# Would it be unethical to identify as a racial minority for the sake of getting a job?



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm not saying lying, but if you're part white and part something else, considering that Affirmative action and diversity quotas exist in many lands, do you think it would be ethical to purposely identify your race as a non white race if you think it will give you a better chance at being hired?

Please, no racist or hateful comments. I'm really just asking a question about the ethics of a decision, not wanting to get into the implications of the existence of diversity quotas.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Well, yeah. Those programs exist to encourage more minorities to enroll and succeed. Not only is it dishonest, but you're denying a person who arguably needs the opportunity more than you do the chance to. It might not be at the same level as mass murder, and a ton of people do it, so...


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I mean the kind of behaviour you are referring to is immoral, clearly, but that wasn't all that you asked. Is it dishonest? 

And there's not such a clear-cut answer to that side of the question. Surely the only objective answer is to say it must depend on how much of your ancestry is non-white, and that if it this amount is less than half I'd argue yes it is dishonest, for too much of your genetic makeup (including personality traits) is going to lean towards European phenotypes. In other cases, no.

But in any case, affirmation action is still a moral wrong, because its purpose to try and create equality of outcome which is a violation of our right to be unique/different and rewarded on the basis of that.


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

If people were less dishonest, life would be so much more comfy.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I mean, I think the argument could be made that among people of mixed races some are more disadvantaged than others, and some people who are minorities are not really all that disadvantaged. I think a lot has to do with the socioeconomic class of the person, of their parents, and their access to to a good education from early on. Without that, no matter what the race, a person will enter the job market with a a bit of a disadvantage, and say you're mixed race, and disadvantaged in that sense? Or say you're a true blue minority and you haven't experienced any of the disadvantages associated with your race? What if you're from either set of people and you're against identity politics? That's the kind of ethical dilemma I'm talking about here. 
Personally, I will either identify as mixed or, most of the time , not identify at all, because I don't want that to be a factor in the hiring process, even though many factors put me as t a disadvantage. I don't think it would be fair, because I think eventually I'll be able to overcome the factors that are putting me at that disadvantage, but that's just me.


----------



## josnorgren (May 17, 2017)

I think if you've struggled with racial minority in other aspects (school, social life) before, you have the right to use it if it stands as your advantage.
I'm half Asian. I'm proud. I tell people.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

josnorgren said:


> I think if you've struggled with racial minority in other aspects (school, social life) before, you have the right to use it if it stands as your advantage.
> I'm half Asian. I'm proud. I tell people.


I agree, and it's your choice, that no one has the right to judge you on, and you definitely have good reason to be proud to be half Asian. But the other side of this picture is, if you look solely in terms of race, Asians tend to actually have higher incomes and fare better in the job market than any other demographic, so if someone hires you because you checked Asian and they saw that, it likely won't be for the typical Affirmative Action reasons. More likely it will be, "This person is Asian. Likely, they'll be very competent and hard working"; I'm not saying this is 100% true all the time, but that's the general perception, so, hypothetically speaking, and I hope I don't offend you by asking this, but how would you feel if someone did hire you on that basis? I'm just curious to know thoughts.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Ask yourself the opposite question: Would it be ethical to disqualify people from affirmative action programs & company policies because they have some white blood in their genealogy? What percentage of "pure blood" should one require of their employees, and how many modern day minority members would actually qualify?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Ask yourself the opposite question: Would it be ethical to disqualify people from affirmative action programs & company policies because they have some white blood in their genealogy? What percentage of "pure blood" should one require of their employees, and how many modern day minority members would actually qualify?


Exactly. I fail to see the issue here.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

I dunno Key and Peele are definitely considered "black comedians" but are really only half black. Maybe it's how you look? Maybe it really *is* about skin color.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> I dunno Key and Peele are definitely considered "black comedians" but are really only half black. Maybe it's how you look? Maybe it really *is* about skin color.


I have yet to hear anyone applying for affirmative action, ever being asked to take a blood test.XD


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

dulcinea said:


> I mean, I think the argument could be made that among people of mixed races some are more disadvantaged than others, and some people who are minorities are not really all that disadvantaged. I think a lot has to do with the socioeconomic class of the person, of their parents, and their access to to a good education from early on. Without that, no matter what the race, a person will enter the job market with a a bit of a disadvantage, and say you're mixed race, and disadvantaged in that sense? Or say you're a true blue minority and you haven't experienced any of the disadvantages associated with your race? What if you're from either set of people and you're against identity politics? That's the kind of ethical dilemma I'm talking about here.
> Personally, I will either identify as mixed or, most of the time , not identify at all, because I don't want that to be a factor in the hiring process, even though many factors put me as t a disadvantage. I don't think it would be fair, because I think eventually I'll be able to overcome the factors that are putting me at that disadvantage, but that's just me.


I was thinking more of Americans who "conveniently" find out they are something like 1/64 Cherokee, compared to someone who spent their entire life on a reservation (which, if you've seen, come close to third world conditions). 

Anyway, some minorities are definitely disadvantaged, but others outpace white Americans. Hispanics, Native Americans, and blacks are definitely disadvantaged. You could say immigrants in general have, and still face, barriers, too.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

It's not unethical. If you fit the criteria and nothing requires that you lie or mislead people about your genetics, I say go for it.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

As long as you're not deliberately overstating or misrepresenting, I don't think it's a problem.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I think it is based on skin color or nationality more than actual genetics. I remember reading the Wikipedia article and it had a quote along the lines of, "There is more genetic diversity within these populations than between them." But really the consensus is that we don't even have a biological underpinning to define race, and if you look socially and legally, the number of "races" changes. So it's definitely skin color and a sense of heritage beyond anything else.


----------



## Stachan (Jul 8, 2016)

This is beyond ridiculous. 
To identify as a racial minority to get a job is terrible. But what is even more terrible is that there actually exists a system where there are enforced quotas that promote one racial or ethnic group over the other just for the sake of having a multicultural workplace at the expense of effectivity. That is genuine racism. 
I truly don´t like reactionaries, but they atleast aren´t such hypocrites like liberals who promote this kind of nonsense and at the same time say they fight racism. Liberalism disgusts me.


----------



## Ghosties (Sep 7, 2014)

AA doesn't really help the larger problem, and in fact, I think it only stands to strengthen pre-existing hostilities.

I don't think anyone should be "proud" of their race. It's not something you earned or worked for.
A lot of it has to do with family oriented cultures and this attitude that seems to exist today that, as long as you're not white, you should be "proud".

In reality, you look almost as ridiculous as the people who put on confederate uniforms and go out to re-enact a war that their "ancestors" lost...ALMOST...

Now, as far as applications and submitting that sort of data goes, it depends: can you honestly say you're mixed race? Do you personally have a problem with AA? And if so, are you in circumstances in which you would be comfortable with yourself for going against your own viewpoint on it? Such as, as you in circumstances that are extremely dire in which you absolutely must get this job or you'll be homeless? 

Personally, it's up for grabs with me. My bio mom divulged to me about two years ago that my dad wasn't my dad, that she'd become pregnant by some "Mexican guy" she'd worked with at the time.
Is it true? Can't say.
My dad, or the man I call my dad, is physically paralyzed from the neck down and can't speak so I'm not about to visit him and tell him this sort of thing or take a blood test.

Do I claim being mixed? Absolutely. I look it, and I've had people in my life mistake me for being able to speak Spanish, although I initially thought it was because...there's this belief around here that all high schoolers were taught it?
The fact that it had to do with how I look went all the way over my head, as does most things.

Tumblr is effin' crazy about race, and if you're white, according to them, you should kill yourself. 
If I can save myself some trouble or getting into internet fights, I'm gonna do it. 

Would I claim it on a job application? Debatable. Again, circumstances.

You gotta weigh it for yourself, OP.


----------



## RocketSurgeon (Mar 22, 2017)

Stachan said:


> That is genuine racism.


Absolutely.

Some say it's racist not to give preference to minorities when hiring. I say it's racist to consider skin color _at all_ in the hiring process. After all, we're all equal regardless of race/gender/age/religion/sexual orientation/marital status/political affiliation/accent/height/weight/eye color/astrological sign, right? (Did I miss any?)

Or are some more equal than others? I think I remember that from a book about a farm; it didn't have a happy ending. If that's not the case, maybe just "separate but equal"? No, that philosophy didn't work out so great either. Hmm.

Never mind the fact that skills pay the bills, not politically correct hiring practices. And people wonder why American businesses are tanking so hard.

In conclusion, we might all benefit by carefully re-reading Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. It gets older and older, yet strangely more and more relevant.

Edit: And to keep it relevant to OP...Here's my recommendation. If you truly, with good conscience, identify as that race in daily life, then go ahead and use it in the job application. Otherwise, don't.


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

I think it's a little silly, but I don't suppose I could fault someone for taking advantage of something put into place if they can.

That being said, I am white, but I do have an ancestor who was 3/4ths Algonquian who lived from 1802 to 1875, making me something like 3/256s aboriginal Canadian. Her family were employees of the Hudson Bay Company who had taken "country wives", as they called them, from the native people. Needless to say I think using such a ridiculously distant connection to my advantage is preposterous.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Stachan said:


> This is beyond ridiculous.
> To identify as a racial minority to get a job is terrible. But what is even more terrible is that there actually exists a system where there are enforced quotas that promote one racial or ethnic group over the other just for the sake of having a multicultural workplace at the expense of effectivity. That is genuine racism.
> I truly don´t like reactionaries, but they atleast aren´t such hypocrites like liberals who promote this kind of nonsense and at the same time say they fight racism. Liberalism disgusts me.


And you started off so well...


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Well, yeah. Those programs exist to encourage more minorities to enroll and succeed. Not only is it dishonest, but you're denying a person who arguably needs the opportunity more than you do the chance to.


Is a need for a job directly correlated to skin pigment? Is an unemployed brown person struggling more than an unemployed white person simply because they are brown?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Pretender said:


> Is a need for a job directly correlated to skin pigment? Is an unemployed brown person struggling more than an unemployed white person simply because they are brown?


You do know that things like skin color and a person's name do play a part in the likelihood of being hired, right?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Yes, but only marginally. The real lapse in ethics is that such systems exist in the first place. I wouldn't lose any sleep over taking advantage of it.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

I would argue that Affirmative Action is unethical in and of itself. Your race and your gender should not play a role in whether or not you get a job for any reason. As long as you're playing by the rules you're not doing anything wrong in this case. It's the rule itself that is unethical.


----------



## titanII (Jan 11, 2017)

I say go for it. Not the least bit unethical. Unfortunately Scottish Americans get no freebies...


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Bipedal P 314 said:


> I would argue that Affirmative Action is unethical in and of itself. Your race and your gender should not play a role in whether or not you get a job for any reason. As long as you're playing by the rules you're not doing anything wrong in this case. It's the rule itself that is unethical.


You'd have a point, if historically certain jobs and universities weren't closed to anyone outside the "good boys club" and WASP elite.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

WamphyriThrall said:


> You do know that things like skin color and a person's name do play a part in the likelihood of being hired, right?


Absolutely. All things being equal, you're a lot more likely to get hired by the government and big corporations if you're black or Hispanic than if you're white or Asian


----------



## Stachan (Jul 8, 2016)

WamphyriThrall said:


> And you started off so well...


You cannot expect a socialist to embrace liberalism.


----------



## Strict INFJ (Apr 15, 2017)

Yes. Intentionally benefiting from racism makes you no better than those who support such racist policies.



WamphyriThrall said:


> You'd have a point, if historically certain jobs and universities weren't closed to anyone outside the "good boys club" and WASP elite.


Believing that a person carries the stain of misdeeds committed by others of their same race is the very definition of racism. Your statement is blatantly racist in that you think white people should be punished for the sins of their fathers and not for their own actions. What you propose is not justice, it's the very definition of prejudice and intolerance.


----------



## Miss Bingley (Jun 28, 2013)

Shit, I've had the opportunity to do this and didn't because of my morality. 

Technically, according to the U.S. government, I am Hispanic. I don't consider myself hispanic, and my family doesn't consider itself hispanic. I can, though, check off 'hispanic' on ever application ever if I wished, but I don't. I may not be a moral person, but I do have some lines I don't cross.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Strict INFJ said:


> Yes. Intentionally benefiting from racism makes you no better than those who support such racist policies.
> 
> 
> Believing that a person carries the stain of misdeeds committed by others of their same race is the very definition of racism. Your statement is blatantly racist in that you think white people should be punished for the sins of their fathers and not for their own actions. What you propose is not justice, it's the very definition of prejudice and intolerance.


Oh no. Another member of the Trump brigade, aka "angry white guys". Calling minority members "racist" for wanting equal opportunities IS racism. Your only goal is to uphold the status quo. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

dulcinea said:


> I'm not saying lying, but if you're part white and part something else, considering that Affirmative action and diversity quotas exist in many lands, do you think it would be ethical to purposely identify your race as a non white race if you think it will give you a better chance at being hired?
> 
> Please, no racist or hateful comments. I'm really just asking a question about the ethics of a decision, not wanting to get into the implications of the existence of diversity quotas.


I couldn't skip out this part for my online university application. I think what matters is if someone's qualified for the job.


----------



## Strict INFJ (Apr 15, 2017)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Oh no. Another member of the Trump brigade, aka "angry white guys". Calling minority members "racist" for wanting equal opportunities IS racism. Your only goal is to uphold the status quo. Prove me wrong.


Seeing as Affirmative Action is the status quo and I want it ruled unconstitutional I clearly don't want the status quo upheld.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

I think it's unethical to identify as any other race (and by a lesser extent ethnic group) than your own - usually.

However, when it comes to jobs: People shouldn't be hired based on race in the first place, so lying about one's own race and ethnicity to get hired would just be a huge middle finger to racism.


----------



## RocketSurgeon (Mar 22, 2017)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Oh no. Another member of the Trump brigade, aka "angry white guys". Calling minority members "racist" for wanting equal opportunities IS racism. Your only goal is to uphold the status quo. Prove me wrong.


"Us vs Them" doesn't help anything, even if Them started it.

There's a lot of genuine racism in the world, and a lot of people have been treated improperly for no reason other than the color of their skin.

But for the sake of _true_ fairness and equality, consider this scenario that happens every day:

A manager has a choice between hiring two candidates: Race A and Race B. On paper, they have equal qualifications for the job. They are equal based on race.

...Except not really. Race A is considered disadvantaged, so the manager must hire Race A rather than Race B. Race B is left to find a job elsewhere (where the same thing will likely happen again).

So the "disadvantaged" Race A has a job, and the therefore-"advantaged" Race B is still looking. And Race A must always wonder if they got the job based on their qualification or simply because of their race.

Is this really equality? Is it possible that labeling one race "disadvantaged" is actually _detrimental_ to achieving equality?


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> You'd have a point, if historically certain jobs and universities weren't closed to anyone outside the "good boys club" and WASP elite.


No, I still have a point. BTW it's "Good Ol' Boys," not "Good Boys." Affirmative Action is just government enforced bigotry. "You're the best for the job and we would be lucky to have you but you have the wrong skin color and gender. We need a minority for this position."

To counter your "they need this job more than you do" crap - there are a lot of poor and needy white people. I have yet to see my so-called privilege in job interviews.

It's already illegal to reject somebody based on their race and gender. Creating quotas where you have to hire people is unethical.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Bipedal P 314 said:


> No, I still have a point. BTW it's "Good Ole Boys," not "Good Boys." Affirmative Action is just government enforced bigotry. "You're the best for the job and we would be lucky to have you but you have the wrong skin color and gender. We need a minority for this position."
> 
> To counter your "they need this job more than you do" crap - there are a lot of poor and needy white people. I have yet to see my so-called privilege in job interviews.
> 
> It's already illegal to reject somebody based on their race and gender. Creating quotas where you have to hire people is unethical.


I agree. I've worked a lot of low income jobs, and can vouch for the fact that white males are not inherently privileged. I've worked with so many people who look like they should belong to the "country club" class, in effect, flipping burgers, or being cashiers. People of all races generally have to go through the same hoops to earn an income.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

dulcinea said:


> I mean, I think the argument could be made that among people of mixed races some are more disadvantaged than others, and some people who are minorities are not really all that disadvantaged. I think a lot has to do with the socioeconomic class of the person, of their parents, and their access to to a good education from early on. Without that, no matter what the race, a person will enter the job market with a a bit of a disadvantage, and say you're mixed race, and disadvantaged in that sense? Or say you're a true blue minority and you haven't experienced any of the disadvantages associated with your race? What if you're from either set of people and you're against identity politics? That's the kind of ethical dilemma I'm talking about here.
> Personally, I will either identify as mixed or, most of the time , not identify at all, because I don't want that to be a factor in the hiring process, even though many factors put me as t a disadvantage. I don't think it would be fair, because I think eventually I'll be able to overcome the factors that are putting me at that disadvantage, but that's just me.


I actually thought this thread was going to be about whether it's unethical to identify as a race other than the one you are (you know, Rachel Dolezal style).

There are ethical issues embedded within the census-identified races (if we're talking US), as well as affirmative action itself. The fact that quotas can lead to this type of outcome exposes their flaw: you can get hired based upon your (self-identified) racial/ethnic background. Which can lead to people putting whatever they want on paper in this way, and getting hired based on race rather than qualification. 

As far as the census goes, it is utilizing arbitrary categories to designate races, since there are numerous ways they can be divided, and probably equally justifiable biologically as the next one. (The whole Hispanic or non-Hispanic as a distinct ethnicity is also strange).

You are correct about SES vs race... I am studying public health and had a professor this past semester who explained how race is used as a proxy for SES, but it's a poor one. So really it'd make more sense to look directly at SES (including employment, education, social capital). Using the race proxy also tends to exacerbate the issue of stereotyping and stigma, because it ends up becoming popular to associate, say, black with poor and uneducated. (Or more in the context of what we were studying -- associating a minority race more with a certain disease).

Thus in my opinion, a policy that would allow someone better chances of being hired depending on what race they are on paper, is inherently unethical. 

I am curious whether there have ever been studies done to see if this effect occurs; clearly it does in countries using quota systems (by definition), but I wonder if even without one, it'd still happen in a more subtle way.

I suppose you can argue that it'd make sense to list yourself as a minority because you believe that has held you back. However, this implies that if there are other (unknown) reasons why someone believes they are held back, these wouldn't apply. And it'd be difficult to create legislation for every one of those reasons. For example if someone believes they were discriminated against because they are unusually short, or overweight. There is no legal protection for them. It's just that "short people" was never really considered a social issue in the first place, so affirmative action policy doesn't apply. I give that as an example because there have actually been studies that people who are taller, considered more attractive, etc. have better chances of getting hired. 

And that list could go on ad infinitum. (Such is the issue I take with identity politics).


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Bipedal P 314 said:


> No, I still have a point. BTW it's "Good Ol' Boys," not "Good Boys." Affirmative Action is just government enforced bigotry. "You're the best for the job and we would be lucky to have you but you have the wrong skin color and gender. We need a minority for this position."
> 
> To counter your "they need this job more than you do" crap - there are a lot of poor and needy white people. I have yet to see my so-called privilege in job interviews.
> 
> It's already illegal to reject somebody based on their race and gender. Creating quotas where you have to hire people is unethical.


Of course you don't see your privilege. That's sort of the definition of privilege. 

Anyway, blame outsourcing for a lack of jobs, not minorities or AA. Suppose we got rid of every AA policy: is there any guarantee that every employer at all times could be counted on *not* to show a bias toward any one group (ie, males, white people, heterosexuals)? The government steps in when all else fails. There was kicking and screaming when schools were desegregated. 

All that aside, white Americans do tend to be better educated, employed in larger numbers, and paid more than blacks, natives, Hispanics, overall. Tell me, would you be so upset if it were any other group that were being discriminated against? Because it sounds like you think white people are entitled to jobs, at least over those who aren't.

PS people don't blame poor whites on their race for being poor, as in "Those stupid, lazy whites, they can't even work!" Well, outside of a handful of immigrant families behind closed doors. It isn't epidemic; you don't see Hollywood promoting stereotypes. I've seen a *lot* more white bums on the streets than any other race. It's seen as an individual problem, if anything.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Of course you don't see your privilege. That's sort of the definition of privilege.


I don't see it because I get rejected for jobs out of hand all the time. I get treated poorly all time. Life is difficult for most people. "Privilege" is just another way to try to make somebody feel guilty for the circumstances of their birth and to blame other people for your problems.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Bipedal P 314 said:


> I don't see it because I get rejected for jobs out of hand all the time. I get treated poorly all time. Life is difficult for most people. "Privilege" is just another way to try to make somebody feel guilty for the circumstances of their birth and to blame other people for your problems.


But is it because you're white? And if so, can you point specifically towards AA policies that are responsible? 

Guess what? People of color are rejected from jobs all the time. There are studies showing that "ethnic names" play a part in who gets followed up for an interview, or hired. Many black students at Harvard, or wherever, are assumed to be there only because of AA policies, implying they're incapable of getting there through hard work and smarts.

Sure, life is difficult, but I'm not going to pretend I face the exact same struggles someone living in a warzone, or addicted to heroin, or having to raise a child on my own. I'm not sure what good trying to erase or overlook differences will do... and "guilt" hasn't helped any person one bit. "Oh, I'm sooo sorry my ancestors did this and that to yours" is peachy, but doesn't produce results (and in some cases, can come across as awkward, patronizing, or forced).


----------



## RocketSurgeon (Mar 22, 2017)

WamphyriThrall said:


> "Oh, I'm sooo sorry my ancestors did this and that to yours" is peachy, but doesn't produce results (and in some cases, can come across as awkward, patronizing, or forced).


Produce results...?

642,247 white people who produced results are rolling in their graves. They were _actual_ Social Justice Warriors, not like the modern white-person-telling-white-people-they're-bad type.

My best friend growing up was black, and I generally got along better with the Hispanic people from where I last lived than the white people--they were friendlier, more down to earth. However, I don't for one moment think that they should receive preferential treatment in _anything_ because of their race.

And you know what? Neither do they. Because they aren't losers. They work hard. They do the right thing. They don't expect handouts. They've learned the secret of humility and friendliness, which is this: a genuine smile gets a person further in life than participation in a thousand angry protests.

Against all odds, they've learned that life is not ideal, people are greedy no matter what color their skin is, and the way to get ahead is by throwing away the empty, useless entitlement mentality and resisting the temptation to be angry about things that are out of their control (most of which happened long before they were even born).

_Those_ are the people who rise up and get ahead, no matter what color their skin is.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Fumetsu said:


> I dunno Key and Peele are definitely considered "black comedians" but are really only half black. Maybe it's how you look? Maybe it really *is* about skin color.


It is - per se. If you are, say, an Iranian who looks white, no one's going to be prejudiced against you in a mostly white country simply because they can't tell.

Also biracial models who look more white (in the case of women, at least) are regarded as more beautiful. So even when ethnicity is obvious whiter looking people tend to be preferred on balance.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

RocketSurgeon said:


> Produce results...?
> 
> 642,247 white people who produced results are rolling in their graves. They were _actual_ Social Justice Warriors, not like the modern white-person-telling-white-people-they're-bad type.
> 
> ...


How is it preferential treatment, though? If people of color weren't seen as being incapable or inferior, we wouldn't need these safety nets just to make sure employers or whoever else didn't try to pull a fast one. I'm also not sure I appreciate you implying that I'm somehow against hard work just because I support AA. Speaking of angry protests, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be a country if it weren't for one...

Is MLK your idea of someone who did not rise up and get ahead? And how do you know everyone fighting in the civil war was doing it for the "right" reasons? Or that white people are the only ones who fought and died?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

It is only immoral as far as it is dishonest. This is a dog-eat-dog world we live in and you should look out for yourself at the expense of bureaucratic legislation that would otherwise set you at a disadvantage. There's nothing ethical about subordinating your sense of self-preservation to someone else's idea of helpful legislation. Decide for yourself if you think you should suffer to be put at a disadvantage in hiring because of your race.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Many black students at Harvard, or wherever, are assumed to be there only because of AA policies, implying they're incapable of getting there through hard work and smarts.


If we got rid of affirmative action, no one would think this. There wouldn't be a shred of truth to it anymore.



WamphyriThrall said:


> "Oh, I'm sooo sorry my ancestors did this and that to yours" is peachy, but doesn't produce results (and in some cases, can come across as awkward, patronizing, or forced).


Results? Why should there be results? Do you seriously think it's a good idea for reparations to be paid to right every wrong in history? Should I get reparations from France and Germany because Franks and other Germanic tribes sacked my country (the Roman Empire) and set my people back 1000 years?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Dante Scioli said:


> If we got rid of affirmative action, no one would think this. There wouldn't be a shred of truth to it anymore.
> 
> Results? Why should there be results? Do you seriously think it's a good idea for reparations to be paid to right every wrong in history? Should I get reparations from France and Germany because Franks and other Germanic tribes sacked my country (the Roman Empire) and set my people back 1000 years?


I don't know, are there still disparities in how Franks and Romans are treated today? If you think its unfair, then by all means, seek repatriations! It's a flimsy comparison, though. 

AA needs to stay, especially since we're nowhere near true equality. Most white people say racism isn't an issue anymore, but the majority of black people say otherwise. Who are you going to believe: those who benefit from institutionalized racism, or those who suffered and are still suffering from it?

You say "its a dog eat dog world", but would your view be different if you were a member of one (or more) oppressed groups? It seems the more "strikes" a person has against them, the more sympathetic towards these things they tend to be...


----------



## Index (May 17, 2017)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Well, yeah. Those programs exist to encourage more minorities to enroll and succeed. Not only is it dishonest, but you're denying a person who arguably needs the opportunity more than you do the chance to. It might not be at the same level as mass murder, and a ton of people do it, so...


Why would somebody else need or deserve said opportunity more than you just because they're a certain race?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Miss Bingley said:


> Shit, I've had the opportunity to do this and didn't because of my morality.
> 
> Technically, according to the U.S. government, I am Hispanic. I don't consider myself hispanic, and my family doesn't consider itself hispanic. I can, though, check off 'hispanic' on ever application ever if I wished, but I don't. I may not be a moral person, but I do have some lines I don't cross.


I am technically half hispanic according to the murky definitions, but my ancestry is mostly European and I look it to most people. I don't speak Spanish nor do I have a Spanish name. My hispanic mother is a pale redhead who also speaks no Spanish and her married name is not Spanish. We simply don't experience racial discrimination.

I can check whatever box I want (and I often check white and hispanic as a matter of honesty) and no one is going to see me as anything but Caucasian. This made me google what happens if you claim an ethnicity and have no obvious signs of it...well, this was in Brazil, and it is kind of funny-sad:
For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race : Parallels : NPR

Anyhow, where I live there is no shortage of Hispanics, including 2nd-3rd generation American Hispanics or even families hailing from colonial times, and many of these people have a higher education and are comfortably middle class. The closest University is predominantly hispanic. I doubt those quotas are hard to fill around here.... especially when many jobs REQUIRE being bilingual in Spanish. It doesn't seem like it would give an edge to play the hispanic card unless you have language skills to go with it. Checking the hispanic box never did anything for me.

I also wonder if Americanized hispanics really have much issue with discrimination. I suspect it's an accent that is their barrier. Without that, I suspect they get similar status as Asians who are college educated, meaning a kind of pseudo white status. Plus, a fair amount of Hispanics will register visually as being of European ancestry (because they are or mostly are), so even if you consciously identify them as hispanic, any unconscious racism may be minimized.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> I am technically half hispanic according to the murky definitions, but my ancestry is mostly European and I look it to most people. I don't speak Spanish nor do I have a Spanish name. My hispanic mother is a pale redhead who also speaks no Spanish and her married name is not Spanish. We simply don't experience racial discrimination.
> 
> I can check whatever box I want (and I often check white and hispanic as a matter of honesty) and no one is going to see me as anything but Caucasian. This made me google what happens if you claim an ethnicity and have no obvious signs of it...well, this was in Brazil, and it is kind of funny-sad:
> For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race : Parallels : NPR
> ...


Yes. I can't count how many times I've been asked if I speak English (or Spanish), have someone assume I and my parents were here illegally, and had terms like "shit skin" hurled at me (ironically, mostly online). Both my parents were born in the US, as were two of my grandparents, with one of them going back... oh, a long way, in New Mexican history.

It would be easy to blame the actual immigrants feeding these stereotypes, but that's not my way. There's always been a bias toward Mixed race/mestizo Mexican-Americans (see "greaser" and similar terms going back to the 19th century). Plenty of Asian-Americans get it, too: asked where they're "really from" and such nonsense. 

Can't speak for every person, or every location, of course. I might be considered "white-ish", at least compared to your average black American, but its more a case of "lesser of two evils". My darker complexion might play a part in that, however. A lot of my grade school bullies were lighter skinned Mexican-American males, I've noticed.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

dulcinea said:


> I'm not saying lying, but if you're part white and part something else, considering that Affirmative action and diversity quotas exist in many lands, do you think it would be ethical to purposely identify your race as a non white race if you think it will give you a better chance at being hired?
> 
> Please, no racist or hateful comments. I'm really just asking a question about the ethics of a decision, not wanting to get into the implications of the existence of diversity quotas.


I am of a racial minority here in Australia and could easily tick that box on any job application and be given a preferential interview as a result and possibly have job decisions made in my favour. I have never done this in my lifetime for two reasons. 

- I do not have any of the physical attributes of my heritage and consequently no-one knows. Claiming an extension given to people of that heritage would be very disingenous and take an opportunity away from someone who truly needs it. 

- Since I've never suffered the discrimination attendant to it, I have no right to any advantage that may be afforded those people. 

In my book. Unless you've been disadvantaged by your heritage then yes it is unethical to claim the opportunity of it. Why should I, a completely white appearing individual sit in a role that has been set aside for someone who would otherwise have very little opportunity of attaining it? I have all the priviledge of appearing white, therefore I have the responsibility of competing with others that appear similarly to me and gaining a job that way. I don't need more opportunity in this world than the ones I have.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

dulcinea said:


> I'm not saying lying, but if you're part white and part something else, considering that Affirmative action and diversity quotas exist in many lands, do you think it would be ethical to purposely identify your race as a non white race if you think it will give you a better chance at being hired?
> 
> Please, no racist or hateful comments. I'm really just asking a question about the ethics of a decision, not wanting to get into the implications of the existence of diversity quotas.


If eligible, I would insist you do it.
Recruiters perceptions about the choices you make aside, I would dread having to meet a quota with a lower quality pool of candidates, having a higher quality pool of 'extras' is a lower priority. Generally, bad hires are more damaging than great hires are great.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

dulcinea said:


> I'm not saying lying, but if you're part white and part something else, considering that Affirmative action and diversity quotas exist in many lands, do you think it would be ethical to purposely identify your race as a non white race if you think it will give you a better chance at being hired?
> 
> Please, no racist or hateful comments. I'm really just asking a question about the ethics of a decision, not wanting to get into the implications of the existence of diversity quotas.


 Of course it's unethical. If you have to even think about this for more than 10 seconds, something's wrong.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

It is perfectly ethical imo. Identity has an important subjective aspect to it, thus it is a subjective right which means that people can decide when and how to activate or deactivate it. Also, nobody should be forced to choose/reject one parent instead of the other.

Subjective Rights | Law & Jurisprudence | Wikiteka, Search, share and download notes, abstracts, homeworks, essays, exams and problems from all subject and levels.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

TimeWillTell said:


> It is perfectly ethical imo. Identity has an important subjective aspect to it, thus it is a subjective right which means that people can decide when and how to activate or deactivate it. Also, nobody should be forced to choose/reject one parent instead of the other.
> 
> Subjective Rights | Law & Jurisprudence | Wikiteka, Search, share and download notes, abstracts, homeworks, essays, exams and problems from all subject and levels.


Personal identity might be subjective. Ethnicity certainly is not.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

^ I don't think the topic is about ethnicity. The OP says it's about people with a mixture of ethnical origins and assume they don't lie. I reckon it's more a problem of identity here.


----------

