Affirmitive action

[TINNY]

From wiki:

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or positive discrimination (British English), is a policy or a program promoting the representation in various systems of people of a group who have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society.

 

I'm not sure to what extent has affirmitive action been implemented in the US to leverage the socio-economic parity. If true, by what means - race, gender, or socio-economic status? What would be the ideal solution in creating an opportunity-based egalitarian society?

 

Anyone care to edify this issue?

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not sure to what extent has affirmitive action been implemented in the US to leverage the socio-economic parity. If true, by what means - race, gender, or socio-economic status? What would be the ideal solution in creating an opportunity-based egalitarian society?

 

Anyone care to edify this issue?

Hey there Tinny. It's not all too prevelant in the workplace anymore (unless you work for the government), but I believe it to be relatively common in universities and colleges. Their governmental funding can be effected depending on their diversity levels, so they have a vested interest.

 

 

In theory, affirmative action says that if you have two candidates who are equal in all of the measures you consider to be important and relevant, then the minority will be chosen.

 

 

My thought is... discrimination is discrimination. :dog: Doesn't matter who's doing it to whom. It's not reverse discrimination or positive discrimination... just discrimination.

 

 

Anyway... I mean, seriously, how often are two candidates EXACTLY equal? Gimme a break. :(

 

 

Cheers. :)

[jkellmd]

What happened to meritocracy? Talent is not distributed equally amongst humanity. Systems can be implemented to allow equal access to education and employment, given reasonably equal qualifications. Constant redistribution of wealth withing a welfare state adds to societal malaise and apathy. Any individual with skills to contribute should be allowed to do so, and to rise to their own level. Simply raising the penalty for discrimination would improve things greatly, although funding for education and training has to be available.

[TINNY]

Anyway... I mean, seriously, how often are two candidates EXACTLY equal? Gimme a break.

 

I think you missed a fundamental point to the issue, which is to uplift the socio-economic status of certain groups who have historically been at a disadvantage.

 

A merit-based system would continually oppress those who are at a disadvantage.

 

In terms of education, lets say two students have shown identical academic performance, but one is the son of Bill Gates, while the other is a daughter of housemaid, who do think deserves to be given a scholarship?

 

Of course, I'd say that a race-based affirmitive action might not be fair to a working-class majority group, but a socio-economic-based policy is more complicated to enforce.

[C1ay]

A merit-based system would continually oppress those who are at a disadvantage.

So. Is that a reason that the meritorious should be discriminated against?

 

It's not OK to discriminate against anyone and that's exactly what affirmative action is. Just because some socioeconomic group of the past was discriminated against does not make it OK to punish some other, current socioeconomic group for the actions of those that discriminated in the past. In short, 2 "wrongs" DO NOT make a "right".

[TINNY]

Talent is not distributed equally amongst humanity... Constant redistribution of wealth withing a welfare state adds to societal malaise and apathy... Any individual with skills to contribute should be allowed to do so, and to rise to their own level... funding for education and training has to be available.

I agree with you here. hmm... I don't think there is actually any difference between meritocracy and affirmitive action in the sense that both are essentially trying to select those most deserving of reward/opportunity. However, meritocracy is usually stereotyped as a selection based on paper, while affirmitive action goes further and factors in the socio-economic background as part of the criteria in judging a person's "merit".

 

You raised a good point in that affirmative action will result in a waste of talent.

 

Regarding your comment on welfare state, I think it depends on the kind of welfare that is being employed.

[TINNY]

C1ay, I don't think it is a punishment for the majority. It is still based on merit, but because one group has an advantage in terms of financial support, people in this group should do better in, say, academic exams. therefore, a person who comes from a poor family has more merit than a person who is well-off but has the same level of achievement on paper. this is why I say that affirmative action is still merit-based.

 

The hostility that people have shown here toward affirmative action makes me feel I am missing something. And I think perhaps affirmative action in Malaysia is viewed and applied in a different context than that in America.

[C1ay]

Affirmative action is discrimination and taking a seat at a job or a school away from someone that has earned it only to give it to someone else based on their class or hardship is wrong and it is a punishment for something that individual is not personally responsible for. What you advocate is that it should be OK for some unqualified minority individual to have my job instead of me just because they didn't have the same opportunities I had. That they had fewer opportunities than I is not my fault and it should not entitle them to the job I have earned or the job anyone else has earned.

[CraigD]

I’m sure it’s little consolation to someone who strongly suspect, or even knows, that their hiring or admission to a much-desired job or program was set aside because a measurably less qualified person was admitted under affirmative action, but affirmative action is not, IMO, without merit.

 

By artificially increasing the number of minority employees and students, affirmative action has a gradual influence on common perception, combating widespread and scientifically unsupported beliefs that these racial minorities are inherently or genetically less capable of certain jobs or academic disciplines. This is a slow effect, and one that some argue would occur, possibly in a better way, without affirmative action. Such objections are, however, as speculative as the belief that this social transformation would never occur without affirmative action. Like many social engineering efforts, affirmative action is based on an informed guess that its overall social impact is beneficial.

 

I find it remarkable that many people who express outrage that less qualified people who are members of racial minorities are given preference in hiring and admissions, seem less offended that the same employers and institutions admit less qualified people who are wealthy, or are recommended by influential people. I, for one, find classism, nepotism, and influence pedaling more offensive than racism, either typical or reverse.

[TheBigDog]

A person who owns a business should be able to hire any way he sees fit. He is hiring people to help him to run a profitable business. And he is risking the future of his enterprise to the capabilities of his employees.

 

When a person has been hired they need to enter into a binding contract that will outline the conditions that must be met to terminate their employment. They have committed their time and talent to their employer, and the employer is providing them with compensation for that time and talent. If the employer wants to fire them, they must do it within the scope fo the contract. If the employee wants to remain employed they must also live up to the terms of the contract.

 

The government should have virtually no say as to the terms that can be listed in that employment contract. Do I want to hire only albino midgets with speach impediments? Nothing should stop me from doing that. Do I want to hire inner city youths who are not getting any other opportunity? Nothing should stop me from doing that. Do I want to hire white college educated men who have the same last name as me? Nothing should stop me from doing that.

 

Economics drive who I am hiring, and what I can pay. The guy who went to college has expectations of making more money because of his education that he would otherwise. So it costs me more to hire a college educated person than otherwise. That college education hopefully has created a more rounded person, who will bring a greater skill set to my business that someone without a college education (this is not always the case, but is a rule of thumb). At first glance I assume the inner city youths may not be in the same market position as the college educated (white or otherwise) and so they will bring less valuable skill sets, providing less value, and thus needing lower wages. The albino midgets with speach impediments are very hard to come by, and because they are so specialized would be in a unique position to demand higher wages, after all, who is going to replace them?

 

Often the argument is made that the government should be regulated by affirmative action. I would say no to that too. As long as you are giving up efficiency for an equitable distribution you are wating money. We already waste enough money in government by doing stupid valueless things. But to do it with stupid valuless people, of all colors shapes and sizes, is a double insult to the taxpayers.

 

But the real argument against it is when standards are lowered in an attempt to get more diversity. City's have lowered the test scores required by candidates of oppressed races for such things as police and fire department. So now we have better distribution of race, but less qualified police. Or they adjust the physical standards to let women do jobs that are overall too physically demanding for a woman to do. I have not met the woman firefighter who could lug my 265 pound as down a flight of stairs. But that is who comes running to help in cities that have traded public safety for public image.

 

if minority groups want to fund educational programs, and other efforts to close the gap, then more power too them. There are plenty of businesses who would love to work with them because of the owner's morality. There are plenty of businesses who would choose not to. The market will sort out the winners from the losers.

 

My business, my decision. My government, my safety, my money, my decision. No affirmative action. You want something, earn it.

 

Bill

[TINNY]

Economics drive who I am hiring, and what I can pay.

Bill, what you said is an important perspective to this issue. And there is no denying that maximum profit is THE factor that drives a capitalist economy.

 

Does this mean that social engineering toward an egalitarian society is unnecessary? And that there should not be any bother to take up responsibility in promoting the cause of those at a disadvantage?

 

I also want to note that I have a different perspective because in my country - Malaysia - it is the majority who are somehow the underprivileged though they are the ones in power by way of the constitution. This is due to the effects of British colonization and Chinese and Indian workers imported under British rule with a Divide and Rule policy. Despite 30 years of positive discrimination, the native Malays (who make up 60% of the population) still only possess about 18% of the nation's wealth. Corruption and political propaganda is often blamed for this failure.

[TheBigDog]

Does this mean that social engineering toward an egalitarian society is unnecessary? And that there should not be any bother to take up responsibility in promoting the cause of those at a disadvantage?

Social engineering is an inevitable part of any democratic society. That given, it should be done from the bottom up, not from the top down. When you make a rule for a whole nation, you remove the diversity of that nation. And in doing so weaken its ability to compete on a world market. In the United States federal regulations dictate how the country will be able to compete on the world market. In the heyday of the industrial revolution it was competition among the states that spurred the massive growth of the US economy. If a state wants to have affirmative action, because the citizens living in that state wish to "fight for the underprivileged", then more poser to them. And as long as that decision allowed them to stay competitive for growing industry they would be successful. But if that law were to drive business out of the state, the citizens would pay the price of lost opportunity. Leveling the playing field reduces the skill required to play the game.

 

Also, typical affirmative action is trying to bring people up to the middle class. The middle class in any free market will never control the bulk of the wealth. Henry Ford in his day was unbelievably wealthy. But to become that wealthy he brought thousands of workers into the middle class. They could not be upper class, or nobody would be able to afford the cars they were selling. A few became wealthy, thousands upon thousands became comfortable. That is the way it works. Don't expect rules mandating favoritism to change the balance of wealth. It will just make more people comfortable, with the possible side effect of bankrupting business and putting everyone in the poor house.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

When a person has been hired they need to enter into a binding contract that will outline the conditions that must be met to terminate their employment.

I agree. I think it’s regrettable that employment contracts are not a more common legal instrument – in every state and country with which I’m familiar, they are common only among the highest-paid employees, who are arguably the least in need of the legal protection they afford. This lack, I think, necessitates government intervention to provide protection that is inferior to what a simple contract would provide.

The government should have virtually no say as to the terms that can be listed in that employment contract.

I disagree. A foundation of contract law is that a contract cannot demand illegal actions. For example, if I contract with you to steal your neighbor’s car, then think better of it and instead go to the police, you cannot sue me for breach of contract (though neither can I keep any money you gave me under the contract). A contract cannot require the surrendering of one’s basic, constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities – for example, I cannot contract to work for you for life with only food and board as compensation – that is, volunteer for slavery – even if the food and board are very good, and the work very light. You can’t compensate me to vote as you specify in an election, even though you could not practically compel me to be true to my agreement. An employment contract can’t require that I smoke pot on the job (this last isn’t hypothetical – I knew an employer who demands this – illegally, or course).

 

Affirmative action, minimum wage, equal-oportunity empoyment, and a host of other requirements made of employers by government, are less black-and-white in terms of the legal requirement of employers to follow them. No basic right is violated if, for instance, I may legally refuse to associate with members of a certain race, or chose to work for less than minimum wage, but may I legally require this of my employees?

My business, my decision.

Within limits determined by law

My government, my safety, my money, my decision.

In the various United States of America, a constitutional republic, it’s actually our government – decisions are made by people who we have elected, and people hired and appointed by these people, or hired by these people, etc. Like it or not – and nearly everyone likes some things and not others about our government – the government we have is the one we elected, and, if we collectively dislike enough of the decisions of its elected officials or their appointees and staff, we can in due time elect others.

No affirmative action.

Affirmative action is merely public law. It was enacted. It can be repealed. Our individual opinions of it are an important part of our political process – and, I might add, enjoyable to hear and share - but it is the ballot box that ultimately decides.

You want something, earn it.

Not always. Sometimes, it’s “you want something, campaign for it, vote for it, wheel and deal for it, maybe get it.”

[TheBigDog]

I disagree. A foundation of contract law is that a contract cannot demand illegal actions. For example, if I contract with you to steal your neighbor’s car, then think better of it and instead go to the police, you cannot sue me for breach of contract (though neither can I keep any money you gave me under the contract). A contract cannot require the surrendering of one’s basic, constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities – for example, I cannot contract to work for you for life with only food and board as compensation – that is, volunteer for slavery – even if the food and board are very good, and the work very light. You can’t compensate me to vote as you specify in an election, even though you could not practically compel me to be true to my agreement. An employment contract can’t require that I smoke pot on the job (this last isn’t hypothetical – I knew an employer who demands this – illegally, or course).

CraigD, you very aptly illustrated the type of issues that exist with "virtually" no say in the content of that contract. There should be laws protecting people from engaging by contract in illegal activities. And that in turn gets back to morality as the basis for laws.

 

Affirmative action, minimum wage, equal-oportunity empoyment, and a host of other requirements made of employers by government, are less black-and-white in terms of the legal requirement of employers to follow them. No basic right is violated if, for instance, I may legally refuse to associate with members of a certain race, or chose to work for less than minimum wage, but may I legally require this of my employees?

Minimum wage is another thing altogether, and should also NEVER be a federal mandate (according to me).

 

In the various United States of America, a constitutional republic, it’s actually our government – decisions are made by people who we have elected, and people hired and appointed by these people, or hired by these people, etc. Like it or not – and nearly everyone likes some things and not others about our government – the government we have is the one we elected, and, if we collectively dislike enough of the decisions of its elected officials or their appointees and staff, we can in due time elect others.

It is all about democracy, and participation so that the government's policies reflect your idea of idealized society. Please extrapolate my statement to indicate how I would campaign and vote on said issue.

 

Affirmative action is merely public law. It was enacted. It can be repealed. Our individual opinions of it are an important part of our political process – and, I might add, enjoyable to hear and share - but it is the ballot box that ultimately decides.

That is the beauty of democracy.

 

Not always. Sometimes, it’s “you want something, campaign for it, vote for it, wheel and deal for it, maybe get it.”

And this is aptly the final point; wanting, campaigning, voting, wheel-and-dealing, are all the way it is earned.

 

Bill

[HydrogenBond]

There are two sides of the affirmative action coin. One the one hand, it helps the disadvantaged overcome systematic bias, which is a function of cultural diversity. For example, if a person of one religion wanted to be an active part of another, they are only allowed to go so far up the company ladder unless they join the clan. The more they wish to remain distinct, the lower a position of power will be allowed. Affirmative action tries to create unity while stressing distinction at the same time. The unity is good but the distinction creates continued resistance. Most employer want good team players. If one is hired for their distinction first, they may or may not be a good team player, secondly.

 

On the other side of the coin, most of the worse discrimination against all the affirmative groups was perpetrated by people of the past, on people of the past. To balance this out, those who did not suffer the worse of the discrimination are treated like they did, and those who did not perform the worse discrimination are treated like they did. The reward and liability is not going to the people who participated in the extreme dynamics. This also creates a resistance due to the improper use of retroactive guilt card.

[pgrmdave]

Affirmative action is not perfect, but it may be necessary. Consider two college applicants. Both were captain of the baseball team. Both were active in their community and churches. Both have perfect grades. One grew up in a priviledged community, with a good school system. One grew up without any advantages, her family scraping for food. Which one is more impressive? Considering that minorities have a higher percentage of poverty, I think that it is reasonable for affirmative action to be based on race, although I feel that it would be more fair to base it on economic factors.