Are you for or against Affirmative Action?

Question

What are your reasons?

Answer 1

I am against it because it perpetuates the division of people along racial lines.

Racial problems will never go away, will never have the chance to go away, as long as government maintains a legal distinction between the races.

Get the government and all its institutions out of the race business, and let the people work it out. I will always have more faith in the people than in the government.

Answer 2

But what is affirmative action? That term is too amorphous now. The Supreme Court has recognized that a quota system is INAPPROPRIATE and unconstitutional, but other forms of "preference" may not be.
Here's an example. Standardized tests, while getting better, are still racially biased, as they use names and scenarios from "white" society rather than those that a minority will more likely asssociate with. So, let's say that African American LSAT scores are 3 points lower, on average, than white LSAT scores, even adusted for similar academic progress in undergrad school. African American kid scores 2 points lower than what is normally considered the floor for admission to a law school. Is it all right to be flexible on the admissions policy and at least consider this student, even though her scores may be a fraction lower than the normal floor, to correct for the proven bias in the LSAT? I don't think that's unfair at all.
The second type of "affirmative action" that needs to be considered is a consideration of diversity generally. Is it in a school (or workplace, or whatever)'s best interest to have a work force or school populace that's from all sorts of different backgrounds -- economic, social, racial, religious? To hear different peoples' perspectives (especially in an educational setting) and, perhaps to allow groups who have traditionally not been able to penetrate the "glass ceiling" of some professions (women in science, certain minorities in business, e.g.)? I think that's totally appropriate, both morally and constitutionally. Now, where you draw the line is difficult -- because saying "we need 10% african american" is wrong. Is "putting a finger on the scale" when two applicants are otherwise basically equal wrong? The Supreme Court didn't seem to think so when deciding the University of Michigan case two years ago. I don't think it is, either, considering the other "finger on scale" factors, such as second languages, work experience, etc.

Finally, there IS still racial desparity in this country, although it is slowly fading away to simple economic disparity (and the country should get used to the idea that "black" isn't a synonym for "poor"). Racial, ethnic, and religious diversity is an important educational and workplace goal and should be encouraged, carefully. If that's "affirmative action," then that's fine by me.

Answer 3

There was a time and place when affirmative action was necessary. Now how ever I feel that it is being used for discriminating against the majority. I have seen affirmative action used to keep certain people out of positions of importance because of the color of their skin. A person needs the chance to get and keep a job to be based on their abilities and not the color of their skin.

Answer 4

I am against it. Affirmative action works both ways. It tells a company that they have to have at least so many minority employees but that company only hires that amount and that's it. Then there's the question in your mind: "Was I hired just because they had to have a black person or because of my qualifications?" I wouldn't feel comfortable working like that. Also just getting the job shouldn't be good enough. They might hire you because they have to but then keep you there so they don't have to hire anyone else in the minority and you never get promoted. It's not ideal. They really should just take out the question about race from applications.

Answer 5

Any sane person would be against affirmative action. The term alone is dishonest. Affirmative means positive (or yes). Action is a doing thing. Is it a positive to allow elites to select who will receive largess based on a hierarchy of skin color? This policy hurts individuals on the margin when used in college admissions. This is how it works. A black student who would be qualified for admission to a mid-level state college is suddenly places in a top tier university where failure is almost guaranteed, so instead of graduating for say UW Milwaukee, the recipient of this racist policy flunks out of UW Madison. While this may allow the white college administrator of admissions feel good about himself it ruins the students chances of getting a degree and having a better life. Affirmative action is the only institutionally racist policy we have in the US today. When used for employment purposes it gives us tokens such as Cornell West and Angela Davis. It excludes Jews, Asians and poor whites in favor of upper and middle class white women and blacks who hardly need the edge. Let me put this in simple terms. Do the sons and daughters of Bill Cosby need help competing against the sons and daughters of some poor white trash trailer park single mom from West Virginia?

Answer 6

I am on the fence about that. Their are still some employers who will not hire an individual simply because of their skin color, BUT affirmative action is indeed racist. We all have some maturing to do if we want to see affirmative action come to an end.

Answer 7

I am definitely against Affirmative Action. Merit all the way.

Answer 8

I am against discrimination in any of its manifestations. Affirmative action does not become desirable just because it chooses a different group to discriminate against.

Answer 9

Anybody who supports Affirmative Action is a racist or sexist, period. To support it you must believe that certain demographic groups are inferior and cannot compete on their own ability.

Answer 10

Against - it's a racist policy that both punishes a person for the color of their skin and puts people in a position for failure if they are not qualified for a job but are placed there simply because of their appearance.