SOCIAL: Affirmative Action

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
August 28, 1963

Libertarians embrace the view that people should be judged strictly on the content of their character. However, self-determination and freedom are at the core of our beliefs, and this produces a bit of a mixed view with respect to those engaged in the practice of affirmative action.



Because of our belief in self determination and freedom, I think most Libertarians would support the right of an individual or private institution to engage in discriminatory practices, even those based on race. This might mean a private college would have an admissions policy that gives extra 'points' to applicants based on race, or it might mean that a small business owner would only hire brown-eyed Mongolian bi-sexuals with eating disorders. Regardless, it's the private sector, and we feel people are free to do what they will.

Note that we also believe that people are free to choose with whom they do business, and if someone's hiring practices are discriminatory based on (insert) that they should be condemned by the public at large until they either change their practices or are run out of business.

Now, in the public sector, Libertarians are firmly opposed to any practice that would discriminate based on the color of one's skin. When on the taxpayer dime, we feel that people should be judged solely on ability. We want the best policeman, construction workers, accountants, etc. that the government can find. Can you imagine one race of firefighter applicants being given preferential treatment over another? (Does anyone look at skin color when they're being rescued from a burning building?)

So, to sum up the Libertarian view:
Affirmative action in the private sector = deplorable, but people are free to do what they will, understanding the consequences of their actions. Affirmative action in the public sector = no way.

Affirmative Action is complete garbage. The one's who often speak out in favour of it cry [I]equity and fairness to all[/I]. But isn't it hyprocritical that these minority persons get special and unequitable treatment. How would you feel if someone who isn't as deserving of something as you gets something that should be yours based on race.

When you sit down and think for two seconds you realize that affirmative action is discrimination.

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba
So, to sum up the Libertarian view:
Affirmative action in the private sector = deplorable, but people are free to do what they will, understanding the consequences of their actions. Affirmative action in the public sector = no way.

This is not just a libertarian view. As a rather conservative person, I feel affirmative action should be put aside in most cases. In some jobs in some cities, the minorities are the majority of employees.
Also, if I were a minority, I would rather know I received a job, slot in a classroom or promotion because of my skills. Not the color of my skin or my sex.

Well, good point DTOM, if you are hired and a minority, does it hurt your confidence to know that maybe the only reason you were hired is because you are a minority? You may have deserved the job, but how do you know? They may have hired you because of your skills and ability, but they could have done it because of you being a minority.

If I was a minority I would like to know that I was hired because I was the right person for the job, not because I am a black midget and blind.

Originally posted by f16falcon
When you sit down and think for two seconds you realize that affirmative action is discrimination.

I never really taught about it like that. Your right, I Understand why something that ended 100 years ago can still effect you, unless you want it to.

While I agree that Affermative Action is not the right course of action, you'd have to look at things like legacy as well, which most white people who want to get rid of Affermative Action don't say two hoots about anything like that.

Legacy is just as wrong and should be considered as an AA policy.

Anyway, there will always be inequity in the reality of our country, but for those who dismiss it because the blacks should just get over it need to re-educate themselves with American history. There are many people who should still be mad at our... well, we'll just say the "cowboy in the white hat" image.

I'm literally exhausted by rearguing this topic over and over, and defending a goodwill practice almost unanimously championed by every major company and institution in America as well as upheld by the highest courts in the land. Hate it all you will, but understand this.

It's not about race. It's about discrimination. And as expressed time and time again by companies, courts, politicians, social sciences and those enlightened few not banging some drum about so called reverse discrimination...the most prevalently championed group out of all potential victims of discrimination for which Affirmative Action stands remains WOMEN. White women in fact.

So get over it.

If there's no institutional discrimination in place that somehow automatically renders equally qualified women to earn 7/10ths of her male counterpart, or chains them to cash register in Wal-Mart for decades where they get the added insult of training their future male managers, then I concede no need for Affirmative Action. But as it stands, there is no explanation for the discrepancies other than...

a) Institutional discrimination that requires a proactive monitoring effort for correction, or
b) Women and minorites must inherently be less qualified than white men and the gross disproportions of achievement and income are merely the result of genetic incompetence and laziness.

So is that it...Option B? That's the Libertarian/Republican/Conservative position? And I thought Eugenics fell out of favor with Hitler.

Originally posted by RANT
If there's no institutional discrimination in place that somehow automatically renders equally qualified women to earn 7/10ths of her male counterpart, or chains them to cash register in Wal-Mart for decades where they get the added insult of training their future male managers, then I concede no need for Affirmative Action. But as it stands, there is no explanation for the discrepancies other than...

a) Institutional discrimination that requires a proactive monitoring effort for correction, or
b) Women and minorites must inherently be less qualified than white men and the gross disproportions of achievement and income are merely the result of genetic incompetence and laziness.

So is that it...Option B? That's the Libertarian/Republican/Conservative position? And I thought Eugenics fell out of favor with Hitler.

Ah, Rant, always a pleasure.

I'm sure you know as well as I, that the cause of the pay gap is much more complicated. Would I like to see equal pay for equal work? Of course.

Now, here's my problem. As you know, social change is not something that comes quickly or without certain growing pains. AA was a great idea that effectively did the job it was intended to do. But now we live in different times.

Are you so confident in it that you can not see the need to refocus, rehash, or eliminate the laws?

As for the Eugenics, give it a rest. Because someone finds there to be a law nearing its terminus means nothing in the way of bigotry.

Your imagination, your initiative, and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.

It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.

But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

We say every election is about the future of our country and the type of country we want to live in, but I believe this is true now more than ever because the values so many in this nation harbor are in direct conflict with the values that made this nation great.

In the perfect libertarian world---books would grow and trees and teachers would be grown in fields and no resources or programs would be needed for those who are born into less fortunate circumstances because everything would just fall into place as naturally as the earth spinning on her axis...but in the real world there are real problems that require more than a shrug and a long drawn out explanation of the free market system. In many ways libertarianism comes off like chaos--the supporters never offer any proactive approaches to any of the major issues that face our country. Its always--it'll be what it is--let the market sort it out. The market can't sort out racism, sexism, and homeless families. Society has to bare the burden and provide opportunities for the poor and disenfranchised. That's part of what makes this country greater than the great. It's hard to understand why many Americans don't believe in the great society or the programs like AA that grew out of it because its what makes this country so superior, in my opinion--I guess its my opinion--but it is definately one of the reasons I am proud to be a liberal.

Further, I don't have a problem with getting a job because of AA...I've been accused of it plenty; being the only black face in a office will do that. Its an accepted unacceptable part of my reality. And, as I've said before--until the population of the offices in this country are representative of the people that live in this country AA will be necessary. No one likes the fact that programs like these have to exist and of course we should move to make AA class based as opposed to race, nationality, and sex based as our problems have evolved and more women and "minorities" are able to afford better education for their children due to Affirmative Action.


The Great Society By President Lyndon Johnson

Originally posted by Saphronia
Further, I don't have a problem with getting a job because of AA...I've been accused of it plenty; being the only black face in a office will do that. Its an accepted unacceptable part of my reality. And, as I've said before--until the population of the offices in this country are representative of the people that live in this country AA will be necessary. No one likes the fact that programs like these have to exist and of course we should move to make AA class based as opposed to race, nationality, and sex based as our problems have evolved and more women and "minorities" are able to afford better education for their children due to Affirmative Action.

While I am compelled to agree with you, I only do in part. While the past of America is scattered with discusting lessons in human brutality, I do believe that we have a reasonably equal opportunity country.

White people constitute the largest number of people under the poverty line. While I understand that percentage wise the whites have the advantage, talking numbers changes things a bit.

I don't think we will ever get there, but I do agree with the libertarian stance on the whole issue (which is much more encompassing):

"There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate. "

Citation

While this occures, I personally would like to see the scope of AA turned to financially disabled and the law should come with a specific termination date.

Money, now, is the great equalizer, and the lack of it knows no color. It affects almost every issue there is today.

Crime.
Poverty.
Economy.
etc.

Originally posted by Saphronia
Further, I don't have a problem with getting a job because of AA...I've been accused of it plenty; being the only black face in a office will do that. Its an accepted unacceptable part of my reality. And, as I've said before--until the population of the offices in this country are representative of the people that live in this country AA will be necessary.

Funny would your strong stance on the issue change if it was you who was denied a job, or a slot at one of the Unversity of California systems schools? Or if the firefigter tasked with pulling you out of the burning building was unable to do so because of a physical limitation?

How exactly would you go about making the workplace representative of the countries population? Seems to me that this has been tried. Both in the schools with forced busing, and through AA. Has it worked? At best the results are not all that good. Are you advocating that business be forced to hire and promote unqualified people? Simply because of race? Or economic situation?

Its funny, would I gualify for affermative action? Im a white male. I work in a field that is female dominated? Could I apply for and make a case for AA and get a job over a more qualified applicant? This is exactly the scenario you seem to tout? Its this type of double standard that makes the whole process a joke.....

Affirmative Action has worked so well it should be eliminated.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Now, here's my problem. As you know, social change is not something that comes quickly or without certain growing pains. AA was a great idea that effectively did the job it was intended to do. But now we live in different times.

Or if you prefer...
Affirmative Action never worked so it should be eliminated.

Originally posted by FredT
How exactly would you go about making the workplace representative of the countries population? Seems to me that this has been tried. Both in the schools with forced busing, and through AA. Has it worked? At best the results are not all that good.

I prefer the middle ground myself that...
Affirmative Action IS WORKING and will EVENTUALLY be proven unneccessary.

Unless of course we do eventually move to an entirely standardized merit based rewards program for every facet of society denying the value of diversity and legacy alike, at which point I fully expect the Republicans to fund a billion dollar Department of Homeland Diversity for Mediocre White Male Patriots to limit scholarships to overachieving Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and women.

On point, I don't for one second believe the cries of reverse racism that qualified people are currently being denied jobs or education so I'm not going to waste much effort down that road again, except to say prove it.

Until then there's nothing to defend about Affirmative Action. The arguments that basically say "the only problems we have in this country stem from the solutions" aren't intellectually honest and deny the very history of this country if not humanity.

So forgive me for supporting a solution. When somebody comes up with a better one, we'll have something to discuss.

Originally posted by RANT
Affirmative Action has worked so well it should be eliminated.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Now, here's my problem. As you know, social change is not something that comes quickly or without certain growing pains. AA was a great idea that effectively did the job it was intended to do. But now we live in different times.

Until then there's nothing to defend about Affirmative Action. The arguments that basically say "the only problems we have in this country stem from the solutions" aren't intellectually honest and deny the very history of this country if not humanity.

So forgive me for supporting a solution. When somebody comes up with a better one, we'll have something to discuss.

First off, you are wrong. I am not advocating the elimination of AA at the moment. Has AA worked well? Yes.

But the real problem (as I said above) is the education of our youth in general rather than promoting one racial group.

Again I'll say this, cause you don't seem to get it. Crime, AA, and education are the outer issues to poverty. This is the issue that needs to be addressed.

The education system is broken almost beyond repair. Fix that while changing the scope to that of economic disadvantage. It's the schools that are seperate and unequal, even in the public system.

Originally posted by FredT

Funny would your strong stance on the issue change if it was you who was denied a job, or a slot at one of the Unversity of California systems schools? Or if the firefigter tasked with pulling you out of the burning building was unable to do so because of a physical limitation?

How exactly would you go about making the workplace representative of the countries population? Seems to me that this has been tried. Both in the schools with forced busing, and through AA. Has it worked? At best the results are not all that good. Are you advocating that business be forced to hire and promote unqualified people? Simply because of race? Or economic situation?

Its funny, would I gualify for affermative action? Im a white male. I work in a field that is female dominated? Could I apply for and make a case for AA and get a job over a more qualified applicant? This is exactly the scenario you seem to tout? Its this type of double standard that makes the whole process a joke.....

There are a lot of factors that go into hiring and race has been one for the good and the bad. It always burns me up when folk assume that since someone got their job or promotion under AA they are somehow less qualified than the white applicants. There are always more qualified applicants--and I say that as a HR professional--more often than not your resume has little to do with whether you are hired.

As for your firefighter analogy--I got a chance to watch the PBS special on firefighters called Test of Courage they took the best people though race and sex were part of the initial process the people that eventually got the jobs all had to pass the same test by the same standards. I believe the video would be a real eye opener for how AA actually works in relation to police and firefighters.

As for my part--I put myself through college and I worked very hard to get where I am and even if AA is part of the reason I am able to earn my living it isn't the only reason I am able to earn my living. My great-grandfather was a sharecropper...only in America.