Positive Discrimination, the worst kind of discrimination

[Thatperson]

Positive Discrimination in my view is the worst kind of discrimination, I mean discrimination is bad (in areas where it is unneeded/irrelevent) but positive Discrimintion (affirmative action) is the worst kind. Positive discrimination seeks to equalise imbalances which in many cases occur for a good reason due to a natural advantage by a certain group (males being on average physically stronger than women) which allow them to perform better at a job requiring heavy lifting. but lets take a job where all groups are of an equal ability, some regular office admin job for example, 18 white applicants 5 black applicants, in a regular discriminatory position only the 18 whites will be selcted to progress further, in a positive discrimination scenario only the 5 blacks progress so a racial quota can be filled within a company or government department. the first problem we have with discriminating againsting against the majority is the more people are unfairly affected. also in a regular scenario an applicant has to compete against 22 others, in a regular discrimination scenario they have to compete against 17, in a positive discrimination scenario it's a mere 4. no real pressure there then to be employable. Another point which those positivly discrimated also make, is that it's offensive to them, by demostrating that governments don't think they are capable of gaining employment without positive discrimination. Your thoughts.

[Descensus]

The problem I see with Affirmative Action is that if you have two jobs open in a workplace, and four applicants, the so-called minority will probably get that job simply because they're the minority either racially, financially, or what have you. So instead of businesses choosing what they see as the most productive employee, they are forced to fill a minority quota due to some vague "discrimination" that occurs without such a law. Overall, it hurts business and is completely unfair.

[Thatperson]

In the UK the equality bill is currently going through parliament these are some of the things that will come of it Political parties will be able to create all woman shortlists, but not all men shortlists (to stand for candiate in an area). What's even worse is that it will prevent organisations that specify "white only" membership but will allow and encourage organisations that specify "black only" or "minority X only", I don't mind having black only organisations as it's a fundamental human right to have freedom of association, but that should cut both ways. Should it not

[Supernova]

So affirmative action is worse than racism? Come on...

[Black_Eagle]

So affirmative action is worse than racism? Come on... Affirmative action is racism.

[Xaqaria]

Affirmative action is racism, but there is a pretty good reason for it. I don't think anyone ever intends for it to be a permanent policy. The idea is that collectively, the people who are benefiting from affirmative action are the products of hundreds of years of being held back, so it is a chance for their family line to get a leg up so to speak. If black people are constantly poor and uneducated, they will invariably spawn poor and uneducated children. It gives a person the opportunity to break that cycle and start bringing the minority up to equal levels within the community, in theory. I personally don't agree with it because it doesn't really work that way. Typically the people that are benefited are not the inner city blacks who really are part of a self perpetuating system of downtrodden-ness, but those that have already broken out of the cycle of poverty on their own and are making a difference in their own lives. Affirmative action can be an insult to these people; telling them that they are incapable of 'making it' on their own and need special treatment. I also don't agree with it for all of the regular reasons; putting inferior candidates into higher positions, discriminating against another group in order to try to fix the discrimination against the first group, etc. I think it is a nice gesture, and it may work out to benefit society, but ending racism and discrimination isn't going to happen through affirmative action efforts, since in many ways they actually perpetuate it.

[Thatperson]

Affirmative action is racism. I was JUST about to say that In the UK now they even have to give so many university places to people from poor backgrounds, when me and someone else applied for the same course at the same university I had lower entry requirements than them because my family income was lower, surly university entrance should be based solely on academic ability?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Very well said, Xaq. I agree on all points.

[Thatperson]

Xaq, positive discrimination is raw racism, there's no justification for it. The government should be training people who have less than average qualifications. Whites in poverty don't get the advantage of positive discrimination. It's not because minorities are underqualified and need assistance getting onto the jobs ladder, it's JUST because they are a minority.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Xaq, positive discrimination is raw racism, there's no justification for it. The government should be training people who have less than average qualifications. Whites in poverty don't get the advantage of positive discrimination. It's not because minorities are underqualified and need assistance getting onto the jobs ladder, it's JUST because they are a minority. But what you (and so many other people) do not acknowledge is that racism is still very strong in the work force. It always has been, and it will be for some time to come. It is a problem that so many people want to sweep under the rug - you know, the whole "out of sight, out of mind" thing - but there is still a lot to be said for minorities being held back, simply because they are minorities. Were this country an equal playing field, and minorities in the work place had an equal opportunity to get ahead, as whites - on a purely skin-tone level - then affirmative action wouldn't even be necessary. It is more than just a "jump start that gives minorities opportunities, while taking them away from whites." It is a jump start that is trying to compensate for a society that is still not quite as accepting of minorities as it should be. Such a problem is hard for many to see, because there is a new generation who aren't quite as racist as the one before it...and this is a good thing. The bad part about it, though, is that the people who are in charge of most of these white collar organizations aren't from this generation. They are from the one before it, and many of them are still largely racist. Sad fact - I know - but true, nonetheless. So, yes. There are plenty in this generation (and of course, the one before it) that are only going to ass affirmative action as a spit in the face for those whites who are working hard to get where they are (of which there are many). But it is a system that is in place to do little more than balance out an, already unbalanced, playing field.

[Thatperson]

As I said oneironaut, traditional discrimination is bad but so called "positive" discrimination is at best just as bad, and in reality worse becuase if nothing else it simply is racism against a higher number of people. I'm going to create a few diagrams of what the major flaw in positive discreimination is to demonstrate where the good intention may lie but the practice fails.

[Oneironaut Zero]

"Positive discrimination" being "bad" (in ways) is something that I will agree with. It being "at best just as bad or worse" than "traditional discrimination" is something I'd genuinely like to see a good argument for. Because if you're saying what I think you're saying, it would be kind of like saying that a few handi-capped people shouldn't get the parking spots that are closest to the entrance of the building (but on a much more serious scale, of course).

[Thatperson]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Here is the flaw with positive discrimination, even so for the people on the bottom half, surly they should be helped with training so they can help themselves, rather than unfairly being given preference of employment because they are deprived

[Oneironaut Zero]

You're looking at the problem as if it's going to be completely equal. It's not...right now (if ever). It is a measure that is in place to even the odds, at the expense of some of the people of this generation. It is the epitome of looking at the at the problem in a macrocosm and not a microcosm. I'm sure that, when minorities were allowed in the workforce, to the degree that they are now, people were upset that they had to share their overall employee-base with colored employees as well, making it less likely that a white person would get the job. But that was a necessary step toward "equality." Affirmative action is hardly different, in the long run. Nobody can argue that it's not flawed. It is. It's not something that "everybody's just going to be happy with." But neither is leaving things the way they were. Get me? (Not unless your interpretation of "everybody being happy" is "everybody but minorities." It is what some might call a "necessary evil."

[Descensus]

I found this to be interesting: ...A core assumption behind “affirmative action” and “equal opportunity” is that individuals have property rights in their jobs, or the right to at least be considered for their jobs. It would be unjust and unfair if employers discriminated on racial, religious, or sexual grounds; unfair and unjust if restaurants or stores did likewise with their customers. But let us turn the argument around. Should we force prospective employees to interview for jobs on an equal-opportunity basis, or force customers to shop at stores or dine at restaurants on an equal-opportunity basis? Are we to file lawsuits and make criminals of customers or prospective employees who decide to provide their labor or business on a discriminatory basis? There is no law — nor any proposed law — that says workers need to allocate their work proportionately among bosses of various races and sexes (e.g., work at least X% of their career for a minority). Nor is it suggested that the same equal opportunity or affirmative action principles should be expanded to private homeowners. It is not required that if a homeowner throws a party, he invite minorities in proportion to their percentage of the local population. The guiding principle is that property owners — precisely by virtue of being property-owners — should have the right to discriminate on any basis they so desire, with regards to who steps on, uses, or borrows their property. No one has the right to work for — or be considered to work for — a particular company. To create such a legal entitlement is a property-rights violation, which eliminates the right of the owner to be the sole determiner of his property’s use. Likewise, no one has the right to obtain the labor of anyone else, except under the conditions they so agree to of their own free will. The political justification for affirmative action and equal opportunity is that they are necessary, for otherwise racism and sexism would run rampant, and minorities would not be able to obtain employment, or dine in restaurants, or whatever it may be. Yet, racists and sexists operate on the level of consumers and employees as well, not just on the level of service-providers and employers. A white supremacist may surely refuse to work for an African American, or to dine in a restaurant with African-American waiters. Yet, despite this, companies with African American CEO’s and managers have no problems finding employees, nor do restaurants with African-American waiters have problems finding customers. There are also obvious economic factors that discourage irrationally discriminatory behavior in business. See, for example, No Freedom, No Peace.

[Thatperson]

but then it's going past the mark, first people were prefered because they were white, then people were prefered because they were best qualified, now people are prefered because they are a minority, due to affirmative action, it's actually gone too far and is going the other way. When I said positive discrimination is worse that's just because of the numbers it affects, at a 1 on 1 level traditional discrimination is identical to positive dicrimination. Lol now the handycap situation, yes thats fine because I have no problem walking an extra 5 metres whereas to them it is more of a difficulty, I don't really see how this is related, if they had black car parking spaces closer to the entrance then yes I would be opposed to this. They don't need it, it would be pure discrimination, whereas handycap spaces are there for a reason.

[Xaqaria]

Xaq, positive discrimination is raw racism, there's no justification for it. The government should be training people who have less than average qualifications. Whites in poverty don't get the advantage of positive discrimination. It's not because minorities are underqualified and need assistance getting onto the jobs ladder, it's JUST because they are a minority. Perhaps in some parts of the world there is no justification for it, but there is in most of the developed world where people of dark skin have been subjugated for the better part of the last 2 hundred years in the United States, and for thousands of years before that all over the world (although people of all colors have been slaves at one point or another in the history of the Earth, Africa has been by far the preferred place to obtain slaves). You may not know it, but if you are white and come from an old American family, you have been benefited by slavery. If you are black and come from an old American family, your lineage in this country started as slaves. I agree that we should be helping all poor people to become more skilled regardless of race religion or creed. If you are looking for a good place to start though, then go to the place that is producing the majority of crime, single parent homes, drug addiction, and under-education. Statistically speaking, this is the black community. Its not because they are black; but it is largely because of discrimination against blacks and other people of dark skin in this country's recent past and, to a significant extent, present. By and large, there is a huge cultural imbalance based solely on the color of skin. Therefore any possible fix to the imbalance is obviously going to be based pretty much solely on skin color as well, otherwise it wouldn't really correct the imbalance.

[Alric]

I think at the current time, things like poverty holds more people back than race does. While you can still find individual people who are racism, systematic racism in the US really is dead. Affirmative action has clearly been on its way out for years, and extreme cases of it are even illegal now. It really isn't needed, and doesn't help anything.

[Thatperson]

Why should somones ancestors from hundreds of years ago determine employment preference today? In essence it means that black people today benefited from slavery more than white today because in 2010 they get positive discrimination entitlement. In europe virtually none of the minorities are descendants of the african slave trade apart from carribean blacks in the UK so the past argument doesn't apply here(not that it should in the US either). you even admit all groups have been slaves in the past so why don't we count? Also if most slaves were west africans then why should east africans even count for this? Edit: arlic, yeah I'd agree that systematic racism is essential dead across most of the US and Europe, and I agree that affirmative action is in decline in the US, but in the UK it's only actually really starting to get going in the 2000's/2010's.

[Supernova]

I'm not saying affirmative action isn't outdated in many places, but in the past it was better than the alternative. It was a necesary intermediate stage.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I don't think "systematic" racism is the problem. I think individual racism is the problem, when there are so many racists still living on Old Power. "Systematic racism" is being used like some "conspiratorial, all-powers-unite-to-keep-the-minorities-down" type of movement, when - like I said - that doesn't seem to be the problem. When so many of today's (and yesterday's) empowered still carry old, racial sentiments, it is an unspoken, back-of-the-mind racism that keeps individuals down, more than anything else. And I think anyone who wants to try to make the argument that there isn't still much racism, seated in pretty much any industry you can name, is going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone who's even been moderately paying attention to what goes on, across this nation. To Blueline, I completely understand the point being made, but I think not having the system go through all of those extremes is exactly what evidences that Affirmative Action has a somewhat moderate aim. It's not like it's about "ok, this this this and that wasn't fair, so we are going to take this this that and the other" from the other side. It's about tipping the scales in certain areas of employment, to benefit the demographic which is still suffering - in certain, various ways - from the prejudice this country was founded upon. Yes, extreme cases of Affirmative Action should be deplored. I completely agree. But giving a helping hand to those racial groups which had been directly hindered, in gaining equal status in this economy, is not an extreme case. Those who can't identify with those being shown "special treatment" may not think it fair, and I would have to say that that is understandable. But I wouldn't call it, in anyway, extreme. As is being said, in many places it is being phased out, and that is likely in communities/regions where it is less necessary than it is in others. Just because it's being banned in some places, doesn't mean it's not necessary in others. After all, it is directly related to economy/sociology of those specific areas, just as it is on the larger scale of this entire country.

[Thatperson]

yeah in the past, not now, i'm refering to affirmative action as it is now, but even in the past it wasn't better than the alternative, equality was what was needed, not affirmative action. Discrimination is discrimination, plain and simple. The same number of people will be employed/unemployed, you're saying you'd rather see whites unemployed than blacks then?

[Supernova]

yeah in the past, not now, i'm refering to affirmative action as it is now, but even in the past it wasn't better than the alternative, equality was what was needed, not affirmative action. Discrimination is discrimination, plain and simple. The same number of people will be employed/unemployed, you're saying you'd rather see whites unemployed than blacks then? Please tell me then how you would try to force equality. Then consider why affirmative action was ever put in place.

[Thatperson]

why should a fortunate well educated employable black get the added bonus of positive discrimination but because other blacks are unqualified, did you see my diagram? You say you want to give a help hand to groups, why not give the helping hand to the blue group rather than the right group. and help should come in the form of making them more employable, not just handing out jobs that they are less qualified for than the best candidate.

[Thatperson]

if equality cannot be enforeced then the better of two evils should apply, (traditional discrimination), and even as bluelight says, private sector employers should really be free to choose who they employ (government departments however should not be able to discriminate)