My Views on Affirmative Action
The concept of affirmative action that I am referring to is a government and/or public sector mandate that females and/or non-whites be given preference in employment hiring and college admission. Proponents of this disgusting practice argue that "affirmative action" is a "logical" way of "leveling the playing field" as white males have dominated society for way too long and closed off opportunities to females and/or non-whites.
While affirmative action could be considered an example of "reverse racism," it's more than just that. Affirmative action is often blatant discrimination against whites and/or males, often against white males. It is extremely superficial and bigoted to hire someone or accept someone into college based arbitrarily on gender and/or race.
So then maybe we should allow homosexuals and Jews and Catholics to benefit from affirmative action also? These groups have also been oppressed by society.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Not about gays/Jews/Catholics being oppressed - - that's an existent reality. But I don't think any specific group per se should be able to benefit from affirmative action. In fact, we as a society may even need to redefine the term "affirmative action," or possibly come up with a new name for it altogether.
If society is ever going to overcome racism, we must get rid of any racist forms of affirmative action. The continued existence of current affirmative action misuses will only cause resentment and hostility towards those who benefit from it. And thus, racism and sexism/genderism will continue.
Of course, affirmative action is thought of by many to be "politically correct". Therefore, anal-retentive individuals will continue to push it, selling out their fellow Americans for personal political gain.
Think about this: legally, you cannot be fired based on race or gender. So why should anyone be hired based on race or gender??!!
Yet, why is it that homosexuals, both male and female, can be so easily susceptible to employment termination or military discharge based solely on their sexual orientation?
And yes, I know there are sexist/racist employers, but think about this - - why would anyone want to work for an employer who is going to judge him/her based on race or gender and potential make that employee's work experience a living hell? If such an employer is going to be so ignorant as to judge an employee based on biological circumstances (race, gender, sexual orientation) then that person shouldn't even be an employer in the first place. But being forced to hire based on racial/gender quotas may only cause the employer to resent particular employees even more (especially if the employees are incompetant), and consequently that can be reflected within their work environment and how the bigoted employer treats the employee.
And keep in mind, many times employers will hire based on race and quota voluntarily, which is just as bad because either the employee is conforming to what they perceive to be a need for "affirmative action" in order to make himself/herself look good and to improve the image of his/her company and thus himself/herself as an employer, or the employer is hiring based on a gender or race similiar to his/her own in order to meet his/her own self-fulfilling prophecy.
College entrance based on affirmative action is also unethical and blatantly discriminatory. If females and/or non-whites are given preference over males and/or whites when entering college, that can not only hurt the self-esteem of those being shafted by affirmative action, but also it can potentially jepordize the careers and futures of whites and/or males. I am supportive of giving pre-college educational training/enrichment opportunities through federal aid to underprivileged school districts, and instilling such programs in inner-cities, urban areas, and underprivileged schools to make grants and financial aid available to students from low-income families. But by making arbitrary assumptions to directly "boost" certain people into colleges or careers based on gender and/or race, whites and/or males are consequently being jilted, gypped, oppressed, and discriminated against.
At this point some people will argue that since females and non-whites were oppressed in the past, it is now time for males and whites to experience what that feels like. Well I hate to burst the bubble of the pro-affirmative action camp, but isn't that the exact same principle that was wrongfully applied in the past, only working in reverse? News flash: racism and genderism/sexism have always been morally wrong throughout our past history, and those types of affirmative action programs are only a reversed continuation of racism and genderism/sexism.
Then what's the solution? Well, "affirmative action" needs to be radically redefined if we ever hope to implement and achieve the principles behind it! We each have to individually start out by teaching today' generation and future generations that no one race, gender, or sexual orientation is better nor worse than the other. Society must quit pointing fingers. I am so sick of hearing Oh, well white males were responsible for all the racist/sexist sins of the past, so now their descendants must pay the piper! So who is going to "pay the piper" 200 years from now when white males get tired of being victimized by affirmitive action and began to revolt? Hmmmm...
Another dilemma is that there are now so many different definitions for affirmative action, and various people will use the concept to push different agendas. There are certain programs developed to help the underprivileged and disadvantaged that could be considered "affirmative action", but yet, are not necessarily race- or gender-based. A friend of mine gave me a list of such innovative examples:
A. Federal and/or State funding for public schools to bring all school budgets up to the same level regardless of the wealth or lack of it in the districts they serve.
B. Federally and/or State funded after-school and tutorial programs for kids whose family situations are not conducive to encouraging education or even getting their homework done in peace and quiet.
C. An end to both "legacies" and ACT/SAT scores. The legacies privilege those whose parents have gone to college which is the last group of people that needs a break. The ACT/SATs have been proven to be culturally biased and also to have no relevance to how a student will do in college, so let's stop arguing about how much they should or shouldn't be used in admissions decisions and just not use them at all.
D. Federally and/or State funded day care programs similar to the French creche system which would include preschool exposure to books (just being read to makes a huge difference), art, music, and other experiences that we know have a major impact on how a child later approaches education and, for that matter, life. This system would also alleviate any number of problems for families in which both parents work or single parent families.
These are definitely some good ideas, and I'm sure there are plenty more that would be a great asset to improving our society. But I personally wouldn't exactly classify these types of necessary reforms as "affirmitive action". I suppose I'd call those types of programs "education reform & enrichment" . . . what I like about them (as in the examples my friend gave) is that they would be strongly beneficial to the underprivileged, yet at the same time they are not specifically racially or gender based. What I oppose are types of "affirmative action" where certain groups are favored over other groups to "make up for past injustices," and making premature assumptions about an indvidual based on their genitalia or the color of their skin. I don't see how anyone can morally condone that.
So none of us are without prejudice, and I am no exception. I have prejudice against anyone who supports "turning the tables" or "making things 'right' " by supporting and/or condoning racist and sexist forms of affirmative action. And I doubt I'll ever "overcome" this prejudice until society wises up and uses common sense to hire people based on qualifications, skill, and life experience, not based on biological traits.
Affirmative action proponents will now proceed to tell me that I cannot take affirmative action personally. Well how can I not take it personally when someone is willing to pass me over for employment or college entrance fundamentally based on me being a white male?! Isn't that the same as when non-whites and women are discriminated against based on their race and/or gender? Isn't that the same as discriminating against someone who is disabled? Isn't that the same as firing someone based solely on his/her sexual orientation? How is that any different?!
Some people may accuse me of being to "radical" in my rantings. But I could just as easily accuse someone of being radical for supporting a form of affirmative action that treats miscellaneous citizens like color swatches. Sorry, but there's no getting around it: when used for these "politically correct" purposes, affirmative action is a form of racism/sexism. And racism/sexism is wrong and offensive. Hence, so-called "affirmative action" as we know it today can end up being wrong and offensive.
So yeah, I guess I am a radical . . . a radical for common sense!
My Favorite Links
Dude Power Lexicon
Photo Gallery
My Gallery of Writings
Discussion Board
Take My Polls/Surveys
Sign My Guestbook
View My Guestbook
View My Old Guestbook
Get your own Free Home Page