|
|
Post by spike on May 13, 2003 8:04:28 GMT
Seeing as this issue was raised in The Two Bartlets, I thought I'd post this poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Lyman on May 13, 2003 18:33:41 GMT
After watching last night - CJ's Dad is obviously not in his prime anymore and I could understand why she feels the way she does. Its like racism backwards - still doesn't make it write, but it is less hear of and not so recognised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2003 19:18:19 GMT
A definite no-no.
|
|
|
|
Post by madcap on May 14, 2003 20:35:25 GMT
Affirmative Action vs. Positive Discrimination.
You tell me what the difference is ?
Not a road I think we should be going down.
|
|
|
|
Post by spike on May 15, 2003 10:55:23 GMT
As far as I know, positive discrimination is affirmative action.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHoarse on May 16, 2003 12:01:10 GMT
That is also my understanding.
I admit an interest here, as my special subject at uni was the US civil rights movement. As Toby said (or at least, he alluded to it), when you have over 200 years of slavery and/or discriminatory legislation staining your country's history, affirmative action theoretically shouldn't be regarded as harmful.
Except in practice, it inevitably will be. I personally would like to think that the blacks who fought for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s would rather US society held to the founding principle of "all men are created equal" and judged them purely on merit, rather than promoting blacks because of an inherently flawed system of "positive discrimination".
In the context of American history, I admire the US government for enshrining the gesture in law. In the context of individual and social responsibility, I can't help but feel it creates at least as many issues as it professes to solve.
I abstain from voting. If compelled, I'd vote against, because it shouldn't be necessary to have it on the statute book if the civil rights movement had genuinely achieved its aims. Whether it has or not remains a moot point, which is the most depressing thing of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHoarse on May 16, 2003 12:02:14 GMT
See my signature for why...
|
|
|
|
Post by spike on May 16, 2003 12:45:50 GMT
I remember when I started studying Psychology and Criminology at uni, one of my lectuers was talking about journals. We were informed that if our research included a minority group, and the results went against that group then chances were it would not get published due to "positive discrimination".
Discrimination is discrimination. No matter how you try to spin it, it still means repressing the interests of one group of people. Which is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHoarse on May 16, 2003 14:21:34 GMT
Sure, I agree, that example is patently wrong. Similarly, the example CJ gives in "The Two Bartlets" is, rationally, indefensible.
I think there is a qualitative difference between those examples and an affirmative action policy which chooses a black person over an EQUALLY qualified white person (CJ referred to 'less' qualified black teachers). It's that sort of policy which I don't think should be necessary in an ideal world but to which I have no strong objection.
Naturally, any such affirmative action policy is open to abuse in practice, thereby rendering it just as destructive as the one CJ's father would have suffered under. So in the end I come down more against than for, I just think there are too many nuances in the debate for me to make a 'for/against' decision in a poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Lyman on May 17, 2003 15:27:45 GMT
Discrimination is discrimination. you cannot be staunchly opposed to discimination and support affirmative action because it is fundamentally the same. I think CJ made some good points. it's good to see not all Democrats are in favour of AA.
|
|
|
|
Post by naomi on May 17, 2003 21:11:36 GMT
I work for an organisation which is exempt from employment law and has institutionalised discrimination. I cannot rise above a certain level because of my gender. So I meet discrimination on a day to day basis and have no legal redress.
Its been interesting reading the posts here and on the C4 forum coz its made me think about it. If the law was changed to equal my position would I want affirmative action to bump up the numbers of women really quickly? I don't think so, for one because its still discrimination, but also because I think it leaves the power with the structure that discriminated against us in the first place and the institution wouldn't fundamentally change, which true equality demands.
Fitzwallace describes the change in the 'unit' when black and white soldiers were intergrated 'the unit got over it, the unit changed'. Does anyone know anything about how this worked? Was there affirmative action in the military or was the change natural?
Cosmetically affirmative action gets the job done but it just reiterates that discrimination is ok, rather than challenging it the hard way.
|
|
CJ
Citizen
Posts: 3
|
Post by CJ on May 30, 2003 19:18:19 GMT
AA causes as many problems, if not more than it solves. Discrimination is discrimation. Also people will often feel that the person got the job because of AA, even when he/she was the best candidate. That said its important that discrimations doesn't go unchecked.
|
|
