Talk:Affirmative action

Archive

/archive 1 /archive 2

Non Neutral Introduction

The very first paragraph of this article is biased as it uses phrases such as "presumed benefit" and "perceived disadvantage" when referring to the benefits of affirmative action and its need. Such phrases must not be part of the introduction, which should only provide a widely accepted (both by supporters and opponents) definition of what affirmative action is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbir Thomas (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article is suffering from a bad case of Weasel words. Phrases like "some argue that" need a proper citation. There are too many weasel worded phrases in the article, and maybe it should be tagged to point this out. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs "Proponents" section

Right now, there is an "Opponents" section and a "Controversy" section, both of which have a negative connotation toward the subject. A more balanced approach would be to have a "Proponents" section (or some other name if more appropriate) explaining what affirmative action is in neutral terms and then an "Opponents" or "Controversy" section to discuss the opposition to it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is outstandingly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.6.172 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the introduction, which should contain no opinion whatsoever. The discussion of "preferential treatment" is blatantly biased, as I noted in my last edit. --Docmcconl (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just renaming the "Opponents" section "Proponents" since it, like everything else in this article, is written by proponents?? When you are afraid of discussion, try to control what is said so that your POV is the most lucid. This article is a piece of sales literature. How about finding someone who thinks it is a bad idea and letting them write the "Opposition" section instead of setting up "staw men"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerasmus (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Source of Improvement?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is open to the public and seems to be much more neutral. Perhaps an experienced editor or well-meaning Wikipedian could incorporate some of this information? Docmcconl (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem.

I am not in favor of Affirmative Action, but this article seems to be biased in my opinion. Would someone please add the positives of affirmative action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.61.197 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added an "unbalanced" tag to the article based on your concerns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the topic of Affirmative Action, there really are no logical or fact-based evidence of any benefits of the system. According to most surveys, as much as 86% of all African Americans are opposed to Affirmative Action as it implies they cannot get into college based on their own merit. Martin Luther King Jr. preached that he would like to live in a world where his children would be judged exclusively on the content of their character and never on the color of their skin. Affirmative Action is the opposite of what Martin Luther King Jr. intended!PokeHomsar (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

76% of the population knows that 81% of all statistics are made up. Please provide a source for your analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Words have meanings

Affirmative Action has changed meanings, and I have sourced an example. Someone is wishing to delete this without any discussion.

Claim: Affirmative Action in 1961 meant ending discrimination. Today Affirmative Action is used to described programs which provide preferential treatment based on race, examples garaunted admissions to college or employment. If true this is very important. If important it should be kept.

Here is one of what will probably could be many sources:

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/affirmative_action.html

1) Is there a change in the usage of Affirmative Action? 2) Is the change in terms important for the article? 3) Are their better sources to use?

Lets work together instead of reverting without reading carefully or adding our own prejudices, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, basing your agument for the text you wish to include on the source you have presented is not allowed under what Wikipedia calls no original research, particularly the provision called synthesis. You are taking what you percieve as two different uses from two different time periods and making an analysis that the meaning has changed. To include the statement that the meaning of Affirmative Action has changed over time, you would need to find a published reliable source that specifically makes that analysis, not you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's first sentence is fine the way it is. This is an article about affirmative action around the world, not in the United States. Even if the IP editor comes back with sources, the second sentence of the lede isn't the appropriate place to discuss what the term means, and has meant in the past, in the United States. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Not original research, in fact, from my view Malik is engaging in original research by using the modern usage of Affirmative Action when reading Kennedy's exective order.

I've made the sourced claim that Affirmative Action had a different meaning. Here is Kennedy's original executive order: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html

It established:

1) A policy of nondiscrimination 2) Contractors not hire or discriminate or treat employees differently based on race, creed, color, or national origin.

The usage of the phrase "take affirmative action" is being taken out of context in a POV mannter by this edit warrior to mean preferential treatment, which is today's usage. In 1961 Affirmative Action did not have the same meaning it had today, it meant taking action against discrimination by NOT discriminating.

In 1969 Nixon was the first to have a program of garunteed employment for minorities which altered the meaning of Affirmative Action. See original source used paragraph 4: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/affirmative_action.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your interpretation of WP:OR. Also, please sign your posts by typing 4 squiggle signs (~) Thank you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Take Affirmative Action" did not mean "give preferential treatment" It is very clear in the language of the executive order that it was to be a race neutral policy. Today "Affirmative Action" is not race neutral. This is a distinction that is clear as night and day. These differences should be noted in the article.

"Affirmative Action" was clearly directed against White communities right from the beginning. Don't be mislead by nice sounding political correct lingo and any kind of Newspeak. The whole thing is a ploy to mess up society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.252 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To assume that the usage of Affirmative Action in Kennedy's executive order is anything but race neutral is to engage in OR and POV without Source. This is especially bad if you are making these claims as an excuse to delete something from an article. Essentially you're letting one set of OR and POV get by without question, this is a seroious point which I am attempting to address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are making interpretations and analysis yourself which is not allowed. All interpretations and analysis must be done by relaible third party sources. Period. There is no more discussion about this. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source claiming that Kennedy did not want a race neutral policy? In fact, by his own words this was a policy of nondiscrimination. To assume it is anything but race neutral is subjecting this to interpretation. This is not hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please sign you posts (~x4) - little Signbot is getting tired of following you around. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

it'll do what it is programed to do. Now this is only a reveiw of a book but here it states: Anderson next turns to John Kennedy’s and Lyndon Johnson’s push for racial equality. This is the most familiar story in the book. Kennedy’s 1961 executive order is the first use of affirmative action with regard to race, earlier usages focusing on the rights of workers. LBJ strong armed Congress to win passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These revolutionary laws promised an end to discrimination. Both the language and the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act commanded non-discrimination, a color and gender-blind solution to the problem of racism, sexism, and religious discrimination. But, Anderson points out, the colorblind ideal foundered on two practical problems. How do you define discrimination? How do you measure compliance with nondiscrimination laws (p.94)? The answers forced government to look for color and gender in order to create a color and gender-blind society out of a discriminatory one.http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/anderson105.htm

This should get us started on the right direction, though by no means the best source. Here it is once again mentioned that Affirmative action started out as race neutral. By this book and this reviewer it changed from race neutrality and nondiscrimination to racial preferencing out of necessity (enforcment, legal definitions) Whether or not the change is good or bad is not my point, only that there have been two meanings.

This article is dreadful

I can't believe an article on a major topic like this is so bad... wow. It reads like a mediocre high school essay, as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Somebody ought to fix it... not me though, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.83.173 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I am not American and do not understand all the US cultural implications of the term "Affirmative Action" I am unwilling to take on the widespread editing it requires. But currently it is a disgrace, and damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Oak (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is pretty poor at the moment. It is now tagged as needing expert attention. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Implementation Worldwide, there is a template stating that this material should not be in the form of a list, which is a normal wiki style guideline. However, for this particular section where the approaches of various countries are being discussed, I think the list format might actually be the best approach. If Americans -- even -- aren't sure what "Affirmative Action" is, how can anyone cover implementation of the concept (a concept no one can define) in other countries? Hence, a list of countries and their approaches is probably the best (or least-worst) way of formatting this section. Canadian2006 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Observation on Swedish views on affirmative action

Inside the main article, the Swedish view has been marked as questionable (discutable, suspicious). I would like to show that this is not the case, given the Swedish conditions.

US libertarians and conservatives attack affirmative action from a right-wing viewpoint. They believe that equal legal rights plus free market, free elections, freedom of speech, of association and of religion will create sooner or later equal opportunities for everyone, because this is what serves best the interests of the "invisible hand" of market capitalism, and because this is where free democratic processes lead to. They believe that affirmative action will determine people to segregate, see e.g. Allan Bloom's argument about the value of an university diploma for an African-American in The Closing of the American Mind, Part One. Students. Relationships. Race. pp. 91-97 in an 1987 Simon & Schuster paperback.

The Swedes have a combination of market economy with socialist elements (like a strong welfare state). They attack affirmative action from the left-wing, so to speak (left-wing: certainly in comparison to US Republicans and Democrats). They consider that all people should be equal to each other, that all people in society have to get proper education according to their personal merrit. They believe that equality of chances is achieved by giving everyone equal opportunity to develop their personal talents. They believe that their country is defined by the solidarity of its citizens and by equality before the law among their citizens (solidarity of equals). They believe that the best way for the emancipation of minorities is through making use of the social capillarity, like giving their children an education according to their native talents. They fear that when people are treated by the state as being different, sooner or later they will begin to segregate. This segregation would then attack the state as being the union (or solidarity) of equals, and people who realize their differences will begin to quarrel about their differences. They think that the individual should pay allegiance to society (as a whole), not to his/her own majority/minority group. They believe that differences between groups should be a question of personal preference, like in artistic taste, or like a consumer choosing among products at a supermarket. Briefly, their view is that treating people differently leads to less solidarity, more quarrel and more segregation. They don't like the thought that "some are more equal than others".

In making such a comparison between US and Sweden, I have to say that it is much, much easier for a poor Swede to get university education than it is for a poor US citizen to get it. An averagely talented Swedish student of poor descent can be fairly sure he/she is able to enlist for and complete university, if he/she likes to study and works well at doing it. An US student of poor descent has to be excellent in order to receive enough funding for his/her university study. (Perhaps this insight does not apply in all individual cases, but I'm inclined to think that it is statistically sound.)

My insights are based upon background information on US and Sweden, and upon observing the reactive sensibilies of a Swedish colleague student (an anthropologist doing his diversity Master study in Amsterdam). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

previously disadvantaged

"...South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically dis-advancing the others...."

I think the term you were be looking at is "previously disadvantaged", which is highly misleading. There is also a hidden agenda behind that for advancing people in the network of the ANC. Well, that's the whole idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.252 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Studyworld Studynotes

The quote :

“ Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that they are based on collectivism and merely another equal form of discrimination because they can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need.) ”

lists this site as its reference. However, as far as I can tell, the text at this site is merely a homegrown essay. We should look for a better source for this, and the quote itself may need to be modified as well to reflect that we are citing either a court case or an opinion (from a relevant source, not a non-authoritative blogger).

There are probably more like this, both for and against affirmative action, through which we should sift. My guess would be that they are POV-pushing tools. I'll try to take a look perhaps this weekend, and if anyone feels inclined to help, please do. :) WDavis1911 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination

Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination are not the same thing. Positive discrimination is selection based on desirable traits, a completely different concept to affirmative action. Kvparr (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not the place to debate affirmative action. Second, you're just playing semantics. Boiled down to its core, racial discrimination consists of giving a person preference based on their race. In this instance, African Americans are being given a preference based on the fact that they are African American. The pro-affirmative action argument is that this type of discrimination is justified due to slavery, but everyone freely concedes that this is discrimination (the only issue is whether its justified). Much as I'd like to have this debate, this isn't the place to do it, so I'd invite you to take it up somewhere else. Idag (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Walter E. Williams' two articles, Academic Mismatch I and Academic Mismatch II, are worth adding. Asteriks (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia and Republic of Macedonia

Why are they placed in the section "Africa"?--141.20.72.153 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

America's article is seperate

I noticed in the controversy section it makes many mentions to Americans. Doesn't the United States have their own page for their own criticism of affirmative action? It seems that this criticism should be what has been looked at on a global scale, not country. Jwh335 (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much of the article — but especially the criticism — is US-centric. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 07:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just moved the entire section about controversy to the US's page of affirmative action. Jwh335 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the same definition as the United States article. Does affirmative action have a wider scope than race/ethnicity/gender anywhere else in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.3.74 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

It seems odd to me that a section on "opposition" to affirmative action would not even mention that some people oppose affirmative action because they themselves are part of privileged groups and wish to preserve their privileges. Surely not all opponents of affirmative action are advocates of blind meritocracy worried about affirmative action accidentally "devaluing" talented individuals in the targeted groups. The way that section reads now effectively suggests that there is such a thing in this world as deliberate racist/sexist/religious/etc. oppression. - Jmabel | Talk 8:57 pm, January 13, 2009, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

The addition by AlmondMitchell (Talk | Contribs) does not read like "opposition" to "affirmative action" at all, but rather in "support" of the policies, without references if not relying on personal opinion, and seems inappropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The extensive edit appears to be in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and is being reverted. 72.146.112.197 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, good catch. Thanks for reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginnings of Affirmative Action?

I have heard that the "reverse discrimination" lawsuits were started by African-Americans who resented their hirings/promotions based on their race and not their skills/performance. This seems unfathomable to me. I heard it was a White American who started the lawsuits. No one I can think of, short of Jesus Christ, would do anything but cherish the fact they got hired and not question it. (Barack Obama sure hasn't-!!) Does anyone know for sure? And, personally, I do not subscribe to the term "reverse discrimination"; as I feel all discrimination is discrimination no matter what the reason.68.108.211.254 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some kind of bizarre Internet legend. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename the Article

The term “Affirmative action” comes from Kennedy’s executive order 10925. As such, it is specific legal wording dealing with a very specific policy. Even in the US, Affirmative Action only refers to policies instituted in response to the federal mandate. Hence, I recommend renaming the article “Affirmative Action in the United States” to just “Affirmative Action”—that wording only applies to US policies.

When listening to the BBC in a report about hiring practices in France, the proposed policy was referred to as “positive discrimination,” and it seemed both the UK and France understood what this term meant. I propose that this article be renamed to “Positive discrimination,” and that the “reverse discrimination” page to which “positive discrimination currently re-directs be consolidated into a sub-heading of this article. Dolewhite (talk)

Nope. Wikipedia articles go under the most common term for the thing. That's a basic rule of our system. You could create a redirect, if you wanted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Affirmative action" is only the most common name *in the United States*, and what you've got here are a bunch of tags complaining about the fact the article focuses on *The United States.* I'm not saying that the thing most commonly referred to as "Affirmative Action" shouldn't be described in an article called "Affirmative Action." There are separate articles for Reservation in India and Employment equity in Canada, so why should there be none for the very specific federal program of Affirmative Action?

It's also disingenuous to suggest that the most common name is used. Slander and Libel redirect to "Defamation" as a common page. Defamation is probably used less than either of the other two, but it's understood that defamation is the correct term for referring to the broader subject at hand. This is very similar here. Affirmative Action is a very specific set of federally imposed standards. Positive discrimination is the larger subject. If you look at articles cited as a reference for the Reservation in India article, you see very few that mention "Affirmative Action," and most of those that do are either American or translated to English by Americans. That Americans are the bulk of the Anglophone world is irrelevant, as is the misuse of the term. Dolewhite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

This needs a source

In section five, under "implementation worldwide", in the Americas part under Canada, it states:

In some instances, people are hired for jobs who have lesser credentials than other people applying, simply because their status is higher.

Is there a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.4.42 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've indicated that the sentence needs a citation. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral POV?? "No Original Research"??

Now whatever do these "policies" mean? How can *ANYONE* have a neutral POV about such a charged political topic? Every human being in the USA is either benefited or harmed by the group of Government and NGO policies lumped together as "Affirmative Action". How can you be neutral about being helped by some policy? How can be neutral when you are being discriminated against? This is silly. Also, this is a controversy, not a piece of fruit.

"No original research" implies an ex cathedra approach to the subject. "Authorities" have done all that research, of course without bias, and without financial support from organizations with interests both financial and social in the results. Of course let's quote them. Close the book, ring the bell, put out the candle.

The fact is that the subject is controversial, as are most Government policies systematically favoring one race over another, one sex over another, one ethnic group over another. The fact is that the difference between Government enforced discrimination and "Affirmative Action" is that in the first case you like the group being discriminated against, and in the second you do not. Bald but true. The rest is hand waving. In both cases the fact is that the characteristics of the individual people involved are irrelevant and what is important is the group they were born into.

--Zerasmus (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Positive Action

I've provided some further information about Affirmative Action in the UK, particularly All Women Shortlists and the 2009 Equality Bill. I've also added the term positive action as this is more commonly encountered in the UK (as is positive discrimination, but normally only by opponents of positive action). The term seems to be becoming more common in the UK, and (very notably) it is used in the text of the Equality Bill, which will become law this year.Alboran (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative action can be broader than just race or gender.

Affirmative action refers to giving preferential treatment to any specifically targeted group of people, ie. lower class, women, a racial grouping. It can be broader than just race. If a scholarship is given to people in the lower class, that is an act of affirmative action for poor people. If an employer gives a job to people with freckles, that is affirmative action for people with freckles. The point is, the separation properties can be anything and it will still be affirmative action.

~Nate Nuzum

Vandalism?

In the first line of the article; masturbation ethnicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.119.36 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is terrible

I know a bunch of the earlier comments said the article used to be too anti-affirmative action, but now it's way too biased for affirmative action, namely used of the word "myths" before the explanation of an incomplete list of points against it. The biggest argument against it, in my opinion, is that racism is making a judgment or decision based on race, and so, since Affirmative action supports decisions based on race, it is racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.108.32 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done a quick fix here, but the article has been tagged for a long time and needs an overhaul.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Page targetted by banned user Karmaisking

Just a heads up. The active sockpuppet-using banned user Karmaisking has announced that this is one of the pages that he targets. Please keep an eye out for POV pushing by this user's sockpuppets. --LK (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph:

"The claim that one can not redress one form of discrimination by introducing another is a play on words that uses the same word "discrimination" to refer to two different things. Racial, ethinic or sex based dicrimination is based on unfounded, often irrational and deeply ingrained prejudice. Affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists in many societies with a history of discrimination"

Needs work. Lots of work.

They *are* the same thing, you can argue about whether the effects are worth the inherent discrimination, but it's the same damn thing. The author of this basically says "they're different because one is used to fix something bad". Will someone please tweak this paragraph or knock it out all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Next time, don't just remove it. Put your grievance here and the community can work to fix it.PokeHomsar (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Coate-Loury model

Does anyone here know anything about the Coate-Loury model of affirmative action?

Could you put it in?

Or Did I just miss it?

Paulasiri2 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference 30 is a dead link. I'm sorry that I don't have time to do anything more constructive (like try to find the right link and actually fix it), but I thought I'd flag it up.

TimothyMills (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic Affirmative Action

Although the original goal of affimative action was to redress past wrongdoings and discrimination, there is also a more basic goal. That is to provide access to qualified minorities into mainstream society. Even the opponents of current affirmative action policies accept this precept. The way a job description is written for example, may discourage a black person from applying for the job even though he or she may be the most qualified. At this level affirmative action is a necessicity in any society where there are underprivileged classes of people. How far you should go from this base is a matter of debate. The other extreme is to create quotas for segments of society, such as college admissions in which you are required to admit a certain percentage equal to or greater than the percent of the minority in the society. Most affirmative action policies lie somwhere between the base and the quota extreme.