This is as cold and hard as facts get.

Affirmative Action: An idea that special privileges are given to individuals based solely on their skin color.

Racism: The idea that one race is better than the other and therefore should be treated differently based solely on the person's skin color.

Tomato, Tomato

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Wouldn't exist without demonstrable evidence of unfair treatment. If you don't like it, you should argue that it is no longer needed based on it's effects or it's purpose. Your definition argument is arbitrary even if it is accurate.

Props from a conservative on a well laid out rebuttable. THIS is how you debate!

How so?

"Wouldn't exist without demonstrable evidence of unfair treatment"

Any idiot with google can find information on this. And it happened recently since June to August of 2018 with Harvard and Ivy League schools being sued for discrimination against Asian Americans through Affirmative Action.

Yes, let's all debate by "not doing research" and just mumble nonsense and make a fool out of ourselves.

LOL! Conservatives? Yeah, sometimes conservatives act as stupid as liberals. This is why I am an independent.

Nice, go for the personal attack. I guess I should have praised your meme first, so you wouldn't get all butthurt.

You could have typed a lot less at me if you were more clear instead of mumbling nonsense.

"Harvard sued for alleged discrimination against Asian American applicants" - The Guardian (June 2018)

"Justice Dept. Backs Suit Accusing Harvard of Discriminating Against Asian-American Applicants" - New York Times (Aug 30, 2018)

"The personal rating kept Asians to 26 percent of admissions in 2013. Harvard then made “demographic” adjustments that further reduced the class to 19 percent Asian, which magically appears to be the same percentage of Asians that's been admitted to Harvard for years. Ivy League schools used similar criteria and methods early in the last century to avoid admitting Jewish students." - Chicago Tribune (June 26, 2018)

--- Maybe you should do some actual research before you comment and make a fool out of yourself.

Take a breath - and re-read. I meant to imply that there is demonstrable evidence of unfair treatment and that clear evidence was needed in order to pass Affirmative Action in the first place. I have been aware of the suit against Harvard.

I'm not sure the meme I am responding to with this quote is well worded either. "so there would be more minorities instead of whites." Isn't the purpose to afford minorities a chance where they were otherwise denied opportunity?

Does this meme imply there was a claim that there weren't enough minorities, but Harvard found there were, instead, too many Asians?

Also, does Harvard set it's own quota that meets or exceeds that required by AA?

(cont...) He had to do his research and found out by comparing students in the region who got accepted in UC Berkeley in the fall that they had lower GPA, lower SAT, lower extra curriculum but got accepted. Only factor was they were of different ethnic background.

Harvard's case they call it a "personality test" and they claim to use some algorithm with it + demographics etc... to calculate their acceptance. But in the end it is all the same thing, just discrimination.

That quote from the Chicago Tribune is from an article where they interviewed John Choon Yoo, a Korean-American attorney, law professor, and author from UC Berkeley. Asian Americans are wising up to this liberal racism and deception.

"I meant to imply that there is demonstrable evidence of unfair treatment and that clear evidence was needed in order to pass Affirmative Action in the first place."

No there isn't. That's implying causal backwards. B/C AA exists, therefore there "must" be a reason of discrimination for it's creation. Correct? Rethink that, that's causal fallacy. Like most things in politics, it was created under political reasons. I quoted you from articles concerning mistreatment of Asian Americans by Ivy League schools to back my point. If you're going to make this point, should you not back it up with some sort of relevant information or evidence as well? Such as "evidence" of discrimination in hiring practices/enrollment back then in 1961 which required the use of AA? (Which btw, I'm sure you'll be able to find b/c I'm sure there are. The question is of course, was there "sufficient" enough to justify AA or was it created again under "political reasons.")

"Does this meme imply there was a claim that there weren't enough minorities, but Harvard found there were, instead, too many Asians? Also, does Harvard set it's own quota that meets or exceeds that required by AA?"

Read my post below about Prop 209 in California. I don't know if Harvard still has "AA" itself. But AA is now a generalize term to describe "any" form of rule/law/policy/effort to judge, hire, enroll base on criteria other than merit qualification for the sake of "diversity." It is in essence, the definition of discrimination.

If we are on a purely academic merit base without consideration of race, sex, religion, etc... top universities in America will be mostly Jews and Asians. This is a statistical fact. Affirmative action discriminates people base on ethnicity, gender, and what not, and gives the applicant spot to someone else who is "less qualified" by merit, but is of desired ethnic/gender background. That is the definition of discrimination.

And this isn't just "recent" as in the Harvard lawsuit, it goes back all the way to 1990s. I know plenty of people who were discriminated by top schools b/c of their skin color. Despite my handle, which is just for fun, I'm Asian. In my other meme, I commented the son of a friend of mine was accepted into UC Berkeley, however b/c they exceeded their "Asian" quota, he was only admitted in the spring semester instead of the fall.

Of course UC Berkeley is not going to just tell you "hey, we have too many Asians." They give you the "generic" letter blah...

I learned some things, thanks for that.

I should not have said AA was passed, I was thinking of Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The "political reason" for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that black/brown people were being treated like trash and were not promoted in organizations as well as there still being much segregation in schools and higher learning institutions.
Are we in agreement now?

"Rethink that, that's causal fallacy. "
No. It is not causal fallacy. Discrimination against black/brown persons in the US is widely known and well documented.

I did just read that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and institutions responded with Affirmative Action policies in order to try to avoid lawsuit citing the Civil Rights Act.

Affirmative Action should continue to be critically analyzed in an effort to avoid abuses and relax standards as the general practice approaches fair treatment for all.

This section QUOTED: To find source, search a quoted section of text.
Thesis under the direction of Dr. Anthony Parent, Ph.D., Professor of History
Prior to 1964, employment discrimination in the United States was rampant.
African Americans, females and other minorities were treated cruelly, creating an
appalling work environment. A number of confrontational events occurred in the 1950’s
and 1960’s that caused minority leaders to push for civil rights changes. To combat the...

TRANSLATION: we libs justify unfair treatment because of unfair treatment.

You've simplified too far. Go and look how people were treated in that time. Your "translation" sounds funny, but it goes nowhere in an argument or debate. What are you justifying and what are you using to justify it?

No, not really, I haven't. That's what the logic of what was said ultimately reduces to.

If we are all about treating people equally, equal opportunity, no amount of discrimination towards equal outcomes can be justified.
I'm not saying there was never a problem, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

In a police force, no black persons were being hired. You must hire at least some black applicants because clearly you are blocking them all.
Later, black applicants are being hired but none are promoted past entry level positions. You are not promoting any black persons, you need to promote some of the black persons.

The truth is, if the government didn't step in and open the workplace and educational institutions to discrimination litigation, we might see a country much like it was in the 60's. Instead, today you can see black persons owning companies, millionaires, serving in Congress, serving on the supreme court, respected members of society.

The truth is, there is unequal treatment today. Black wealth fell more sharply in the housing bubble starting in 2007. Finance sector often fails to serve black communities the same as others. One neighborhood in Detroit could have seen a jump in home ownership by black families, instead loans were not issued because the loans "were not profitable enough" and other speculative groups ended buying up the homes. There are still problems in schools, policing, finance, city planning, waste site selection, and more. Even churches were used to target black communities with predatory lending. Even the SATs are accused of biasing against gender and race.

No amount of discrimination is justified by previous discrimination.

So if I take your wallet, you aren't justified in taking it back?

A more accurate stolen wallet might be:
If I steal your wallet (there is no real way to get it back),
It is still unjust and stealing if you "take back" my sons wallet and my grandson's wallet to "replace" your wallet.

This makes sense because some of the AA practices promote more college admissions among descendants of slaves at the cost of more qualified other students because they are descendants of slaves. The slaves cannot get the education they missed, but their kids/grandchildren may unfairly shove kids and grandchildren out of the way.

Do you think slavery is the only form of racist discrimination that has happened in the US, and no racist discrimination currently happens to living people?

No. Huge disparities exist. Slavery is not the only form. Hiring practices, for example, have been racist in nature. The lending practices in Detroit after the housing bust have at least 'looked' racist.

Nice strawman, not apples to oranges even, more like apples to particle accelerator comparison.

It's not a strawman. Taking your wallet back from a thief is not considered theft, even though it's the same action. AA is not considered racism, since it counteracts racism, even though it's the same action.

Have we mislabeled either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or practices labeled Affirmative Action as discrimination?
If employers and educators were given the chance to stop discriminating against black persons and did nothing, would it still be discrimination to set some number requirement to force un-discrimination?

Yes, it would still be discrimination. As long as you are treating people unequally by law, that is discrimination. Look, again, I never said there was never a problem, but the unequal practice of AA discrimination isn't the answer. You have to change hearts and minds, not apply more discrimination, that just fuels the fires of resentment.

Would it be correct to tell a company that set aside 5 qualified black applicants for 5 less qualified white applicants that it must use the more qualified applicants?

It would be correct to use the most qualified applicants regardless of race.

If we could just find a way to make the rich kids more qualified...

What? You want a socialism paradise with no rich? Hint, think about it because there will still be the poor. Unless we can get to a moneyless society, there will always be a way for the richest to get what they want, "unfairly" and I don't see that happening before we kill ourselves here on earth, because we won't be leaving without the rich being around to drive the economic forces that would be necessary to spread.

I was alluding to the huge discriminatory practices in k-12. Poor schools vs rich ones. Special programs and schooling money offered to kids performing well vs far fewer programs and support offered to kids who are under-performing.

I would suggest you were referring to meritocracy, but you probably aren't. You are arguing against discrimination. There is HUGE amounts of discrimination in k-12 schools nationwide. Most notably with huge amounts of help and assistance and money going to kids who are doing the best while, well, leaving under-performers behind.

That's a fallacy if I ever heard one. What the Democrats have proved time after time is that even when you throw government money by the truckloads at schools that are underperforming, it does little to no good. The reason for the underperforming isn't money, but cultural.

I claim there is much more complexity to the problem than you give it credit for. I didn't claim "dollar fairness" leads to fair treatment. There are several other factors including the way groups are treated in the united states. Ability to learn is not cultural.
What do you mean by cultural? How can you show that under-performing schools are doing so only because of culture? How can you show that poverty is not a factor? How can you show that parental success is not a factor?

Success in education is turning into an arms race where wealthy parents can afford far more advantages than the less wealthy. So it is about being born into the affluent far more than studying hard and working your ass off.

If unfair treatment in one direction corrects unfair treatment in the other direction, then yes, it's 100% justified. Perhaps you have another solution to propose?

What Meme-osis_master is so opaquely trying to say, is that forcing a college to accept more Asians which, in turn, forces out other more meritorious candidates is also discrimination. He would argue that colleges should accept only the best qualified candidates. Apply similar rules for workplace. He does not appear to have suggested doing nothing to fix a problem, but to avoid swinging the pendulum past an equal point. Maybe next he will weigh in on how k-12 schooling picks winners and losers before persons even get to the point of thinking about college.

No, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

As far as a better solution, someone suggested something earlier, qualifications submitted for positions anonymously by number, then the most qualified are given the job/entrance/etc.

23fb81.jpg (click to show)
imgflip.com/i/23fb81

Racism is negative discrimination. Affirmative action is positive discrimination. Similar, but not the same.

And yes, positive discrimination is necessary to counteract the negative discrimination that still exists. Stop being racist and affirmative action will stop being necessary.

There's positive discrimination? LOL! You want to rethink that?

Yes, there's positive discrimination, because even though non-white people can compete with white people just fine, there are racists (like my boss) who refuse to hire them purely because of racism, and need to be legally forced to do so, so that they have equality of opportunity.

So you believe the government has the right to tell a private business owner who he should or should not hire to represent his business? Maybe that accounting firm should be forced to hire that guy with the face tattoos and the chain that connects his nose ring to his ear ring.

I didn't know people could be born with face tattoos and piercings.

Discriminating against people because of their choices is obviously different from discriminating against them because of their melanin content.

If you don't want a black person representing your business, then maybe you should move to a country that wasn't founded on the principle that all men are created equal.

TRANSLATION: AA is discrimination that we Libs like.

I don't *like* AA, but it's unfortunately still necessary. What makes you think I'm a Lib?

Only Libs espouse discrimination ostensibly to fight discrimination, it's a digressive opinion.