On one hand it has its obvious benefits. People from minority groups who otherwise may not have had the opportunity to get into certain schools ect. can get a great education and become productive in society, adding to their social status. All of which is a good thing.
On the other hand, you get people who abuse the system. You get privledged and rich minorities who get scholarships and preferential entrance based on the fact that they are minorities and based on the fact that they are disadvantaged.
I've always thought that it would be better to means test these things rather than automatically assume someone is disadvantaged because they are a minority.
What do you think?
2007-09-12 02:24:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That should be "and NOT"
2007-09-12 02:26:44 · update #1
It started out as a good idea, but then has been abused to the point of being ineffective. One example is a friend of mine whose husband has a heating & air conditioning company that he started. His wife knows absolutely nothing about the business, but of course they put the business in HER name so it would be considered a "minority" business. Other examples are employers not being able to have a say in who they hire. Government should not interfere with that. Getting jobs and other benefits should be based on knowledge, education, experience, work ethic, etc., not on the color of your skin in order to get a free ride.
2007-09-12 02:32:03 · answer #1 · answered by cynthiajean222 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i used to think affirmative action was a good cause devised to help the minority to progress and bridge the gap between the minority and majority. and i'd probably still be supporting it if it was means tested and not blindly helping any person in the group.
and then you learn throughout the world the concept of affirmative action - which itself isnt properly defined is borrowed and used to benefit people who are least deserving. malaysia is a perfect example where it is so systematically abused and that is why you see fifty years since its independence, the rich got richer the poor became poorer. its not means tested. and most shockingly ... its been used to help the MAJORITY RACE (who amounts to 90% of the public sector employees) and it is still continuing despite that it hasnt been proved working to achieve its goals. all it has produced is a group of lazy parasites who truly believe its their natural right to be fed by the government.
now i feel totally disgusted by it. help should only be given to the needy regardless of race, not the minority/majority per se.
sorry i think i took this opp to vent on already.
2007-09-12 09:52:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Personally, Affirmative action should not be based on race, but rather income and IQ. That way, the poor minorities and the poor majority get into schools and jobs that may have cost them a fortune otherwise.
2007-09-12 09:31:02 · answer #3 · answered by scapegoat123456 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being a disadvantaged minority is not about economic status. Its more of being judged solely by the color of your skin. Unfortunately in this country we still live in a time where racism is alive and well. I do not agree with someone less qualified being taken over someone more qualified but I do believe they should have the same opportunity to prove themselves worthy.
2007-09-12 09:35:35 · answer #4 · answered by hyiik 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There was an unfortunate and shameful time in our past when A.A. was necessary, but those days are behind us for the most part.
As for the present, AA is used as a tool by a certain political party to further their ambitions. They don't seem to mind the fact that AA demeans people of color because it presupposed that a particular group is innately disadvantaged by nature because of their skin pigmentation.
AA is ultimately harmful for society.
2007-09-12 09:32:04 · answer #5 · answered by illiberal Illuminati 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it's fine in small doses. Assisting minorities in areas where there are obvious biases and such is great. Giving less fortunate folks a hand up the ladder is also great. Giving minorities preferences over more qualified people when there isn't any great disparity to resolve isn't so great.
2007-09-12 09:37:15 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What we have now is racism, pure and simple.
Let's go back to the original 'affirmative action' which consisted of advertising federal jobs in minority areas.
We don't have equal opportunity, we have equal outcome. Sounds like a quota system to me.
Then again...if ya can't compete ya gotta cheat.
2007-09-12 09:29:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we should just do away with the race and ethnicity questions on a job application or a college admission form. That way the person,regardless of race, who is better qualified will be given consideration first.
2007-09-12 10:30:26 · answer #8 · answered by Jan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no problems with people of all races competing for something they are qualified to do, but affirmative action has in many cases resulted in incompetents getting jobs which qualified people should have got. This is WRONG.
2007-09-12 10:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to the Constitution everyone must be treated equally under the law. That means it is unconstitutional to give an advantage to one group of citizens and not to another. Affirmative action is unethical, unconstitutional, and unamerican.
2007-09-12 09:58:10 · answer #10 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋