Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[Moonlight Graham]

From Wikipedia:

Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the UK and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business". The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, and in 1967, the concept was expanded to include gender.

In Canada it can also pertain to people with disabilities.

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

My opinion is that I sympathize with the goal of trying to equalize groups that can be discriminated against or systemically underrepresented in the workplace/colleges etc., but I don't think policies that battle racism and sexism etc. with more racism and sexism is usually the right answer.

"Visible minorities" is another term for "non-Caucasians", and affirmative action policies regarding "visible minorities" are racist against Caucasians. Policies regarding gender are almost always sexist against males as well. What these policies often don't do is look at any differences (economic backgrounds etc.) among these individual "white males", but simply labels them all as such and treats them as a "privileged group" that should be equally discriminated against based on their race and sex.

I don't like racism, sexism, or most other forms of discrimination, and affirmative action policies should be regarded as basic human rights violations and should be protected in our Charter. Rather, what should be done is to combat discrimination (ie: employers etc. who are racist, sexist, or otherwise unfairly discriminatory against ANY group) at its source.

[Bonam]

I agree with your position.

Furthermore, I'd say that the greater part of the injustices that have existed in the past have already been dealt with, even if some discrimination remains. At this point, perpetuating racist and sexist policies (affirmative action) only breeds resentment and conflict, which will fuel the continued existence of racist/sexist attitudes for years to come. That is, the problems now being created by continuing affirmative action programs are worse than the remaining injustices these programs are addressing.

Even putting aside any moral principles about whether it is right to have discriminatory policies at all (even if they are well intentioned), the reality is from a pragmatic point of view these programs are arguably starting to do more harm than good.

However, all this has been discussed at length here before and I'm sure will very quickly degenerate into the usual suspects throwing out accusations of racism and bigotry.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

I think Chris Rock sums up my view on Affirmative Action with this joke; “I don’t think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on the test but if there’s a tie, f--- them. You've had a 400 year head start motherf---er.”

Edited November 20, 2013 by Mighty AC

[-1=e^ipi]

Affirmative action is immoral, racist and bigoted and as far as I am concerned, anyone that supports discrimination based on race/ gender/ sexual orientation is a racist / sexist / bigot. This includes the so called 'progressive racists' that were discussed in the other thread.

I would even go further and argue that anyone that supports the racist reserve system / indian act is a racist/bigot.

[Peter F]

I like affirmative action. I think we are a better society because of it. I support Affirmative action.

[The_Squid]

Why has this conservative government embraced what they said that they disliked so much before they came to power?

From a gov't job posting: "In support of achieving a diversified workforce, consideration may be given to candidates self-identifying as belonging to one of the following employment equity groups: aboriginal peoples, persons with a disability, visible minorities and women."

[Argus]

Why has this conservative government embraced what they said that they disliked so much before they came to power?

From a gov't job posting: "In support of achieving a diversified workforce, consideration may be given to candidates self-identifying as belonging to one of the following employment equity groups: aboriginal peoples, persons with a disability, visible minorities and women."

Because they're Not A conservative government. They're a pragmatic government, and in this case they allow it because if they stop it they'll be accused of being racists for denying 'equal opportunities' to the underprivileged, or some such bs.

[carepov]

My opinion is that I sympathize with the goal of trying to equalize groups that can be discriminated against or systemically underrepresented in the workplace/colleges etc., but I don't think policies that battle racism and sexism etc. with more racism and sexism is usually the right answer.

The key word is usually. I agree that affirmative action is overdone and perhaps it is doing more harm than good overall. Some "positive discrimination" practices in Canada seem sensible to me:

-Special treatment for natives in the justice system in order to reduce their over-representation

-Better access for natives for post-secondary education

-Some hiring programs (in government and business) to encourage the workforce to better reflect the diversity of the population they serve. For example it is good to have a representative proportion of natives as part of the RCMP.

[Bonam]

The key word is usually. I agree that affirmative action is overdone and perhaps it is doing more harm than good overall. Some "positive discrimination" practices in Canada seem sensible to me:

-Special treatment for natives in the justice system in order to reduce their over-representation

Actually that particular example seems most offensive to me of all. The justice system is there to protect society from criminals. The race of the criminal is irrelevant. If someone commits a crime, they should be treated equally under the law as anyone else.

[Bonam]

I think Chris Rock sums up my view on Affirmative Action with this joke; “I don’t think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on the test but if there’s a tie, f--- them. You've had a 400 year head start motherf---er.”

How does a white Ukrainian immigrant whose family was eradicated in artificial famine and lived under the oppression of the Soviet Union until ~20 years ago have a 400 year head start on a Black Canadian son of a middle class Canadian family which has lived in comfort and relative privilege? How does a white Jew whose ancestors suffered the worst atrocities and discrimination in history up until just a few decades ago have a 400 year head start? Oh, that's an exception? People might have more to them than the colour of their skin? Yeah, thought so.

How many white Canadians or Americans actually fit the stereotype of the privileged descendant of 17th century colonists? A tiny tiny minority.

There is no excuse for lumping people into categories based on race, period.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bonam

[carepov]

Actually that particular example seems most offensive to me of all. The justice system is there to protect society from criminals. The race of the criminal is irrelevant. If someone commits a crime, they should be treated equally under the law as anyone else.

So are you in favour of a "get tough on crime" approach towards natives and increase their numbers in prison, or would you expand the "get smart on crime" approach to non-natives?

IMO, the program to reduce the numbers of natives in prisons does protect society from criminals. If we were to keep locking them up in the numbers that were we would just be manufacturing more criminals, this generation and subsequent ones - this to me would be far more offensive than the current "positive discrimination". Also, the money wasted on excessive incarceration is offensive.

[Bonam]

Certainly excessive incarceration and wasted money is offensive, as are prison systems that only result in increased recidivism. I think that in all cases we need to optimize our justice system to provide the best results possible in regards to protecting society, achieving justice (appropriate punishment for misdeeds), and rehabilitating those individuals who can be rehabilitated. But it is of vital importance that whatever the justice system is, even if it has some flaws, that it be applied equally to everyone. Equal justice for all under the law is the fundamental building block of Western civilizations, the foundation upon which all else is built. If you start to stray from that, the whole thing will quickly come toppling down.

[dre]

But it is of vital importance that whatever the justice system is, even if it has some flaws, that it be applied equally to everyone.

The only way to make that possible would be to nationalize the practice of law. Minorities are not over-represented in prisons because of racism they are over-represented because of economics. They are less able to afford a competent defense, and their lawyers on legal aid cases spend a tiny fraction of the time they do on paid cases. If you want the law to be applied equally to everyone then Rufus the stuntbum has to have the same access to legal representation as OJ Simpson.

We have a pay for play system where in large part you get the verdict you can afford.

[carepov]

dre is right, an ideal justice system is impractical - sometimes you need to put aside ideals and do what's best in the real world

[Bonam]

Certainly the tremendous expense that is required to mount a top-notch defense in a criminal case is a problem. But that does not mean we can go easier on poorer people just because they likely don't have as good of a lawyer. Part of the problem is the law profession itself which has inflated costs in the justice system absurdly.

[Bonam]

dre is right, an ideal justice system is impractical - sometimes you need to put aside ideals and do what's best in the real world

Which is what? Treat people differently based on their race? Joe native commits murder and gets 2 years and Joe whitey commits murder and gets 20? How much does a black guy get, 10? Maybe 30 for the Asian guy since they are under-represented in the prison system? Should we codify all this? Sentence duration multipliers for everyone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion? This is not "best in the real world".

Based on dre's point, the most immediate solution seems to be to provide more funding for poor people to get access to better legal counsel in criminal cases, as well as seeking ways to reduce the costs of legal proceedings rather than letting these costs continue to grow exponentially. That's what would be "best in the real world", not racist policies.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

How does a white Ukrainian immigrant whose family was eradicated in artificial famine and lived under the oppression of the Soviet Union until ~20 years ago have a 400 year head start on a Black Canadian son of a middle class Canadian family which has lived in comfort and relative privilege? How does a white Jew whose ancestors suffered the worst atrocities and discrimination in history up until just a few decades ago have a 400 year head start? Oh, that's an exception? People might have more to them than the colour of their skin? Yeah, thought so.

How many white Canadians or Americans actually fit the stereotype of the privileged descendant of 17th century colonists? A tiny tiny minority.

There is no excuse for lumping people into categories based on race, period.

The joke is specific to slavery in the US, but it still applies. Hire based on ability but in the event of a tie or equal outcome then consider the circumstances. I didn't think it was that hard to follow.

[Bonam]

The joke is specific to slavery in the US, but it still applies. Hire based on ability but in the event of a tie or equal outcome then consider the circumstances. I didn't think it was that hard to follow.

No, it's fine as a joke, and not hard to follow. It is however not a good basis for setting hiring policy. Circumstances are specific to the individual and are not based on race.

[dre]

Certainly the tremendous expense that is required to mount a top-notch defense in a criminal case is a problem. But that does not mean we can go easier on poorer people just because they likely don't have as good of a lawyer.

We DONT go easier on poorer people. We throw the book at them, and fill prisons to the brim with them. Rich people just pay big fines except for the odd one, and at a legislative level we put white collar crimes in a "less serious" category even though they often do way more damage to society.

Like I said... the whole thing is a pay for play system. I think you are right that everyone should be treated the same, Im just pointed out that things like affirmative action, or the disproportionate number of poor and minorities in prison are just the tip of the iceberg. The real driver of institutional inequality is not race its economic disparity.

Part of the problem is the law profession itself which has inflated costs in the justice system absurdly.

Yup just like most domestic professionals have done (teachers, doctors, etc). But whaddaya do?

[Bonam]

We DONT go easier on poorer people. We throw the book at them, and fill prisons to the brim with them. Rich people just pay big fines except for the odd one, and at a legislative level we put white collar crimes in a "less serious" category even though they often do way more damage to society.

I know we don't, and we shouldn't. Neither should we go easy on rich people, obviously.

In regards to "white collar" crimes... no, stealing money is not as serious as murder/rape and should never be treated as such.

The real driver of institutional inequality is not race its economic disparity.

Then like I said, we should look into ways to improve the legal counsel that poorer people are able to get. And no, we shouldn't provide special treatment to natives or any other groups based on their race, religion, or anything else.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

No, it's fine as a joke, and not hard to follow. It is however not a good basis for setting hiring policy. Circumstances are specific to the individual and are not based on race.

The Rock joke was in the context of slavery, in which a large portion of slaves were denied even a basic education. The cycle of poverty that proceeded was far reaching and long lasting. I'm sure you can expand beyond a specific joke to a more general guideline of aptitude first and circumstances second.

[Bonam]

The Rock joke was in the context of slavery, in which a large portion of slaves were denied even a basic education. The cycle of poverty that proceeded was far reaching and long lasting. I'm sure you can expand beyond a specific joke to a more general guideline of aptitude first and circumstances second.

In some cases, perhaps an individual's circumstances can/should be considered. That's fine. But it's the individual's actual circumstances that should be considered, not dumbass assumptions based on the colour of their skin.

[Mighty AC]

Slavery in the US was pretty much a black white issue. That's the context of the joke. If expanded to an all encompassing rule, circumstances become more than skin colour.

[dre]

In regards to "white collar" crimes... no, stealing money is not as serious as murder/rape and should never be treated as such.

I totally disagree here. A rapist or a murder can kill or rape a person... maybe even a few people. But a high profile white collar criminal can undermine our entire financial system and cause serious damages to potentially millions of victimes, and do infinately more damage to society. This is why you have sentences for things like mail fraud that number in the hundreds of years. Yes.... they commited a less heinous crime but the commited it thousands or millions of times over against thousand or millions of victimes, and they undermine and damage core components of society.

Big time white collar criminals are a way way bigger threat to society than some idiot that kills someone over drugs or rapes a girl the park. Its not even remotely close.

[Bonam]

Big time white collar criminals are a way way bigger threat to society than some idiot that kills someone over drugs or rapes a girl the park. Its not even remotely close.

I disagree. I think a million thefts are less of a crime than one murder. There's no coming back from being killed.