Affirmative Action

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621828' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:42 PM']A friend of mine who works in the HR department of a large company in the US told me that the biggest change is that race is no longer allowed on application forms. She said it didn't really matter anyway. Her boss routinely throws away resumes from Latishas and Kwame's, and puts Jacob, Michael, Alice and Mary at the top of the call back pile.[/quote]


I have heard of people like that. But it's not racism. It's because they have (and have had) enough Latishas and Kwames being lazy, not dependable and in general doing a lousy job. And they can't be corrected or taught anything new and theri attitudes are horrible and you can't fire them. Of course, this is not a collective overview. But it exists. We see it a lot out here in DC. When you go through this enough it makes you avoid certain resumes, yes.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1621991' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:19 PM']There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and people should stop using this appalling term. This is a false term that was invented to refer to black racism against white people. But by using this phrase it's like saying that only blacks are discriminated AGAINST, as if this is an injustice that is uniquely theirs. As if the very words "racism" or "discrimination" are meant solely for them. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. There is only [i]discrimination[/i], period. It begs the question, The reverse of [u]what[/u]?[/quote]

i see your point, but i think you're being too PC, too nitpicky. blacks are the one who are generally discriminated against. in trying to not have them discriminated against with AA, we're essentially discriminating against the whites who lose out in the deal.
if direct discrimination against whites were more common,,, maybe using that phrase, reverse discrimination, would be less appropriate, cause it causes minds to think blacks are the ones who get the heat. reality is though, that they are largley,,, and that's why we have AA,,,and that's why we should be concerned for what i said in my lat paragraph.
in fact, just saying discrimination is occuring to the white,,, could be said to be more misleading,, as if hteir plight is just as bad as the blacks. the only plight they have, significantly, is the result of our trying to fix everything.
so basically,,, the phrase more accurately portrays reality, whereas what you desire does not.

[MissScripture]

I think it's just as insulting to minorities as it is frustrating to the non-minorities (aka whites) who don't get jobs. The whole time those minorities are doing the job, it will leave an air over them of "they just got this job because they are *insert minority here.*" So, it doesn't matter if they DID get the job because they were qualified for it, they will still be viewed by many as getting it solely based on race.

[CatherineM]

People other than blacks get discriminated against. Try getting a job when you're disabled.

[KOIfriend]

Who really cares if some of a different race gets a job you should get. Share and share alike, that's the communist motto!

[Nihil Obstat]

I am extremely glad about the replies here.
These things are all my first impressions of the policy, but I didn't think I was clear enough about any of it to contribute meaningfully.
Now I can say I'm against it without worrying that I'm inadequately informed and making a fool of myself.
Has there been any official Church statements about it?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621828' date='Aug 8 2008, 04:42 PM']A friend of mine who works in the HR department of a large company in the US told me that the biggest change is that race is no longer allowed on application forms. She said it didn't really matter anyway. Her boss routinely throws away resumes from Latishas and Kwame's, and puts Jacob, Michael, Alice and Mary at the top of the call back pile.[/quote]
:bugeye:

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1621991' date='Aug 8 2008, 07:19 PM']There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and people should stop using this appalling term. This is a false term that was invented to refer to black racism against white people. But by using this phrase it's like saying that only blacks are discriminated AGAINST, as if this is an injustice that is uniquely theirs. As if the very words "racism" or "discrimination" are meant solely for them. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. There is only [i]discrimination[/i], period. It begs the question, The reverse of [u]what[/u]?[/quote]
Well, I know that this is not what "reverse discrimination" is supposed to mean, but it almost sounds like it should mean "favoritism." "Reverse" means the opposite of something and "discrimination" means... well, discrimination. The reverse of discrimination is favoritism.

How 'bout just judging applicants based on their qualifications?

[Nihil Obstat]

Well whatever you call it, 'reverse discrimination' has come to mean, to most people, racism. The only difference is that saying reverse discrimination is specifically stating that this is racism against white people.
Although after hearing the argument, I won't use the term anymore.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1621998' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:41 PM']i see your point, but i think you're being too PC, too nitpicky. blacks are the one who are generally discriminated against. in trying to not have them discriminated against with AA, we're essentially discriminating against the whites who lose out in the deal.
if direct discrimination against whites were more common,,, maybe using that phrase, reverse discrimination, would be less appropriate, cause it causes minds to think blacks are the ones who get the heat. reality is though, that they are largley,,, and that's why we have AA,,,and that's why we should be concerned for what i said in my lat paragraph.
in fact, just saying discrimination is occuring to the white,,, could be said to be more misleading,, as if hteir plight is just as bad as the blacks. the only plight they have, significantly, is the result of our trying to fix everything.
so basically,,, the phrase more accurately portrays reality, whereas what you desire does not.[/quote]

Me?? PC?? That's a joke.

It has nothing to do with being nitpicky or anything else. There is simply no such thing as reverse racism and using the phrase sounds like blacks are the only people who are discriminated against. It's a silly phrase and makes no sense.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1622880' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:12 PM']How 'bout just judging applicants based on their qualifications?[/quote]

That's all we sane-minded people are asking for.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1621998' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:41 PM']i see your point, but i think you're being too PC, too nitpicky. blacks are the one who are generally discriminated against. in trying to not have them discriminated against with AA, we're essentially discriminating against the whites who lose out in the deal.
if direct discrimination against whites were more common,,, maybe using that phrase, reverse discrimination, would be less appropriate, cause it causes minds to think blacks are the ones who get the heat. reality is though, that they are largley,,, and that's why we have AA,,,and that's why we should be concerned for what i said in my lat paragraph.
in fact, just saying discrimination is occuring to the white,,, could be said to be more misleading,, as if hteir plight is just as bad as the blacks. the only plight they have, significantly, is the result of our trying to fix everything.
so basically,,, the phrase more accurately portrays reality, whereas what you desire does not.[/quote]

After reading your reply again, I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was trying to figure out where you would get "you're being PC" from, since I am the least PC person in the world. Re-reading your comments, I can see you didn't get what I was trying to explain. But nevermind. Reverse discrimination/racism is a ridiculous phrase because no such thing exists. It's like saying "that orange orange". It's no more necessary to refer to an orange as "orange" than it is to refer to discrimination with an adjective.

[Guest Perpetua]

I'm completely against affirmative action right now. I'm a college sophomore, and when I was applying a few years ago, I saw a few articles about it. I know there was a school in Michigan who had to get rid of 'race quotas', they did the point system that someone mentioned earlier, which is also illegal (even though it's on our northern border, you'd be surprised how racist some people in that state can be, including my grandmother). I'm all for private organizations giving scholarships based on heritage, but keep the government out of it.

What I think they should do is give out more money based on if you live in a poorer neighborhood. That way you get the same basic idea of helping those who have the odds stacked against them b/c of their circumstances, without the racism.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Perpetua

[Nihil Obstat]

The only thing I've heard in support of affirmative action that approaches intelligence is this:
minorities, coming from a different culture, naturally do not identify as well with interviewers for jobs, education, etc, as a person coming from their own racial group. By the nature of their different heritage, the interviewer and the applicant may have differences that make the interviewer assume they are not as qualified, though they may be equally so.
In theory, affirmative action still carrying on today is supposed to rectify that.

HOWEVER
I think that sounds like a load of garbage, myself.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1623857' date='Aug 11 2008, 12:15 AM']The only thing I've heard in support of affirmative action that approaches intelligence is this:
minorities, coming from a different culture, naturally do not identify as well with interviewers for jobs, education, etc, as a person coming from their own racial group. By the nature of their different heritage, the interviewer and the applicant may have differences that make the interviewer assume they are not as qualified, though they may be equally so.
In theory, affirmative action still carrying on today is supposed to rectify that.

HOWEVER
I think that sounds like a load of garbage, myself.[/quote]


It does sound like a load of garbage. We're all American. I don't buy this "different heritage" nonsense, like we're talking about foreigners or something.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621313' date='Aug 8 2008, 10:50 AM']I have to agree with Madame. There was a time where it was necessary to equal things up, but that time has passed.[/quote]

What time has past? When there was gross inequality between the black and white populations in the United States?

I wouldn’t base it purely on race, but certain forms of affirmative actions should absolutely be allowed. The idea that a black kid from the South Bronx going to an inner city school with a 4.0 GPA shouldn’t be given a leg up over a rich white kid who got tutors and a world class teachers is silly. Similar considerations should be given to a white kid who was born in a bad neighborhood with horrid schools.