Affirmative Action

[Jesus Christ!]

What is everyone's opinion on affirmative action? Is it racist? does it actually accomplish it's goals?

[Pawn Power]

Previous threads on affirmative action...

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...irmative+Action (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57049&hl=Affirmative+Action)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50474&hl=

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38171&hl=

While some, even those that call themselves "progressive," claim that it is a form of "reverse racism" in reality Affirmative Action is a sort of reformist bandage for the massive inequalities in our system.

It is not a sollution to the problem of structural racism but it does work towards inegration which in turn helps build understanding and give those that must work exceptionally hard rudimentary opportunites.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I definately support affirmative action for minorities and woman, but yeah, Pawn puts it best as a reformist bandaid.

[Janus]

In the US, the most prominent form of affirmative action occurs in higher-level education particularly university admissions. Sometimes, it is beneficial and sometimes it's quite ineffective as those who have been able to take advantage of this usually drop out or lose their position so I think that although there are some benefits, this program is also quite harmful to society as well. Anyways, like others have said, it really doesn't address the actual reasons for the socioeconomic equalities that exist and until those fundamental issues are addressed, programs such as this are only for show.

[Gold Against The Soul]

The problem remains that it affirms difference, when we're trying to work towards the opposite. It is a boon for the racists, in that respect. There is also elements of McCathryism creeping in with regards to where there aren't 'proportional' outcomes. You can find racists everywhere, with this kind of 'evidence'.

[Cryotank Screams]

I think it's just flat out racism-sexism really, I mean essentially it is putting people into racial-sexual categories, (thus a division will occur in the work force), and instead of not seeing race or sex as a determining factor, and giving people jobs based on their capabilities as a worker.

It's giving people jobs based on race-sex, and is based on racial-sexual quotas in the work area, which to me seems both racist and sexist, and which again seems to just give validation to seeing people as specific "races," and "sexes," and not as workers, and promoting worker solidarity, and equality.

[EwokUtopia]

Affirmative Action is merely selection in handing out shitty and inequal jobs. The solution does not lie in giving more black people better jobs, but in completely redistributing the wealth of the people who refuse to hire them in the first place. Affirmative action does not bring about any real solid equality, all it does is give people of colour more oppurtunity to become workers in a system that massively exploits the workers.

It is also an attempt to integrate black America into the consumer class which is mainly comprised of white america. The consumer class is by no means the ruling class, and if anything, it hinders black progress. Of course the Black Americans should have equal rights of oppurtunity as white americans do, but the way all americans live is not benefitial to human progress. Affirmative action merely tries to expand the middle class buffer zone between workers and bosses. It is far from being a solution to the problems of racial inequality because the ruling class remains primarily white male christian. I support Affirmative Action as much as I support the Democratic party. As far as capitalism goes, we could do far worse, but accepting the scraps of the system doesnt change it one iota.

"We dont want a bigger slice of the pie, we want another pie."

[rouchambeau]

Cryotank Screams Posted on January 12, 2007 10:31 pm
I think it's just flat out racism-sexism really, I mean essentially it is putting people into racial-sexual categories, (thus a division will occur in the work force),
By denying the existence of race and racial inequality you're only contributing to the problem.

and instead of not seeing race or sex as a determining factor, and giving people jobs based on their capabilities as a worker.
As if people recieve jobs based only on their talents and never their sex or race.

It's giving people jobs based on race-sex, and is based on racial-sexual quotas in the work area,
They stopped using quotas thirty years ago.

which to me seems both racist and sexist,
Trying to undo past oppression is racist?

and which again seems to just give validation to seeing people as specific "races," and "sexes," and not as workers,
People are more than just workers.


Gold Against The Soul Posted on January 12, 2007 08:44 pm
The problem remains that it affirms difference, when we're trying to work towards the opposite.
"Affirming" (how clever of you to use that word here) racial differences is not wrong: it is the first step to ending racial inequallity. That's like saying we should ignore differences in class so as to end them.

[RGacky3]

I think it should be done by class rather than race (within our system)

[Black Dagger]

Cryotank Screams, your entire response seems to hinge on the assumption that at present people don't face structural discrimination because of their sex or ethnicitiy.

What you're arguing might make sense if we were all living in a revolutionary society where white supremacy and patriarchy had been demolished, but we're not. So from that POV; taking a liberal colour-blind approach only perpetuates current and historical inequalities, reinforcing a long history of racial and gender oppression.


RB said it well,


Originally posted by RB
people who oppose affirmative action but are supposedly "progressive" tend to be liberals - people who base their entire worldview on the idea that everyone is born equal, and that moving up in social and economic terms comes down to a matter of working hard. it ignores racism, sexislm, hetrosexism, ableism, and classes, and it ignores the fact that these are massive impediments to people's ability to find adequate work.

in a classless society one of those impediments would be removed, but unless the others were as well, there still remains an imbalance of power.

[Jazzratt]

No.

The idea is a fucking stupid one, you cannot force equality. A system of hiring 'tokens' so you can look like a decent employer is not 'undoing' any past discrimination and it sure as fuck does bugger all in solving institutional discrimination. The kind of person stupid enough to support that is, essentially, a system of hiring 'tokens' in the misguided belief that it will "cure" racism, sexism and so on is living in a fantasy world.

We are not liberals, we do not support legislation of politcal correctness, we are revolutionary and we advocate a complete shift in the system. Affirmative action is an abomination of political correctness and not a serious attempt to adress anything.

[Hampton]

So would you rather be an affirmative action "token" or sleeping on the street? Put in the shoes of a possible "token" would you not take a job because of the fear that others will know that you're a "token" and that some, not all, people who work there will know that the black man or women or even the white woman is only there because of their race or gender? Or should I not take the job and work somewhere worse?

The idea of a colorblind society is what we all want, of course, a place where we are not judged by something as stupid as the color of our skin if wonerful but after all it is still an idea and not our reality. It is east to oppose AA on the basis of "tokenism" or that it just expands the middle class and consumer society, but are the other options you suggest for these people? Stick with the shit job? Stay poor get an education and hope for the best?

"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:09 am

"Affirming" (how clever of you to use that word here) racial differences is not wrong: it is the first step to ending racial inequallity. That's like saying we should ignore differences in class so as to end them

The right to be different is a poor substitute for the struggle for equality for all.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Or should I not take the job and work somewhere worse?

Of course take advantage of it. I think I may have been on the positive end of affirmative action in the past but that doesn't make me think it is any less wrong.

It is fundamentally based on racist logic. I mean, what does it mean to be anti-racist anymore? It used to mean people not being treated differently on account of race, nationality etc ? Socialists used to think the same too. Now it appears a lot have given up and bought the liberal lies of equality through affirmative action and multiculturalism. For me, it goes against everything that anti-racism stands for.

[rouchambeau]

Gold Against The Soul Posted on January 14, 2007 07:06 pm
QUOTE (rouchambeau @ January 14, 2007 06:09 am)

"Affirming" (how clever of you to use that word here) racial differences is not wrong: it is the first step to ending racial inequallity. That's like saying we should ignore differences in class so as to end them



The right to be different is a poor substitute for the struggle for equality for all.

You may be correct on this point, but it has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:09 am
I think it should be done by class rather than race (within our system)
I completely agree. I don't see why a rich black kid from long island should be picked over a poor white kid from the Appalachians just because of skin color. It's proven that as income levels go down SAT, a major part of college decisions, scores go down with it.

[SPK]

No, affirmative action was not just for show, and, no, it wasn’t about tokens. It was not an attempt to “cure” racism and sexism, but was, instead, designed to ameliorate and minimize some of the historical effects of discrimination in, primarily, higher education and the workplace. Affirmative action was demonstrably effective from its inception here in the sixties and at least partially able to achieve those goals.

Look at the history. In the eighty years prior to affirmative action, about 1% of all law students here were African-American. In the quarter-century following, that increased to about 7%. Much the same can be seen with women as well. Prior to the late sixties, only a handful were in law school, while today the number is about 50%. With general professional degrees, the increase was from 6% to 27%.

We can also see the indisputably negative effects that were immediately apparent once affirmative action started to be rolled back about ten years ago. At two major law schools in Texas and California, where such policies were abolished in the mid-nineties, there was an approximately 80% drop in admissions and enrollments by African-American students – this occurred over the span of just one year. At UC-Berkeley, there was a immediate 60% drop in “minority” admissions for the school as a whole, again over the period of just one year.

Opposing affirmative action, which has been the target of massive right-wing campaign for decades, means supporting the resegregation of upper-education here. And there is no way to describe the disappearance of these large numbers of African-Americans and Latinos from universities and colleges as anything other than segregation.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Janus+January 12, 2007 02:23 pm--> (Janus @ January 12, 2007 02:23 pm) In the US, the most prominent form of affirmative action occurs in higher-level education particularly university admissions. [/b]
I gotta disagree. That's just the kind that's gotten the most publicity and has been the subject of the most litigation lately.

The area subject to the most affirmative action has been - industry. (And then there's the military, but I'll leave that aside for now.)

And it's been highly effective: Black people have gotten an equal share of jobs in industry, including in some skilled-trade jobs that were previously all-white. 'Course Black people finally broke into the good jobs in the steel mills just as many of the mills were shutting down in the 70s...women have also benefitted.

The effects have been tremendous, and beneficial. It's greatly reduced the divisions in the working class. It's normal and routine now for Black and white workers to stand together on the picket line, with Black workers often playing a leading role even in some majority-white workplaces.

That's because racism doesn't come from competing as equals in the job market. Racism comes into play when part of the population - say white males - have the opportunity to seal off part of the labor market as their own monopoly, and get a privileged status by doing so. It may start with the employers, or not, but once it's established, many of the privileged workers will perceive an interest in maintaining the "white male job trust". They'll try to drive out Black or women workers by harassment, violence, historically sometimes racist strikes.

Until that's broken down, no class unity across lines of race and sex is possible.


Originally posted by EwokUtopia+--> (EwokUtopia)Affirmative Action is merely selection in handing out shitty and inequal jobs. [/b]

Well, yeah. You this is some minor thing? No, equal competition in the job market is important. It's one of the things that defines the working class as free wage-workers.

Affirmative action is the only effective way to break this down. Merely banning discrimination is not enough.


[email protected]
The idea is a fucking stupid one, you cannot force equality.

Some revolutionary you are. On the contrary, force is the only way you get any kind of equality. "Without struggle, there is no progress."


Jazzratt
A system of hiring 'tokens' so you can look like a decent employer is not 'undoing' any past discrimination and it sure as fuck does bugger all in solving institutional discrimination.

Affirmative action is the end of tokenism. Millions have gotten jobs and school admission through affirmative action. It breaks down present institutional discrimination, it's the only way to do so.

It's formal "color-blindness" that amounts to tokenism and "does bugger all in solving institutional discrimination". Because if all you do is legally ban discriminaton, that's totally unenforceable

Any employer or school can claim not to be discriminating - hire one or two Black people or women so as to prove they don't have an absolute ban on them - and it's difficult or impossible to legally prove they are still discriminating, just because their workforce is almost totally lily-white.

Affirmative action cuts through the crap by forcing them to hire substantial numbers of Black people, women, or other groups subject to discrimination. That's what it is.

[Mikhail Frunze]

I don't support Affirmative Action on the basis of race. Rather, I support it on the basis of class. Poor people from all racial and ethnic groups are entitled to Affirmative Action programmes. I fail to see why a middle-class black kid from the San Fernando Valley should be given preference over a coal miner's son from West Virginia. Those that support programmes promoting people on the basis of colour engage in class treason because their tactics assist the bourgeoisie belonging to minority groups.


Much the same can be seen with women as well.

Women have been forced into the workforce primarily because of skyrocketing costs of living and stagnant wages. A single wage in a household is no longer satisfactory. I don't think that the exploitation of women's labour due to increased cost of living qualifies as progress for the proletariat. People don't work because they want but rather because they have to.

[Comrade_Scott]

yea its racist but then again it did give blacks jobs and let them get educations (better) so its good. if it is possible its good racism ;)

[Mikhail Frunze]

Affirmative Action has not done anything notable when the poverty rate for blacks currently is a staggering 25 percent. This alone proves that the whole program is symbolic. The proletariat should not rely on bourgeois politics to eliminate discrimination and injustice. Equality for all peoples can only be brought by a socialist revolution. Look at the success of Cuba with concern to women and blacks.

[Abbigail]

Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination to me. Best person for the job, gets the job.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade_Scott+January 22, 2007 10:25 am--> (Comrade_Scott @ January 22, 2007 10:25 am) yea its racist but then again it did give blacks jobs and let them get educations (better) so its good. if it is possible its good racism ;) [/b]
There's nothing 'racist' about AA, its the complete opposite. As severian pointed out in his last post:


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The effects have been tremendous, and beneficial. It's greatly reduced the divisions in the working class. It's normal and routine now for Black and white workers to stand together on the picket line, with Black workers often playing a leading role even in some majority-white workplaces.

That's because racism doesn't come from competing as equals in the job market. Racism comes into play when part of the population - say white males - have the opportunity to seal off part of the labor market as their own monopoly, and get a privileged status by doing so. It may start with the employers, or not, but once it's established, many of the privileged workers will perceive an interest in maintaining the "white male job trust". They'll try to drive out Black or women workers by harassment, violence, historically sometimes racist strikes.

Until that's broken down, no class unity across lines of race and sex is possible.[/b]

-----------------------------------



Originally posted by Abbigail
Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination to me.

Then perhaps you should stop identifying with privileged white male workers and start supporting the interests of opprresed peoples?

Attempting to reverse centuries of engrained prejudice in the economy is not reverse discrimination, white men are not being locked up out of work or mistreated like Black people and women have been, they are still capable of exercising their white male privilege at other workplaces, for different jobs; it a completely false analogy.



Originally posted by Abbigail

Best person for the job, gets the job.

That is a very naive (and damaging) position to take.

In reality if you're not a white man, it is much more likely that you will get passed over for a job regardless of your qualifications.

Moreover, as several people have already stated, pushing a liberal colour-blind approach to racist discrimination only serves to reinforce structural discrimination. Legal (liberal) equality is completely inadequate, and has no real enforcement mechanism:


[email protected]
it's formal "color-blindness" that amounts to tokenism and "does bugger all in solving institutional discrimination". Because if all you do is legally ban discriminaton, that's totally unenforceable

Any employer or school can claim not to be discriminating - hire one or two Black people or women so as to prove they don't have an absolute ban on them - and it's difficult or impossible to legally prove they are still discriminating, just because their workforce is almost totally lily-white.

Affirmative action cuts through the crap by forcing them to hire substantial numbers of Black people, women, or other groups subject to discrimination. That's what it is.

and


RB
people who oppose affirmative action but are supposedly "progressive" tend to be liberals - people who base their entire worldview on the idea that everyone is born equal, and that moving up in social and economic terms comes down to a matter of working hard. it ignores racism, sexislm, hetrosexism, ableism, and classes, and it ignores the fact that these are massive impediments to people's ability to find adequate work.

in a classless society one of those impediments would be removed, but unless the others were as well, there still remains an imbalance of power.


All of these liberal colour-blind type arguments have been addressed in detail, numerous times already.

[YSR]

Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination to me. Best person for the job, gets the job.

Holy privilege, Batman!

Reverse discrimination is like saying kind capitalism. It's just a term made up to serve the interests of capitalism and hierarchy. Discrimination is a lot more than simply not hiring someone because of their race, it is a system of social control created to keep racial solidarity from forming within the working class.

Race doesn't exist, but in order to realize this on a social level, we need to confront it head-on, not pretend that racial disparity doesn't exist.

[manic expression]

AA is basically symbolic and does very little. You're not going to help too many people by giving opportunities to a relatively small number of them. Will it change the system that has kept so many in poverty? No. Will it help anyone besides those who are lucky enough to be the beneficiaries of the policy? No. Will it bring impoverished communities more needed affluence? No.

It's a bandaid on a gushing wound.

More importantly, the benefits feed through the bourgeois system that exploits and deprives. AA doesn't change capitalism, it just gives it a nicer coat of lipstick.

That being said, I'd argue that it's better than nothing.

[Severian]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 22, 2007 02:11 pm
AA is basically symbolic and does very little. You're not going to help too many people by giving opportunities to a relatively small number of them.
Statistically, not the case. This better describes a policy of merely banning discrimination. See my earlier post.

[Abbigail]

Good point, I can see I'm going to learn and expand a lot here.

:D thank you for being brutally honest, that's what I love most, and it's the best way I learn.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Severian+January 23, 2007 01:39 am--> (Severian @ January 23, 2007 01:39 am)
manic [email protected] 22, 2007 02:11 pm
AA is basically symbolic and does very little. You're not going to help too many people by giving opportunities to a relatively small number of them.
Statistically, not the case. This better describes a policy of merely banning discrimination. See my earlier post. [/b]
I read your post and I did agree with what you were saying. It does help white-black/minority relations in the US, and it does give minorities access to jobs they should have access to. I also think your point about allowing blacks and whites and others to work together and break down barriers together is very valid. However, I still think that it is a half-measure, at best. Also, it basically ignores the communities that need the most help and merely focuses and a select number of individuals.

[Guerrilla22]

The only reason affirmative action is needed is because of the existence of an unequlal, racist, capitalist society, 'nuff said.

[Severian]

It's not just a few individuals. SPK posted the stats earlier - among other things:

In the eighty years prior to affirmative action, about 1% of all law students here were African-American. In the quarter-century following, that increased to about 7%. Much the same can be seen with women as well. Prior to the late sixties, only a handful were in law school, while today the number is about 50%. With general professional degrees, the increase was from 6% to 27%.

I've had a harder time finding good stats on the effects in industry, but my impression is the effect is larger overall. For example, in 1974 the eight largest steel companies agreed to a consent decree - after a lawsuit backed by the union - which provided that 20% of new hires would be minorities or women. 50% of promotions to craft and skilled-trade jobs would be for minorities and women.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:23 am
Look at the history. In the eighty years prior to affirmative action, about 1% of all law students here were African-American. In the quarter-century following, that increased to about 7%. Much the same can be seen with women as well. Prior to the late sixties, only a handful were in law school, while today the number is about 50%. With general professional degrees, the increase was from 6% to 27%.
But was that due to affirmative action?

In Brazil, a similar rise in women and black participation in education has been seen in the late 40 or 50 years, without affirmative action (which was only adopted for about 3 or 4 years now, and only to blacks and disabled people, not to women). Seems to be related with the huge expansion of educational opportunities in the period, or to the proletarisation of graduated labour force, or both.

Luís Henrique

[SPK]

Originally posted by Severian+January 24, 2007 02:44 am--> (Severian @ January 24, 2007 02:44 am)I've had a harder time finding good stats on the effects in industry...[/b]
I also had a relatively difficult time finding employment statistics on affirmative action's impact. I found more information on the impact in education.

Looking at universities and colleges has an advantage, though: there are many cases (in the numbers I quoted for example) where a school has had a long-standing affirmative action policy that has been reversed. From one year to the next, when a school goes immediately from a situation where those policies are in place to a situation where they have been abolished, you can see a very abrupt, stark shift in the numbers -- i.e. a downward shift impacting primarily African-Americans and Latinos. You're looking at a small, limited environment, i.e. a school, and the only significant factor that changed over the year was the elimination of affirmative action. So I think that makes a good, scientific test case to determine its effect.

I haven't run across analagous studies on the impact when employment-based affirmative action is repealed. I.e. what happens when public sector policies are annulled in a state? What happens when policies that apply to city contracts are revoked? And so on.


Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 08:04 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 08:23 am
Look at the history. In the eighty years prior to affirmative action, about 1% of all law students here were African-American. In the quarter-century following, that increased to about 7%. Much the same can be seen with women as well. Prior to the late sixties, only a handful were in law school, while today the number is about 50%. With general professional degrees, the increase was from 6% to 27%.
But was that due to affirmative action?
Black people in law schools increased by over 300% from 1970-1985. Women in post-graduate or professional programs increased by over 300% from 1970-1980. Prior to this point, women and people of color were only nominally represented in those kinds of programs.

A 300% increase over just a decade? Those are just two very clear, unambiguous examples. Affirmative action programs became prevalent roughly around 1970 and were a product of mass struggles in the black, Chicano, and Asian-American communities and among women. Those movements were very strong during that period (much more so than today), and affirmative action was definitely a product of their ability to organize and exercise political power.

[babalugatz]

Affirm. action created mediocrity. You can call it a ''dumbing-down'' effect.
"We can't hire on the basis of the best & brightest....We have to hire a certain number of various-colored people, regardless of their abilities..."
Funny, these criteria don't seem to apply to a certain ''Asian'' minority....(even though they have some of the most impressive test scores on the planet, when it comes to college admissions....they're the ''wrong'' color, apparently)
It is REVERSE RACISM

[babalugatz]

I also had a relatively difficult time finding employment statistics on affirmative action's impact. I found more information on the impact in education.

Looking at universities and colleges has an advantage, though: there are many cases (in the numbers I quoted for example) where a school has had a long-standing affirmative action policy that has been reversed. From one year to the next, when a school goes immediately from a situation where those policies are in place to a situation where they have been abolished, you can see a very abrupt, stark shift in the numbers -- i.e. a downward shift impacting primarily African-Americans and Latinos. You're looking at a small, limited environment, i.e. a school, and the only significant factor that changed over the year was the elimination of affirmative action. So I think that makes a good, scientific test case to determine its effect.

I haven't run across analagous studies on the impact when employment-based affirmative action is repealed. I.e. what happens when public sector policies are annulled in a state? What happens when policies that apply to city contracts are revoked? And so on.


Black people in law schools increased by over 300% from 1970-1985. Women in post-graduate or professional programs increased by over 300% from 1970-1980. Prior to this point, women and people of color were only nominally represented in those kinds of programs.

A 300% increase over just a decade? Those are just two very clear, unambiguous examples. Affirmative action programs became prevalent roughly around 1970 and were a product of mass struggles in the black, Chicano, and Asian-American communities and among women. Those movements were very strong during that period (much more so than today), and affirmative action was definitely a product of their ability to organize and exercise political power.

FAIL.
Google "black failure rates in Law Schools", for an eye opener.
They can't make the grade. It is quite simple.
I'm not a ''racist'', I'm a realist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Because of the social conditions on black communities, many of them have fewer opportunities in education. Once they apply for a school, or a job, they may have fewer credentials than white counterparts due to the unfairness in the system.

Unfortunately, giving jobs to minorities based entirely on skin color does create problems. However, there are clear cases where a company with thousands of employees have little or no black employees. There seems to be an issue there. If a black individual meets the criteria for a job, but they meet the criteria to a lesser extent, I'm not sure it's "terrible" to give them the job. Evaluating employees is difficult to do. Affirmative action is just a safety net for stopping racist hiring practices. However, if being black makes someone more deserving of a job, because of hardships they faced, having a mental illness should also make someone more deserving. Getting a 3.9 with serious depression is far more impressive than a 4.0 from someone else. However, the 4.0 individual will likely do a better job for your company.

The way I see it is society creates the conditions that make minorities do poorly. If we are unwilling to help those minorities, we should suffer consequences. If one of those consequences is less qualified doctors, let's say, fine. If you gave black communities proper education in the first place, they wouldn't be less qualified.

[Hoxhaist]

As a recent applicant to college, I saw affirmative action in action. I definitely recognize that racism exists in educational policies (black majority schools get low funding etc) but the problem comes when race is a factor in admissions instead of class origin. Because wealthy miniorities exist (children of people who benefited from AA or elites from Latin America, Africa, or Asia, these people get all the consideration and spots that ought to go to the real underprivileged. It is cheaper for a school to give a wealthy black a spot over a poor black because the college doesnt need to pay out the financial aid. AA in education also disenfranchises poor whites who dont fill diversity boxes and drain financial aid budgets. The idea that wealthy women get preferential treatment in admissions based on their gender ought to be offensive to every poor or middle class woman. I recognize the need for AA in business but in education it actually undermines real progress and instead reinforces the status quo.

[babalugatz]

Because of the social conditions on black communities, many of them have fewer opportunities in education. Once they apply for a school, or a job, they may have fewer credentials than white counterparts due to the unfairness in the system.


The way I see it is society creates the conditions that make minorities do poorly. If we are unwilling to help those minorities, we should suffer consequences. If one of those consequences is less qualified doctors, let's say, fine. If you gave black communities proper education in the first place, they wouldn't be less qualified.

This is patently absurd. It's a tired excuse we've all heard to death.
Blacks are given the same opportunities as everyone else, they simply have an atrocious track record , re: the family unit.
70% of black households are single parent. Most black kids don't have a 'father-figure' to instill discipline. These kids are dropping out of school at record rates, because there isn't anyone there to kick their asses.
Black leaders have recognized this for years & only recently have been chastising their own people for failing their responsibilities as parents.
Hell, even the head bigot himself, Louis Farrakhan, made this one of his cornerstones during the Million Man March.
>Black men need to take respoonsibility for their offspring.<
The educational opportunity exists, (athough, admittedly, inner-city schools are lacking, mostly due to violence, drugs & gang-related activities. They can't get good teachers to put up with these conditions). the kids simply aren't interested in sitting in a classroom all day, and there isn't anyone ''making'' them.

[Chapter 24]

Blacks are given the same opportunities as everyone else

Basically stopped reading here. If you really think this then you're the one who is patently absurd.

[babalugatz]

Basically stopped reading here. If you really think this then you're the one who is patently absurd.


You stopped reading, because you don't want deal with the reality.
You offer no relevant counterpoint. No constructive criticism...
You Fail.
Try again.

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is patently absurd. It's a tired excuse we've all heard to death.
Blacks are given the same opportunities as everyone else, they simply have an atrocious track record , re: the family unit.
70% of black households are single parent. Most black kids don't have a 'father-figure' to instill discipline. These kids are dropping out of school at record rates, because there isn't anyone there to kick their asses.
Black leaders have recognized this for years & only recently have been chastising their own people for failing their responsibilities as parents.
Hell, even the head bigot himself, Louis Farrakhan, made this one of his cornerstones during the Million Man March.
>Black men need to take respoonsibility for their offspring.<
The educational opportunity exists, (athough, admittedly, inner-city schools are lacking, mostly due to violence, drugs & gang-related activities. They can't get good teachers to put up with these conditions). the kids simply aren't interested in sitting in a classroom all day, and there isn't anyone ''making'' them.

Blacks are traditionally disadvantaged—the low wage jobs, the inability to access credit, and horrific housing, are all trans-generational ills that are typically generalized across the entire race. Most white racists are inebriated in that phony story of the American dream. To you, there are shining rivers of coins and bountiful trees of dollars, and everyone has a huge bucket to fill up as soon as they enter school (and later on, the workforce). It doesn't work like that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is patently absurd. It's a tired excuse we've all heard to death.
Blacks are given the same opportunities as everyone else, they simply have an atrocious track record , re: the family unit.
70% of black households are single parent. Most black kids don't have a 'father-figure' to instill discipline. These kids are dropping out of school at record rates, because there isn't anyone there to kick their asses.
Black leaders have recognized this for years & only recently have been chastising their own people for failing their responsibilities as parents.
Hell, even the head bigot himself, Louis Farrakhan, made this one of his cornerstones during the Million Man March.
>Black men need to take respoonsibility for their offspring.<
The educational opportunity exists, (athough, admittedly, inner-city schools are lacking, mostly due to violence, drugs & gang-related activities. They can't get good teachers to put up with these conditions). the kids simply aren't interested in sitting in a classroom all day, and there isn't anyone ''making'' them.

What a bunch of right-wing radio hackery. Black do not have the same opportunities as everyone else. I know you don't believe it, but the US, racism is systematic: let's leave aside racism in jobs or education and just look at racism in housing.

Non-whites were kept from buying homes in "good" areas during your parent's generation; the government also mandated that they could not get loans as easily or for a good of a rate. This means that unlike many working class whites in the 50-60-70s nonwhites had a harder time getting housing and ended up living in urban ghettos or renting appartments. The effect of this now is that an entire generation of whites have been able to off-set stagnating wages and rising prices in education because of the equity they have through their homes (although this econ crisis is basically destroying this). Again, this is just one aspect of systematic racial inequality in the US - so saying that everyone has the same opportunity is BS.

Second, the family!? You have got to be kidding.:rolleyes: The "breakdown" of a family unit does not cause poverty - when did you ever hear someone say: well it's too bad that Paris Hilton's dad got divorced when she was a kid - I guess she'll end up having to work at the gap to make ends meet.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Blacks are given the same opportunities as everyone else, they simply have an atrocious track record , re: the family unit.70% of black households are single parent. Most black kids don't have a 'father-figure' to instill discipline. These kids are dropping out of school at record rates, because there isn't anyone there to kick their asses.
>Black men need to take respoonsibility for their offspring.<
The educational opportunity exists, (athough, admittedly, inner-city schools are lacking, mostly due to violence, drugs & gang-related activities. They can't get good teachers to put up with these conditions). the kids simply aren't interested in sitting in a classroom all day, and there isn't anyone ''making'' them.

If being in a single parent family is a disadvantage, then how can blacks have the same opportunities? Educational opportunities aren't quite the same. Even in more liberal areas, black children have to deal with stereotypes about them being "less intelligent." Stereotypes are distracts that even intelligent people have difficulty overcoming. How can they be reaching the education levels, skill levels, et cetera, when they have this problem of single parent families? If we haven't helped address such a problem, why do we blame them?

When white people have cultural problems, such as gun violence, they use the government to intervene and help address the issues. Black communities recognize the problems, but the government does little to help address them.

Do you think blacks are genetically less intelligent? If not, why shouldn't we help address the problems causing them to fail. If the former, I'd challenge that perspective. I read The Bell Curve, and I've read other books that suggest a difference between race and intelligence. I can see how someone can be compelled to the view. However, there is really overwhelming evidence suggesting the differences are environmental.

[Chapter 24]

You stopped reading, because you don't want deal with the reality.
You offer no relevant counterpoint. No constructive criticism...
You Fail.
Try again.

You said that blacks are offered the same opportunities as "everyone else". It's not not being to deal with reality; it's about rejecting the bullshit. If you honestly think that blacks are given equal opportunity in this country then you obviously don't understand why the majority of blacks and other minority groups are in the socio-economic status they are in today.
You fail. Try again.

[Mujer Libre]

I've banned the troll, folks, so there's no point trying to refute their rubbish...

[Nulono]

The cure to societal racism against blacks is not State racism against whites. Rather, the solution is to ignore race altogether.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The cure to societal racism against blacks is not State racism against whites. Rather, the solution is to ignore race altogether.

When has there ever been state racism against whites for being white?

Racism comes from inequalities in capitalist society - to ignore this oppression is to allow it. The working class as a whole benefits (becomes stronger and is more able to build solidarity) when oppression and inequality within the class reduced.

Oppression of black people, for example, hurt all workers and radicals in the working class should oppose all oppression. Just think if the US police and courts were not targeting black people (Latinos, Koreans, Filipinos, and poor whites as well), all the money wasted to lock people up could instead be used for better schools, more space in Universities and so on.

The best strategy of the ruling class is keeping the working class divided and fighting over crumbs - this reason alone should be enough for conscious workers to make it a priority to get rid of inequality and oppression of groups in society.