gary sheffield needs afirmative action in sports

[philibusters]

Furthermore, it stupid to think that those who support AA in the U.S. are anti-white.  They may be pro-black, pro-hispanic, pro-native american, or they may value diversity so highly that even though they recognize its frustrating a true meritocracy in some instances, they believe the good generated by diversity outweighs the the inefficiency caused by AA, or they believe in equality, and make an assumption that AA helps create more equality where present day inequality exists (an assumption that may or may not be true) and value that more than inefficiencies caused by AA.

When you take a candidate over a better qualified white candidate because they are not white, that’s being anti-white. Please enlighten me on the “good” generated by racial diversity… I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “diversity”. How is having a business that is ran by high qualified white people not as “good” as a business that has half it’s staff there because they’re non-white?

AA helps create more equality? Let’s look at the definition of equality… “A state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced” … I don’t think AA best describes this definition at all.

They could also have less impressive reasons for supporting AA such as they think they are democrat and thus since democrats support it, it must be a good policy, or everybody they know supports it, so they just assume its a good thing, neither of which is not a good reason to support, but not anti-white. 

Democrats also supported slavery and were at the forefront of segregation. I guess the people who were democrats back then assumed it was good policy.

First I disagree, taking somebody because they are black does not mean you are taking them because they are not white, by that logic you could say you are taking them because they are not asian, Indian, hispanic, middle eastern, native american, et cetera.  If it was about not being white, why are not middle easterns and asian getting preferences?  The fact that they are not, illustrates that there is more than anti-white sentiment behind affirmative action, AA is based on affirmatively helped particularly groups based on policy reasons.  Why is racial diversity good?  Its not, in a society 99.9% white, you probably don't need racial diversity, but in a society, where the plurality race makes up 50% of the population, you want leadership to match the general population.  Hiring minorities allows businesses to find new ways to tap into economic markets comprised of minorities by helping them target those demographics better, somethings brings new backgrounds to problem solving, and help promotes tolerance of others.

I didn't say AA promotes equality and I didn't say it doesn't.  I simply said some people support AA because they think AA promotes equality.  But to respond to what you are saying, even though it wasn't my original point, AA does not describe equality, that much we can agree on.  An abstract definition of equality is no good, you need to focus on policy goals, are we talking about economic equality, social equality, political equality, athletic equality, intellecutal equality, group, individual, et cetera?  If political equality is the measuring stick than no AA does not describe equality, its causing people to have unequal rights, if equality is based on individual basis, then no, AA does not consider individual factors.  On ther other hand if it means social equality and economic equality at the group level, then a good argument could be made and statitics would bear it out, that minorities are less well prosperous and have less influence in society and thus taking affirmative action to remedy leads to greater equality.  Whether the present system actually achieves that, I don't know, but it tries, by trying to create more minority lawyers and such.

Again, your statements about democrats supporting slavery 140 years ago and segregation 50 years ago has nothing to do with what my point was.  My point was that some people who consider themselves democrats support AA solely because democrats do.

[ColdBlue]

First I disagree, taking somebody because they are black does not mean you are taking them because they are not white, by that logic you could say you are taking them because they are not asian, Indian, hispanic, middle eastern, native american, et cetera.

Taking a black, Asian, mestizo, Indian or [insert non-white group] over a white person simply because of race and not merit is being anti-white.

If it was about not being white, why are not middle easterns and asian getting preferences? The fact that they are not, illustrates that there is more than anti-white sentiment behind affirmative action, AA is based on affirmatively helped particularly groups based on policy reasons.

Depends on the school, in “whiter schools”, Asian and Middle Eastern candidates will get preference over a white candidate simply because of this whacko liberal ideology of multiculturalism. 

Why is racial diversity good?  Its not, in a society 99.9% white, you probably don't need racial diversity, but in a society, where the plurality race makes up 50% of the population, you want leadership to match the general population.

 

This goes way deeper than this, you have to look back at politics and ask yourself why white people dropped from 90% of the overall population to around 55%.

http://www.usapopulationmap.com/ - awesome, isn’t it? Thanks to politicians who support the will of the people, we have a sudden turd world invasion after the 1960’s. I don’t think the population would have supported such immigration acts, democracy at its finest.

Hiring minorities allows businesses to find new ways to tap into economic markets comprised of minorities by helping them target those demographics better, somethings brings new backgrounds to problem solving, and help promotes tolerance of others.

It’s perfectly acceptable and logical to hire minorities, but it’s not perfectly acceptable to hire them on the basis of their race. This in no way will ever promote “tolerance” but instead intolerance because now you feel that you done something wrong for being white and see the unfairness.

I didn't say AA promotes equality and I didn't say it doesn't.  I simply said some people support AA because they think AA promotes equality.  But to respond to what you are saying, even though it wasn't my original point, AA does not describe equality, that much we can agree on.  An abstract definition of equality is no good, you need to focus on policy goals, are we talking about economic equality, social equality, political equality, athletic equality, intellecutal equality, group, individual, et cetera?  If political equality is the measuring stick than no AA does not describe equality, its causing people to have unequal rights, if equality is based on individual basis, then no, AA does not consider individual factors.  On ther other hand if it means social equality and economic equality at the group level, then a good argument could be made and statitics would bear it out, that minorities are less well prosperous and have less influence in society and thus taking affirmative action to remedy leads to greater equality. Whether the present system actually achieves that, I don't know, but it tries, by trying to create more minority lawyers and such.

There are a greater overall number of whites living in poverty than blacks simply because of their population size. The entire state of West Virginia is something like ~97% white and one if not the poorest part of the United States. Do they benefit from affirmative action?

I take Ron Paul’s view when it comes to “group’s rights”… I simply don’t believe in them, and they should be abolished because it creates nothing but more racism and prejudice. I’m about the individual’s rights.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

Again, your statements about democrats supporting slavery 140 years ago and segregation 50 years ago has nothing to do with what my point was.  My point was that some people who consider themselves democrats support AA solely because democrats do.

And my point was that some people who considered themselves democrats 140/50 years ago supported slavery and segregation solely because democrats did.