Affirmative Action Banned!

My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.  

It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it: 

2,137,574  ---  YES on stopping AA
1,552,459  ---  NO on stopping AA

Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states. 

It won't be long before African Americans are back in the fields where they belong.

I'm more impressed of Arizona and South Dakota. Much more. I also believe that I need to watch Michigan in order to see how this goes... I believe AA is kinda wrong, but I want to see what the result of a cold turkey ban will be.

>>3

Seriously. If we slippery slope our asses back to Jim Crow-era hiring practices; maybe some of you 'on the fencers' will get the message that discrimination is real. And before any of you white nationalists say anything about "No one has a right to job." let me assure you that the forefathers saw employment as a path to voting and civic duty in America, therefore they considered his pursuit to be one that exemplifies the ideals of American society (and economy).

If the Affirmative Action ban backfires; prepare for your neightboorhoods to get infested by poor angry "firriners" and "bleks".

Affirmative BLACKtion

>>4 Well, I believe that implementing capitalism without regard of the situation could create anti-capitalist backlashes that do more harm than good. When Europe shifted from feudal manorialism to industrialism, people suffered immensely, paving the way for the violent and mostly fruitless 1848 revolutions.

I agree with affirmative action in principle. I would prefer increased law enforcement and children's education for ALL poor people, not just blacks. But the liberals fucked it up as usual. And of course anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, even though they're the ones clearly being racist.

Affrimative action was put in place to prevent racial discrimation at colleges.  Why does the Far Right continue to attack it.  Are they trying to tell us that they hate Equality?

Lets hope not.

Right Winger Exteamsit want a campus that rejcts affirmative action then they should join all the wingnuts at Bob Jones University.

>>8
Affirmative action doesn't prevent racial discrimination. Much like The Nuremburg laws didn't do much to help the German people. It's a lie you see. People lie.

>>4
What is still hilarious is that American companies just go overseas to hire cheap labor, or just pick up the illegal immigrants, so all those white nationalists can bark all they want, they're going to lose some of their jobs to those "firriners".
On the subject of the founding fathers, one of the most influential men on their thoughts, Adam Smith, did not believe in the "Hidden Hand of the Market" gospel, as saw government regulation as absolutely necessary.  Back in his day, a "factory" was 10 people, which would create a closer personal bond between the employer and employees, rather than the faceless higher ups today that void pensions and lay off thousands of dutiful workers.
As long as I see more "PURE CAPITALISM OMG" in America when it is by far the most Capitalist nation in the world, I keep getting the idea that perhaps there is a correlation between America's fall into decadence and poverty as a consequence of loose corporate regulation.

>>12
Wrong, Hong Kong is actually more economically free than the USA.  You fail for lack of knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

>>4

The Government doesn't have a right to tell the private sector who it can hire and who it can fire and for what reason. That's not a White Nationalist argument, that's a Libertarian one.

DO you having any proof.  inpaticular proof from a neutral website?

>>13

This is not an adequate rebuttal to what's being stated by >>12.

>>14

Yes it does. Libertarian arguments should be ways to make people more free. Corporations aren't people and the notion of Corporate personhood is a cruel and shitty joke.

>>16
And how exactly are you increasing a person's freedom by forcing them to hire someone under threat of violence or intimidation if they don't? That sounds rather like you would be limmitting said person's freedoms, not expanding them.

http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/sr=8-11/qid=1163618315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_11/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books

win

>>17
The right to work falls into the category of inalienable rights.  If there is racial or gender discrimination in the hiring practices of a corporation or industry, they ARE infringing on the rights of fellow citizens.

You may not agree with the way the government protects the right to work (i.e. affirmative action), but hiring discrimination IS stepping on the rights of those it discriminates against.

Civil rights = libertarian

affirmative action = branding an entire group of people criminals because a small group of that group branded another entire group of people to be criminals.

I say fuck the whole thng and increase civil rights law enforcement.

>>17

Disparities of the many outweigh the disparities of the few. Why exactly to do you think it's perfectly acceptable for any company not to hire to someone based on the color of their skin? Outside of the supposed "Anti-Libertarian" implications of AA, I'm having a hard time understanding what's Ethically right about denying someone a job based on skin color or anything other than merit.

yes everything not forbidden is mandatory.

>>21
I'm not >>17 and I disagree with 17, but I disagree with you too.

Civil rights = not letting people deny others jobs based on the colour of their skin

Affirmative action = declaring someone is a criminal without trial and that they must compensate others

Trying to pass off affirmative action as meritocratic or pass off civil rights as affirmative action is fallacious. The only positive discrimination that I accept is the gift of increased law enforcement in crime ridden areas. Increased stop searches, gated homeless shelters, harsher penalties for criminals in certain areas etc.. As much as I would love such crime reducing measures to be implemented in my middle class community, I understand that police resources must be diverted to areas where crime is more likely. It should also be done on a non-racial basis. Eliminate crime and the only way people can make money is by working harder.

Problem solved.

>>21
There is nothing ethically right about it.  But affirmative action does exactly that - discriminates against people based on race, sex, etc.

The market gives economic incentives to businesses to hire based on merit.  A business with a better, harder working, and more capable workforce than another business, is going to have that much of an advantage.  Thus, to the extent that a business discriminates, is to the extent that the market will punish said business.

The solution to discrimination is to let the market weed out discriminators, not to support racist/sexist affirmative action programs.

>>24

I like this idea that the market will punish discriminators.  Long term, I think if we just left the market to its devices, discrimination would diminish significantly. 

>>25
Left to its own devices, the market can do some pretty horrible things to society in a very short span of time.  Maybe the carrot (subsidies for hiring minorities or something) would have been better than the stick (Affirmative Action), but government intervention in the economic sphere of some sort is often necessary to benefit society as a whole.

>>24
>>25
>>26

Anyone that thinks the market is going to automatically address and rectify social, cultural and economic disparities when it comes to matters of race hasn't been paying attention to the last 50 years. (Do you even know what Jim Crow was?)

Trying to pass off AA as meritocratic is a fallacy; but sitting back and allowing people like >>3 to entreat certain citizens with "merit" because of their skin pigment is not meritocratic.

I support the limited use of AA because the otherside would rather that whites get hired over other races and I say this, because the otherside hasn't offered any concrete solution to race disparity problems such as these.

Furthermore, there's a really gutless and cowardly assumption that AA gives people jobs who don't deserve it. In the long run AA will help American society become more meritocratic. One day we definately won't need it. But according to recent studies that state that the race disparity has actually grown- now is not that time. 

>>27
The market WILL handle discrimination, given time.  Evolution, not revolution.  Market forces offer economic encouragement to hire based solely on merit. 

Anyhow, affirmative action doesn't work:  (http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/sr=8-16/qid=1163741219/ref=sr_1_16/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books)

>>19
"The right to work falls into the category of inalienable rights."

You have every right to work all you want.  However, once you decide you are going to work for someone else, in exchange for money, you are engaging in a business transaction - your labor, in exchange for money.  Business transactions should remain voluntary.  Both parties should be able to back out of the transaction for any reason they please. 

"If there is racial or gender discrimination in the hiring practices of a corporation or industry, they ARE infringing on the rights of fellow citizens."

They don't have the 'right' to be employed by one of their fellow citizens without the consent of said citizen. 

"You may not agree with the way the government protects the right to work (i.e. affirmative action), but hiring discrimination IS stepping on the rights of those it discriminates against."

No it isn't.  People do not have the right to demand money out of the pockets of fellow citizens without said citizens' consent. 

>>25
Sorry but >>26 and Adam Smith are right. Law must be enforced in order for the free market to work. Liberty and justice are practically the same thing when done properly, which means if you skip out on the injustice of discrimination you reduce everyone's liberty. Don't forget it's not just about black people, a white male could be denied a job because the interviewer doesn't like the religion he follows, shareholders expect the companies they put their money into not to make stupid employment decisions, at the very least companies should declare that they have a racist employment policy.

>>27
I don't support the limited use of AA. I support increaed civil rights law enforcement as a more effective alternative. I am a libertarian and believe discrimination is a crime. It is not within the constraints of a person's liberty and by all means a large company which employs 100% whites should be investigated due to the statistical anomaly. However they can only be declared guilty after their guilt has been proven in a court of law.

Injustice breeds injustice within and without, this is the rule 34 of political science. No exceptions. A liberal could ignore racists who use the government's support of limited affirmative action as propoganda and a libertarian could ignore racists who continue to discirminate even though it costs them money, but it won't do a damn thing. Holistically the strict enforcement of rational justice is always more beneficial than cutting corners here and there.

>>29
I'm not >>19, but I agree on it's points. Once again my argument is simply about the enforcement of justice. A company should not be forced to employ someone to fill a quota, but when employing someone they must not lie to the person about the conditions they are working in and why they are needed. Just as companies must declare their dangerous working environments and ensure that their employees are protected, they must at least prove to prospective employees why they have or have not been employed.

Oh and while affirmative action may include forcing companies to pay workers from a particular group whose services they do not need, civil rights has nothing to do with this.

>>28

Handle it how, though? You still haven't found any solutions. That's the problem. All of what you said, including that link is pure bunk vaguery.

>>29

So you're saying that descrimination is perfectly acceptable in a Democratic Free Nation? In a strive to appear more libertarian/conservative, you're dangerously approaching the same twisted nationalistic socialism that so many despots have used as a crutch to disarm citizens, strip them of their rights and yeah: To exploit and commit genocides against them.

Needless to say; you're pretty much a racist. The debate ends at "Employment is the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness." Sorry, junior...this is America and in theory hiring should be based purely on objective merit.


>>30

It irks me that people like you still approach AA as 'giving someone something they don't deserve'. Where have you seen any indicator for this? Was there an instance where a black man was hired over white man who had more merit? Do you believe he has more merit because he is white? And with thousands of priveleged sons and daughters (most likely white) who certainly have jobs they aren't qualified for or even need- why precisely does it bother you if an unqualified black person get a 'white job' when allowing more blacks into 'positions such as these' addresses the racial disparity?

You entire lot sound like you're defending white privledge.

>>31
>>30 here, I think you are a troll. You cannot seriously have overlooked the fact that race is an irrelevant demographic.

1: Whites who are not racist would be penalised for being racist.
2: Not all blacks and whites have had exactly the same priviledges.
2a: If a black has been underpriviledged due to racism then any non-racial affirmative action program could easily compensate him/her on the basis of discrimination. You don't need institutional racism to stop discrimination.

You can have a few welfare programs if you want, I understand, but if you want to drag race into the equation you can fuck off.

>>32

1. Explain, in great detail, what about America's current culture (and socio-economic structure) has led you to believe that "race is an irrelevant demographic"? What precisely makes this a "fact"?

2. Explain why hiring a meritable black person over an equally meritable white person would be considered a "penality"? Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company? If so: Why?

3. You said: "If a black has been underpriviledged due to racism then any non-racial affirmative action program could easily compensate him/her on the basis of discrimination. You don't need institutional racism to stop discrimination."

Did you type this with one hand? Was the other once crossed?  Which other affirmative action programs could assure that they aren't discriminated against pre-hire? We're not talking about a job at Wal-Mart here. We're talking about the kind of jobs that bring prosperty and push a person further up the social and finanical bracket.

As for me being a troll, I think you should re-read >>31 and... you know... actually respond to the questions posed. I'm not making any bold inflammatory statements here. I'm asking very simple questions that no one, thus far, has been able to answer.

Are these questions really that difficult?

>>33

"2. Explain why hiring a meritable black person over an equally meritable white person would be considered a "penality"? Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company? If so: Why?"

If it is a private company, it should be able to hire whomever it wants, for whatever reason it wants, period.  Whether you consider an infringement of this freedom a 'penalty' or not is really beside the point.  It all boils down to a business transaction - and in order for it to be a just transaction, both parties must agree... INCLUDING the businessman.  Whether he is discriminating or not is really beside the point, as its his property, not yours.  I have every right to sit out on a street corner and pass out lemonade to the general public, and to stop distributing it for whatever reason I want - even if I just don't like the next person who wants some.  It is my lemonade, after all.

>>33

"Needless to say; you're pretty much a racist. The debate ends at "Employment is the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness." Sorry, junior...this is America and in theory hiring should be based purely on objective merit."

It doesn't matter what 'should be', what matters is whose individual rights are in question.  If it was a government enterprise, then it should of course be forced to be blind and hire solely on merit. 

PRIVATE businesses, on the other hand, should be free to do as they please, because they are just that - private.  It is quite simply none of your business what they do with their property.

>>33
1: Race is just a set of genes who's differences are only seen in our top athletes or some aspects of medicine.

2:
Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company?
No.


Did you type this with one hand?
Yes.

Was the other once crossed?
Yes.

Which other affirmative action programs could assure that they aren't discriminated against pre-hire?
More extensive civil rights enforcement involving a government register of people and their skills and companies declaring what type of skills they are looking for so their choices can be reviewed.

Where have you seen any indicator for this?
Quotas.

Was there an instance where a black man was hired over white man who had more merit?
If the quota is set at 5% this means a company which has 96 whites and 4 blacks working for them. They must replace one white worker with a black worker even if the white worker has more merit.

Do you believe he has more merit because he is white?
If a worker has more merit, then it means he has more merit than the other worker.

why precisely does it bother you if an unqualified black person get a 'white job' when allowing more blacks into 'positions such as these' addresses the racial disparity?
It does not bother me if a black person gets a job typically filled by whites.
It bothers me when an unqualified person gets a job due to the irrelevant classification of race and not their actual ability to do the job.
It bothers me when employers discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job.
It bothers me when the government forces employers to discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job.

>>34
>>35
haha wtf, I'm >>32 (and >>36)

fuck off

>>34
>>35
oh and i disagree with you aswell

NEWSFLASH:A black man with a spotless record has the same application chance as a spottier white man in the same age.

In this situation, is the black man an evil lazy fascist racist anti-capitalist unconstitutional feminazi gun-grabber for wanting some leverage?

>>39
The employers are stupid for seeing who will work for the lowest wage.