Is AA good or bad?

IMO, it's a ridiculous idea, especially the part with having to constantly fill in your race when taking tests, signing up for classes, etc. Publishing those numbers is even more ridiculous and only serves to promote stereotypes (such as that nasty one about genious Chinese).

The worst part? 1st graders having to do this. We've got a system throwing quotes like "You're this kind of person, you're that kind of person" and "you're a minority/different, while you guys are not" into kids' faces down to the age of 6. And you wonder why there's relatively much racism (for such a diverse country) in the States today.

I've made an interesting observation: Children who grow up in a diverse society where they encounter ethnic groups daily do not start segregating before they learn that they are called different things. Shouldn't that tell you something?

More news: If students didn't state their religion, it'd be a lot harder to discriminate between them! There are, say, blonde Buddhists and East Asian christians, you know, just that they are a minority.

I think AA isn't necessary. In work especially, it should be the best man or woman for the job... not the minority or woman that you need so you don't appear discriminatory.

AA is racism, against caucasions, I dont think people get that racism can go both ways. You can be racist against whites,blacks,chinese,japanese,little people, etc.
At a council meeting at a board in Houston, Texas; there was a dwarf that was part of the city council, he was referred to as "Hey, the little guy." by a Affirmative Action black woman, while she called the other members of the council, by there formal titles. The human race will never be able to rid the world of xenophobia or racism, even the so-called " equal rights" leaders such as Jesse Jackson( I refuse to call him a Reverend) called New York "himey-town" a slang term for Jews, the event got little or no media attention, although if a white man of his stature called Africa ( I dont know if I will get banned for saying it so:) )
"n*gg*r land" they would be persecuted for it. Racism will always exist no matter how much we try to stop it.

*Recalls two Norwegian politicians calling a dark-skinned guy "Bongo from Congo" and the massive uproar following it:o*

Light-skinned people are stereotyped as being the oppressors (ie. If I say someone's being racist towards me they won't take me seriously because 'whites don't get harrased as much so you're really whining too much').

East-Asians are stereotyped as being Chinese-born, and highly intelligent. While these stereotypes appear relatively innocent, at least compared to those of Jews and African Americans, but hey, let's say you, if you're, say, white, got stereotyped as being Russian because of that. First time you laugh ('heh, stupid guy'). Tenth time? Less funny? Houndredth time? Highly annoying.

Stereotypes like that are hard to crack down on because they don't sound, to many, like bad stereotypes.

AA's only outcome is more stereotyping, and thus it should be stopped. Issues at school should should be handled on an individual basis, not by generalizing races.

AA is a form a racism... It's the white guy in Government telling the minorities to "vote for him", because "I'll get you in schools and jobs even if your not qualified.."

I say if I apply for a job and I'm qualified to do it. Than I don't get it, because a Hispanic, Asian, or a black person gets it that don't even know what's going on, because they needed 1 more minority to report to the government this year. That is a form a racism, because I didn't get hired, because I was a white male. AA is simply a hypocritical law......

Than the white guy that looses the job to the minority. Thinks "dam he got that job, because he was black" or whatever....

It's politically correct to bash white people... It should be politically correct to not bash anyone...

Quotation is racism. Simple as that.

I was hoping for a debate, but it seems no one disagree (first poll I started that has 100% voting for the same thing), so I guess not.

Affirmitive Action had it's place in the 70's and perhaps the early 80's when the stigma of the fight for civil rights of the 60's was still very much on the minds of Americans.

Unfortunately, today's manifestations of the Affirmitive Action plan exclude more qualified applicants and create a new stigma. That stigma is one that minorities are less qualified intellectually and that they need "extra points" to be equal.

Too often, minority school students are not held to a high standard because their teachers don't think they can do the work. It's time for an end to AA so that minorities can truly be equal now... it had it's place perhaps 30 years ago, but in today's society it's time to put it to rest.

To avoid sounding like a blundering fool on this topic, can anyone explain to me what this "affirmative action" deal is?

The name sure is pretty clueless...

It can mean a few different thing, 'Jais, but the basic idea is this...

AA is a policy that institutions (usually colleges and places of learning) adopt, giving themselves certain quotas of minoritys or women that they are required to reach. They are required to fill these quotas, even at the expense of turning away other more qualified applicants.

I'll give you an example. A college has one spot left in their roster, and two candidates, one white and one black. If they have not filled their minority quota, they will take the black person, even if the white person has a vastly superior grades and qualifications.

The argument against AA is that it's basically racism all over again, except it's not on minoritys. It's on caucasian males.

Bakke v. UC Davis outlawed racial quotas in the late 70's.

Affirmative action simply allows for race to be a factor in hiring, and requires employers to make a good faith effort to increase racial diversity in the workforce. A properly-administered affirmative action program will not result in the hiring of underqualified applicants.

Your right Argath. Those who say that are just taking it to the extreme. No one will hire a drooling 'tard over the qualified canditate, no matter what his color. But, if both candidates are equally qualified, is it right to hire one solely because of his race? Would you like to tell your co-workers that you got your job just because you are black? Is that not akin to a woman saying she got her job because she has tits? Is that something that the feminist movement envisioned, or even wanted? Hardly.

Is it right to admit one candidate to college because his mother immigrated illegally twenty years ago, and the other candidate is refused because his family came from germany two hundred years ago?

AA is a hinderance, this nation has moved on past the time of thinking that those of a different race were less then human. At least in the business sense. If you would refuse a qualified candidate solely because of his race that would be a loss to you. No one says, "Sure, this guy would be able to improve our company profits by 100%, but there is no way I'm hiring a black guy". That isn't gonna happen, not now.