Affirmative Action: Thoughts?

Can affirmative action ever truly be considered "positive"?

In certain corporate environments across America, if two applicants present nearly identical skill sets and meet all the requirements for a role, the tie-breaker often tips in favor of a woman. We even see instances where companies prioritize female hires exclusively for positions where gender shouldn't play any role in job performance whatsoever.

On one hand, I can see the logic behind pushing for more women in the workforce; they have historically faced systemic bias, from being passed over for promotions to enduring significant wage gaps compared to their male counterparts—not to mention the unfair reality of facing termination due to pregnancy.

But what about the individuals who find themselves sidelined because of these very same "positive" discrimination policies?

Does it make sense to combat one form of negative discrimination by implementing another "positive" one, essentially chasing a version of equality that isn't actually fairness, but merely a forced equilibrium between two extremes? Or would it be more effective to address the root cause of the prejudice within the minds of those making these decisions in the first place?🙂

Look, I’m a huge advocate for affirmative action... I mean, isn't taxation just another form of positive discrimination? At its core, the entire social welfare state is built on that exact principle. You could have Donald Trump complaining that his corporate tax rate is stuck at 20% while some guy like John Doe running a flower shop in Sioux Falls only pays 10%. But hey, that’s just the price the privileged pay for their privilege.

Anyway, like I said, I support positive discrimination—to varying degrees, depending on how many marginalized groups an individual belongs to.
So, to answer your question, here’s a hypothetical:
If you have three applicants for the same job, all with identical qualifications—a white guy in his mid-thirties, a Black man in his late forties, and a Jewish woman in her fifties—and they are all equally capable of doing the work, I’m giving the edge to the Jewish woman. She hits three different marks: she’s a woman, she’s part of a minority, and she’s older. That’s three layers of intersectional oppression right there. Of course, the very fact that, in a vacuum, the thirty-five-year-old white guy would be the one hired is exactly why this kind of action is necessary.

dustymason4 said:Can affirmative action ever truly be considered "positive"?

In certain corporate environments across America, if two applicants present nearly identical skill sets and meet all the requirements for a role, the tie-breaker often tips in favor of a woman. We even see instances where companies prioritize female hires exclusively for positions where gender shouldn't play any role in job performance whatsoever.

On one hand, I can see the logic behind pushing for more women in the workforce; they have historically faced systemic bias, from being passed over for promotions to enduring significant wage gaps compared to their male counterparts—not to mention the unfair reality of facing termination due to pregnancy.

But what about the individuals who find themselves sidelined because of these very same "positive" discrimination policies?

Does it make sense to combat one form of negative discrimination by implementing another "positive" one, essentially chasing a version of equality that isn't actually fairness, but merely a forced equilibrium between two extremes? Or would it be more effective to address the root cause of the prejudice within the minds of those making these decisions in the first place?🙂

No.
If you follow that logic to its natural conclusion, you end up discriminating against the very people you previously (and perhaps wrongly) labeled as privileged.

Take this scenario: if all immigrants were given priority for jobs over Americans under identical conditions, you'd effectively be screwing over the locals. Simple as that. ☕

The phrase "...in certain companies" is really the crux of it. It means we aren't talking about every single business, just those specific ones—which are probably in the minority anyway. So, I guess there isn't much of a danger regarding "reverse discrimination." You know, the idea that we'd start hiring more women than men, or more Black people than white people, and so on. I mean, the actual number of Black Americans in the US tells you quite a bit. If it's possible to hire some guy who only works two hours a day just because he has political connections, then... why wouldn't we just automatically hire every Black person in America? Honestly, I don't think anyone would even notice the difference. 😉 You could say the same thing about the Hispanic community, though their numbers are significantly higher. We probably shouldn't worry about everyone from Latin America or Central Europe flooding in here just to get jobs. And, as for hiring women, that doesn't really count as a way to fight discrimination; they are already hired quite often. The real question, I suppose, is how many of them actually reach those high-level, well-paying executive roles. And it’s much harder to prove discrimination in that context than in basic hiring. Besides, what if it turns out that women are actually better, more capable managers? Maybe they save more money and put the company in a better position over the long haul, whereas men tend to take bigger risks—achieving better short-term gains but worse long-term results. It's a bit like driving, I guess; people traditionally assume men are "better" or faster drivers, yet women seem to have fewer accidents and less severe consequences. Take Iceland—well, let's look at a similar situation where excessive risk-taking and chasing quick profits in banking ruined the economy after the global financial crisis. Now, that country is run by a government that is almost entirely female. It's a lower-risk, more stable approach, simply because that's what the voters wanted. 😍
Some employers, or maybe even the majority of them, might eventually find that women are a better investment for management positions. If that happens, then maybe men would need to be hired through affirmative action just to counter negative discrimination. In that case, it would actually be justified, but I doubt we will see a situation like that in America anytime soon.

Sandra King4 said:Look, I’m a huge advocate for affirmative action... I mean, isn't taxation just another form of positive discrimination? At its core, the entire social welfare state is built on that exact principle. You could have Donald Trump complaining that his corporate tax rate is stuck at 20% while some guy like John Doe running a flower shop in Sioux Falls only pays 10%. But hey, that’s just the price the privileged pay for their privilege.

Anyway, like I said, I support positive discrimination—to varying degrees, depending on how many marginalized groups an individual belongs to.
So, to answer your question, here’s a hypothetical:
If you have three applicants for the same job, all with identical qualifications—a white guy in his mid-thirties, a Black man in his late forties, and a Jewish woman in her fifties—and they are all equally capable of doing the work, I’m giving the edge to the Jewish woman. She hits three different marks: she’s a woman, she’s part of a minority, and she’s older. That’s three layers of intersectional oppression right there. Of course, the very fact that, in a vacuum, the thirty-five-year-old white guy would be the one hired is exactly why this kind of action is necessary.

The idea is to qualify people based on their collective traits. But tell me, what if that Jewish woman happens to be married to some wealthy banker, while that white guy in his thirties is struggling just to make ends meet? Specifically, even though he belongs to the "privileged" group on paper, in reality, he’s the one who's deprived. What happens then? As a man, I've felt that discrimination firsthand... out of maybe thirty applications, I think I only landed two jobs as a guy. And I've had people tell me straight to my face that if I don't start pushing harder in the private sector, I should just aim for a judgeship instead...

goldenpuma84 said:The idea is to qualify people based on their collective traits. But tell me, what if that Jewish woman happens to be married to some wealthy banker, while that white guy in his thirties is struggling just to make ends meet? Specifically, even though he belongs to the "privileged" group on paper, in reality, he’s the one who's deprived. What happens then? As a man, I've felt that discrimination firsthand... out of maybe thirty applications, I think I only landed two jobs as a guy. And I've had people tell me straight to my face that if I don't start pushing harder in the private sector, I should just aim for a judgeship instead...

Even if that Jewish woman is married to a rich banker, she isn't magically exempt from how society treats her. Her status doesn't change the fact that she might still face discrimination based on her faith or gender.
The whole conversation started about balance. If a white guy is part of a minority subgroup, he could always find work elsewhere if certain companies are actively favoring women or specific religious groups. But if a white man is being marginalized simply because of his race—and he's also broke—while a Jewish woman is doing fine financially... isn't that just the same reality we'd see if you swapped the labels around? At that point, does any of the "identity politics" stuff even matter anymore?

I suppose if we start practicing affirmative action for one group, then by default everyone else ends up being unfairly sidelined, which means we might as well

Melissa Lopez25 said:I suppose if we start practicing affirmative action for one group, then by default everyone else ends up being unfairly sidelined, which means we might as well

Well, someone finally pointed out the elephant in the room. 😉

The moment you crown one person a winner, you’re essentially declaring everyone else a loser. Every single act of selection is a form of discrimination, and honestly, any type of discrimination is both positive and negative at the same time... it just depends on which side of the fence you happen to be standing on.

That doesn't mean selection or discrimination can't be a good thing, though... I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to hop on a Greyhound bus if anyone off the street could just grab the wheel without any vetting whatsoever. No selection, no standards? No thanks. I much prefer a driver who actually has the right training and a valid commercial license.

Or take a bank robbery... when someone hits a Chase branch, I don't want just any random bystander getting hauled off to jail. I want the police to discriminate specifically against the thieves, not some innocent passerby.

So, really... it all boils down to the motive (the "why") and the criteria (the "how") behind the discrimination. Since those factors change depending on the situation, you can't exactly give one universal answer to the whole problem.

It's kind of like asking if an anteater is a "good" animal. Sure, they're great at eating ants, but—let's face it—they aren't exactly graceful flyers... even if you tried to toss one into the air. An anteater is great for one purpose and terrible for another... and discrimination works the exact same way.

Grace Bennett8 said:Even if that Jewish woman is married to a rich banker, she isn't magically exempt from how society treats her. Her status doesn't change the fact that she might still face discrimination based on her faith or gender.
The whole conversation started about balance. If a white guy is part of a minority subgroup, he could always find work elsewhere if certain companies are actively favoring women or specific religious groups. But if a white man is being marginalized simply because of his race—and he's also broke—while a Jewish woman is doing fine financially... isn't that just the same reality we'd see if you swapped the labels around? At that point, does any of the "identity politics" stuff even matter anymore?

How can you be sure she’ll face discrimination? Maybe she will, maybe she won't. And even if she does deal with it in other parts of life, that doesn't mean someone else should be discriminated against in a different situation.

Affirmative action always starts by trying to label who is privileged and who isn't, which is incredibly hard to do accurately. It usually stems from a specific ideological standpoint where people are judged by abstract traits that might not even apply to them, but are instead assigned by whoever is making the claim.

Look, from my own experience: I live in a world where everyone says women are the underprivileged group. Maybe they are, but as a woman, I haven't felt it. In fact, I've felt discriminated against at work more than once precisely because I'm a man—part of the group that's supposedly oppressing the other side.

My own run-ins with these abstractions showed me a much different side of reality.

Then there's the minority thing. Because they're small groups afraid of being swallowed up by the majority, they tend to stick together. It's often easier to get things done within their own circles. A Muslim business owner will likely take on a Muslim apprentice; a Mexican lawyer will probably hire a Mexican intern... most of the time, anyway. In a way, because of that sense of solidarity, minority groups often have more fluidity than the majority, which tends to get stuck in its own sense of superiority.

Why would anyone pick a Jewish woman from the 1950s? I guess it’s like saying, "Hmm, I have fresh bread and stale bread; I'll just eat the stale stuff so nothing goes to waste." But by the time you finish the old bread, the fresh one has gone stale too. You never actually get to enjoy the bread. In your case, maybe just swap out "enjoy" for "turn a profit"...