How is affirmative action not discrimination?

Question

I DON'T want statements of how people agree with me, just logical, coherent ANSWERS as to why it is not reverse discrimination. I am genuinely curious to find a good answer. If you submit a valid answer, please check back in a few days to see if I have a response/followup question in the comments section. Thanks.

Re partout250: But you're helping the "leg of the table" that really doesn't deserve to be propped up. Instead of putting the wrong-sized "leg" there, put a better leg of the right size, regardless of the color.

Re Mopar Muscle Gal: That is NOT what I was looking for.
Re Brian S: Also NOT what I was looking for. You're explaining how it came into being, not justifying why it's right.

Re ANGEL D.: I might be able to accept reparations where those who had done the harm must pay. But making their descendants pay doesn't make sense? Try again.

Re mcd: It's a good thing I AM genuinely curious, because if I were, as you say, a right-winger who just wants to advertise my political views, I wouldn't be deeply offended at your statement that I was. Since the purpose of your so-called "answer" obviously is to offend me, you must agree that I AM genuinely curious. I am not expressing a view, I am curious regarding affirmative action, namely making it easier for minorities and those who have been discriminated against in the past, to get into colleges and jobs if it results in the fact that a white male must be significantly better than a black/female counterpart to get into the same position of the same institution. How is this fair?
Re ts_flanders: That is exactly the type of answer I am looking for. I think what you are trying to say by "levelling the playing field" is that affirmative action is meant to counteract the "natural" discrimination, making the end result equal. I.e. the blacks/women who receive affirmative action

con't...
actually are on the same level, since without affirmative action, the white males would automatically get higher positions on fewer merits by virtue of being "superior." Excellent job.
You also mention that they have "historically had little access to jobs and upward social mobility". This should give them unsuitable jobs and privileges? If you want to provide them better access to jobs and upward social mobility, fine. But to give them positions for which they are unsuitable is ridiculous. But the first part is good.

Re coreyander: Okay, in this specific method it is not discrimination. Whoever came up with that plan was pretty bright. But there are plenty of other companies/universities that use affirmative action not just to choose the finalists but to choose the one who gets the position. You haven't explained those. But if everyone used this method, I think everyone would agree that it is not discriminatory.

Answer 1

I am against affirmative action, but for the sake of your question I'll try to think like a liberal.

Hmmmm...

Affirmative action is not discrimination, instead it is more a form of preferential treatment (discrimination being exclusive of some group, while preferential treatment being inclusive) because it attempts to "level the playing field" in business and education. Allowing a segment of the population (who has historically had little access to jobs and upward social mobility) to be raised up so they can have an even footing with the rest of society.

Of course I am not mentioning the obvious fact that along with raising up of one segment, there is also a bringing down of other segments of society.

Answer 2

The simple, unsatisfying answer is that it is "reverse" discrimination. However, the use of the term reverse here is instructive. Just what is reversed? The answer is the underlying reason for affirmative action. Reversed means that instead of discriminating against people we "normally" or historically have discriminated against, we are favoring those people by "discriminating" in their favor. Sort of a payback, but it is a payback that attempts to find parity for discriminated classes so that, at some point, the reverse discrimination can be discontinued.
Not very satisfying if you are the one that is being discriminated against now, having done nothing to discriminate previously, but the idea is that you have benefited from the previous discrimination by being a member of a favored class.
My own two cents is that it is an attempt by baby-boomers (one of many) to pay their debts (moral, fiscal, and other) by allowing their offspring to pay it. Look around, this is a re-occurring theme.

Best.

Answer 3

If you were in a coffee shop and your table was wobbly because there was one leg shorter than the others, would putting a napkin under all the legs stop it from wobbling? No, in fact it would make it worse. affirmative action is not discrimination because it is a recommended treatment for discrimination.
The problem with affirmative action, is in the implementation...the government says it is going to put all these programs in place, and make evey effort to even things out, but in practice they rarely follow through on it. I guess it is expensive to make people follow fair ( and super fair) hiring practices.

Answer 4

Affirmative action refers to a pretty broad set of policies, so it is tough to answer your question exactly. That is to say that there is no uniform affirmative action code -- no specific set of policies that "defines" affirmative action exactly. What we do have is a variety of policies adopted by a variety of institutions to deal with the issue of systematic bias.

I was part of an Affirmative Action hiring process at a private university in the United States. I can only speak to my experience with this particular Affirmative Action policy at this particular institution, but I can very confidently say that we were not engaged in "reverse discrimination" of any kind. I will explain:

When an applicant sent in their resume and supporting materials, we would send them a notification that we had received their materials. We also sent an Affirmative Action survey, which was either confidential or anonymous (at the choice of the applicant), to determine how diverse our pool of applicants was. After the hiring process was complete, we used this survey to determine if we had successful attracted a diverse pool of applicants. If the survey had showed that very few members of underrepresented (in this case by race, gender, national origin, and disability) groups applied, it would mean that we need to advertise more broadly in the future. It would not mean preferencing or excluding any candidate for any reason.

The second part of the Affirmative Action process involved the selection of "finalists" for the position. We had the choice to invite three candidates to visit the university for interviews and we made this choice with the assistance of an Affirmative Action liason. This was not an outsider, but a member of the faculty that volunteered to join the committee in this capacity. Now, this liason was in no way involved in selecting candidates, he provided a very helpful service to the committee. Using demographics to illustrate the current makeup of the department, he indicated whether or not the department was significantly underrepresenting certain demographic groups (by race, sex, and disability). If the department was considered to be underrepresenting groups -- say, if there were twenty men and eight women in a department or there were only two non-white professors in a department of fifteen in a state with 40% non-white citizens -- then the Affirmative Action liason would request that at least one of the candidates we chose be members of an under-represented group. Note that I said *request*. We would never be told to pick an under-represented candidate, but we could be reminded that our hiring decisions would contribute to a broader pattern of hiring in the department. If we did not want to heed this request, all that would be asked is that we explain why the candidates we chose were clearly more qualified than other candidates. In the end, the decision was completely ours on who we chose to hire.

The idea wasn't to discriminate in favor of given group(s), it was to prevent the school from maintaining a pattern of discrimination -- wither conscious or unconscious. When what used to be an invisible process (demographic patterns in hiring) is made visible, bias is no longer possible. This was the underlying principle.

In our case, the department was already pretty diverse and we weren't asked to do or consider anything. We attracted a pretty diverse field of candidates, invited three people to visit (a white man, an Asian American woman, and a Latino man), and wound up choosing the one that everyone thought was best. In this case, it was the white man. Affirmative action didn't hinder his hire in the least! However, if we had been unconsciously preferencing white men over time (which would come out in the statistics) or favoring them in our hiring process (making up bogus reasons not to consider a non-white or female candidate, for example), it would have been very hard for us to get away with.

So, is this reverse discrimination? No -- it is discrimination prevention. We wouldn't have been allowed to hire anyone on the basis of their race or sex or disability status, whether or not they were members of under-represented groups. Why not? Because everything was right out in the open. If we had been excluding some types of candidates, it would have become clear from the statistics and we would have been asked to consider why our choices were unrepresentative. At the same time, if we had nothing to hide, we had nothing to worry about! And that was exactly the case.

Answer 5

You're not genuinely curious. You're just another in a long line of rightwingers that pop up here to sneer at everyone. The fact that you use the rightwing slogan "reverse discrimination" shows that. It's meaningless. You might as well call giving you money "reverse theft", or police work "reverse crime" or the French Resistance "reverse nazism". You'd be a bit more tolerable if you'd just say you oppose programs to increase racial equality.

Answer 6

I like to use the analogy that Affirmative action was a form of reparations for past wrongs against minority groups in the US.
Research has suggested that it was overturned in CA by a diverse majority leading to speculation that AA was helping those who had newly arrived and had failed to help the intended 'current' American minority group members.

Answer 7

It IS a form of reverse discrimination
only the people who can use this to their advantage ( race, sex,.etc) AND Colleges will protest saying its not
Michigan voters voted it down last Fall
U of M is one of the biggest offenders of the policy