Time to abolish Affirmative Action, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

Topic started on 17-11-2009 @ 11:01 AM by Roadblockx

First things first. Please don't bring in hate of any sort to the thread. This is a discussion with the intentions of getting good, intellectual, healthy exchanges of ideas, thoughts and opinions. Not a forum to exchange hate!

Also, yes it is a little lengthy but it ALL relates to my case on why Affirmative Action (AA) should be abolished. If you read no other pages between now and the last page of this thread, please read the OP.

Lastly, mods, allow this group the chance to discuss this. No need to strike it down before it has a chance to be successful. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time to abolish Affirmative Action

“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. Ref plato.stanford.edu...

Before going forward, please understand this is not a white versus black, man versus woman thread or any other race versus race battle. I am putting out there that perhaps it is time to begin rolling back Affirmative Action in the current capacity it is in. The election of an African-American to the most powerful position in the world (?) should show that great progress has been made and no longer requires a different set of rules for race and sex.

One of the references I used for this can be found here plato.stanford.edu... Rather than copy and pasting the entire thing, I posted various portions with the hope that everyone would at least skim through the entire webpage as it gives a good count of the history of the Act as well as the justices that argued for/against it.

When it started

In 1972, affirmative action became an inflammatory public issue. True enough, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already had made something called “affirmative action” a remedy federal courts could impose on violators of the Act. Likewise, after 1965 federal contractors had been subject to President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, requiring them to take “affirmative action” to make sure they were not discriminating. But what did this 1965 mandate amount to? The Executive Order assigned to the Secretary of Labor the job of specifying rules of implementation. In the meantime, as the federal courts were enforcing the Civil Rights Act against discriminating companies, unions, and other institutions, the Department of Labor mounted an ad hoc attack on the construction industry by cajoling, threatening, negotiating, and generally strong-arming reluctant construction firms into a series of region-wide “plans” in which they committed themselves to numerical hiring goals. Through these contractor commitments, the Department could indirectly pressure recalcitrant labor unions, who supplied the employees at job sites.
While the occasional court case and government initiative made the news and stirred some controversy, affirmative action was pretty far down the list of public excitements until the autumn of 1972, when the Secretary of Labor's Revised Order No. 4, fully implementing the Executive Order, landed on campus by way of directives from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Its predecessor, Order No. 4, first promulgated in 1970, cast a wide net over American institutions, both public and private. By extending to all contractors the basic apparatus of the construction industry “plans,” the Order imposed a one-size-fits-all system of “underutilization analyses,” “goals,” and “timetables” on hospitals, banks, trucking companies, steel mills, printers, airlines—indeed, on all the scores of thousands of institutions, large and small, that did business with the government, including a special set of institutions with a particularly voluble and articulate constituency, namely, American universities.

Stats for 1965:
July 1, 1965 Total Population (est) 194,302,963
Ref: www.census.gov...

Total Black Population (est) 21,063,732
Total White Population (est) 171,204,758
Ref: www.census.gov...

During this time, many parts of life (government, sports, education, mid/upper level jobs) were dominated by white males. Blacks, women and other minorities didn’t have the same opportunities as white males either because education wasn’t as available (for a host of reasons) which meant it would be nearly impossible to earn mid/upper level jobs and thus not have as much money as their white counter-parts. Affirmative Action seemed like the way to get “balance” to this cycle.

The Workplace

The terms of the popular debate over racial and gender preferences often mirrored the arguments philosophers and other academics were making to each other. Preference's defenders offered many reasons to justify them, reasons having to do with compensatory or distributive justice, as well as reasons having to do with social utility (more African-Americans in the police department would enable it better to serve the community, more female professors in the classroom would inspire young women to greater achievements). Critics of preferences retorted by pointing to the law. And well they should, since the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seemed a solid anchor even if general principle proved elusive. Title VI of the Act promised that “[n]o person…shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[8] Title VII prohibited all employment practices that discriminated on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin.[9] However, unlike Title VI, Title VII went on to spell out some exceptions. Under special circumstances, the Title permitted the use of gender, religion, and national origin as legitimate bases for employer selection. But it made no such exception for race. While being a woman or being a Roman Catholic could sometimes count as a legitimate occupational qualification, being black could not.
In face of the plain language of Titles VI and VII, how did preferential hiring and promotion ever arise in the first place? How could they be justified legally? Part of the answer lay in the meaning of “discrimination.” The Civil Rights Act did not define the term. The federal courts had to do that job themselves, and the cases before them drove the definition in a particular direction. Many factories and businesses prior to 1964, especially in the South, had in place facially discriminatory policies and rules. For example, a company's policy might have openly relegated African-Americans to the maintenance department and channeled whites into operations, sales, and management departments, where the pay and opportunities for advancement were far better. If, after passage of the Civil Rights Act, the company willingly abandoned its facially segregative policy, it could still carry forward the effects of its past segregation through other already-existing facially neutral rules. A company policy, say, that required workers to give up their seniority in one department if they transferred to another would have locked in place older African-American maintenance workers as effectively as the company's prior segregative rule that made them ineligible to transfer at all. Consequently, courts began striking down facially neutral rules that carried through the effects of an employer's past discrimination, regardless of the original intent or provenance of the rules. “Intent” was effectively decoupled from “discrimination.” In 1971, the Supreme Court ratified this process, giving in the Griggs decision the following construction of Title VII:

(continued)

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 11:02 AM by Roadblockx

The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII…was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to “freeze” the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.

What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to exclude on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.[10]

Introduction to “Quota’s”

In a few short paragraphs the Court advanced from proscribing practices that froze in place the effects of a firm's own past discrimination to proscribing practices that carried through the effects of past discrimination generally. The Court characterized statutory discrimination as any exclusionary practice not necessary to an institution's activities. Since many practices in most institutions were likely to be exclusionary, rejecting minorities and women in greater proportion than white men, all institutions needed to reassess the full range of their practices to look for, and correct, discriminatory effect. Against this backdrop, the generic idea of affirmative action took form:
Each institution should effectively monitor its practices for exclusionary effect and revise those that cannot be defended as “necessary” to doing business. In order to make its monitoring and revising effective, an institution ought to predict, as best it can, how many minorities and women it would select over time, were it successfully nondiscriminating. These predictions constitute the institution's affirmative action “goals,” and failure to meet the goals signals to the institution (and to the government) that it needs to revisit its efforts at eliminating exclusionary practices.There may still remain practices that ought to be modified or eliminated.[11]

The point of such affirmative action: to induce change in institutions so that they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.
However, suppose this self-monitoring and revising fell short? In early litigation under the Civil Rights Act, courts concluded that some institutions, because of their past exclusionary histories and continuing failure to find qualified women or minorities, needed stronger medicine. Courts ordered these institutions to adopt “quotas,” to take in specific numbers of formerly excluded groups on the assumption that once these new workers were securely lodged in place, the institutions would adapt to this new reality.[12]

So we see Affirmative Action in its infancy, how it matured and eventually grew quota’s. I would like to move now to current day, 45 years after the Civil Rights Act got its start. Yes major events occurred between that 45 year period but this isn’t a history lesson of that time. What is being documented is what was going on during the time the Civil Rights Act/Affirmative Action was created. Once that is identified, we can begin to see if we still need AA in today’s environment. Here are the stats from the last census (2000).

In 2000:
2000 Total Population (est) 281.4 million people
Ref: www.census.gov...
Total Black Population (est) ref: 34,658,190 (12%) www.census.gov...
Total White Population (est) 211,460,626 (75%) www.census.gov...

In 1965:
July 1, 1965 Total Population (est) 194,302,963
Total Black Population (est) 21,063,732 (10.8%)
Total White Population (est) 171,204,758 (88%)

While the white population still has greater numbers, its percent of the total population has declined while the percent of the black population has increased! As the white population continues to make-up less of the population, it also doesn’t dominate the government, sports, education or mid/upper jobs that it once did. This isn’t any more obvious then to look at a football, baseball or basketball team (men’s or women’s) from the late 60’s and compare the ethnicity to today’s sports teams (college or professional). Likewise, today we have great educational leaders that are black, women or other ethnicities. No longer are college campuses made up of white males, either as students or professors.

Yes you can argue that the top CEO’s of today’s companies aren’t 50/50 mix of white, blacks, men, women and other minorities. Not sure this could ever happen. But what is happening now is Affirmative Action seems to be doing more damage then good. No longer are the best candidates getting the job in many cases but the best “quota” candidate. No longer are scholarships going to the best student but many now go to the best “quota” student. It seems that we as a nation should be more about striving to be the best instead of getting through because we receive a pass. The playing field has been leveled or is much more level then it was 45 years ago. Let’s get rid of Affirmative Action and open the competition up for everyone regardless of their age, sex, race or sexual orientation. Let’s compete against one another instead of receiving favorable treatment.

The time for change is here. That’s correct Mr. President. Imagine, our first African American president and we didn’t even need a quota for that. He earned it…..

Again, please be respectful when posting your reply. That is all that can be asked. Thanks everyone.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 11:57 AM by MessOnTheFED!

You are one brave soul posting this here. Surely you will be called a racist, bigot or some other name. I for one agree totaly with you. I think we have steped forward as a nation and all the racism crap needs to stop. Certainly there are people who hang onto this and there always will be, but the majority of the people get it i believe. So i commend you on your OP and i hope you dont get flamed too bad.

S&F!

MessOnTheFED!

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 12:01 PM by Roadblockx

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!

You have no idea how long I have wanted to bring this up but feared the backlash that would occur. Luckily I have made my intentions known to the mods and super mods so that it doesn't look like I am picking a fight. I got a little more courage after starting the "Hate on ATS" post and received so much positive feedback.

Don't think I am the only brave one mate. Those that reply in favor of this will be lumped into the same group as I am. I appreciate your s/f and support. Now duck and cover before it gets too exciting in here.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 12:03 PM by Seiko

I'm against separate rules for separate people.

It almost feels like an insult to say you'd need the help. It's prejudicial in itself. Sure prejudice still exists, and should be rallied against, but this is more of a big brother is helping you.

Allow people to stand on their own merits when considered. Race, creed, colour and sex shouldn't be part of the decision in anyway.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 12:08 PM by Roadblockx

reply to post by Seiko

And I agree with you. I am ready to be judged by my actions, experience and education rather then my skin color, sex, age or sexual orientation. Why do I need to be white or black or female to receive different guidelines when applying for school, work or loans? That seems like discrimination to me.....

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 01:03 PM by thisguyrighthere

It wont be gotten rid of anytime soon because politicians think, generally rightly so, that voters are all morons and buffoons. As such getting rid of AA is seen by them as a sure-fire way to lose the minority vote. As if anyone classed as "minority" votes as a single cause hive mind.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 01:11 PM by snusfanatic

I'll say only this:

"I believe there is a moral...equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect and protect us as equal before the law."

-Justice Thomas

Affirmative Action is patently unconstitutional. It completely flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. The only reason it exists is for an exception to make up for the wrongs of the past. Students and employees who are denied positions based on their race are itching for an end to AA. It's only a matter of time until enough people like Thomas are on the court. The case will come and this joke will be over.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 01:30 PM by Enrikez

I haven't done the research like you have, but I have had a general feeling for a long time now that the civil right's movements are all dead in North America and they are only kept alive by those who have made a career out ofit.

Because seriously, if there were no civil rights issues to fight for in this country, how would Al Shaprton make a living?

Feminism is dead, racial equality is dead ... even the physically/mentally disabled are starting to lash out at the condescending treatment that we have been taught to give.

Pretty much my thinking is that Feminism was a success and so was racial equality movements. Wheel chair accesibilit is standard, everyone is highly sensitive to everyone else's feelings the movements have been a success.

The one's who have made a living off these issues don't want to quit their jobs though

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 01:34 PM by thisguyrighthere

reply to post by Enrikez

That's pretty much the meat of it. They intentionally keep the wounds open just enough to bleed so they can sell one fake bandage after another.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 01:44 PM by CoffinFeeder

i'm all for abolishing AA. What ever happened to the best person for the job? too many times I've seen people come in on a quota and we call them busted shotguns. They don't work and you can't fire them. and they laugh about it!

by the way, for those who still don't get it. we still have yet to vote in a black president. what we currently have voted in is a half breed mullato ho-ho... yep, half black, and that's the half he plays the race card with while the creamy white center does everything else.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 05:00 PM by Roadblockx

Flag this so people get their heads out of their backends and notice this. No one seems to pay much attention to anything not related to 9/11, alien abduction, h1n1 (piggy flu) or BHO. Rarely do the juicy topics garner the attention and debate they deserve.

Thank you all for your posts. I am very, very surprised no one has said anything opposite of the OP. Many great points have been made including AA will never go away because some politicians have built their entire career around it. What a shame. Add it to the list of things to get rid of when we finally throw these jokers out of office and start a new..... Back to day dreaming.

reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 06:34 PM by Detailed Perfection

I agree completely. Let's get rid of AA, NAACP, KKK, LULAC, and any other race based organizations that are setup to only help one race of people. Let's get rid of The United Negro College Funds and the all black colleges, along with black history month. Anything and Everything that celebrates, recognizes, helps or hinders any particula race or religion.

Let's celebrate American History and World History.

Let's recognize individuals based on their actions, character and merits.

Let's ensure the sanctity of education through diversity.

We need to become One Nation. One World. Freedom and Equality for ALL.

reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 08:45 AM by PC equals Newspeak

It's very courageous to post a thread on a topic like that on ATS. Good luck not getting yourself banned

[edit on 18-11-2009 by PC equals Newspeak]

reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 07:44 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by Roadblockx

I agree with you to abolish affirmative action. I dont see its effects as of right now and I believe businesses should have more freedom to dictate, even if its racist. If its their private business, the law shouldnt force them to hire otherwise.

That being said I disagree with you on the analysis of equality between the ethnic and racial groups. Obama may have been elected and sure we saw improvements of both minority and gender differences over the years, but the disparities are still there. African americans still earn at average about 70% of the income of whites, woman are still marginalized, as of yet there has only been a very few select of woman among the supreme justices...... so there is still a long way to go.

You can make good points against affirmative action and still understand more headway needs to be made for the sake of equality of all americans. Its still a long way to go.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 03:26 AM by PC equals Newspeak

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
That being said I disagree with you on the analysis of equality between the ethnic and racial groups. Obama may have been elected and sure we saw improvements of both minority and gender differences over the years, but the disparities are still there.

Indeed. Currently, straight white males are discriminated in favor of women, homosexuals and black people.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
African americans still earn at average about 70% of the income of whites

The average intelligence of these blacks is lower, so its only normal they are on average less educated, therefor get less well-paid jobs and thus have an overall less average wage. It's genetics talking, not prejudice.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
woman are still marginalized

In what way? Seriously?!?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
as of yet there has only been a very few select of woman among the supreme justices

Maybe that's because most men prefer to put their career first, whereas most women prefer to put their family first. Just like with the differences between blacks and whites, this seems more of a genetic difference than an issue of prejudice.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You can make good points against affirmative action and still understand more headway needs to be made for the sake of equality of all americans. Its still a long way to go.

The only way to go is the road to abolishing affirmative action. Anyone who claims blacks and women are still institutionally discriminated is an ignorant fool.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 03:51 AM by heyo

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak

wow man. Like....
talk about balls.....
You can't just say that.
No source or anything.
I'm kinda speechless. can't think. short sentences...all i can muster.....
in a nutshell:

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 04:03 AM by Vitchilo

Well I agree with you OP, but the government doesn't view it like it because this way they use affirmative action and claiming that they are protecting the minorities or whoever to take control over something.

Just a recent example of this.. the hate crime laws... which gives a special status to everyone except the white man. IMO the hate crime bill is unconstitutional as it gives a special status to certain kind of people.

You just change black or gay to bourgeoisie or lordships, and we are back to the dark ages where kings and lords are above the law and a crime against them is worse than a crime against a fellow slave.

All humans are equal, and should be under the law. Where I live, racism among the new generation (would say 30-35 years old and below) doesn't exist...

Our society have made big leaps in this area since the last generation so hate crime laws and affirmative action time is past.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 04:11 AM by woodwardjnr

In The UK we call it positive discrimination. I for one actually believe it's a good thing. Women and ethnic minorities have suffered the policies of negative discrimination for centuries. some positive discrimination is good for helping to balance things up a bit. The world (and ATS) is dominated by white males. I always like to hear the views of others and having a wider selection of views in society has to be a better thing?

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 04:11 AM by PC equals Newspeak

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak

wow man. Like....
talk about balls.....
You can't just say that.
No source or anything.

I usually don't reference sources when stating the obvious. What exactly would you like me to provide source material for? What did I say that I supposebly can't say?