Positive Discrimination

IS it right to force companies to hire X% of their staff from Y ethnic minority. Should minorites (and women) be given extra measures to prevnt discrimination, or should they be truly equal and left to be potentially discriminated against?

Personally, i am againt positive discrimination.

probably not, no.


you should hire the people best suited to the job. no matter what colour skin they have.

Hm... an interesting question. I'd say if there is a time of severe prejudice (like there is now in the US against Atheists) it might be a good measure to take initially. But after groups become accepted, there is no need for it.

Affirmative action treats the symptoms, not the disease. That said, a great many people benefit from it who deserve it and would not have had the same  benefits otherwise. It's well-intentioned, but I think our time and money would be better spent solving the underlying, institutionalized discrimination in society that makes affirmative action semi-necessary in the first place.

In a perfect world, affirmative action would be completely unnecessary, although people might still use diversity as a consideration in hiring practices because sometimes diversity can help people with aspects of their jobs that aren't explicitly tested in the job qualifications. For example, when hiring a teacher, presumable the main job qualifications are knowledge of the subject matter and teaching ability, but teachers can often also act as role models, and having a diverse set of role models can be preferable to having a homogeneous set of role models.

However, we don't live in a perfect society, and until we do, affirmative action can help remedy some of the inequities that result from negative discrimination. There are certainly some inequities that are remedied by affirmative action, and some other inequities that are caused by it, and some other inequities are caused by the very idea of it (both by giving people the idea that they need handouts and by making them wonder if they deserved a job when they really did.) To me, the question of whether affirmative action is a good thing depends not on theoretical considerations, but on practical measurements of how the inequities ameliorated compare to the inequities caused, and so it is really an economics problem, and I'm sure I don't know if there have been any studies done to compare the economic and social costs to the benefits of affirmative action, which is what it would take to convince me whether it was a good or a bad thing in today's society.

As far as what dysfunction said about our efforts being better spent solving the underlying problems, I completely agree that it is worthy of our effort, but one of the advantages of affirmative action is that it really takes very little effort to enact, so it's not like it takes away from our ability to make more long term proactive changes. I think it should only be abandoned when it seems that the disadvantages are as great as the advantages. (It's possible that we may have crossed that line already; I'm not taking a position on that issue since I don't have enough data to make a sound judgment either way.)

Affirmative Action goes against everything our country stands for. You do not get racial equality by treating every race differently.

Affirmative action is racism by default.  Stating that a person should get a job because they are of a certain race is just as negative as saying that a man should not get a job because they are of a certain race.

Basing any decision on race and not ability is evil.

Basing any decision (at least as far as hiring goes) on anything that is not ability is evil.


I work in a field were 'affirmative action' has been replaced with the desires of the employees and employers to take possession of their lives.  Accepting a hand out because of your race is demeaning both to yourself and to your race.  If you are not capable of performing a job better than any other applicant, you should not be hired.  Regardless of your skin, sex, philosophy, or lifestyle.

I agree with you Astantia, but the problem is that the playing field is not level for people of all races, at least not in the United States. Affirmative action is only intended to make up for some of the default advantages whites (and probably asians) are already given in our society merely due to the color of their skin. It may seem to white Americans that racism is virtually nonexistent, but that is simply not the case. Yes, racism is illegal, truly racist comments are almost never heard in most areas, people of color are typically not denied a job or entrance to a college or the ability to eat in a particular restaurant solely on the basis of their race. Racism in modern America is subtle, it is underground, but it is no less insidious. It is not coded into our laws, but it is institutionalized just the same. You see it when less funding is given to schools in low-class neighborhoods, which are invariably predominantly minority. You see it in the disproportionately high numbers of black men in prison. You see it in the media's portrayal of drugs and violence as the way of life for urban minority teens. It is silent but it is everywhere. I recommend reading Amazing Grace by Jonathon Kozol, which documents life in the slums of New York City, for a horrifying but invaluable education on what it is like to be poor in America.

I agree with you Astantia, but the problem is that the playing field is not level for people of all races, at least not in the United States.

Yes it is. It is not your race that matters, but where you grow up. If anything, people who grow up in communities with a poor school system should get the extra help. But it should not be divided by race.

But the poorer classes are ridiculously, ridiculously disproportionately minority-populated.

I think it's kind of odd to ask whether taking measures to protect a particular group against discrimination is a good measure against discrimination: in order to determine whether a person is eligible for such protection, you need to discriminate.

I'm not sure that it's right to weigh the weal done to the beneficiaries of affirmative action against the woe done to its victims.  Should the government force doctors to experiment on patients without their consent, because of the great benefit it could have to the population as a whole?  I don't think the solution to the problem of inequities is to try to push the scales in the other direction by unleashing more inequities; I don't think it's even part of the solution.

Something about affirmative action smacks of guilt.  This need to give special privileges to the people who've historically gotten the short end of the stick in their dealings with Europeans is, I think, the product not of a genuine belief that it's what's best for society, but rather some form of economic mea-culpa.  Sure, I feel bad about slavery and small pox too, but I have no interest in paying reparations for them.

My personal view of employment is that it exists because jobs need to be done, not because people need jobs.  Given two candidates equally qualified for the job, hiring should be according to the employer's whim.

And that's another thing: it's been suggested that affirmative action was never intended to be a permanent thing.  I'm afraid that it's too late for it not to be a permanent thing.  I have a hard time believing that some day, politicians will meet and declare, "People of the world, we have reached the conclusion that affirmative action is no longer needed.  Social injustice no longer exists," and the populace will respond, "Yep!  Everybody's equal under the eyes of everybody else now.  You did it, previous generation!  Job well done!"

Hm, no.  Affirmative action will end with a rebellion, or not at all.

Something about affirmative action smacks of guilt.  This need to give special privileges to the people who've historically gotten the short end of the stick in their dealings with Europeans is, I think, the product not of a genuine belief that it's what's best for society, but rather some form of economic mea-culpa.  Sure, I feel bad about slavery and small pox too, but I have no interest in paying reparations for them.

But affirmative action isn't intended to make reparations for past abuses, but to help current victims of racial inequity. It's not meant to settle the score, but rather to level the playing field. Unless you deny that racism is still extremely prevalent in modern America?

But affirmative action isn't intended to make reparations for past abuses, but to help current victims of racial inequity. It's not meant to settle the score, but rather to level the playing field.

So it's been said; I'm offering my own conjecture as to the true socio-psychological impetus behind the institution.  (Yes, I said, "socio-psychological impetus"!!)

Quote from: "dysfunction"

But affirmative action isn't intended to make reparations for past abuses, but to help current victims of racial inequity. It's not meant to settle the score, but rather to level the playing field.

So it's been said; I'm offering my own conjecture as to the true socio-psychological impetus behind the institution.  (Yes, I said, "socio-psychological impetus"!!)

Well, I'm only offering the 'in theory' explanation. Certainly some people see it as getting even.

But affirmative action isn't intended to make reparations for past abuses, but to help current victims of racial inequity. It's not meant to settle the score, but rather to level the playing field. Unless you deny that racism is still extremely prevalent in modern America?

Of course. And the best way to protect people from racial inequality is to treat them differently than other races.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

But affirmative action isn't intended to make reparations for past abuses, but to help current victims of racial inequity. It's not meant to settle the score, but rather to level the playing field. Unless you deny that racism is still extremely prevalent in modern America?

Of course. And the best way to protect people from racial inequality is to treat them differently than other races.

No, I never said it was the best way. A much better way would be to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether a person needs government assistance, and do so regardless of race. But we're a lazy society. Much easier just to decide that one group of people needs help and give it to them regardless of individual status.