A viewer asked this question on 3/20/2000:
Hi! Can you answer? I'd like to know why people think the way they do about Affirmative Action. Any comments, suggestions, opinions, debates would be greatly appreciated.
This question arises from a individual on here:
"Affirmative Action does not treat everyone equally and as all parties want to be equal, changes are being proposed. Florida just went to One Florida where everyone is treated equally. The NCAAP does not want Affirmative Action changed. They want to be equal but when it comes to admission to college, government contracts , they want an advantage. People need to wake up and realize that equal is equal."
Do you think Congress/government should end affirmative action??? Why/why not?
-what do you believe to be the problem or objective of government action?
-what do you think is an effective government action?
-If you have any proposed solutions, why do you think it is a good one, what evidence?
-Who else do you think would agree with you (experts in the field, interest groups, experts, etc.)
_What should congress do?
-Any rebuttals of important arguments against your proposals are welcome.
Feel free to email me at Hien143Alex@hotmail.com
JesseGordon gave this response on 3/20/2000:
I'll answer this question using the same framework as the foreign aid question: with four common political philosophies and their view on affirmative action.
LIBERAL: "Affirmative action is needed to correct past wrongs against minority groups."
The concept here is that minorities, particularly women, blacks and Hispanics, have not been treated equally in the past, and in order to speed up the desired result of equal treatment, we favor those groups in the present.
Yes, it's unequal treatment of white males, but the concept is that since white males created the current institutions of society, white males are inherently favored. Hence, until non-whites and non-males are equally represented in institutions of societal leadership (i.e., until they have a chance to create the future institutions), they will not be treated equally, and should be favored at the entry point.
CONSERVATIVE: "Reach out to minorities without quotas"
Most GOP candidates do not try to fight affirmative action entirely, but attack what they consider the most onerous aspect of it - quotas. Giving minority applicants an EDGE in the application process is ok, but giving a GUARANTEE is not. This is the current battleground of affirmative action. Conservatives are fighting to remove fixed numerical hiring requirements.
Acceptable methods under this philosophy might be:
-- Active recruitment of minorities (get more applicants and you get more hires)
-- Adding points to minority test scores (favoring those applicants without a quota)
-- Favoring a minority applicant based on race, if all other factors are equal.
POPULIST: "Racial & gender entitlements are reverse discrimination."
The argument here is that we should not fight past discrimination with present discrimination. Of course, it's true that "affirmative action" IS discriminatory - to discriminate by race and gender is the policy's stated purpose.
Generally, someone who relies on the "reverse discrimination" argument is really against affirmative action entirely - unlike the "reach out" argument above, where the concept itself is acceptable but certain methods are not.
LIBERTARIAN: "Prosecute racial and gender bias, but stay out of hiring decisions."
The argument here is that the government has always had the ability to fight racial and gender discrimination - via lawsuits against companies or agencies which discriminate. There are already laws on the books against that, and all that is needed is to enforce those laws. Look for companies which actively disfavor women and minorities in hiring and promotion practices, and sue them. Other than that, stay out of companies' business decisions.
You can see he presidential candidates' views on affirmative action at:
http://issues2000.org/News_Affirmative_Action.htm
-- Jesse
Hien143Alex asked this question on 3/20/2000:
Hi! Can you answer? I'd like to know why people think the way they do about Affirmative Action. Any comments, suggestions, opinions, debates would be greatly appreciated.
this question arises from a individual on here:
"Affirmative Action does not treat everyone equally and as all parties want to be equal, changes are being proposed. Florida just went to One Florida where everyone is treated equally. The NCAAP does not want Affirmative Action changed. They want to be equal but when it comes to admission to college, government contracts , they want an advantage. People need to wake up and realize that equal is equal."
Do you think Congress/government should end affirmative action??? Why/why not?
-what do you believe to be the problem or objective of government action?
-what do you think is an effective government action?
-If you have any proposed solutions, why do you think it is a good one, what evidence?
-Who else do you think would agree with you (experts in the field, interest groups, experts, etc.)
_What should congress do?
-Any rebuttals of important arguments against your proposals are welcome.
Feel free to email me at Hien143Alex@hotmail.com
budgetanalyst gave this response on 3/20/2000:
You have a long list of questions to answer, and much of which requires that you express your opinion. You should keep in mind that "affirmative action" is not the same as being equal. Affirmative action is a program aimed at providing opportunities for people who were denied opportunities in the past due to racial or other discrimination. Affirmative action requires that steps be taken to make sure that past discriminatory practices are not perpetuated.
The problems with affirmative action come about by how it ends up implemented and how it is perceived. There is no good way to make sure that past discriminatory behavior and attitudes are not affecting current actions, so various organizations and groups, such as state governments and universities, have come up with different ways of making sure. But these ways will one way or the other either adversely affect another set of people or make them think that they are adversely affected. And courts have found that setting up systems that result in giving preferences based on race or sex is illegal.
What you have to do is come up with a system that makes good on past wrongs due to discrimination and that does not run into these problems. (I do not have a suggestion for you since I have not come up with such a system.) The system that you come up with does not have to be perfect; you simply have to provide an analysis of how it would solve some of the problems and what other problems it could create.
I will give you a hint about Congressional action - it is not needed because the courts are dealing with the issue on a case by case basis.
Hien143Alex rated this answer:
thanks again!