posted
. . . is it immoral to take advantage of opportunities presented to you through affirmative action? Does ethical behavior require that you turn down opportunities you believe you have received unfairly, or are you simply being resourceful by taking advantages presented to you? If people want to give you opportunities, is it only right to take them up on it?
(Is there a single member of a group underrepresented in professional fields or learning institutions who has come out against affirmative action? I can't think of any. Those of you who belong to the majority . . . do you think this unanimity means minority members are misguided, or that they are selfishly holding onto their unfair advantages?)
I apologize in advance for starting another affirmative action thread. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am opposed to affirmative action, but it is not a hot-button issue for me, and I could definitely see a few reasons for keeping it around for a while. So that is my position. I would say that it is not immoral to take advantage of it, especially since even minorities will theoretically pay into the system. (Not as much as the majority, I suppose, but they will.) I would not encourage it, but as long as it is there, one person cannot stop it, so why not?
This is true both for racial issues, which still have large gaps, and gender issues, which probably also have large gaps but are less obvious to this undoubtedly ignorant WASP.
As a WASP, the minorities (or majority if we are talking about women ) probably are slightly selfish, but no worse (and likely better) than the majority (or minority ) would be. I have a much greater problem with the active disenfranchisement that previously occured than I do minor affirmative action.
Misguided? Honestly, I think both sides are misguided. Affirmative action was absolutely necessary when it was introduced. It is less necessary now, but I think it still serves a valuable function. I think people are generally misguided over how much that "less" means. In general, minorities seem IMHO to believe things have changed less than they have, and to put greater weight than deserved on those injustices still present. The majority, again in general and IMHO, seems to believe that everything has changed, that there are no more injustices, and that if there are, they are merely outlying occurences that will go away if we ignore them long enough.
One thing I do know about race relations (not that this is directly relevant to AA, but still important to the point I was making in the last paragraph) is that like it or not, active, non-institutional racism is alive and well. It has been wounded, but it remains to be seen whether it will die of those wounds or survive them. Quite a few of my (white) friends make racist jokes. I cannot say how much deeper the racism runs, but if people were not racist those jokes would almost certainly be forgotten. So everyone who says, "But I'm not racist," take note. Perhaps you are not. But others are. I really do not know whether this means we need AA; perhaps it is irrelevant to the success of black, Hispanic, etc. students and perhaps not. I just say, do not claim that racism is gone. My friends are not KKK members, they are not neo-Nazis, and if asked I imagine all of them would say they are not racist. Nor do I believe any of them consciously believe that the white race is intrinsically superior than all (or some) other races. In one way, that is good. In another, it is frightening.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think affirmative action is wrong in the same sense that the death penalty is wrong. (I do NOT endorse combining the two programs into one great balance of justice). Well, I guess death is kind of more serious that millions of people caught in a cycle of oppression. For the record, I am a minority no longer considered a minority so that other newly created minorities can begin to suckle at the federal teat.
By wrong, I mean our ability to see into the full situation of another person is limited. But then, I have this new idea that all matters should be settled by a vote of 1,000,000 Americans that all should compete for the priviledge of being. This is along with my idea that abortion should cost one testicle from the genetically verified father.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had a lot of discussions about affirmative action in school, and my opinion of it has come down to this: When it comes to things like applying to college, there should not even be a box to check for race so that everyone has a fair chance of getting in. For jobs and such, you should pick the person who will fill the position best, not just based on qualifications but also on whose personality will work best in the work enviroment. The problem with this is that there are too many people (and even one person is too many) who can't see beyond skin color or gender. They would screw up this system (and they do) for many people so that someone who is more qualified, enthusiastic, and all-over better than the other candidates ends up getting over-looked because of the color of their skin, their gender, or some other stupid reason.
So basically I am against the idea affirmative action, but I see why we still need it a little longer to make up for those biases.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh... totally unrelated to AA... pooka, what if the genetic father does not want the baby to be aborted? Right now, the father cannot do anything whether or not he is willing to raise the child or not.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Minorities are behind ina number of areas. Most notably education. Solutions are:
1. Minorities must work harder than the majority to catch up.
2. We must take resources from the majority to distribute to minorities.
I, personally, would feel better working harder. I guess that sentiment comes from growing up with a single mother raising three kids in SoCal. I'm proud of my mother for working harder to provide rather than receiving welfare.
I don't like the idea of taking money from someone who may or may not be at all responsible for the position I am in.
An ideal solution for raising the standards of minorities, I think, would be an equal combination of numbers 1 and 2.
I think we're doing a lot of number 2. And while I do see some of number 1 happening, I also see a lot of minorities resenting the majority for implying that it has to work harder than others to reach the same level.
Or maybe I just spend too much time in Queens. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is there a single member of a group underrepresented in professional fields or learning institutions who has come out against affirmative action?
posted
i don't think accepting an affirmative action-prompted offer is any more immoral than pretending to be someone you're not for your own personal gain. that said, let me say that i don't think either situation is cut and dried enough to be labeled immoral or not. in an effort to provide some kind of example, here is my own situation.
my mother is white. my father was creole. my mom had the most influence on me, so until i was able to understand what race really was, i considered myself white. this is evident in that my entire circle of friends is white. (also a factor is my growing up in a very small town in which minorities could be counted on one hand.) perhaps the most entertaining part is that i actually look hispanic. anyway, while looking for scholarships for college, i probably could have qualified for any number of minority funds, but because i don't have that much pride in any specific race, i left the money for someone who did.
i don't know how relevant any of this is, but my point is this: affirmative action isn't necessarily immoral or wrong, but i'm not sure how effective it was or is. the bottom line is that as long as race is a factor ( and i agree that racism is alive and well among all races), there's always going to be some sort of plan "designed" to promote equality and in the end it's only going to perpetuate the problem.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mega, if I am understanding you to say you support AA, I think that's interesting because you're against unions, aren't you? Or maybe I'm misremembering.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:i don't think accepting an affirmative action-prompted offer is any more immoral than pretending to be someone you're not for your own personal gain.
I don't understand quite what you mean. I think it would almost always be immoral to pretend to be somebody you are not for personal gain, but there is no deceit involved in accepting afirmative action. Somebody is offering you the money, or the job, or the opportunity, and you can choose to take them up on it or you can waive the offer.
Hmm. This just occurred to me . . .
(and gosh, I hope one of the people who has made comments in this vein will respond to me)
Several people who oppose affirmative action say that it is wrong because it takes from some to give to others. While some members of the majority culture may benefit from the resources their ancestors were able to acquire "during the days of discrimination" (and I know I'm oversimplifying, but bear with me here), these people say, they are not personally guilty for the discrimination that caused the inequalities. It is impossible to level the playing field anyway, they say, so it is wrong to steal from the fortunate to correct the situation of the unfortunate.
Based on this logic, then, it would seem that there is nothing wrong with taking opportunities that are offered to you unfairly. You didn't cause the unfairness in the first place, so you should not be punished by being asked to give them up.
If my logic is correct, then, while those of you who are opposed to affirmative action think it should be abolished at the legislative level, you don't see any immorality in taking advantage of it while it exists.
posted
Storm, I have specifically said in at least a couple of threads that I don't yet have an opinion on AA. None of my comments to you on the other thread, as I recall, came out in favor of AA. Despite the fact that some people say that nobody ever changes their minds because of the debates here, I do frequently form or change my opinions as a result of hashing out here things I had only jumped to conclusions about before.
So I am a blank slate (sort of), and I am trying to see the issue from all sides and make up my own mind. I have read some pretty compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. (And I'm probably not done asking questions.)
As far as unions go . . . I don't think I have ever come out and said I was opposed to them. Like AA, it's . . . complicated. I am definitely opposed to some of the practices of unions, particularly teachers' unions, since I am slightly more knowledgeable about them than about other types. I guess that'll be fodder for some other time . . .
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it's just that the British have a different view about these things, but I'm vehemently against affirmative action. I can see very clearly the reason behind it, and I can see that there may be few other options given the barriers that minority groups often face. However, I think it's a deeply flawed policy for a number of reasons. First, it gives rise to the perception that members of minority groups cannot get jobs or university places on merit alone, both amongst the minority group in question and amongst majority groups. So those people who do get jobs/university places feel that they don't deserve to be there, and those around them feel the same and there's a huge stigma attached to that. Second, if affirmative action is just based on race and not on social class, it's doomed to failure. All it does is swing the balance even more in favour of the middle class and make no difference at all to working-class or poorer families who really need it. Third, it can be formulaic and if so it fails to judge the individual on his or her own merits. A system that looks at the individual in context would work much better, but is far more resource-intensive. For example: in some inner-city schools in Britain, you can be top of your class and still get B grades at A-level, while in a private school a B grade would put you bottom of the class. So in some cases, an individual getting B grades in a failing school would get A grades if they had been to a better school. But not in all cases. So what is needed is a system that can make the right choice about who would, and who wouldn't. Class rank is a good predictor, as (in general) are interviews - this is for university entrance, I don't know enough about the job market to comment on that. But you've got to look at each individual pretty closely, and affirmative action (on the whole, especially if it's a quota-based system) doesn't tend to do that.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't we revert to the ideas of Karl Marx? His idea of Communism during the Industrial Revolution is nothing like today's Communism. He basically thought of it as a classless society. He disagreed with any law that gave an advantage to certain groups, whether the issue was age, gender, ethnic background, social ranks, etc. I agree with Karl Marx - affirmative action is just another form of racial/gender/social discrimination. Affirmative action can benefit only certain groups and harms the others. A college supporting affirmative action would pick one student of race "x" whose GPA was 2.7 before they would a student of race "y" whose GPA was 3.9. This is insane. It's completely non-sensical and definetley not ethical. Now, I'm not saying that I'm always a shining image of morality but that's beside the point. In my eyes, it's unlawful. Doesn't the constitution say that all men are created equal? After you realize that this is correct, you may then wonder, if all men are created equal, then how would colleges "morally" choose students to attend? Once we reach this point, morality looses my vote. College acceptance should be based solely on grades. Affirmative action is designed to give benefits to "groups who have had more difficulties in the past", as Colin Powell said on a show about affirmative action a few months ago. Then should colleges be filled with women for difficulties reaching voting rights? Should colleges be filled with people whose ancestors were slaves? This is common sense - you only advance in a job if you're doing your job efficiently. In the work place, the best workers get advanced. So, the best students get advanced - if student X is making better grades than student Y, then student X gets into college. That's how it should be.
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . is it immoral to take advantage of opportunities presented to you through affirmative action? Does ethical behavior require that you turn down opportunities you believe you have received unfairly, or are you simply being resourceful by taking advantages presented to you? If people want to give you opportunities, is it only right to take them up on it?
Back to the original question. I had to think on this a long while to figure out why, but yes, I should turn down any such opportunities, if I recognize them for what they are. No actual, practical injustice has been done until the offer is accepted and one is put in a position one doesn't deserve.
Oh, and the guy who just posted about classless societies? Only one classless society is possible--the one where everyone lives like the lowest of the low.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AA is a simple enough issue. To eradicate racism, all institutions need to be "color-blind" (i use this term in the fear of being labelled as a whitey swimming in a "sea of privelege"). AA is not color blind. Therefore it must be removed. Unfortunately no one likes to just drop all their old hatreds and misconceptions and solve a problem, so AA is not going away for a while.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If people want to give you opportunities, is it only right to take them up on it?
Although my situation doesn't apply to race, I have also wondered about this. I am a female in a technical support department, with about 20 other employees, all male but one. I know when I interviewed for this job, I was the ONLY one interviewed, and hired pretty much on the spot, to replace a out-going person who was also female.
Although over time I have proved myself very capable in the position and have received very high reviews, it always kind of nags at the back of my mind -- did they hire me BECAUSE I was female -- to make their "quota" of female/or minority employees? I will never know. I guess it shouldn't bug me -- I sincerely hope I was hired because of my qualifications, not because of my gender.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) probably are slightly selfish, but no worse (and likely better) than the majority (or minority ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) would be. I have a much greater problem with the active disenfranchisement that previously occured than I do minor affirmative action.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
but that's beside the point. In my eyes, it's unlawful. Doesn't the constitution say that all men are created equal? After you realize that this is correct, you may then wonder, if all men are created equal, then how would colleges "morally" choose students to attend? Once we reach this point, morality looses my vote. College acceptance should be based solely on grades. Affirmative action is designed to give benefits to "groups who have had more difficulties in the past", as Colin Powell said on a show about affirmative action a few months ago. Then should colleges be filled with women for difficulties reaching voting rights? Should colleges be filled with people whose ancestors were slaves? This is common sense - you only advance in a job if you're doing your job efficiently. In the work place, the best workers get advanced. So, the best students get advanced - if student X is making better grades than student Y, then student X gets into college. That's how it should be.
