NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, particularly in the United States, affirmative action (or positive discrimination, for all you Brits out there) is, in my view, a liability in the struggle against racism, as currently implemented. Certainly, a degree of allowance should be made to overcome the employment difficulties experienced by minorities in the United States (for purpose of debate, I will limit my statement to the situation in the US--not least of all because know very little of the similar situations outside the US. I welcome any enlightening statements on this subject), but the current system needs to be amended. First of all, the quota system needs to be abolished--honestly, this institution does more to harm the workforce as a whole rather than specifically benefit those it was designed to assist, as qualified white applicants are often overlooked for less qualified minorities. If it comes down to the line and two applicants, one of which is a minority, are of relatively equal and comparable qualifications, then the employer better think damn well if he decides to accept the white (aka, in this situation, a preference toward the underepresented minority should be exhibited). In all seriousness, affirmative action is an institution that needs to be altered significantly before racism can truly be abolished.

Any thoughts?

Feel free to discuss. I am open to any points and am willing to take into consideration anyone else' point of view on this matter :)

Yes, erm, it seems that my magnificent thread killing ability has struck again...mayhaps this topic has already been discussed

I agree, the quota system for Affirmative Action does more harm than good. I also believe that the actual function of Affirmative Action is a positive one, but it is aso being abused to a certain degree.

Do other countries, mainly in Europe, have similar programs? If so, how do hey work and compare to the US? More fair? Less fair?

Flee!

Before the Fingermen come to arrest you and carry you away in their Happy Political of Correctness Vehicularism!

Come with me, quickly, unto the Land of Happy Bunnies! *Hops away*

Flee!

Before the Fingermen come to arrest you and carry you away in their Happy Political of Correctness Vehicularism!

Come with me, quickly, unto the Land of Happy Bunnies! *Hops away*
:confused:

To thread poster: Yes, Affirmative Action is idiotic.

Eh? Political of Correctness? My friend, it would hardly suffice to go about blasting everyone with a lack of tact andwithout a certain degree of respect.

:confused:

To thread poster: Yes, Affirmative Action is idiotic.

I'm afraid that the poster you were replying to has been off his meds for quite some time now. We would like to assure you that he is in stable condition and will soon be sleeping soundly.

We would also like to state that positive discrimination is a load of orgasmic flaming horse shit. That is all. Carry on.

So what are other people's ideas about how to change this system?

Affirmative Action

Is a way of being racist against whites. Which is perfectly ok, because we're white. Carry on.

Excellent good! I must admit I was expecting a great deal more disagreement

I'm afraid that the poster you were replying to has been off his meds for quite some time now. We would like to assure you that he is in stable condition and will soon be sleeping soundly.

We would also like to state that positive discrimination is a load of orgasmic flaming horse shit. That is all. Carry on.
Do you happen to go by the name of Shiro or Shiro-chan on other forums?

The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Do you happen to go by the name of Shiro or Shiro-chan on other forums?

No, this poster does not. Of that we can assure you. That is all. Carry on.

Is a way of being racist against whites. Which is perfectly ok, because we're white. Carry on.

There is a certain degree of that, and I sense that there is significant reason to believe that this system merely puts additional stress between race and race distinctions

The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

It seems, then (and therefore), that we have strayed somewhat from this original policy

It seems, then (and therefore), that we have strayed somewhat from this original policy

Example?

Ano... if memory serves, the quota system was found to be illegal by SCOTUS and has not been in use for quite some time. Also, currently, you do not have to hire a less qualified applicate just because of the color of their skin.

I'm sure Cat will be by later (as this is a pet peve of his) to site cases and laws and such, but IIRC, your complaints have already been addressed.

So what'cha upset about?

Example?

The policy, as quoted by Lyndon B, sepcifically stresses without regard to race, color, and creed--the system favors one race over another, clearly not "without regard..."

As for an example, I draw your attention to Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Link
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1541/

Ano... if memory serves, the quota system was found to be illegal by SCOTUS and has not been in use for quite some time. Also, currently, you do not have to hire a less qualified applicate just because of the color of their skin.

I'm sure Cat will be by later (as this is a pet peve of his) to site cases and laws and such, but IIRC, your complaints have already been addressed.

So what'cha upset about?


It seems you are correct. My apologies, my information appears to be slightly outdated. Thanks for the update

The policy, as quoted by Lyndon B, sepcifically stresses without regard to race, color, and creed--the system favors one race over another, clearly not "without regard..."

As for an example, I draw your attention to Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Link
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1541/


I don't see that it favors one race over the other. She was white, she was rejected from a university - are you saying that the latter was only because of the former?

[quote]The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."[/qote]

It doesn't seem so clear-cut to me (or the court) as it apparently does to you.

While minorities are massively over-represented in the prison system, while blacks alarmingly underperform economically and while young urban blacks are subject to an astonishing murder rate: you'll find affirmative action is needed.

While minorities are massively over-represented in the prison system, while blacks alarmingly underperform economically and while young urban blacks are subject to an astonishing murder rate: you'll find affirmative action is needed.

Why should we find that it is needed?

Why must we practice a legal racism?

Because of some criminals and people who will not improve their situations?

Why should we find that it is needed?

Why must we practice a legal racism?

Because of some criminals and people who will not improve their situations?

Maybe legal racism is needed to combat the racism you just displayed there?

Your explanation for this is that blacks are lazy and/or criminals. Sorry but I don't go for that line of thinking son

Maybe legal racism is needed to combat the racism you just displayed there?

Your explanation for this is that blacks are lazy and/or criminals. Sorry but I don't go for that line of thinking son

I don't think that blacks are lazy and/or criminals.

I think that you're racist for believing that they need any help. If you think that they need special treatment, that makes you racist. Because you believe that without the government's help, minorities cannot do better for themselves. That they cannot do anything important, unless the government is holding their hand.

They do not need special treatment. They do not need to have their hand held. They need to be allowed to stand on their own two feet. As Frederick Douglass wanted it.

I don't think that blacks are lazy and/or criminals.

I think that you're racist for believing that they need any help. If you think that they need special treatment, that makes you racist. Because you believe that without the government's help, minorities cannot do better for themselves. That they cannot do anything important, unless the government is holding their hand.

They do not need special treatment. They do not need to have their hand held. They need to be allowed to stand on their own two feet. As Frederick Douglass wanted it.

Na mate, it doesn't make me racist at all. I'm a realist, and I even like to credit myself with seeing the big picture. A small injust act can lead to greater justice.

Look where doing nothing - "letting them stand on their own two feet" - has got us so far: we're back to my point about blacks in prison.

This is why I said you described blacks as lazy -
1) The poor don't want to improve their situation, 2) generally blacks are poor 3) therefore blacks are generally lazy.

Na mate, it doesn't make me racist at all. I'm a realist, and I even like to credit myself with seeing the big picture. A small injust act can lead to greater justice.

An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. An unjust act cannot make anything that comes from it just. For it is still unjust.

Otherwise, one could argue that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because the Jews finally got the state that they long desired. A justice in exchange for an injustice.

Look where doing nothing - "letting them stand on their own two feet" - has got us so far: we're back to my point about blacks in prison.

So you're saying that black people are natural born criminals? Is that it? I don't believe so.

This is why I said you described blacks as lazy -
1) The poor don't want to improve their situation, 2) generally blacks are poor 3) therefore blacks are generally lazy.

You assume too much.

Many poor people wish to improve their situation. Few of them have the constitution for it (which is unfortunate). BUT, the fact that many black people are poor is mere coincidence. One could also cite statistics concerning crime and race, but that does little to change facts. Criminals go to jail. Some black people are criminals. Ergo, some black people go to jail.

If memory serves, it has been two generations since affirmative action when into play. That means two generations of government aid to correct an injustice. If those two generations are not enough, then perhaps it is that a large number of black people do not wish to improve their situation? Or that, if they do wish it, they are too lazy to go and do something as simple as talk to a recruiter? Should the government, then, enstate a quota, taking tax-payer money, and giving it to these black people so that they rake in the same amount of cash at the end of each week? How is this just?

How is it just to extend one race special priveleges and deny those same priveleges to another? At what point does legalized racism stop being just?

An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. An unjust act cannot make anything that comes from it just. For it is still unjust.

Otherwise, one could argue that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because the Jews finally got the state that they long desired. A justice in exchange for an injustice.

One of the most annoying traits of NS here - absoloutism. It's a trade off, the act versus the consequence. So the holocaust was not worth the state they desired. However, stealing a bandage would be worth helping an injured person. Keeping up so far kid?

So you're saying that black people are natural born criminals? Is that it? I don't believe so.

No son, in fact not assuming black people are natural born criminals puts your point of view into a little bit of a pickle. Why, pray tell, are we locking up so many black people?

Many poor people wish to improve their situation. Few of them have the constitution for it (which is unfortunate). BUT, the fact that many black people are poor is mere coincidence. One could also cite statistics concerning crime and race, but that does little to change facts. Criminals go to jail. Some black people are criminals. Ergo, some black people go to jail.

Mere co-incidence? That's an awesomely massive co-incidence, that's far less likely than winning the lottery. It seems to me that a far more likely explanation is that blacks haven't quite recovered from the enforced poverty of yesterday. You see, wealth breeds wealth, poverty breeds poverty. I know, we'll illustrate this! Ok, so you got two runners in a race - Runner white and Runner black. They start the race but Runner black is held back by some of Runner white's supporters and Runner white gets an impressive lead. Is it a fair race if you simply let go of Runner black and leave him to catch Runner white?

If memory serves, it has been two generations since affirmative action when into play. That means two generations of government aid to correct an injustice. If those two generations are not enough, then perhaps it is that a large number of black people do not wish to improve their situation? Woah, now this sounds more like racism

.

Affirmative Action might have kept France from experiencing certain riots some time ago. High levels of unemployment for a specific ethnic group can do that.

Of course, being France, they would have found something else to riot over, such as the height requirements for some rides at Eurodisney! (One height! The Human Height!)

Ano... if memory serves, the quota system was found to be illegal by SCOTUS and has not been in use for quite some time.The system is still in place. They just don't use the word "quota" anymore. Just replace it with "critical mass," "acceptable level of diversity," "10% black, 25% Latino, 5% Native American," or some other string of words that means the same thing as "quota" and you'll end up with affirmative action programs as they are now.

The system is still in place. They just don't use the word "quota" anymore. Just replace it with "critical mass," "acceptable level of diversity," "10% black, 25% Latino, 5% Native American," or some other string of words that means the same thing as "quota" and you'll end up with affirmative action programs as they are now.

Bullshit.

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.

Here are some links and information about what affirmative action actually is and why it should exist and/or debunking some of the canards you have fallen for/perpetuate:

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

NOTE: The law not only expressly does not require quotas, it forbids them. It also forbids using goals as if they were quotas. It also forbids discrimination period. Affirmative action is not discrimination, it is the prohibition of discrimination.

These are good sources of information. The first is short and summarizes some of the relevant law. The second is extremely detailed.

ABA Talking Points: Affirmative Action (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html)

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)
Reverse Discrimination Quiz (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=794&item_id=7812&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)
Whites Swim in Racial Preference (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=789&item_id=7807&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)

Some definitions of affirmative action:

Here is the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.

I've never experienced Affirmative Action, nor do I know anybody who has been affected by it, however, I think the idea is idiotic. It is basically saying that Black people are incapable of getting jobs with their own merits, so the government must aide them by installing somethin which "protects" them. It is supposed to save people from racism, but it seems to be racist in itself.

Bullshit.

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.

Once again, Cat Tribe wins the internet!

Man I hope I never have to debate you.

I've never experienced Affirmative Action, nor do I know anybody who has been affected by it, however, I think the idea is idiotic. It is basically saying that Black people are incapable of getting jobs with their own merits, so the government must aide them by installing somethin which "protects" them. It is supposed to save people from racism, but it seems to be racist in itself.


Affirmative action does no such thing.

It seeks to protect equal opportunity for all -- regardless of race, relgion, gender, etc..

Pray tell, how banning racism is racist.

I've never experienced Affirmative Action, nor do I know anybody who has been affected by it, however, I think the idea is idiotic. It is basically saying that Black people are incapable of getting jobs with their own merits,

No, it recognizes that discrimination towards minorities happens and tries to address the issue. The problem is with employers who will do the discrimination, not that employeees can't get a job on their own merit. Unless you *seriously* think merit is the only thing employers consider...

Please, look at the Cat-Tribe post above, which is basically WTFPWNING all the paranoids who believe affirmative action is racist.

Bullshit.

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.



http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
"The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability."

http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/MinorityContracting/Challenges.html
"In Hartford, Connecticut, city ordinances give preference to local hiring and minority contracting. "

http://www.adversity.net/c13_tbd.htm
"The Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation sued the City of San Francisco and its mayor, Willie Brown, for violating Proposition 209 by allowing only minority- or women-owned businesses to bid on certain public contracts (Taber v. City and County of San Francisco). "

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_SearchDetail.asp?tid=Commentary&sField=CommentaryID&iID=134
"First, few municipalities are so unabashedly racist in their written policies as the city was in this case. The 1998-1999 Diversity Staffing Plan targeted six “underutilized” minority groups to the exclusion of whites, explicitly requiring hiring managers to look at job applicants’ race when making hiring and promotion decisions."

http://www.urban.org/publications/307416.html
"Federal, state, and local governments have addressed these barriers with a wide range of affirmative action programs. These programs fall into two broad categories. One uses race as a factor in the award of contracts. Examples include the use of sole source contracts, set-asides, price or evaluation advantages, and the use of goals for prime or subcontracting. These policies are intended to directly increase the number of contract and subcontract awards received by minority firms."

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_SearchDetail.asp?tid=Release&sField=ReleaseID&iID=2
"A public contracting program operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District gives illegal preferences to minority- and women-owned businesses and is in violation of the California Constitution, according to a decision issued late yesterday by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Richard Parks."

http://www.gcn.com/print/16_27/32200-1.html
"SBA proposes new minority preference rules for contractors"

http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/dynalantic_v_dod.html
"In a case that could sharply limit the federal government's use of racial preferences for minority contractors, CIR is representing a small Long Island company whose ability to compete (and even stay in business) continues to be hobbled by the federal government's extensive use of race preferences in awarding government contracts."

Quotas - more commonly known as 'preferences' have been widespread and quote common. I found this with half my brain tied behind my back. Makes me wonder where you keep yours if you cant find this info?

BTW - don't you ever get weary of that tired old strawman line? Really. You need to come up with something new.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
"The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability."

http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/MinorityContracting/Challenges.html
"In Hartford, Connecticut, city ordinances give preference to local hiring and minority contracting. "

http://www.adversity.net/c13_tbd.htm
"The Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation sued the City of San Francisco and its mayor, Willie Brown, for violating Proposition 209 by allowing only minority- or women-owned businesses to bid on certain public contracts (Taber v. City and County of San Francisco). "

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_SearchDetail.asp?tid=Commentary&sField=CommentaryID&iID=134
"First, few municipalities are so unabashedly racist in their written policies as the city was in this case. The 1998-1999 Diversity Staffing Plan targeted six “underutilized” minority groups to the exclusion of whites, explicitly requiring hiring managers to look at job applicants’ race when making hiring and promotion decisions."

http://www.urban.org/publications/307416.html
"Federal, state, and local governments have addressed these barriers with a wide range of affirmative action programs. These programs fall into two broad categories. One uses race as a factor in the award of contracts. Examples include the use of sole source contracts, set-asides, price or evaluation advantages, and the use of goals for prime or subcontracting. These policies are intended to directly increase the number of contract and subcontract awards received by minority firms."

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_SearchDetail.asp?tid=Release&sField=ReleaseID&iID=2
"A public contracting program operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District gives illegal preferences to minority- and women-owned businesses and is in violation of the California Constitution, according to a decision issued late yesterday by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Richard Parks."

http://www.gcn.com/print/16_27/32200-1.html
"SBA proposes new minority preference rules for contractors"

http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/dynalantic_v_dod.html
"In a case that could sharply limit the federal government's use of racial preferences for minority contractors, CIR is representing a small Long Island company whose ability to compete (and even stay in business) continues to be hobbled by the federal government's extensive use of race preferences in awarding government contracts."

Quotas - more commonly known as 'preferences' have been widespread and quote common. I found this with half my brain tied behind my back. Makes me wonder where you keep yours if you cant find this info?

BTW - don't you ever get weary of that tired old strawman line? Really. You need to come up with something new.

"Preferences" != quotas

More importantly, I'm not sure how links showing quota-like programs have been found illegal help prove that affirmative action is quotas. It seems to me it proves the opposite.

Meethinks you did not even read half of what you cited to or you would know better.

Nice try. But you'll have to do more than Google "preferences".

I'm in favor of affirmative action for Blacks and Native American Indians as reparations for slavery/attempted genocide, but not for anyone else.

i agree that it does put stress on race, with the current system there will never be equality. but we also cant change the system because groups like jesse jackson and his posse and the ACLU would battle it.

i think that any application that is not in person should not ask you for your race, especially college applications. race should not be a issue, possitive or negative.

i agree with equality all the way, it will be great to live in a world where everyone gets a chance to be sucessful, and it doesnt matter what race you are. but i disagree strongly against those that try to calim equality but go beyond equality and start to tred down on the other races. there is a very fine line.

it doesnt help much that poor minorities are often taught at young ages that if anything goes wrong in their life its because the white man is doing it

We need to intensify affirmative action, not get rid of it. Protecting white privilege is not equality.

i agree with equality all the way, it will be great to live in a world where everyone gets a chance to be sucessful, and it doesnt matter what race you are. but i disagree strongly against those that try to calim equality but go beyond equality and start to tred down on the other races. there is a very fine line

Yes, whites are really being oppressed in this country. It's unacceptable.

Yes, whites are really being oppressed in this country. It's unacceptable.

i never said whites, but now that you mention it, nation wide they are not. but there are many cases in smaller communtiies where they are indeed

"Preferences" != quotas

More importantly, I'm not sure how links showing quota-like programs have been found illegal help prove that affirmative action is quotas. It seems to me it proves the opposite.

Meethinks you did not even read half of what you cited to or you would know better.

Nice try. But you'll have to do more than Google "preferences".

Point is - all of those preferential programs were developed to fill quotas - as defined by the first link. Many still exist and many more have been 'retooled'. Not all of them were about lawsuits (I'm sure you are capable of noticing that without my holding your hand) though I fully support the lawsuits which challenged them.

Funny thing is - I agree there is prejudice and bias in the workforce. Most often what I see is not from co-workers or even management - it is from customers. Most people prefer to work with someone like them - Asias prefer asians, hispanics (particularly spanish speaking) prefer hispanics, blackss prefer blacks and whites prefer whites. (Thought I prefer chesty blondes and I am neither chesty nor blonde) That's life. Prejudice is a problem - but affirmative action as it existed is not the answer.

i never said whites, but now that you mention it, nation wide they are not. but there are many cases in smaller communtiies where they are indeed

Then in those "smaller communities," you are welcome to oppose affirmative action, and if it is really serious discrimination, even support affirmative action for whites.

But since we are speaking more generally, the point is irrelevant; on the national scale, we have to somehow deal with the very significant problem of white privilege, and muttering about color-blindedness when there is a clear system of race-based discrimination is just hypocritical rhetoric.

Point is - all of those preferential programs were developed to fill quotas - as defined by the first link. Many still exist and many more have been 'retooled'. Not all of them were about lawsuits - though I fully support the lawsuits which challenged them.

Funny thing is - I agree there is prejudice in the workforce. Most often what I see is not from co-workers or even management - it is from customers. Prejudice is a problem - but affirmative action as it existed is not the answer.

Um. Go back and read your first link again. It's the same one I already cited that says:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

Have affirmative action programs sometimes been misguided? Yes. Does that mean they all are? No. As you well-demonstrated and I already documented, affirmative action policy has evolved to be strictly anti-quota and anti-discrimination.

I'm glad discrimination only exists where you most often see it.

And what, pray tell, is the answer to discrimination if not anti-discrimination policies?

Most people prefer to work with someone like them - Asias prefer asians, hispanics (particularly spanish speaking) prefer hispanics, blackss prefer blacks and whites prefer whites. (Thought I prefer chesty blondes and I am neither chesty nor blonde) That's life. Prejudice is a problem - but affirmative action as it existed is not the answer.

Are these apologetics supposed to excuse systematic racism in US society?

Are these apologetics supposed to excuse systematic racism in US society?

Not unless you are terribly ignorant or just have an agenda

Then in those "smaller communities," you are welcome to oppose affirmative action, and if it is really serious discrimination, even support affirmative action for whites.

But since we are speaking more generally, the point is irrelevant; on the national scale, we have to somehow deal with the very significant problem of white privilege, and muttering about color-blindedness when there is a clear system of race-based discrimination is just hypocritical rhetoric.

why should an application maybe filled out online or filled out by hand and mailed in ask for your race?, the only way they can say it is discrimination is if you allow them to know your race. paper does not give away your race.

Not unless you are terribly ignorant or just have an agenda

Then, pray tell, what was your point? Racism is natural? What does that have to do with anything?

Most people prefer to work with someone like them - Asias prefer asians, hispanics (particularly spanish speaking) prefer hispanics, blackss prefer blacks and whites prefer whites. (Thought I prefer chesty blondes and I am neither chesty nor blonde) That's life. Prejudice is a problem - but affirmative action as it existed is not the answer.

If your assumptions about preferences are in fact true, then affirmative action is indeed the answer. What such preferences mean is that existing societal inequities between various racial groups cannot be resolved simply by the removal of legal restrictions, because members of the racial groups with the most capital will prefer to hire and work with members of that racial group. The only way to resolve such inequities, to truly ensure equality of opportunity, would be to "unbalance" the odds to counteract the effects of this preferential treatment, and get more or less economic equality between the races. This equality would be able to maintain itself, if the assumptions you present are true, without any further aid.

why should an application maybe filled out online or filled out by hand and mailed in ask for your race?, the only way they can say it is discrimination is if you allow them to know your race. paper does not give away your race.

Because affirmative action in such circumstances help the beneficiaries in other circumstances, when they cannot hide their race - such as at job interviews.

Um. Go back and read your first link again. It's the same one I already cited that says:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

Have affirmative action programs sometimes been misguided? Yes. Does that mean they all are? No. As you well-demonstrated and I already documented, affirmative action policy has evolved to be strictly anti-quota and anti-discrimination.

I'm glad discrimination only exists where you most often see it.

And what, pray tell, is the answer to discrimination if not anti-discrimination policies?

Yup - the first link says they have to fill quotes - but they can't discriminate to fill them - leave it to the US government to make that rule. Therefore they ccreate 'preferences' which are now being, justly, challenged as discrimination. So therefore - affirmative action is currently discriminatory.

I never said discrimination exists only where I see it. That is a retarded observation on your part or a fucked up sleazy attempt to put words in my mouth - you decide.

You asked for a law defining this - I provided. I provide for you often - I should be able to deduct you as a dependant on my 1040.

Your last question is flawed - because the 'anti-discriminatory' laws you purpote are discriminatory and flawed so as to not really be anti-discriminatory at all.

Because affirmative action in such circumstances help the beneficiaries in more other circumstances, when they cannot hide their race - such as at job interviews.

im not talking about a job interview, my original example was a college application. when you apply for a college they do not need to know your race. in a application it is generally your transcript, some recomendations, your application, and maybe a few other things certain colleges may require. they dont ussualy meet in person with you.

why should an application maybe filled out online or filled out by hand and mailed in ask for your race?, the only way they can say it is discrimination is if you allow them to know your race. paper does not give away your race.

First, how would you keep track of discrimination/equality without tracking race.

Second, even if your proposal worked, it would only prevent discrimination when decisions were made purely based on a form. It would not prevent discrimination in hiring, education, etc. You only address a small portion of the problem.

Third, you should read some of the studies on racist selection based on "neutral" resumes.

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/papers/emilygreg.pdf

im not talking about a job interview, my original example was a college application. when you apply for a college they do not need to know your race. in a application it is generally your transcript, some recomendations, your application, and maybe a few other things certain colleges may require. they dont ussualy meet in person with you.

Re-read my post. I knew what you were talking about.

Re-read my post. I knew what you were talking about.

yes i must apologize, i realized after i posted what you actaully said. i am doing 3 things at once here and i merely glanced at you post.

Yup - the first link says they have to fill quotes - but they can't discriminate to fill them - leave it to the US government to make that rule. Therefore they ccreate 'preferences' which are now being, justly, challenged as discrimination. So therefore - affirmative action is currently discriminatory.

I never said discrimination exists only where I see it. That is a retarded observation on your part or a fucked up sleazy attempt to put words in my mouth - you decide.

You asked for a law defining this - I provided. I provide for you often - I should be able to deduct you as a dependant on my 1040.

Your last question is flawed - because the 'anti-discriminatory' laws you purpote are discriminatory and flawed so as to not really be anti-discriminatory at all.

Laws are not discriminatory simply because you say they are.

The law you cited does not define quotas. It expressly forbids them.

The law clearly explains the use of goals and the limits thereupon. Do you really need me to go back and explain the law to you? It was pretty clearly explained already.

Your result to insults is typical and does not help your argument.

Most people prefer to work with someone like them - Asias prefer asians, hispanics (particularly spanish speaking) prefer hispanics, blackss prefer blacks and whites prefer whites. (Thought I prefer chesty blondes and I am neither chesty nor blonde) That's life. Prejudice is a problem - but affirmative action as it existed is not the answer.
If your assumptions about preferences are in fact true, then affirmative action is indeed the answer. What such preferences mean is that existing societal inequities between various racial groups cannot be resolved simply by the removal of legal restrictions, because members of the racial groups with the most capital will prefer to hire and work with members of that racial group. The only way to resolve such inequities, to truly ensure equality of opportunity, would be to "unbalance" the odds to counteract the effects of this preferential treatment, and get more or less economic equality between the races. This equality would be able to maintain itself, if the assumptions you present are true, without any further aid.

Excellent point.

First of all, the quota system needs to be abolishedAlready done. So you can check that one off your list. If it comes down to the line and two applicants, one of which is a minority, are of relatively equal and comparable qualifications, then the employer better think damn well if he decides to accept the white (aka, in this situation, a preference toward the underepresented minority should be exhibited).This is, effectively, an explanation of what affirmative action policies currently do.

why should an application maybe filled out online or filled out by hand and mailed in ask for your race?, the only way they can say it is discrimination is if you allow them to know your race. paper does not give away your race.Actually, several experiments have shown that if you take an application and change only one thing--a "white-sounding" name to a "black-sounding" or "Hispanic-sounding" name--employers are less likely to call the applicant for an interview.

Yes, the researchers used the exact same applications with different names, and discovered widespread racism in hiring.

Oh, here's one of those studies. (http://gsb.uchicago.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf)

An Many poor people wish to improve their situation. Few of them have the constitution for it (which is unfortunate). BUT, the fact that many black people are poor is mere coincidence.

:headbang:

If your assumptions about preferences are in fact true, then affirmative action is indeed the answer. What such preferences mean is that existing societal inequities between various racial groups cannot be resolved simply by the removal of legal restrictions, because members of the racial groups with the most capital will prefer to hire and work with members of that racial group. The only way to resolve such inequities, to truly ensure equality of opportunity, would be to "unbalance" the odds to counteract the effects of this preferential treatment, and get more or less economic equality between the races. This equality would be able to maintain itself, if the assumptions you present are true, without any further aid.


So what you're saying is that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself, and that not allowing people with capital (specifically non-minority white people with capital) to do this it will somehow result in human behavior changing - somehow creating economic equality. So it is OK to have bias against one set of people simply because their demographic (though not necessarily themselves) has more capital.

OF course - the fact that asians are successful does not seem to fit well in your example - not to mention the countless 'white' minorities (like the Irish) who experienced rampant discrimination before they were socialized into common US culture.

Laws are not discriminatory simply because you say they are.

The law you cited does not define quotas. It expressly forbids them.

"The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability."

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

So what you're saying is that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself, and that not allowing people with capital (specifically non-minority white people with capital) to do this it will somehow result in human behavior changing - somehow creating economic equality.

Actually, you were the one implying "that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself."

You have yet to explain why you thought that assertion was meaningful. Now you are attacking your own premise.

So it is OK to have bias against one set of people simply because their demographic (though not necessarily themselves) has more capital..

You fail to explain how not allowing bias in hiring is a bias against the employer.

OF course - the fact that asians are successful does not seem to fit well in your example - not to mention the countless 'white' minorities (like the Irish) who experienced rampant discrimination before they were socialized into common US culture.

So now the reason for inequality is because some minorities haven't "socialized into common US culture"?

And not all minority groups have faced or face the same degree or type of racial barriers.

The fact that some groups -- with the aid of anti-discrimination laws including affirmative action -- have been more successful than others hardly works as an argument against anti-discrimination laws.

Actually, several experiments have shown that if you take an application and change only one thing--a "white-sounding" name to a "black-sounding" or "Hispanic-sounding" name--employers are less likely to call the applicant for an interview.

Yes, the researchers used the exact same applications with different names, and discovered widespread racism in hiring.

Oh, here's one of those studies. (http://gsb.uchicago.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf)


Here is the flaw to that experement - and exposure of it's bias. Why were they not using 'white' sounding names like Giuseppe, Seamus or Adolph?

Is the perceived bias against minority names or just unusual ones? This study does not address that - but it is certaily quick to present an assumption of discrimination based on such little depth.

Actually, you were the one implying "that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself."

You have yet to explain why you thought that assertion was meaningful. Now you are attacking your own premise.

.

You fail to explain how not allowing bias in hiring is a bias against the employer.



So now the reason for inequality is because some minorities haven't "socialized into common US culture"?

And not all minority groups have faced or face the same degree or type of racial barriers.

The fact that some groups -- with the aid of anti-discrimination laws including affirmative action -- have been more successful than others hardly
works as an argument against anti-discrimination laws.


Try to limit yourself to one point at a time, and clarify yourself more - I'm not certain where you are coming from in a few of these.

And not all minority groups have faced or face the same degree or type of racial barriers.


Why do you feel that is so? This would be a topic worthy of it's own thread. You should start one. Really.

"The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability."

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

How would you define under-utilization? Seems like a perfectly sensible way of tracking equal opportunity to me.

How is tracking under-utilization a quota? It is merely used to set goals, which are expressly not to be used as hiring quotas.

Taping a few feathers on something doesn't make it a duck nor does making quacking noises when you are near it.

The regulations do not establish a quota and expressly forbid quotas and discrimination. You have yet to explain how that is discriminatory.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_41/Part_60-2/Subpart_B.htm

Many poor people wish to improve their situation. Few of them have the constitution for it (which is unfortunate). BUT, the fact that many black people are poor is mere coincidence.


You obviously feel that economic station is a matter of choice. For many that is true (or at least trhe result of their choices) - but for many that is not. I would accept an argument that part of the reason for minority underachievement is the poor quality and no choice of public schools avaliable in inner-cities and neighborhoods where they reside. (where they could learn about the choices which would lead them to a more positive place)

But THAT is a topic for another thread...

So what you're saying is that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself,

No. You are saying that. I think the idea that we know what we are talking about as far as "human nature" in societies goes is very questionable.

and that not allowing people with capital (specifically non-minority white people with capital) to do this it will somehow result in human behavior changing - somehow creating economic equality.

No, I didn't say that either.

What I said was that aggressive affirmative action, that is, a policy of favoring members of discriminated-against racial minorities, could counteract this preferential treatment, and thus allow greater representation of minorities in the higher rungs of the economy - which according to you would result in more hirings in such sectors, because people like to hire and work with those most like them.

If your assumptions are true, then without affirmative action the current inequities will merely sustain themselves. Those with the power tend to be white, and they will thus provide whites with preferential treatment. The structures of white privilege will remain.

So it is OK to have bias against one set of people simply because their demographic (though not necessarily themselves) has more capital.

If members of that group are making decisions based on someone else's membership in that group, it is legitimate to counteract such discrimination based on the composition of that group as well.

OF course - the fact that asians are successful does not seem to fit well in your example - not to mention the countless 'white' minorities (like the Irish) who experienced rampant discrimination before they were socialized into common US culture.

That is a problem with your assumptions, not with my response to them. White racism against Blacks seems to be something of an exceptional case in the US; this may in part be due to the relevant history in that case, which does not exactly parallel with that of either Asian Americans nor Irish Americans.

Why do you feel that is so? This would be a topic worthy of it's own thread. You should start one. Really.

You would honestly contend that all races have faced the same barriers and prejudices in the United States?

My, we have gone off the deep end.

How would you define under-utilization? Seems like a perfectly sensible way of tracking equal opportunity to me.

How is tracking under-utilization a quota? It is merely used to set goals, which are expressly not to be used as hiring quotas.

Taping a few feathers on something doesn't make it a duck nor does making quacking noises when you are near it.

The regulations do not establish a quota and expressly forbid quotas and discrimination. You have yet to explain how that is discriminatory.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_41/Part_60-2/Subpart_B.htm

Don't ask me to define terms for the US Dept of Labor. Let them do it themselves. http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

You certainly are trying hard to avoid the fact that they defined a quota - a specific number of women and minorities "than would reasonably be expected by their availability" and a specific 'goal' of increasing the employers workpool with people specific to that description.

quack-quack.

You would honestly contend that all races have faced the same barriers and prejudices in the United States?

My, we have gone off the deep end.


Does the term 'new thread' carry any meaning to you? And why do you try so hard to place words in my mouth? I never made such a claim and you are an ass for presuming I did.

G'night. I am leaving your weak and feeble arguments behind.

So what you're saying is that it is human nature to prefer people like yourself, and that not allowing people with capital (specifically non-minority white people with capital) to do this it will somehow result in human behavior changing - somehow creating economic equality. So it is OK to have bias against one set of people simply because their demographic (though not necessarily themselves) has more capital.

i'm confused as to which of the hard words got you confused in the phrase "If your assumptions about preferences are in fact true, then..."

was it the 'if'?

Does the term 'new thread' carry any meaning to you? And why do you try so hard to place words in my mouth? I never made such a claim and you are an ass for presuming I did.

Why would you suggest for a topic that non-debatable? Either you thought that there was some validity to that position or your "new" thread suggestion was deliberately asinine.

I see no need for a thread to discuss whether or not all races have faced the same barriers in the US. Why do you feel such a thread would be worthwhile?

Does the term 'new thread' carry any meaning to you?

Why a new thread? You brought it up as a counter-argument to affirmative action; you clearly thought it was relevant when you posted it. Why is it no longer relevant now?

I think a discussion of racial barriers to progress is very much relevant to a topic dealing with one way of removing them, and starting a new thread that would quickly degenerate into a repetition of this one would be pointless.

"The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability."

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.
Nonsense. The measure is clearly intended to act as a stopgap measure against racism, not as a quota. If it was a quota the final line, "...be expected by their availability", would not be there. A quota would demand a certain number of minority positions, regardless of qualifications or availability.

G'night. I am leaving your weak and feeble arguments behind.

Classic B0zzy. All bluster with no substance.

Try to limit yourself to one point at a time, and clarify yourself more - I'm not certain where you are coming from in a few of these.

I think my points were perfectly clear. You are just making an excuse for not responding?

If not, post what you did not understand and why.

Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities...Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as those that have not achieved their quotas.
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group... When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population.Positive steps to achieve the quota of some group... When quotas are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population.
affirmative actionactions by employers to seek out actively minorities ... for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotionactions by employers to seek out actively members of groups that have not achieved their quotas ... for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.That is not how the phrase "affirmative action" is normally used.
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities... are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.
procedures by which racial/ethnic groups that have not achieved their quotas... are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. The word "quota" shall not be used to describe this system.
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^ Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.That is not how the phrase "affirmative action" is normally used.


That was easy. It's not a strawman if it's actually supported by the other side. If you really believed affirmative action fit the two definitions that prohibited discrimination instead of describing quotas, you must have supported Proposition 209 back in 1996. It prohibited California from discriminating on the basis of race and was described by just about everyone as a ban on affirmative action.

Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as those that have not achieved their quotas.
Positive steps to achieve the quota of some group... When quotas are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population.
actions by employers to seek out actively members of groups that have not achieved their quotas ... for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion
That is not how the phrase "affirmative action" is normally used.

procedures by which racial/ethnic groups that have not achieved their quotas... are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. The word "quota" shall not be used to describe this system.
That is not how the phrase "affirmative action" is normally used.


That was easy. It's not a strawman if it's actually supported by the other side. If you really believed affirmative action fit the two definitions that prohibited discrimination instead of describing quotas, you must have supported Proposition 209 back in 1996. It prohibited California from discriminating on the basis of race and was described by just about everyone as a ban on affirmative action.

Cute. You can re-write sentences to say "quota" -- except where the language expressly excludes it, then the definition is not "normally used." Using your approach Dr. Suess's "Green Eggs and Ham" is about quotas too. Not a single one of those definitions described a quota except in your fevered imagination.

You conveniently ignore the law that states that quotas are illegal and that discrimination is illegal, but allows for affirmative action. The courts have repeatedly struck down quota systems as illegal.

Prop. 209 did more than just prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. It also expressly forbid affirmative action programs. It forbid any form of "preferential treatment." http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/bp/209text.htm
Nice try.

If affirmative action really requires quotas, it should be easy to prove. Just point us to that law. Good luck.

BTW, Prop 209 has resulted in dramatic drops in equality of representation. Is that what you advocate?

Aren't the only races that are affected negatively by affirmative action (in terms of college) Asians and that they are affected by it only slightly?

If a private organization decides that it wants to implement a racial quota system for itself, well, that's its business.

For government to come in and REQUIRE it for private organizations, however, is as wrong as government coming in and forbidding it for private employers, and for the same reasons--it is a violation of their rights of property and free association.

If a private organization decides that it wants to implement a racial quota system for itself, well, that's its business.

For government to come in and REQUIRE it for private organizations, however, is as wrong as government coming in and forbidding it for private employers, and for the same reasons--it is a violation of their rights of property and free association.

1. Pray tell, when does the government require a private organization to implement a quota system? {hint: it doesn't}

2. Right to free association? As a literalist, where do you find that in the Constitution?

3. I'm sorry but anti-discrimination laws do not "violate" rights. You do not have an absolute right to engage in discrimination.

1. Pray tell, when does the government require a private organization to implement a quota system? {hint: it doesn't}
I'm not saying it does. But should it, it would be wrong.

2. Right to free association? As a literalist, where do you find that in the Constitution?
1) Who said I'm a literalist?
2) The existence of our rights is prior to the Constitution. They need not be enumerated for us to possess them--nor does the absence of specific enumeration make it any less illegitimate when government violates them.
3) But since you asked, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that Congress (and, because of the 14th, the several States as well) may not violate ANY rights an individual has, whether they are specifically enumerated or not. However, even in the absence of that, since rights are an inherent part of a human's existence, it would still be illegitimate when government violated them.
3. I'm sorry but anti-discrimination laws do not "violate" rights. You do not have an absolute right to engage in discrimination.
Actually, they do, and I do.

I'm not saying it does. But should it, it would be wrong.

Glad to see you recognize that it does not.

1) Who said I'm a literalist?
2) The existence of our rights is prior to the Constitution. They need not be enumerated for us to possess them--nor does the absence of specific enumeration make it any less illegitimate when government violates them.
3) But since you asked, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that Congress (and, because of the 14th, the several States as well) may not violate ANY rights an individual has, whether they are specifically enumerated or not. However, even in the absence of that, since rights are an inherent part of a human's existence, it would still be illegitimate when government violated them.

So I have an absolute right to do anything not strictly forbidden by the Constitution?

Actually, they do, and I do.

Why?

So I have an absolute right to do anything not strictly forbidden by the Constitution?
No.

You have an absolute right to do anything that is indeed a right, regardless of whether or not it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Constitution exists to state restrictions on GOVERNMENT, not INDIVIDUALS.

And what "is indeed a right" is this: Any act that does not involve violating a pre-existing contract to which you willingly agreed and does not involve initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Any act that meets those criteria, yes, you have an absolute right to do.

Why?
Because A is A.

theres a funny AA type rule in england, in the trade union congress. THeres several positions with elected officials, say 6 different jobs i forget exactly how many. and everyone in the TUC voites, and you have to vote for at least one black person. its in the rules. so in the 6 categories, you have to vote for a black guy. so if only one black person runs they automatically win.

No.

You have an absolute right to do anything that is indeed a right, regardless of whether or not it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Constitution exists to state restrictions on GOVERNMENT, not INDIVIDUALS.

And what "is indeed a right" is this: Any act that does not involve violating a pre-existing contract to which you willingly agreed and does not involve initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Any act that meets those criteria, yes, you have an absolute right to do.


Because A is A.

I'm glad to see I have an absolute right to defamation and to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. I have an absolute right to psychologically torture anyone.

Pray tell, where do these absolute rights come from? How are they enforced?

I'm glad to see I have an absolute right to defamation and to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. I have an absolute right to psychologically torture anyone.
As long as they're done without the threatened, attempted, or actual use of physical force or fraud against the person or property of another and do not constitute violations of any contracts into which you have previously entered, precisely.

Pray tell, where do these absolute rights come from? How are they enforced?
They come from the mere fact of our existence as rational beings.

As long as they're done without the threatened, attempted, or actual use of physical force or fraud against the person or property of another and do not constitute violations of any contracts into which you have previously entered, precisely.

Why can I do anything else, but not commit threatened, attempted, or actual use of physical force or fraud against the person or property of another? Why, in particular, can't I commit fraud? Why can't I violate a contract?

What about the social contract?

They come from the mere fact of our existence as rational beings.

Why?

Does this mean at least some primates also have absolute rights?

You also didn't explain how these "rights" are enforced. How are they meaningful?

Why can I do anything else, but not commit threatened, attempted, or actual use of physical force or fraud against the person or property of another? Why, in particular, can't I commit fraud? Why can't I violate a contract?

Because you don't have the right to do that.

What about the social contract?
The notion of the "social contract" rests on a fallacy and is therefore invalid.



Does this mean at least some primates also have absolute rights?

If they have the capability for abstract rational thought, certainly.

You also didn't explain how these "rights" are enforced.
Because that's not important.

Because you don't have the right to do that.

Nice bit of circular reasoning.

The notion of the "social contract" rests on a fallacy and is therefore invalid.

On what basis do laws validly exist?

What about the Constitution? Is it a contract?


Because that's not important.

Are these "rights" mere fictions? Do they have meaning?

You have yet to explain why they exist and why they are meaningful.

Because you don't have the right to do that.Circular argument alert!!

That one came around so fast, I almost hurt my neck.

The notion of the "social contract" rests on a fallacy and is therefore invalid.And which "fallacy" would that be? It would be convenient if we could all read your mind, so Cat-Tribe or I could figure out exactly how to untie the knots in your thinking... unfortunately you're going to have to do your best to explain yourself to us.

Cat-Tribe has been doing a marvelous job with the "pro" side of the argument, but I would like to add one point of clarification.

There has been some confusion over the difference between "quotas" and "numerical goals." Cat-Tribe has accurately pointed out that quotas are against the law, and the courts have clearly differentiated quotas and numerical goals, which are allowed.

In some sense, the difference is obvious; but, since it has been such a problem, I'll spell it out for everyone.

A "quota" is a rule. It might take a variety of forms, but they all have one thing in common: they state a "minimum" number or percentage of minority applicants to be hired according to certain conditions. For instance, a hard quota might insist that x% of all new hires must be minority hires. A less stingent quota might base the percentage on the number of applicants. But they both require that minorities work in particular numbers.

A "numerical goal" is much different. It is more like a "best guess" of how many minorities a business would employ if there were complete fairness in hiring and/or promotions. Usually this is based off of the proportion of potential applicants within a reasonable area. The specifics are usually developed by scientists and consultants whose specialties suit them to make such determinations.

The key difference between a "goal" and a "quota" is that there is no rule or requirement to a goal. If a business sets a goal, and their efforts fall short because they do not attract enough qualified minority applicants, then no one needs to scrape the bottom of the barrel to "fill" a quota. Rather, they re-evaluate their hiring efforts to make better attempts in the future.

This system is used most commonly by the government to evaluate businesses seeking government contracts. The law only states that they must 1) set realistic goals; and 2) make genuine attempts to meet them. They are NOT evaluated on the basis of whether and how often they meet their goals, except as this figures as ONE component in the evaluation of the sincerity of their attempt.

In other words, if a business shows that they have been making a consistent, reasonable attempt to acquire qualified minorities, but that this attempt has not been especially successful, then they WILL NOT BE DENIED A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT ON THE BASIS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES. And if they are, they will probably have a valid due process claim.

By the way, if everything in the Bill of Rights were an absolute, then how would you deal with the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, which are usually taken to run contrary to one another?

For instance, the Establishment clause has been read to exclude teachers from leading prayers in public schools, even when their religion would require it--therefore limiting free exercise.

Of course, this is not nearly as perverse as what comes from reading either independently as an absolute.

An absolute free exercise right would preclude the government from banning human sacrifice.

An absolute rule against establishment of religion would not only preclude public schools from closing for Christmas, but would also prohibit the government from providing money to parochial schools for medical supplies--indeed, as the Supreme Court has said, strict separation of church and state would mean that public services such as an ambulance or a fire truck should not be available to parochial schools and churches.

I'm sure that's exactly what the Framers meant.

The notion of the "social contract" rests on a fallacy and is therefore invalid.

What fallacy? If there is free motion and no restriction made upon leaving the area, I don't see how it can be considered invalid.

Cute. You can re-write sentences to say "quota" -- except where the language expressly excludes it, then the definition is not "normally used." Using your approach Dr. Suess's "Green Eggs and Ham" is about quotas too. Not a single one of those definitions described a quota except in your fevered imagination.I replaced synonyms of "quota" with the word. I don't know of any Dr Seuss books about racial quotas so I wouldn't be able to properly insert the word into a description of one. All the definitions you posted except for the two that directly contradicted the others described the racial quota system. What was that about strawmen?
You conveniently ignore the law that states that quotas are illegal and that discrimination is illegal, but allows for affirmative action. The courts have repeatedly struck down quota systems as illegal.I didn't ignore any law that says racial quotas or its synonyms are illegal. I am well aware that courts have struck down affirmative action programs due to the fact that they are illegal in some cases. I am also aware of court decisions that upheld racial quota systems. http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html
"Citing Bakke, the Court stated that ' 'some attention to numbers,' without more, does not transform a flexible admissions system into a rigid quota.'"
The Supreme court upheld the quota ("critical mass") system used in University of Michigan admissions due in part to the lack of rigidity of the quotas. This might be part of the reason why you're so confused about the connection between affirmative action and racial quotas.
Prop. 209 did more than just prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. It also expressly forbid affirmative action programs.It's nice to see that you are finally equating racial discrimination with affirmative action programs.
It forbid any form of "preferential treatment." http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/bp/209text.htmI never said it didn't forbid discrimination. Your decision to refer to discrimination as "preferential treatment" doesn't change that.
If affirmative action really requires quotas, it should be easy to prove. Just point us to that law. Good luck.Affirmative action doesn't require quotas. It's the other way around. The quota (critical mass, greater diversity, etc) is the goal and affirmative action (racial discrimination) is the method required to achieve that goal. You should know since four of the definitions you posted call for some form of racial discrimination.
As for proof of greater diversity being a quota, it's easy.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/great great: large in number or measure
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/diverse diverse: composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quota quota: the number or amount constituting a proportional share
If you don't think greater racial diversity is a type of quota, I don't think anything will help you now. I know racists have the convenience of slightly more ambiguous descriptions of their goals, but the goal of affirmative action remains a quota.

To save time, I'll hold your hand through the definition of discriminate so you can't twist that too. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit
BTW, Prop 209 has resulted in dramatic drops in equality of representation. Is that what you advocate?I know the success of Proposition 209 resulted in failure to achieve the old quotas. It also resulted in more highly qualified entries to the University of California, which I advocate. I'm not racist enough to believe that representation of skin color has any importance.
Nice try.I would say the same to you, but your attempt to simultaneously support and oppose racial discrimination has been far from nice.

A "quota" is a rule. It might take a variety of forms, but they all have one thing in common: they state a "minimum" number or percentage of minority applicants to be hired according to certain conditions. For instance, a hard quota might insist that x% of all new hires must be minority hires. A less stingent quota might base the percentage on the number of applicants. But they both require that minorities work in particular numbers.What you call a "quota" is a rigid quota. The numerical goals are still quotas by definition, no matter how inconvenient that is for Cat-Tribe.

Speaking of rigid quotas, Ohio State University has a rule that threatens administrators who don't try to achieve the quotas. http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/index.php "We will hold each administrator and unit accountable for progress in implementing their action plans and contributing to progress with regard to the University's diversity goals, making clear the expectations and consequences."

Racism is still alive in the government.

What you call a "quota" is a rigid quota. The numerical goals are still quotas by definition, no matter how inconvenient that is for Cat-Tribe.

Speaking of rigid quotas, Ohio State University has a rule that threatens administrators who don't try to achieve the quotas. http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/index.php "We will hold each administrator and unit accountable for progress in implementing their action plans and contributing to progress with regard to the University's diversity goals, making clear the expectations and consequences."

Racism is still alive in the government.
Diversity is racism?

What you call a "quota" is a rigid quota. The numerical goals are still quotas by definition, no matter how inconvenient that is for Cat-Tribe.

Speaking of rigid quotas, Ohio State University has a rule that threatens administrators who don't try to achieve the quotas. http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/index.php "We will hold each administrator and unit accountable for progress in implementing their action plans and contributing to progress with regard to the University's diversity goals, making clear the expectations and consequences."

Racism is still alive in the government.
Again, no. Quota does not mean critical mass (goal, whatever). A quota is a required allotment, a goal is not. To quote from Black's


Quota. 1. A proportional share assigned to a person or group; an allotment. 2. A quantitative restriction; a minimum or maximum.


By no means equivalent to a goal or a critical mass.

Diversity is racism?The method used to achieve the quota is racial discrimination, which is a definition of racism.

I replaced synonyms of "quota" with the word. I don't know of any Dr Seuss books about racial quotas so I wouldn't be able to properly insert the word into a description of one. All the definitions you posted except for the two that directly contradicted the others described the racial quota system. What was that about strawmen?.

LOL.

Let's return to reality. I gave 7 definitions of affimative action from official sources or handbooks.

3 definitions that expressly forbid quotas you simply ignored or said didn't describe affirmative action.

For 3 definitions you replace "minorities" with the "synonym" of "groups that have not acheived their quotas." That is the only way you could read "quota" into the definition. One of these definitions said affirmative action "shall not mean any sort of quota system," but you dismissed that.

For the remaining definition you replaced the words "diversity" and "goal" with the words "quota."

If any reference whatsoever to minorities, diversity, or goals is synonomous with quotas, then you have proven your point. Otherwise, you have proven only that a fevered imagination can see quotas anywhere.

I didn't ignore any law that says racial quotas or its synonyms are illegal. I am well aware that courts have struck down affirmative action programs due to the fact that they are illegal in some cases. I am also aware of court decisions that upheld racial quota systems. http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html
"Citing Bakke, the Court stated that ' 'some attention to numbers,' without more, does not transform a flexible admissions system into a rigid quota.'"
The Supreme court upheld the quota ("critical mass") system used in University of Michigan admissions due in part to the lack of rigidity of the quotas. This might be part of the reason why you're so confused about the connection between affirmative action and racial quotas..

Bullshit. You say the Court upheld a "quota system" in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-241), 539 US 306 (2003). but let's look at what the Court actually said in the relevant portion of the case:

To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system--it cannot "insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants." Bakke, supra, at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). Instead, a university may consider race or ethnicity only as a " 'plus' in a particular applicant's file," without "insulat the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." [I]Id., at 317. In other words, an admissions program must be "flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight." Ibid.

We find that the Law School's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized consideration demands that race be used in a flexible, nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or put members of those groups on separate admissions tracks. See id., at 315-316. Nor can universities insulate applicants who belong to certain racial or ethnic groups from the competition for admission. Ibid. Universities can, however, consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a "plus" factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant. Ibid.

We are satisfied that the Law School's admissions program, like the Harvard plan described by Justice Powell, does not operate as a quota. Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 496 (plurality opinion). Quotas " 'impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded,' " Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 495 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and "insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Bakke, supra, at 317 (opinion of Powell, J.). In contrast, "a permissible goal ... require[s] only a good-faith effort ... to come within a range demarcated by the goal itself," Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, supra, at 495, and permits consideration of race as a "plus" factor in any given case while still ensuring that each candidate "compete[s] with all other qualified applicants," Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U. S. 616, 638 (1987).

Justice Powell's distinction between the medical school's rigid 16-seat quota and Harvard's flexible use of race as a "plus" factor is instructive. Harvard certainly had minimum goals for minority enrollment, even if it had no specific number firmly in mind. See Bakke, supra, at 323 (opinion of Powell, J.) ("10 or 20 black students could not begin to bring to their classmates and to each other the variety of points of view, backgrounds and experiences of blacks in the United States"). What is more, Justice Powell flatly rejected the argument that Harvard's program was "the functional equivalent of a quota" merely because it had some " 'plus' " for race, or gave greater "weight" to race than to some other factors, in order to achieve student body diversity. 438 U. S., at 317-318.

The Law School's goal of attaining a critical mass of underrepresented minority students does not transform its program into a quota. As the Harvard plan described by Justice Powell recognized, there is of course "some relationship between numbers and achieving the benefits to be derived from a diverse student body, and between numbers and providing a reasonable environment for those students admitted." Id., at 323. "[S]ome attention to numbers," without more, does not transform a flexible admissions system into a rigid quota. Ibid. Nor, as Justice Kennedy posits, does the Law School's consultation of the "daily reports," which keep track of the racial and ethnic composition of the class (as well as of residency and gender), "suggest[ ] there was no further attempt at individual review save for race itself" during the final stages of the admissions process. See post, at 6 (dissenting opinion). To the contrary, the Law School's admissions officers testified without contradiction that they never gave race any more or less weight based on the information contained in these reports. Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 43, n. 70 (citing App. in Nos. 01-1447 and 01-1516 (CA6), p. 7336). Moreover, as Justice Kennedy concedes, see post, at 4, between 1993 and 2000, the number of African-American, Latino, and Native-American students in each class at the Law School varied from 13.5 to 20.1 percent, a range inconsistent with a quota.

It is ridiculous to assert that that case upheld a quota system. It expressly forbids any type of quota -- rigid or otherwise -- and explains at length why the Law School affirmative action program was not a type of quota.

It's nice to see that you are finally equating racial discrimination with affirmative action programs.
I never said it didn't forbid discrimination. Your decision to refer to discrimination as "preferential treatment" doesn't change that..

*sigh* I didn't equate affirmative action with discrimination or preferential treatment -- Proposition 209 did.

Affirmative action doesn't require quotas. It's the other way around. The quota (critical mass, greater diversity, etc) is the goal and affirmative action (racial discrimination) is the method required to achieve that goal. You should know since four of the definitions you posted call for some form of racial discrimination.

None of the definitions I posted called for some form of racial discrimination except in your fevered imagination.


As for proof of greater diversity being a quota, it's easy.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/great great: large in number or measure
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/diverse diverse: composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quota quota: the number or amount constituting a proportional share
If you don't think greater racial diversity is a type of quota, I don't think anything will help you now. I know racists have the convenience of slightly more ambiguous descriptions of their goals, but the goal of affirmative action remains a quota.

To save time, I'll hold your hand through the definition of discriminate so you can't twist that too. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.

Nice bit of semantics. Picking and choosing among definitions to imply a phrase means something it does not.

"Greater racial diversity" != quota. QED.

I'll repeat from Grutter:

Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 496 (plurality opinion). Quotas " 'impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded,' " Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 495 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and "insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Bakke, supra, at 317 (opinion of Powell, J.). In contrast, "a permissible goal ... require[s] only a good-faith effort ... to come within a range demarcated by the goal itself," Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, supra, at 495, and permits consideration of race as a "plus" factor in any given case while still ensuring that each candidate "compete[s] with all other qualified applicants," Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U. S. 616, 638 (1987).

I know the success of Proposition 209 resulted in failure to achieve the old quotas. It also resulted in more highly qualified entries to the University of California, which I advocate. I'm not racist enough to believe that representation of skin color has any importance.

Apparently you are racist enough to (a) not care whether people are discriminated against on the basis of skin color and (b) equate less diversity with "more highly qualified entries."

I would say the same to you, but your attempt to simultaneously support and oppose racial discrimination has been far from nice.

Ouch. Aren't we nasty?

I guess supporting a racist status quo and opposing all diversity will do that to you.

What you call a "quota" is a rigid quota. The numerical goals are still quotas by definition, no matter how inconvenient that is for Cat-Tribe.

Again, let us look at what SCOTUS has said in saying


To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system--it cannot "insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants." Bakke, supra, at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.).
....
Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 496 (plurality opinion). Quotas " 'impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded,' " Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 495 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and "insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Bakke, supra, at 317 (opinion of Powell, J.). In contrast, "a permissible goal ... require[s] only a good-faith effort ... to come within a range demarcated by the goal itself," Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, supra, at 495, and permits consideration of race as a "plus" factor in any given case while still ensuring that each candidate "compete[s] with all other qualified applicants," Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U. S. 616, 638 (1987).

Speaking of rigid quotas, Ohio State University has a rule that threatens administrators who don't try to achieve the quotas. http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/index.php "We will hold each administrator and unit accountable for progress in implementing their action plans and contributing to progress with regard to the University's diversity goals, making clear the expectations and consequences."

Again you rely on the silly notion that striving towards a goal of greater diversity inherently means a "rigid quota." If you look at the diversity plan you cited, nowhere does it establish any quota whatsoever.

Racism is still alive in the government.

It certainly is. That is why we need anti-discrimination programs like affirmative action.

Again, no. Quota does not mean critical mass (goal, whatever). A quota is a required allotment, a goal is not. To quote from Black's



By no means equivalent to a goal or a critical mass.The dictionary definition and the common usage of the word make "quota" the correct word to describe the percentage of acceptances to a government program that are of a certain race. I will not change the diction just to accomodate some politicians and administrators who are too embarrassed to properly describe the programs they support.

The goal is to have members of some race constitute some percentage of the accepted applicants. That percentage ("critical mass") is, by definition and common usage, a type of quota. It doesn't have to be as strict as the "rigid quota" programs most AA advocates now claim not to support. A lack of punishment for failing to achieve a quota does not prevent it from being a quota.

The dictionary definition and the common usage of the word make "quota" the correct word to describe the percentage of acceptances to a government program that are of a certain race. I will not change the diction just to accomodate some politicians and administrators who are too embarrassed to properly describe the programs they support.

The goal is to have members of some race constitute some percentage of the accepted applicants. That percentage ("critical mass") is, by definition and common usage, a type of quota. It doesn't have to be as strict as the "rigid quota" programs most AA advocates now claim not to support. A lack of punishment for failing to achieve a quota does not prevent it from being a quota.

Your alleged "common usage" defines minorities, diversity, and goals as "synonyms" for quotas. That is ridiculous.

Moreoever, I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss what is or is not required by law, then legal definitions are of more use than your alleged "common usage."

Quotas are strictly illegal. A flexible percentage goal that is not enforced but merely striven for is not a quota.

I replaced synonyms of "quota" with the word.Considering that neither dictionaries nor legal authorities, including the Supreme Court, believe that these terms are synonymous, it makes little sense to insist that they are. It looks like time for you to shop for a new argument.
I am also aware of court decisions that upheld racial quota systems. http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html
"Citing Bakke, the Court stated that ' 'some attention to numbers,' without more, does not transform a flexible admissions system into a rigid quota.'"In your pathetic attempt to convince yourself that there is some legal distinction between "quotas" and "rigid quotas," you seem to have missed the sentence immediately preceding the one you cite: The Court defined a quota as a "program in which a certain number or proportion of opportunities are reserved exclusively for certain minority groups," and held that "[t]he Law School s goal of attaining a critical mass of underrepresented minority students does not transform its program into a quota."

The Supreme court upheld the quota ("critical mass") system used in University of Michigan admissions due in part to the lack of rigidity of the quotas. No. The Supreme Court declared that the University of Michigan program did not employ a quota of any kind.

There is no legally meaningful difference between a "quota" and a "rigid quota." It would be like distinguishing between "fire" and "hot fire." The point of the case that you cite is that "goals" are NOT the same as "quotas."

Just a side note, when applying for a government job in North Carolina, underneath the header it states...

"An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer"

What you call a "quota" is a rigid quota.This is not a legal distinction. The courts distinguish between a "quota" which is a "minimum" requirement in terms of percentages or numbers, and "goals" which state no such requirements. The numerical goals are still quotas by definition, no matter how inconvenient that is for Cat-Tribe.No, they are not. No matter how inconvenient it is for you.

Speaking of rigid quotas, Ohio State University has a rule that threatens administrators who don't try to achieve the quotas. http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/index.php "We will hold each administrator and unit accountable for progress in implementing their action plans and contributing to progress with regard to the University's diversity goals, making clear the expectations and consequences."Do you ever actually read the things you post?

The plan to which you refer does not once mention any kind of quotas. In fact, it presents a surprisingly broad diversity initiatives, and specifies that the "action plans" for which administrators are held responsible are chosen by each administrator and may encompass anything from recruiting at minority schools to holding a "Diversity Awareness Day."

Racism is still alive in the government.Undoubtedly. But not in the form of Affirmative Action law.

LOL.

Let's return to reality. I gave 7 definitions of affimative action from official sources or handbooks.Definitions that contradicted each other. Only a few had anything to do with what the original post of this thread was talking about.You should at least decide what you think affirmative action is before you try to tell someone about it.
3 definitions that expressly forbid quotas you simply ignored or said didn't describe affirmative action.If the definition describes a quota and then is followed up by a claim of not being a quota, that's a problem for the person who wrote it.
For 3 definitions you replace "minorities" with the "synonym" of "groups that have not acheived their quotas." That is the only way you could read "quota" into the definition. One of these definitions said affirmative action "shall not mean any sort of quota system," but you dismissed that.That's the meaning of "minority" in the mildest of affirmative action programs. It could instead mean "anyone who's not white," as in a program that discriminates against white applicants no matter how few have been accepted.
For the remaining definition you replaced the words "diversity" and "goal" with the words "quota."
If any reference whatsoever to minorities, diversity, or goals is synonomous with quotas, then you have proven your point. Otherwise, you have proven only that a fevered imagination can see quotas anywhere.If the goal is to achieve a certain percentage from a certain race, it is a type of quota. I didn't make up the meaning of the word.
Bullshit. You say the Court upheld a "quota system" in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-241), 539 US 306 (2003). but let's look at what the Court actually said in the relevant portion of the case:
...
Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 496 (plurality opinion). Quotas " 'impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded,' "
...
It is ridiculous to assert that that case upheld a quota system. It expressly forbids any type of quota -- rigid or otherwise -- and explains at length why the Law School affirmative action program was not a type of quota.It's not uncommon for a law of long ruling to establish a more specific definition to avoid confusion. That fact that O'Connor even had to provide an alternate definition for the ruling shows that she was not using the word according to its real definition. Again, that might explain your confusion between rigid quotas and quota systems in general. The only kind it forbids is the more rigid kind.
*sigh* I didn't equate affirmative action with discrimination or preferential treatment -- Proposition 209 did.Too bad. I thought you might have said what you meant.
None of the definitions I posted called for some form of racial discrimination except in your fevered imagination.Of course none of them used the word "discrimination." That would make the program sound as bad as it is. The four I paid special attention to simply describe discrimination ("Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities," "actions by employers to seek out actively minorities," etc.) They involve treating people according to race.
Nice bit of semantics. Picking and choosing among definitions to imply a phrase means something it does not.Now you know damn well what "quota" and "discrimination" mean.
"Greater racial diversity" != quota. QED....he said after referring to racial quotas as "diversity."

I'll repeat from Grutter:

Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 496 (plurality opinion). Quotas " 'impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded,' " Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 495 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and "insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Bakke, supra, at 317 (opinion of Powell, J.). In contrast, "a permissible goal ... require[s] only a good-faith effort ... to come within a range demarcated by the goal itself," Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, supra, at 495, and permits consideration of race as a "plus" factor in any given case while still ensuring that each candidate "compete[s] with all other qualified applicants," Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U. S. 616, 638 (1987).Again, laws and rulings sometimes give a more specific definition of some word in order to avoid confusion later on inthe law or ruling. Unfortunately, you mistook that to be the definition of "quota," rather than an attempt to make just that ruling clearer. But I really expected you would have known of the word "quota" before O'Connor decided to use it more specifically for a ruling. Now that you have seen the definition of quota, you have no excuse to continue to insist it's not the goal of affirmative action.
Apparently you are racist enough to (a) not care whether people are discriminated against on the basis of skin color and (b) equate less diversity with "more highly qualified entries."I never said that I don't care whether people are discriminated against on the basis of skin color. It would have been convenient for you if I had. What I don't care about is what color their skin happens to be. A racial distribution that fits the quota of 25% Latino and 10% black is just as good as a distribution of 50% Latino and 20% black, which is just as good as a distribution of 13% Latino and 5% black. I really don't care what color a person's skin is. If I didn't care that people are discriminated against based on skin color, I would sit back and let you pretty it up with the wrong words.
I also never equated less racial diversity with more highly qualified entries. I equated a lack of racial discrimination with more highly qualified entries. I don't believe that race has anything to do with how well a person is qualified to attend college. If the decision of who will be accepted is based on anything other than merit, the average level of qualification can go down (or stay the same by some coincidence). That belief was supported when, after most or all racial discrimination was removed from the admissions process, objective factors such as standardized test scores and grades in comparable schools were higher for the next year's entries. If the racial diversity at UC had increased after Proposition 209 went into effect, I would have been just as happy.
Ouch. Aren't we nasty?Some are, Mr. Fevered Imagination.
I guess supporting a racist status quo and opposing all diversity will do that to you.Given that affirmative action is the racist status quo, I'm not surprised. Again, I neither oppose nor support racial diversity. There is no quota of racial distributions that I prefer.

Again you rely on the silly notion that striving towards a goal of greater diversity inherently means a "rigid quota." If you look at the diversity plan you cited, nowhere does it establish any quota whatsoever.Rather than the silly notion that a specific level of diversity is not a quota.
It certainly is. That is why we need anti-discrimination programs like affirmative action.An anti-discrimination program that treats people differently based on their race. Right. I'm so glad I don't have to hold two conflicting beliefs.

I believe that affirmative action has good intentions of trying to promote equality, but I believe it is misguided. The problem as I see it is something that starts earlier. The inner-city, socioeconomically worse off need much better access to a good education at an early level, which will slowly lead to better qualifications for better jobs/colleges. And thus, aa will not be needed.

And inner-city blacks need to learn somehow that education is not a bad thing, as many of them do. I am not sure how that can be accomplished, as it seems to be ingrained in parts of their culture, but it needs to be done.

I haven't read much of this debate, this is just my opinion on the topic.

Your alleged "common usage" defines minorities, diversity, and goals as "synonyms" for quotas. That is ridiculous.When whether or not a person is part of a minority depends on what fraction of a group consists of members of his race, that fraction (quota) is involved. Your claim that the goals regarding racial diversity are not quotas is ridiculous, especially after you got to see the definition of "quota."
Moreoever, I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss what is or is not required by law, then legal definitions are of more use than your alleged "common usage."Then you should have had no problem with me saying that the word "quota" had been replaced with other words to describe the quota systems that are used now.
Quotas are strictly illegal. A flexible percentage goal that is not enforced but merely striven for is not a quota.I guess that's not technically a lie unless you really expect me to stop calling a quota a quota.

There is no legally meaningful difference between a "quota" and a "rigid quota." It would be like distinguishing between "fire" and "hot fire." The point of the case that you cite is that "goals" are NOT the same as "quotas."It would be like distinguishing between a fire and a forest fire. If some law says that "fire" will refer to uncontrolled combustion of fuel and oxygen in a forest, I will still refer to other fires as fires. Just because O'Connor said that "quota" will refer to the percentage goals that she's about to say are illegal does not mean I shouldn't refer to other quotas as quotas.

This is not a legal distinction. The courts distinguish between a "quota" which is a "minimum" requirement in terms of percentages or numbers, and "goals" which state no such requirements.Again, courts and lawmakers do that within rulings and laws to clear up confusion within the ruling or law. If the word "quota" only referred to the strictest of racial percentage systems that have been used, rather than the dictionary definition, the ruling wouldn't have included any mention of what it meant by "quota."
No, they are not. No matter how inconvenient it is for you.The fact that I can reference an online dictionary or other dictionaries to prove some of your claims to be false is not an inconvenience for me.
Do you ever actually read the things you post?

The plan to which you refer does not once mention any kind of quotas.Did you read my first post? The quota systems that are used now don't include the word "quota" in their official descriptions anymore. It's bad publicity.

Quotas are strictly illegal. A flexible percentage goal that is not enforced but merely striven for is not a quota.


You have to forgive Kat - he has a flexible percentage goal of asinine statements he has to make every day.