POLL: Do you approve or disapprove of affirmative action?

[ruggerson]

Poll question: POLL: Do you approve or disapprove of affirmative action?

In general, do you approve of the idea of affirmative action to aid historically disadvantaged minorities or do you believe it is just reverse discrimination?

(note: I'm not putting an "other" category in the choices, because this should be taken as a very broad, general question. In other words, if you believe in AA in select, limited cases only, you should vote yes.)

[suede1]

1. Approve.

[Iggo]

2. I approve.

And yes, it's discrimination.

[varelse]

3. I think the specific policies need a review, but I support affirmative action in principle

We're not yet living in the land of equal opportunity - the legacy of discrimination still exists here.

[Deja Q]

6. It exists everywhere and even in ways people can't comprehend because they've been taught to

see it in the "usual" ways.

Or lied to too.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Yes, but the people most discriminated against in the workplace-fat, short or cancer surviors...

are hard to compensate for.

Hell, they've discovered that if you're going for a job interview and you are even seen sitting next to an obese person while waiting for your interview, you are less likely to be hired!!!

[Fla_Democrat]

51. OMG, I got 2 strikes against me.

:evilgrin:

[Deja Q]

4. Did people vote for Obama because of skills and acceptance of challenges? Or because he's black?

Certainly compared to McMoose...

Third option: Some people (not I) wholly believe he has been bought and paid for by the same slugs on Wall Street. Why no token option for them?

[Captain Hilts]

8. Both. nt

[Deja Q]

12. A generalization...

Some relatives of mine were anti-Obama back when Clinton was still in the running. It didn't take long for them to change from "That shack must be Obama's campaign HQ" to "He is very articulate and direct with where he wants to take the country" (amongst a score of other things they finally recognized), but they had seen what I saw all along about him. And they are ecstatic over his election and what he has done so far.

Trust me, not everybody voted for him just because he's black - which could be construed as a case of reverse discrimination too. It's possible his being black might have discouraged them at one point, however. I do not know their reasoning at the time and it's immaterial anyway. They voted for him because he was the most competent candidate. What made them think otherwise originally, again, I do not know and it's not relevant.

[Captain Hilts]

22. No, but a lot of people really wanted to vote for a black president

because it's something completely different from GWB, it made them feel that racism was over with, they wanted to vote for a black candidate, they felt good about themselves for voting for a black candidate. It's something people wanted to happen and people wanted to be part of history by voting for him. And huge swaths of the population had never had a chance to vote for a black candidate for anything. I voted in VA for years and the only black candidate I ever had the opportunity to vote for was Doug Wilder. It was cool voting for a black man to be gov. of VA. Many folks in the US hadn't had any opportunity to vote for a black candidate for any office until Obama.

We're lucky he's a good guy, but there's more to it than that.

[muffin1]

5. Approve.

And isn't it just "discrimination" and not "reverse discrimination"? Not to be picky, but that term has always bothered me!:)

[Deja Q]

9. Depends on your POV.

"Reverse discrimination" helps people just because of a certain status, without underlying merit.

"Discrimination" hurts people just because of a certain status, without underlying merit.

Indeed, when it comes to whole groups of people, discrimination is just wrong - period. As is reverse discrimination. I don't recall the show, I think it was "The Golden Girls", where Dorthy said something like "That's why you Chinese are smarter than everybody else." That is reverse discrimination. We all know that not all Chinese people are smarter than the rest of us. Or dumber. This is a time when it's about the individual, not a certain status applied to them due to biological or other factors.

[Iggo]

39. It bothers me in the way "white slavery" does.

Slavery is slavery. Discrimination is discrimination.

[muffin1]

40. Love the sig line!

I know you know the ever-popular "special rights" instead of "equal rights" when it come to gay people.x(

[Captain Hilts]

7. Based on income, not race or sex. nt

[MADem]

11. What an interesting poll. I really do NEED the "other" as I can't answer either way.

Do you approve of affirmative action?

I don't "approve" of it. Not at all. It's function has been to right demonstrable wrongs and I understand the reason for it--but approve? Hell, no. I wish it weren't needed at all.

Is it "reverse" discrimination?

If you check this block, you are acknowledging that discrimination exists, and of course, it does--necessitating the use of a reversing "affirmative action" to level the playing field.

What a conundrum!!

I think the way to get around the whole "affirmative action" whine from the right is to simply target zip codes for assistance. If you know that schools that serve specific zip codes are underserved and underfunded, then you're targeting students who come from underserved and underfunded neighborhoods without having to check any "minority" blanks or deal with the whole "race" thing. When you go trolling for candidates to benefit from this "non-affirmative action" assistance, though, the fish you pull in are unlikely to be Buffy and Buford Whitebread. If Buffy wants a shot at that aid, her family will have to move to one of those "poor folks" zipcodes and send their kids to the "poor folks" school.

[Captain Hilts]

23. Yes! I believe in income-based AA. nt

[konnichi wa]

13. I'm mostly against it because everyone is a member of some sort of minority.

...

[Sparkly]

14. Women aren't.

:shrug:

And even if this weren't true, white straight Christian men are not the vast majority they represent in positions of power and access.

[konnichi wa]

43. Well, nobody ever proposed giving me any special consideration because I'm not straight

and not christian.




Maybe I'd feel differently if they had.

:sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

53. I don't understand.

Could you make your point without sarcasm? I don't know what you're saying.

[Deja Q]

19. Which is why President obama, unlike Moosehead McCain, keeps stressing we all need to work together

I am also conscious of the irony, given the insult I lobbed at them. But then, I also like to think I know the difference between being people trying to be genuine and people doing every sleazy tactic necessary to win at a game. Palin was a pawn for McCain. Especially after their loss, it's become increasingly apparent that she was used as a stunt. Maybe I'm immature, but given the existing circumstances, I don't think they deserve too much sympathy. Unless I can be convinced the media is telling a lot of fibs and the two of them really were better off for America. They didn't want people to work together; indeed they started the "country first" and other mantras only after, and long after, Obama started discussing how we're all in this together.

We all know McCain was a fake.

And Obama has been consistent with the "we are all in this together" mantra as well; his speech on Thursday and denouncing the speculators sealed his sincerity for America for me.

Americans voted for Obama, by and large for the right reasons.

[Stellabella]

28. White men aren't. And never have been.

Please, white men have held the power, the money, and the land through centuries. Discrimination against anyone who hasn't been repressed is bullshit. RD is just an excuse for whiny people who don't have the ability to make it, even with just about everything on their side.

[anonymous171]

41. *Certain* white men have held all the power, money, and land.

The rest of us white folks have been left out in the cold, just like everyone else.

[konnichi wa]

42. Yeah, you're right...there has never been a gay white man.

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

15. Yes, but only because of institutional racism. AA isn't a form of reparation

It's a way to even the playing field.

[Captain Hilts]

24. The people most discriminated against in the workforce are obses people. nt

[TahitiNut]

31. I'd argue that overweight and over-40 are equally discriminated against.

Ageism is insidious ... and, while people can often lose weight, they CAN'T get younger.

[Captain Hilts]

37. True. The NYT has had some articles lately about looking for work over age 45. nt

[stray cat]

16. How about affirmative action where minoritys don't pay taxes?

would that be acceptable?

[Occam Bandage]

17. Yes, but with caveats, and with major changes to the current system.

The caveats? I think it is often counterproductive as it stands, and when it comes to education, it can end up furthering racism by overpromoting undeserving students. Some students are of course bright but have been neglected by their educational system as a result of institutional failures resulting from societal racism. Some students are not bright and should not be in a top-tier college; all the opportunity in the world would not turn them into a student capable of pulling a 3.0 average on their own. It is difficult to tell the difference from nothing but a set of test scores, essays, and grades. Given that many white students at top colleges have little experience with black people, exposing them to a black student body that is less intellectually capable than the white student body does not send a message of equality. That is not of course to suggest that this always happens, but it can happen, and it is not fair to or helpful for anyone involved when it does. However, it seems that is a risk that cannot be stripped from Affirmative Action, and so I regard it as a necessary evil.

The changes? I think it is extraordinarily misguided to focus on skin tone with no regard to socioeconomic opportunity level, especially when it comes to education. A girl of Polish stock in an predominantly-black South Side of Chicago neighborhood will go to the same underfunded schools, have the same lack of local economic opportunity, and will have the same urban social pressures (including anti-intellectual and anti-education pressures) as her friends. She may have some degree of an advantage over her neighbors in hiring decisions due to her skin color, but it is false to claim that she has had better educational opportunities, and for the system to claim that she has had the same opportunities as a white girl from a rich, white North Side neighborhood. Though she is white, she suffers from the lack of opportunity that the institutional racism aimed at her black neighbors has given her community.

And it may of course be reversed. Suppose we have an upper-middle-class black girl from that rich North Side neighborhood, who went to an excellent school, had strongly pro-education social pressures, and who had a wealth of extracurricular enrichment available to her. It is true that her skin color will give her a disadvantage compared to her white friends in hiring decisions, but it is likely not true that she had significantly worse educational opportunities, and it is certainly not true that she was educationally disadvantaged in comparison to our white South Side girl.

I think that affirmative action can be a very good program, and it's true that racism has disadvantaged and continues to disadvantage many people, but narrowly focusing on race itself isn't quite right. Just as damaging as race itself are the secondary and tertiary effects of racism, such as poor schools, few jobs, and unhealthy community attitudes spawned from decades of racist treatment. And just as beneficial as white skin is in our society are the secondary and tertiary advantages of ethnic majority: rich neighborhoods with rich schools and plenty of jobs. To claim that the race of the applicant fully covers those advantages and disadvantages is true for many, but not for all, and that I think is a shortcoming of purely race-based affirmative action. Focusing on income level and community income level, with perhaps a small component for skin tone, would be a better idea.

[mvd]

32. True, I'm for "equal opportunity for all"

And a strong right to sue for discrimination. If your business is in a primarily minority area and employs mostly white people, then something could be amiss. It could be used as a reason for lawsuits.

[Nikia]

18. Yes for both education and employment

Of course, no one is being done any favors if the candidate is unqualified, meaning unable to succeed academically or professionally. Comapnies and colleges that practice affirmative action though usually have many more qualified applicants than positions.
Sometimes, a company begins practicing affirmative action in response to previous outright discrimination. From past experience, I would advise women and targeted minorities to be cautious when accepting these positions, being aware that they might be facing a hostile work environment.

[Deja Q]

20. Well said!

It works both ways, all around.

[Two Americas]

21. kick

I approve of affirmative action, and after reading threads about this the last few days I think it is time to aggressively promote and defend the idea and stop caving in to the framing of this issue by bigots and right wingers and those who have internalized their premises and assumptions. We have backed up far enough and stayed silent too long.

It would be one thing if people had legitimate arguments against the concept of diversity and the need for affirmative action, but it is clear from the discussions here lately that people do not even understand the concept. That means that the bigots and right wingers win by default. There is no shame in losing on this issue, however there is no excuse for failing to even show up on the battle lines.

In particular, we are being asked to assume that the choice is between diversity or going for the most talented person. That is false, and is an idea relentlessly promoted by the political right wing and the religious right. It is a clever defense of white male hetero privilege. If we surrender on that, we have surrendered completely.

Another argument we hear is that it is about class and not race, gender or orientation. That is also false. The two are not contradictory - bigotry around race, gender and orientation are manifestations of class warfare. Saying that it should be about class and not race is also a clever and deceptive way to defend white male hetero privilege.

Another argument we are hearing is the "we can't please everyone" line of reasoning. "So many groups of 'them' to please, so few appointments." This is based on a false premise, that people fighting for equality and human rights are small factions, separate and discrete from one another, pursuing their own selfish goals, and promoting that premise reinforces and defends white male hetero privilege.

That is a start, anyway, on my thoughts on this subject. There is much more to delve in to here. The debates on DU are not really between people holding two opinions about this, but rather between those who wish to discuss it and those who wish to shut any discussion about it down. I say we talk about it, fight to keep the discussion alive and to have the argument in support of affirmative action heard by people, and stop backing down to right wing and bigoted arguments.


...

[Starry Messenger]

29. "People do not even understand the concept"

I was just thinking that today as well. I was required to take classes on diversity in college but I wonder how many schools really have that as a requirement, especially with all the Republican gutting of education funding.

[Stellabella]

25. Yeah, right, reverse discimination. After hundreds of years of repression,

we're now in danger of giving minorities too much of a break?

[madville]

26. I think there should be more disclosure

I generally agree with the idea to give minorities a better chance but I think there should be more disclosure up front in instances where these practices are applied. If they know they are not going to hire a white male for the job then state that in the ad so people don't waste their time for a job they don't have a chance at. For things like school admissions or mass hiring, give a breakdown upfront so people know where they stand from the get go.

[anonymous171]

30. That's a good idea.

It would help calm the hysteria.

[HopeHoops]

27. The GOP "base" is proof that there are too many white bigots still out there.

I know a few.

[Renew Deal]

33. I've always had mixed feelings about it.

But I'm more supportive of it based on General Wes Clark's report of how succesful it was in the Army.

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/gru_amicus-ussc/um/MilitaryL-both.pdf

[ismnotwasm]

34. Approve and support.

Without reservation

[XemaSab]

35. I think there are better ways of increasing diversity in the schools

For example, having a UC system that admits everyone with a 3.5 or over, and a CSU system that admits everyone with a 2.5 or over.

You say there isn't enough room in the university system? Maybe it's time to build more universities. :shrug:

[seabeyond]

36. i think it is a must, even today. i know to many white males that want only

white males.

[aikoaiko]

38. only in so far as one takes affirmative action to get qualified persons from underrepresented groups

to apply for a job or contract. Or underrepresented group status is used in conjunction with many other variables for admissions standards.

But that's about it.

[Honeycombe8]

44. You don't have my answer: No; it doesn't serve the purpose.

I used to work on aff. action plans. They don't work, anyway, and cost tons of money, which is passed on to customers.

[Occam Bandage]

45. I believe that is intentional. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

46. I think it hurts the credibility of minority professionals

We have a woman here who quit a major accounting firm a number of years ago, she wasn't hired based on affirmative action, she was infact the ONLY canidate for the job and they had tried to recruit her twice before she joined them. But the entire time she was there she had to deal with an undertone that she was just there to fill a quota of black women and wasn't taken seriously by many of those working under here.

That isn't to say there would be no racism without affirmative action, but affirmative action does hurt the credibility of minotirty professionals.

[MellowDem]

47. Affirmative Action doesn't work...

so I disapprove of it. If the intention was to level the playing field, I have seen no evidence that it has done anything of the sort. Other programs could address inequalities in our society so much more effectively and permanently and without using racial discrimination (there is no such thing as "reverse").

To me, affirmative action is simply a cop out to addressing those things in our society that are the real cause of inequality. It's a way to patch up the problem. A company can use affirmative action to make its workforce diverse, yet the same inequalities and root causes of those inequalities still exist and nothing is changed in society.

So on the surface, in a very artificial sense, it looks like we are advancing as a society. But then you look at the numbers and see nothing has changed due to affirmative action.

Just look at Asians in American society. They were discriminated against harshly like other minorities, yet they now make the most income on average of all racial groups in the US. And they did it without affirmative action. It just goes to show that there are many underlying factors that lead to a group's success, and affirmative action does nothing to address any of them.

[Sparkly]

52. So your argument rests on the successes of Asian Americans in the US, as a whole.

Why do you think African Americans and women remain disproportionately empowered, vs. Asian Americans? What's your theory?

As to "nothing is changed" as a result of Affirmative Action, I really beg to differ. Neither of us can supply data for what would have happened without it, but progress HAS been made, slowly but surely.

[MellowDem]

57. That's not my argument, just an example to think about

As it is, affirmative action being a policy that uses racial discrimination should be readily studied to see if it has had any positive impact at reducing gaps at all. From looking at the percentage of African Americans that make up those living in poverty in the US, it doesn't look like AA has had much of an effect at all, considering African Americans went from around 31% in the Civil Rights era to 25% today, that 5-6% drop could be explained by a ton of things, such as anti-discrimination laws, the repeal of Jim Crow, the increase in the overall standard of living, the recent increase in the percentage of Hispanics living in poverty, etc. etc. I don't understand how you can say neither of us can supply data or evidence and then go on and say that progress has been made due to AA.

As for Asian Americans succeeding in the US compared to other minorities has a lot of factors. One major one is culture. Even in poor Asian households education is generally a big deal and is pushed big time. Not so with a lot of other people who live in poverty in the US. I'm sure some research has been done on the subject, though surprisingly it is rarely brought up in discussions about race disparities on here.

I've said it before, but it really does seem that the logic used for AA is the exact same logic that is used to defend "advanced interrogation techniques". They're both necessary evils even though we're not even sure they work or are effective.

[CBR]

48. If my husband (black male) applies for a job in his

field -- early childhood education -- and he is as equally qualified as a white female applicant and the school is largely white and/or female, I think he should get the nod. Diversity goes a long way. He is, in fact, the only African-American and the only male teacher at his place of employment.

I agree with some class-based programs. When writing personal statements for scholarships and college applications, I have written about my Appalachian heritage with much success. It helps to demonstrate your experiences and the difference in perspective they bring to an institution or place of business.

[HooptieWagon]

49. Approve in principle, but there needs to be a time limit and periodic reviews.

Taken too long, it does become reverse discrimination. Ultimately, positions have to be filled by the best and brightest for the country to continue to be a world leader. Affirmative Action helps correct policies and predudices that prevented minorities from achieving best and brightest status. However, once those roadblocks have been removed for a period of time, then it is up to individuals to study/work to be at the top of their field.

[ZombieHorde]

50. I voted "yes", but I hope it is not needed someday soon. nt

eta: I think every state should vote on AA, then every state which opposes gets AA forced on it and every state which passes it probably doesn't need it.

[Mike 03]

54. I definitely voted "approve," but I wish there was an "Other" option, so I could have said

I agree in principle but think the decision should be left up to the minorities who are the beneficiaries.

Maybe they don't want these advantages or feel stigmatized by them.

[Sparkly]

55. Huh?

First, it's not only for "minorities."

Second, I don't think unwelcome opportunity is a problem.

:shrug:

[Jamastiene]

56. I approve of Affirmative Action.

Until the time comes when our government and businesses and other institutions quit requiring that we fill out forms with our race, gender, and other characteristics for employment, housing, and other services that are supposed to be equal opportunity, Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary.

Also, until robots or computers are programmed to make hiring, housing, and other decisions where opportunities exist, Affirmative Action will continue to be absolutely necessary. People cannot be trusted to make their decisions based on actual merit as opposed to technicalities such as skin color or gender. This has been proven time and again. The National Guard had to be called in just to make a governor of a state move out of the way and allow black children access to an education. Shameful.

The human species is not as infallible, unbiased, civilized, or noble as it claims. The mentality among the majority of the human species is flawed to the point of derision. Of course, there are people who would strictly hire or house or offer other services based strictly on merit. They are all too rare, unfortunately. Those who do deserve a medal, though, for trying their utmost best to ensure equality. Unfortunately, though, efforts at ensuring equality are ridiculed, belittled, and punished, not rewarded.

[ProfessorGAC]

58. It's Ok By Me

I wish it weren't necessary, but it still is.
GAC