Fine, I'll bring the stirring stick
 

NDD is preoccupied with administrative matters, so I'll try to get some discussion going here.

Affirmative Action. Are you for it or against it? Under what circumstances? And what do you understand this term to mean?

Re: Fine, I'll bring the stirring stick
 

I'll bite, I am against it:

In theory it may provide certain answers, but in practice it puts less qualified people ahead of other, more qualified individuals, and at some point the "Peter" principle, (often) rears it's ugly head:

In "theory" Communism sounds great:

Terry

Rogue you are a mean one!

Against, it hands out what is normally earned. It is also used under the worse possible circumstances due to idiots handleing the bad idea in the first place.

Anytime you place anyone ahead it causes problems. The "whites" were ahead and the blacks were heald back. Thsi equals friction. You do not end that friction by reversing the discrimination. Affirmative action reverses teh discrimnation.

Diversity is highly overrated.

Jump in and bash me guys! :)

In theory: a great idea. In reality: a crutch used to get ahead. The best qualified should be hired, regardless of who or what they are.

Standards are standards, not quotas.

I'm against this for the same reasons I am against other manifestations of authoritarianism.

Re: Fine, I'll bring the stirring stick
 

In reverse order: A program designed to create more diversity in schools, workplaces, etc. A program that if managed correctly will bring the strengths of different cultures, ethinic and socio-economic backgrounds to the forefront to the benefit of all. There's a great deal the Dean of Harvard Law could learn from a black street cop from NYC, however, given the probable economic situation of the street cop the Dean is going to be robbed of a valuable learning experience. AA could remedy that. Given those circumstances I am for it 100%.

On the other hand, AA attacks the notion of meritocracy (the more one does the more one is allowed to do), and in many cases is not only unnecessary and stigmatizing, it can close off ways for people to prove themselves on their abilities.

If the education and economic playing fields were level there would be no need for Affirmative Action. Even that is not quite true, though. If the education field were more equal then the economics would straighten themselves out sooner or later.

My thinking is that the military is the great equalizer in that all troops are given the same schools regardless of family background or ability to pay. DoD schools on post get the same funds regardless of local tax base. (Military Academies excluded for various reasons)

The real question with affirmative action, and all other like programs is this:

Do you think the government exists to protect the rights of the individuals in a society to make their own way, or do you think individuals exist to fulfill some "social" outcome dictated by whatever authority establishes such goals?

I hold the former to be the only legitimate interpretation of a just government. "Diversity," as forced on people by affirmative action, is not a value they are free to choose or resist for themselves. It is an injunction issued on the authority of law. It equates not hiring a desirable mix of ethnicities into your business with a violation of another person(s) rights. In other words, to give someone else their "rights" (to a job, say), you must be deprived of some of yours (the right to choose what to do with your own property - your business). A "right" that can only be enforced by infringing on the rights of others is absurd on its face, and a ridiculous contradiction. Once a right such as this has been established, it is a de facto abolition of the universality of rights, making them favors done for some at a cost imposed on others. There is no desirable outcome that can come from a system such as this. You will have, instead, all the degenerative symptoms of cultural decay that you have in The West today: class warfare, general malevolence and cynicism, and increasing consolidation of power in the central government as groups clamor at once for special protections from others and favors for themselves. That's the only kind of "Great Society" that has ever come from the stuff affirmative action is made of.

Maybe a white Harvard professor could learn a lot from a black NYC beat cop, but he could learn a lot from a white NYC beat cop too. But I don't think it's the job of the authorities to see that he takes on self-improvement projects of any kind.

Mi dos centavos.

I am against any affirmative action programs.

We are taught to not discriminate against race, creed, color, religion etc... yet the Government sanctions a program that does just that. In any affirmative action program someone is being discriminated against. Jobs, school admission and many others should be based on the talent and experience required for the assignment/position/school.

My understanding of it is that it is a tool used to "level" the playing field in an area/talent that may have a disproportionate number of a certain type (be it male, femlae etc...)

We need another lib to really get this going . . .

Maybe someone should send Kid A an invite? :D

Affirmative action
 

***

I'm usually 'classified' as a lib around these parts ; 'I think affirmative action was a good thing at the time.'

But it has lost relevence, been subverted, and the concept
overhauled.

Re: Affirmative action
 

Just when would that "time" have been?

It has always been a means of making others feel inadequate because of their race. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change. Programs, regardless of their intent, will never replace drive.

JD

Opposed.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

It also has the opposite of its intended effect and causes thinking people to question the creds of minorities they encounter in professional positions. Do you want a neurosurgeon working to save your child's life who may have gotten his position based on the color of his skin? Do you want a defense attorney representing you in a capital case who was given an admission to Law School despite not meeting the minimum admission standard? Does anyone thing the NBA would be better if every team had mostly white guys, with two blacks, two Hispanics, and one Asian per team for "diversity" and to correct "underrepresentation", or should it be talent based?

I believe that when the color barrier in baseball was broken, it was successful because the black players admitted were as good or better than their white counterparts. This removed any argument that they didn't belong. When barriers are broken, it needs to be by people who are as good, if not better, not because someone said, every department has to have a token minority member or ten. The process of admitting people who do not meet the standard increases resentment (how should the better qualified majority applicant who loses out feel?), causes doubt about the quals of the new members, and foments increased racism, rather than bringing the two sides together. I sincerely hope that we never have to do that in SF, or we are going to get people hurt.

I have served with at least 30 black SF soldiers and there was only one who didn't measure up, about the same percentage as white soliders who slip through the program and shouldn't. If I were to pick an SF All-Star ODA, at least two of the soldiers would be black, not because someone said I had to pick two, but because they are the very best at what they do. That is how you break down a barrier and eliminate prejudice, not by making people sit through a class.

Our solution to increase minorities in SF is to try to get as many minority applicants into the pipeline as we can without lowering standards. Another good program is mentoring of minority soldiers (or any soldiers) by cadre members.

Even when underrepresented parties achieve parity, it is almost impossible to terminate the program, because it is then viewed as an entitlement.

Why is it race based and not economic? If SAT scores are a valid test media for college applicants and are predfictive of college performance, should Michael Jordan's kids get admitted to with an SAT score 200 points lower than their majority counterparts because of the discrimination and lack of opportunity they have experienced?

Why is the program not extended to other minorities? Were Asian or Irish immigrants brought here as indentured servants to build the TransContinental railroad not also disadvantaged and discriminated against? How about Vietnamese boat people? Illegal immigrants from El Salvador? Eastern European political prisoners who escaped?

This is an inequity supported by those benefitted, and the limo libs who feel guilty.

Just my .02, and worth what you paid for it.

TR

Affirmative Action is and was nothing but government sponsered racism. I am against it, and do not feel it ever had a place. I do feel that it significantly hindered the improvement in race relations.

TR has made many of the points I would make.

In doing so, he has identified and I think endorsed another form of affirmative action with which I don't have a problem. This does not involve standards or actual hiring decisions, but simply an effort to try to find qualified candidates from unrepresented minority groups and encourage them to apply.

This technically is a form of affirmative action and it arguably is discriminatory. In my view, however, there is nothing wrong with noticing that a company is all white or black or green, and trying to do something about it without discriminating. My office has no black lawyers right now (or at least last time I checked). I'd like to hire one if he can get the job done well.

What do people think about this more benign form of affirmative action? Is it OK for my firm to sponsor an event for a black lawyers or law students group for recruiting purposes?

Slightly tougher question: can you use race as a tie breaker? Let's say I have two equally qualified candidates, one white and the other black. I have no black lawyers now. Can I hire the black candidate because I want to diversify the firm?

Does it make a difference if diversity benefits the firm? For example, what if I want the ability to have a black lawyer at the counsel table when trying a case to an inner-city jury? Is that form of hiring discrimination OK?