Talk:Affirmative action
I don't think the term should be capitalized, but I may be wrong. Especially considering that in the article itself, it isn't in it's second usage. Thoughts? ħuman
02:57, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
- Agree.
GenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 02:59, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Promote negative inaction now!
[edit] Clarence Thomas
Alleging affirmative action against black people one disagrees with politically. That is all.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- He got the "black seat" on the court to replace Thurgood Marshall. That is all. Not saying GWHB was really happy with it. ħuman
06:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- That does not make him a beneficiary of affirmative action. Did it cross your mind for a second that Bush Sr. might have nominated him because Bush was in agreement with his judicial philosophy?
ListenerXTalkerX 06:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- No. Because I am competent at "judging" Bush's political philosophy, and it wasn't in line with Clarecne's. But Bush I had to nominate a "black" to that seat. And Thomas was all he had. ħuman
06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I meant broadly in agreement, like most presidents are with the judicial philosophy of most judges they nominate. And was the seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to which Bush nominated Thomas perhaps also a "black" seat?
ListenerXTalkerX 06:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Broadly, if so, very broadly. GWHB was Republican-lite; Thomas is, sorry, insane hard right wing. Did Bush nominate him to the CCofA in order to have an "affirmative action" SCOTUS nomination available? Perhaps. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
- Oh, come now; the non-racial explanation is starting to sound much more plausible. Again, it is quite usual for presidents and judges to differ in such matters as long as they are on the same side of the spectrum.
ListenerXTalkerX 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, weren't you there? GWHB had to nominate a colored boy to that seat. All he had was Clarence "Coca Cola" Thomas in the bullpen. ħuman
07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, weren't you there? GWHB had to nominate a colored boy to that seat. All he had was Clarence "Coca Cola" Thomas in the bullpen. ħuman
- Oh, come now; the non-racial explanation is starting to sound much more plausible. Again, it is quite usual for presidents and judges to differ in such matters as long as they are on the same side of the spectrum.
- Broadly, if so, very broadly. GWHB was Republican-lite; Thomas is, sorry, insane hard right wing. Did Bush nominate him to the CCofA in order to have an "affirmative action" SCOTUS nomination available? Perhaps. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
- I meant broadly in agreement, like most presidents are with the judicial philosophy of most judges they nominate. And was the seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to which Bush nominated Thomas perhaps also a "black" seat?
- No. Because I am competent at "judging" Bush's political philosophy, and it wasn't in line with Clarecne's. But Bush I had to nominate a "black" to that seat. And Thomas was all he had. ħuman
- That does not make him a beneficiary of affirmative action. Did it cross your mind for a second that Bush Sr. might have nominated him because Bush was in agreement with his judicial philosophy?
Chickenhawk/NHG/The Legal Department indicates that the NHG says Affirmative Action allowed him to dodge the Vietnam draft, if that aids this discussion at all.
gnostic 12:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Top Reference
While I can plainly see that a drop in affirmative action has reduced the number of minorities in Universities, is there any evidence in the reference (or any other) that the students being rejected have equal or higher grades than those being accepted. This is the only way to positively confirm discrimination. If a person is worse than that's a perfectly valid reason for accepting someone else. Hobby (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- If everyone starts on an equal footing, then yes. But the point being made by affirmative action is that they don't. These policies are put in place to assist people who are disadvantaged or underprivileged but have the potential for a good education & career, and hence to aid social mobility, not maintain a rigid status quo where only rich kids from rich kid schools get to go to a decent college. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. Remember, people in poverty don't have the opportunity to change schools if they don't like the school, and worse, the schools' quality tends to vary, and there is an unfortunate positive correlation between school quality and money the district has. Affirmative action is supposed to address that, although I'm concerned that it may be exploited. 173.60.168.240 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Affirmative action was seen as a good thing when it was first started,[citation needed]
Seriously? Lots of people thought it was, but I really doubt that that stands as a general claim. AA has always had a substantial and vocal opposition, no? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- When we don't make it clear whose opinion we're talking about, we can say that pretty much anything "was seen as a good thing". Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The reason I added the fact tag is because affirmative action was to serve white people in its first incarnation, one could argue: "When Affirmative Action Was White demonstrates that all the key programs passed during the New Deal and Fair Deal era of the 1930s and 1940s were created in a deeply discriminatory manner. This was no accident. With the United States still in an era of legal segregation, the powerful southern wing of the Democratic Party provided the framework for Social Security, the GI Bill, and landmark labor laws that helped create the foundations of the modern middle class. Through mechanisms that specifically excluded maids and farmworkers and through laws that kept administration in local hands, the gap between blacks and whites actually widened despite postwar prosperity. The publication of this deeply disturbing work promises to create a national debate on the meaning of affirmative action and the responsibility of government." http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/When_Affirmative_Action_was_White.html?id=cfhneJPcD38C&redir_esc=y
- So one could argue that it was seen as good, which it was, but it's misleading. ·Femilisk³ 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the "Affirmative Action was White" thing was only using the phrase "affirmative action" as a modified term to convey meaning effectively. It wasn't actually called "affirmative action" back then, now was it? "Affirmative action", when it really started out as something called "affirmative action" was mostly a measure against inequality, wasn't it? Your reasoning here seems off. Nullahnung (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that modern linguistic labels cannot be applied to the past?·Femilisk³ 16:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- They can be applied, yes, but a distinction then needs to be made as to which Affirmative Action is meant when you use the phrase, the one of the past or the one that actually started out with the term? In the case of this "Affirmative Action was thought of as a good thing at first" that we are talking about, the one that is meant is the version that was introduced to help minorities get to more equal status. This distinction is very important when we are trying to discuss things in context like here. Nullahnung (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that modern linguistic labels cannot be applied to the past?·Femilisk³ 16:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the "Affirmative Action was White" thing was only using the phrase "affirmative action" as a modified term to convey meaning effectively. It wasn't actually called "affirmative action" back then, now was it? "Affirmative action", when it really started out as something called "affirmative action" was mostly a measure against inequality, wasn't it? Your reasoning here seems off. Nullahnung (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I changed the relevant parts and tried to outline the positive and negative reactions to AA. I've read Katznelson and think that analysis fits in this article, but I kinda think that the article needs to focus on AA in its current incarnation as a way to even out the effects of history, and save the "AA used to be white" material as a distinct section. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's still a bit off to me, I'll have a think and get back to you. Something about not addressing criticisms enough, like "golden skirts". ·Femilisk³ 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. I ain't married to the edits or nothing. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's still a bit off to me, I'll have a think and get back to you. Something about not addressing criticisms enough, like "golden skirts". ·Femilisk³ 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)