Affirmative Action - good or bad?

[turbo]

Oh no, there are definitely quotas, at least in some industries. Construction, for example: the state of MN has to contract XX% of their contracts to females every year. I met a 'self-made millionaire' who was a female construction contractor. She made a fortune by playing the game: she would charge 2-5 times more than average for a project, and the state would hire her to fill quota. Even when there were people standing in line to do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

 

[Evo]

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

When Affirmative Action came out there was definitely a quota for hiring minorities. Where I worked, it was ridiculous, first hardly anyone could pass the required test for employment, so my company waived the tests for them, then they were unable to pass training. See Below.

On September 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts. In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include sex on the list of attributes. Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), under the Department of Labor, monitors this requirement for all federal contractors, including all UC campuses, and has developed regulations to which these contractors must adhere. For federal contractors employing more than 50 people and having federal contracts totaling more than $50,000, compliance with these regulations includes disseminating and enforcing a nondiscrimination policy, establishing a written affirmative action plan and placement goals for women and minorities, and implementing action-oriented programs for accomplishing these goals. In addition, an official of the organization must be assigned responsibility for implementation of equal employment opportunity and the affirmative action program.

Affirmative Action was mishandled, you can't just throw unqualified people into a job. If the government wanted to increase income and employment for minorities they should have set up training and education for them so that they could qualify for the jobs they wanted.

 

[KingNothing]

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

I met this lady (her named was Cat) at one of those "female presidents" type conferences, basically it was a bunch of women saying how awesome they are. My GF's mom was a self-made millionaire as well, and I'd run into a lot of rather eccentric individuals that way.

I didn't look it up and frankly I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[DR13]

Affirmative Action was mishandled, you can't just throw unqualified people into a job. If the government wanted to increase income and employment for minorities they should have set up training and education for them so that they could qualify for the jobs they wanted.

But that was not the problem that AA was meant to address. The idea was that widespread racism was keeping minorities out of jobs that they were otherwise qualified for (which happened in the 60's). The problem is that the concept of AA has been changed over time.

I met this lady (her named was Cat) at one of those "female presidents" type conferences, basically it was a bunch of women saying how awesome they are. My GF's mom was a self-made millionaire as well, and I'd run into a lot of rather eccentric individuals that way.

I didn't look it up and frankly I wouldn't know where to start.

Antecdotes are not evidence. And frankly, you just seem to be bashing any woman who has had professional success.

 

[Drakkith]

You're kinda missing my point. If a poor kid does the same or just a little worse than a rich kid with much less resources, then it is safe to assume that they would have done better if given equivelant resources. This is what should be taken into account when considering college admissions. I would consider this a form of socioeconomic based affirmative action. Hopefully this clears everything up.

How do you know? Is there any evidence backing this up? I don't agree that you can just assume that someone WILL do better just by giving them "resources" (whatever that means).

If you base something off of how well someone does you CANNOT take other factors into it. There is simply no gurantee that those other factors actually made that person do as well/bad as they did.

If you want to base something off of how wealthy someone is, then fine. I have no problem with offering scholarships to people that couldn't afford to go to a decent college otherwise.

I DON'T agree with saying just because you are a certain race you should automatically get something over someone else, all things being equal. Not only do I see it as completely unfair, I also don't think it does any good. I think it perpetuates the idea that certain races are "special" or whatever.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

Lol...I feel the same way.

 

[DR13]

How do you know? Is there any evidence backing this up? I don't agree that you can just assume that someone WILL do better just by giving them "resources" (whatever that means).

If you base something off of how well someone does you CANNOT take other factors into it. There is simply no gurantee that those other factors actually made that person do as well/bad as they did.

If you want to base something off of how wealthy someone is, then fine. I have no problem with offering scholarships to people that couldn't afford to go to a decent college otherwise.

I DON'T agree with saying just because you are a certain race you should automatically get something over someone else, all things being equal. Not only do I see it as completely unfair, I also don't think it does any good. I think it perpetuates the idea that certain races are "special" or whatever.

Your last paragraph I'm fine with.

To your first paragraph. Better resources means going to a good school as opposed to an inner city school strapped for cash. Suburban and private schools also attract the better teacher because of the friendlier enviroments. Wealthier kids can afford private tutors, not only for classes, but for the ACT and SAT as well. And I haven't even started on how more of an emphasis is placed on education in the upper and middle classes compared to the lower class.

To your second paragarph. Seriously? It is not unreasonable to say that a if a kid had better teachers and access to tutors and lived in an environment that valued education then that kid would have better scores.

 

[DR13]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

 

[Drakkith]

To your second paragarph. Seriously? It is not unreasonable to say that a if a kid had better teachers and access to tutors and lived in an environment that valued education then that kid would have better scores.

Being wealthy in and of itself doesn't give you better teachers or mean that you live in an environment that values education. If the parents are willing to spend the money that have more options, which generally includes access to private schools and such, but only if they choose that. My own school had people that were on welfare practically going to school with people whos parents were making 100-200k a year. Does that mean that the richer kids should get shafted when it comes to comparing their performance to the poorer kids? I don't think so. And if both went to the same school, then how can you say that either of the students had an advantage just based on wealth? Wealth doesn't mean that those kids automatically have a better environment.

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

Slavery has nothing to do with this. (It is NOT slavery that causes discrimination nowadays.) It was discrimination that started AA. And guess what, I can easily say that I am being discriminated against. Does that mean that other races ARENT? No. But does the fact that discrimination happens to them more so than it does to me make it fair to deny me jobs and opportunities JUST based on my race? Not in my opinion. Looks to me like you are simply making things MORE unfair for everyone. Is hiring someone based on their race and not their skill and work ethic fair to them? Not to me. It doesn't encourage them to actually work hard or do their best and reinforces the idea that their race is inferior and needs help. All in my opinion of course.

 

[drankin]

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

I think his point is that reparations for slavery is rediculous no matter what you compare it to.

 

[DR13]

Being wealthy in and of itself doesn't give you better teachers or mean that you live in an environment that values education.

Yes, it does give you better teachers. The best teachers are not going to want to teach in the inner city schools that have metal detectors at the enterances and students who do not want to learn. Also, smart kids can be teased in the inner city when they want to learn (some of my friends went through this). This is what I mean by an environment that is hostile towards education.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes, it does give you better teachers. The best teachers are not going to want to teach in the inner city schools that have metal detectors at the enterances and students who do not want to learn. Also, smart kids can be teased in the inner city when they want to learn (some of my friends went through this). This is what I mean by an environment that is hostile towards education.

Smart kids can be teased just about anywhere. And I don't agree that the "best" teachers automatically go to the more wealthy areas. I went to a school with 200 people, K-12, and had good and bad teachers. When I moved to a much bigger and wealthier city, the teachers were exactly the same. Some bad, some good.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is NOT a gurantee that wealth equals a better student. In general wealthier people do get a better education. But looking at each individual you cannot say that they will automatically do better with access to more resources. This goes back to the good for the individual vs good for the whole issue.

 

[DR13]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is NOT a gurantee that wealth equals a better student. In general wealthier people do get a better education. But looking at each individual you cannot say that they will automatically do better with access to more resources. This goes back to the good for the individual vs good for the whole issue.

Well duh. Of course there is no guarantee. On a case-by-case basis there will be discrepancies. However, governmental policy is made for the general case. And when evaluating two individuals it is reasonable to take into account their backgrounds.

 

[Drakkith]

Well duh. Of course there is no guarantee. On a case-by-case basis there will be discrepancies. However, governmental policy is made for the general case. And when evaluating two individuals it is reasonable to take into account their backgrounds.

I can see where you can say in general a person would do better with more resources, however I cannot see how giving one person a job/opportunity because of their race is better than giving it to the most qualified person. Like I said above, I think it hampers things more than it helps.

 

[DR13]

I can see where you can say in general a person would do better with more resources, however I cannot see how giving one person a job/opportunity because of their race is better than giving it to the most qualified people.

I agree. That is why I have said to not base decisions on race. What I am talking about is more applicable to college admissions. Though the rich person may seem more qualified because of their higher scores, the poor student may actually be more qualified because if they had the better resources then they would have had better scores. I hope this thuroughly clears up my point.

 

[Drakkith]

I agree. That is why I have said to not base decisions on race. What I am talking about is more applicable to college admissions. Though the rich person may seem more qualified because of their higher scores, the poor student may actually be more qualified because if they had the better resources then they would have had better scores. I hope this thuroughly clears up my point.

I understand it, but if you are basing things on scores, then I still don't agree that you should give it to the poorer person or the minority.

 

[DR13]

I understand it, but if you are basing things on scores, then I still don't agree that you should give it to the poorer person or the minority.

By scores I mean GPA and ACT which are heavily influenced by circumstance (as I mentioned earlier). I am not saying you should always give it to the poorer person. I am just saying that it is something that must be considered.

 

[lisab]

By scores I mean GPA and ACT which are heavily influenced by circumstance (as I mentioned earlier). I am not saying you should always give it to the poorer person. I am just saying that it is something that must be considered.

That's true, standard test scores are very influenced by environment. Some of my daughter's friends did not grow up hearing standard English at home, did not have books around, did not have homework help...at least one didn't even regular meals and was never told when to go to bed. All that really matters WRT scholastic achievement.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the ethics of affirmative action are similar to those of taxation. Modern democratic governments tax the rich much more heavily than they tax the lower classes, and use the money to support welfare for the poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with rich people that would justify taking more of their money, but society has decided that keeping as many people as possible out of poverty is more important than the slight injustice done to the rich. Affirmative action is similar in that it tries to distribute academic/employment opportunities more evenly and minimize socioeconomic gaps in society. Excessive affirmative action is obviously unfair, just as excessive taxation is unfair, but I don't think a government that completely neglects to help its least fortunate citizens succeed is desirable.

On the other hand, it's important to consider how much quality is sacrificed in the name of equality. If obviously-incompetent candidates are consistently being accepted into jobs or universities, that's not good for either the current economy or the future (which will be decided by the university students). This is complicated by the fact that the most accomplished people, the ones who most profoundly change the world, are not likely to be the minorities who get accepted due to affirmative action--they're likely to be rich privileged kids familiar with the upper classes of Western society.

The incentive to hire minorities is tax credits:

WOTC:
http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/

and Welfare-to-Work:
http://www.uses.doleta.gov/pdf/brochure.pdf


on the other hand, Earned Income gives the money to the employee:
http://www.employmentincentives.com/federal_incentives/federal_incentives.htm
also note the Disabled Tax Credit and Veterans

Next are the Federal "Empowerment Zones" and "Renewal Communities" - spend a few hours on the HUD site - you'll learn a lot (IMO).
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/rc/index.cfm

"HUD's Initiative for Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities (EZ/RC)
The Empowerment Zone tax incentives and the Renewal Community tax incentives are worth approximately $11 billion to eligible businesses of all sizes in Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities. These incentives encourage businesses to open, expand, and to hire local residents. The incentives include employment credits, a 0% tax on capital gains, increased tax deductions on equipment, accelerated real property depreciation, and other incentives.

In the Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities, the most widely used Community Renewal tax incentive is the employment credit, which provides tax benefits to businesses that employ residents from the designated areas.

The EZ/RC tax incentives were provided as a tool for the designees to stimulate job creation and retention and business investment in buildings and equipment. The interagency partnership between HUD and IRS is essential because HUD has the economic development expertise and IRS has the tax expertise. This resulted in securing data provided by IRS on claim trends from 1997 through 2008. "

 

[KingNothing]

Antecdotes are not evidence. And frankly, you just seem to be bashing any woman who has had professional success.

Well then, I guess I better pull it from being cited in any major journals. PF has my deepest and sincerest apologies for sharing an anecdote on a forum titled "General Discussion".

To the second point, I think you may be overreacting a bit. Have you ever been to such a conference? Most of the ones I attended were put on by feminist organizations. To say that I met a lot of eccentric people is not a stretch. Sorry if you wish it were otherwise, but that is my experience.

 

[DR13]

Well then, I guess I better pull it from being cited in any major journals. PF has my deepest and sincerest apologies for sharing an anecdote on a forum titled "General Discussion".

To the second point, I think you may be overreacting a bit. Have you ever been to such a conference? Most of the ones I attended were put on by feminist organizations. To say that I met a lot of eccentric people is not a stretch. Sorry if you wish it were otherwise, but that is my experience.

It is fine to share an antecdote. Just don't present it as all-encompassing evidence.

And who cares if there is a "feminist" luncheon? Tons of groups have this sort of thing.

 

[KingNothing]

And who cares if there is a "feminist" luncheon? Tons of groups have this sort of thing.

Well I suppose a lot of people do, otherwise they wouldn't have labeled it as such. Sorry man, I didn't organize it.

 

[Geezer]

The correct policy would be to give a leg up to those who come from a poor background, regardless of race.

I agree.

 

[Geezer]

To the second point, I think you may be overreacting a bit. Have you ever been to such a conference? Most of the ones I attended were put on by feminist organizations. To say that I met a lot of eccentric people is not a stretch. Sorry if you wish it were otherwise, but that is my experience.

What's wrong with being eccentric?

 

[KingNothing]

What's wrong with being eccentric?

I just...I don't even know how to respond sometimes. I have no idea why you are asking me this question.