[peter_co]

The question is simple, do you believe in giving preferential treatment to individuals based on their race.

What prompts me to ask this question is the recent Civil Rights initiative that will be voted in five states this year whose explicit purpose is to "prohibit the state “from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”" This same initiative was approved by Michigan voters two or four years ago.

[Oxymoron]

Any type of privilege for one race over another is wrong. I understand the principle of this but I come to this problem what constitutes some body as Black or white? What if your a mix, who decides on your race? Why arent Jews(also subject to discrimination in the past) considered a minority? I think the whole idea of affirmative action has merit but its impossible to carry it out as it is written currently and be fair to those who are not Black or a privileged WASP .

[Ombrageux]

I think AA should can be partly race based. I think class should be a factor too though. There's no sense, for instance, having "pure" race-based for Black people. Black Americans have even greater income inequalities than the rest of America, all it would do is give an extra jolt to the Black middle and upper classes than to the real targets of AA.

It also makes no sense for "Asian" to lump together 4th generation Japanese Americans with Cambodian refugees.

Etc.

[Grunch]

Why arent Jews(also subject to discrimination in the past) considered a minority?

Because it's a religion.

[peter_co]

My views to affirmative action as a whole are mixed. On the one hand I think universities should simply focus on the most qualified candidates period, regardless of their background. On the other hand, if individuals have demonstrated that they could overcome greatly adverse circumstances and succeed later in life, than this accomplishment could be recognized and this factor could be taken into account for university admission for instance. However, I believe that taking race into account is simply wrong. I am against passing judgment on an individual based on a coincidental characteristic that they had no control over rather than their actual individual merit. The system the way it works now is discriminatory against people simply because of the color of their skin, an idea that goes contrary to the very principles of the Civil Rights Movement. Furthermore, the intended targets of this mechanism are not even affected that much, because most of the people benefiting from race based AA are middle and upper class minorities who have had the same privileges as their white counterparts.

[Ombrageux]

peterco: The thing is, I'm sure there's a huge diversity of AA programs. Anything conceivable is possible, I'm sure many of them are bad, and I'm sure many of them let people who would have no opportunities in their life because of their background get an education (not to mention make the mainstream aware that these marginalized minorities do exist and meet them, without being encountered solely on TV or in the context of segregated neighborhoods).

I don't know enough about it myself. It might be interesting to research the range of federal and state programs to see which have been successful and which most ineffective and discriminatory.

[ingliz]

I voted no.
I believe everyone should have equality of opportunity which means equal access to education, jobs, etc.

[Oxymoron]

Because it's a religion.

Its a religion and an Ethinic group. Or you have to call all Jews from Russia Slav's since most of them are athiest.

[Grunch]

Its a religion and an ethnic group. Or you have to call all Jews from Russia Slav's since most of them are athiest.

An ethnic group isn't a separate race. US Jews aren't, on average, economically disadvantaged enough to warrant help from affirmative action policies. Jews also don't have the history of discrimination in America that blacks do.

[Oxymoron]

US Jews also don't have the history of discrimination that blacks do.

Niether do Hispanics.

[Nets]

I support AA based on income, not race or ethnic group.

Because it's a religion.

That didn't stop the University Quota system in the states from keeping us out.

[Zyx]

The question is simple, do you believe in giving preferential treatment to individuals based on their race.

The answer to this question is 'no' but to this poll it is 'yes.'

The question that should be asked is preferential treatment to a group based on their race to which I would agree.

I do not have much time to explain, but if we look at how Americans live, largely by separation by race, and then look at the schools that are distributed unequally among these areas. It makes no sense to hold a person's poorer school against them for college admission.

Institutional Grade inflation in the suburbs, and uncaring educators in the urbs make for high school grades to be unindicative of anything other than privilege and the know hows of the school system.

Look here, supposedly connections grant good favours in our economy. Maybe so, but if you look at most Universities with their almost entirely white staff and then you consider who would be most privileged in getting in to that school when the puppet master is admitting students; when you look deeply in to that, you'd find that whites ARE privileged in the United States and Affirmative Action is NOT privileging Aframericans but merely tugging them a little higher than they would have been without it.

But hearken, even with Affirmative Action, Aframericans are NOT more privileged than Euramericans!!!

[Oxymoron]

Aframericans are NOT more privileged than Euramericans

tell that to my father who came with no language, and no money.

[Ombrageux]

Ox - I don't think Kumato means ALL Whites are more privileged than ALL Blacks...

[Rancid]

No

As a "minority" I'm offended by these programs. Essentially the government is telling me.

"You're too stupid to do things on your own, so we're going to give it to." It's a slap in the face by the government if you ask me.

I'll pass on that.

I like what NJNetsfan said. I would much more rather have it based on income level if anything.

[The Immortal Goon]

It's pretty difficult to justify not doing something, but it's pretty difficult to justify doing something at the same time.

Racism, as an institution, is a product of capitalism. It's a means of divide and conquer, of justifying the slave trade, and of justifying the exploitation of Latinos and Asians in sweatshops. Get rid of the capitalist superstructure, and racism will go away - and that's the only thing that's going to really do it.

That said, the best chance to find some kind of reparation for the slave trade was the radical Republican "40 Acres and a Mule" order among other reforms. The parasitic population should have been stripped of everything and forced to work, the people forced to work the land should have been given the land to do with as they pleased.

Johnson is, in my opinion, the worst POTUS because he reversed this order and other reparations - and because of this - we're left with these issues that have no good answer to them now.

Within the confines of the country as it stands at the moment, I think - as Chris Rock once described it - a "ties goes to the runner" policy is a minimum. I don't know how ultimately effective it is, but something has to be done.

[Attica]

No

I oppose affirmative action in all forms. I agree with incentives given for certain people to sign up (say, male teachers are needed, so give greater incentive for male teachers like cheaper course, but don't hand them a degree place over a fully competent woman). I'm all about merit, jyeah.

[Quercus Robur]

yes

you've got to be careful to separate out preferential treatment based on race (reverse discrimination) and affirmative action. The latter is much more equal opportunity based, while the former is Canadian. The problems with sitting back and saying 'compete and enjoy' is that it doesn't address the structural element to the discrimination. The problem with race quotas is that it just replicates the insulting focus on race that makes racial discrimination so horrible... meanwhile angering the native population and maybe not delivering the best applicants for the job. Affirmative action could be a nice middle ground where people who are disadvantaged for some relevant reason could be helped to reverse the disadvantage to make an equal playing field. Any policy on discrimination should really be met with substantial money ploughed into slummy areas so that the benefit of social cohesion may be maintained <-- anti-discrimination works better as a socialist policy? Also, to be fair, a very clear and just policy on immigration must be worked out. With those two things I can see AA really going places

[Dr House]

NO.

Affirmative action is reverse discrimination. It's one thing to forbid employers from using race or gender as a criterion for employment, another thing entirely to actively force them to have a certain minority proportion within their ranks. It breeds resentment and lower-quality workforces as more qualified white people are turned away because guess what? they're not the right colour.

[Rancid]

I don't like the phrase reverse discrimination..

it's really just discrimination. doesn't matter who it's against..

using the phrase reverse discrimination makes it sound like the original inventors of discrimination are white people...