Affirmative Action...

[AG_jr]

Discrimination doesn't violate anyone's negative rights. Where does the right to a job and the right to not be judged based on the color of your skin come from?

Well you could see it that way, or you could see it this way. Negative rights are rights that require no action by anyone else, right? So, if people were to take no action in discriminating, the right to not be discriminated against could indeed be seen as a negative right. Now, the right to a job on the other hand, is obviously a positive right, seeing as how it requires action on somebody elses part.

Did I get that straight? Or am i still confused lol?

[LTUIronDawg]

People should be admitted to school or hired for a job based on their merits and not race/religion/gender. In today's world we should be beyond the need to have a mandate on affirmative action. The biggest problem with affirmative action today is that it is forcing companies/schools to hire people that may not be the best candidates solely for fear of a lawsuit. In my workplace there have been instances where corp. HR mandated that we hire a black candidate if one applied that met the minimum job requirements regardless of who else applied. I think AA is enabling the laziness or people.

I'm getting off the subject a bit but these people that protest and sue claim to want to be treated equally. The reality is they don't. They want special treatment. If we treated everyone equally a lot of people wouldn't get into school or get hired because they wouldn't be given preference based on their race/gender.

[Bigdog13]

Really? A little more explanation how God gave individuals the right to not be discriminated against or the right to a job would help.

It's in the Bible. Do unto others......

OR you could look at where the founding fathers wrote about how God gave us unalienable rights.

BTW You asked the question Guiss.

[Guisslapp]

Well you could see it that way, or you could see it this way. Negative rights are rights that require no action by anyone else, right? So, if people were to take no action in discriminating, the right to not be discriminated against could indeed be seen as a negative right. Now, the right to a job on the other hand, is obviously a positive right, seeing as how it requires action on somebody elses part.

Did I get that straight? Or am i still confused lol?

Close. But you have to look at the underlying action and who is the one incurring the obligation. In the employment context, we are talking about the affirmative obligation to employ someone of a specific race (under whatever circumstances the law dictates). These are laws that obligate someone to do something affirmative.

[Guisslapp]

It's in the Bible. Do unto others......

OR you could look at where the founding fathers wrote about how God gave us unalienable rights.

BTW You asked the question Guiss.

Yes, but is that an entitlement?

[AG_jr]

Close. But you have to look at the underlying action and who is the one incurring the obligation. In the employment context, we are talking about the affirmative obligation to employ someone of a specific race (under whatever circumstances the law dictates). These are laws that obligate someone to do something affirmative.

So how about the discrimination context?

[saltydawg]

affirmative action and forced busing of students were correct and necessary public policy when they were first implemented. However, that was decades ago. Today, the opportunity for any young person to achieve success should be based on personal application. What is holding back some in our society is not race but the inability of parents to plant the seeds of a hard work ethic and personal responsibility in their children.

[Guisslapp]

So how about the discrimination context?

What discrimination context? Discrimination just means the act of making distinctions. This includes picking out tomatos and avacados. You pick the ones you like best. Outside of the context of employment , what type of discrimination are you concerned about?

[arkansasbob]

I doubt white males are the most discriminated sexual-ethno group, but they are the least sympathetic. If they don't watch out for their rights, their rights would be the easist to take.

Close. But you have to look at the underlying action and who is the one incurring the obligation. In the employment context, we are talking about the affirmative obligation to employ someone of a specific race (under whatever circumstances the law dictates). These are laws that obligate someone to do something affirmative.

i don't think jr. was referring to affermative action when he talked about descrimination. you imply in the first quote above that the rights of white males are violated in affirmative action. i agree. but if this is the case, then it is also obvious that any racial descrimination in hiring practices violate an individual's right to fair treatment.

[Guisslapp]

Right. But what does "fair treatment" intail? That can't be a negative right because it requires affirmative conduct.

[arkansasbob]

Right. But what does "fair treatment" intail? That can't be a negative right because it requires affirmative conduct.

sorry, how silly of me. i meant the right not to be treated unfairly.