Vince Vaughn, libertarian, thinks affirmative action is ‘racism’


Here are some photos (the grey suit pics) of Vince Vaughn in character for True Detective’s second season. He plays some kind of sketchy career criminal with an empire built on illegality. Many think that Vaughn could finally be returning to what should have always been his career path: a decent-to-good character actor. He played around with being a leading man and a comedic lead, to varying degrees of success, but he’s always been an underrated character actor.

Anyway, he’s promoting his new film, Unfinished Business, and he gave a lengthy interview to Playboy for the March issue. You can read the full piece here – at first, Vaughn sounds really calm, reflective, interesting and professional. He doesn’t disrespect anyone, he compliments many of the people he met early in his career (like Johnny Depp) and he even says a few words about his ex-girlfriend Jennifer Aniston. Then the interview totally goes off the rails when Vaughn starts talking about politics and racism. WHOA. It’s a good read. Some highlights:

Losing his virginity: “I always had a lot of fun with girls, even before Swingers. It’s interesting; I was a late bloomer and never really found my way with the opposite sex until later in high school. I think I was 17, maybe 19, when I lost my virginity.”

He was never a pick-up artist: “I was never someone who needed to be with a new woman every night. That was never my thing. I always had an easy time joking and getting along with women, and I liked to go out and have fun and talk and joke and meet people and dance. But I was never a pickup artist, per se. I have two older sisters, so I always felt comfortable with women and respected them… Gaming on women has become almost like the dark arts. Like, if you’re not cutting her down or using psychological tricks to make fun of her, you won’t get anywhere. I would argue it’s the opposite. I would suggest that if you take the avenue of putting a woman down or making fun of her so she feels insecure enough to go out with you, you’re ultimately screwing yourself. I mean, let’s face it, if you require coaching and techniques to get a woman, it’ll come out as dishonest and you’ll probably end up unhappy or alone.”

His relationship with Jennifer Aniston: “You know, she’s great. For me personally—and I think most well-known actors who are together feel this way—I never enjoyed the paparazzi side of it. You like someone and you’re spending time with them; that’s separate and that was all fine. But I really spent most of that time finding ways not to be drawn into the attention. I think lying low and not talking about it put me in a good position later, because I just wasn’t part of anything.

He’s a libertarian: “I would use the term libertarian to describe my politics. I like the principles of the Constitution and the republic, which is a form of government built around the law.”

The federal government shouldn’t run things? “Trusting the federal government to know what we need and to run things well feels like a bad idea. You see that in the foreign policy of force, where the United States decides to go into another country to make things turn out a certain way. It doesn’t work. It causes more problems. Just look at any of these undeclared wars. You’re suggesting at gunpoint that you’ll decide how things will go. The results haven’t gone well. I’ve been over to Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve been with the USO. I’ve gone over with movies and done stuff. I care a lot about all the kids and families in those situations. It can’t be easy. But I don’t agree with a foreign policy that says you can send troops places without declaring a war and without having a plan to win the war.”

Whether he believes in affirmative action: “I’ll answer that with a question. Do you believe that using race as a factor in evaluating a person is a good way to operate?… Then you’re evaluating someone based on race, which is racism. Rights don’t come to you because you’re a man or a woman or African American or European or Jewish. And I certainly don’t think the federal government should be in the business of deciding things or handing out money based on factors like these. It’s the same with same-sex marriage. Who cares what people feel about each other? Let people decide for themselves who they can marry. It’s not the government’s job. It’s between you and your partner and your church or synagogue or whatever you believe in.

[From Playboy]

It’s always nice to hear from a white man who has been given tons of opportunities to succeed – even after failing spectacularly many times – discuss how level the playing field is for minorities. Thank you, Vince Vaughn. Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts about this and his white privilege but I think I’ll just leave it all for you guys in the comments.


Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

159 Responses to “Vince Vaughn, libertarian, thinks affirmative action is ‘racism’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sam says:


    The thing is that, I’m sure from where he’s standing, that makes total, perfect sense. It does. The problem is that he is totally unable to see it from the perspective of a person who is not him.

    There is still so, so much implicit bias out there against different groups. There was a study recently that showed that a MAJORITY of doctors have implicit bias against black people, and that leads to black people getting less quality care. That is terrifying. And it just goes to show how pervasive this stuff is.

    Vince has never had to think about implicit bias in medicine, in school, anywhere else. To me, affirmative action is one of those things that we really shouldn’t need (because yes, in theory we are all equal and all that jazz) but something that, right now, we really do need because of implicit bias and that stuff.

    So basically, he does not know of what he speaks.

    • Esthetix says:

      Well spoken. Affirmative action is not the ideal…far from it. But in our messed up world, it’s better than nothing.

      Also, this whole “people should be judged only by their intelligence and who they are as a person” bull. That is definately not happening now. Why are CEO’s and Congressmen overwhelmingly white male? Are you saying that white men just so happen to make good leaders? Now that’s racist.

    • Bugglez says:

      First off. Kaiser I just love you for your last paragraph alone – to iinfinity and beyond.

      Vince Vaughn is ignorant – he apparently has no idea what Affirmative Action even is or WHY it exists. It’s necessary for the very reason he rhetorically asks the question, “Do you believe that using race as a factor in evaluating a person is a good way to operate?” No, and because America operated a system of institutional racism and DID use race as a factor in evaluating people, i.e. the only RACE permitted to apply for most jobs and partake of certain careers were WHITES there has to be redress today. You can’t prohibit and discriminate for hundreds of years and then one day in 1974 decide ok…I’m so eager to hire blacks and women now!! No it doesn’t work that way. Great point kaiser made in illustrating how his mediocre career continues to chug along based on very little accomplishment in the last 15 years. If he were a black man he’d have been fired the very first time he wasn’t up to par (poor box office, bad reviews)

      • delighted2 says:

        Of course it is resistance to quibble about white women being the main beneficiaries of affirmative action when its so patently obvious and so well established as fact. And its beyond worrisome that someone who “works in the field” doesn’t know this. ” Can you post a link to support that white women have benefited more than others because of AA? Not being snarky – I work in the field, and have never heard this.”

        Indeed, has never heard of it. Yikes!

    • andypandy says:

      Do People even realize that over the years the “marginalized group” that has benefited most from Affirmative Action were women Mainly WHITE WOMEN
      Yet people including white feminists continue to frame affirmative action around black people

      • Pinky says:

        Clap. Clap. Clap.

      • Bugglez says:

        Great point. Those resistant to how much more inclusive affirmative action has made the workforce always want to put a black face to it as its a lot easier to get wingnuts riled up about a black person they like to think is ‘less qualified’ than it is for them to deny their own wives, mothers, sisters and daughters opportunities and describe them as ‘less qualified.’

      • kranky says:

        Can you post a link to support that white women have benefited more than others because of AA? Not being snarky – I work in the field, and have never heard this.

        It’s important to note that Affirmative Action sees race/ethnicity as a separate issue than gender. A white woman would be considered ‘not protected’ in white in a white v. non-white analysis, and ‘protected’ in a male v female analysis. In other words, hiring a white women does mean a Company gets to check off some theoretical Affirmative Action Achieved! box somewhere… just because she is a woman, she is still white.

        I am super curious to know how the particular combination of being white and female makes one come out better in the world of AA.

      • Bugglez says:

        To Kranky:

        EXCERPT: “According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies.”

      • kranky says:

        Thanks for the link!

        However, it is really thin on details and only references the DoL – there are no links or citations. I don’t see how the DoL estimates about women necessarily translates to ‘white women.’ Also, now that I think about it, ‘occupational classifications’ is a loaded term. Occupational classifications may indicate higher order jobs (think a promotion from worker bee to management) OR completely different jobs (you can’t be promoted from nurse to MD). Moreover, how did they determine that these higher classifications are due to AA? Could it be that because more women are getting post-secondary education, they are able to hold more of these higher occupational classifications? Is this a link between AA in the workplace and AA in Universities? SO MANY QUESTIONS.

        Bottom line: this snippet is interesting, but I am going to have to dig a little deeper to be satisfied with the assessment. I will do so, but would appreciate it if anyone else has something handy they can throw my way.

      • Bugglez says:

        Why so resistant to the obvious Kranky? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduct that when the majority populace is forced into ‘doing the right thing’ (granting interviews to qualified candidates from groups that aren’t white males) the least egregious group will be white females. I’m sure a white male VP will tend to have less of an issue hiring their older sister or their cute blonde neighbor who just got her degree, than Raul Ramirez.

        But by all means “dig a little deeper.” One wonders now however if you were ever going to be satisfied with the information I or anyone could have provided (which by the way is replicated 100x over in various different links/sources).

        Why you didn’t do the minimal research yourself, instead of asking the message board in the first place…I find curious? Google is your friend. Unless you didn’t really want your question answered and the link provided.

        To be frank your information and claims of ‘working in the field,’ seem a bit on the dubious side and way convoluted. The basic policies of AA are quite simple and don’t mirror or match what you’ve written at all.

        How someone can claim to work in the field and claim they’ve never heard the oft repeated proven stat that AA has benefited white women moreso than anyone, I find suspect.

      • kranky says:

        Resistant? Obvious? Really?

        Since you made it personal: I work full-time as a consultant who does AA programs for Federal Contractors. I have done this for double-digit years now. I know the former head of OFCCP who created the current AA guidelines 41 CFR Parts 60-1 and 60-2. Do you?

        I run statistical analysis on employment data all day long. I have a very good understanding of statistics, and how you can misuse them. I also know that when talking about the entire US workforce (last total from the ACS: 152,370,745 people), it is difficult if not impossible to distill information into one neat sentence. I will automatically question anything anyone throws at me about this stuff because I do know more than the average bear about it, and it is what I get paid to do. I argue that anyone in any field dealing with complex issues would react the same way.

        I haven’t had the chance to Google the blurb yet, and I will. I thought it was interesting because I hadn’t heard it. I am not going to simply take something as fact because it is written on the internet. Is that why you have a problem with me?

      • Bugglez says:

        Like I said Kranky, it’s obvious to me, you don’t know as much as you’d like to think you do.

        It’s a well known fact (that white women were prime beneficiaries of AA) which is why several people on this message board, not just me, mentioned it.

        For someone who’s worked “in the field,” for “double digit,” years it’s curious you didn’t know what most do know as a matter of course and common sense – but giving you the benefit of the doubt….

        ….let’s say it’s been only 10 yrs (in your “double digit” career), that would mean you could have started as late as 2005 “in the field of AA,” – so conceivably it’s a short enough timeframe in the lifespan of AA that as a consultant for private contractors (looking to dot every i and cross every t, so as not to lose their government dollars/contracts for not hiring minorities) you may have missed that oft spoken fact.

        Another reason you may not know that long acknowledged fact of white women benefiting most: is that white folks don’t really like to talk about programs benefiting them just as much if not MORESO than racial minorities…kinda like Aid to Dependent Children and other welfare programs.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Just to chip in, a better link/study would be good if anyone has one.

        I’ve spent 20 minutes trying to find one. I’m an Aussie, so no dog in this race, I was initially just curious as to which of you was right. After getting stuck in a series of link-circles where a page’d give a link, that linked to another page and so on until it all circled back to the first page, with no actual link to the darn study … well, then I just got stubborn.

        Closest I’ve got so far is this from the New Yorker: “The Labor Department study found that since the 1960’s, affirmative action had helped five million members of minorities and six million women move up in the workplace.”

        If that’s accurate, then using the “6 million women” figure to say white women benefit more is an abuse of stats. There are more women than minorities, so you’d expect more women than minorities to benefit. If benefiting women were all white, then that’s obviously a problem, but I can’t find anything breaking it down any further.

      • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

        So many people have wonderfully summed him up, so I don’t need anything about his consistent walking failure, gross mother, homophobic, steurgeon-faced falling backwards into a career about which no one has cared for a decade.

        No, I’m the best and most qualified for everything, if I detect anything that could challenge that truth, someone lied. Please.

      • kranky says:

        Bugglez – you assume a lot about me, so that must mean it’s true. Right?

        I just ran this long acknowledged fact up the table at my firm.

        My boss’s reaction (been working in employment discrimination since the 80’s): given that women are the biggest protected class (in numbers), and whites are still the largest racial group in the US (in numbers), it could be that- again, talking in sheer numbers – it could be right that white women have benefited more than any other group. Oh – he hadn’t heard of it.

        Co-worker responses range from: that person sounds like they have an agenda to huh – let’s look into it. Someone uncovered this from 1998 (based on data from 20 years ago – not exactly timely and yes, before I started in the field)

        It says that white women have done better since AA came along and gives lots of facts to support it. The facts are probably sound, but the conclusion is not. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because white women have done well after AA came into affect doesn’t mean that they are the greatest beneficiaries of it or that their progress is because of it.

        After finding this article, the trail so far has run cold. Is this the basis for your ‘well-known fact?’ If it is, the argument is thin and not sound. We are still looking around as time allows.

        Just wanted to keep you posted on my progress and give you the opportunity to write me back. I (and now my a good chunk of my office), are definitely intrigued, but not convinced. Out of curiosity and because I am now officially neglecting my work: can you provide a different study than the one above? If so, I would love to read it.

      • Bugglez says:

        Oh look Kranky..this snippet in the NCU/Depot of Labor report pertains to you, you said you worked for a fed contractor correct? Check it: “Overall findings from a U.S. Department of Labor survey found that women advanced more quickly in federal contractor firms subject to affirmative action than in non-contractor firms. Without affirmative action, it is doubtful that any of these would have occurred.”

        Looks like you can definitely thank Affirmative Action for your job grrrl. Hahaha.

      • Bugglez says:

        More links and excerpts for disbelievers lucrezia and kranky: (TIME Magazine)

        Oh and lucrezia they know the 6 mil were white women because applicants filled out paperwork telling them.


        *** While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

        Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

        Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

        The successes of white women make a case not for abandoning affirmative action but for continuing it. As the numbers in the Senate and the Fortune 500 show, women still face barriers to equal participation in leadership roles. Of course, the case for continuing affirmative action for people of color is even greater. The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. Researchers found that the same résumé for the same job application will get twice as many callbacks for interviews if the name on the résumé is Greg instead of Jamal. ” *****

      • Lucrezia says:

        I’m not really a disbeliever Bugglez … more agnostic. I could very easily imagine that you’re right. You just haven’t proved it.

        I’m confused as to where you’re getting the idea the 6 million women were white. The link you’re quoting says the majority were white, it definitely doesn’t say all of them. Maybe you meant something else, so I’m just going to skip that bit altogether. Feel free to clarify if I did misunderstand you.

        “white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.” What I’m saying is you need to give the actual proportions before you can say white women have benefited disproportionately. The majority of women are white (77% of the population if we count Latino women who identify as white), so the majority of the 6 million women are going to be white. If 80% of the 6 million are white, it supports your claim – it’s disproportionate. If 75% of them are white … then it means the opposite. Do you understand what I’m saying? It’s saying fact A, and fact B … then jumping to conclusion D. Anyone with a stats or research analysis background is going to go: “whoa, wait up a sec … what happened to C?” Stats can be slippery, so it’s really common for the wrong bit of info to be presented as support for a claim. But normally you can do a bit of digging, find the right info and go “yeah, the study really did show that, it was just reported badly”. The fact that I can’t find that break down is a bit of a red flag.

        “After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.” This is a MUCH better example to support your claim. It actually compares the benefit rates for women and minorities. Definitely stick with this one. But the problem is that it’s just one company, out of like a zillion. Need more data points before you can say it’s an obvious fact that white women benefited more. That’s why I was interested in the Dept of Labor study. It covers everyone, so would an near perfect bit of evidence … if it actually gave the break down.

    • Ginger says:

      On paper what he says is legit. Yes, we should all be considered “equal” despite any obvious bias. HOWEVER, in the real world things are not equal and do not go this “ideal” way. Women still own less than 1% of property in the world, we are still dealing with a huge pay gap and a ginormous leadership gap. These things are driven by bias and will never change unless it’s forced unfortunately. I mean look at what he’s saying about gays being able to marry. The government is STILL telling Alabama that they must follow the law and yet they resist. And politicians who are against it are still using the exact same excuses that they used during the civil rights era. He needs to get out of his little bubble more often. He says he’s been to Iraq and hung out with the soldiers, etc. so he should know better. I have been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual based crime and I’ve been discriminated against for different reasons. All illegal but STILL happening Vince! And good Lord what I have seen happen to my friends of different races, disabilities and sexual preferences. It was only recently that the military Finally, Finally stopped persecuting gays. He needs to remove his white male privilege blinders for one second and listen to what he’s saying.

    • Delilah says:

      This position of the privileged White male or female never fails to anger me. One of the reasons I am happy to be in my profession – HR is b/c the facts are concrete, staring you in the face about how acceptable the practices that provide accelerated career trajectories to White people, then fair skin, then dark. All I have to do is pull a report to see the disparity in compensation with race as a factor. It never seizes to amaze how credentials and experience are poor moderators if workplace discrimination. A POC can possess a Masters and just as much if not more experience as a White counterpart and still have lower recognition and pay. It starts with how you are inducted – a POC can never expect the same offer as a White counterpart – that is, their younger, less educated counterpart. When it comes to promotions without fail the attention is on the White employee who from the word jump was always slated to have the corner office, the big title, the support staff and mentoring unlike their peers who are POC.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      Affirmative action is just an explicit response to the fact that all existing policies implicitly favor white people. That’s just a demographic fact, for one, and a natural outcome of the white power structure. So since all policies historically and implicitly favor white people, I can’t fathom why a single policy that explicitly does not (and even that is arguable) is such a big deal.

  2. Mary Jane says:

    He dated Aniston? Where the heck was I?

    • Jayna says:

      He was her first boyfriend after the breakup with Brad. It was in the movie The Breakup and Vince played her husband. They got involved sometime during the making of it and lasted for a while after. They were together at least a year or more.

    • Bugglez says:

      Vaughn was very shrewd, as was she in making ‘The Breakup,’ a film he was producing (she said at the time something like, ‘why not exploit the situation (meaning her split from Brad Pitt)?’ – except not in those words as her vocabulary isn’t that advanced).

      It was not long after Brad and she had officially split and rumors of him falling for Angelina were everywhere. Vaughn used her and she used Vaughn to compete in the celebrity press/media’s new couple wars (don’t laugh – that’s how people who read the weeklies and rags saw it…they – Team Aniston- were so desperately hoping whoever she dated would be ‘the one,’ to give her the happily ever after that brangelina had, that frankly they didn’t care what guy it was…if it had been a sanitation man with a bald head and a limp, they would be talking about how he was better than Brad, and ‘Brad who?!’ blah blah – such was the need to have her get her happy too in tge face of the Brangelina love story).

      Anyone she dates is always exaggeratedly extolled as hot and sooo much better than Brad…even if it’s quasimoto or tattoo from fantasy island that she’s dating. I digress.

      So yeah…they used each other got tons of press riding coattails with her playing poor pitiful jen on Oprah’s couch while simultaneously shagging vaughn.

      The Breakup got mixed reviews but made lots of dough. That buoyed the both of them and they had to continue the facade of dating for a little while (they lasted maybe a 14-18 months.

      I say facade, because much like her current fiance, vaughn was never around. Just didn’t seem to be with her and her PR flacks program (which he alludes to in these comments ).

      I recall one of the rags even had a countdown clock of them not being seen together.

      He went off to london as I recall – tried to lose her that way, lol. It wasn’t until rumors of him messing with some co-ed surfaced did aniston get embarrassed enough to pretend they had had a mutual parting of the ways. Lol.

      It’s funny one particular embarrassment was aniston showing off a big canary yellow diamond before their premier of The Breakup (shiloh had just been born ) – US ragazine has a big cover story about their impending wedding (sound familiar? Lol) and she was trying to front like they were engaged. Janice min then editor of us weekly even told the press her rep had implied that they were indeed engaged …but Vaughn would not go along with the fakery.

      That’s why when some of us question her current relationship we are remembering the specific lengths she and her pr flack have gone to in the past, to not look like a loser. Lol

      • Esmom says:

        Haven’t given much thought to this, huh? 🙂

      • ORLY says:

        Wow! You have quite the memory for all this. 😝

      • Bugglez says:

        Actually Esmom and Co., let me just say…BALLS!

        No just kidding. I, unlike some of the haters don’t mind sharing information and correcting the record. I’ve been around a long time and was fascinated with the Brangelina love story and also the bit of theater Aniston conducted at the time portraying herself as sad and lovelorn and bitter on Oprah and elsewhere. So i have deets that I’m happy to share.

        It is somewhat hypocritical of you, who is forever coddling aniston and kicking Brangelina in the teeth (metaphorically) to judge me, even as you plant yourself in their threads 24/7/365. My post may be long, but my guess is if you linked all of your ‘triangle,’ posts together it would be as long as ‘War and Peace.’

      • Esmom says:

        C’mon Bugglez, Not sure why I feel compelled to defend myself but I’ve been reading/posting here for years and I’ve never “kicked Brangelina in the teeth” nor coddled Aniston. I may have defended Aniston from the inordinate hate she gets around here but that doesn’t mean I hate AJ or Brad. Geez.

      • Ennie says:

        I do find funny that usually the same people are complaining about the length of a post (usually filled with data, not rants), especially when they are usually always complaining about something JP related.
        It is like their usual M.O. , to try to “discredit” JP fans who care to answer in a celeb blog. Hey, some of us are fans and some of those fans have good memory. That’s it. 🙂

      • Bugglez says:

        Thank you Ennie! +1000

  3. OhDear says:

    This is why I don’t blame celebrities for not talking about their personal political beliefs.

    • Amy says:

      Absolutely. It’s dangerous to reveal personal prejudices because then people might form opinions based on them and not just throw money at the person anymore.

      Better to smile and pretend to be a developed human being.

  4. It is what it is says:

    I actually think affirmative action is racist…you judge someone based on one thing that they couldn’t control, that has nothing to do with their qualities or intelligence, for a job offer, salary bump, tax break, etc. That doesn’t sound fair to me.

    • Helen says:

      That’s not really how it works. AA says that if you have two people who have the same qualifications, you grant the PoC the position first.

      It’s essentially the same thing if white person a and white person b both had the same qualifications, but white person b presented better in an essay or interview, so they have white person b the job over a.

      • kranky says:

        “AA says that if you have two people who have the same qualifications, you grant the PoC the position first.”

        Wrong. I create Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs) for a living. Under Federal Regulations, it is illegal to consider race/ethnicity or gender in any employment decision. There are no quotas and no preferences allowed. AAPs are done to ensure that these factors are not impacting employment decisions (i.e., hiring firing, promotion, compensation, etc.). The analysis compare whites to non-whites and men to women, so the assumption is that being white and male is the gold standard. The white-male difference is that any findings that show impact against whites or men is generally not followed up by the Department of Labor in an Affirmative Action scenario.. meaning an audit by the government would overlook these concerns.

        I would give Vaughn a D in his assessment of AA: it is true that bias against whites or men is not considered, but in no way does AA allow/encourage employers to make decisions based on RNO and gender.

        Disclaimer: the University system of Affirmative Action is WAY different. They do use quotas and race/ethnicity preferences are used.

      • Layday says:

        @Kranky if you’re going to correct someone please don’t then give out wrong info in areas you are unfamiliar with. The university system does NOT use quotas in regards to affirmative action. Please read up on the University of Michigan affirmative action case of Grutter v. Bollinger where the Supreme Court ruled the school could not use a point system or what they essentially labeled a quota system where Black students were given preference in undergraduate admissions. What the Supreme Court did rule was that the continued use of race preferences could continue if race could be considered among a host of other factors. In Fisher vs. the University of Texas the court used standing to avoid having to address this question again in 2013. For all intensive purposes, the use of race based quotas in regards to affirmative action is dead according to the Supreme Court. Race based preferences are hanging on by a thread, which I base off Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion in Grutter but quotas and race preferences are not the same thing.

      • Wolf says:

        “intents and purposes”, you mean?

    • Renee28 says:

      Affirmative action is simply an attempt to level the playing field. Statistically minorities will be hired and promoted less than their white counterparts even if their qualifications are equal or better. It’s not a perfect system but something needs to be done to even things out.

      • Mel M says:

        Right, and let’s be honest here, AA is like Unions in the sense that they both started out as a great idea to protect people and give them rights through laws that need to be upheld by an employer but there are many times where these laws are abused and not used in the way they were originally intended to be used. I’m not saying it happens everywhere but it does happen and then that gives ammo to the opposition about why it doesn’t work and needs to be changed or abandoned. Where there are humans expected to follow rules there will always be corruption and the taking advantage of the system. I’m really not sure there will ever be a better way though.

    • Sixer says:

      Here’s an example of affirmative action that I’m personally dealing with/advocating for right now. It’s a rich/poor thing rather than a race thing but the principle is the same.

      Universities in the UK issue grades offers to potential students. They base this on predicted grades from teachers and factor in extra-curricular activities which the student includes on the application form.

      Let’s assume a university’s standard grade offer is AAB and it only makes offers to students with those predicted grades or above AND has extra-curricular activity related to their degree. Students must attain the same exam level, no matter who they are. They also must show an interest in their subject outside of school lessons, no matter who they are. The university fulfills its obligation to “attract” poorer students by offering them cash bursaries once they start their course. That’s fair, right? Same entry requirements, plus some support for poorer kids over and above what rich kids get.

      Not really. Because the rich kids have gone to private schools with tiny class sizes and extra facilities plus specialist teachers. No lab equipment sharing. No laptop access issues. No up-to-date textbook issues. Extra coaching on hand every time they struggle with a particular topic. And the private schools run extra-curricular activities specifically tailored to fit in with every single subject their students may want to study at university.

      So the poor kid who gets BBB has probably outdone the rich kid who gets AAA. The poor kid who has managed to include a subject-appropriate hobby has probably had to travel further/work harder/show more dedication to include it than the rich kid.

      So why are the entry requirements the same? They don’t reflect the same level of achievement or dedication. That’s why affirmative action. In the jobs market, for some people, just getting to the interview says more about them and their efforts than anything the other attendees have even dreamed of achieving or have achieved.

      • mia girl says:

        @ Sixer – I’m also reflecting on a simlar issue in the U.S. – see my post below

      • Sixer says:

        @ Mia

        Infuriating, isn’t it? Equality of results does not equal equality of achievement, intelligence, or potential. I’m particularly raw about this because I’m a school governor and we’re currently trying to get a disadvantaged kid into a good university. He’ll get in to a lower level one even on his results, but the kid’s got MASSIVE potential. He should be going to a top tier institution. But he’s not going to get AAA, not because he’s not capable of it, but because he hasn’t had a pennyworth of capital – parental, financial, cultural, anything – put into him in his entire life. We have managed to get him an interview at a top tier place and we’re waiting to see if they’ll make him a lower-than-usual offer. I think we’re in with a good chance and I KNOW he’ll be an investment worth making if they do. But we can’t do this for everyone. I’m a volunteer, for heavens sakes.

        We need economic background affirmative action built into the university recruitment process here in the UK. We really, really do.

        Good luck to your daughter!

      • Imo says:

        This is why we all love you. Would Kiddo and Mimith be offended if a total stranger through an honorary drink on you?

      • mia girl says:

        Sixer – My hat is off to you and all you are doing for this boy. I will send all my positive energy his way.

        And now understanding how the U.S. college entrance process has changed (in the past you could not take these test multiple times without it counting against you), I see where the system has potentially put kids from challenging economic backgrounds at an even greater disadvantage.

        My daughter and I have been discussing how to help other teens by starting a mentoring program among the kids and a guidance program for their parents. There are so many parents who are not familiar with what these kids need to do to get into college and have little to no funds to get them there. I’ll keep you posted.

        And thanks for your well wishes too. She received her first test scores back and they are really great.

      • Sixer says:

        Aww. Thanks, guys. Don’t give me too much credit though – it’s all of us at the school trying to make this happen. You know, they’ve done studies that show the poorer kids with slightly lower entry results (say BBB instead of AAB for the private school kid) actually end up with higher-graded degrees on average – IF they get admitted. So, as soon as the resources going into them are on a level playing field, as they are once they mix at university, the best students end up at the top and it isn’t ALWAYS the rich kid. So affirmative action is in the university’s interest too – that’s the most frustrating thing about it.

    • Londerland says:

      But the point is that affirmative action is necessary to level the playing field for people who, because of this “thing they couldn’t control”, are less likely to get ahead based on merit alone. A person of colour applying for a job or a scholarship will be less likely to get it than a white person with the same qualifications – maybe because of outright racism, maybe because of unconscious prejudice, but the result is the same.

      The power structure of the USA and the UK (where I live) is still overwhelmingly composed of old white men, and though it’s easy to say we have anti-discrimination legislation and we can’t legally discriminate based on race, how do you fight the desire of a bunch of old white dudes to keep on hiring people they can relate to, people who look like them, sound like them, share the same views and politics as them?

      I worked in a place where the workforce was about 1/2 Asian, and yet strangely, every time a managerial position came up, any opportunity for promotion, a white guy got it. The same gang of white men who hung out together, drank together, leched over the office girls together, mysteriously kept not picking the people who’d worked there longer and were more experienced and just happened to be brown-skinned. I interviewed for a position once against one other candidate, a Pakistani guy who was awesome at his job. I got the promotion. They admitted to me afterward that he’d interviewed better than me but they just wanted me to have the job anyway. I stepped down soon after. Hard to enjoy the view when you know you stepped over someone else to get there.

      When this was questioned, it was pointed out that everyone had the opportunity to apply and be interviewed for positions, and everyone was chosen on merit. The company actually had the gall the act offended at the suggestion that race was an issue when they had managed to create a 100% white management team out of a 50% Asian workforce. How do you combat that sort of idiocy EXCEPT to demand affirmative action and force the power structure to open up to people of colour?

      Affirmative action may be technically “racist” but it is also, sadly, necessary.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      If society wasn’t racist, it would be obsolete. It’s only racist if you look at it out of context. Why do people not get that? Context is key. Always. You need affirmative action, i.e. the government “interfering” because society apparently cannot be left to its own devices when it comes to judging someone solely based on their intelligence, qualifications, etc. People shouldn’t blame their government for seeing the need for affirmative action. They should blame themselves because not seeing the need for it? That in itself is problematic at best.

    • Alicia says:

      In a perfect world we wouldn’t need affirmative action and people would be judged on their ability, but there are still biases against African-Americans, Hispanics and women getting top jobs in many industries. There was one study that showed that white men with criminal backgrounds were able to get jobs over African-American or Hispanic men who had no criminal records. Go look at the tech industry which is overwhelmingly white and male despite the fact that there are numerous qualified women and minorities who interview for those spots.

      Vince Vaughn grew up wealthy and connected – he is the last person who should be talking about affirmative action.

    • Bugglez says:

      That’s not what Affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a law which says that companies, many of which who have discriminated on the basis of race in the past must give minorities and women and even shot at getting in the door. It doesn’t mean they hire the black guy or the white girl over the old white man…but it does mean that if they’re qualified they at least have an opportunity to apply and be interviewed. Before affirmative action that would not have been the case. You need to at least do the bare minimal in acquiring knowledge of your own country’s laws before you disregard a policy that has literally made your own life better (if you’re a white female).

    • mytbean says:

      ok -Bugglez – You just saved me a rant. tyvm… lol

  5. Sunnyside says:

    I think constantly talking about race just divides people further. We’ve been doing it for years hoping it would help but it seems race tensions are really escalating lately so it might be time to focus on what unites us all as people rather than what divides us.

    • Pri says:

      I kinda get you, but not talking about it or not calling out all the bad things that exist in our society is also not helping. Then, there you have a lopsided society where a few get the benefits and can succeed and the others don’t because of what no one recognised as a problem in the first place.

    • Amy says:

      Did it occur to you that might be because people still run from the discussion and refuse to contribute anything of constructive change?

      We’ve been talking about breast cancer for years but I don’t see anyone claiming since we haven’t cured it we should stop.

      • Jay says:

        Amy, what a grossly false equivalency. Breast cancer is a physical disease while racism is a social one. I feel torn because talking about issues is important, but it seems the more we talk about it the more heated and divided people become.

        I am white and when I was little I lived in a diverse area and had black, white, Indian, and Puerto Rican friends. I remember being taught about racism in elementary school and I came home crying because I couldn’t understand it.

        Racial tension is taught.

      • Amy says:

        “Racial tension is taught”

        Indeed it is. So what changes my example? Breast cancer is terrible destructive cancer and instead of running from discussing and studying the issue we put MORE time and money into it because it is something we can look at, quantify, and categorize.

        Racism is a taught set of beliefs but it’s destructive power has spanned generations, killed children, and ruined lives. Somehow though people always cop to, “If we stop talking about it the problem will eventually solve itself”. No it won’t. I’m glad you grew up in a diverse area but that doesn’t change that what you learned from a book or a teacher some other child experienced in life.

        That heat and divide you feel? That’s anger and pain that reaches deep down into people and comes from generations of the same frustrations and anger. The fact it’s an outside entity to you and not something that you feel in the pit of your stomach is the real divide. That is what makes your experiences different from those of the minority children you grew up with.

    • tifzlan says:

      The only way to get over the racial divide is to keep talking about race and the inequalities surrounding certain groups from being subjugated by others in the past. We have to keep talking and acknowledging the historical factors that have led to the conditions we have today.

      • Jay says:

        I fail to see how constantly bringing up the divide closes the divide. If anything, it angers the people who suffer from inequality, and it annoys the privileged people who aren’t educated enough to recognize that inequality. I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about it. I don’t know what the answer is, but clearly talking about it constantly isn’t helping.

      • Dani2 says:

        @Jay in other words, people of colour need to shut up and let you enjoy your sandwich? Do you think it’s fun bringing up something that’s painful? We just need to get over it, right? You have no idea how insensitive/naive you’re coming across in these comments.

      • Jay says:

        @Dani is that what I said? I clearly stated we shouldn’t stop talking about it,a nd I never said anyone should just get over anything. Comments like yours are what makes the discussion so exhausting and furthers the divide. SO sick of the PC police. I’m just being honest. We discuss racial issues all the time and where has it gotten us? I’m not naive in the least, just realistic.

      • Dani2 says:

        @Jay I find it hilarious that the person who says we should refrain from talking about race because we would “offend” one group of people while “annoying” another group, is calling me the politically correct police. In my experience, people who throw around the term “PC police” as a way of discrediting another person’s opinions are insensitive people. And yes, I will reiterate that (based on your comments) you are naive.

      • Jay says:

        I never said we SHOULD refrain, I simply stated that when we continuously discuss this issue, those are the inevitable effects, which is unfortunate. Your reading comprehension is lacking. Having a discussion with you is pointless; you’re the kind of person who will twist the words of anyone who doesn’t say exactly what you think he/she should, at least regarding this matter (so yeah, PC police is fitting).

      • Dani2 says:

        @Jay I’m not twisting anything but you can keep trying to paint yourself as a sort of pseudo victim. Once again, you obviously don’t know what the term “politically correct” means so I’m sure this won’t be the last time you throw that word around in an argument to discredit the other person’s view. And I’m not the only person who has found your comments to be problematic so as much as you might like to pretend that my reading comprehension is the problem, the reactions to your comments point to the contrary. Deuces ✌️

    • Bugglez says:

      It’s a fallacy that we’ve ever not talked about race. Your country not only talked about it, they created language for it, and formulas for it, and made laws having to do with race that discriminated against your fellow citizens and altered lives for generations. I think your confusion lies in the fact that you mistakenly think the ‘talk,’ surrounding race has always been for the betterment of the country – no, in the grand scheme of things that timeline is heartbreakingly short..maybe one generation. The rest of the talk about race has negative – it’s been whites discriminating against blacks, creating concepts and code words to further marginalize or oppress. We need to talk about it all. Saying we shouldn’t talk about race is really just your way of saying ‘Ok, these blacks and browns need to shut up now and let’s just go back to whites only talking amongst themselves on how to oppress and exclude others like always.’

      • Jay says:

        That’s quite a bold leap. I believe many people would like to stop talking about racial divides because let’s be real, it’s exhausting. That doesn’t translate to “let’s only let white people talk to each other and oppress people further.” How asinine.

        And for the record, whites weren’t the first people to oppress others. That was and is a universal problem. Villainizing one race only furthers the divide.

      • tifzlan says:

        Jay, if you think it’s exhausting talking about it, imagine how it is for those of us actually living it.

      • Dani2 says:

        @Jay your idea that the way to fix a social issue is to not talk about it is what is “asinine”. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

      • Jay says:

        Never said we shouldn’t talk about it. I reiterate, I DO NOT KNOW what the answer is. Can anyone here read? We talk about it constantly and racial tension is extremely high still. Hence, we need to find a new solution, or a new way of talking about it. But keep putting words in my mouth so you can ensure that this discussion continues to be exhausting. Very effective.

        and tifzlan, I’m sure it is incredibly exhausting to live it. I’m not diminishing that in any way. Doesn’t change the fact that the constant discussion is getting us nowhere.

      • Bugglez says:

        It’s not “villainizing,” Jay – it’s called facts. Are you so naive that you think if “we,” aren’t discussing race that no one is? In the late 50s and 1960s the discussion about race may have centered around “How do we ensure white patrons of the bus system in Birmingham have a nice comfortable ride – we’ll tell everyone who isn’t white they gave to move to the very back when a white patron gets on.” That was INDEED a discussion about race. There was no back and forth about the fairness of making a black pregnant woman get up and move for a 28 yr old white male. You did it or went to jail. That is what I meant. If we’re not talking together to be constructive it’s naive to think there won’t be any talk at all. The talk that has been negative and racist will continue and thrive. That was my point.

        But by all means…since you’re so exhausted with your white privileged society having to listen to black folk and others discuss societal ills and unfair treatment – please continue to ignore what doesn’t affect you in your very ivory tower.

      • Jay says:

        @Bugglez, funny how someone who wants constructive discussion is throwing out ignorant terms like “very ivory tower.” How childish and NON constructive can you be?

        This discussion is exhausting for EVERYONE involved. Most politically and emotionally charged discussions are. But you seem quite determined to project all your disdain for current social structure on me, so I suppose you’ll find I way to twist everything I say to make me look like some uneducated backwoods hick.

        I wonder if I hadn’t revealed my whiteness if you would have been able to have an intelligent discussion rather than trying to educate me about history I am already aware of and throwing shade at my skin color? Food for thought.

  6. lukie says:

    Kaiser, you summed it up perfectly.

    Also, does anyone realize that the group that has benefited the most from affirmative action are not People of Color, but WOMEN, especially White women?

    ….though after all this Sony BS, I am not so sure how much that benefit pans out sometimes…

    • bbg says:

      Thank you! Most people don’t realize that, and it is true. White women benefit the most from affirmative action. Yet, the right likes an opportunity to try and frame anything as Blacks being given special privileges, so they can lambast us. This slide show nicely sums up how to respond to People like Vince when they say dumb, uninformed crap like this:

    • jen2 says:

      Thank you. When he talks like he did, it just proves he does not know what Affirmative Action actually is, the groups that it benefits, and the good that has actually come from having it..Title IX, equal (or more equal) pay for equal work, etc. all stem from affirmative action principles. People frequently use race to put it down as it is an easy target.

    • Pinky says:

      Post this anywhere and everywhere you go! People keep trying to remain willfully ignorant and spread their infectious thoughts to other weak-minded followers.

  7. OriginallyBlue says:

    He doesn’t even make any sense. It’s easy to say this crap when you don’t have to deal with it. It definitely shows a lack of understanding and privilege. Not everyone has the same opportunities, but when the world is open to you and others like you, you don’t see the people behind and under you struggling for a small fraction of what you have and probably take for granted.
    Also the government had to get involved with gay marriage because people weren’t able to marry whoever they wanted. What a dumbass.

  8. Dirty Martini says:

    I philosophically to agree with him……my leanings are libertarian as well.

    • Joy says:

      Yeah but he will be ripped to shreds on this site. I usually just try to avoid these topics on here because often the same people screaming for tolerance are very intolerant of other views.

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      I actually don’t think he’s wrong. Giving preferential treatment to someone based on their race or gender *is* discriminatory. I don’t want any patronizing special allowances or “bonus points” because I’m equipped with a vagina. I want to be ranked against the best and get accepted/hired based on that alone.

      • Nebby says:

        Except that’s not how it works. Studies have shown time and time again if you have two equally qualified people more than likely a white man will receive the position. Actually more qualified black people and women have and still have to deal with not being promoted or hired even though they are the most qualified. In theory I believe what he is saying that race gender religion shouldn’t be a factor, but in practice it is all wrong thats not how the world really works.

    • mia girl says:

      Sorry lost post coming…
      Look, I wish in the U.S. the system would allow us all to be equally judged. But there are inherit problems in the system that can prevent this. And while affirmative action may not be ideal, and we can certainly discuss different ways to approach the problem, it is not only about “race equality” but about trying to level a playing field that is not equal to start. Let me give you an example –

      My daughter has just begun the testing process leading up to college applications next year. Now, you can take the SAT & ACT as many times as you like and by doing this a student can achieve a Super Score (taking the best individual section scores from each test). We can afford for her, as needed, to take advantage of this to take these tests multiple times. At $75 a pop.

      My daughter goes to a school with people of high financial status. Recently some of her classmates signed up, paid and decided on test day not to take the test. They have plenty of more chances to do this and not a thought about how these tests cost money. Many will take both of these tests 3+ times. And by taking multiple tests, multiple times they can ultimately choose which test works best for them and position themselves best as they apply for college.

      Juxtapose this to my friend’s daughter who will have to work two weeks at McDonalds’ in her part time job to have enough money to pay for one test. And even if her mom decided to skip a car payment one month to pay for a second test, at best, this girl will struggle to have no more than two opportunities to achieve a Super Score against ONE test vs what many kids with higher means will achieve with 3 or 4 attempts. And let’s not even begin to discuss the cost for applying to multiple colleges.

      So when the tests you need to take to get into college cost money, there is not an even playing field. And this disproportionally tends to affect minorities. So while I wish we did live in a world where it is simply about being “judged by their intelligence”, solutions like affirmative action (while not ideal) can help. Or we decide that everyone should be able to take the SAT/ACT for free and that you shouldn’t have to pay money to apply to a college.

      • Gretchen says:

        Perfectly put, mia girl.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        So my white male son missed a perfect score on the sat by 10 points….the 1st time he took it. Scored perfectly on all subject matter tests……the 1st time he took it. And had extra curriculars out the wazoo. And was a class leader — the quiet , steady eddy type. But we come from white first generation upper middle class. I’m grateful for all we have… And we are the first generation to do so. He applied to 3 Ivies and Stanford among several others. Two wait listed him and 2 denied him. While his friends with a notch lower scores snd extras that came from Lebanon or were diverse applicants or were lower parent economics or higher economic (legacies !) got multi acceptances. It stung…..for – few weeks. He did wind up at one of the nations top liberal arts, perfect for him and he’s happy there. When I analyze this ….did AA play a part? Yes. All the kids that got in the Ivies were great kids, happy for,them, but I know his grades comparatively to,theirs ….and yeah, his were just a twitch better. Also well that ends well, he’s happy……but 4 years later I still,shake my head. That’s one of many reasons I see V s point and am not a fan of AA. AA in academics can hurt some kids while it helps others — and those kids tend to be middle class white ones.

      • mia girl says:

        DM- You must be really proud of your son. His achievements are seriously impressive.
        And I completely understand that he seems to have experienced the negatives of both sides – AA and Legacy. My daughter is a super achiever like your son and we also feel stuck in the middle so to speak. For us any $ assistance with college will have to come from merit, or loans. And yet we struggle and don’t feel wealthy, but comparatively… sigh.

        That said, I know that we will have the financial means to give her many options for college, the $ to apply to many colleges so she can find the place that is right for her. So many people don’t.

        AA is not ideal, and we should definitely be talking about reforms that truly level the playing field for ALL… but I do think that for now, it balances out more than not some of the financial and social inequities that are inherent in the system.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        Mia. Thanks. I used to agree with you. But when your kid gets screwed ….. For being white middle class…..And when merit is disregarded over race ……..I’m not all sanguine b. Yes we are pleased with his education and we are pleased to be able to provide it. We thank God every pm for our blessings. They way outweigh our first world problems. But yes –my 140 IQ, personable leader son was turned down for someone who had leaders credentials. Becaisr he was white, middle class and had no buildings named after his great branddTher. If decisions on the basis of race are wrong — they aRe wrong for everyone.

    • Jenny says:

      I completely agree with Vince and with you….

    • Mari says:

      I tend to agree. Today’s affirmative action has forced the concept of “racial proportionality” to such an extent that openly discriminating against non-minorities of every other color has become perfectly acceptable. That’s a concept that needs to be all together abandoned. For reference, I am a minority in the town I live in, and have been turned down for employment in broadcasting because I did not fit the majority demographic. I have since found wonderful employment so I’m glad it happened, but still, is it fair and just in today’s society?

      • Bugglez says:

        How can you be a “non-minority of every other color?” If you’re not white you ARE a minority. Hello? Also how do you know why you were turned down? Hiring practices are still subjective after the qualification piece – in other words…if you’re Pakistani heritage and you said something dim witted like ‘I’m a non-minority non white,’ maybe they immediately scratches you off their list for saying weird ish.

  9. Talie says:

    Meh. A ton of these actors probably have racist/sexist ideas about a lot of things.

  10. pf says:

    I will always side eye Vince Vaughn. He comes from a privileged background. His mother Sharon was a hedge fund manager who scammed $25 million and has a lifetime ban from the securities industry. Must be nice to be both wealthy and douchey.

    • Kim1 says:

      I feel sorry for Rich White Guys .
      They used to control over ninety percent of corporate America now it’s probably down to eighty percent.

      • Amy says:

        To quote a hilarious comment I heard on the cartoon series American Dad, “I hate how we (white guys) only have MOST of the power now!”

    • Esmom says:

      Yeah, as I was reading his words I was thinking about how he’s from one of the whitest, richest suburbs in Chicago. He has zero perspective whatsoever.

  11. MonicaQ says:

    “It’s always nice to hear from a white man who has been given tons of opportunities to succeed – even after failing spectacularly many times – discuss how level the playing field is for minorities. Thank you, Vince Vaughn. ”

    Best. Snark. Ever. Ty.

    • andypandy says:

      I know right his entire career is a testimony to White privilege , Sooooh many white actors mainly male make some stinkers that bomb at the box office and lose studio millions yet they keep getting more chances.Yet Hollywood is reluctant to bankroll any black actor project under the guise not that it will make a loss but the wont make ENOUGH Money so even if its profitable like Denzil they will still whine ala Sony about the ” risk ” but never mind the countless losses they make bankrolling questionable projects featuring white actors

      • MonicaQ says:

        Exactly. He’s made plenty of terrible movies and yet here he is! Adam Sandler is another one who keeps getting a pass even when he makes crap.

  12. Merritt says:

    Of course. He can’t see past his white male privilege. He doesn’t know what is is like to be passed over for a job or promotion because of his gender or ethnicity. He doesn’t know how discouraging it is to see a lesser qualified white male, who you have trained, get promoted over you.

    He doesn’t see the inequality in his own industry. Fewer lead parts go to women because fewer leads are written for women. There is ample evidence that audiences (and their money) are willing to see female driven films. But Hollywood is just a sausage fest.

  13. scout says:

    Can’t win either way, it’s better to err on the side of caution.

  14. . says:


  15. It's Not Like That says:

    Self-proclaimed “liberatarians” are usually white political conservatives with money who want to sound like they arrived at some great intellectual decision, but they really just want to separate themselves from rednecks/Tea Party people.

    Also: “you’re evaluating someone based on race, which is racism.” No, racism is *discriminating* against someone based on race. Affirmative action *evaluates* on qualifications to study or do a job.

    Also: “I like the principles of the Constitution and the republic, which is a form of government built around the law.” Yet “Trusting the federal government to know what we need and to run things well feels like a bad idea.” Vince, untangle yourself! Laws are written so the government can run things and help us get what we need. Having problems with the “trust” part? Elect better people and get money out of politics.

    Also: “Rights don’t come to you because you’re a man or a woman or African American or European or Jewish.” Spot on, Vince. They’re supposed to come to you because you’re an *American.* Hence the laws. Upheld by the government. ‘Cause you can’t do it for yourself.

    He musta slept through his Poli Sci class.

    • Esmom says:

      Agree with everything you’ve said, spot on.

    • lucy2 says:

      Excellent post.
      “Rights don’t come to you because you’re a man or a woman or African American or European or Jewish. ” But rights were taken AWAY from people for some of those things, which he seems to be ignoring. Marriage rights for some today, voting rights for many not that long ago. Because that did happen, and continues to happen, it can’t be ignored.

      Maybe I’m giving him too much credit, but I THINK he’s trying to say that in a perfect world, affirmative action and other such laws wouldn’t need to exist and race/gender/sexuality wouldn’t be an issue in any situation. Sure. But it’s not a perfect world, and to only speak to that is incredibly naive – especially coming from someone who has had everything in his favor – Male, white, born into a wealthy nation AND a wealthy family. He’s never had to face discrimination in the workplace. He’s never had to watch movie roles and bigger paychecks be handed to a less talented actor because a studio feels the public won’t go see him in a role due to his race or gender.

    • Dirty Martini says:

      And you say this in the basis of what? Most libertarians I know — and being a tad politically involved I know many — are fiscally conservative and socially quite liberal. They are quite liberal around individual choice, And just as committed to smaller government. This two party mentality — us vs then, For us or against is — is actually the calling card of the vocal minority in the U.S. Those of us in the middle drive election results. That’s why we swing to and fro around who’s in charge. This country needs a viable 3rd party. And hell no it isn’t the tea party either. I wish the libertarian party could galvanize the independents and an acceptable platform developed. I don’t think that time is too far off.

    • Nedsdag says:

      I call libertarianism “on paperism,” because “on paper,” it sounds great: no government, no regulations, no taxes, free drugs, isolationism, but when you actually put libertarianism to work it’s a whole new ball game.

      Heck, even the patron saint of libertarianism, Ayn Rayd, got social security.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        The current libertarian platform calls for the opportunity to “opt out” of government withholding from your payback and then collecting later. Given how much I have been forced to out in, you bet I’ll be taking it out later too. Having said that…..I don’t agree with all of the current platform of the libertarian party (their position on drugs for example). More change is needed and the other two parties aren’t any better and we’ve had them long enough.

  16. Alicia says:

    Also, his comments about same sex marriage are hilarious given that when Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche were dating, he publicly blasted them for showing affection in public towards each other. He called it “disgusting” and said they should keep their homosexuality private. Notice how he has never said one word against heterosexual people kissing in public.

  17. Amy says:

    “Why isn’t there a White History Month?”

    “Why isn’t there a White Entertainment Television?”

    “Why doesn’t the entire world function based on my small slice of privelaged life?”

    A part of me thinks people who complain about Affirmative Action as being racist are annoyed a competent minority individual might take a position that would have gone to a non-minority slacker. But of course that’s not even how it actually works since Affirmative Action has most benefited white women.

    • Pinky says:

      Wanna be my friend?

      • Amy says:


        We’ll just be over here with facts, figures, and history while others spout anecdotes and opinions.

    • Dani2 says:

      “Why aren’t there funerals for people who are alive??”

      “Why isn’t there a Straight Pride movement??”

      Once again Amy, you’re on point.

      • Amy says:

        “Maybe if we stopped mentioning that some people are handicapped maybe then there’d be less discrimination? Talking about disabilities hasn’t stopped the problem, so we shouldn’t talk about it anymore.”

      • Dani2 says:

        @Amy LOL I love your comments. I can’t believe how people don’t see how dumb it is to not discuss these things.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Amy I love you.

  18. Jusme says:

    I’m a female and a minority and I agree. People are so stuck thinking the two party platforms that they don’t dig in on philosophy. They hear labels and assume what your heart is or what you think and then they turn around and say labeling people is wrong.

  19. Wren33 says:

    Affirmative action is a very problematic solution to a very real, devastating, entrenched problem. I guess at some point, if it is causing more racial tension than it is accomplishing good, it should be revisited. But, goddam, I wish some of these white guys would realize that their entire life has been one affirmative action benefiting them. I don’t want to say he is awful – if preference for white males is so all-encompassing and pervasive, it can be very hard to see if you are a beneficiary. I think one major problem is that everyone suffers, and someone can have “white privilege” yet have a tough life of tragedy, discrimination for other reasons, etc. So, some white people get the message that “your life is so easy” when it is much more complicated than that.

    • jc126 says:

      If there were a form of Affirmative Action that benefitted people based on economic status rather than race – trying to help poor people of all ethnicities – more people might support it, and it would also help poor African Americans, Hispanics and others.

      • K says:

        I think the ideal would be Affirmative Action based on economic origin, race, and gender tbh. All are valid factors and it’s depressing that women, POC and working class people are all set against one another, rather than examining what (if any) privileges they may have, and where most of the power really lies: not with other potential recipients.

        So many studies prove that women are disadvantaged compared to men, POC compared to whites, and the affluent compared to the poor. Yet people argue over their own disadvantage being greater than some other marginalised group’s. I’m not saying intersectionality isn’t an essential consideration, just that sometimes it feels like that joke:

        A banker, a teacher and a homeless person are sat in front of 10 cookies. The banker takes 9 and then whispers to the teacher, “watch that vagrant. He’s gonna steal your cookie.”

  20. Micki says:

    As non US-citizen I can’t say a thing about the Affirmative Action.
    His opinion on undeclared wars I find correct. And his Aniston-time….he thinks first how he was avoiding the paps….and…ah…, yes, she’s a wonderful person.LOL

  21. RobN says:

    People seem to think we ought to speak about, and confront the race issue, in this country, but if you’re a white guy, you simply aren’t allowed to have an opinion. Whatever you say is immediately dismissed as the musings of somebody who doesn’t recognize how privileged they are.

    I’m not sure what the answer is, but the automatic “sure, you think that, you’re a rich white guy who has never experienced discrimination” response just kills the conversation.

    • Amy says:

      Maybe if they provided responses that weren’t so thoroughly grounded in a stilted ignorant view of the world their opinions wouldn’t be dismissed so readily?

      No one in a wheelchair wants to hear someone with two perfectly good legs whine about how handicap spaces make them park so far away.

      • RobN says:

        Calling people ignorant because their world view doesn’t match yours is exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me. Has there ever been a productive discussion that started with “you’re stupid”? I doubt it. That’s fine but don’t sound all surprised that the only people who want to discuss race with you are the ones who already agree with you.

      • Amy says:

        “Calling people ignorant because their world view doesn’t match yours is exactly my point.”

        Well…ignorance is ignorance, especially when one chooses to remain ignorant and decide they should legislate the world for individuals with less advantages based on that ignorance. Coddling someone’s feelings so they don’t get ouchies on their inside parts won’t help the child who wouldn’t get into college or a job because of AA.

        Honestly…it’s like this. Inform yourself (general not specific you), open your world view beyond what has happened in your small sphere of the world. Study facts. Read scientific studies. Look into communities centered around minority and immigrant populations. You want me to go, “Yeah it really sucks for those guys who are white and can’t quite figure out why the world has been restructured to help people who aren’t him.” But that would be such a waste of time. Those men have every opportunity to empathize with someone facing struggles they never will, if they can’t do that and approach discussions with this new information then what is the point?

        To stifle the conversation so they can catch up? To smile and pretend it’s not offensive when they tell someone a program that helped lesson discrimination is racist? Please tell me how to make things easier that doesn’t instead hurt the injured parties?

      • Jay says:

        YES RobN you say what I’m thinking more eloquently than I could. Some people are truly ignorant (is Vince? Idk), but maybe–just maybe– others are educated and simply differ in opinion. The people who claim they want constructive discussion tend to be the same people who dismiss all opinions that don’t align with their own (opposite of constructive).

    • lucy2 says:

      He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but when he publicly gives that opinion in a manner that suggests he’s only looking at it from his own perspective, without considering those who actually do face the type of discrimination affirmative action was created to deal with, I think it’s fair to call him on it.
      I agree it shouldn’t be used to shut down the conversation, but actually to continue it – I think that’s how people learn, being reminded that not everyone experiences the world in the same way. Maybe if the journalist had said “would you feel the same if you weren’t a white, privileged male?” it could have led to Vaughn considering that, or at least a more in depth discussion. It’s such a complex issue, and all we can react to here is one pulled quote from an interview.

  22. WTF says:

    Ignorant, privileged, a**hat.

  23. EscapedConvent says:

    His attitudes are baffling to me. I try to ignore the inside of his head because I like him as an actor.

    If anyone doubts that he’s a good character actor, see “Clay Pigeons” and “Return to Paradise,” both with Joaquin Phoenix

  24. Catelina says:

    I think of affirmative action as a necessary evil. I dont really like it but I think its something we need when looking at the big picture for progress in our country.

  25. StormsMama says:

    I get so frustrated that people CAN NOT see that our country was built on the backs of minorities and women and white men made riches and became entrenched in the system…so that it is now STILL primarily white and for white men. The fact that he thinks it would only take a generation to absolve those structural and institutional crimes of humanity…the fact that he can’t see that, for example, Wedding Crashers is an amazing example of his white privilege ON SCREEN via the story IS GROSS. Vince you are pretty but not so smart. Sure it looks like we’ve reached equality— you are a 6 foot 4 white guy. Sigh. I just can’t.

  26. ashley says:

    I get where he is coming from. I feel like it wouldn’t have come across so poorly if he’d offered some other suggestion. I do sometimes feel like AA based on socioeconomic level or something other than race would be even better. There are plenty of white kids who have no chance of a good life, and plenty of black kids with more opportunities. Granted, those black kids who have more opportunities are always going to face prejudice that white kids won’t, but at least at the level of college admissions, if they’ve already been raised in a good home and gone to a good school, race aside, they’re probably going to be pretty well prepared to at least get into college. I’m not sure about employment thought, I don’t know as much about how AA works in that context (excpet for the interesting explanations in this thread)

    • Bugglez says:

      How AA works in corporate America and in business is simple: if I’m qualified to apply for the job and do, you have to consider me as a possible candidate for the job and interview me. It doesn’t mean you have to hire me. You can still choose to hire the white guy. However companies do get audited. So if a company has interviewed 300 black, hispanic and female candidates in a 5 year period whose qualifications were equal or better than their white male counterparts and 9x out of 10 the white male was hired – they could be subjected to fines and penalties.

      In education and higher learning there were quotas. Those programs in many schools (based on state politics) have gone by the wayside. State universities that were upwards of 10% african American when I was growing up have dropped to horrifyingly low numbers (under 2%) due to conservative think tanks finding some white kid who didn’t get in and crying reverse racism.

  27. Nymeria says:

    Affirmative Action needs to go. It is discriminating between applicants on the basis of a trait that has nothing to do with applicants’ qualifications for a job. Who can do the job best? Hire that person. Period.

    • Koji says:

      And if that were to occur, fine. It doesn’t though and that’s why AA is key. White men are typically more likely to be consider for something (be it jobs, government benefits, college acceptance) at levels that have never historically matched any population breakdown when it comes to candidates being of equal merit. AA attempts to make sure that the playing field is equal.

    • Bugglez says:

      Have you read nothing in this entire thread. There are several posts detailing for you and Vince Yawn what AA is and isn’t. It doesn’t MAKE companies hire ‘the blacks,’ so calm the eff down. It does however keep an eye on companies who may be only interviewing and accepting applications from white males (on the basis of (white) race that you talked about) – why is THAT kind of HISTORIC and present day discrimination fine with you? Why do you suddenly get all reticent about a policy that merely increases the odds that a woman or a minority’s application won’t be excluded and simply gets a chance to interview (we’re not talking about getting hired for the job). I bet when companies didn’t have to say who they interviewed and who they ultimately hired I bet you had no problem in thinking all white males were the only deserving qualified candidates. I bet you weren’t squawking about it being racial then we’re you? That white guys have jobs – no matter how much of a losee, slacker or incompetent is just the natural order of things eh?

  28. ArtGirl says:

    This is how I explained Affirmative Action to a co-worker of mine:

    Say you were playing poker with someone for 400 years and they’d cheated the entire time, thus having all of the chips. You finally catch them and they promise to stop cheating and from now on to play fair. You say, “hey, that’s all well and good, but you still have all of the chips. I need you to fork over some chips so we can be on a level playing field.” My co-worker asked me how long should they have to fork over those chips and I said I don’t know, ask me in another 400 years.

  29. JB11322 says:

    He is an idiot.
    Because many people who are non white, heterosexual males have been excluded from employment and educational opportunities we have affirmative action to level the playing field. If your “people” have, as a whole, benefited from the exclusion of other groups, (regarding civil rights- being able to vote and participate in government, healthcare, educational and employment opportunities, housing, opening a business, getting a loan, etc.) you have prospered. Anyone who can not or will not accept that simple truth in American history is a fool. Point blank period. End of discussion, bigoted ass.
    Wasn’t ever much of a fan, but will never support another movie he is in be it in the theater or pirated download.

  30. uninspired username says:

    “It’s always nice to hear from a white man who has been given tons of opportunities to succeed – even after failing spectacularly many times – discuss how level the playing field is for minorities.”


  31. Star says:

    So everybody who was ever wronged gets a headstart or a bonus? People who support AA might have compassion but it’s misguided because every group has experienced discrimination: blacks, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Asians, Indians, and white people, too. Level playing field means equal access, same rules for all. How is this offensive? Live and let live.

    • Amy says:

      It’s offensive because it shows that the people who make claims such as yours haven’t actually looked into the topic they’re rebutting.

      These programs exist because ‘live and let live’ didn’t work. But because the reality of not being accepted into college because of your race is something that only exists on an academic level for you it’s easy to feel offended at the thought.

      Also…did you seriously just throw Scientologists into the argument? …I bet you’re one of the ones who don’t see color if someone’s black, white, or purple either.

  32. Lady L says:

    So giving preferential treatment isn’t a form of bigotry? SURE.

    • Amy says:

      Removing rights and opportunities is a form of bigotry, when one group faces this issue more than others then sometimes the legal system steps in to balance the scales.

      It’s really quite simple.

  33. Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

    It isn’t called Affirmative Action when white guys get the benefits all over the world for centuries, it’s just called natural.

  34. me says:

    Dear Vince, if things were based just on talent/qualifications alone, you would not be an actor who gets paid millions. You are not that great of an actor and you have made some pretty bad movies. Yet you still get hired to do more movies and make more millions. You think your skin color and gender have nothing to do with it? Yeah it’s all based on your *cough* talent *cough*.

  35. Grace says:

    I would get upset with his affirmative action comments – like he would know what being discriminated against on race, color or sex is like – but I will blame his lack of intelligence on his unusually small head.

  36. Frosty says:

    Show me even one successful, large scale libertarian society. I’ll wait.

  37. mike says:

    As a white male dude type person, like most of my kind, I hate Affirmative action….but
    it was completely necessary when it came in back in the whatevers and it may be less necessary, but when it comes to government jobs, I don’t see why there shouldn’t be quotas.
    You can’t criticize black people for being lazy when you won’t give them jobs in the first place, and clearly that was the case for a heck of a long time.
    it might not be so necessary these days, but its better to err of the side of caution,.
    keep in mind as well that there are many many poor black people.
    poor people can’t get jobs at their daddy’s business.
    The government has to sort of act like their daddies.
    now , of course some may say that quotas promote incompetence, but that’s kind of silly; how difficult are most government jobs?
    i tend to be a conservative on many issues, but there is no doubt that there has been serious systemic racism in the US and it doesn’t hurt to level the playing field. The most obvious cure to dysfunction in the black community it to provide as many good solid jobs as possible to keep people away from the temptations of crime etc. having a good job gives you something to live for and a reason to stay out of trouble.


  38. Scotty Reid says:

    Here is what makes Vince Vaughn appear to be practicing racism and those that think like him. Vince Vaughn is displaying a racist thought process because he automatically assumes that Affirmative Action is only for and benefiting Black people. While Affirmative Action’s goals are admirable, it has done little to increase opportunities for so-called non-white minorities. What it has done is help women, primarily white women who start businesses and are awarded contracts based on their so-called minority status. A Mobile, Alabama city councilman recently took a white female owned company to task over not having a very diverse workforce that did reflect the demographics of the city and this company was enjoying the benefits of multi-million dollar contracts awarded to the company under Affirmative Action by the city.

    So when people like Vince Vaughn ignore the great benefit to white people made possible by Affirmative Action and only associate Affirmative Action with non-white people, then those people just might be practicing racism.

  39. YvetteW says:

    Is he interested in my opinion of over-rated actors who keep getting roles as if…they can act?

  40. Diz says:

    Love him. He nails it on affirmative action