Quote:
Originally Posted by FromRussiaWithLove
Affirmative action needs to be abolished as a policy. Both education and employment should be based on merit of one’s abilities and achievements, not on minority status. Everyone who works hard should be awarded and be able to advance in both their educational and employment ambitions. However, affirmative action keeps those hard working individuals out by instilling a policy of reverse discrimination in getting some less qualified minorities in the door. Not everyone has the ability to survive college or become a CEO. People need to recognize their strengths instead of getting by with their weaknesses, and in turn, dumbing down our society. As a minority myself, I’d rather climb the success ladder knowing I got to where I need to be by my own abilities and not just because of my status.
|
You have clearly bought hook line and sinker the bigot's line that affirmative action is discrimination because it give minorities an unfair advantage.
So, if you call for information on an apartment or about a job, and you are told based on your accent that associates you with Asian, or black, Hispanic, you are told that the the apartment or job isn't available, that is perfectly legal? Or should be legal?
Or when you sound "white" and then show up to see the apartment or interview for the job, that friendly voice on the phone is now hostile, and somehow you went from being "a perfect fit" to being "over qualified" or "you wouldn't be happy" in the blink of an eye, the one that first caught sight of you.
The cases of systematic discrimination have been prosecuted repeatedly, and one of the things that organizations have sought is some safeguards against prosecution. And that is where the EEOC set rules that allow organizations that have no history of discrimination to provide a reason for summary dismissal of complaints of discrimination. On the other hand, this same system provides the template for the probationary period of organizations that have been proven legally to have engaged in illegal discrimination.
If you object to the court supervision and other mandates on organization that have been proven to have engaged in illegal activity, then you must object to probation restrictions that require a probationary criminal to not associate with criminals, to make restitution, to report to a supervisor periodically, to make themselves available to law enforcement for questioning, etc., to be reverse criminality, and criminal, and thus wrong. Right?
The evidence of ongoing illegal discrimination is clear; prosecuting it is difficult, even when the resources and moral imperative is clear. For the past quarter century, the effort has been minimal, and a great deal of effort has been placed into making the case that discrimination based on religion and race and origin is not only something that should be legal, but also moral, because the fact that these minorities aren't successful in society proves that they can't be successful, so they should be excluded because those races or those people who believe that religion are mentally incompetent to have a good job.
Of course, the real hot topic is in education.
The conservative view is that college and university is a factory that converts raw material into skilled workers, and the ideal production involves taking the best and most uniform raw material, say WASPS, and manufacturing them into MBAs.
The liberal view is that college and university purpose is to broaden the mind, to promote diverse views, and expose people to a variety of experience. So, the admission policy seeks to serve those means and does so by creating many preferences. One preference is to the children of alumni, one that promotes family loyalty in giving to the institution, and also that ties successive generations back to the history of the institution. Preferences are given to community and background so that people see the world as diverse.
So we have a confluence of factors, first the criminal acts of discrimination which were then dealt with by placing the institution on probation that required restitution of some sort, supervision, and highly visible monitoring. And then the view that these institutions are manufacturing plants and that the prime raw material should be selected automatically, and that by selecting blacks or poor the factory is fundamentally immoral and even criminal.
This has led to attacks on preferences for alumni and so on because they violate the right of some to obtain the maximum reward by getting a name-brand MBA.
And then this has been expanded into the view that anyone who isn't WASP with a name-brand degree didn't deserve it.
Of course, if you think about it objectively, those who merely suggest that if you aren't WASP but have a Harvard MBA or PhD from MIT, you didn't earn it, are the racists.
Linear Mode
