• It is outlandish to claim that a policy that discriminates based on race is not racism.

    There is no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism whether it is aimed against whites, blacks, or anyone else. Also, I think there is a serious error in logic in many of the other responses to this question. Just because something is necessary, or was founded on good intentions does not mean it is not racist. Affirmative action may have had the loftiest goals, and it may have done a lot of good in the past, but it was just as unacceptably racist then as it is today.

  • To hell with affirmative action

    Minorities have gotten special treatment for far too many years. It makes me sick to see politicians bowing down to the NAACP and other civil rights groups. I would like to see more George Wallace's and Strom Thurmond's run for office. We need a politician who will stand up for the white man again.

  • It is the definition...

    Of racism. People who are of color get a boost in admissions just to meet a quota. Now that is crazy. I would feel disgusting if I got into a college because i get OK grades and my mom was a Cherokee. Instead of affirmative action why don't we call it spiting whites, or stealing, or racial discrimination.

  • Racism is the belief that some races are superior.

    It is known that in the past many people were killed due to racism. People believed that some races are inferior and their action was to destroy those races, use them as slaves and other negative actions. AA says some races should get additional help. Thus people promoting AA still think those races are inferior, and thus they are racist. Though the reaction is positive, in the sense they decided to help those people, instead of killing them or using them as slaves.

    Thinking that some people, as a group, are inferior is the major problem here and should be avoided.

  • Equality is the goal

    As a white man from a family of European immigrants, I find this concept, in its current form; totally illogical. Affirmative action, in its current form, deviates from its original purpose: to allow equality for minorities in fields, not to make minorities a quota. The best candidate should be accepted.

  • It wasn't racism when it started. It is now.

    As strange as that may be to read, it's true-back when you had everything determined by race, yes, affirmative action was necessary. It brought many people who were being discriminated against into schools and jobs. But now, now it's not about "make sure very qualified colored person gets into school/workforce over unqualified white person" and more "here are 2 people of equal qualification-minority gets the job." which is, to me, a problem.

    Want a fix? It's simple-in today's world of technology, we can have name and race simply omitted from applications during enrollment/hiring. Base everything solely on their merits. Then, and only then, will names and race be revealed.

  • Yes; it's racist in multiple ways.

    First of all, there is no such thing as "reverse racism". There is only racism.

    Affirmative action is racist against white people because it places them at a disadvantage due to race. Not all whites benefited from racial segregation, and there are white people who are in worse situations than some individuals of other races. An upper class black gets a boost while a lower class white gets no help. Affirmative action also implies that minorities are inherently inferior and require assistance, which is racist.

    And my final point: You can't argue that it's not discrimination. In some other countries, it's called "positive discrimination".

  • YES it is

    Based on economic background, affirmative action is always welcome. Because a poor child wont get as many opportunities as a rich child.

    Using skin color as a criteria and determining diversity based on skin color is disgusting.
    In my opinion, religion makes much more sense to add diversity because it plays a role in diverse skills sometimes. However, I oppose religion too.

    We are no longer tribes who relied on their races when they were barbarians.
    In our modern world, people are only of three kinds: Rich, middle-class, poor

    => Only acceptable criteria for affirmative action is economic background.

  • AA is a racist construct

    Jobs and colleges accept people based on level of skill
    People who actively support affirmative action are effectively saying, "being a minority makes you less qualified for a job, here is your boost so you can force better workers out of a job!"

    Affirmative action says minoritys are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

  • I say yes.

    Let's face it. Asking to be given special treatment just because of your race is in and of itself racism. It's saying "I have the right to special privileges without having to prove my worth."

    Ideally, the best position should go to the qualified and competent. Affirmative Action asks us to ignore that for reasons that are ultimately superficial and arbitrary.

  • If people were treated equally from the start, there would be no need for Affirmative Action.

    Affirmative Action was put into place to allow minorities to have equal opportunities in areas where they could or would otherwise face discrimination. The dissolution of "separate but equal" did nothing to truly make things equal. Affirmative Action does not offer a leg up to anyone that is not already deserving, and that is the most common misconception. Take colleges and universities for example, let's say that a given school can only admit 1,000 students for the upcoming year. They receive 8,000 applicants only 2,000 of which meet their preset qualifications. Affirmative Action says that of those 2,000 qualified applicants, the school must show equity across racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Throughout history, qualified minorities and women faced discrimination even when given equal rights on paper. Affirmative Action ensures that civil rights laws are followed and holds organizations accountable for equality in their admission and hiring practices, etc.

  • Elimination versus inclusion is not racism

    The affirmative action programs are meant to eliminate the injustices of past discrimination practices to create an even playing field for everyone to have an equal opportunity to succeed. How is that racism? The misunderstanding of the intent of affirmative action programs and the manipulation of them are what has created the problems. If people would only look to the intent of affirmative action programs, they are meant to remove discrimination, not to foster more discrimination.

  • It is not racist.

    It is not racist. People seem to forget that for more than 100 years, this country was extremely racist towards people of color and believed them to be inferior to the majority--whites. Affirmative Action allows those that may not have been given the opportunity to attend a school, or a job opportunity to actually attend that school, or receive that job. Admissions or employers don't base people who they admit, that just so happen to be a minority, off of their race solely. If they meet or exceed the requirements, and are a minority, affirmative action allows them the opportunity that may not have been given to them if it did not exist. You people live in an ideal world, there are still racist people who are our admissions counselors, who employ us, and so on. So please, get that through your heads.

  • That's not how it works

    Affirmative action works by setting a bar or criteria for people to meet to be eligible for entry. At that point, everyone in the yes pile is there on their merit. And then affirmative action prevents people of color being discriminated against because of their race; it stops racism against people who qualified just like the whites who are usually privileged.

  • Yes, but no

    If affirmative action is the distribution of benefits according to racial categories, then yes, affirmative action might be racist. But, if that's true, then we have had affirmative action for hundreds of years, through the distribution of racial privilege to whites in the form of unpaid labor of slaves, education, permissions for the generational transfer of wealth, disproportionate freedom from arrest, etc... Etc... If you are making a categorically ethical argument against reverse racism, then you must have a means for undoing the effects of hundreds of years of affirmative action for white persons. If you don't, you're quite obviously a racist.

  • Not having it would

    Not having affirmative action would be like turning a blind eye to to racist behavior believing instead that life is a free contest where best people win, smth similar to the free market utopia. To say that aff. Action is racist is almost like saying that life is being especially good to minorities of any kind

  • "Take the time to research the definition of RACISM"

    I've spent a lot of time trying to determine the actual definition of Racism. Saying affirmative action is racist is similar to how calling out Racism is now Racism to a lot of people. By any definition of Racism superiority, power, inferiority or system is required.
    It may be discrimination but Racism is grasping at straws. Now it may be Racism against whites in another country but saying it is here is grasping at straws!

  • No it is not racist

    We live in a country where underrepresented minorities, aka blacks and hispanics, have always been at a disadvantage. Slavery may have been abolished but they still affect the lives of every single America. Also, reverse racism is not a thing because racism is power + prejudice. Look at black schools versus white schools. White people already have privilege. I'm not saying that all white people are bad, but what I am saying is that we must help the underrepresented. Why is it that everytime we try to do something to help blacks or hispanics it is called "racist"? Maybe it is because the white man does not want to share power and privilege. By the way, affirmative action helps white women A WHOLE LOT. I bet some of you didn't know that.

  • No. It uses race as a way to protect historically discriminated groups.

    AA was established was to combat inequality. When baby boomers were born there were discriminating laws against non-Whites, these laws banned or restricted the daily lives of non-Whites solely on the basis of their heritage. Left to his own accord Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey was reluctant to integrate until 1959, 12 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

    That year Americans approved of interracial major at a rate of 4% vs 96% among Blacks and 84% of Whites today. Those older than 65 approve at a rate of 66% and in the South still only at 77%. By 1967 a court ruling declared antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional but "nonetheless, it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitutions to remove language prohibiting miscegenation. In the respective referendums, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted to remove these laws."

    Racism wasn't just practiced, it was sanctioned by law including discrimination in schooling, the practice of redlining of neighborhoods, unfavorable application of the law, and work discrimination. Before then you could say that there was an "affirmative action" in place in the country favoring White men. They were protected from competing with blacks and other non-whites in athletics, employment, and even dating! The grievances are numerous but we are discussing mid 20th Century to today. In the 1970s that was the first time in American history where people of ALL races were equal in law but not quite in practice. There are still some laws that are being corrected that have their basis on our racist past.
    And there are also racist individuals, a law can be fair but that doesn't mean you'll get a fair police officer, judge, jury, or parole board. We still have some laws that violate voting rights act laws being proposed and others that just darn it seem to affect certain communities than others.

    I believe that as a country we have come far and the younger generations are truly colorblind and in the near future we won't need affirmative action laws because discrimination will become so rare. I agree that they should be modified if there is an imbalance. I propose that in college admissions a persons race and name be redacted and instead given a number. I think there could be a quota for low income student but isn't necessarily based on race. If Blacks are lower income than Whites then they will benefit disproportionately, but if you are a low income White you also benefit. That way an upper class or rich Black applicant doesn't have an upper hand on those with lower income backgrounds. I think this is a way to combat the consequences of discrimination without being discriminatory in itself. That's just one suggestion on how to balance the need to be fair and the need to protect people of color from a diminishing but still present legacy of racism.

  • Affirmative action is not racist.

    Racism is power + prejudice. Most minorities in this country occupy a fairly low amount of executive positions. It is absolutely necessary that AA continues in schools in order to ensure that minorities are given equal opportunities. If needed, read The Imperative of Integration by Elizabeth Anderson. It gives a great account of the institutionalized discrimination and continued segregation of blacks in the US.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Isaac_TTT says2016-01-21T04:31:09.880
I'm Chinese
Chinese =/= White
So it should be easier for me to get into college because I'm not white, right?

According to a statement from Harvard, it's harder to get into colleges than white people.

But it's much easier for an Africa-lesbian-Muslim-adopted, woman, to get into colleges, right?


But why is it easier?
Because of Affirmative action.
But doesn't that go against the America idea of freedom and non-discriminatory beliefs?


So why is it still around?

I'll let you figure the answer out...