Affirmative Action

[Vendetta]

Is AA a good idea?

[Tower of Bebel]

What is affirmative action?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade Freeman+April 26, 2007 07:41 pm--> (Comrade Freeman @ April 26, 2007 07:41 pm) Is AA a good idea? [/b]
Good in the sense that its' necessary, yes totally.

I like theses quotes from a couple of other members on the subject:


Originally posted by [email protected]
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.


Sev

Affirmative action is a necessity for uniting the working class. How can you have unity on the basis of excluding some workers from employment? All you get then: on the more priviliged, say white side: racist mobilizations that tried to try to keep Black workers out and reserve certain jobs for whites. And on the other hand: Black workers who didn't hesitate to scab since it was the only shot they'd ever have at the better jobs.

...

But apparently some jobs and schools are presently bastions of difference and privilege, so that there's a reaction when affirmative action threatens that purity. "students have threatened self-immolation in protest of this policy and strikes have become de rigueur.", you say.

Affirmative action, in contrast, assures that people work and study alongside each other. That's been proven, from everyday experience and scientific studies alike, to be the one way of reducing prejudices and biased attitudes. People working alongside one another with equal status. (As opposed to unequal status like worker vs supervisor.)


Previous discussion on AA here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57049)

[Tower of Bebel]

Okay, it's just the an equivalent of positive discrimination in American English.
Well, I'm in favour of PD, but I do not agree with people who think it solves discrimination.

[RedAnarchist]

Of course it is - it prevents bigoted employers from excluding workers based on race, gender, sexuality, age etc. There is too much discrimination, even today, and things such as AA fight that discrimination.

[Demogorgon]

It is one of those things that wouldn't exist in the ideal world but is necessary in the world we have today. I guess you could argue it is a pretty blunt tool, but if anyone has anything better I am all ears.

I defy someone to look at a country like South Africa and tell me serious action is not needed there to achieve racial equality.

[Jude]

I'm sure there was a thread about this somewhere, but I can't seem to find it, so...
What are your opinions on racial considerations in employment? I'm all for equal opportunities, but how is it equal that, given the same aptitude scores or interview impression, race is the be all and end all. Sure, the minority can then afford a bigger house, and a better education, but it breeds jealousy and in extreme cases, hatred. So, am I not seeing the whole picture, or should there be "sudden death" for a tie?

[Black Dagger]

Two topics on AA merged.

[Vendetta]

Wouldn't AA be racist, though?

[Brekisonphilous]

I agree with the idea behind it, but I don't believe there should be a government to enforce it.

[Cheung Mo]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with affirmative action, but I am concerned that it is similar to ideologies like bourgeois feminism in that what it primarily accomplishes is the ascension of a small proportion of minorities to the ruling class with little material benefit to workers, farmers, and students of any race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. In other words, affirmative action is part of a group of policies aimed at preserving the rule of the bourgeoisie by giving those over whom they rule the illusion that they give a flying fuck: But to understand where the true interests of the bourgeoisie -- whether it be a "conservative" or "progressive" faction" -- lie with regards to minorities, look at the role that the industrialist wing of the Republican Party played in obliterating many of the gains of Reconstruction when they started becoming so radical (under the policies of genuinely progressive factions within the GOP and their left-wing and African-American allies in the South) that they threatened to undermind not only the agrarian, slave-based, plantation economy of the South, but also the various industrialists in the North who wanted to place this reactionary model of slave exploitation with one of prole exploitation. These selfish parasites stabbed their partisan "allies" and the people of the South in the back and supported the Restoration (a Democratic coalition of racialists and capitalists) and extreme degree of racist and capitalist exploitation that came with it and from which the USA has never recovered.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 07:32 pm
Wouldn't AA be racist, though?
No, because racism is racial prejudice that is put into effect by the more powerful party in a particular racial binary. e.g. white on black.

So it requires a motivating factor of racial prejudice/discrimination, i.e. actually thinking that one race is better or more deserving than the other. This is blatantly not the case with affirmative action. In fact it is the opposite, AA is an attempt to fix some of the consequence of centuries of racism.

Also, racism requires (negative) action (generally) by the more powerful side of the binary on the less powerful. Again, this is not the case with affirmative action. Oppressed people are clearly not more powerful, nor are they 'oppressing' white (or other dominant) people through affirmative action. To make that claim is to ignore reality, where people of colour are systematically oppressed and held back constantly.

So no- affirmative action is definitively not racism.

Edit: I think affirmative action is useful in the short term because it can fix some of the wrongs of the past and preset, but it's no replacement for revolutionary change. And that's the point we really need to emphasise. AA is temporarily fixing some of the consequences of a system that is inherently fucked up.

[Jude]

Prejudice does not have to be exacted by a party in power! There is a Black Power gang in school that is definitely racist towards whites, latinos, asians, and even Tutsis.

And as for AA, shouldn't employment be based on aptitude, not race? Just to clear this up for people who don't know, minorities, in a tie, get the job, because they are minorities.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:33 am
Prejudice does not have to be exacted by a party in power!
Definitely, that idea is just ridiculous. Though it is one of the sociological criteria for racism it is still absurd.

[Jude]

Could you specify what you percieve to be absurd?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Rybin
Prejudice does not have to be exacted by a party in power! There is a Black Power gang in school that is definitely racist towards whites, latinos, asians, and even Tutsis.
Yes, prejudice is prejudice, not racism. The terms are distinct. How can you expect to say something about one, when you explicitly state that you're speaking about the other?
And perhaps in that school context, that gang is in a position of power, but in society at large those dynamics change. I can't imagine a bunch of Black schoolkids going out and oppressing everyone else in society, can you?
No, and it's because, at least in Western countries, the institutions themselves are structured around, and were formed in, racialised ways of thinking that privileged, and still privilege, white people. It's this institutionalisation that distinguishes white racism from Black prejudice, or even Black racism.

Oh, and bullying has noting to do with Black Power, whether thats a name the group gave to themselves, or if other poeople call them that.


And as for AA, shouldn't employment be based on aptitude, not race? Just to clear this up for people who don't know, minorities, in a tie, get the job, because they are minorities.
Once again, you're nullifying your own point. If people are of equal aptitude, affirmative action might come into play, so employment is still based on aptitude- it's not as though less-skilled people of colour are being offered the job...

And, guess what? Society constantly privileges white people over people of colour at every level. Look at it this way, 'affirmative action' for white people exists, in invisible forms, all over the place, this is just a small attempt to address those wrongs.

This is also without mentioning the legacy of history which means that people of colour are generally in a poor 'starting position' compared to white people, because of past racism. So when looked at in the broad historical context, AA is about playing catch-up, not about effecting 'black on white' racism.

[Brekisonphilous]

It is absurd because it only fuels the fire on the other side, it is unproductive.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Brekisonphilous+April 28, 2007 03:19 pm--> (Brekisonphilous @ April 28, 2007 03:19 pm) It is absurd because it only fuels the fire on the other side, it is unproductive. [/b]
I disagree, as Severian stated in the last discussion:


Sev
Affirmative action is a necessity for uniting the working class. How can you have unity on the basis of excluding some workers from employment? All you get then: on the more priviliged, say white side: racist mobilizations that tried to try to keep Black workers out and reserve certain jobs for whites. And on the other hand: Black workers who didn't hesitate to scab since it was the only shot they'd ever have at the better jobs.

...

Affirmative action, in contrast, assures that people work and study alongside each other. That's been proven, from everyday experience and scientific studies alike, to be the one way of reducing prejudices and biased attitudes. People working alongside one another with equal status. (As opposed to unequal status like worker vs supervisor.)

AA is an important mechanism to help break down social prejudice over-time as well as actually helping people who might otherwise get shafted in the job market to actually get a decent job!


And as for AA, shouldn't employment be based on aptitude, not race?

In a perfect world maybe, but unfortunately for 'non-white' peeps we dont live in a colour-blind soceity... so why act like we do? Pretending that racism and racist discrimination does not or cannot extend to employment or the job market is naive and ultimately harmful - you're giving every racist employer or boss a free pass, coz in reality bosses are arseholes, and companies are arseholes - and the most qualified person does not always get the job - especially if that person is 'nonwhite', thats why AA exists - because of structural discrimination --> racism.

The people who oppose AA seem to be functioning on the opposite assumption, that AA is introducing somekind of new distortion to the employment process that unfairly favours 'the minority' over a downtrodden majority (white folks) - when in reality white folks have benefitting from 'white action', that is pro-white 'discrimination' i.e. racist hiring policies, in employment for centuries.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry for bumping this particular thread up (it's the one with the most recent post), but has anybody here considered the situation in France, a country with "formal" égalité and no laws on affirmative action whatsoever - yet facing problems with its resident Africans and Arabs?

I take a rather utilitarian approach to this problem: post-revolution laws should explicitly prohibit "non-affirmative" discrimination, thereby leaving sufficient wiggle room for affirmative action.

[ironguy]

AA is a good thing in my oppinion. however though, it shouldn't be based on race but on economic standing. It shouldn't matter if a man or woman is white, black, Hispanic, Asian or anything else. if they need the help, they should get it.

[#FF0000]

AA is a good thing in my oppinion. however though, it shouldn't be based on race but on economic standing. It shouldn't matter if a man or woman is white, black, Hispanic, Asian or anything else. if they need the help, they should get it.

I agree with this. As Cheung Mo said earlier, it doesn't do much for the workers in general. Ideally, I think Affirmative Action should be based on economic standing and where one lives ("good neighborhood" or "bad neighborhood"). The people who need the help most get it.

[robot lenin]

I think that AA is a reasonably good tool for enforcing a measure of racial equality. I stress the term 'enforcing'. I agree that racism, sexism etc is a problem, even in today's society, but forcing people to employ people who are not necessarily suited to the job in question is going to foster resentment, not more equality, which is surely going in the opposite direction. A friend of mine (a white woman) actually plays the system - in applying for internships she states her sex - women are more likely to get favourable treatment in meeting quotas - but not her ethic background - caucasians are not EVER going to get help. Surely someone doing this defeats the system, because people can purely state what is favourable and therefore get favourable treatment.

In my opinion, it would be far better to improve education, healthcare and so on in the poorest areas, since this will improve the opportunities of those who need help. Eventually, there would be no reason to distinguish between a white male and a black female of the same aptitude, for instance, since they are equally employable. I prefer this because:

a) I agree with Rorschach and think that any kind of action should not be on sex/race/disability etc, but on the economically most needy. As it happens that many of these people are from minorities (or perceived minorities) they would get help, but so would the impoverished white males who are being cheated out of employment because of an accident of birth (I accept that minorities are also by an accident of birth, but surely its better to help all equally).

b) Any form of gov't enforced AA is impossible to perform in a stateless society, since there is no government to enforce it. Indeed, it increases the role of gov't in society - in a roughshod racial redistributive way - which appeases the working class and lessens resistance to the capitalist system. A system by which people are given opportunities to succeed, leading to a blurring of racial distinctions, will be far more likely to succeed in a stateless society because, after the initial push, it will require no gov't to enforce.