Is Affirmative Action Justified? Is It Racist?

Question

read the following link then try to tell me that affirmative action is not necessary.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-2...
Some people like to make the claim that affirmative action is racist and that jobs should simply go to the best qualified applicant regardless of race. If in reality that were the case I might actually agree with you and say affirmative action has not place. IS that the case?

When Irish eyes: Are you retard? It is not rhetorical question. The link has to do with affimative action in that in America some people are routinely discrimiated against because of race. You ande people like you like to claim " hire the best applicant regardless of race" only you do NOT do it and still want to do away with affirmative action. Isn't this just a lame attempt to maintain the racial status quo?! Glad I could expalain it to you "when Irish Eyes" as I would a child.

Bret: I agree with you to an extent. However, should the law really be color blind, or neutral? Yes, there is a difference. If you could show me that white people were being discriminated against, I would support measure to combat this. Also, how are you going to hide your race after the "Call back", and why should you HAVE as if it is something to be ASHAMED of. We shouldn't PRETEND to be color blind, but instead strive to be color neutral, ie I see you are white/black/asian, but it doesn't matter, in much the same way i see and don't pretend not to notice you have green/blue/brown eyes.

As for those who continue to make the claim of the poor sad white man regetted despite superior qualifiactions, READ THE LINK! that is exactly not the case WHITE applicants are judged fairly based on merit, it is the BLACK applicant regetted solely based on race.

sorry i meant to say rejected.

Jacques: Are you retarded? No one has made mention of "historical wrongs". If were simply a case of bad blood, the story would be different. But how do you "GET OVER" that is happening RIGHT NOW, the article had you bothered to read it written in 2006. Less than a year ago friend!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20030430-000001.html
link

I am sorry to irish eyes for the link.

Answer 1

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action


In recent years, affirmative action has been debated more intensely than at any other time in its 35-year history. Many supporters view affirmative action as a milestone, many opponents see it as a millstone, and many others regard it as both or neither -- as a necessary, but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease. My own view is that the case against affirmative action is weak, resting, as it does so heavily, on myth and misunderstanding. Here are some of the most popular myths about affirmative action, along with a brief commentary on each one.

Myth 1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.

Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it.

Myth 2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation.

Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.

Myth 3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.

Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every male dollar (Bowler, 1999). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality, and just over half the proportion of people who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.

Myth 4: The public doesn't support affirmative action anymore.

Public opinion polls suggest that the majority of Americans support affirmative action, especially when the polls avoid an all-or-none choice between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever. For example, a Time/CNN poll found that 80% of the public felt "affirmative action programs for minorities and women should be continued at some level" (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995a). What the public opposes are quotas, set-asides, and "reverse discrimination." For instance, when the same poll asked people whether they favored programs "requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women," 63% opposed such a plan (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995b). As these results indicate, most members of the public oppose racial preferences that violate notions of procedural justice -- they do not oppose affirmative action.

Myth 5: A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.

Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 1% of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1%. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).

Myth 6: If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.

This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.

Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Myth 8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.

Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).

Myth 9: Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.

In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

Myth 10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.

Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:

1. Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995e).

2. Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.

3. Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.

4. Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979).

Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another (due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records), a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support, adheres most closely to popular conceptions of fairness, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994). Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates -- used routinely in college admissions -- has deeply divided the nation (with the strongest opposition coming from White males and conservative voters.) And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones.

Some writers have criticized affirmative action as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. Yet affirmative action was never proposed as a cure-all solution to inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of affirmative action, the central question is merely this: In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- does affirmative action help counteract the continuing injustice caused by discrimination? The research record suggests, unequivocally, that it does.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

.

Answer 2

That's interesting, but until I saw a complete list of names I would wonder how many Myrtles, Esthers,Walters, Howards, etc. were called back. I have no doubt that people discriminate, but I'm not convinced that affirmative action is the answer. I live in the south and I think that some ignorant people get mad about affirmative action and it just makes them dig their heels in and use that as an excuse for why they DIDN'T get hired. I think people discriminate based on all kinds of stuff besides race. I had a boss once who wouldn't hire anyone with his ex-wife's first or maiden name. He was a moron. I think that affirmative action did a lot of good when it was implemented, but I think it sucks that we still need something like that to tell people who to hire. I can't wait until race doesn't even matter to anyone anymore. EDIT: now that I think about it, did the people reading the resumes know who was black? If not, then it shows discrimination of people whose names are "nontraditional". EDIT #2 It also didn't say the age/race/part of the country of the person who was doing the hiring. I think that the younger people of " whatever race/ from wherever" don't really care about race being a factor. I can see where it could be a factor in the mind of a person who was a certain age or was raised in the south during the civil rights movement. It works both ways though.

Answer 3

I did not look at the link.
However, I do believe that AA is not justified. Any time there is a preference for one person, based on sex, age, race, religion, it is racism. AA is justifiable because it is to "protect" those that are the minority. I don't deny that people are denied a job for many reasons. I had a friend turned down because she was too fat! What does that have to do with her work ethic or brain function?
On the flip side of the coin, I have two wonderful white boys. I feel bad for them. A minority (black, woman, hispanic, etc) and one of my boys apply for the same job. My boy may be the the best person for the job but because the company has no or few minorities, the minority gets the job. Not only is this prejudice against my boy but insulting to the minority. It basically said to the minority "We know you gave it your best shot. So, you get an A for effort. We will give you the job not based on your merit but the fact you are a minority". Yea, doesn't that boost ones own ego.

Answer 4

ditto on the third anwer

BRET:
Whatever they would like to call it, I agree that there needs to be a better way to make resumes nuetral. Fat, skinny, black, white, yellow, midget, super tall, male, female....those type of questions have no bearing on applying for a job.

True, blackdude, they find out who and what you are when they finally meet you. But maybe they are also finding out that this person does not fit in for any one of many reasons. For example, you may be up against a white person and have identical skills and you are applying for a job in sales. Okay, after speaking to you the employer discovers that the white candidate is well and clear spoken, looking people in the eye. When they talk to you, you mumble using poor grammer (not saying you do, this is an example). Since the company is here to make money, NOT TO MAKE YOU HAPPY by hiring a skin colour, they hire the white guy. It would be fair as you didn't present yourself well. But if they hired you in some misguided sense of quota filling, that is racism against the white guy and stupidity on their part.
I am female and more than once that has been a problem - the "glass ceiling". But I am proud enough of myself and my sex that I don't want preferment. If I am too weak to give that ceiling a whack with the hammer, that's my problem.
The US is so hepped up on skin colour or any other lable that can divide us that along with the ACLU all they do is complain "my type should get special treatment, me, me, me, me.....". Ah, shaddup. Be a sign post for the future instead and refuse to be a part of this. When my son's godfather thought (he couldn't say for positive, employer wouldn't say) he was hired for his skin colour he quit. He got another job at another place where he was sure it was merit based. Ended up better in the long run.
BTW, he is black and I am white.

Answer 5

I'm a purist. Laws should ALWAYS be color blind, sex blind, age blind. Affirmative action laws are obviously NOT color blind.

When we go down that road, we say that race can in fact matter. Moreover, we've made it a LAW that race DOES matter.

I don't believe we can have it both ways. If race doesn't matter, then all of our laws should reflect that, and support that position.

Otherwise we are saying, "Race doesn't matter, except..."

There's no "exceptions". We must become color blind.

In lieu of affirmative action, however, I support laws which would take race out of the equation. In example, resumes submitted without names, but instead numbers. You couldn't ask about sex or race. That goes for loans, mortgages, etc.

And "blind" interviews, held via email, or with voice changing mechanisms.

We can do a lot to end prejudice, but it's wrong to enshrine race as a factor in laws when our goal is to have race NOT be a factor in society, period.

EDIT TO BLACK DUDE:

Color blind, or neutral. I guess I don't understand a difference.
Affirmative action laws are neither blind nor neutral, though.

And I am all for your goal, race shouldn't matter. But since, for example, blacks do get call backs on resumes with equal qualifications at 50% the rate of whites, folks with black sounding names, then we should do something to remove race from the equation. Such a law would be race neutral, simply requiring that applications contain an ID number, but no name. I'm fine with such pro-active laws, which also remain race neutral.

There are thousands of things we can do with laws to assist in disparity issues. Enshrining race within the text, however, isn't something we should ever do.

Can you see the line? I'm FOR pro-active laws to address specific problams, including hiring disparities. But those same laws can't cross the line into enshring race at the same time.

We could take this further: Hate crimes. As if one victim is any more beat up than another. The motive is taken into acount in sentencing, but their shouldn't be seperate laws. Assault is assault, regardless of color. Motive isn't the crime. It's perfectly legal to hate black folks, or gays, in example. The crime is assault. But at sentencing, aggrivating circumstances can be taken into account, including race or sexual orientation.

Answer 6

First of all, I read your link and am not sure where the connection to affirmative action is. I would say that it really depends on how you implement your system for racial diversity. A strict quota system is clearly racist and wrong as it requires you to segregate based on race for hiring, promotion, or acceptance. Any system which puts more emphasis on race than on qualifications is racist.

In my personal opinion, there are so many things that go into deciding who gets the job, promotion, scholarship, etc. that we should never look at race as a deciding factor among two candidates.

Answer 7

I figure that if I look far enough back in my family tree I will be able to find some horrible injustice that was placed upon my ancestors.

I just find it hard to deal with the fact that a greatgrandfather was treated HORRIBLY that one should receive SPECIAL TREATMENT in today's world.

I figure that EVERYONE could find some travesty in their family tree and use it as a GUILT CARD to receive special treatment.

There are just too many opportunities in today's world for ANYBODY to get special treatment.

It is simply your parents job to instill a desire to excel; skip school or just show up and then expect to be admitted to a quality school because of your heritage is flat out BS. Just do the WORK and EARN your place.

I really don't care if you are Black, Brown or Purple; get with the PROGRAM and adapt to excel.

Sure there are racists and there will ALWAYS be ignorant people or ALL RACES; the racist nature is NOT limited to KKK or WASPS! Look at the Black Panthers and Mexican Mafia plus others. Look at ALL the people using the race card to gain special treatment because they either can't or won't step up to the PROGRAM. I guess that they figure that it is an easy ride with NO work involved because of their abused heritage; BS! STEP UP or GET STEPPED ON!

NOBODY owes you S***! How about the WASP KID with a crappy life that works and excels? No AA for him/her because his/her family tree was not treated poorly 200 years ago.

Figure it OUT! It happened and GET OVER IT, the world has changed for the POSITIVE and that knowledge has made us a better Nation overall. The past is the past and just get OVER IT!

Answer 8

I think that in its infancy, it probably was necessary to undo generations of racial bias. Twenty years ago, I wrote a Business Ethics paper against it, stating it would take a full generation for it to no longer be necessary.

I'm hoping we're ten years from the point where it's not, simply because we should hire the best people, regardless of race, for the job and end the hyphenated American boxes.

Answer 9

Affirmative Action is Racist because it favors one person over another because of his race or sex or heritage.
Probably the stupidist part is "Aid to Traditionally Black Colleges" Some of them are now mostly white and still collecting aid.

Answer 10

Affirmative action is nothing more than discriminating against one group of people to atone for discrimination supposedly perpetrated against another group. It's nothing more than payback,like an eye for an eye in political terms.

AD

Answer 11

I think it is. who wants a job that is given because of their skin color.Not because you can do a good job! I would always wonder if I were just a token to please a law or if i was there on my own merits?