Talk:Affirmative action/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Positive discrimination?

Positive discrimination redirects here.

Yet, the page does not contain the term, therefore it is a bit confusing for an user looking for positive discrimination. Also, I think positive discrimination is a lot broader.

--Mago Mercurio (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal status of Quotas in United States

The legal status of quotas in USA is much more complex than this article claims. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota#United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmonDhan (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This page is straight up biased

This page is incredibly biased, and given the perceived importance of this issue I am surprised it has been allowed to remain so for so long. The support/critique sections massively fail to reflect the academic research on the subject. The language used tacitly places Affirmative Action in a negative light. The amount of incredible detail and credence given to what are clearly well debunked theories is straight up embarrassing.

For some examples of academic grounding, here is a recent landmark paper establishing AA as the most effective method in corporate settings looking at over 900 institutions:

Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.wallaby.vu.edu.au:2048/stable/30039011

Here is one of, if not the most cited paper of all time clearly establishing the psychology behind AA and why other forms of reparation do little to nothing:

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi-org.wallaby.vu.edu.au:4433/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

Here is another landmark paper establishing the inability of the average person to be neutral (and why that therefore means AA is a relevant response to inequality in politics):

Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.wallaby.vu.edu.au:2048/stable/3694247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riss77 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So, Affirmative action is racism and that is ok? I'm not quite sure Sibyl6sigma7 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Aryanization compared to Affirmative action

Zezen[1] and GizzyCatBella[2] are comparing the anti-racist Affirmative action policy to the Nazi policy of Aryanization. This is deplorable, and Wikipedia should stop this!

[Anon]

---

Copying my comment from Talk:LGBT_history_in_Germany hereto, to save on typing:

See the WP:ASPERSIONS in this SPA's edit history for the context of their claim above.

In very short, I do not compare by wikifying. I guess the other Wikipedian(s) do not, either.

Zezen (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• im lost for words, what an utterly vile and despicable claim. Unsourced, wildly inaccurate, unethical utterly disgusting...to put it politely. I think anyone wanting to add such a claim should be looked into by admins as I think it is indicative of malicious intent. Bacondrum (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union Zhenotdel compared with Affirmative action

I have added Zhenotdel: this time I do *claim* "comparison" and more, while before I had just wikified.

Relevant quotes from RS-es added, plus this one which I failed to integrate in the latter ref, maybe due to the faulty WP UI:

The Soviet government actively recruited women for industrial employment, created affirmative action programs to train female technicians and skilled workers, ...the Party's Women's Department (Zhenotdel), intended to liberate ...  

from "Socialism in One Gender: Masculine Values in the Stalin Revolution" (the third ref.)

Now I am expecting flack that I am a "wildly inaccurate unethical utterly disgusting vile" totalitarian Communist scum in turn. (Or maybe a fascist or a revolutionary feminist? See the sublime and ever-current analysis of these terms in George Orwell: What is Fascism? )

Pinging Bacondrum for such new descriptions and analysis of my motives, as his being "lost for words" resulted in a such trenchant, verdant elucubration as the one hereinabove.

Zezen (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"National Approaches" > "Africa" > "Outcomes"

"Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some positive and some negative. This depended on the approach to and the view of The Employment Equality Act and affirmative action.

Positive: Pre-Democracy, the apartheid governments discriminated against non-white races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past discriminations. Affirmative action also focused on combating structural racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all levels of society and sectors.[40] Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.[28]

Negative: As with all policies, there have also been negative outcomes. A quota system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a workforce. This target affected the hiring and level of skills in the workforce, ultimately impacting the free market.[39][40] Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap between the lower and middle class, which led to class struggles and a greater segregation.[36][40] Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite classes, as well as race entitlement. Some[who?] assert that affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. Negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drove skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to invest in South Africa.[40] As a result of the outcomes of affirmative action, the concept is continually evolving.[40]

South African jurist Martin van Staden argues that the way affirmative action and transformation policies have been implemented in South Africa has eroded state institutions, grown corruption, and undermined the rule of law in the country.[41][42]"

This section is an absolute mess and should just straight up be deleted. Its written in a debate style instead of an academic encyclopedic entry and it's just sloppy. This line in particular: "Negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drove skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth." There's no explanation of how this system "drove skilled labour away", the grammar is atrocious, and wtaf is "bad economic growth". This sounds like a teenager wrote this entry and it's frankly embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C5C1:A460:8D10:1881:6809:E14F (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Affirmative action/Positive action

Hi (please use "they" pronun if needed), Sorry for my english btw,

This discussion before thinking a page fusion (maybe?)

I was traducting gender mainstreming to french and there's an issue: Positive action is redirected -in WP:FR- to Affirmative action (=discrimination positive), in fact it's seems to refer to the same thing, but it's indicated that's a french article of Affirmative action exist, but not for Positive action, so I hesitate to let red links for "positive action" or let the redirection link to "discrimination positive/Affirmative action" and I'm asking what would be better, integrate positive action to affirmative action, or translate to french article "positive action" (even if then we shall meld the 2 articles on Wp:FR, but I pref to avoid too much work, and if positive action isn't eligible in Wp:FR...).

Thanks for paying attention

--Scriptance (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Research

How affermative actions affect in gender inequality 196.189.191.190 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

breaking See Also into sub-parts

That is a very daunting and eclectic list. Would it make sense to break it into sections? nhinchey (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)