For Those That Support Affirmative Action.....

[EastCoastNiner]

Should NBA teams be required to have the following?

 

-Four African Americans

-Three Caucasians

-Two Asians

-One Native American

-One European (not white American)

-One Pacific Islander

 

 

Or, are you all on that hypocrite time?

[JYD]

I think it'd be great if they had that requirement. It'd be much much better for diverse fans all around the World. Are we likely to see that be required in the future? No. Would it be an excellent addition by David Stern? Absolutely.

[reno]

I think it'd be great if they had that requirement. It'd be much much better for diverse fans all around the World. Are we likely to see that be required in the future? No. Would it be an excellent addition by David Stern? Absolutely.

http://cdn.overclock.net/3/3d/3da4377f_4f2d27b992a2a_tumblr_lvrp8bU9AV1qibz0jo1_500.png

[JYD]

http://eu3.memecdn.com/Sarcasm_o_93176.jpg

[YugoRocketsFan]

No its still racist because there is 3 caucasians, last time I checked White people compromise 70% of the US, so 70% of players should be white.

[kingfish]

No its still racist because there is 3 caucasians, last time I checked White people compromise 70% of the US, so 70% of players should be white.

Totally. Just put the rest of the population in camps so that they are protected you know?

[EastCoastNiner]

http://eu3.memecdn.com/Sarcasm_o_93176.jpg

 

Why shouldn't they do this if it exists in other work fields and education fields? Oh, because it doesn't suit your interest? (Assuming you support AA).

[JYD]

I actually wrote an entire five page essay on this a few semesters ago, my Freshman year of College actually. I think it's a fairly interesting essay if you care to take the time to read you'll get my view. I'm sure most won't (and it's lengthy and quite a bit stretched out...but I figured I'd throw it out there for ya'll to critique me )

 

Affirmative Action: Should it be Abolished or Continued?

 

In recent discussions of affirmative action, a controversial issue has been whether the program that ensures minorities and women get a fair chance to be accepted into colleges and be hired in the workplace should be continued or abolished. On the one hand, some argue that it should be abolished. From this perspective, it is an example of reverse discrimination and looks solely at race instead of credentials. On the other hand, however, others argue that affirmative action should be continued. In the words of one of this view’s main proponents, Raina Kelley of Newsweek says on the topic of affirmative action, “It is a system designed to make sure that everybody is getting into college through their qualifications whether you are a poor kid from East L.A. or a fourth-generation legacy” (Kelley). According to this view, affirmative action can actually help all races and both genders when it comes to college admissions. In sum, then, the issue is whether these affirmative action programs can open up opportunities for minorities or be used as a tool for reverse discrimination.

 

My own view is that affirmative action programs should continue because they open up opportunities for minorities, create more equality amongst all races and genders, and give the disadvantaged a chance to compete in education and the workplace. Though I concede that affirmative action can sometimes look too much at race and gender, I still maintain that it is a way to create more equality in the United States. For example, minorities on average come from more disadvantaged backgrounds then whites, which makes it more difficult for them to compete in education. Although some might object that this should not allow them to get into college over someone who is Caucasian, I reply that without affirmative action programs there would be greater inequality across race and gender lines. The issue is important because it is a constant debate in the United States today.

 

Possibly the most controversial area of discussion when it comes to affirmative action is in college admissions. It is often debated whether or not affirmative action is necessary in higher education admissions. Joe Klein, author of “Can We Improve Affirmative Action?” believes that affirmative action needs to be based off of disadvantages for the individual and not race, “Make it poverty, not pigment. This is an imperfect solution. Yes, a disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos are poor, but the majority of poor people are white – and more than a few are Asian, too” (Klein). Klein’s main point is that affirmative action should be made less about race and more about your economic standing when it comes to college admissions. Although Klein’s reasoning is very popular, Newsweek author Raina Kelley counters, “As long as people remain convinced that affirmative action is about giving minorities preferential treatment, they will also remain ignorant of the fact that affirmative action works on behalf of all people” (Kelley). Since affirmative action has been given such a bad name in the media, most people, including Klein, believe that affirmative action is all about minorities, when in fact it is helping all people. Affirmative action in education is not a system designed to play favorites based on race or gender; it is designed to level out the playing field no matter if you are a poor Latino from Newark or an upper-class White male from Princeton (Kelley).

 

Legacy programs in some of the Nation’s best Universities are very rarely debated when the topic of affirmative action is being discussed. Many point to colleges as using race and gender as a way of boosting minority admissions over whites and men. However, Richard D. Kahlenberg illustrates the point perfectly in his New York Times article, “Elite Colleges or Colleges for the Elite?” by saying, “At our top universities, so-called legacy preferences affect larger numbers of students than traditional affirmative action programs for minority students, yet they have received a small fraction of the attention. Unlike the issue of racial preferences, advantages for alumni children — who are overwhelmingly white and wealthy — have been the subject of little scholarship, no state voter initiatives and no Supreme Court decisions” (Kahlenberg). Kahlenberg shows that legacy programs can be far worse than affirmative action programs for minorities. He also states, “studies have shown that being the child of an alumnus adds the equivalent of 160 SAT points to one’s application (using the traditional 400-to-1600-point scale, and not factoring in the new writing section of the test) and increases one’s chances of admission by almost 20 percentage points” (Kahlenberg). This is a prime example of the damage legacy programs continue to do to our college admissions, but instead the focus is put on affirmative action which enhance admissions for minorities. While legacy programs that favor the white and wealthy fail to receive as much attention as affirmative action, Kenneth Jost, of CQ Researcher, gives another example of how whites still hold advantages in college admissions by saying, “The University of Michigan relies heavily on high school students' scores on standardized tests in evaluating applications — tests that have been widely criticized as biased against African-Americans and other minorities. It gives preferences to children of Michigan alumni — who are disproportionately white — as well as to applicants from “underrepresented” parts of the state, such as Michigan's predominantly white Upper Peninsula” (Jost). Overall, minorities in college are still largely below the white population. Despite the amount of African-Americans and Hispanics in College today compared to 1976, they are still vastly unrepresented in comparison to the total U.S. population. African-Americans make up 12.3 percent, and Hispanics make up 12.5 percent. However, African-Americans make up just 7.6 percent of the population at U.S. Colleges, and Hispanics consist of just 4.4 percent (Jost). These statistics clearly show that affirmative action is necessary for the entry of minorities in colleges to rise. Without affirmative action, the number of African-Americans and Hispanics who attend college may decrease even further, which could be a daunting sight to see in a land where we pride ourselves on equality.

 

Admissions into colleges for minorities eventually roll over to the workplace. What happens to these minorities once they graduate and are out of college? Affirmative action is present in the workplace as well as in college admissions. For many, affirmative action has different meanings. While for some it can mean opportunity, for other it is consider maddening, which is why the debate to end the program is such a hot issue in the 21st century. Some despise affirmative action because they feel it is based too much on race rather than on credentials, and that the program is unnecessary at the point in time we are not at. For some African-Americans, such as Congressman Michael Steele, James W. Thomson writes, “Steele contends that, although white Americans have, for the most part, abandoned their shameful past legacy of racial oppression, liberals still are defining the terms by which African-Americans are acknowledged as human beings--with their depiction of blacks as hapless victims perennially in dire need of the preferential racial remedies orchestrated by the barons of the Democratic Party, a self-serving political strategy that rewards them by creating solid Democratic majorities at the polls” (Thomson). Congressman Steele believes that in the 21st century stereotypes of minorities should be discontinued and everyone be treated equally based on their credentials rather than their race. However, for some, Author of “Does Affirmative Action Hurt or Help?” Sylvester Monroe describes a story of a women positively affected by affirmative action, “For Mignon Williams, 42, a black marketing executive in Rochester, N.Y., affirmative action means opportunity. Recruited by Xerox Corp. in 1977 under a pioneering plan to hire women and minorities, Williams rose from saleswoman to division vice president in just 13 years. While Williams attributes her success mainly to hard work and business savvy, she acknowledges that her race and her sex played a role in her rapid rise” (Monroe). Monroe also illustrates the frustration with affirmative action as a black man from Chicago has been denied a promotion due to the need to fill the lack of Hispanics and women in the field of his work (Monroe). Without doubt, however, affirmative action programs have helped minorities in general make strides in the workplace that may have not been possible.

 

Continuing on the issue of minorities in the workplace, Time writer Sylvester Monroe says, “For most blacks, the opportunities that affirmative action affords outweigh any potential psychological threat. Many reason that once they are on the job or in the classroom, their performance can erase negative stereotypes. Moreover, while many barriers to black advancement have been shattered, few African-Americans have penetrated the top levels of corporate management. A recent survey by Korn/Ferry International shows that white males still control at least 95% of the real power positions in corporate America” (Monroe). Although minorities have climbed the ladder to attain more jobs with affirmative action programs, they are still underrepresented in key positions such as CEO’s of large corporations. As the economy continues to falter, the unemployment rate nationwide is hovering around 10 percent. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau Labor of Statistics suggests that the unemployment rate is 16 percent amongst African-Americans, compared to just 8.9 percent for Whites. This is a perfect example of how affirmative action can help balance out these unemployment statistics. For some, affirmative action will always be perceived as a race and gender issue resulting in frustration, but for others it will mean opportunity that may not have been available without it.

 

Reverse discrimination has and always will be a topic of conversation as long as affirmative action in the workplace and college admissions is in effect. It is an issue that is certainly fair to bring up. At the end of the day, however, it is more than just race or gender when it comes to affirmative action. The ideology behind affirmative action is to help create equality when competing for jobs and college admission due to disadvantages minorities may suffer. What must be understood, however, are years and years of discrimination against women and minorities has set them back when it comes to socio-economic status which is why affirmative action was first implemented in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy (Monroe). Opponents of affirmative action need to create a plan to level the playing field if they want to dismantle the race and gender card from the workplace and college admissions. Joe Klein of Time magazine offers some positive ideas when it comes to changing the system to end affirmative action by saying, “The only real long term answer to inequality is to provide a better educational system for the poor, and I mean really better: new facilities, longer school days and school years, the best college-prep classes (to lure scholars from the whiter parts of town), and significant salary bonuses for teachers who choose the toughest neighborhoods, for starters” (Klein). By making the school systems better in the low-income and large minority areas we could begin discussions of getting rid of affirmative action. But until the playing field is more equivalent for minorities across the U.S., affirmative action should continue.

 

Overall, affirmative should be continued because it takes into account for minorities who are at a disadvantage. Most minorities grow up in school districts that are rated much lower than those of White areas. Minorities also come from single-parent homes more often, and may be forced to go to work at a younger age. After years and years of oppression of minorities and women, it is now their chance to get an equal crack in the workplace and college. Without affirmative action, who knows if we would’ve ever seen an African-American President?

Edited February 29, 2012 by JYD

[EastCoastNiner]

I actually wrote an entire five page essay on this a few semesters ago, my Freshman year of College actually. I think it's a fairly interesting essay if you care to take the time to read you'll get my view. I'm sure most won't (and it's lengthy and quite a bit stretched out...but I figured I'd throw it out there for ya'll to critique me )

 

http://chzichcafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/funny-pictures-pundit-kitchen-after-dark-lol-didnt-read.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will read later though, although I did read the last paragraph and already know based upon that, that I will not agree with you at all.

 

Pretty much since more white people don't live in "ghettos", minorities should be given special treatment. Nope!

[Flash]

I think AA served its purpose a long time ago and itstime for it to be abolished. We live in a much more open minded society where companies will nost likely hire the best candidate no matter what race they are. Not only that but AA these days is costing higher qualified people a better job because someone had to a hire a minority who may not be as qualiied for the position.

[JYD]

http://chzichcafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/funny-pictures-pundit-kitchen-after-dark-lol-didnt-read.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will read later though, although I did read the last paragraph and already know based upon that, that I will not agree with you at all.

 

Pretty much since more white people don't live in "ghettos", minorities should be given special treatment. Nope!

lol. figured you would not read. i put it out there though because i think it's provides a sensible reasoning behind my thoughts on AA. i can see why people would be against it; and I think flash makes a good point it may not be needed soon. but there were some interesting statistics, stories and excerpts from several authors and articles i read while typing it up, which is why i encouraged you to read lol