How do I respond to a right-winger who complains about affirmative action and says:

[daedalus_dude]

"Affirmative action is unfair, because it takes the job a certain person would have earned, based on his personal merit, and gives it to someone who is less qualified to do this job but happens to be of the right race/gender to fit the quota. It screws over the people who work hard and effectively helps to perpetuate racism/sexism and a culture of victimhood. Also, a person who is from a minority background still might have a rich background and thus the argument of being underprivileged would not apply in such a case."

I feel that something is flawed in this argument but I can't exactly point my finger on it. Can someone help me out here?

[Skittles]

1. it he a white male?

white males have been given opportunities because they were white males for centuries

[daedalus_dude]

5. So, in essence, it is not supposed to be fair, it is supposed to provide a counterweight

to something that is even less fair and that still outweighs the unfairness of the countermeasures by far.

Does that make sense?

[Skittles]

10. it's just a point

that these white males sure didn't complain when they got all the pie

many white men ALWAYS assume there's a more qualified white male and it simply is not true

[Solomon]

60. To the OP. Just remind your friend that whites got far more out

of affirmative action than anybody else since they made sure to include white women as "minorities". Now whites have two professionals earning big bucks in one household. That's why all the three car garage, swimming pool in the back yard, gated communities have sprung up all over the place.

And it's still not enough apparently.

[rd_kent]

63. I understand your point and agree somewhat

but how does discriminating AGAINST someone because of past treatment further an equal opportunity agenda? Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[Kaleva]

12. Depends on nationality and class.

[tulsakatz]

14. exactly!!

White males generally have not had to struggle as much as women or minorities and he does not appreciate the hardships of that struggle.

A long time ago I used to work in retail. One of my friends approached our boss for a raise. He explained that he would not give her a raise and it had nothing to do with merits. He explained that my friend did not have children and because of that she did not require more money. He also explained that he was willing to give one of the salesmen more money because he had a wife, mortgage and 4 kids!

This was in the 70s but it still seemed very unfair to me.

[ZombieHorde]

19. The race of the one making an argument doesn't matter. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits.

Truths are truths, and falsehoods are falsehoods, regardless of their source.

[imdjh]

26. The funny thing is that our corps have gone to great lengths to make as many jobs idiotproof, ....

.... and workers interchangeable, and then defend decisions allegedly based in merit. The exceptions to this, of course, would be jobs with demonstrable merit. You don't hear anyone claiming bias in those kinds of jobs.

SOme of our systems are totally screwed up though. Being the best at your job doesn't in any rational way mean that you should necessarily be promoted. The world's best car salesman, might be a very good sales manager, and why would you take your best salesman off the floor? God knows, some of the best doctors have the people skills of a prison guard, and have no business supervising other people, much less a department. Others have no business being anywhere near money, budgets, and figures. It would be very hard to pin down a merit based promotion or hire in most businesses. Often it's a feeling, a working knowledge of who does best where.

[NutmegYankee]

2. It doesn't give it to a less qualified person.

It adds a deciding factor for the choice between two equally qualified people.

Edit: Spelling.

[imdjh]

7. In every case?

[B Calm]

48. that's the way it's suppose to work. The right wing has twisted the truth

[Raineyb]

55. Well not so much with George W Bush but then those who make the biggest

stink about affirmative action are usually the same ones who neglect to see how white men have been favored since the founding of this country and are generally unwilling to acknowledge the preference received by people like the chimp.

[imdjh]

56. That sounds like a defense of the claim rather than disproving it.

George Bush didn't get any preference based in his race, his privilege springs from his hereditary wealth and influence. Which brings up an interesting question as we go forward in a nation which currently has a black president, whose daughters will be at least third generation at or better than upper middle class and second generation "rich". Are they now, or will black and mixed race people of independent and inherited means be considered the demon rich so often blamed for all the ills of the world and proclaimed legitimate targets of the animosity of DUers?

[Raineyb]

58. What I'm saying is that Affirmative action will not go away because the

government program is abolished. And frankly, those who most loudly complain about it do so because they want to go back to the days where being white and male automatically puts them at the head of the line.

The shrub has never been considered less qualified (despite the obvious signs of actually being less qualified) because of his legacy status and the affirmative action that he benefited from. In fact, they don't even consider it affirmative action although that is exactly what it is with the difference being who benefits. Those who would assume that a person of color or a woman is less qualified than the white males that are supposedly being denied said job are basically racists and sexists who assume that a white man is better than anyone else period and I don't find them reasonably suited to actual debate and would ignore them as they're unworthy of the time or effort it takes to put up a good argument. The premise that they're working from is a racist and sexist one and I am under no obligation to educate them. I have my own shit to do.

[baldguy]

8. +1

[usregimechange]

3. quota are illegal, strawman. Universities and such can consider it as a factor in their decision

[ZombieHorde]

20. +1 nt

[imdjh]

4. Just say, "You're right. What should we do about it?"

It's like shao lin or something, where you pull in the direction the blow is launched until the mass of the attacker falls on himself.

[ZombieHorde]

21. But the argument is not true. Education is the key in these situations. nt

[imdjh]

24. It would be the rare person in any large organization who hasn't seen it.

They can pretend that there aren't biases and quotas, they can call it "new faces" , "new blood" , or "new ideas", but sometimes it is as blatant as the discrimination it is supposed to have replaced. So why should you make his case for him, or work so hard to convince him otherwise? If he's of a mind to prove it to you, then let him do the work to do so. Of course, you should accept the risk that he's right and be willing to admit that if it is the case. You cannot with any integrity state categorically that affirmative action doesn't take the form described in the scenario, can you?

[ZombieHorde]

25. "affirmative action doesn't take the form described in the scenario, can you?"

I can, because the description in the OP is not AA. The description in the OP probably happens, but it is not AA, it is something else, and it sounds illegal.

[HughMoran]

6. I haven't heard this neanderthal argument since the 1990's

Where did you find this cave-dweller?

[daedalus_dude]

9. The world moves slowly in some places.

[HughMoran]

15. Agreed

I moved from the city to a little hick town and at the local bar some old-school Republican was repeating some Regan era welfare talk (and some other racist BS). It was all I could do not to fall out of my chair laughing. I knew the Republicans in my state were doomed when they had no real arguments left.

[Xipe Totec]

11. would have earned, based on his personal merit?

How do we know?

[mrcheerful]

13. All these folks that are against affirmative action just want the good old days back when business

got away with hiring folks because they were white males. The whole better qualified argument is Bull shit it's just an easy excuse for promoting white males over females and minorities. The closet thing I can think of to compare this with is the old litmus tests given by southern states to black folks, rig the whole thing so no matter how the minority person answered he was bound to fail and not be able to vote in elections. Thats how businesses ran business before AA was made into law, no matter how qualified the minority was he wouldn't get hired or promotions as fast or as often as his white male co worker.

[xchrom]

16. you don't understand affirmative action is you think this has any universal

truth to it.

'and gives it to someone who is less qualified to do this job but happens to be of the right race/gender to fit the quota.'

time and again this has been shown not to be true -- in any MORE cases than it was true that white fols got the jobs and were unqualified.

if you have evidence of universal application that all affirmative action candidates received their jobs without also qualifying for meeting standards -- please supply them.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Affirmative action does not work the way you described in your post.

AA forbids using certain qualities, such as race or gender, to be a consideration for most jobs.

Some White firemen recently sued for violation of AA and they won their case. AA protects all of us.

[malaise]

18. Tell them slavery was beyond unfair

It was criminal.

[ZombieHorde]

22. This is not a good rebuttal because slavery was legal in the U.S. and slavery no longer exists.

A better argument would be to point out the claim is false.

[geckosfeet]

23. Err. The person must be qualified for the position in any event. They either pass

an exam, have experience, or have something that qualifies them for the position. The equal opportunity requirement is meant to tell lily white male organizations to mix it up a little.

[Marr]

27. I can't say how these cases play out the majority of the time. I can only

offer my own personal observations in response to his.

In *my* experience, people who complain about Affirmative Action are usually white men who weren't nearly the most qualified for the position. Blaming their deserved failure on Affirmative Action allows them to maintain the illusion that they're the cream of the crop. It's tough to examine your own failures dispassionately, and this is an easy way to avoid doing it.

It's the same appeal Conservatism makes to working stiffs. 'You're the salt of the earth, morally superior backbone of this country, and you'd be on top of the heap right now if only those liberals hadn't sabotaged you'.

[ShadowLiberal]

28. Use statistics, and use some history to explain it

First a bit of history to explain it.

Think about when blacks were mostly all slaves before the civil war, and then suffered from racism and Jim Crow laws after they were freed. Most of them started out with just about nothing but the clothes on their back. In that kind of a situation the statistics are much more against you becoming wealthy and successful then usual, compared to white people, some of whom were very wealthy already, some of whom are sort of wealthy, and some of whom are poor. Chances are statistically that even the poor whites would be wealthier and more successful in life then the just freed blacks who suffer from lots of racism and having almost no money to begin with.

Now lets explain the statistics part of Affirmative Action. Studies show that if you're raised by wealthier parents you have a much higher chance of becoming wealthy when you're an adult. At the same time if you were raised by poor parents, you have a much higher chance of being poor when you're an adult.

Forget inheritance, that's not the reason for this, the reason is wealthier parents tend to live in better neighborhoods, are able to send their kids to better schools and colleges. Because of this the wealthy parent's kids will likely be smarter then the poor parent's kids, and therefore the smarter kid of the wealthier parents can get better higher paying jobs. It's kind of like comparing how well a kid from a poor country like India will do in life compared to a kid who lives in a richer country like the US. Chances are pretty darn good that the US kid will grow up to be wealthier then the Indian kid, because most people in America are richer then the people in India.

Now your person you're arguing with may say that there's lot of wealthy and well off minorities in this country, and while that's true, they need to look at what percentage of the white population falls into what income categories, and what percentage of other minorities like blacks and Asians and Hispanics fall into the same income categories.

I'm unaware of the numbers on Asians and Hispanics, but like 8 years ago I saw a chart that divided whites and blacks in America into different income categories. The chart found that THREE times as many black people live in poverty compared to white people (I think the numbers were 14% of whites live in poverty, and 42% of blacks, though those numbers are over a decade old, so you should try to look up new ones, and those numbers are actually an improvement from years before then. The poverty gap was even larger in the past, despite the fact that the percentage of whites living in poverty has also gone down over the years to). And that is why we have affirmative action, it's because of stuff like past racism, slavery, etc that causes this large imbalance. Will we eventually even things out? Yes probably, but we're not there yet.

[bemildred]

29. Life isn't fair, Get used to it. nt

[alfredo]

30. What if the only thing that makes the minority disqualified is

being a minority? The right winger is making the assumption that the minority is disqualified.

[fortyfeetunder]

31. Here's the flaw:

"gives it to someone who is less qualified to do this job but happens to be of the right race/gender to fit the quota."


1) What is the "right race"? Like if the hired person was the same race/gender as you, but happened to be your boss' child, would that hurt less?
2) Who are you to assume a person who doesn't look like you from a race/gender POV is therefore, less qualified?
3) Why do you think your qualifications exclusively entitle you to the job?

[CoffinEd]

32. For crying out loud!

"Affirmative action is unfair, because it takes the job a certain person would have earned, based on his personal merit, and gives it to someone who is less qualified to do this job but happens to be of the right race/gender to fit the quota. It screws over the people who work hard and effectively helps to perpetuate racism/sexism and a culture of victimhood. Also, a person who is from a minority background still might have a rich background and thus the argument of being underprivileged would not apply in such a case."

How about you tell the right-winger that many people of color (including myself) feel the exact same way when we are passed over time and time again for jobs/promotions that are given to white men just for being white men. Like you, I feel that something is flawed with the sense of entitlement that some white men have, but I can't exactly point (put, maybe?) my finger on it.

Just saying.

[Bonn1997]

33. Just give them this link:

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

[daedalus_dude]

34. wow. good link.

[SheilaT]

35. Agree with him. And point out that because

of affirmative action, and only because of affirmative action, most upper-level corporate jobs and management are held by women and minorities.

Well, they must be by now since affirmative action has been around for several decades and because of it only unqualified women and minorities get hired or promoted, right?

No? Never mind.

[Iggo]

36. Kick him in the chones.

I don't care what country he's from, one shot in the chones and he's goin' down!

[shraby]

37. Does the person have proof that the "affirmative action"

hiree was not as qualified? That's the hole in this argument..a big gaping hole.

[rucky]

38. Affirmative Action is not the same thing as quotas.

...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aaquotas.htm

http://www.ethnicmajority.com/affirmative_action.htm

Affirmative action is probably the most misunderstood civil rights issue of our time. Opponents believe that it is misguided social engineering that uses quotas and preferences to replace qualified white males with unqualified Ethnic minorities and women. In reality, affirmative action is a tool to promote diversity and remedy inequities in the workplace, higher education, and government contracting. Affirmative action clearly helps African, Hispanic (Latino), and Asian Americans.
What is affirmative action?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination unlawful in the workplace, federally-funded programs, and privately-owned facilities open to the public. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which gave the U.S. Department of Justice the power to take "affirmative" steps to eliminate discrimination. Also during that year, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which gave the U.S. Department of Labor affirmative action enforcement responsibility. A department under the DOL, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, began requiring government contractors to analyze the demographics of their workforce and take proactive measures to remedy any inequality. Over the years, affirmative action has been used as a tool to fight discrimination in other venues, including government employment, corporate America, and admissions to public universities. More recently, affirmative action has come under fire in the courts, mostly because opponents believe that it is a form of reverse discrimination that unfairly penalizes white males for the "sins of the past".
Affirmative action vs. quotas

Perhaps the most controversial issue about affirmative action is whether it uses "quotas". Affirmative action programs should: a) verify that inequities exist, b) set goals to eliminate the inequities, c) set timetables to meet the goals, d) disband the program after the goals are met. Opponents of affirmative action argue that setting a goal is the same thing as instituting a quota, meaning that a specific outcome is mandated rather than highly desirable. For example, if an employer knows that it has a large disparity between the proportion of Hispanics in its workforce versus the general population, it might use affirmative action to target its recruiting efforts toward the Hispanic population in hopes of increasing Hispanic new hires. It should identify a goal of how many Hispanics it wants to hire, at what levels, and in what timeframe. If the employer mandates that a specific job must go to a Hispanic, or that a specific number of Hispanics must be hired, that is a quota.

If affirmative action were just about quotas, you would find that: a) a significant percentage of hires and promotions would go to under-qualified Ethnic minorities, b) the goals of all affirmative action programs would be met, and within the set timetables, and c) they would be sunsetted. While there are instances in which a more-qualified non-Ethnic minority is passed over for a less-qualified or even under-qualified Ethnic minority, these cases are few and far between for one simple reason: to institute such a policy makes no business sense whatsoever. The main reason is that the punishment for not meeting the goals and timetables does not justify promoting a lesser-skilled workforce. Employers and agencies can typically comply with affirmative action programs through their efforts more so than their results. That is why although progress continues to be made, most affirmative action programs fail to meet their goals and timetables, and end up continuing rather than being sunsetted.

[NoPasaran]

39. I'd squirt mustard in his eyes

But that's just me.

[lunatica]

40. Tell him that without it the minority person would NEVER get the job

And then ask him if he thinks that's more fair. Explain to him that being a white man used to be the only way anyone could get a job, but now women of all colors and men who aren't white can get jobs. Then if he gets nasty about it ask him if it was fair to bring slaves to do menial labor which they never got any personal benefit out of, or if making women property and second class citizens was fair.

Keep using that word 'fair'

[beac]

41. Ask him if he has a problem with the fact that GWB:

1) got into a prep school/college/grad school his grades didn't merit b/c he was a BUSH

2) jumped over hundreds of average Joes to get a cushy National Guard spot b/c he was a BUSH

3) got a slap on the wrist for drunk driving AND cocaine possession b/c he was a BUSH

4) got multiple jobs, preceded to suck at them but never got fired b/c he was a BUSH


But seriously, affirmative action usually isn't about giving a LESS qualified candidate a job/place in school/grant/etc. but using the race of a candidate as one of the many factors that could make a person qualified.

It would be nice to think that Obama's election has put discrimination behind us, but it just isn't true. And white people (of which I am one) whining about 'unfair' strikes me as pretty pathetic given this country's history.

[immoderate]

42. Affirmative Action Consternation Syndrome.

Let's say that if a desirable position opens, a thousand people apply and a fifth of them are minorities. The top 1% (all things being equal) would be 10 people with two of them being minorities. It's unlikely that if say three people are to be chosen, that a minority would be one of them. (But going strictly by the numbers is misusing whatever metric is chosen.)

If one of the minorities is pushed ahead, then 798 majority applicants feel they lost their chance because of affirmative action. Actually, only one has. Look at the leverage!

--imm

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. Tell him you will agree with him.....

...as soon as he signs a petition to get Clarence Thomas impeached from the Supreme Court, and tells every other racist Repuke he knows to do the same.

[Mendocino]

45. Look at GWB.

He was at most an ordinary student. Legacy at Yale because of Poppy and Gramps. Rich and privileged, he got a jump start not because of merit, but because he fell into a certain demographic. Not a demographic of need or past discrimination, but of class and wealth. If he had been George W. Smith, of more modest means, he would have never attended Yale. People like this start life 5 miles up in a ten mile race.

[Bonn1997]

46. Also, traditional measures of "merit" like standardized test scores underestimate minorities' and

women's abilities (and thus how qualified they are--e.g., you can't know that a white guy with an 1100 SAT score is more qualified than a white woman with a 1020). You may want to read about stereotype threat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
That link has introductory information. It cites the peer-reviewed research studies that you should read if you're interested enough.

Also, you may want to mention the benefits women (including white women) have had from affirmative action. Many people think AA programs focus strictly on racial and ethnic minorities and don't even know that women too are targeted in many AA programs. (Ironically, research has found that people are less opposed to AA programs targeting women than to those targeting Blacks--even though there's no logical reason women should be more entitled than Blacks to help from AA programs.)

[quaker bill]

47. My training

in employment law and affirmative action indicates that this is never the case, at least when AA is done legally. We take "affirmative" steps to recruit well qualified minority applicants to any open position, such as posting the open positions at traditionally black universities. We do the same with internship opportunities. However, in every case, we hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of age, race, or gender. We just take "affirmative" steps to assure a diverse applicant pool.

Most of my hires for professional staff have been women.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Riddled with subject terms...

"Earned the job?" How do you earn the right bo be a fucking janitor? It pre-supposes that employers are somehow required to give youa job just because you've earned it. Maybe you think you've "earned" that job, but the employer might certainly think otherwise.

"More qualified?" Once again, how can a person be "more qualified" to sweep floors. Either you can do the job or you cannot. If the job requires me to pick up 40 pounds, but I'm a freak-show body builder who can bench press a Toyota, and I "more qualified" than the smaller person who can still do the job? It doesn't require lifting 400 pounds. It requires lifting 40. The extra 360 pounds are of no use to the employer.

[daedalus_dude]

51. For jobs with high requirements. Management, technical expert etc.

one can usually say who is probably most qualified by looking at track records.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. CEO of WorldCom? Chief Financial Officer of Enron?

The point here is that nobody in their right mind is going to give a senior management position to somebody without prior experience. But what kinds of experience (and how much) is totally subjective -- somebody with no experience in your particular industry, but who is otherwise qualified, might bring fresh perspectives to your business.

There's an old story about the two guys attending the retirement party of a senior Account Manager who had been with the company for thirty years. One guy remarks that the company is losing thirty years of experience, the other guy responds that the company is really only losing two years of experience, repeated fifteen times over again.

Longevity is not equal to excellence.

[Heidi]

50. My answer would be, "That you assume the non-Caucasion is less qualified

is why affirmative action is still necessary."

Further, I would note the irony in that person complaining about a culture of victimhood.

[daedalus_dude]

52. I think in high-requirement jobs there are pretty objective criteria for "most qualified"

such as track record.

[Heidi]

53. But the rightwinger you quoted in your OP spoke in generalities, and it is bigoted

for one to assume a minority job applicant is less qualified that a non-minority. It is also bigoted for one to assume that Caucasian people in general work harder and more effectively. While it's true that high-requirement jobs often have very objective criteria, that has nothing to do with the assertion you quoted in the OP. That assertion has absolutely nothing to do with objective criteria.

From your OP:

"Affirmative action is unfair, because it takes the job a certain person would have earned, based on his personal merit, and gives it to someone who is less qualified to do this job but happens to be of the right race/gender to fit the quota. It screws over the people who work hard and effectively helps to perpetuate racism/sexism and a culture of victimhood. Also, a person who is from a minority background still might have a rich background and thus the argument of being underprivileged would not apply in such a case."

[Stevenmarc]

54. Anyone that complains about affirmative action isn't ready to hear reason, tell him he's a douchebag

and move on.

[treestar]

57. One way is try to put them on the spot for assuming the white person

would be more qualified. Affirmative action could be seen as an attempt to get the employer to pick the more qualified person, rather than rejecting them for being un-white.

This type of person underneath presumes the white person is always the one more qualified.

The minority person being from a rich background is also highly unusual and unlikely.

[Romulox]

65. The problem with this argument is that race is rarely a requirement for any job

So if two people are theoretically equally qualified, you cannot say that one of them is "more qualified" because of their race.

[Odin2005]

61. It's because AA is not meant to be permanent.

Many critics of AA of many different political stripes have a fear that it is about "buying the votes" of minorities via quotas at the expense of merit. IMO this is a result of not understanding that AA is meant to be a temporary thing.

It's meant to force people to hire minorities long enough for the psychological effects of habituation to overcome prejudices that discourage hiring of minorities. After several generations the prejudices break down and AA becomes unnecessary.

Don't go out and attack this guy as racist, that will just confirm his own political biases. Argue with him reasonable and rationally.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. LISTEN UP: Affirmative action was never meant to hire unqualified people

only to prevent employers from deliberately excluding minorities who WERE qualified. It also required companies to seek out qualified candidates for higher positions from among minorities or women who had been automatically relegated to lower positions.

For example, one of my cousins was a teller at a bank that hired women ONLY as tellers or secretaries, while men with college degrees were automatically trained for management level positions. Under affirmative action, the bank was required to recruit women employees with college degrees and train them for management positions.

However, employers who were opposed to affirmative action used it in a passive-aggressive way to deliberately hire an unqualified African-American or other racial minority. Then they would loudly proclaim that because of affirmative action, they were not allowed to fire that person. Which is nonsense. Affirmative action law doesn't say that you can't fire an unqualified person of any race.

The other passive-aggressive tactic that employers use is to tell rejected white male candidates that they were the best qualified but that "the government" is making the company hire an African-American/a Latino/a woman, etc.

An acquaintance of mine in Portland was fed that line and was pretty angry about it until he happened to meet another white man who had applied for exactly the same position at the same company and had also been told that he was "the most qualified candidate" who would have been hired except for "the government" making the company hire an African-American.

[backscatter712]

64. I'd agree with him in that I don't think minorities should get outright preferential treatment.

When people ask me whether I'm for or against affirmative action, I say what kind? Quotas and other ways of giving preferential treatment for minorities? I'm against it - not because it's "unfair" - I'm a white guy, but I don't think I'm going to have too rough of a time getting work or getting into school even with preferential treatment for minorities. The biggest thing is that preferential treatment just doesn't work as far as giving minorities a hand up. It generates resentment because it reinforces those nasty stereotypes about how minorities are "lazy" or "inferior", and the numbers show it doesn't improve outcomes.

Note that I'm also against preferential treatment in other cases, like legacy admissions to universities (IOW, affirmative action for rich white guys.)

Not that preferential treatment happens in real life very often - it's been ruled unconstitutional - the SCOTUS ruled against quota systems several times.

(Note that I was studying affirmative action in an economics class earlier this semester, and did see the numbers. If anyone wants them, I can dig up some sources. Preferential treatment does not positively affect outcomes for minorities.)

I'm for the other kind of affirmative action - refining hiring and admissions procedures to eliminate racial bias, keep everyone on the same footing, that sort of thing. I'm also for finding other ways to give a hand up - focus efforts on improving schooling for minority kids who have had trouble getting decent education, for example. In other words, things that actually do work.

I can cite the numbers later - right now, I've got class to go to...

[ChoppinBroccoli]

66. Two Points I'd Like To Make

First of all, the scenario your friend painted ASSUMES that the white person is ALWAYS more qualified, which we know isn't true. The irony of the whole situation is that your friend complains about certain people who claim to be victims.............WHILE PAINTING HIMSELF AS A VICTIM. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to throw the albatross around his own neck and cry, "Poor, poor me. I'm a victim." He'll probably tell you discrimination doesn't exist anymore, all the while telling you about how he's been discriminated against. You see the paradox here? He's shooting down his own argument. And the truth of the matter is that he has no idea whether the other people interviewing for a job are more qualified or less qualified. All he sees is a minority get a job that he wanted, and he just leaps to the conclusion that it was the result of Affirmative Action. I know it's hard for you to fathom, but maybe that minority was ACTUALLY more qualified than you. It's a defense mechanism that allows a person to feel good about himself after being passed over. Like a woman who thinks she didn't get the job because the woman who did has bigger breasts (or she compromised her principles by flirting with and/or sleeping with the boss). There's a million of them out there.

Second, as long as racism still exists in this country, there MUST be measures in place to hold it in check. The day racism dies in this country is the day we can do away with Affirmative Action forever. Why don't you start working on curing the disease, rather than complaining about the medicine? Your friend could very easily be making this exact same argument: "Chemotherapy is unfair because it makes people very, very sick and lose all their hair! We should do away with chemotherapy!" Stop whining about people going bald and start worrying about curing cancer. And here's the slam dunk that ends the discussion: By complaining about Affirmative Action, you're actually perpetuating the reason why we need it. The fact that it causes you so much consternation only proves why it's so necessary.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

67. To Borrow A Football Analogy........

Since I love football, I thought I'd throw this little analogy into the pot and see if it boils. Think of the NFL. For the past several years, the NFL has had the "Rooney Rule," where teams seeking a new Head Coach are required to interview a certain number of minority candidates. Is this Affirmative Action? Absolutely. Has it resulted in any less-than-qualified coaches receiving Head Coaching jobs they didn't deserve? Not a one. In fact, it actually OPENED the door for guys like Mike Tomlin, Jim Caldwell, and Raheem Morris (and Leslie Frazier next year) to BECOME Head Coaches.

Now, your friend would probably decry the fact that minority coaches are getting "preferential treatment," and that they're getting jobs over more qualified white coaches. All I have to say to that is look at the last few Super Bowls. Mike Tomlin, Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, et al. And are the qualified white coaches hurting for coaching opportunities? Is Bill Belichick out on the street looking for work, but unable to find it due to the "Rooney Rule"? Are Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher, Mike Holmgren, and a lot of other "qualified" white coaches out there going to have ANY trouble finding jobs next year? You know the answer to that question. That's why the "Affirmative Action is unfair" argument is nothing more than thinly-veiled racist bullshit.

And, if I may add, why isn't your friend out protesting the fact that handicapped people get "preferential treatment" in the parking spaces they get to use? Shouldn't those great parking spaces right up front go to the people most deserving of them (aka rich, white, perfectly healthy men)? See how fun it can be when you just deem someone "more worthy of special favors" simply by their appearance?