptom it purports to remedy.

Two wrongs equal a right?


"The government cannot end individual ignorant bigoted prejudice..."

Taxcutter says:
No, it cannot. Hence the reason to end Affirmative Action. Society must change itself.

 

It's not a wrong because it is correcting a wrong.

Society must change itself. Until then we need AA.

 

Jim Crow - government de jure discrimination - is a wrong regardless of the target color.

Society will change when it is good and ready to do so. Government needs to butt out.

 

While there are anecdotal stories statistically Affirmative Action does not create reverse discrimination. Remember that, on the average, only about 125,000 women and racial minorities have benefited yearly from Affirmative Action. While this related to both education and employment for women and minorities if it was all related exclusively to employment it would only reflect 0.08% of the workforce and it doesn't prevent these same individuals from being discriminated against in their future employment by lower wage increases and a lower employment promotion rates. Just because one person out of tens of fhousands might get a job based upon Affrimative Action doesn't mean that they won't be subjected to employment (e.g. wage) discrimination in the future and statistics reflect they will be.

By analogy Affirmative Action is like bailing out a sinking boat with a coffee cup. It helps but the help is minimal and as long as the hole in the boat isn't fixed the boat will still sink. Only the American People can fix the hole in the boat.

 

The coercive power of government is what made Jim Crow objectionable over and above common garden-variety racism.

That coercive power is what makes Affirmative Action objectionable over and above garden variety racism

Affirmative Action is exactly the same thing as Jim Crow - just different targets.

Jim Crow was wrong. Affirmative Action is wrong. Take away the coercive power of government and the wrong goes away.

 

What great things from the world of science, medical technology and so on have come out of Belize?

What is Belize doing to contribute? What government policies have made Belize anything more than a 3rd world socialist backwater?

 

It sounds like you know nothing of Jim Crow if you think it was anything like affirmative action.

When did affirmative action prevent people from getting married? When did aa make someone use a different bathroom or water fountain?

You do realize affirmative action helps white women also, right? Why do you hate white women?

 

I'm a far leftist/socialist... and the most vilolent, ugly opponent of affirmative action you will find, I oppose it because it is legalized, codified discrimination. KILL IT!!!!

 

Why do you hate white men? There are plenty of white men, who get only one life to live and sometimes lose out on opportunity they deserve because of AA. Once in Baltimore there was a firefighter test given, the premise was the 30 highest scorers where to be hired. The 30 highest where all white men, SO ALL 30 DESERVED THE POSITION, unless you believe in changing the rules after the game is over because your team didn't win. Here are 30 VICTIMS of AA, at the very least they should have gotten the jobs they EARNED AND DESERVED based on the RULES AT THAT MOMENT, and then later rigged the next hiring process to get some of the inferior, lower scorers in, but no, they denied these INNOCENT MEN opportunites they had earned and deserved.

 

Source?