Affirmative action

no it just means that if a company has it, or if its a law, you need to hire black and white people equally

Hiring someone because he is black is just as racist as hiring someone who is white. They just found a legal way to do it.

It must be monitored closely so as not to be abused or disqualify the most qualified person regardless of race - avoiding unjust quotas.

Depends what you define racism as. As Dr. Ron Paul said “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals”. These groups are then differentiated with strictly based on race. When you define someone as only a member of a group, rather than an individual, then to me it is racist.

Affirmative action, although maybe intended to simply help lower class people comes off as racist. It tells a black man that he wasn’t necessarily qualified for a position, but because of the color his skin they gave him the job.

To prove my point the poster above me said

“If it weren’t for affirmative action, somone like Colin Powell would not have achieved in life what he did. “

Which tells Colin Powell, he wasn’t able to do it on his own. In my mind however, I believe Colin Powell achieved what he did, because of his intelligence and his character, and not because of the amount of melanin in his skin.

“Depends what you define racism as. As Dr. Ron Paul said “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals”. These groups are then differentiated with strictly based on race. When you define someone as only a member of a group, rather than an individual, then to me it is racist.”

You (and dr. paul) are ignoring the fact that it was the majority who initially segregated and differentiated the minorities. It was the majority who imposed sanction on these groups because of the color of their skin.

“It tells a black man that he wasn’t necessarily qualified for a position, but because of the color his skin they gave him the job.”

The problem with your analysis is you have completely left out the fact that their is overt racism against minorities at work here. And no one is suggesting that unqualified persons be put in positions they don’t deserve.

“Which tells Colin Powell, he wasn’t able to do it on his own. In my mind however, I believe Colin Powell achieved what he did, because of his intelligence and his character, and not because of the amount of melanin in his skin.”

You completely miss the point. Of course powell achieved what he did because of his talents. That IS the point. If it weren’t for affirmative action, he would never have had the chance in the first place. It is not about advancing someone strictly based on the color of their skin, it is about giving a chance to the most qualified member of a minority group that they would otherwise not have.

If you think that advancement opportunites for whites and minorites are equal, you are sadly mistaken. Affirmative action is a means to even the playing field.

So as not to misquite Dr. Paul I will post the entire section

“The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

sephers - I assume that you can form a thought and not just quote Ron Paul.

Here you have posted Paul’s quotes regarding Don Imus. Has it escaped you that Don Imus was NOT charged with any crime? He was fired by his employer, just as any of us could be. His employer felt that his comments were not beneficial to their business because of pressure from the public and threats of boycotts.

This is an example of right to fire, not affirmative action.

In a perfect world, affirmative action would not be needed. We do not live in a perfect world.

jimahl states it best - “If you think that advancement opportunites for whites and minorites are equal, you are sadly mistaken. Affirmative action is a means to even the playing field.”

Wrong. Whites are the majority, and have most of the decion making power. That is why it is not racist

I just want to point out that overhere in South-Africa whites are the minority…yet they have what the call black economic empowerment…aka…affirmative action. So would you say that that is unfair?

South africa is a different situation, in that there you had a minority with the power for many year. But the affects are the same. Economic restrictions that were placed on blacks are probably still affect opportunity, and this is a program to rectify past discrimination.

No it is not unfair.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

AMEN!!

p

“Hiring someone because he is black is just as racist as hiring someone who is white. They just found a legal way to do it. “

Wrong. Whites are the majority, and have most of the decion making power. That is why it is not racist. When a particular ethnic group is severely under-represented in certain segments of society due to racism, should nothing be done to correct that situation? We should just allow the racism to continue? And don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I have personally seen it in hiring practices at places I have worked. I actually had a boss say to me after interviewing a good candidate for a position, “even though he is black, he sounded good”. In the end, he didn’t get the job. I didn’t stay there much longer myself. Racism is still alive and well, and as long as it is, affrimative action is needed. But as with anything, the methods and results should constantly be reviewed and ammended.

“It must be monitored closely so as not to be abused or disqualify the most qualified person regardless of race - avoiding unjust quotas.”

The problem amblessed has to do with who is evaluating the qualifications of the person, and how is it done. Is there any bias involved in that evaluation?

The misperception most opponents have is the image of some highly qualified white person being turned down in favor of a grossly unqualified member of a minorty group. That is not what happens. In reality the qualifications of both candidates are very close, and the minority is only given a slight advantage. The white person does not have to face the same hurdles in hiring as do minorities, and they will have a better shot at another position than minorities. If it weren’t for affirmative action, somone like Colin Powell would not have achieved in life what he did.