In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 464
Online now 549 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This post was edited by Mr Tiffles7673 18 months ago
I use to think that way but I just recently I changed my mind. As a white male, I've never had any trouble getting a job or felt like my race was a hindrance for me. I've met a ton of minorities that feel that way. I feel like its more perceived than real. I think removing affirmative action reaffirms this belief for people. I use to think "So what, that's their problem." but its really all of our problems. Having a certain segment of society that feels picked on and removed from the whole is a huge problem. Look at the riots in other countries where assimilation isn't working. By forcing both races together it keeps us assimilated and growing further apart.
When the kids that are in HS now are running this world, it will probably be time to revisit this subject and hopefully all the race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton are dead and forgotten.
it's easy for you to say that as a white male. we've had it great as white males for some time now. but can you also justify discriminating against asians?
If it's more perceived than real, I don't see what the problem is with getting rid of AA. It's not about feelings, it's about real discrimination, and I think it's a lot more perceived than real as well (at least regarding hiring and admissions).
A lot more perceived than real. Our society has created a built-in excuse for any minority not getting a job/college acceptance/etc.
This post was edited by RaiseHigh 18 months ago
"It's just so hard," Greivis said. "It's my heart, my love. Maryland made me who I am."
Maybe not technically "affirmative action" but I feel, as a white female, that I've lost out on 2 federal government job opportunities to minorities in the name of "diversity." The first was when I applied to be a bank examiner at a field office and was not selected but they did refer my name to the DC office because I think they liked me. I got the job in DC. I was later told by someone who worked in the field office, "Yeah you weren't the right color for who they were hiring at that time." Later, I applied for a promotion in DC and lost out to a gay black male. Our qualifications were similar. I actually left the government at that point. The person who did the selection sent me a handwritten note talking about how sorry she was to see me go, and you could definitely read between the lines that her hands were tied with regard to the selection.
ETA - I don't want any special treatment for females either!
This post was edited by julester 18 months ago
Thats a tough one and I don't have an answer for it. Someone is always going to be hurt by any decision we make.
That is really affirmative action. Thats just plain racism. Affirmative action is about diversifying a work place or school and I'm pretty sure the govt is disproportionately high with minorities.
I honestly believe the culture of bias and discrimination has diminished in this country to the point where the social and financial cost of AA is no longer outweighed by its benefit. Was there a place for it 50 or even 30 years ago? Probably. Today, however, I think self interested employers are able to recognize and reward talent without federal mandates that have probably become more divisive than they are unifying.
Not a jack ass. I am a 4 star poster on RCMB - spartanfan48413
Banking agencies in 1992 were not disproportionately high.
So long as the people that "lose" are hurt by the decision based on their actual skills and qualifications, so be it.
Exactly. If I'm a business owner, I'm employing the best applicant possible regardless of gender/race/religion/ethnicity/etc. If I'm not, I'm not making myself the highest profit possible.
You know, I felt that way too at one point. That overt racism was pretty rare (in the US) and subtle racism was greatly exaggerated. Over the past 5 years, I have had the opportunity to be a part of a mixed race family, and I'm beginning to see the validity in some of the racism that is difficult to perceive from the outside.
And I have the benefit of having one white child and two bi-racial children, and I very clearly witness subtle (or not so subtle) differences in how we are treated in social and professional situations depending on what combo of us are out together. Not exactly on topic of selecting job candidates, but I can absolutely project how they are treated now to how they could be treated 15 years from now.
Regarding AA, I feel like success is generational and we systematically set certain groups of people many generations behind, therefore we should in some way rectify that systematically.
I'd be interested in hearing more of your opinion on this, because I don't know how we "systematically" set groups back (let alone 'many generations' behind, because I'm not sure what that means).
Slavery, followed by segregation, seem to fit that description.
Well of course, but I was assuming Contributor was talking about modern times. And anyway, that was really only about blacks, whereas I'm having a hard time figuring out how we "systematically" set other groups back.
If AA was meant to rectify pre-Civil Rights segregation and institutionalized discrimination, I'd say it certainly did so, but it has run its course because there's nothing "systematic" that it needs to correct.
Nope. I was talking about slavery, followed by segregation. Social mobility is very much a plodding generational thing on average, and I don't think we've been working at correcting our mistakes for enough generations that we can call it a level playing field.
Other minority groups, I have a harder time justifying.
Count me as a third. I think anyone with an open mind that spends significant time around minorities starts to see things differently.
Philosophically, I'm against Affirmative Action. But that philosophy assumes an even playing field which I just no longer believe in because I've seen that it isn't.
And while basing AA on income rather than straight race is probably more ideal, it's just nearly impossible to do.
There are really two primary reasons for AA, one historical and one present:
1. To use govt policy to help people that have been historically discriminated against by the govt (slavery, segregation)
2. To try to create diversity in modern work forces because hiring managers tend to hire people that are similar to them in terms of race, gender, religion, etc when completely left to their own devices
The historical reason has an expiration date. It's impossible to say when exactly that date is, but I think that just about everyone would agree that there is no reasonable argument for AA being around FOREVER based on govt policies from previous generations.
The present reason is more complicated. There is still an entire country of predominately white hiring managers that really prefer (whether consciously or subconsciously) to hire white people to work for them. There's all kinds of research on this stuff, in particular I've read some really damning studies about how people with "black" names like Tyrone or Lakesha are far less likely to be called in for interviews than people with names like Phil or Pam. The bottom line is that I'm not sure how to "fix" this problem without some kind of AA. Hiring managers are not going to stop being majority white anytime soon and they continue to prove that when left to their own devices (more often than not) they will continue to tend to hire people that look like them.
The way I see it, AA is clearly unfair to the people that it harms and frequently keeps the most objectively qualified candidate from being hired, but..... I have no idea how to make hiring "fair" enough for minorities without it.
I spouted that exact phrase for many, many years. And I felt like there was equality of opportunity in this country, even if there wasn't equality of outcome. But I only needed a few hours in an inner city school to realize this just isn't true.
There are very real systemic problems that still keep a boot on the neck of minorities in this country. The criminal justice system being the largest offender.
Ya, this is how I feel. I personally believe so strongly in a color blind society that I have a very difficult time reconciling that belief with any policy that goes against it like AA does. And yet I have not heard any real competing solutions to the problem. Mostly I just hear people say that there is no longer a need for it because society has gotten past race enough and I just don't believe the evidence shows that to be true.
I think there are still many leftover problems. I also think that affirmative action in education is at best a marginally effective and ham-handed way of dealing with those problems. That is one of Clarence Thomas gripes with it (other than constitutional objections), that it kind of lets people pat themselves on the back for helping minority students close the "achievement gap" while not actually doing anything about the factors that lead to that gap in the first place.
I see far less need for AA in education because academic institutions are so liberal overall that I don't believe there would be a real concern about them not admitting qualified minorities in this day and age. The workplace is a different story though...
Affirmative Action = Trying to correct past racism with more racism
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports