Affirmative Action: Jim Webb speaks out.

[Spider-Dan]

One more thing: Politically speaking, why doesn't some group (I would think the GOP would do it) go after AA really hard?  I would think if they were to bring the issue to the forefront, that they'd win in a landslide, in terms of public opinion.  I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be shocked if the supporters of that legislation were even close to 50%.  It seems like a slam dunk for an election cycle, not to mention that the GOP already has very little African American backing, so there's not a lot of risk.

There's a relevant, topical example we can use to answer your question:  laws designed to target illegal immigrants.

I don't imagine that the levels of popular support for illegal immigration are higher than 50%.  Yet when you make laws like California's Prop. 187 in 1994 (which denied all gov't services to any person who is here illegally) or Arizona's recent S.B. 1070, Latinos understand quite well that the law isn't really about getting rid of illegal Polish immigrants.  So by pandering to the majority today, you alienate a large group for the future.  Not coincidentally, since 1994, Republican statewide candidates in California have lost nearly every election; the notable exception (Arnold) won in a recall election, meaning that he did not have to survive a Republican primary (where candidates are forced to run to the right to win - see: Whitman, Meg).  You say that there's not much risk in alienating minority voters when the GOP captures so few of their votes to begin with, but actually pursuing such strategies flirts dangerously close to aiming for your own self-extinction (if you follow demographic trends).

If one wants to argue for the elimination of AA, a reasoned discussion can take place; AA is not a sacred cow.  But to do so immediately after the election of the first black President will appear to minority voters as an attempt to woo the recently-surging anti-minority demographic.  And regardless of whether or not you believe that AA should be eliminated, you'd have to admit that a person who wanted to court said demographic would certainly be well-advised to push an anti-AA agenda in the current environment.

[bsmooth]

I do.  And it is very similar to the law passed in AZ.  When ever there is any sort of economic or other trouble the expedient political thing to do is to get the popular support of the majority to scapegoat all the problems on a minority group.

Alabama's problems will all be solved if we stop offering DL tests in Spanish.
Virginia's problems will all be solved if we end AA.
Arizona's problems will all be solved if it wasn't for thee damn Mexicans. 
Germany's lost WWI and its economy was in shambles because of the Jews. 

It is a very effective political position. 

And you are completely missing the anger of the residents of states who have watched millions of their tax dollars wasted every year going to print and make signs in another language to accomidate illegals.
These coals do not need to be realy stoked, people have been pissed about this type of stuff even during the economic upcycle.
But I guess that is too hard for the elitists to comprehend that people who have been dealing with a crappy situation that the people responsible refuse to address would have strong opinions wether the economy is good or bad.

[TonyB0D]

How do you know this?  Or, more specifically, how can you know this?

If I've ever lost out on a position due to my competitor being a woman, I'm not sure how I would even find out.

because it was an internal job, and i know people higher up that told me that was the case.  Disney hires purely by diversity quotas - HALF of my entire department is female.  HALF!!  it should be like less than 10% women in my field

[Dave Gray]

Virginia's problems will all be solved if we end AA.

I don't believe anyone ever said or insinuated this.

It doesn't matter if AA causes problems or alleviates them.  That's not really the point.  The system itself goes against what this country should be -- our best and brightest based solely on merit.

[bsmooth]

How do you know this?  Or, more specifically, how can you know this?

If I've ever lost out on a position due to my competitor being a woman, I'm not sure how I would even find out.

I know you may never have experienced this or would believe people would admit to it, but it happens. Because it is okay to openly discriminate in job placement and hiring against white males, many people who do the hiring have no problems openly admitting that they were forced to discriminate in order to be sure they were in compliance with AA regulations.
Hell they will tell you with a sullen tone because they could not hire who they wanted or even the most qualified person because of AA.
The sad part is that minority women benefit the most because they belong to two minority groups when it comes to AA hiring.

[Spider-Dan]

Oh, I don't dispute that it happens.  It probably happens more often than you think, and for non-AA reasons; I've worked at companies where the management actively pursued what was known as "the beautification project," which resulted in an overabundance of hot females being hired.  But I'm not sure that I would technically categorize that as "affirmative action," and I seriously doubt that any of the men/ugly chicks who were turned down were told that they weren't hot enough or female enough for the position.

The main counterpoint I was making is that if you were discriminated against because of your age or gender, the only time someone would actually tell you about it is if you are a white male.  So the citing of anecdotes is necessarily going to be one-sided, because no one is going to tell me about the job that I didn't get because of my race.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't if this story is relevent or not....

I KNOW for a fact that a I passed in a course in high school because of my religion.  And it was not because of some sort of gov't mandated program.

My senior year I took German I (I had already taken two years of Spanish).  I did not need to pass the class to graduate.  I didn't want to take the class.  But it was the only class with space that fit my schedule and I was required to take a certain number of credits even though I didn't need to pass even half of them to graduate. 

I did absolutely nothing in that class.  I attended class, cause being truant would get you in a lot of trouble and I wasn't disruptive in class or anything like that.  But I only half heartly paid attention, never did homework, never studied and rarely got a passing mark on an exam.  And learned almost no German.

But I passed the class.  It was the teachers first year teaching.  Her dad had been in the Army during WWII.  Being only 9 years old at the end of WWII to she bore no personal responsiblity for the actions of her nation, however, she could bring herself to fail the only Jew in her class not matter how much he deserved to fail the class. 

[Dave Gray]

There's a relevant, topical example we can use to answer your question:  laws designed to target illegal immigrants.

I don't imagine that the levels of popular support for illegal immigration are higher than 50%.  Yet when you make laws like California's Prop. 187 in 1994 (which denied all gov't services to any person who is here illegally) or Arizona's recent S.B. 1070, Latinos understand quite well that the law isn't really about getting rid of illegal Polish immigrants.  So by pandering to the majority today, you alienate a large group for the future.  Not coincidentally, since 1994, Republican statewide candidates in California have lost nearly every election; the notable exception (Arnold) won in a recall election, meaning that he did not have to survive a Republican primary (where candidates are forced to run to the right to win - see: Whitman, Meg).  You say that there's not much risk in alienating minority voters when the GOP captures so few of their votes to begin with, but actually pursuing such strategies flirts dangerously close to aiming for your own self-extinction (if you follow demographic trends).

If one wants to argue for the elimination of AA, a reasoned discussion can take place; AA is not a sacred cow.  But to do so immediately after the election of the first black President will appear to minority voters as an attempt to woo the recently-surging anti-minority demographic.  And regardless of whether or not you believe that AA should be eliminated, you'd have to admit that a person who wanted to court said demographic would certainly be well-advised to push an anti-AA agenda in the current environment.

Fair enough.  Admittedly, I'm surprised at how much support AA does have.  I looked at some polling data (from over a year ago, granted) and it had nationwide support for AA at about 45% pro (55% against).  That's probably a little bit too high, considering today's environment.

I also read an argument about Webb and how his move is a big risk and (the writer's opinion) won't necessarily help him politically.  It also said, though, that Webb's discussion was not to eliminate AA altogether, but to keep it for American born blacks (whose strife can be traced back to govt. caused slavery), but eliminated for other groups. -- keeping the black demographic, perhaps?