Affirmative Action

[Guest chibi4president]

I'm just wondering how other people feel about this issue. For those who don't know, a rough, very generalized definition of affirmative action is giving special preferences/opportunities/chances to minority groups that were disadvantaged in the past, most notably African-Americans and other racial groups. and also women. This means colleges, law schools, and med schools have to establish quotas like admitting a certain number of women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and so forth. Under affirmative action, companies must have quotas for how many members of formerly disadvantaged groups must be hired.

I can see both sides of the debate. I understand why people would think it's unfair to hire someone just because they're black or whatever. "It's true Ra'Shonda, Miguel, and Xuan-Li are unqualified, but they should be given a chance because their people were discriminated against in the past." People say affirmative action is actually discrimination against WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) because they lose opportunities to us minorities, and it defeats its own purpose. Besides, why should we try to fix the unfixable when it's too late? "I'm not racist, so why should I pay for past racism?"

My question is, Who determines who gets compensation for past discrimination? Every group that has ever existed in history has been discriminated against in some form at some time. So EVERYONE in this entire country should benefit from discrimination, right?

On the other hand, affirmative action can be beneficial. I am an African-American female who can and has benefitted from it. As a result of a scholarship/talent search program that actually was an indirect form of A.A., (only blacks were eligible to receive awards) I am attending the best, most expensive private college in Arkansas. And that is true for many other people. They will be able to better their lives and benefit their respective groups through education because of A.A. There will be more female and minority professionals because of it.

But at what cost?

Feedback would be much appreciated and if I offended anyone, I'm sorry.

"An eye for an eye and soon the world is blind."--Gandhi

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Affirmitive action is pretty b-ass-ackwards. Why? Because now we have a shit load of minorities who don't work as hard as they could because they know they don't need to.

In Native American reservations the government was handing out checks like they were dirt and the people recieving them were becoming lazy and greedy because of it. They didn't work, didn't do anything becasue they knew the Government was going to pay them. Well, one Chief was getting PISSED and told the Gov. to give them jobs, not cash. This way they could support themselves, get better schools, and a generally better community.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

Wanna know how to make up for past fuck ups? Do all in your power to push equality. Take gender and ethnicity out of ALL applications and BOOM! Now we have people being allowed into schools and jobs because they DESERVE them!

I remember there being a court case in California a million years ago where a white man wasn't accepted into Med School because they ran out of space due to all the minorities they had to enroll. Most of these people they enrolled instead of him were less qualified.

The only sense in which affirmative action should be used in schools would be for ALL applicants who are living in conditions where they COULDN'T get a proper education but has proven they can handle the workload and are dedicated to succeed.

If we continue to make this a race/gender issue, it'll STAY a race/gender issue. Yes we're trying to do right but at what cost? When does it stop being about equality and star being about shutting people up?

[StoryJunkie]

I am attending the best, most expensive private college in Arkansas. And that is true for many other people. They will be able to better their lives and benefit their respective groups through education because of A.A. There will be more female and minority professionals because of it.

Well, how do you feel about that? Do you feel guilty for being prefered?

"Best, most expensive" doesn't mean you'll succeed. It's the gray matter, and doing your best with what you've got. If it turns out to be a lesson in reverse prejudice, then I don't think its wasted either. A person can learn from negative experiences.

Can society learn those lessons? It seems that as a whole, we have to learn them over and over again. Someone's solution to the problem may make things worse. Sometimes I think it's just an experiment. Then again, no matter what someone does to try to alleviate the problem of prejudice, someone else is going to criticise it.

As for there not being enough room at the schools, don't you think that another solution to the problem lays at the steps of the said schools? They should expand with the expanding population, not stay exclusive because they have no fore-sight.

I don't think, in the end, that your application into the school pushed someone else out, and I don't think that you ought to feel guilty about it because the educational system in itself needs to be revamped. And I don't mean to be "inclusive" I mean to expand to the demands of the market.

This reminds me of the story of the Stanfords. AFter their son died, they wanted to make a contribution to the local university in honor of their son. Because they were dressed just like ordinary people, and not all show-offy about their wealth, the Dean kept them waiting in the foyer ALL DAY LONG.

Finally, looking down his nose at them, he asked what they wanted. When they explained their desire, he haughtily told them, "You DO realize that this will cost more than 10,000 dolllars?"

The couple looked at each other, and Mr Stanford said, "Is that all it takes to contribute funds for one building?"

The Stanfords then left the office and built Stanford University. That Dean got fired.

[Guest Mike256bit]

A great and insightful book for you to read is Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? written by Beverly Tatum. In it, she explores a lot of questions about race relations and, more notably, talks about affirmative action (AA).

In truth, the system only works if institutions have goals, instead of quotas (fortunately, a lot do). Goal-oriented AA is not limited by the strictness of a quota because while a number is something to shoot for, it is not definitive. If they reach that number, hey, great. If not, oh well. Maybe next time. In a goal-oriented system, no one gets shafted by limits.

So why do we need it? The US has, for a long time, been controlled by white privilege and is still in the grips of it, quiet though it may be. White Protestant males get the most advantages simply because the union was developed by WPM (and not because they were doing a bang-up job; they were just the only people they felt like listening to). In reality, in a functioning AA program, only qualified people get the job. I'm curious as to whether that white guy who didn't get into med school would have complained if it was a woman who got his spot. How does he know it was a minority? More than that, how does that white person know so much about the minorities' resume/transcript?

Our concept of fairness and justice (in the US) was developed out of a system that was already catering to WPM, so it's hard to take that bias out of the equation. No matter how much we talk about blindness to race (which is in itself another problem -- pretending not to notice that someone is a different skin color is practically an insult and it ignore the greater problem of white privilege), this 'equality' wasn't built from an equal playing field.

Susan Clayton and Sandra Tangri, social psychologists, also explored the idea of expectations. Because of our natural bias, an employer might have lower expectations of a minority, and when they come across a well qualified applicant of color, they'll attribute said success to luck. Because "luck" isn't an innate quality and is unreliable, that applicant can easily be overlooked.

We really do need AA. I used to think that it was a form of reverse discrimination, but you know what? If my spot actually is given away for the sake of a minority, I'm at least happy that an entire race gets that advantage versus just one person (myself). Really, though, as a white male, I can count on getting a good job, finding a nice place to live where I want to live, and generally doing whatever I feel like. How many minorities or even women can say that?

I'll close by quoting Stanley Fish, a white guy who lost a job to AA:

Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was "unfair," because the policy was obviously not directed at me . . . the policy was not intended to disenfranchise white males. Rather, the policy was driven by other considerations, and it was only as a by-product of those considerations - not as the main goal - that white males like me were rejected. Given that the institution in question has a high percentage of minority students, a very low percentage of minority faculty, and an even lower percentage of minority administrators, it made perfect sense to focus on women and minority candidates, and within that sense, not as the result of prejudice, my whiteness and maleness became disqualifications. I can hear the objections in advance: "What's the difference? Unfair in unfair: you didn't get the job" . . . It is the difference between an unfairness that befalls one as the unintended effect of a policy rationally conceived and an unfairness that is pursued as an end in itself.

[StoryJunkie]

Wow, Mike, you sound really smart. I liked your answer. Another thing that occured to me is the machinations of Fate. I don't particularly believe in Fate per se, however, neither am I one to look a gift horse in the mouth. I think that whether you think your position in life was won by hard work or hard work and good luck, then all the better for you. There is a saying that goes, "Even if you are a lowly street sweep, do all in your power to be the best street sweep that you can be." I've always taken that to mean that in everyone's life a Destiny is at work. For instance, the story of Findhorn is exactly that.

I think that there is a certain "pecking order", even if you are WMP.

[Guest Mike256bit]

I think that there is a certain "pecking order", even if you are WMP.

Thanks, StoryJunkie

And, yes, I definitely agree with the idea of a pecking order. There are a lot of subcatagories that help shape the true breadth of prejudice: sexuality, age, weight, intelligence and even things like height. The media has helped propagate the dominant American ideal with TV shows, movies, advertisements and the news.

I remember watching the Fox News (grr!) one night and they were sensationalizing a disturbance in Brooklyn. So the first thing I thought of was "Black people?"

Turns out it was a group of Hasidic Jews. I felt like an asshole.

EDIT:

Also, that notion about destiny does ring true. Whether you're blessed or not, I feel hard work is the real qualifier and that said hard work can be accomplished in any form.

[Guest chibi4president]

If my spot actually is given away for the sake of a minority, I'm at least happy that an entire race gets that advantage versus just one person (myself).

Thanks, Mike. Your selflesness is admirable. However, for every one person that thinks like you, there are ten other people who see the glass as half empty and look out for their interests and theirs only. *sigh* And they are the ones making our laws.

[Guest Melody Fate]

This is a toughie for me, because we've been the victim of reverse discrimination. My husband was once unable to get a promotion, despite having worked for a company for five years and was told flat out that he would have a terrible time getting into management, because women and minorities would always be considered first.

The job he has now, one of the managers is an Asian woman. Lovely woman, sweet, friendly, but dumb as a post and has made decissions that have cost the company serious money. Yet, Home Office has said she cannot be fired or demoted. Store managers have tried to get her fired to no avail, all they can do is try to get her transfered. So far, she's been the manager in two branches my husband has worked at, and her stupidity has caused nothing but trouble and expense.

So, yeah, I admit I used to feel that this, "Let's give all the minorities advantages!" was unfair.

Then, one day I was on a newsgroup and I saw someone had left a one line post:

"Why are niggers all so stupid?"

My jaw almost hit the desk, I couldn't believe someone could be that much of an asshole. Even worse, the people that got on to agree with this... scumball. Yes, some protested, but WAY too many people were more than happy to imply that black people were indeed stupider than white people. And the conversation lead to things like how they're all crimimals and how they're taking jobs away from good, upstanding white people, blah blah blah, till you'd just like to puke. (I do admit though, the best answer I saw to that nasty question was, "Because we let assholes like you live.")

That's when it hit me that no matter how far we are, we still have a long way to go. I've never ever seen a message that said, "Why are all white people stupid." That in itself tells me we're still only a hair's breath away from "separate but equal" (which was indeed separate, but certainly was not equal) I also realized that for all our equality, I've never seen anything but a white president or vice president. Hell, at least a woman once ran as a potential vice president, so even they got further than someone who isn't caucasion.

As long as people will harbor hatred for any miniority, then it becomes the job of the government to make up for that. The governement can't go to people's houses and smack those who are blindly prejudice upside the head. Yes, they can make sure the schools teach tolerance, but that's not enough.

Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to balance a scale is to stack a different weight on the other side. The government can't force Mr. Business Man to treat everyone equal regardless of race, religion, creed or sex. You can tell him that legally, he has to consider everyone who applies for a job equally, and not show prefrence to Joe while not even considering Jose, but you can't stand over his shoulder and look over every resume sent his way. But the governement can say, "You have to hire such and such a percent of people who are non white and/or non male in order to be allowed to continue."

Now when I see people spreading messages of racial hate in the USA, the only way I can stomach it is to tell myself that they're making all the things they're upset about even worse. As long as they continue to believe that some people aren't as good as other people, for reasons relating to things that are determined by birth, then we have to force things to be fair. That means we have to give minorities more chances than we might give white males.

We've come pretty far, considering that I was born two years before the March on Washington, but sadly, we still have a far way to go. And until we evolve enough so that blind hatred towards someone who's only "crime" is being "Not like me" is unheard of, we have to find other ways to even the scales, and those means might very well be that Jose gets a job before Joe does.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

This is a toughie for me, because we've been the victim of reverse discrimination.

It's not "reverse discrimination." It's just plain old discrimination. Period. The reverse part is just there to make people feel better, I suspect. It's stupid. There is no differance between a white man hating a black man for beng black and a black man hating a white man for being white.

What happens when a bi-racial person hates a Hispanic for being Hispanic? What is that? Is that reverse discrimination because of the white half? Or is it just the regular old kind because of the black half?

I'm going to stop there...

On AA...

Affirmative Action is like standardized testing. Started off with some great ideas and goals. However, it just degraded into one more quota. One more statistic. Now, we have teachers who ONLY teach what's on the tests, and the test don't have much, and the students are STILL dropping out. Shiney!

[Guest lightgoddess]

*glomps Chibi for being in Arkansas* And I thought I was the only person here from the Land of WalMart!

Affermative Action makes me want to puke. It gives people who are unqualified, positions that they do not deserve. Personally, if I went to the doctor and found out that she (or he if he was a minority) only got into Med School because of AA and not their grades or qualifications, I probably wouldn't go back.

It's supposed to be great for the advancement of women and minorities, but it's not! I don't want to be promoted at work because I have a vagina and two X chromosomes! It's saying "Well, you aren't the best for the job, but we couldn't hire the brilliant white guy because we needed a woman/minority." What the hell ever happened to getting jobs/scholarships/awards on your merit? Is the real world turning into a game of tee-ball where both teams win? Guess what! In life there are winners and there are losers!

If someone can't make the grade, they shouldn't get the scholarship because of race or sex because there is going to be someone out there who WILL get the grades, who DESERVES IT because they studied hard and they miss the scholarship because someone lacks a penis or has darker skin! Plainly, that's bullshit. If a women's group wants to give scholarships exclusively to young women, that's great, that's another scholarship out there. If black groups want to give scholarships exclusively to black students, that's great too, because you can not have too many scholarships. But, if a person is told, "You can't go to college because you have a penis or you are white and we have to give this money to someone who's not as qualified as you." That's not right, and that's what affermative action does.

Personally, I would be ashamed to admit to anyone that I had to use AA to get anything. That would mean that someone more qualified than me was left out because of race or sex.

[Guest Mike256bit]

Unfortunately, what you're describing is AA gone wrong (AA GONE WILD! LOOK AT THOSE NAUGHTY BITS!). Like I said, in a properly functioning AA system, based on goals and not quotas, qualified people do get the job. All extenuating circumstances have to be accounted for.

And unfortunately, there is a difference between a black hating a white for being white and a white hating a black for being black. It might still be decrimination, but in one instance (the white man who hates), the person in question can actually make an advantage out of it.

Racism is the combination of power and prejuduce -- one could argue that black folk can't really be racist because the systems doesn't actively or passively try to stop the white man from excelling. Whereas in a system designed and controlled by whiteness, racism is virtually inherent in things like adoption, housing, job market and education.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

And unfortunately, there is a difference between a black hating a white for being white and a white hating a black for being black. It might still be decrimination, but in one instance (the white man who hates), the person in question can actually make an advantage out of it.

Racism is the combination of power and prejuduce -- one could argue that black folk can't really be racist because the systems doesn't actively or passively try to stop the white man from excelling. Whereas in a system designed and controlled by whiteness, racism is virtually inherent in things like adoption, housing, job market and education.

And so this idea should be promoted by giving it a politically correct distinction?

And, the biracial question again. Does this mean a Biracial person can't be predjudice because of the Black half of their ancestory? Or can they because of the White half?

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Better yet, does the "2% Black Rule" apply to AA? Or do biracials get in on their merits? How does one decide how much AA should work for them? To the full extent or only half way? At all?

Furthermore... Wouldn't AA Gone Horribly and Atrociously wrong be an example of "Putting the White Man Down?"

Also, what about women? Is it impossible for a woman to be sexist because she was put down by men? What about FemmeNazis?

Actually, that's a stupid question. Women are rarely thought to be sexist for calling men pigs. Which is so incredibly stupid.

But... god...

I've seen so many minorities use "but the white man put me down" as an excuse not to do anything with their lives. it's an endless, vicious cycle.

Jesus said "save yourself." For a group of people who are generally Catholics and Christians, they seem to miss a lot of Jesus' teachings.

But, then so do bible throwers.

I'm so tired of people waiting for handouts. I'm tired of watching people abuse and munipulate the system just so they don't need to work.

I will lie, cheat and steal my way through life if I have to, but only if I have to. The same should be true of everyone.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE is abusing AA. I'm also not saying that EVERYONE who gets into college or gets a job via AA is unqualified. But I've seen so much corruption.

If AA is to work right, I don't think it should be for Minorities and Women. I think it should be for anyone who has proven they are willing to work hard but would otherwise be overlooked for any reason.

How many white kids have grown up with alkies and druggies for parents and rarely had enough to eat in their house? How many fucking white kids grow up dirt poor and on the streets?

yeah, it's great that Pablo got the job, but he's single. He doesn't have kids to feed. George has a son who has diabetes. They have no fucking house. Yeah, George may be a white man, but he's not privlaged.

[bookworm51485]

I'm just wondering how other people feel about this issue. For those who don't know, a rough, very generalized definition of affirmative action is giving special preferences/opportunities/chances to minority groups that were disadvantaged in the past, most notably African-Americans and other racial groups. and also women. This means colleges, law schools, and med schools have to establish quotas like admitting a certain number of women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and so forth. Under affirmative action, companies must have quotas for how many members of formerly disadvantaged groups must be hired.

I can see both sides of the debate. I understand why people would think it's unfair to hire someone just because they're black or whatever. "It's true Ra'Shonda, Miguel, and Xuan-Li are unqualified, but they should be given a chance because their people were discriminated against in the past." People say affirmative action is actually discrimination against WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) because they lose opportunities to us minorities, and it defeats its own purpose. Besides, why should we try to fix the unfixable when it's too late? "I'm not racist, so why should I pay for past racism?"

My question is, Who determines who gets compensation for past discrimination? Every group that has ever existed in history has been discriminated against in some form at some time. So EVERYONE in this entire country should benefit from discrimination, right?

On the other hand, affirmative action can be beneficial. I am an African-American female who can and has benefitted from it. As a result of a scholarship/talent search program that actually was an indirect form of A.A., (only blacks were eligible to receive awards) I am attending the best, most expensive private college in Arkansas. And that is true for many other people. They will be able to better their lives and benefit their respective groups through education because of A.A. There will be more female and minority professionals because of it.

But at what cost?

Feedback would be much appreciated and if I offended anyone, I'm sorry.

"An eye for an eye and soon the world is blind."--Gandhi

Like you said, I can see the different sides of the argument. But I tink affirmative action is necessary at this point because there is still racism in this country, even if it's not as blatant as it was before. I see it all the time where I live, I hear the subtle comments people make. There are so many people who would be extremely insulted if you labeled them as racist, but though they aren't as extreme as others, it's still there. I find I actually prefer the people in the KKK and other such groups because they mince no words, you know exactly where you stand with them. It's the people who proclaim themselves as come fair-minded, then subtly screw you over that I can't stand. But I think I'm getting a bit off my point. What I'm trying to say is still a lot of racism in this country, even among people who consider themselves enlightened. I know that a lot of the places I've been, I was only given the opportunity because of AA, despite the fact that I know that I'm extremely qualified for everything I've gotten. I'll give an example. The high school I went to had a quota they had to fill, so I was let in. But later in my time there, I had several of my teacher's basically imply that I shouldn't have been there and that I stole a spot from more deserving students (their kids actually, there's didn't get into school because of the quota they said). Of course they completely disregarded the fact that I took several AP classes and passed them all with a B or better and I graduated with a GPA over a 4.0. But I didn't deserve the place I was given.

[bookworm51485]

Unfortunately, what you're describing is AA gone wrong (AA GONE WILD! LOOK AT THOSE NAUGHTY BITS!). Like I said, in a properly functioning AA system, based on goals and not quotas, qualified people do get the job. All extenuating circumstances have to be accounted for.

And unfortunately, there is a difference between a black hating a white for being white and a white hating a black for being black. It might still be decrimination, but in one instance (the white man who hates), the person in question can actually make an advantage out of it.

Racism is the combination of power and prejuduce -- one could argue that black folk can't really be racist because the systems doesn't actively or passively try to stop the white man from excelling. Whereas in a system designed and controlled by whiteness, racism is virtually inherent in things like adoption, housing, job market and education.

You and my mom would get along so well, you're saying a lot of the exact same things I've heard her say often. Though she's a black female, so the I guess the perspective is a bit different.

[Guest Mike256bit]

I suppose I just have little faith in waiting for the system to eliminate its bias. Until that point, I'm afraid that we're going to need programs that try to achieve a balance. Absolutely, Pixagi, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need to help out the disenfranchised -- there would be no room for people to try and take advantage of a system. However, at present, there are resumes being skipped over based on names alone because some asshole employer doesn't want to upset his environment.

People really want others to think they're not racist, and this isn't an indictment of individuals: rather, growing up in the American system has taught people at a subliminal level who to trust, who makes the best tenant, and who belongs in their workplace. There was another study (possibly done by the same social psychologists I mentions before) where white graduate students were to examine comparable resumes of both whites and non-whites. When both resumes were poor or just adequate, they were rated evenly by the group. When they both excelled, the white person's resume was consistently rated as more qualified.

Similarly, another group was asked to label white and colored workers based on "good" and "bad." All qualified individuals were rated as "good," race notwithstanding. However, when the scale was changed to another variant of "good" (I.E, ambitious vs. lazy), the white applicants were seen as substantially more ambitious. Even though the group rather actively tried to shuck off claims of racism by not calling any qualified black applicants "bad," they revealed a slightly less sinister bias based on a not-so-monochromatic evaluation.

I guess it's really important to not get trapped into thinking that AA is an end-all. It's not a perfect system. It's dangerous when we start thinking that there's nothing we can do to stop bias or racism and that we "just have to deal with it." In a way, I can see how AA falls into "dealing with the problem." But at the same time, our perception of fairness grew out of a white system. We're approaching equality not from the middle, but from what was once an entity even more prejudice than the current one.

The final point you made about poor white folk, though, is limited by that very fact -- while poverty has a wide share of white people in its grasp, there's a staggering difference between the numbers of white kids and black kids trying to get a meal or find a home. And, damnit, a white poor kid still has a chance to go to school and to get student loans, to get welfare or to leech – yes, leech – off government programs. Being white, it's hard for other white people in power to look away because they have that commonality in their race.

It's so much more difficult for a poor black person to achieve the same, and were it not for AA, many fewer non-whites, qualified or not, would be getting the education or the employment or the housing they deserve.

[Guest Reika]

No, it's not fair- but I am supposing this opinion varies on who is on what end of the Afirmative Action.

First of all, its racism. I don't care how many people tell me its not; it is. Even my friends in Europe who until I brought it up, were unaware of it, agreed. No its not against "minorities" but its against "majorities" which seem, btw, to really be switching.

Second of all, its pointless. Screw race- whoever is intelligent enough or capable enough ought to be the selected one. I'd feel much better if I was not accepted into college or into a job because someone else had more capabilities than I did.

Third, its superficial and just plain annoying. Can anyone really be proud of an "accomplishment" based on their skin colour? So much for eliminating racism.

I guess the idea is that people will be racist if there was no Afirmative Action. But there still is with it. So what is the better of two evils?

[bookworm51485]

So what is the better of two evils?

I think that's pretty obvious, to have Affirmative Action.

[Guest Adara]

Reika I think that's the problem. Everyone is so paranoid, (some rightly so) that some person on the acceptance board somewhere is gonna say, "Hmm, well, this boy is black, has good grades, but this boy is white, has good grades...lets go with white." and be completely echoed through the whole nation.

To end affirmative actions means that we'd have to trust the acceptance board to make judgement on students solely by their academic background. NOT going to happen. It isn't because there aren't good people out there; its the simple fact that everyone has stereotypes about everyone else embedded in their psyche.

It takes people not only will, but an honest need to WANT to seperate themselves from such judgement. After all, that's why AA is there in the first place.

[Guest Adara]

That is true, but honestly, other than Canada, what other country has such a diversity in people and culture as the United States? We cannot truly be compared to other countries. Japanese schools don't have flocks of either Hispanic or Black people AND white people going to their schools.

Each country has its own set of problems. Ours seem to be race and gender. Oh and orientation. CAN'T forget that.

[Guest echtrae]

One would think that due to that large diversity, the US would be better at integration. Not worse.

[Guest Adara]

Well, it's like invinting everyone to give their opinion on what color a building should be. YOu're bound to get many people to disagree on the color.

Large crowds of people with different backgrounds will do that. North America is just that way I guess.

[Guest echtrae]

Point taken. It just seems that I don't see too many race riots happening in Europe where minorities would therefore be more oppressed.

[Guest Masatar_Torlyl]

I don't usally talk about this because I end up talking to racist asshats. I think people are always going to assume that the minority was given the job because the company needed the quota-- instead of their outstanding merits that are passed over because of race, sexual orientation or gender.

(1) That spits on the minorities that worked hard and applied to get where they were to EVEN be considered to their equally qualified majority counterpart.

(2) Every minority would be born with a silver spoon for a tongue.

Though I applaud whomever came up with that misconception (percentage of truth being miniscule). It is truly a brillant way to divide and conquer.

Pixagi@: Affirmitive action is pretty b-ass-ackwards. Why? Because now we have a shit load of minorities who don't work as hard as they could because they know they don't need to.

Everytime I read or hear that, I picture a lot of PATHETIC members of the majority sitting around doing the same lazy half-assed stuff you said minorities do... and it's funny because of the reflection.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Pixagi@: Affirmitive action is pretty b-ass-ackwards. Why? Because now we have a shit load of minorities who don't work as hard as they could because they know they don't need to.

Everytime I read or hear that, I picture a lot of PATHETIC members of the majority sitting around doing the same lazy half-assed stuff you said minorities do... and it's funny because of the reflection.

...

Like the old racist southern white man sitting on his porch all day bitching about the black people who sit on their porches all day.

[Guest Masatar_Torlyl]

...

Like the old racist southern white man sitting on his porch all day bitching about the black people who sit on their porches all day.

No, pretty much the general youth and I actually think both the majority and minority has a problem with being generation L (L for lazy). Seriously, there are gogetters, users, abusers and just the lazy folks but pinning it one one group is a bit much...