Affirmative action - Good or bad?

Is affirmative action good or bad?

  • Good

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Bad

    Votes: 53 67.9%
  • In some cases it can be good, but it can also be bad in others

    Votes: 20 25.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Total voters
    78
California actually got rid of Affirmative Action (in public settings such as government agencies and public Universities) a few years back. The result was that Caucasian enrollment rates in Universities went down, Hispanic and Black enrollment rates dipped and then recovered quickly, and Asian-American enrollment rates skyrocketed.

As it turned out the Affirmative Action system was limiting the amount of qualified Asian-American students allowed into University campuses, creating a situation where a program designed to integrate students of color was actually barring a large amount of them from being accepted, while artificially maintaining the amount of Caucasian students higher than it would've been. In fact the group that benefited the most from Affirmative Action (particularly in Universities) were upper-middle class and upper-class White Women.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209

Now would something like this work outside of California? Maybe, maybe not.
 
I'm generally against it although I don't mind it much if it is done is certain cases and in moderation.

But I have seen many instances where the implementation was ridiculous or it included groups like women instead of actual minorities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing
AA doesn't achieve the goals it is intended to achieve. AA can't address the issues that are resulting in the lack of "diversity." Admitting lower achieving students into college doesn't address the issues causing lower achievement. There aren't enough positions to bring everyone up through AA. Even if it did work, the government should not arbitrarily discriminate against citizens.

AA is favored by some persons because it is easier than solving problems and they will mostly never compete with AA hires or admits. It is easy to call for some lower-middle class people to lose out on state college admission when your kid will be legacy at a private college that you can easily afford.
 
Last edited:
Necessary in some contexts given broader inequalities in society. That being said it's like putting a band aid on a shotgun wound. Shoving some token black guys into well paying jobs isn't going to reduce the actual problems in this society.

Tokenism is the worst thing to it since by embracing tokenism the firm overseeing the affirmative action is itself engaging in discrimination. (Note: Originally I put "racism" in place of "discrimination." That was the wrong word choice for a number of reasons and I believe it's part of the reason the expression that something is "racist" has become cliched over the years. People are simply using it in incorrect parameters and are thus dulling its significance and connotation to society at large. People figure that all claims of racism are mistaken when some are legitimate due to the conditioning of all the improper usages of the term.)

As stated before, I support making horizons brighter--but neither color nor sex nor religion need to play a role in that pursuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waffle
Affirmative action doesn't do any good, it devalues real accomplishments and hard work. It's doing the exact opposite of what it's intended to do. It rewards totally capable people for doing less than more intelligent or qualified people
 
Last edited:
This letter was written in 1969 by Judge Macklin Fleming, Justice of the California Court of Appeal, to Louis Pollak, Dean of the Yale Law School.

"The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students.

Such a pairing in the same school of the brightest white students in the country with black students of mediocre academic qualifications is social experiment with loaded dice and a stacked deck. The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites."

"No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training.

Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies.

Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards."

"The American creed, one that Yale has proudly espoused, holds that an American should be judged as an individual and not as a member of a group. To me it seems axiomatic that a system which ignores this creed and introduces the factor of race in the selection of students for a professional school is inherently malignant, no matter how high-minded the purpose nor how benign the motives of those making the selection….

The present policy of admitting students on two bases and thereafter purporting to judge their performance on one basis is a highly explosive sociological experiment almost certain to achieve undesirable results."

Spooky isn't it.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/12/the-amazing-1969-prophecy/
 
I'm not white so I personally benefit from affirmative action, so like why shouldn't I support affirmative action?
3+ year necro to say this.

Because it won't make you more successful, it won't make you happier or healthier and it won't fill that gaping void where your soul is supposed to be.
 
There's basically one group in North America that I believe probably deserves AA in most cases, and that's the various Native American groups that more or less have been handed extremely raw deals and the places they are associated with exist in America are weird legal loopholes that directly deal them a different hand then the rest of the country at birth. It'd be a hilariously different county if, say, natives in the US were able to continually exist in areas which are now the heart of oil country that they historically existed in, for example.
 
I once worked in a healthcare facility that practiced a lot of affirmative action. It worked out as well as you might expect. One of the most interesting things to me though was that the people who benefited the most, proportionally speaking, were West Indian and African blacks, which if you've spent any time around them are quite distinct from the average American Black to the point that they often hate each other. The Africans quite literally often regard the Blacks as niggers, I've even heard them say shit like "that's why we sold you for slaves." The best part is that by and large the Africans I'm talking about are also incredibly privileged in their home countries; the West Indians too but not to as ridiculously disproportionate a standard.
 
If we lived in a meritocratic society I'd be opposed to it. Our society is pretty goddamn far from a meritocracy, so affirmative action is like pissing in an ocean of piss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pseudorandom
Sorry to bring back this thread from the dead but I saw this interesting article about affirmative action and Israel.

Charles Murray's FACING REALITY Ignores How an Invisible Affirmative Action for Jewish Supremacism Boosts Jewish Wealth & Power Way Beyond Merit and How Black Power Is Downstream from Jewish Power

Charles Murray is highly regarded in some quarters, inversely proportionate to the denunciation from other(and more numerous) quarters. Some consider him the American de Tocqueville. Closer scrutiny suggests he’s more a de Cucqueville. Magoo-like Murray is one of the biggest arse-smoochers of Jewish Power. Ever notice he’s NEVER mentioned the Jewish role in the Anti-White Agenda? What real social scientist could have a blind spot that big(or is it just cold feet)?
Which group has the control over the media and academia? Which group has most of the whore-politicians in their pockets? Which group did most to marginalize Murray following the controversy surrounding THE BELL CURVE(and despite Murray’s long career of having toadied up to the Jewish Neocons)? So-called ‘liberal’ Jews(who privately know all about racial differences) viciously defamed him, and his Neocon ‘allies’ mostly stood by muttering the bare minimum of moral support.

And, for all of Alexis de Tocqueville’s admonitions concerning the tyranny of Majority Thought, it’s worth remembering that the current PC or ‘woke’ consensus didn’t originate from the vulgar masses but was disseminated from the top by oligarchic forces in cahoots with academic elites, often for ethnic interests, mostly those of Jews. It can’t be overstated that the current problem didn’t begin as a Majority Thought. The majority-thought of the US used to be pretty awesomely race-ist.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: AgendaPoster
interesting article
Disappointed in Unz, allowing all sorts of low IQ rednecks to "write" for it. Including Anglin, imagine that.
Murray will never do what they want, because Murray has built a reputation and a career, and he wants to do things within the law. Sperging out about Jews 24/7 is guaranteed to make your controversial endeavors fail, additionally nobody wants some gruggs to "lead" their country.
These things must be done step by step, without destabilizing the nation. First you deal with the LGBTQ most egregious stuff, i.e. trannyland. Then with black affirmative action lunacy, re-institute harsh punishments for crime etc. Then with gay shit and public manifestations of sexual deviancy. Then more rabid forms of feminism.
Allowing these grugs to write these aggressive pieces is just destroying your political power.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Super-Chevy454
It is, ironically, most harmful to the people that it is targeted to help. Once people know that AA is happening it makes all members of whatever group is being promoted suspect to everyone else, and tars them with the brush of being a less competent AA admission - even if they are legitimately qualified under the non-AA standard.
 
Back