Is affirmative action immoral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobzills
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobzills

Guest
Affirmative action consists of a group of programs which grant preferential treatment to women and certain, but not all, minority groups. The question that I would have is whether or not it is moral to support a policy according to which less qualified candidates are selected for jobs and educational opportunities solely on the basis of their race or gender because of perceived past discrimination. This goal can only be achieved by positive discrimination against others, usually young white males and Asians , who are more qualified than those who are favored because of their racial makeup or gender. In other words, affirmative action which claims to be an effective way to eliminate injustice on the basis of past discrimination, actually makes things worse by introducing a new injustice, that of reverse discrimination on the basis of gender or racial makeup. If someone is a highly qualified but poor white male who comes from a disadvantaged economic class, why is it fair to discriminate against him in favor of a less qualified woman who comes from a wealthy family of privilege?
 
I think there’s two questions there:
  1. Is the concept of affirmative action moral?
  2. Is the application of the concept of affirmative action moral?
To the former, I would say that the concept of giving minorities a chance to break into the “good old boys” network, at any level from mop boy at McDonalds to CEO is admirable.

To the latter, where very frequently unqualified minority employees are put in positions where they are destined to fail, I’d say immoral.

Methinks the concept works better earlier on; i.e. that better-educated minority individuals will have a much better chance at equal opportunity employment, which doesn’t have to be forced by legal means, than mandating some quota that is difficult to fill with legitimately qualified people who haven’t, by virtue of a sub-standard education (See Detroit Public Schools for an example) had the same opportunity as, say, someone who has gone to a suburban school 20 miles away.

Good question!
 
Newbie2 said:
To the latter, where very frequently unqualified minority employees are put in positions where they are destined to fail, I’d say immoral.
Click to expand...
Why would frequency have anything to do with the morality of an action?
 
Newbie2 said:
To the former, I would say that the concept of giving minorities a chance to break into the “good old boys” network, at any level from mop boy at McDonalds to CEO is admirable.
Click to expand...
How would you do this, except by discriminating against others who are more qualified, usually young white males or Asians who had nothing to do with the problems that came about before they were born?
 
bobzills said:
How would you do this, except by discriminating against others who are more qualified, usually young white males or Asians who had nothing to do with the problems that came about before they were born?
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can say that all the problems came about before they were born…such problems are ongoing.

That’s why I mean conceptually, and I guess I should have spelled this out better:

Take for example the Detroit Public School system, which is pretty much a failure, for many reasons. On the whole, kids who do well there…let’s say get a 3.5 GPA are not as well academically prepared for college than a suburbanite kid who gets an identical 3.5 GPA; there is a disparity in the quality of the education offered them, not to mention the environment of the city kid is not going to be as condusive to academic success as that of the suburban kid.

break Now this is a generalization, not an absolute. And I use Detroit as an example, as I’ve lived here all my life and have experienced the polarization of the “whilte” suburbs and the “black” inner-city. Back to the discussion:

So, the city kid is at a disadvantage, and could use a leg-up to help him or her succeed. Admittedly this has to do more with money than race, but in the Detroit area…again this is a general statement…there is the relatively poor blace inner-city and the better off “white” suburbs.

So, in effect, any help that this kid gets that a suburban kid doesn’t get is, conceptually at least, affirmative action. And as Catholic Christians we should be OK with this, meaning helping out those who need the help.

Now in practice, what I’ve experienced is that “affirmative action” means taking a less-well educated black city kid who is not (yet) prepared for university studies and giving him a scholarship and sending him off to, say, Michigan State University, where I went to school, when the suburbanite kid gets no financial help, even though his parents may be struggling to afford his tuition at the same institution.

Is this moral? I say no, for two reasons. First, because the inner-city kid is set up to fail. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, poorly prepared “white” kids fail too. This, IMHO, is a waste of tax money, as well as a crushing defeat for many of these students; setting them up with expections that many cannot possibly meet.

Second, because there are other kids who do not qualify for minority status who are in the same situation i.e. there are disadvantaged “white” kids too. In my area, though, an overwhelming majority of disadvantaged kids are minorities and so the programs in my area are primarily designed for minority students, leaving out disadvantaged non-minorities.

Which goes to the crux of your question…and it’s a valid question.

The answer is to start at the bottom, with education. If kids of all races get the same educational opportunities, all will be equally educationally qualified and there will be no need to have quotas…the cream will rise to the top, regardless of race, and success will be judged on merit, not artificial quotas.
 
I think often the person getting the job or the spot are AS qualified, but just pushed ahead due to their race or sex. However, It is an undermining program. When monorities or women get to the top we all do wonder if that is how they got there. It is unfair, and yes I think immoral. It has good intentions, but that is not enough. This program actually places a cloud of suspicion on the very people it is supposed to help.
 
Just a thought:
The government does not have to follow ‘moral ideals’ to try and remedy a known situation… minority prejudice.

But we in the USA are the melting pot… all nationalities and races have had to struggle upon first coming here to gain ‘acceptance’ from those already here, it normally took about a generation for that to happen. It takes a while to get ‘Americanized’ with what is so-called politically-correct here, what laws are in place (as contrasted to what was in the old country… if any); things as simple as fishing have rules here, hunting too, and many recreations are regulated, and have to be learned as such by the ‘newcomer’. Even from state to state the rules differ, much more so from country to country. Those in one class are able to do things that those in another class have not been able to, and it becomes new to the lower class to even set-foot in those activities… again, a learning curve… these from within our own country merely moving from class to class in living standard.

Looking at this both ways, moving up a class (through hard work); or those moving down a class (due to the economic times). Both are a transition for whoever is doing it.

Should the government legislate by human appearance? Or more so from economic situation? Neither brings a level playing-field! Should the government do anything in a socialistic fashion in this Republic?

Really, ‘who’ is disadvantaged? From the Churches View? Isn’t this those lacking the basics of life… food, clothing, housing and work to maintain these? Even advance above these to get some of that ‘milk and honey’ promised? Should this help be ‘life-long’? Or rather of a ‘temporal’ downturn need to get back to gainful living?

The government and the Church do not always see eye-to-eye on this, and some legislation gets murky in the process of rising to the surface, loosing it’s intent and effects in the many compromises that take place in the legal system.

So who is left to address this in the proper way? Us citizens! Locally in our own neighborhoods. Affirmative Action is necessary by us all!
 
i think affirmative action is just as immoral as jim crow laws. it places one group over another just based on race/gender. just because it is a different group being ‘helped’ doesnt make it suddenly right.
 
I hate affirmative action plans. Objectively, I think they are pandering and racist. Blacks, browns, NDN’s and women are as smart and competent as anyone. Capable and confident individuals don’t want or need extra points for heritage and gender. I lived through the madness in California. I not only had to face the smirks of others who would snigger that I had gotten my job/promotion/award not for hard work, but for being an underrepresented female. At the same time, I was called oreo or coconut because I failed to buy into the “any ethnic hire is a good hire” mentality. Add to the mix the fact I would have to tell the teacher, employer, board that I didn’t want the whatever because of my background. I always felt it was unfair that Asians were removed from the educational AA programs, and underscored the basic racism at work.

I return to my belief that no one wants the heart surgeon who made it through school on the basis of “race curve grading” or received extra points on his boards because he was a minority.
 
bobzills said:
How would you do this, except by discriminating against others who are more qualified, usually young white males or Asians who had nothing to do with the problems that came about before they were born?
Click to expand...
The problem of racism still exists in society. I find it’s common for people to distance themselves in time and space from race-based bias, as if with the fall of slavery fell racism.
 
Affirmative action programs, at least in employment, need not be reverse discrimination. For any job opening, one gets a pool of applicants. Nearly all may be qualified for the job in so far as the job requirements go, and so some sort of ranking of them must be done in order to make a selection. Often this can be subjective, but one tries to make it as objective as possible. If from a final list of equally qualified applicants, a minority applicant is selected, there has been no reverse discrimination, since the person selected was equally as qualified as the others.

On the other hand, I found when working as a supervisor in a civil service job, that often, out of all the rejected applicants, nearly every one of them would file a complaint with the EEOC alleging some sort of improper discrimination. Obviously these were without merit since, in a pool of say 20 applicants and one who is selected, it’s impossible to have discriminated against all of the other 19 on some improper basis!
 
Personally, I never did like the concept of affirmative action but whether or not it is immoral, I don’t know.
 
Annn said:
The problem of racism still exists in society. I find it’s common for people to distance themselves in time and space from race-based bias, as if with the fall of slavery fell racism.
Click to expand...
Is it fair to make a highly qualified young white male pay because women were discriminated against in the past by someone else?
 
I believe that the most qualified and suitable candidate should get the position. This ensures stronger companies, which increases our GDP, which increases the average quality of live in a country. I think that the most qualified person should get the job.

But if it’s really close, it should go to the minority. I don’t mind missing out on a job if a minority who was “neck and neck” with me, gets the position by affirmative action. I look at the situation as a sacrifice. Look at what some minorities had to endure in the United States: internment camps, loss of property and land, forced relocation, slavery.

Some of these minorities are at true disadvantage due to injustices forced upon their relatives even generations ago. A community’s attitude toward education, bias about the way a person speaks, or may behave, do truly inhibit the progress of some minorities.

I personally, only my opinion, believe it is a Christian act to help others who have been subjugated to direct injustice or the results of direct injustice. This small sacrifice may help a person, or group of people, recover from the effects of suffering.

Comments Welcome.

God Bless,

YACatholic:D
 
So long as a woman is highly qualified, affirmative action based on gender is OK.

I do not believe that affirmative action based on race or ethnicity is ok, GIVEN PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. On a state by state basis, affirmative action based on race should be discontinued.

Affirmative action based on past economic and educational disadvantage, so long as the candidate is qualified, should be instituted.

Affirmative action places too much attention on race and ethnicity. Given the fact that it encourages people to perceive people on that basis, it harms more than it helps.

And there are just too many people nowadays who are of mixed race and ethnicity to be able to justly decide who gets the extra boost and who doesn’t.

IMHO
 
Affirmative Action is a gift to minorities for voting for the democratic party 98% of the time. I don’t understand how the ACLU can say they defend individual rights when they support such a discriminatory policy.

It should not even be called Affirmative Action, racial profiling is really a more accurate term. And it should be calle racial profiling against white men and other overachieving minorities like Asians. I think the ACLU just wants to give minorities that grant virtual unwavering support to the democratic party a gift, regardless of weather or not the gift infringes on the rights of white men.

I believe the Republicans should come out against affirmative action. It really isn’t nessary because we have a Black President who was elected by middle class whites. It is also very unpopular. And since 98% of the black vote went to Obama, I don’t see how comming out against affirmative action can hurt the GOP. In fact, it could even help the GOP with blacks since I’ve came across a few blacks who didn’t support it.
 
matt1985 said:
Affirmative Action is a gift to minorities for voting for the democratic party 98% of the time. I don’t understand how the ACLU can say they defend individual rights when they support such a discriminatory policy.

It should not even be called Affirmative Action, racial profiling is really a more accurate term. And it should be calle racial profiling against white men and other overachieving minorities like Asians. I think the ACLU just wants to give minorities that grant virtual unwavering support to the democratic party a gift, regardless of weather or not the gift infringes on the rights of white men.

I believe the Republicans should come out against affirmative action. It really isn’t nessary because we have a Black President who was elected by middle class whites. It is also very unpopular. And since 98% of the black vote went to Obama, I don’t see how comming out against affirmative action can hurt the GOP. In fact, it could even help the GOP with blacks since I’ve came across a few blacks who didn’t support it.
Click to expand...
I don;t understand why they think it is Ok to discriminate against Asians. Is it because Asians are just too smart and they don’t like it when Asian students overachieves in mathematics and science?
 
If John steals from Matt, is it OK for Matt to steal from Tom to recover the loss? That seems to be the basis of a lot of affirmative action today. It creates a nation of thieves.

Wouldn’t the moral solution to recover the loss from the original thief? Why not hold corporate executives personally liable for their past acts of discrimination rather than spreading the pain to innocent employees and owners of that company? Most companies pay for insurance to cover the wrongful acts of managers, and though they could(and maybe should) sue the executive to recover, they don’t. If you want to get really radical, how about holding politicians accountable for their immoral acts of the past rather than voting for yet another program paid for by everyone else to address the damage they caused?

The politics of affirmative action is fascinating. In the 1960’s I was considered liberal for saying that James Meredith should be admitted to the University of Mississippi based on his qualifacations and not denied admission because of his race. Today I am called an extreme conservative for saying that everyone should be admitted based on objective qualifications and never be rejected because of race. How is race ever a quality to determine fitness to attend school? There are many cases where rules need to be changed to make them more objective and related to the mission of the organization, but diversity for its own sake is not something I would support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top