do you agree that Affirmative Action is unfair to Wites and an insult to minorities?

Question

basically it's saying that minorities are not able to make with hard work and skill. Yes I know that there's discrimination in job hiring but i don't think any business person in today's society will pass the chance to hire a highly skilled person regardless of race. Also in universities it's unfair for a minority with average grades and scores to be selected over a caucasian just because of color, what if the white person is even poorer and more disadvantaged? No I',m not an Uncle Tom I just believe in equal opportunity for all, black, white, yellow, or brown? I wish when I get into college(Brown University hopefully) is not because of my race but because of the A's on my transcript

Answer 1

First, the term "Uncle Tom" is outdated...it's called being a "sellout" now (just correcting slang, not necessarily calling you that).

I think what it is is that you're young and maybe aren't very versed in the history of racism in the US (and contrary to belief, it's a recent history, not something that dates back to the War of 1812, say).

You may want to talk with your parents or grandparents about how they think Affirmative Action affected THEIR lives... I'm guessing that they benefitted more directly, and their benefit is why you're able to get straight As and actually go to Brown University.

Here's a post from another area that explains my POV:

Affirmative action debates. They do a phenomenal job of illustrating a fundamental problem with American culture: the complete lack of historical memory that we display is astounding. It also presents the opportunity for members of the white majority one of the very few (in fact, perhaps the only instance) of pointing out when a situation breaks negatively against them because of the color of their skin (now that I think about it, it's the ONLY instance I can think of in society where that's the case...).

Let's break it down (if I sound strident below, understand it's passion, not yelling (especially to the question poster...I'm not yelling at you...some of your respondents on the other hand...).

These laws came to bear in the 1960s, when there were still a majority of states with Jim Crow and anti-miscenegation (sp?) laws on the books. This was also the decade of MLK and firehoses being turned on protestors. Thankfully, racism is not as prevelant now, but it's also gotten quieter and more insidious. I like to use Mel Gibson as an example: aside from his creative content of his films, who knew he had such dark thoughts about the Jewish community? And yet, it came out only after he was blazing drunk in the face of a law enforcement officer.

Racism has evolved to become something that is wrong to be verbalized, but it hasn't gotten to the point where it doesn't influence our actions (for reference, just check some of the posts in Yahoo answers). But I digress...

These laws came to pass to do 2 things: short term was qutoas, long-term was levelling the playing field for minorities.

I know "quota" is a dirty word now, but it shouldn't be. These laws were passed back in the 60s and 70s for a reason: because qualified Blacks were being passed over for jobs that they were able to fill because of the color of their skin. So, if the boss had a staff of 20 people and they "happened to" be all white (and in that day and age, it "happened" a lot), he was now forced to have 2 black people there who otherwise would have been passed over because they were black (not officially, but for other reasons). If you're thinking "well, maybe they just weren't qualified," at what point does that argument not ring true? If the staff of 200 has no blacks? 1000 employees, no blacks because they're just not qualified? There's a point where even if it's not spoken, racism clearly has come into play and many of the laws were written to counterbalance that.

The long-term effect is more important, actually, when it comes to levelling the playing field. A black or hispanic male is 3x more likely to be poor, and 2x more likely to be shot, 6x more likely to be incarcerated, and 11x more likely to die from a gunshot wound than whites. Why is this? Just bad choices? No: education.

Here's the cycle: In "Life A," a poor person is more likely to commit a (non-white collar) crime than a rich person to survive. That's not to say "if you're poor, you're a thief," but if you live below the poverty line, your decision isn't "Chipotle or Baja Fresh for lunch," it's "will I be able to eat today. Suddenly some petty thievery isn't such a big deal and school means a lot less than WORK to earn some money to keep a roof over your head and feed yourself and your family.

If you grow up in that environment, you do what you need to do to survive, taking more and more risks and pushing the envelope, usually falling into the drug trade since it's one of the most lucrative and profitable opportunities out there. And because you're not educated, you don't stress that your children attend school. And they grow up to be just like you. And so on. Now why is that? Are blacks just lazy? No, it's the legacy of slavery from oh so many centuries ago...generations and generations of former slaves who lived "Life A" and because they were NEVER qualified (kind of hard to be qualified when your school is substandard because Brown v. Board of Ed didn't get ruled on until around 50 years ago), the cycle continued.

Are there exceptions? Yes, there are some individuals who are born into such environments and somehow heroically buck the trend, pursue an education even though no one else in their family seems to place much value on it, and become something (my parents are/were like that...their stories are moving). Then, once that occurs, these lucky individuals have children that have "Life B." Not a pampered life, but a life where affording food is not a daily concern and stresses education and a solid work ethic. The middle class. And then a funny thing happens: this families offspring usually continues along the "Life B" track (also with some exceptions). It's why a "Harvard Man" has kids who are also "Harvard Men"...he has an "in."

And that is the issue: why is that a black person, as soon as he or she is born, at a greater risk of being killed by a gun, being poor, or being incarcerated than a white person? Put another way: there is an intrinsic advantage to being born in the middle or upper class: it's hard to work your way down (it can be done, but you have to work at it...or be a moron)...and if your odds of being born in the middle class are higher if you're white, how on earth does one balance that out? Are we saying that that's OK now? That, to me, is the very definition of racism: that the opportunities for one person are defined because of the color of their skin versus what they're capable of.

The problem we have is that--today, still--a disproportionate number of blacks have Life A vs. Life B. Affirmative action, again, forces that cycle to break and allows individuals to break their family's cycle and improve the odds of their progeny to live the American Dream as well.

Here's the litmus test of whether we can do without Affirmative Action: once those stats above are truly equal, and the odds of your being poor have nothing to do with the color of your skin, then I say get rid of it that very same day. OR, if someone has a better idea on how to level the playing field, then let's enact it (I have one: fully funded public schools in all parts of the country and national health care). And can the black community do more to help itself? Absolutely! Not enough people give back once they switch from "Life A" to "Life B" in my opinion, but that's another argument.

This "reverse discrimination" handwringing that many (not the questioner...it's a neutral question, but some of the responses I've seen to it so far) are writing about is just dogmatic B.S. that's been generated by the few slighted companies or individuals on the "downside" of the laws. The litany of "hey, it wasn't ME that discriminated against blacks all those years ago, why am I being punished for it" never addresses the flipside of the argument, which is "it's not MY fault that everyone from my family descended from the legal American institution of slavery and because of hundreds of years of active segregation, discrimination, and poor schooling, I'm not as fully qualified as you."

Throwing our hands up now and saying, "hey, we're all equal now, so no one needs any 'special help'" is like blinding a man, then putting him at the starting line of a race and, when the starter pistol goes off and he's blindly flailing around, wondering why he can't keep up when he's got "two good legs": the problem isn't with the individual instances of choosing a minority over a white person, it's with correcting a system that's been out of whack for hundreds of years and put an entire class of people at a perpetual disadvantage.

Sorry it's long, but I clearly have strong feelings about the subject.

Answer 2

Yes, it's unfair and an insult to minorities. it's a crutch that african americans shouldn't be using. Ok, affirmative action is a huge issue mainly for college admissions, not so much on public hiring. In UCLA for example African Americans are complaining that they have only 2% blacks. They can't compete so they complain and forced UCLA to use "comprehensive review" aka "affirmative action" to get more of them in. This tells me that African Americans want to be judged by the color of their skin, instead of character. They don't want a color blind society (at least in education where they are weak). Yet in areas where they are experts at (athletics), they don't complain.

Affirmative action hurts universities, makes them lower their standards, forces the school to have a dumber student body.

I'll give an example that i think shows what's wrong.
I went to a high school with mostly chinese, latinos and blacks. and the chinese kids always beat all the other kids by a mile. i remember during guaduation all the top kids were chinese, no blacks. I took many honors and AP classes, and almost no blacks in those classes.
My point is that blacks and to a lesser degree latinos aren't being competitive enough in school. They need to worry less about sports, movies, music, socializing, fads, latest clothing styles, video games, and focus that on school.

Answer 3

It benefits a majority of people, as we women are technically part of it. But as a Native woman, I have yet to see any benefits from Affirmative Action whatsoever. I had the highest grades in the Department of Communication during my college years, yet I still can't get the jobs the richer white kids get. Media in CT is about appearance, and they don't like Native people much in this state.

Answer 4

Yes. Such programs are only reverse discrimination. Discrimination of any variety is morally wrong. Eliminate all discrimination.

Answer 5

It can be, depending on specific application, but generally is not.

Danagast - if you are looking for a broadcast job, it is about being pretty - ethnicity doesn't matter, and you know it.

Answer 6

you are absolutely right on the money,the best qualified ough to be hired regardless of race or any other reason.being gay or your religion or whatever.