Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Affirmative Action is modern day government sanctioned Racism !

  1. #1

    Affirmative Action is modern day government sanctioned Racism !

    Affirmative Action... a government policy that was meant to fight racism and promote equality. Well, in reality it doesn't. In fact, it backfires.

    I don't know if any of you are aware of this... but in New York, there are 3 Specialized Science High School that's very difficult to get in due to the SSHSAT (Specialized Science High School Admission Test). I was in Bronx Science (one of them), most of my familly in New York went to one of those school. It means a lot to a New York HS student, because it directly affects his/her future.

    I have a cousin who's half-chinese. He applied for the 3 schools. When he got his scores back, he was so excited --- because he qualified for all 3 (or so he thought). Then shortly after, he found out that he was only qualified for 2 of them (Bx Science and Brooklyn Tech, not Stuyvesant). Needless to say, he was upset. He had his mind on Stuyvesant since he started Junior High. It's the difference between Best and Second Best. The interesting thing here is that one of his friend (Black) got 10 points lower than him and was ACCEPTED to Stuyvesant. His parents were furious, they asked around, sent letters, made angry calls and so forth... Finally, they found out that it's due to "Affirmative Action" and "No Child Left Behind Act" kind of crap. Basicly, it's all about equal representation of race RATHER than equal opportunity. So basicly, they will try to make the school as racially diverse as possible... using any means. That include having different score requirements of different ethnic groups. That's all fine and nice for hispanics and blacks (no offense, but their score were lowered)... but for East Asians and Jews, the score were raise by like 12 points (it varies each year). They said it was meant to control the "racial inequality" in school. What the hell? How is that not racist? You deny certain people a good education because you want to offer it to the less fortunate? I understand that Affirmative Action has helped lots of minorities that usually perform less-than-average in school to gain high powered degrees. But why do they have to employ such a racist method? How about offering SCHOOLS for the people who needs help? How about helping the minorities rather than just giving things to them? In fact, I am pretty sure some black parents consider this an insult (to lower their children's requirement score).

    When my uncle told my parents this... we were stunned. We heard about affirmative action, but we had no idea how it actually works. My uncle want to send the Board of Ed an offical letter asking them to accept my cousin or he might take legal actions against the state of New York (he's gathering data on this matter right now).

    So I ask you, what do you think of this? If you have asked me before, I would've said I support anything that evens the playing field for minorities. But now I realized that this affirmative action (if anything) makes the playing field an one-sided slaughter.

    PS: I also did some research on Wikipedia under Affirmative Action, No Child Left Behind Act, Racial Intelligence and so forth... I am going to help my uncle with his crusade.

  2. #2
    Well, his future's at stake here...

    It's not even about race... discrimination is discrimination. I say let the schools admit students based on merit. Who cares about how many people of his/her race is already in the school? I mean, do "white" people sue to get more "white" representation in Rap Music? Do "asians" sue to get more people on NBA? For every seat unfairly taken away from whites/asians/jews... there should be a spot in the NBA given back (of course, it's an example. I don't think that will be a logical solution). Equal Opportunity please... Not Representation... As for filing a suit against the city, that's my Uncle's will. I am just going gather information and prove the city's underhandedness in this matter.

    Edit: BTW, thanks for the case (of the two women). If their case set a precedence for overturning a school's decision, then we have a chance.
    Last edited by John_Cage; 03-29-2007 at 08:58 PM.

  3. #3
    Of course affirmative action is discriminatory - this is not exactly news. It's just one more example of how the sick and twisted bleeding hearts of the world continue to fuck everything up in the guise of righteousness.

  4. #4
    Mired in the red dust.
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    388
    Affirmative action is a nasty medicine like radiation therapy that you take not because it's fun, but because the alternatives are unacceptable. It needs to be closely monitored to make sure that it is not being employed unnecessarily. Failure to use it however might lead to a cancer spreading.

    Is affirmative actions fair? At an individual level, no. But sometimes it is necessary to look at society at the group level to understand where inequalities exist.

  5. #5
    Affirmative action has a dark side and everyone knows it. Is is a bad thing? Not necessarily. But the bleeding hearts that say it is automatically a good thing have already secured their plum positions in life.

  6. #6
    Recreational User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In a house, on a street, duh.
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by joelcairo
    Of course affirmative action is discriminatory - this is not exactly news. It's just one more example of how the sick and twisted bleeding hearts of the world continue to fuck everything up in the guise of righteousness.
    Yeah, addresssing the institutionalized discrimination that existed in the U.S. until the late 1960s (since they were not equivalent to actual humans, they didn't get to vote, get proper schooling) and now operates under other guises - them blacks should just get over it! What do these people want? Equality or something?
    You are cordially invited to toss my salad. There's an app for that!

  7. #7
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    YVO, I don't get your point?

    "Blacks" have equality in Canada, so as any other group, as long as they want to be equals, not superior, not in a criminal gang, as long as they want to contribute.

    Poor black kid can't go to university? Guess what! Lots of poor white kids can't go to university! That's life!

    If there's incentive to get poor kids to university, it must be ALL kids, no matter who, no matter ethnic bakground, at the only condition they work for it and desserve it.

    Same with jobs. The saying about "being a black woman in a wheel chair will get you ahead for any job you might be qualified" does exist and is true. 1- black, 2-woman 3-handicapped, winning combination!

    This "positive discrimination", no matter race or sex, is not right! It only push the pendulum too far in the other direction. The "natural" situation where representation will equals population will be achieved on it's own, no need to push it. What if we'd say "ok, we have 10% of the population who is blond so, 10% of employees must be blond"? Doesn't make sense either.

    If there's 2 person with close to same qualification who apply for a position, the most qualified must get it, not the one who's black, not the woman opposed to the man, not the Native opposed to the "white". If the woman/native/"black" have more qualification, they have the job. If not, they don't.

    Look at women: there are career choices most women aren't attracted to. Are we going to lower the standard in order to have more taking these careers? That would only lower the quality of the work produced. Women who are interested in these jobs and meet the same standards as mens are welcome but sorry, here's the standard. If the standards are lower, imagine you stuck in a fire and the firewoman can't carry you out because her tests allowed her to carry less weight! "Sorry sir, you're going to die because I'm allowed to do the same job as a guy but can't meet the same requirement as them..." Ok ladies, this is extreme. But it's a possible example.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by metoo4
    [...]
    Are we going to lower the standard in order to have more taking these careers? That would only lower the quality of the work produced.
    [...]
    That is actually it. I was being selfish in my posts. If you take in the grand scene, the big picture... Lowering standard "may" lead to more black professionals, but won't it also in a way lower the standard of ALL professionals? Seriously, next time, I am putting Black/Gay/Female/Handicapped in all applications I fill out. I will be getting jobs everywhere with the same qualifications.

    To Budda:
    It's true that on the Bigger scale, it's becoming more "balanced"; but that's hardly FAIR. The world isn't meant to be balanced, that's some kind of socialist idea. Work hard and you get to play hard. Let the BEST man get the job (white/black/green/rainbow, who cares?). The thing is... I hardly give a rat's little behind about the "bigger scale". I want my cousin in the best school and he deserves to be there. I am not going to say "Oh, over 50% of that school is already white/jew/chinese/indian, so that's OK." Because it means NOTHING to me. I only care about my (and to some extend, my familly's) achievements in life.

    Also, what did some of you mean by the alternative being worse? The alternative is having a fair system that judges base on merit. How can that be worse? Wants something? Work for it. Want to get that 1450 SAT to get in MIT or Stanford? Get it, don't get that 1250 and hope for a -200 racial requirement deduction; or count on a +50 requirement for others, so you have a better chance (the figures are made-up).
    Last edited by John_Cage; 03-30-2007 at 05:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Mired in the red dust.
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Cage
    It's true that on the Bigger scale, it's becoming more "balanced"; but that's hardly FAIR. The world isn't meant to be balanced, that's some kind of socialist idea. Work hard and you get to play hard.
    Sometimes things are "unfair" in one direction for so long that to simply click one's magic shoes and chant "We are all equal" isn't good enough. The US system of government and law was inherantly biased against black Americans for at least two hundred years. During that two hundred years white Americans were advantaged by virture of their skin colour when it came to acquiring wealth and social position. Now that US law and government is fairer, it doesn't mean that the economic and social inequality that became entrenched during the preceding two-hundred years no longer exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by John_Cage
    Let the BEST man get the job (white/black/green/rainbow, who cares?).
    Who says that the black student who gets 100 points less isn't the best person? Crime statistics, prison statistics and a whole host of other statistics show that black American youth have additional hurdles to overcome. Maybe the black student who gets a few less points than the white student is really smarter, stronger and more of a survivor. In the Canadian context, a First Nations person who get a few less points than a white person on a scholastic test is bloody rare find (about 90% of First Nations students drop out of high school) and needs to be nurtured for the benefit of all society.

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Cage
    The thing is... I hardly give a rat's little behind about the "bigger scale". I want my cousin in the best school and he deserves to be there. I am not going to say "Oh, over 50% of that school is already white/jew/chinese/indian, so that's OK." Because it means NOTHING to me. I only care about my (and to some extend, my familly's) achievements in life.
    You clearly recognize what your interests are. But in view of their limited scope, I'm not sure there is much room for discussion on the merits of affirmative action.

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Cage
    Also, what did some of you mean by the alternative being worse?.
    The unacceptable alternative to which I was referring was the existence of a segment of the population whose lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, lower economic standing, lower-quality education, higher incarceration rates, higher suicide rates and so on are closely linked to that segment's racial or cultural background. The existence of such a segment pollutes the lives of everybody who lives in such a society, provides a perfect recipe for social instability and also tarnishes the image of that society to the outside world.

    Let me finish by saying that if I was in the same situation as your cousin, I too would find it hard not to feel angry and disappointed. But it sounds like he is very hard-working and intelligent, so I have a hard time imagining that he won't overcome this setback quickly.
    Last edited by Fat Happy Buddha; 03-30-2007 at 07:28 PM.

  10. #10
    First, let me begin by saying that I don't qualify for Affiramative Action (AA) programs. Having said that I am not really against AA programs either. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Diversity is necessity in all professions as most people in population are expecting it now a days.

    I have heard this story many times where a student with higher scores complains against AA because s/he could not get admission and someone qualifying for AA got admitted. Standardized test scores are only one variable that goes into admission decisions. Considering that it should be the only variable used for admission decisions can lead to flawed understanding of admissions process.

    Some public universities/schools are required to incorporate diversity quotas. Including these quotas allows them to obtain public funding. There are many grants available to encourage people belonging to under represented communities to learn certain subjects. When schools/universities tap into these resources they are expected to show results.

    AA is often considered with "under represented" groups, which include women of all races (including white) in certain professions. When combined with "under represented" groups, AA becomes indepedent of race. However, it may be considered as against "White Male".

    The primary disadvantage that I see is that "White men" are somewhat impacted by this policy. I say somewhat because, as Fat Budda said, there is a need to level the playing field for social reasons.

    I have one case in my work place where a person who qualifies for AA is expecting a special status in everything he does. He always rubs his race into people's face. I feel sorry for the US history and I think that people belonging to "minority" status should be given a chance. However, it is equally important for people qualifying for AA programs to realize that they are given a chance and should to assume that it is an entitlement.

    As a result of my dilemma, I am neutral on the AA programs.

  11. #11
    Fuck affirmative action and fuck history. Sorry but I'm not to blame for what happened a few hundred years ago and I don't know too many living people who are. Why not try to have a fair and just society TODAY and let everyone make their own way in today's world. Holy fuck - maybe I deserve affirmative action because I wasn't born with the name Bronfman. Not only is affirmative action discriminatory against any poor shmuck who doesn't fit the desired profile but it's also a freakin insult to any poor shmuck who DOES (by implying that he NEEDS affirmative action to secure a given position). Affirmative action breeds jealousy, prejudice. hatred, mediocrity and sloth. Fuck it and fuck all the bleeding hearts of the world while you're at it.

  12. #12
    You know what? I get it. I think I see the hint of logics in this.

    Because we did a little "oopsy" in the old times, now we are using positive racism to sort of "make up" for it. Ok, I see.

    But... Consider this:
    There Are Black People Who's From a Poor "Ghetto" Who Made It On His/Her Own.

    He/she didn't need help. Come on... If ONLY whites were doing well in school, FINE... That could be because of environment and racism. But think about the Jews who escaped Germany and settle here (they can't be all that rich at that time); Think about all the Irish (poor labors) who got here by the boat load; Think about the Chinese/Japanese who came here to build railroads; Think of the Russians... Think of... etc... The Blacks and Hispanics aren't the only ones facing hardship and racism. (PS, isn't it true that the black population isn't quite that poor anymore? Since they are here longer than new immigrants and they have roots here.)

    Personally, I think it's about will *ducks*. Maybe if they "want" it more or whatever (I am just pulling theories out of my ass), they CAN do it without unfair advantages.

    Food for thought: You know how blacks are under-represented in Gymnastics? Maybe we should lowered the requirement there. You know how whites are under-represented in Track and Field (a bit)? Maybe something should be done about that. Second thought, I suck at Football... I want the requirements lowered (to avoid Football's discrimination against skinny people). You know what? Following that logics, no one needs to compete. We are all "exactly" the same anyways... Why bother taking Biochem, and struggling to publish a novel... Maybe I should just sit and wait for the bleeding hearts to come up with "Affirmative Action v2.0".
    Last edited by John_Cage; 03-31-2007 at 03:36 AM.

  13. #13
    While if Affirmative Action V2.0 even comes to be, White guys should get bigger d**ks as part of the deal.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by YouVantOption
    Yeah, addresssing the institutionalized discrimination that existed in the U.S. until the late 1960s (since they were not equivalent to actual humans, they didn't get to vote, get proper schooling) and now operates under other guises - them blacks should just get over it! What do these people want? Equality or something?
    But for how long does this go on? One could perhaps make a convincing argument in 1964 but in 2007?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbodick
    While if Affirmative Action V2.0 even comes to be, White guys should get bigger d**ks as part of the deal.
    lol, or have all the women lower their "dick-size" requirements to allow more whites to be sexually satisfing.

    OMG, better yet... increase the requirement for black dicks... From now on, a black cock has to be 12 inch+ to be considered impressive, while Jewish and Chinese ones only have to be 6 inches.

    Edit: joke... I am not discriminating against anyone's size.
    Last edited by John_Cage; 04-01-2007 at 02:46 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •