Yeh, Klingon AA - you give the weaker ones phasers instead of knives.

I voted No. I believe that anything you get in life should be deserved and earned through hard work, education, and the skills needed in order to get where you want to go. Nothing Else should ever be a deciding factor. If a person cannot do it, if some else is more qualified because they have the better skills, education work ethic, etc... then that person should get the position because they are the better person for the job. Period. My opinion.

AA is well intentioned, but makes no sense. Throwing someone in over thier head just to hit a quota, or worse, expecting less of them than thier peers because of thier color strikes me as the worst kind of racism.

You want a level playing field? If you are serious about it, you hit the elementary schools and the communities. You make sure every kid walking into a classroom in the 7th or 8th grade IS equally prepared. then you let merit take over after that, without insulting the intelect or dignity of anyone.

I'm supportive of a limited amount of affirmative action in higher education, but it should be based on socioeconomic class, not race. Other college admissions indicators, such as SATs, reflect in part the student's ultimate capabilities but also reflect the quality of college prep programs available to the student. Send a very intelligent person to public school in West Virginia and a moderately intelligent student to Buckingham Brown & Nichols, and at the end of the 12th grade, the moderately intelligent one will have a more enticing college application. It doesn't mean that they'll still be out-performing the other student by senior year of college, though. A limited amount of socioeconomic affirmative action would help cancel out the "my guidance councilor is better paid than your guidance councilor" effect.

I think racially-based affirmative action is unconsciously based on the premise that minorities are all, or at least overwhelmingly, from the ghetto, whereas whites are all, or at least overwhelmingly, middle-class or above. This stereotype is outdated and useless in today's society, not to mention very distasteful in my opinion.

SS

I haven't posted on this thread yet, because we don't really have this in the same way that it exists in the US, and therefore I feel a bit uncomfortable commenting on something I haven't seen close-up.

However, SS47's post has really made me think how, in this country, access to higher education is being eroded for those in the lower socio-economic strata.

Time was, higher education was FREE in the UK for young adults whose parents' income fell below a certain level. What's more, your local education authority would pay a grant to help maintain you without the dire necessity to work your way through university.

I'm under no illusions. If it hadn't been for that fact, I would NEVER have been able to afford to carry on my education after leaving school, and I wouldn't have had the chance to develop myself intellectually to the extent I have.

Nowadays, it's all different, and people are expected to stump up thousands on credit and the prospect of getting good jobs after leaving university. Frankly, that's something that I would certainly have found daunting/off-putting at 17, and I have to imagine that there are a lot of very talented, thoughtful, intelligent young people who deserve higher education who have to turn away from their dream because of the harsh realities of not having enough money. And as such, remain stuck in the underclasses themselves.

While I wouldn't like to see a policy like "Affirmative Action" put in place, I WOULD like to see an introduction of policies which would encourage capable young people from poor families to enter universities without having to worry about whether they're mortgaging their future. Otherwise, society will always belong to those to whom it belongs already, and the rest of us will be cannon fodder when they decide it's time for a nice war.

Minnie, I agree. I think education should be free for everyone and not exclusive to the ones who can afford it.

*HUGZ!*

Whats pink and takes an hour to drink? (uk student joke)

Education is critical, like many others I could have not afforded it today. I would not say its really AA but the duty of a culture to give equality of opportunity to those with the talent and drive (of whatever level). There was once various levels of adult education so you could find your level, not this all or nothing approach today. We are not equal in talents, but deserve the freedom to choose our own path. It is all our resonsibility to respect the choices of others and to maintain all our freedoms from those that reagard us as cattle.

Hmmmm... I'm beginning to hope I haven't hijacked the thread with this. But, I have to agree 100% with what you're saying, LS. I find it so wrong that post-school education is now the privilege of those who, arguably, don't need the benefits it can bring to the same extent as those who are effectively excluded.

So far I am the only vote for yes. It may be because of my age. I have been in restaurants which had NO BLACKS ALLOWED posted on the door. I have seen WHITE ONLY water fountains in use. Affirmative action had its time and place.

I am not sure if it was suspended today that the white male majority would love to go back to Jim Crow days, with literacy tests for voting rights, seperate but equal education etc.

As it is applied now, it may be going to far in the other direction, but I have yet to meet a young white person who was denied entrance to a certain college in favor of a less qualified minority.

And women were among the minority in the '60s.They benefited from much of the civil rights laws that went into effect at that time. Have any of you (females) been asked in a job interview if you were pregnant or planning to become pregnant? I was in my first interview, and it was totally legal. I also couldnt bid on certain jobs in the plant because they were only for men/

Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water if we decide to change affirmative action laws.

This is interesting as different countries have differing bias. In Bristol I can go down to the docks and see the slave rings emedded in the ground. In Wales (where half my family is from) my grandfathers generation were virtual slaves, the company store recycling their earnings back to the owners (and deliberate near destruction of the language) - to call them the US term 'cracker' would be deeply ironic.
The US problems I think had a different character to them, from what I see from this side of the atlantic. It would be intesting to get a view from other countries. I don't like the promotion of the 'us and them' ideas, united we stand, divided...

I think it's important to note that those Jim Crow laws were enacted by government. Additionally, those literacy tests for voting rights, "separate but equal education," etc. were all government instituted and maintained.

Granted, racism was prevalent in the days of the Jim Crow laws, but it was government that fostered that racism and prevented change from happening. If any forward-thinking white owners of business establishments were inclined to serve black people, the owners would get in as much trouble with the local authorities as the black people being served in their establishments.

It was this institutionalized racism that served as an obstruction to the evolution of thought that later paved the way for the Civil Rights movement. Just as the institution of Affirmative Action today is serving as an obstruction to better race relations, when members of one race angrily feel that they are being unfairly passed over in favor of another race. It should be noted that not all white people come from advantaged backgrounds, and not all black people come from the ghetto.

As for thinking that the white majority would love to go back to the Jim Crow days... I have strong doubts that very many business owners – particularly in this economic climate – would be so foolish today as to turn away potential customers based on race, if given the choice. They certainly wouldn't stay in business very long.



See Gratz v. Bollinger

-- Nephele

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMXaTktUfA MLK "I have a dream" speach. One hell of a message but today it seems hate is all the rage, It feels like we are going backwards or something.

But anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action laws are two entirely different issues. Anti-discrimination laws would still prohibit every single example of discrimination that you gave. Anti-discrimination laws say that you must ignore race and gender in making hiring/admissions/etc decisions. Affirmative action policies are actually an exception to anti-discrimination policies, saying that under certain circumstances you SHOULDN'T ignore race or gender, but should pay attention to it (in one manner or another) to make sure you have enough minorities and women.

SS

I bow to to SS and his legal knowledge. you are quite right. I just think people forget what went on to change those horrible things. and about the goverment making those laws. Those laws are probably 90% southern laws, put in place not too long after the civil war, to get around real freedom for those they considered inferior. The Klan had a lot of member in Government............and the majority of the white voters in the south supported those laws.

As for the case sited, I meant I personally didn't know anyone that had that happened, not that it hadn't happened.. I apologize for the mistatement. I am aware of the problem but not sure what the solution is.