Should Federal Affirmative Action laws remain on the books?

[KC]

Or should they be repealed?

I don't think they're constitutional. See the enumerated powers + the Fourteenth Amendment. However, someone who believes in Affirmative Action at the Federal level could easily argue that they are still needed, and that we should put an amendment in place to protect them.

So, should we repeal Affirmative actions laws? Are they still needed? Why/not?

[Mister D]

They should probably have never been on the books in the first place. Racial discrimination is wrong or it's not. It doesn't depend on the group being victimized. Secondly, it has not had the effect progressives intended. There has been no reconciliation. Instead, it's provoked resentment and it should have. Nor has it met the goals progressives intended. Blacks and Hispanics continue to lag behind whites and Asians.

[Canadianeye]

Or should they be repealed?

I don't think they're constitutional. See the enumerated powers + the Fourteenth Amendment. However, someone who believes in Affirmative Action at the Federal level could easily argue that they are still needed, and that we should put an amendment in place to protect them.

So, should we repeal Affirmative actions laws? Are they still needed? Why/not?

I believe the original intent of direction was generally good. Then it became murky. Government agencies, contractors and subcontractors who received any funding from the government, could be penalized and punished. (Remember Obamas nobody did/does anything without the government).

Then....that turned into affirmative action quotas, which is the real problem.

[KC]

They should probably have never been on the books in the first place. Racial discrimination is wrong or it's not. It doesn't depend on the group being victimized. Secondly, it has not had the effect progressives intended. There has been no reconciliation. Instead, it's provoked resentment and it should have. Nor has it met the goals progressives intended. Blacks and Hispanics continue to lag behind whites and Asians.

I agree, but it's difficult for me to see what policy would have been a better one if the goal is to lower work place discrimination. Or, there's always the approach of not doing anything, which seems to work well for markets. I'm not sure how well it works though when combating long held racial attitudes, however.

[Mister D]

I agree, but it's difficult for me to see what policy would have been a better one if the goal is to lower work place discrimination. Or, there's always the approach of not doing anything, which seems to work well for markets. I'm not sure how well it works though when combating long held racial attitudes, however.

The state should not be combating our attitudes, racial or otherwise. What a mess we've made of this country.

[garyo]

It was well intended but it was changed and manipulated to benefit individuals and their agendas and in the mean time Whites were passed over in huge numbers for Gov jobs both federal and state levels and that's where it broke the law, and it should be repealed.

[Trinnity]

I think their Constitutionality is shaky as best, and they're outlived their purpose. Time to let them go, imo.

[KC]

The state should not be combating our attitudes, racial or otherwise. What a mess we've made of this country.

This is true. Can the free market combat racial attitudes? I suppose when I start with the premise that racial attitudes during the civil rights era would continue to be exclusionary towards blacks and other racial groups, it is difficult for me to see another way for blacks to gain even modest successes.

[Mister D]

It was well intended but it was changed and manipulated to benefit individuals and their agendas and in the mean time Whites were passed over in huge numbers for Gov jobs both federal and state levels and that's where it broke the law, and it should be repealed.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is not the intention that matters but the result.

[Captain Obvious]

Racial equality should be equality for all races. Affirmative action contradicts the concept of racial equality.

Having said that there is real racial inequality. What could be considered is a "pay for performance" plan that would focus on CLASS (not race specifically) and a person of an identified underprivileged class can be given the opportunity for education and then a job based on criteria. If that person scores well during the education part, their education costs are waived and they are given the OPPORTUNITY to work them off to a degree with a job. Of course certain employers would need to be given incentives to hire this group of people, but if they do not do well in college or whatever, they may then be required to either work those costs off or be expelled from the program or something like that.

If they do well in the educational portion of the plan, they may then be required to work a fix period of time in one of the jobs which may include at a University or as a social worker or something like that at a hospital - say 4 years.

Then they're on their own if they complete these requirements.

A plan like this would take taxpayer money and give an opportunity to the underprivileged - but still require them to perform to maintain the program.