[Nate]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Then either way, we're enduring racism. AA just happens to help the ones that would otherwise be discriminated against.

While discriminating against others... albeit in a different way.

Pick your method or your means, it's still discrimination.

In His love,
Nate

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Close supervision of hiring/recruitment practices... "hearts and minds".

That would be incredibly costly, and still could be useless against racism.

The problem is that they get extra points when it doesn't. Not to mention all the other people who don't get extra points when they need it.

But there's still a lot of times when it does count against them. Should we just allow that to happen? I think we should wait a little bit longer.

AA attempts to discriminate specifically in hopes that this will end deiscrimintion generally. It's silly. For every qualified person you help in, there's a qualified person you now exclude.

Hopefully one day we won't need AA and everybody that's qualified will get in. Currently, with or without AA qualified people are left out, so it's really just a matter of which side you're on.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by SmileAndFollow

So because they are black we should let them in and not the more qualified kids who happen to be white? Why not do it on a qualification basis? Not a color basis.

Because if you do it on a qualification only basis, then there will still be racism and blacks would have a much harder time getting jobs as whites. The thing about more qualified whites losing their jobs to less qualified blacks is not the intended result. It is a trade-off, so to speak. More often, it is qualified blacks getting jobs because they are black when they wouldn't get the job because they are black without AA.

How about hiring people based on their qualifications alone? If someone feels that they should have had the job and that they were equally qualified as the person who got it and that they didnt get it because they were a minority than let them file a complaint with the labor board and let them handle it. Tada! Getting rid of discrimination works. Discriminating to make up for discriminating doesnt.

Before AA, people did that and it DIDN'T work. AA, however, provides for the exact situation you gave. With AA, a minority that feels they were discriminated agains files a complaint with a court.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by KeyboardFreak

While discriminating against others... albeit in a different way.

Pick your method or your means, it's still discrimination.

Yep, pretty much.

[JerryLove]

Then either way, we're enduring racism. AA just happens to help the ones that would otherwise be discriminated against.

One is state sponsored, and therefore issued by the people. The other is performed by individuals.

For example, the government could kill everyone they suspected of being dangerous. This would cut down on independant murders (they will often be right). Either way we are dealing with homicides; but at least some of the people getting killed might have been a danger.

I'd not support that.

["BrooksB"]

I wouldn't support the murder thing, either.

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Before AA, people did that and it DIDN'T work. AA, however, provides for the exact situation you gave. With AA, a minority that feels they were discriminated agains files a complaint with a court.

And the majorities now being forcibly discriminated against, well, tough luck.

If we have a problem with people discriminating based on race, I don't see how more discriminating on race is going to help anything. It puts more emphasis on race and gender, when it should be simply on qualification and skill.

Affirmative action argument:
"well, it's bad, yes, but unfortunately because of racism etc it's necessary."

Common abortion argument:
"well, it's bad, but it's necessary because of the number of babies being born in 'bad' situations, and the baby would just suffer anyways."

Again, 2 wrongs make a right?

[SmileAndFollow]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Because if you do it on a qualification only basis, then there will still be racism and blacks would have a much harder time getting jobs as whites.

Not if they did it on a qualifitcation only basis! Im not saying dont regulate it. Im saying dont give it to them because theyre a minority. I agree that if there is racism it should be reported, and with minorities being a majority no politician is going to pass up an opportunity to look good for the minorities. With AA they are catering to only the minority. They need to make it EVEN. Not make it uneven to even out the past. I think that it could easily work now.

The thing about more qualified whites losing their jobs to less qualified blacks is not the intended result. It is a trade-off, so to speak. More often, it is qualified blacks getting jobs because they are black when they wouldn't get the job because they are black without AA.

It is the intended result though. You HAVE to have a certain percentage of minorities working for you. So when theres a white man and a minority and youre low on the minority percentage the minority is going to get the job.

Before AA, people did that and it DIDN'T work. AA, however, provides for the exact situation you gave. With AA, a minority that feels they were discriminated agains files a complaint with a court.

Not really though. Its more when the majority isnt discriminated against they can file a complaint. They are still demanding that a certain percentage of your employees have to be minorities. Now if they are qualified to get the job let them file, but if its because the company only has 15.5% instead of 16% minority employees than thats retarded.

[Lightknight]

I don't like it for more reasons that just that. It also goes into colleges and such. My black friends think it is racist as well, they like it mind you, but they agree that, "it is just plain wrong" in their own words. I feel like I'm being punished for other people's deeds. Heck, my ancestors were known for setting slaves free, despite being in the confederate army. So why should I be punished for something that not only did I not do, but none of my family ever did? I can see the necessity for American Indians to have benefits. I mean, we're still kinda holding them down with our crummy reservations and such. But for the most part, black people are given equal opportunities. Heck, many of my bosses (for volunteer work) have been black. It seems like affirmitive action is dependant on the employer being a racist white guy or something. What a load of crap.

[spenwah]

The free market has its own solution to the problem of racism. The racist white businessmen who skip over hiring skilled black workers end up paying more money for cheaper labor. There is now a surplus of skilled, black workers currently seeking employment. The enterprising non racist businessmen can now actively recruit from this pool of labor, which generally asks for lower wages than white workers of the same skill level. These non racist businessmen can now produce their product at less cost and eventually put the racists out of business.

We do not need AE, and we do not need to regulate hiring practices.

[JerryLove]

The free market has its own solution to the problem of racism. The racist white businessmen who skip over hiring skilled black workers end up paying more money for cheaper labor. There is now a surplus of skilled, black workers currently seeking employment. The enterprising non racist businessmen can now actively recruit from this pool of labor, which generally asks for lower wages than white workers of the same skill level. These non racist businessmen can now produce their product at less cost and eventually put the racists out of business.

Nice on paper, doesn't function in practice. I would suggest you pick up a history book and see if your specuation has even born out.

Besides, in the end, there is not a lack of generally skilled labor, and other outsourcing options exist with far greater fiscal diversity than can be offered by local workers, regardless of race.