PDA

View Full Version : Has Affirmative Action Outlived Its Usefulness in the Workplace?



Zere
09-22-2009, 05:45 AM
Discuss.

henry
09-22-2009, 02:33 PM
we should discuss this on your blog

Odin
09-22-2009, 07:18 PM
was it ever useful to not hire the most qualified person to fill a quota?

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 07:13 PM
Affirmative Action never had a use in the workplace. As Odin said, it is at odds with good hiring practices.

Its use politically and socially was to bring minorities into the workplace and thus elevate them socially. That has obviously failed as well, considering blacks in particular have been regressing in almost every social standard.

Read:

Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253815689&sr=8-6)

and

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Politics-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688048323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253815987&sr=1-1

both by Thomas Sowell.

I believe I posted an audiobook to the second one in the stash

Zere
09-24-2009, 07:56 PM
On Monday I have to debate for affirmative action in one of my classes. So over the next few days I'm going to argue for affirmative action. I'd appreciate it if you guys do your best to tear the arguments apart, so I will be prepared for the debate. Thanks in advance.

THIS MAY GET HEATED.

Odin
09-24-2009, 08:13 PM
would you rather have the most qualified cops and firemen getting jobs, or the color corrected ones? who would you feel safer with?

Odin
09-24-2009, 08:26 PM
and who gives a shit. bitching about a fact of life won't change nothing.
it just might get black panthers knocking on yer door.

spoken like someone whos never missed out on a job they were the most qualified for because someone needed to fill a quota that you didnt fit.

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 08:32 PM
On Monday I have to debate for affirmative action in one of my classes. So over the next few days I'm going to argue for affirmative action. I'd appreciate it if you guys do your best to tear the arguments apart, so I will be prepared for the debate. Thanks in advance.

THIS MAY GET HEATED.

Post your arguments in the War Room and I will tear them apart for you.

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 08:35 PM
Will this be a real debate with a structure and time limits or the more typical college debate consisting of standing up in front of class and trying to talk over the other?

Odin
09-24-2009, 08:56 PM
nah, i been there.
a few times in fact.
my sweet husband/provider is there RIGHT FUCKING now.
like this very moment at his job this is going down.

but the complaining - it's like pissing against the wind - you get what i'm saying?

not complaining. i live in detroit. im well used to seeing under-qualified people get jobs and scholarships based on the color of their skin. well used to seeing them piss said opportunities away as well. but they boy needs discussion for debate so i can oblige him.

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 09:29 PM
but the complaining - it's like pissing against the wind - you get what i'm saying?

LOL so being upset about injustice is useless? I don't mean to get all self-righteous, but what would Martin Luther King, Jr. say?


the thing is - i have lived a few places - and i have SEEN minorities get "oppressed" time and time again.
really it's just shitty that we live in a society where people fucking judge you on skin color. it is a double edge sword though. i think it's important to remember that.

Minorities are oppressed all the time...it is an unfortunate fact of life...but the fact of the matter is Affirmative Action does not serve anyone except for a select few people's interests in the long run.

Places of employment are deprived of the most capable workers available, qualified members of the "majority" is lose jobs, and people from "minority" groups are allowed to continue in an unsuccessful and unadapted culture.

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 09:35 PM
International Affirmative Action by Thomas Sowell


As the Supreme Court of the United States wrestles with the issue of affirmative action as it exists in college admissions at the University of Michigan, the justices are taking on an issue that has been wrestled with in many contexts by courts in India for far longer than group preferences and quotas have existed in the United States.

India is not the only other country with affirmative action, though it has had such programs longer than any other, going all the way back to the days when India was part of the British Empire.

Affirmative action has existed in countries on every inhabited continent -- not only in democratic countries like India and Britain, but in totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union and China, as well as in Nigeria, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, among others.

How have these programs worked out in other countries? There are certain common patterns -- and certain unique differences.

Perhaps the most widespread similarity among programs in these very different countries has been that group preferences and quotas are almost always discussed -- by critics and advocates alike -- in terms of their rationales, rather than their actual results. Some countries have not even bothered to collect data on outcomes.

The most common outcome is that the benefits of affirmative action programs go to only a small minority within the groups that are supposed to benefit from them. This is almost invariably the already most prosperous segment of these groups.

In India, for example, it has long been known that many university places reserved for Dalits -- formerly known as "untouchables" -- remain unfilled. Where the various benefits offered are actually used, they are used disproportionately by particular subgroups who have the money, education, and other advantages that enable them to make use of preferential access to higher education, higher level jobs, and the like.

In India this problem has been so widely recognized that there have in recent years been demands for a "quota within quota," so that the more fortunate subgroups do not continue to take the lion's share of the benefits from affirmative action. A similar problem exists within the United States, but has not been nearly so widely recognized.

Another common pattern is that group preferences have been initiated as temporary measures. But even where these programs have begun with a specified cutoff date -- as in Pakistan, Malaysia, and India -- these programs have continued on for decades past those cutoff dates by subsequent extensions, with no end yet in sight. Often these programs have not only persisted but expanded, covering more sectors or more groups, or both.

Perhaps the most ominous common pattern has been a backlash by others who resent the special preferences given to particular groups. In India, violence against Dalits has escalated in the wake of preferences on their behalf -- preferences which, ironically, relatively few Dalits are able to take advantage of.

In Sri Lanka, where the groups live concentrated in different regions, the escalation of violence has gone all the way to civil war. This small nation has suffered more deaths from this internal strife than the United States suffered during all the long years of the Vietnam war.

Where have large-scale group preferences been successful, at least in the sense that they have benefited large numbers of people in one group without either ruining another group or degenerating into violent internal strife? Malaysia may be the prime example, but it has had unique features that may not enable it to be a model for other countries.

First, group preferences in Malaysia began in 1970 and were carried out while the country experienced unusually rapid economic growth and transformation from a predominantly agricultural nation to a modern commercial and industrial society. A rising tide raised all boats.

Another key factor is that it is a federal crime in Malaysia to promote intergroup strife. There can be no careers like those of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in Malaysia. For countries where free speech is basic, Malaysia is not a model that can be imitated.

"Affirmative Action" and College Graduation Rates by Thomas Sowell


When racial preferences were ended in California, there was much hysteria in the media, with dire predictions that blacks would be kept out of higher education. Just recently, with much less publicity, the fact has come out that there are now more black students in the University of California system than there were when racial preferences and quotas were in effect. The same is true in the University of Texas system.

What has happened is that black students have redistributed themselves within both these state university systems. There are no longer as many blacks attending the respective flagship universities in these systems, but they are attending other institutions whose normal standards they meet, instead of being overmatched and flunking out of more prestigious institutions.

A book by former university presidents William Bowen (Princeton) and Derek Bok (Harvard) had made a misleading case for affirmative action that the media have hailed as definitive. Bowen and Bok claim that the mismatching of black students under affirmative action has not produced the dire results predicted by critics. Their evidence? Black students graduate at higher rates at a particular set of elite institutions that Bowen and Bok have chosen to study than at lower ranked institutions in their study.

The real issue, however, is not how highly ranked the institutions are, but how big the racial difference in admissions standards has been. This they never tell us, despite mountains of statistics on everything else. From other studies, however, it is clear that racial differences in SAT scores, for example, are much smaller at Harvard (95 points) than at Duke (184 points) or Rice (271 points).

In other words, where the racial preferences in admissions are not as great, the differences in graduation rates are not as great. The critics of affirmative action were right: Racial preferences reduce the prospects of black students graduating. Other data tell the same story.

Compare racial preferences in Colorado, for example. At the flagship University of Colorado at Boulder, test score differences between black and white students have been more than 200 points -- and only 39 percent of the black students graduated, compared to 72 percent of white students. Meanwhile, at the University of Colorado at Denver, where the SAT score difference was a negligible 30 points, there was also a negligible difference in graduation rates -- 50 percent for blacks and 48 percent for whites.

In short, it is not the relative rankings of the institutions but the racial differential in admissions standards that has been crucial. You are not doing anybody a favor by sending them where they are more likely to fail, rather than where they are more likely to succeed. Critics of racial preferences and quotas have been saying that for more than 30 years, and now the data back them up -- which may be why you don't hear much about those data.

Reaper Man
09-24-2009, 09:52 PM
yes. useless.
this is America bro.
what happened to MLK again?
and how many others?

Yeah...that is why I want to start my own country.

Zere
09-25-2009, 02:18 AM
Will this be a real debate with a structure and time limits or the more typical college debate consisting of standing up in front of class and trying to talk over the other?

Somewhere in the middle probably. It's supposed to be structured with one side making evidence/points for 7 minutes, then the other side attacks the evidence for 5 minutes, then the original side defends their points for 3 minutes. Then the scenario is repeated with the other side giving evidence. Then we have a Q&A where the yelling and the anger come out.

Zere
09-25-2009, 02:21 AM
Many public schools in minority populated areas are poorly funded, leading to a worse education because of larger class sizes and a lack of technology and school programs. Many of these schools do not have English as a second language programs, so minorities who are still learning English cannot compete in the classroom. Therefore affirmitive action is right for college entrance, since these students did not have the opportunity to receive as good of an education growing up, they deserve an opportunity in college, and have the potential to be as smart or smarter than non-minority students who didn't have the poor public schooling conditions (giving them better qualifications for college even though they might not really be "smarter").

Reaper Man
09-25-2009, 10:36 PM
Many public schools in minority populated areas are poorly funded, leading to a worse education because of larger class sizes and a lack of technology and school programs. Many of these schools do not have English as a second language programs, so minorities who are still learning English cannot compete in the classroom. Therefore affirmitive action is right for college entrance, since these students did not have the opportunity to receive as good of an education growing up, they deserve an opportunity in college, and have the potential to be as smart or smarter than non-minority students who didn't have the poor public schooling conditions (giving them better qualifications for college even though they might not really be "smarter").

Goddammit, I posted an essay with what is wrong with this and lost it all. This will be a summary.

- Putting unqualified minorties in college who couldn't hack it in high school is just idiocy and will hurt both qualified and unqualified students. The qualified students will have their learning environment undermined (either by lower standards or time/money spent on remedial classes or both). The unqualified students will find themselves over their head in the degree of rigor expected of them and perform worse until they acquire the skills that their peers learned in middle school.

These minorities need to learn the skills that would allow them to achieve a high GPA and ACT/SAT score so they can perform in college. The point of college is a higher education. Why make it a remedial high school?

Let the minority children learn the langauge and academic skills they need at their own pace and then apply to college at that point (if they are still interested). Schools are always sympathetic to these cases provided their is evidence to back it up (a good writing sample and standardized test scores.

Moreover, it is patently false that minority immigrants cannot perform as well as their white counterparts without political assistance. Japanese immigrants have demonstrated greater academic success and higher earning potential than whites after only a few generations.

Neo_Pop
09-26-2009, 03:26 AM
Discuss.

No it hasn't.

There's still a lot latent prejudice out there. A minority will always be assumed to be less educated, less articulate, less intelligent and more problematic than a non-minority. And factoring in that a minority is more likely to have less connections in the job market that will help them find a job find a job, the odds of them finding employment are less.

Plus, people hire who they like, they mostly don't care if a person is more qualified than another, unless the job is really important.

Radar
09-26-2009, 04:34 PM
How selective is Affrimative Action...? Are they mixing gang-bangers with the more intelligent inner-city kids and bussing them to school..?

If a white kid has a chance to move to a better school based on their smarts, then anyone does

Reaper Man
09-27-2009, 12:23 AM
Yeah--what are you defining as affrimative action? Are there quotas to fill and shit or are we just selecting a kid that marks "black" on their resume over a guy who moarks "white"?

ItBurnzWhenIP
09-28-2009, 06:04 AM
http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww266/erindelullo/JK145.jpg
ask the man on the far right what he thinks of that bullshit
(ward connerly)

ItBurnzWhenIP
09-28-2009, 06:08 AM
Many public schools in minority populated areas are poorly funded, leading to a worse education because of larger class sizes and a lack of technology and school programs. Many of these schools do not have English as a second language programs, so minorities who are still learning English cannot compete in the classroom. Therefore affirmitive action is right for college entrance, since these students did not have the opportunity to receive as good of an education growing up, they deserve an opportunity in college, and have the potential to be as smart or smarter than non-minority students who didn't have the poor public schooling conditions (giving them better qualifications for college even though they might not really be "smarter").

ESL is what community college and continuation schools are for. If somebody can't speak English or there schooling has failed them that sucks. But it shouldn't bring down the advancements of America's bastions of learning. When they excel at community college or in their Bachelors program then they've earned the right to transfer over to a high level University. Where I'm from Affirmative action HELPS me. But that is bullshit! If I studied and got good grades maybe I'd beat out some of the 70% asian students that spent their school years being dedicated and learning instead of doing drugs and getting drunk.

Zere
09-29-2009, 04:24 PM
welp I didn't really get to debate in this thread because i procrastinated, but my team won the debate.

Thanks I guess?

Reaper Man
09-29-2009, 10:21 PM
welp I didn't really get to debate in this thread because i procrastinated, but my team won the debate.

Thanks I guess?

How could you have won? This was a slam dunk for the other team unless your opponent had down syndrome or the judges were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Zere
09-30-2009, 02:40 AM
Lol, they certainly weren't geniuses. But hey I'd present our side of the debate for kicks on here, but I'm super busy right now. Remind me next Thursday if you wanna debate it.