NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html

CNN) -- Come election time in November, voters in five states might have a decision to make as big as whom to elect president.

Ballot initiatives have been proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma that would give voters the chance to decide whether they want to do away with affirmative action in government-funded projects and public schools.

About damn time. Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination and its high time we move into the 21st century. Down with preferential treatment. If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment? They shouldn't. Hopefully this will pass and if it is challenged, held up up the Supreme Court.

http://www.conservativecartoons.com/2003/sat.gif

About damn time. Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination and its high time we move into the 21st century. Down with preferential treatment. If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment? They shouldn't. Hopefully this will pass and if it is challenged, held up up the Supreme Court.

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?
I'll take my straw man in a top hat please.

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?

*wraps up argument into a straw pile and lets the wind blow it across the forum*

and because it isn't preferential treatment at all.
Wrong. Some cases of affirmative action are preferential treatment and are tantamount to reverse discrimination for the sake of it. Like affirmative action quotas. Wtf is that? It's like "this is out token black guy requirement" and they have to have X many black people in Y place. Who is that helping? No one.

Calling that a strawman seems like an insult to strawmen, I can't even tell how it's related to this topic.

If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment?

because the 'preferential treatment' is the only possible means to bring about equality short of my preferred option of revolution.

and because it isn't preferential treatment at all.

I'll take my straw man in a top hat please.

*wraps up argument into a straw pile and lets the wind blow it across the forum*

Calling that a strawman seems like an insult to strawmen, I can't even tell how it's related to this topic.

I apologize if that's what you thought it was, but that was hardly my intent at all. It's like this. I know Corny doesn't want affirmative action, fine. He wants it put to the vote. Fine. But how far would he allow what people want to vote for? That's the thing I'm interested in knowing.

It's not like America hasn't gone through times when plenty of people wanted extremely unequal treatment for people of various skin colors, so that's what I want to know really. How much would he be willing to put up for the public to vote on?

because the 'preferential treatment' is the only possible means to bring about equality short of my preferred option of revolution.


I'm fairly skeptical about this. What is your definition of equality though? Is it an exactly equal proportion of blacks and whites in the work place? Why must this goal be achieved?


and because it isn't preferential treatment at all.

In what sense?

Wrong. Some cases of affirmative action are preferential treatment and are tantamount to reverse discrimination for the sake of it. Like affirmative action quotas.

first off, those don't legally exist in public institutions in the u.s. haven't for decades. but how is it 'reverse discrimination' to make sure that your educational institution, for example, is actually taking in people at approximately the same rate as they exist in the country/region/area? why is it that "not discriminating" means "disproportionately letting in more of the beneficiaries of past discrimination for the foreseeable future"?

It's like this. I know Corny doesn't want affirmative action, fine. He wants it put to the vote. Fine. But how far would he allow what people want to vote for? That's the thing I'm interested in knowing.

It's not like America hasn't gone through times when plenty of people wanted extremely unequal treatment for people of various skin colors, so that's what I want to know really. How much would he be willing to put up for the public to vote on?

ah, but don't you see, in the land of 'reverse discrimination' racism is over. ancient history. nevermind the fact that the data says otherwise, or that it also says affirmative action is a useful tool for lessening its impact. racism is done and gone, so we can now have a vote on whether to let racist decision-making be used.

first off, those don't legally exist in public institutions in the u.s. haven't for decades. but how is it 'reverse discrimination' to make sure that your educational institution, for example, is actually taking in people at approximately the same rate as they exist in the country/region/area? why is it that "not discriminating" means "disproportionately letting in more of the beneficiaries of past discrimination for the foreseeable future"?
Because the Token Black Guy policy doesn't take into account qualifications. Should a more qualified poor white kid trying to move on up not get in because the Token Black Guy quota isn't filled up?

Because the Token Black Guy policy doesn't take into account qualifications.

don't lie. you know this is false.

Should a more qualified poor white kid trying to move on up not get in because the Token Black Guy quota isn't filled up?

yes. if the basic qualifications are met by both candidates, then we should take into account whether african americans are underrepresented in the institution in question and take affirmative action to correct that underrepresentation. no particular individual has a claim on a particular job or educational spot, etc. decisions always are, and should be, made on a variety of criteria. one of those criteria ought involve steps we can take towards ending the horrific legacy of racial discrimination. society as a whole is made better by doing so.

Eh, I'm actually in support of positive discrimination. Oh well, regardless of ethnicity I know I'll be qualified enough for jobs (once I start working in a few years, of course) that this won't affect me. :)

This will become a moot point once we're all hispanic. :)

I was lucky enough to meet a woman who was involved in the civil rights movement

She told me that they wanted equal treatment for everyone regardless of race, and that positive descrimination for black folks was simply negative discrimination against white people.

Affirminative action laws are just as bad as the segregation laws

Ugh. I wonder if the people voting in favor of the ban will bother to find out what it is first. Somehow I doubt it.

Ugh. I wonder if the people voting in favor of the ban will bother to find out what it is first. Somehow I doubt it.

I doubt it. "Affirmative Action" is as over-used and smeared as "Politically correct". Usually by the same sort of people.

This will become a moot point once we're all hispanic. :)

QFT


¿Dónde está mi taco?

I certainly disagree with the idea of quotas, but not the entire idea of affirmative action.

I just think of it as a way to speed up equality, otherwise the historically disadvantaged groups will take ages to being on equal ground when it comes to education.

I was lucky enough to meet a woman who was involved in the civil rights movement

She told me that they wanted equal treatment for everyone regardless of race, and that positive descrimination for black folks was simply negative discrimination against white people.

Affirminative action laws are just as bad as the segregation laws

That pretty much says it all.

QFT


¿Dónde está mi taco?

Está en mi estómago.

don't lie. you know this is false.
Except I don't because it isn't. Look it up.


yes. if the basic qualifications are met by both candidates, then we should take into account whether african americans are underrepresented in the institution in question and take affirmative action to correct that underrepresentation.
"Underrepresentation" has nothing to do with the Token Black Guy policy. And what about underprivileged students who now can't go to college because the college doesn't have enough Token Black Guys? That is entirely fair :rolleyes:

no particular individual has a claim on a particular job or educational spot, etc.
Except under affirmative action, black people are given claim to a particular job or educational spot.

decisions always are, and should be, made on a variety of criteria.
Except under the Token Black Guy policy.

ah, but don't you see, in the land of 'reverse discrimination' racism is over. ancient history. nevermind the fact that the data says otherwise, or that it also says affirmative action is a useful tool for lessening its impact. racism is done and gone, so we can now have a vote on whether to let racist decision-making be used.

Look, Mommy, a strawman.

Except I don't because it isn't. Look it up.

"Underrepresentation" has nothing to do with the Token Black Guy policy. And what about underprivileged students who now can't go to college because the college doesn't have enough Token Black Guys? That is entirely fair :rolleyes:

Except under affirmative action, black people are given claim to a particular job or educational spot.

Except under the Token Black Guy policy.

Please feel free to "look it up" yourself and provide us with some evidence that affirmative action means quotas or what you call a "Token Black Guy" policy that ignores qualifications.

Good luck finding that evidence of such programs that are legal under U.S. law.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html



About damn time. Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination and its high time we move into the 21st century. Down with preferential treatment. If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment? They shouldn't. Hopefully this will pass and if it is challenged, held up up the Supreme Court.

I'll take my straw man in a top hat please.

*wraps up argument into a straw pile and lets the wind blow it across the forum*

Funny how those complaining about strawmen are the ones constructing them in the first place.

Your view of Affirmative Action is simply ignorant and wrong -- whether willfully so, I don't know.

And wtf does the Supreme Court have to do with ballot initiatives?

I was lucky enough to meet a woman who was involved in the civil rights movement

She told me that they wanted equal treatment for everyone regardless of race, and that positive descrimination for black folks was simply negative discrimination against white people.

Well, gee, if you say that one woman said .... then it MUST be true .... :headbang:

Affirminative action laws are just as bad as the segregation laws

That has to be one of the most idiotic and ill-informed opinions I have ever heard on the subject. Do you know anything about either affirmative action or segregation?

I can show you the statistics on how people were greviously harmed by segregation (and continue to be harmed by current racism). Care to show me how white people are oppressed by affirmative action?

... I'm going to repeat some of what I have previously said and linked on the subject of affirmative action.

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.

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 actual definitions of affirmative action:

Here are 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.

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?

Unfortunately in a democratic society, that's how it works. It would be up to everyone who isn't a part of those organizations to convince those who are that they aren't making the right decisions, or leave the authority of the government and rebel.

QFT


¿Dónde está mi taco?

Lo tomé.. :D

Unfortunately in a democratic society, that's how it works. It would be up to everyone who isn't a part of those organizations to convince those who are that they aren't making the right decisions, or leave the authority of the government and rebel.

Fortunately in our Republic, there are constitutional guarantees of civil rights and equal protection under the law that aren't subject to the whims of mere majorities.

Now, when we are talking about non-government action, that is another thing. But there we have civil rights laws that are based on the same principles.

I have some issues with the way affirmative action is carried out. Example: There are "gifted programs" within the special education departments in public schools. Students must achieve a certain score on tests to get into these programs, which are considered enrichment for the normal curriculum. I have seen white children, hispanic children, and multiracial children overlooked in favor of black children. My question is why not expand the damn program to include ALL children who meet the requirements, rather than excluding students because of these racial requirements? It's there to HELP as many students as possible, and I know not all of these programs are operating at full capacity. And yes, I know there is a quota for these programs. They are required to be "racially balanced", meaning each little tick-box under race should be about equally represented. This "racial balance" should look at the school the students are coming from --- in one county, 95% of the students in public elementary schools were black.

If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment?

So that they can get equality, obviously.

Rather than a false "color-blindness" that sanctions inequality by ignoring it.

My school needs Affirmative action. Asians are way overrepresented in clubs.

So that they can get equality, obviously.

Rather than a false "color-blindness" that sanctions inequality by ignoring it.

So achieving equality by inequality, I like it. :rolleyes:

People should be recognized and judged by their skill and character, not their race, religion, income, political party, or sex.

MJK Jr.'s dream that people would be judged only by "the content of their character" not "the color of their skin" was perverted. One shouldn't make approving or disapproving judgements based on race alone.

My school needs Affirmative action. Asians are way overrepresented in clubs.

lol

-snip-

Your post makes my post feel inadequate...so bravo!

Meh. I have never seen somebody unqualified hired to do a senior job. I have seen people that lacked skills get into low level positions.

Is there proof of of somebody getting a job simply because of their skin and not what they know?

Seems like a waste of time over all.

People should be getting pissed at things like executive compensation abuse. Golden parachutes (ie the last ceo of home depot was fired for failing to meet all objectives and walked away with $220 million) and the recent action by Washington Mutual where 3000 top execs won't see their bonus program impacted by the sub-prime debacle. Never mind the fact I still get sub-prime loan offers from them......

This will become a moot point once we're all hispanic. :)
You say that, but you went and got snipped, and thus are no longer part of the solution. You know what that means. You're insoluble.
So achieving equality by inequality, I like it. :rolleyes:
It makes sense really. Consider:

Two different types of sand are being poured onto either side of a scale at different rates. The scales are obviously unbalanced. How can we balance them? We can alter the rates at which the sand is being poured onto the scales, but that will take time and effort. Must we simply accept the imbalance until then? Of course not. We can artificially create balance by adding weights to one side. As the rates equalise we can remove the weights, and balance will exist naturally.

I believe in equality under the law. " He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. " If you want equality under the law discrimination must end. No matter who is against. Or it will just be a pendulum swing back and forth from one group to another and will never end.

People should be recognized and judged by their skill and character, not their race, religion, income, political party, or sex.

MJK Jr.'s dream that people would be judged only by "the content of their character" not "the color of their skin" was perverted. One shouldn't make approving or disapproving judgements based on race alone.

Um. :headbang:

Are you aware of the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a strong supporter of affirmative action? In fact, he advocated much more stringent affirmative action programs than we have ever had implemented.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream is not perverted by affirmative action. It is perverted by those that would pay lip service to equality while ignoring inequality all around them and opposing solutions that seek equality.

So achieving equality by inequality, I like it. :rolleyes:

I don't understand what's so hard to get about that. It actually makes perfect sense, even if we follow you in characterizing affirmative action as "inequality."

When a balance scale is unbalanced, do you proceed by adding equal amounts to both sides... or by adding more to the one that currently has less?

Um. :headbang:

Are you aware of the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a strong supporter of affirmative action? In fact, he advocated much more stringent affirmative action programs than we have ever had implemented.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream is not perverted by affirmative action. It is perverted by those that would pay lip service to equality while ignoring inequality all around them and opposing solutions that seek equality.

I was not aware of that.

I take back what I said about King's ideals being perverted.

I still believe affirmative action, as it is, is wrong.

"The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."

Sounds to me like it's a do-nothing bill. The state is already prohibited from doing these things.

I oppose affirmative action, as I see it as a cop-out which fails to address the real issues at hand - poor standards of education in low income areas and racism. I'd much rather see a program targeted at improving education standards in disadvantaged areas - after all, it is somewhat unfair that middle class blacks could be preferred for university admission or certain public sector jobs over similarly qualified poor whites (or any other racial minority not covered by AA, for that matter) when the poor person is likely to have had to overcome greater obstacles to achieve a similar standard to a middle class person.

I oppose affirmative action, as I see it as a cop-out which fails to address the real issues at hand - poor standards of education in low income areas and racism.

so you'd rather we let the effects of the current and previous racism and poor standards of education fester for another generation or two?

"The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."

Sounds to me like it's a do-nothing bill. The state is already prohibited from doing these things.

But now politicians have a chance to earn brownie points with their constituents by making a big deal about which way they're voting and why.

When a balance scale is unbalanced, do you proceed by adding equal amounts to both sides

yes. this is also how i balance my checkbook. so far so good!

so you'd rather we let the effects of the current and previous racism and poor standards of education fester for another generation or two?

I just suggested a program targeted at improving standards of education in disadvantaged areas. Besides, racism can not be held entirely accountable for the disparity in poverty between races, nor does increasing the number of black students at American universities automatically lead to higher education standards and upwards mobility for minority students, particularly if the basic level of education they have already received was awful.

I just suggested a program targeted at improving standards of education in disadvantaged areas.

precisely

Besides, racism can not be held entirely accountable for the disparity in poverty between races

what else do you wish to hold up as responsible?

Inor does increasing the number of black students at American universities automatically lead to higher education standards and upwards mobility for minority students, particularly if the basic level of education they have already received was awful.

not automatically, no. but in practice, yes, it clearly has done so. and, of course, that is not the be-all-end-all of what we ought be doing anyways.

I oppose affirmative action, as I see it as a cop-out which fails to address the real issues at hand - poor standards of education in low income areas and racism. I'd much rather see a program targeted at improving education standards in disadvantaged areas

You mean, like, affirmative action?

lol
I even made a facebook group for it and now all the azns hate me.

When a balance scale is unbalanced, do you proceed by adding equal amounts to both sides... or by adding more to the one that currently has less?

You add more to the uneven side while NOT removing weight from one side to the another. Nice try. Treatment based on color has been the bane of mankind since the conception of 'race'.

I was lucky enough to meet a woman who was involved in the civil rights movement

She told me that they wanted equal treatment for everyone regardless of race, and that positive descrimination for black folks was simply negative discrimination against white people.

Affirminative action laws are just as bad as the segregation laws

I agree with said civil rights worker.

You add more to the uneven side while NOT removing weight from one side to the another. Nice try.

Um. You might want to think that answer through a bit more.

What would be the equivalent of adding to the uneven side -- would it be something like helping that side become equal?

I agree with said civil rights worker.

Then it should be easy for you to show how affirmative action causes as much harm as segregation did.

Good luck.

I dislike affirmative action, and don't say it doesn't exist! My father was told point blank by his supervisor at Kodak that he will never advance in the company because he wasn't a minority! (this was after he was given a laundry list of how he was a great employee and a hard worker)

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.Speaking of straw men...
Who said the law requires quotas? Implementation of affirmative action via quotas has and does happen.

I dislike affirmative action, and don't say it doesn't exist! My father was told point blank by his supervisor at Kodak that he will never advance in the company because he wasn't a minority! (this was after he was given a laundry list of how he was a great employee and a hard worker)

If that story is true, your father had excellent grounds for a lawsuit.

So how much did he win?

Speaking of straw men...
Who said the law requires quotas? Implementation of affirmative action via quotas has and does happen.

Really? Then you should be able to provide us with some current examples of such quotas.

BTW, crime happens. But it is against the law. My point is that quotas not only aren't required by the law, but also that the opposite tends to be true.

If that story is true, your father had excellent grounds for a lawsuit.

So how much did he win?

Just a point, but whether he won or not (or whether the poster claims he won) has no bearing on whether the story is true or not. One can have good grounds for a lawsuit and still lose, after all. Plus, it's my limited understanding that the father would need some sort of evidence or a witness to prove it, and generally employers in those situations will provide their victims with neither. I mean it would come down to he-said she-said, no?

Of course that would also mean the anecdote's value as a persuasive argument in this thread is pretty low but it wasn't that high to begin with.

You add more to the uneven side

Right. Affirmative action. "Preferential treatment", as you people like to call it.

Oh, but wait, you'll say... I ignored the second part of the statement, that we don't in the process take from the other side. You know what? Fine with me. Abolish scarcity, and I'll be the first to endorse your plan. ;)

The only discrimination in the workplace should be based on the best person for the job.

And if you have more equally-qualified candidates than you have slots? Or the few differences in qualification among the candidates are minor and effectively non-existent?

Yay we're making progress! The only discrimination in the workplace should be based on the best person for the job.

Dear Mr./Mrs. Tribe,
You are going to show us how people were harmed as the segregatED in one system,
yet,
You are going to show us how people were harmed as the segregatOR in another system.

It may just be me, but your compare/contrast will be biased.

HOWEVER, I do understand what you meant.

Apple/Orange?
-Rafe

///snipped for relevance///

I can show you the statistics on how people were greviously harmed by segregation (and continue to be harmed by current racism). Care to show me how white people are oppressed by affirmative action?

Yay we're making progress! The only discrimination in the workplace should be based on the best person for the job.Good. Affirmative action doesn't change this.

Yay we're making progress! The only discrimination in the workplace should be based on the best person for the job.

Yay?
So...like a meritocracy then? Which could turn into a timocracy with a nudge. Resulting in eventual oligarchy, then monarchy given a life time or two.

I LIKE it!

:fluffle::)
-Rafe

Good. Affirmative action doesn't change this.

It kinda does by adding another quality to look for that is unrelated to the specific task (race). Whether race is the most important quality or at the very bottom of the list doesn't change the fact that affirmative action still puts it on said list. Adding to anything changes it, even if it just makes it bigger (or in the case of holes in the ground, smaller).

A better alternative to race is the economic situation the person is living under. Not all white people are uber-rich illegal-alien hiring CEOs with the best education money can by and Oprah sure as hell proves that not all minorities are disadvantaged people living in gang-infested slums.

Being black or hispanic doesn't always make you disadvantaged, but being poor almost always does. And poverty is colorblind. The color that drives poverty away isn't white. It's green. And it's not the level of melenin in your skin that affects your education the most. It's where you live and where you live is determined most by how much money you have.

Yes, decades ago, skin color affected education more than anything. But a half-century passed, every place is integrated, and we're arguing over a racially-motivated concept that would have created much equality in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, but not much now.

If that story is true, your father had excellent grounds for a lawsuit.

So how much did he win?

I don't have any trouble believing this story, since I think there's a common misconception about Affirmative Action. Many people think it's about quotas, and then have to be corrected because it's both incorrect and unconstitutional. But this shows a prevalent lack of understanding about it.

That said, it's not much of a stretch to think that maybe a manager at a local branch of a company labors under the same misconceptions.

You mean, like, affirmative action?

Affirmative action, as it is used at present, does not improve education standards. It doesn't attract better teachers to poor areas. It doesn't give them better facilities. It just says, 'well, we failed you at the elementary and higher school stage. rather than improve this we'll just give you more consideration for further eduction/employment'.

Yes, I am aware that the idea of targeted funding to improve education standards could also be classed as affirmative action, but what I am rallying against here is the use of 'preferential treatment' style affirmative action, as often used in America for college admissions and quota systems such as the practice of reservation as used in India.

what else do you wish to hold up as responsible?

Among other things, bad or limited parenting due to the higher incidence of single parent families among african americans than other races, a cultural rejection of education among many poor black Americans and of course, the bad education standards available in the first place. If racism were such an important factor in preventing African Americans from escaping poverty, you might expect Asian Americans to have the same problem, but they don't - poverty rates for Asian Americans are only 1% above those for non-hispanic white Americans. I'm not denying the fact that racism is a factor, but I don't believe it is the main cause.

not automatically, no. but in practice, yes, it clearly has done so. and, of course, that is not the be-all-end-all of what we ought be doing anyways.

Has it? The difference in incomes between white and black workers in similar jobs has actually increased since the seventies, despite large increases in the proportion of black students who attend college.

Yes, I am aware that the idea of targeted funding to improve education standards could also be classed as affirmative action, but what I am rallying against here is the use of 'preferential treatment' style affirmative action,

You realize that there's no substantive difference... at all?

Both target specific portions of the population for "special treatment", on grounds of rectifying inequality.

you might expect Asian Americans to have the same problem,

Only if we had reason to expect that racism against Asian Americans was equivalent to racism against African Americans. But we don't.

The difference in incomes between white and black workers in similar jobs has actually increased since the seventies, despite large increases in the proportion of black students who attend college.

Better question: how has black income changed? Answer: there's been a great deal of progress.

Differences in income, if I recall correctly, went up (in part) as a result of weakening affirmative action and anti-discrimination programs.

You realize that there's no substantive difference... at all?

Both target specific portions of the population for "special treatment", on grounds of rectifying inequality.

For a start, if you didn't chop off the end of the sentence you would see that I said "'preferential treatment' style affirmative action, as often used in America for college admissions and quota systems such as the practice of reservation as used in India". Its not preferential treatment I have a problem with, obviously some social groups need more help than others, it is the simplistic way it is used in college admissions in the United States and for college admissions and public sectior work in India. The difference between the simply increasing the number of African American students, as universities use just now, and actually improving education standards at elementary and higher level, is that you see an improvement in standards for all poor students, not just the lucky few who get to go to college. The poor white students and the black students who don't go to college are getting a raw deal - nothing is improving for them through affirmative action. So yes, there is a substantive difference - the substantive difference is in the effect it has on students.

Only if we had reason to expect that racism against Asian Americans was equivalent to racism against African Americans. But we don't.

Something as immeasurable as racism cannot be quantitively compared between races. But Asian Americans do experience racism - don't try and tell me that Asian American Muslims don't suffer a substantial deal of racism in the current political climate - and yet, there is little to indicate that it is hampering their education or employment propects.

Better question: how has black income changed? Answer: there's been a great deal of progress.

Differences in income, if I recall correctly, went up as a result of weakening affirmative action and anti-discrimination programs.

Evidence of weakening affirmative action leading to the increase in wage differences?

The difference between the simply increasing the number of African American students, as universities use just now, and actually improving education standards at elementary and higher level, is that you see an improvement in standards for all poor students, not just the lucky few who get to go to college.

Why do you assume that these two are mutually exclusive?

Something as immeasurable as racism cannot be quantitively compared between races.

Fine with me. Why do you suggest that we CAN make such a quantitative comparison?

But Asian Americans do experience racism - don't try and tell me that Asian American Muslims don't suffer a substantial deal of racism in the current political climate -

Sure, but racism has many manifestations. It is not the same everywhere and in every respect.

Evidence of weakening affirmative action leading to the increase in wage differences?

Off the top of my head: the dates you gave. What's been the trend since the seventies?

I apologize if that's what you thought it was, but that was hardly my intent at all. It's like this. I know Corny doesn't want affirmative action, fine. He wants it put to the vote. Fine. But how far would he allow what people want to vote for? That's the thing I'm interested in knowing.

It's not like America hasn't gone through times when plenty of people wanted extremely unequal treatment for people of various skin colors, so that's what I want to know really. How much would he be willing to put up for the public to vote on?

Unluckly for you this is how the democratic process works.
Right or wrong, ethical or not, moral or not, what the majority wants it gets.

BTW, crime happens. But it is against the law. My point is that quotas not only aren't required by the law, but also that the opposite tends to be true.
And my point is that is irrelevant. Do the police go around enforcing the "no racial quotas" 'law' now?
Are you now going to argue that because murder is against the law, it doesn't happen?

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?

i smell a straw man argument right here. at least try and put some effort into it man...:(

i smell a straw man argument right here. at least try and put some effort into it man...:(

Did you bother to read the elaboration 6 posts down?

My $0.02...

Various arguments made that 'affirmative action' is not a form of discrimination in and of itself. I think those arguments are clearly false. Let's look at the word 'discrimination' in its normal dictionary.com sense:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

Affirmative action, according to the University of South Dakota, is
Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women (http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm)

Let's work it through.

Alan wants to employ a worker for a job. Bob (white male) and Celia (female and black (or asian, or Muslim, or perhaps a disabled veteran)) both apply.

Both are equally qualified for the job in terms of experience and qualifications. But Celia, being of an affirmative action status gets the job.

So we can see that affirmative action has restulted in Celia being treated favourably on the grounds of her race, status or gender, and Bob being treated unfavourably on the grounds of his race, status, or gender.

Given that the definition of discrimination includes the favourable / unfavourable treatment of an individual on the grounds of race, status or gender, then it follows...

affirmative action is a form of discrimination.


Next question: is the form of discrimination justified?

Personally, I think 'no'.

This will become a moot point once we're all hispanic. :)
Usted habla español gringo? :D

Better question: how has black income changed? Answer: there's been a great deal of progress.

Differences in income, if I recall correctly, went up (in part) as a result of weakening affirmative action and anti-discrimination programs.

also note that they are comparing white and black workers in 'similar jobs'. the question is, how many people of color were holding executive and managerial jobs in the 70s vs how many today. after all, wouldn't that be more directly linked to "increasing the number of black students at American universities" and "upwards mobility for minority students"?

Are you now going to argue that because murder is against the law, it doesn't happen?

of course, your argument requires you to believe that laws against murder cause murders...

Affirmative action, as it is used at present, does not improve education standards.

There are affirmative action programs in place to do just that.

It doesn't attract better teachers to poor areas.

There are affirmative action programs in place to do just that.

It doesn't give them better facilities.

There are affirmative action programs in place to do just that.

It just says, 'well, we failed you at the elementary and higher school stage. rather than improve this we'll just give you more consideration for further eduction/employment'.

This is what it doesn't do.

Yes, I am aware that the idea of targeted funding to improve education standards could also be classed as affirmative action, but what I am rallying against here is the use of 'preferential treatment' style affirmative action, as often used in America for college admissions and quota systems such as the practice of reservation as used in India.

....except there are no quota systems. They are illegal. And even systems which do consider ethnicity are not designed to take a more qualified student over a less qualified student, regardless of ethnicity. At most, it's a way of choosing between two similar students when admissions are limited.

Another form of affirmative action in college admissions might be targeting disadvantaged areas for increased recruiting. It would ostensibly be meant to help get more minority enrollment, but wouldn't be specifically targeted.

The problem here is you think affirmative action refers to practices that are already illegal.

There are affirmative action programs in place to do just that.
Now I am really curious as to what and how affirmative action programs attract good teachers to poorer areas.

This is what it doesn't do.
Affirmative action does give consideration for minorities in higher education institutions.

....except there are no quota systems. They are illegal.
"Illegal" does not always preclude "do not exist" and you damn well know it.

The problem here is you think affirmative action refers to practices that are already illegal.
No, the problem is that it can be and is applied like that.

Now I am really curious as to what and how affirmative action programs attract good teachers to poorer areas.

The same way you usually try to attract people into a given job. You offer incentives.

Affirmative action does give consideration for minorities in higher education institutions.

Enrollment processes give consideration for minorities in higher education institutions. Affirmative action attempts to attract more of them.

"Illegal" does not always preclude "do not exist" and you damn well know it.

So?

Do we ban banks because people can rob them?
Do we ban hospitals because people steal drugs from them?
Do we ban police because they sometimes abuse their power?

No, the problem is that it can be and is applied like that.

Not legally. Which means that this law is nothing but political posturing that means absolutely nothing. It changes nothing in the law.

It kinda does by adding another quality to look for that is unrelated to the specific task (race). Whether race is the most important quality or at the very bottom of the list doesn't change the fact that affirmative action still puts it on said list. Adding to anything changes it, even if it just makes it bigger (or in the case of holes in the ground, smaller).Many people already look at race.

A better alternative to race is the economic situation the person is living under. Not all white people are uber-rich illegal-alien hiring CEOs with the best education money can by and Oprah sure as hell proves that not all minorities are disadvantaged people living in gang-infested slums.

Being black or hispanic doesn't always make you disadvantaged, but being poor almost always does. And poverty is colorblind. The color that drives poverty away isn't white. It's green. And it's not the level of melenin in your skin that affects your education the most. It's where you live and where you live is determined most by how much money you have.

Yes, decades ago, skin color affected education more than anything. But a half-century passed, every place is integrated, and we're arguing over a racially-motivated concept that would have created much equality in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, but not much now.While it is true that affirmative action policies targeted towards the poor would be nice, being disadvantaged due to income is different than being disadvantaged due to race - the disadvantages manifest themselves in different ways.
If income inequality vanished tomorrow, there would still be racism.

The same way you usually try to attract people into a given job. You offer incentives.
Which has what to do with affirmative action?


Enrollment processes give consideration for minorities in higher education institutions. Affirmative action attempts to attract more of them.

I don't even know what you said.

So?

Do we ban banks because people can rob them?
Do we ban hospitals because people steal drugs from them?
Do we ban police because they sometimes abuse their power?
So we are tossing all those strawmen down the slippery slope now?
You said "there are no quota systems. They are illegal." The-Cat-Tribe said basically the same. Something being illegal does not mean it isn't happening. I'm sure someone is getting shanked right now and I'm positive that is illegal. Your repeated assertions that a quota system "does not exist" because "quota systems are illegal" is false on a number of levels.


Not legally. Which means that this law is nothing but political posturing that means absolutely nothing. It changes nothing in the law.
Other than the fact that "no affirmative action" is more understandable than "affirmative action in some methods," I agree with you.

Which has what to do with affirmative action?

Bringing good teachers into traditionally disadvantaged areas - which generally have a high percentage of disadvantaged minorities - is a form of affirmative action.

I don't even know what you said.

Clearly.

So we are tossing all those strawmen down the slippery slope now?
You said "there are no quota systems. They are illegal." The-Cat-Tribe said basically the same. Something being illegal does not mean it isn't happening. I'm sure someone is getting shanked right now and I'm positive that is illegal. Your repeated assertions that a quota system "does not exist" because "quota systems are illegal" is false on a number of levels.

*sigh*

Ok, they likely exist. But they don't exist legally and are thus irrelevant when discussing the law. The law already bans them.

Other than the fact that "no affirmative action" is more understandable than "affirmative action in some methods," I agree with you.

"No police" is more understandable than "Police can only do certain things," but no one is calling for banning police.

And the law doesn't say "no affirmative action." It just being billed that way.

Bringing good teachers into traditionally disadvantaged areas - which generally have a high percentage of disadvantaged minorities - is a form of affirmative action.
Technically true, but has anyone ever seen that done as part of a specific policy?

Ok, they likely exist. But they don't exist legally and are thus irrelevant when discussing the law.
But they are relevant to this discussion.


"No police" is more understandable than "Police can only do certain things," but no one is calling for banning police.
Police arn't a policy.

But they are relevant to this discussion.

How so? If racial quotas are already illegal, then what will banning or not banning affirmative action change?

Technically true, but has anyone ever seen that done as part of a specific policy?

School systems around the country have been trying to implement such policies. They have been proposed (although I'm not sure they've been passed) at the national level as well.

But they are relevant to this discussion.

This discussion is about the law. In fact, it's about a specific proposed bill in several states.

Anything that endorses the concept of positive discrimination, and manifests it in policy, should be dispensed with with all haste.

School systems around the country have been trying to implement such policies. They have been proposed (although I'm not sure they've been passed) at the national level as well.
I'm sure that will go over well with the teachers.


How so? If racial quotas are already illegal, then what will banning or not banning affirmative action change?
Clarification on the application of affirmative action.

And my point is that is irrelevant.

Is far from irrelevant. In the face of legal prohibitions against quotas and in the absence of evidence that quotas are a significant problem, it makes little sense to complain about quotas when we discuss affirmative action.

You don't like quotas. We get it. Neither do I. Nobody here is arguing for quotas, so the only thing that is irrelevant is your bringing them up.

Do the police go around enforcing the "no racial quotas" 'law' now?

Um. Not the police, but government agencies and the courts do, yes.

Are you now going to argue that because murder is against the law, it doesn't happen?

As Free Soviets pointed out, you appear to be making the equivalent of the ridiculous claim that laws against murder cause murders.

I'm sure that will go over well with the teachers.

Why shouldn't it? Incentives to work in underserved areas have certainly helped in other industries.

Clarification on the application of affirmative action.

There is no clarification. It's a redundant law.

Why don't we just pass a law saying "Murder is illegal" and pretend like it's doing something?

Not legally. Which means that this law is nothing but political posturing that means absolutely nothing. It changes nothing in the law.

Unfortunately, I believe such wording has been applied to eliminate affirmative action programs, even though they don't actually violate the letter of such legislation.

Don't be misled by what seems an innocuous statement. The propositions, if they make the ballot, can cause great harm.

I came across these two quotes when looking at some of my books related to affirmative action:

Why does racial discrimination excite us when so many other kinds of discrimination do not? It is because of the way we interpret history, associating racial discrimination with practices that now appear self-evidently evil: forcing blacks from their homeland, enslaving blacks, lynching blacks for actions that among whites would not be criminal, intimidating blacks who sought to exercise their rights -- in sum, systematically disadvantaging a people in almost every way that mattered because of the color of their skin. [A] claim made by a white person as a member of the dominant majority draws its moral force largely from our collective horror at centuries of oppressing black people. It would be ironic indeed if evils visited on blacks had lent enough force to the moral claims of whites to prevent what appears to many at this point to be the most effective means of eliminating the legacy of those evils.

--Richard Lempert, The Force of Irony: On the Morality of Affirmative Action and United Steelworkers v. Weber, 95 Ethics 86, 89 (1984)

When the group that controls the decision making process classifies so as to advantage a minority and disadvantage itself, the reasons for being unusually suspicious, and, consequently, employing a stringent brand of review are lacking.* A White majority is unlikely to disadvantage itself for reasons of racial prejudice; nor is it likely to be tempted either to underestimate the needs and deserts of Whites relative to those of others, or to overestimate the cost of devising an alternative classification that would extend to certain Whites the advantages generally extended to Blacks...
[Whether] or not it is more blessed to give than to recieve, it is surely less suspicious.

--John Hart Ely, The Constitutionality of Reverse Racial Discrimination, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 723, 735-36 (1974)

*This article (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm) explains more about standards of review and the degree of scrutiny the courts apply in judging alleged violations of equal protection. The basic idea is that the courts apply a more stringent review of more suspect classifications and a less stringent review of less suspect classifications.

We all knew it had gone too far when people were being refused jobs for being the wrong colour.

As Free Soviets pointed out, you appear to be making the equivalent of the ridiculous claim that laws against murder cause murders.

also, it appears to be an argument that since murder is bad we must therefore abolish laws that outlaw it, since those laws themselves cause murder.

We all knew it had gone too far when people were being refused jobs for being the wrong colour.

hundreds of years ago?

We all knew it had gone too far when people were being refused jobs for being the wrong colour.

Which is why Affirmative Action was created.

I've personally seen the Token Black Guy policy ruin dozens of companies and cost [i dont even want to know] how much money in that they sit on their asses and leave it up to white guys and asians to work their asses off to make the work standards sit right

at age 17-21, i was working in a warehouse, and the only ones who worked, were the whiye guys, asians, and a couple maoris who were from new zealand, while the black guys and samoans sat around and did **** all

and,..we couldnt complain because the supervisors were black or samoan - they sat on their asses too and talked to their worker friends

wait, so now there are not only quotas and token black guys, but they are utterly immune from getting fired?

bull-fucking-shit.

I've personally seen the Token Black Guy policy ruin dozens of companies and cost [i dont even want to know] how much money in that they sit on their asses and leave it up to white guys and asians to work their asses off to make the work standards sit right

at age 17-21, i was working in a warehouse, and the only ones who worked, were the whiye guys, asians, and a couple maoris who were from new zealand, while the black guys and samoans sat around and did **** all

and,..we couldnt complain because the supervisors were black or samoan - they sat on their asses too and talked to their worker friends


Do I even need to point whats wrong with this out to anyone anymore?

I've personally seen the Token Black Guy policy ruin dozens of companies and cost [i dont even want to know] how much money in that they sit on their asses and leave it up to white guys and asians to work their asses off to make the work standards sit right

at age 17-21, i was working in a warehouse, and the only ones who worked, were the whiye guys, asians, and a couple maoris who were from new zealand, while the black guys and samoans sat around and did **** all

and,..we couldnt complain because the supervisors were black or samoan - they sat on their asses too and talked to their worker friends

Do I even need to point whats wrong with this out to anyone anymore?

is it that some poor sucker clearly worked way too fucking hard?

is it that some poor sucker clearly worked way too fucking hard?


Read the other posts by this poster. Such as "Nukes would cure AIDS in Africa" followed by "Oh wait Im friends with too many white south africans I wouldnt want their loved ones to be hurt"

Or "most blacks are criminals and dont respect cops"

I've personally seen the Token Black Guy policy ruin dozens of companies and cost [i dont even want to know] how much money in that they sit on their asses and leave it up to white guys and asians to work their asses off to make the work standards sit right

Personally? Dozens? Really?

at age 17-21, i was working in a warehouse, and the only ones who worked, were the whiye guys, asians, and a couple maoris who were from new zealand, while the black guys and samoans sat around and did **** all

and,..we couldnt complain because the supervisors were black or samoan - they sat on their asses too and talked to their worker friends

1. Interesting that you worked somewhere where the ownership and management was all black or Samoan, but the workforce was more diverse. You must have gotten a small taste of what it is like for minorities most of the time.

2. It is curious that you would blame affirmative action for your experience. It would seem affirmative action had nothing to do with it.

Affirmative Action = even when a black guy has stayed in the exact same position in a job for years, and learned no other skills outside what they have been doing all that time, that when the employee above them leaves their position, that no matter how many skilled and more qualified individuals are available, the black guy gets promoted into a position he has no skills or training in, just because he has the quirk of being employed for longer


Thats actually not how it works at all. If it was, we wouldnt have so few blacks in management positions.

Affirmative Action = even when a black guy has stayed in the exact same position in a job for years, and learned no other skills outside what they have been doing all that time, that when the employee above them leaves their position, that no matter how many skilled and more qualified individuals are available, the black guy gets promoted into a position he has no skills or training in, just because he has the quirk of being employed for longer

is it fun to be so mindbogglingly wrong? i mean, you must get something out of being laughably, retardedly, embarrassingly wrong, right?

Affirmative Action = even when a black guy has stayed in the exact same position in a job for years, and learned no other skills outside what they have been doing all that time, that when the employee above them leaves their position, that no matter how many skilled and more qualified individuals are available, the black guy gets promoted into a position he has no skills or training in, just because he has the quirk of being employed for longer

Affirmative Action = even when a black guy has stayed in the exact same position in a job for years, and learned no other skills outside what they have been doing all that time, that when the employee above them leaves their position, that no matter how many skilled and more qualified individuals are available, the black guy gets promoted into a position he has no skills or training in, just because he has the quirk of being employed for longer

One day in the future, you'll learn what it feels like to know what the hell you're talking about. It's a good feeling.

... I'm going to repeat some of what I have previously said and linked on the subject of affirmative action.

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:



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 actual definitions of affirmative action:

Here are 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.Impressive. I have to say, I was someone who was convinced for awhile that affrimative action WAS a "Token black guy" type of policy, and as it turns out, that's not the case.

I wish I could say I'll be voting against the proposition here in Colorado, but I probably won't since I'll probably already be at boot camp by that point.

Affirmative Action = even when a black guy has stayed in the exact same position in a job for years, and learned no other skills outside what they have been doing all that time, that when the employee above them leaves their position, that no matter how many skilled and more qualified individuals are available, the black guy gets promoted into a position he has no skills or training in, just because he has the quirk of being employed for longer

Um. You appear to have confused seniority rules with affirmative action.

(Among the many things you appear to be confused about. ;))

Wrong. Some cases of affirmative action are preferential treatment and are tantamount to reverse discrimination for the sake of it. Like affirmative action quotas.Speaking of straw men, this one's been dead for years.

Quotas are illegal. Attack a form of affirmative action we actually still use.

not so, i've seen white guys and asians work the same job for years and not get promoted

Hell, ive even seen a black guy and a white guy on the same level of seniority,

the white guy worked his ass off, to the point of missing sleep for a couple days to organise a couple hundred other employees under his care,
while the black guy just sat his ass behind a desk all day and ran things from there and have problems running a crew of a couple dozen

Promotion time comes up:

black guy gets the promotion

Stupid black people. Do you see? Do you see? This is what happens when we give minorities rights!

not so, i've seen white guys and asians work the same job for years and not get promoted

Hell, ive even seen a black guy and a white guy on the same level of seniority,

the white guy worked his ass off, to the point of missing sleep for a couple days to organise a couple hundred other employees under his care,
while the black guy just sat his ass behind a desk all day and ran things from there and have problems running a crew of a couple dozen

Promotion time comes up:

black guy gets the promotion


Again, your arguement is "Black people are lazy and the white man works hard."



Guess what? Ive seen idiotic white guys who are so miserablly incompetent its not even funny get promoted, while the black guy worked his ass off and stayed at the same dead end job.

So, just by one counter example, your statement fails.

not so, i've seen white guys and asians work the same job for years and not get promoted

Hell, ive even seen a black guy and a white guy on the same level of seniority,

the white guy worked his ass off, to the point of missing sleep for a couple days to organise a couple hundred other employees under his care,
while the black guy just sat his ass behind a desk all day and ran things from there and have problems running a crew of a couple dozen

Promotion time comes up:

black guy gets the promotion

but face it, the blacks would never have made it out of their countries if the americans and dutch hadn't begun the slave trade

I was wondering when we'd hit this point. So really, all those black people should really be thanking us. I mean, we did bring civilization to those apes, right? God bless the slave trade.

its not about rights, its the ever-popular 'political correctness' and 'affirmative action'


Or you know, making sure blacks get hired, because some people who may be in positions of management may hate blacks, people like, I dont know, you.

its not about skill, training, qualifications or even intelligence

its about the 'token minority' quirk and how many of thier kind are in power to cast support towards a race-based selction

And we've proven time and time again that this statement is totally, 110%, absolutally wrong to the point of nausia.

I can support asian-only businesses that want their people in for the jobs to avoid lazy blacks or the threat of any white guy they hire being a useless lazy wigger gangsta PoS

So...all blacks are lazy, and whites are only lazy when they act black? Oh sweet Jesus.

but face it, the blacks would never have made it out of their countries if the americans and dutch hadn't begun the slave trade


Oh my God. You can never defend against being called a racist. Ever. Take your pillow case off for a second man and at least try to pretend your not this utterly and disgustingly racist.

The only way to get rid of racism is for the government to simply go color blind in ALL matters.

And the best way for the government to do that is for the people to do that.

its not about rights, its the ever-popular 'political correctness' and 'affirmative action'

its not about skill, training, qualifications or even intelligence

its about the 'token minority' quirk and how many of thier kind are in power to cast support towards a race-based selction

I can support asian-only businesses that want their people in for the jobs to avoid lazy blacks or the threat of any white guy they hire being a useless lazy wigger gangsta PoS

but face it, the blacks would never have made it out of their countries if the americans and dutch hadn't begun the slave trade

Its called New Zealand and in keeping with its position as the ass of the world, it is lined with a thick coating of poo that it calls citizens

Oh that's cute. Now you're calling them poop. Is there no end to your bigotry?

its not about rights, its the ever-popular 'political correctness' and 'affirmative action'

its not about skill, training, qualifications or even intelligence

its about the 'token minority' quirk and how many of thier kind are in power to cast support towards a race-based selction

I can support asian-only businesses that want their people in for the jobs to avoid lazy blacks or the threat of any white guy they hire being a useless lazy wigger gangsta PoS

but face it, the blacks would never have made it out of their countries if the americans and dutch hadn't begun the slave trade

First of all, thank you for confirming that your viewpoint is based in racism. That gives it perspective, as KoL informed us.

Second, you seem to be rather hilariously confused as to what constitutes affirmative action. Minorities promoting other minorities is not necessarily about "token[s]" or affirmative action.

Finally, I am impressed that you appear to have worked many years at (and studied the hiring and promotion practices of) dozens of different companies all of which had similarly unfair practices. I'm curious as to where this land is where lazy blacks run everything and whites are oppressed.

Its called New Zealand and in keeping with its position as the ass of the world, it is lined with a thick coating of poo that it calls citizens

And poverty is colorblind.Not.

Why Class-Based Affirmative Action is Wrong. (http://www.jstor.org/view/10773711/di007675/00p0019s/0)

Furthermore, these poor white students are more likely than poor blacks to have higher academic qualifications. Low-income whites are likely to have combined SAT scores that on average are 180 to 200 points higher than those of blacks from comparable low-income families. If the only preference given is to low-income students without regard to race, the whites with the higher test scores will win a huge portion of the positions at the nation’s highest-ranked colleges and universities.

I could cite a thousand other studies showing that black poverty /= white poverty; that is, that poverty is NOT colorblind.

Well when in most ways, New Zealand is becoming the black version of holland.....

that explains most of the story

I base my opinions of other races by the ones i meet, so if the grand majority of a certain type are trash, that sets the example for their type and wait for individuals to prove themselves outside the norm - ive said this one before



Thats part of racism. Seeing a black man and assuming hes trash, regardls of your reasons, is being racist. There is not a hivemind controling everyone of various races.

I cant understand how you dont get this...

First of all, thank you for confirming that your viewpoint is based in racism.

To be honest, he did that with one of his earliest (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13508611#post13508611) posts in which he admitted that he "could" believe that there are nice Jews out there somewhere but that he was opposed to how "70%" of sitcom and cartoon characters are "Hebrew" and "force themselves into our lives."

And IMO nothing he says is worth replying to since he will just ignore - deliberately or through sheer inability - what others say and spout more nonsense about "wiggers" and "blacks" and slaves and Jews and how he's not really a racist because he has Asian friends... ;)

I base my opinions of other races by the ones i meet, so if the grand majority of a certain type are trash, that sets the example for their type and wait for individuals to prove themselves outside the norm - ive said this one before

Incidentally, what race are you?

I base my opinions of other races by the ones i meet, so if the grand majority of a certain type are trash, that sets the example for their type and wait for individuals to prove themselves outside the norm - ive said this one before

I base my opinions of other races by the ones i meet, so if the grand majority of a certain type are trash, that sets the example for their type and wait for individuals to prove themselves outside the norm - ive said this one before

This is similar to how many teenage girls base their opinions of the male gender based on their boyfriends; which would explain why your conclusions are about as accurate as theirs.

I can say that my overall opinion on you liberals are of course more precise

You're part of the reason I ditched the Republican party like the sinking ship of hollow morals and hypocrisy it is.

your kind gave into the government reprogramming you to accept the decline in standards, and to always look at the methods used in the past as too strict and rigid

Change doesn't usually happen for no reason. There's a reason we don't use the methods from the past. We found better ones. This is nothing against the old ones back then, it's just that we improve a little each time.

back in your parents and grandparents times, they didnt need such tight control because the people back then were more aware of maintaining social norms

"Hey you, get in the back of the bus!"

just wait, soon standards will decline more and more, so your children and grandchildren are going to label YOU as too controlling and old-fashioned and you'll see my point

And I will be. Because I plan to be a crotchety old bastard who thinks the young generation offers nothing to society. But that's just for kicks.

just like those before you, you'll shake your head and wonder where it all went wrong

Please don't presume you know how I will think. You're not really in a position to be pretentious.

I can say that my overall opinion on you liberals are of course more precise

Ooo goody.

your kind gave into the government reprogramming you to accept the decline in standards, and to always look at the methods used in the past as too strict and rigid

Really? My government is very conservative and avoids change at all costs.

back in your parents and grandparents times, they didnt need such tight control because the people back then were more aware of maintaining social norms

You mean like how back in the day it used to be ok to deny certian folk certian services? Oh wait, thats probably exactly what your blissfully remembering.

Anyway, social mores and "norms" are foolish anyway, theyre the the morals of the powerful forced on everyone else. And should be broken, often.
just wait, soon standards will decline more and more, so your children and grandchildren are going to label YOU as too controlling and old-fashioned and you'll see my point

If I ever become to rigid, afraid of change, and to wrapped up in social "norms" I hope my children call me on it.

just like those before you, you'll shake your head and wonder where it all went wrong


Really? Because Id say no longer denying people things based on race or sexual preference is a good thing...

I can say that my overall opinion on you liberals are of course more precise

your kind gave into the government reprogramming you to accept the decline in standards, and to always look at the methods used in the past as too strict and rigid

back in your parents and grandparents times, they didnt need such tight control because the people back then were more aware of maintaining social norms

just wait, soon standards will decline more and more, so your children and grandchildren are going to label YOU as too controlling and old-fashioned and you'll see my point

just like those before you, you'll shake your head and wonder where it all went wrong

your kind gave into the government reprogramming you to accept the decline in standards, and to always look at the methods used in the past as too strict and rigidOh, but the decline in standards had nothing to do with affirmative action, and everything to do with the fact that in the 70s universities simply started accepting students at much, much higher rates.

I'm not complaining, exactly... I think a college-educated population is a good thing. But you simply cannot radically increase the rate of college education in the population without lowering the standards both for admission and for graduation.

It would have been perfectly possible to maintain both the educational standards of the pre-70s era AND to engage in affirmative action while doing it. The only difference would be that in such a world the vast majority of college-educated people we know (black, white, and everything else)... wouldn't be. College-educated, that is.

Better methods today? my ass!

The only improvement is that cops can whip out their gun alot faster to deal with crazy asses attacking them.

The 'better methods' that caused such necessity to occur, you call THAT better?, or all those little loopholes in modern law that guilty individuals can walk free because of some ultra-minor technicality that got overlooked

Also, once upon a time, police charges actually:
1] Ended up in real prison sentences for offenders
2] Most often ruined a person's reputation and few would ever hire them again

ive seen proof of both no longer holding up

would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content

Indeed, when certian folks couldnt get into certian places and those damn women knew their place.

Let me ask you this. If the KKK somehow managed to get a majority vote that made it legal to lynch Negroes in the streets, would you be fine with that?

Or how about the right to refuse a variety of things to non-Aryans, like buses, hospitals, jobs, housing and food? Would you be fine if people wanted that?

Erm... of course?

So, basically, you are saying that YOU have the right to push YOUR morals upon all of the USA?

How about no: we are a democracy.

ROTFLASTC.

When exactly were these "good old" days?

I told you already, back when certian folks couldnt get into certian places, whites didnt have to share their spaces with dirty blacks, women knew not to leave the kitchen or think for themselves, and all they had to do was make dinner, pop out kids, and make sure the house was clean.

:D the 50's i think

Who is "everyone"?

If "everyone" was content... why did anyone bother to change things?

would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content

Erm... of course?

So, basically, you are saying that YOU have the right to push YOUR morals upon all of the USA?

How about no: we are a democracy.

Erm ... are you familar with the Bill of Rights, the Due Process gaurantee of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and civil rights laws?

There are some things that are not up to the whims of the majority.

would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was contentHahahahaha... hahahahaha...

"Everyone was content." Whew!! Best laugh I've had in a while.

:rolleyes:

Better methods today? my ass!

Don't even try and seduce me, it's too late by this stage!

The only improvement is that cops can whip out their gun alot faster to deal with crazy asses attacking them.

Yeah, fuck Civil Rights!

The 'better methods' that caused such necessity to occur, you call THAT better?, or all those little loopholes in modern law that guilty individuals can walk free because of some ultra-minor technicality that got overlooked

Name which loopholes are being exploited now that couldn't have been back in this magical, unicorn-laden (but white unicorns only!) past. But first, tell us when the hell that past was. 50s? 60s? 40s? 1830s?

Also, once upon a time, police charges actually:
1] Ended up in real prison sentences for offenders

Yeah, but then the liberals came up with this godless conspiracy to free the criminal scum: DNA.

2] Most often ruined a person's reputation and few would ever hire them again

And that's good because...?

ive seen proof of both no longer holding up

That's not all bad.

would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content

ROTFLASTC.

When exactly were these "good old" days?

:D the 50's i think

Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination, whichever way it goes.

Why does affirmative action always come to down to race, because there are many other inequalities in this world - why is that so many people who are against affirmative action tend to actually turn out simply to focus on one aspect?

Norway has just completed action on having 40% of board members being female - it's raised some debate but, in the main, seems to have been positive.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176879.stm)

1] Ended up in real prison sentences for offenders

Wait, with our incarceration rate you're complaining that we're not harsh enough?

2] Most often ruined a person's reputation and few would ever hire them again

Wreck them socially and economically, make them resentful and incapable of integrating back into society... what an excellent way to contribute to repeat offenses.

Out of curiosity, what does any of this have to do with affirmative action? Or have you stopped talking about that in favor of randomly ranting about liberals?

I can say that my overall opinion on you liberals are of course more precise

You could say it, but not only is your opinion on "us liberals" no more accurate than your opinion on "us Jews," it's not relevant either.

But by all means. Do say it. You're a very funny thing.

Why does affirmative action always come to down to race, because there are many other inequalities in this world - why is that so many people who are against affirmative action tend to actually turn out simply to focus on one aspect?

It is probably due to the history of the US and issues that have arisen why it is focusing on race as the majority of people on the forums are from the US, but yes affirmative action also discriminates on the basis of gender and geographical region as well.

Norway has just completed action on having 40% of board members being female - it's raised some debate but, in the main, seems to have been positive.

What a shit idea this isn't equality at all, how many of those women on the boards are there just because they are female, rather than because they are the most competent person to take the seat. The article talks about how companies are cherry-picking and promoting the best and brightest females and not promoting the best and brightest people thus any males will be looked over and not receive promotion not because they aren't as good but because they are not female. That my friends is discrimination and if you disagree reverse the roles and tell me that it is not discrimination

What a shit idea this isn't equality at all, how many of those women on the boards are there just because they are female, rather than because they are the most competent person to take the seat.

Lots of problems here.

First, you suggest that there are some women on the boards that are there "just because they are female"... but this obviously is not the case, because they are not picking women off the street. In fact, the article notes that the women selected were well-qualified and competent.

Second, you suggest that there exists such a thing as the "most competent person"... at least such that the company can know. Why? Perhaps there are several well-qualified candidates, and the differences between them (as far as the company can tell) are essentially meaningless.

The article talks about how companies are cherry-picking and promoting the best and brightest females and not promoting the best and brightest people thus any males will be looked over and not receive promotion

Well, there are a given number of slots.

Clearly, there are not enough slots for ALL "the best and brightest"--because even when companies were forced to hire women instead of "the best and brightest" men they were hiring, they still managed to find people.

So the company must discriminate based on some standard--it must differentiate somehow among the "best and brightest." Since qualifications are not an issue--you yourself acknowledged that the women being promoted are "the best and brightest", well-qualified--why shouldn't companies be required to have a certain level of gender equity in a realm where gender equity, despite the existence of plenty of well-qualified women, is severely lacking?

All of this discussion, of course, is somewhat beside the point. The article describes a quota program. Quotas are illegal in the US.

:D the 50's i think

I can't speak authoritatively about New Zealand, but what did "we" in the U.S. have in the 1950's that was so great? Segregation? Domestic violence and rape that went unreported? More poverty? More teen pregnancy?

I think you are a victim of the "way we never were" mentality.

Lots of problems here.

First, you suggest that there are some women on the boards that are there "just because they are female"... but this obviously is not the case, because they are not picking women off the street. In fact, the article notes that the women selected were well-qualified and competent.

Yes you are quite right and I actually meant to put that in my post that some women on the board are there because they are the best person for the job, but with this quota there may be some on the board because they are a woman. Which can hinder women as now people can say she is only there because she is a woman, rather than people saying she is there because she has the ability to do a good job and is more than competent to be there

Second, you suggest that there exists such a thing as the "most competent person"... at least such that the company can know. Why? Perhaps there are several well-qualified candidates, and the differences between them (as far as the company can tell) are essentially meaningless.



Well, there are a given number of slots.

Clearly, there are not enough slots for ALL "the best and brightest"--because even when companies were forced to hire women instead of "the best and brightest" men they were hiring, they still managed to find people.

Yes because they had to, they actually had to go out and scout in other countries as well which the article mentions

So the company must discriminate based on some standard--it must differentiate somehow among the "best and brightest." Since qualifications are not an issue--you yourself acknowledged that the women being promoted are "the best and brightest", well-qualified--why shouldn't companies be required to have a certain level of gender equity in a realm where gender equity, despite the existence of plenty of well-qualified women, is severely lacking?

All of this discussion, of course, is somewhat beside the point. The article describes a quota program. Quotas are illegal in the US.

Yes but they should discriminate on the basis of qualification experience past performance amongst other things not on their gender. But if there are two people entirely equal to promote one over the other because they are male/female is still wrong there will need to be further interviews and/or testing.

My point still stands however to place in quotas is discrimination and to promote a female over a male or vice versa due to their gender is wrong and discriminatory.

Yes you are quite right and I actually meant to put that in my post that some women on the board are there because they are the best person for the job, but with this quota there may be some on the board because they are a woman.

Highly doubtful--unless you suspect that the company is randomly picking women off the street.

People are chosen to be board members because of their qualifications. Sometimes, when there is an affirmative action program in place, race or gender may be a deciding factor among qualified candidates... but it is misleading to suggest that this is in any sense the main reason that they are there.

Which can hinder women as now people can say she is only there because she is a woman, rather than people saying she is there because she has the ability to do a good job and is more than competent to be there

Sexists will always find excuses to delegitimize the accomplishments of women in the workplace. We should not pander to their prejudice.

Yes because they had to, they actually had to go out and scout in other countries as well which the article mentions

So? I don't know about this specific aspect, but "scouting" in general is surely a good thing: it means that people are putting actual effort into rectifying inequality.

Problems don't solve themselves.

Yes but they should discriminate on the basis of qualification experience past performance amongst other things not on their gender. But if there are two people entirely equal to promote one over the other because they are male/female is still wrong there will need to be further interviews and/or testing.

How minuscule a difference should we look for before it becomes pointless? When the differences are minor, why should it matter why one is appointed over another--especially when the standard is used to counter social inequality?

Of course, sometimes this can be a problem: when there is large-scale labor market discrimination of this sort such that certain groups are shut out. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws. But that is clearly not the case here: the quota requires 40% women--not even half--and if anything has the effect of countering very real labor market discrimination against women when it comes to upper management positions.

Meh. I don't know enough about affirmative action to support it or oppose it, plus I don't live in any of those 5 states, anyway, so... *shrug*

In a sane world, we would all know for sure that we had a troll on our hands when it posted something like this: "would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content."

But, sadly, I'm American, and thus I know it is quite possible that the individual in question believes what he's saying.

"All people should be treated equally, so we achieve that by treating them unequally."

...

You Americans are all nuts.

In a sane world, we would all know for sure that we had a troll on our hands when it posted something like this: "would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content."

But, sadly, I'm American, and thus I know it is quite possible that the individual in question believes what he's saying.

Yes, and we see what affirmative action got Zimbabwe...

"All people should be treated equally, so we achieve that by treating them unequally."

...

You Americans are all nuts.
My parents' house had leaking problems with their roof a few years back. To fix the roof, they had to tear the roof off.

Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

So... your solution is to wipe out society and start over? That's what I got from that analogy.

Oh, BTW, I'm a programmer, so to me, counter-intuitive is ALWAYS wrong.

I'm a programmer and I wouldn't hire you if you offered to pay me if you're not willing to explore counter intuitive solutions. This may be the single most inane statement I've ever heard. You MIGHT be a programmer, but you're certainly not a very good one.

For the record, you know what an analogy is, right? They only have to make a single point. Her point is that counterintuitive doesn't mean it's a bad solution. Oftentimes, what people consider counter intuitive is simply because in order for them to understand the problem they need more information. And this is certainly true in the case of social inequality.

My parents' house had leaking problems with their roof a few years back. To fix the roof, they had to tear the roof off.

Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

So... your solution is to wipe out society and start over? That's what I got from that analogy.

Oh, BTW, I'm a programmer, so to me, counter-intuitive is ALWAYS wrong.

So... your solution is to wipe out society and start over? That's what I got from that analogy.

Oh, BTW, I'm a programmer, so to me, counter-intuitive is ALWAYS wrong.

Yeah, nuke the planet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

So... your solution is to wipe out society and start over? That's what I got from that analogy.

Try harder.


Oh, BTW, I'm a programmer, so to me, counter-intuitive is ALWAYS wrong.
Blaming your chosen profession for your own personal failings is not a convincing strategy.

Yes, and we see what affirmative action got Zimbabwe...

Yeah, it put it smack dab in Africa. Stupid affirmative action.

I'm a programmer and I wouldn't hire you if you offered to pay me if you're not willing to explore counter intuitive solutions. This may be the single most inane statement I've ever heard. You MIGHT be a programmer, but you're certainly not a very good one.

For the record, you know what an analogy is, right? They only have to make a single point. Her point is that counterintuitive doesn't mean it's a bad solution. Oftentimes, what people consider counter intuitive is simply because in order for them to understand the problem they need more information. And this is certainly true in the case of social inequality.

... Do you even know what counter-intuitive MEANS? It's COUNTER to intuitive! It's NOT intuitive! I currently use a program that replaced the convenience of the double-click with the convenience of the triple-click. That is a counter-intuitive program!

... Do you even know what counter-intuitive MEANS? It's COUNTER to intuitive! It's NOT intuitive! I currently use a program that replaced the convenience of the double-click with the convenience of the triple-click. That is a counter-intuitive program!

Um, do you know what "programmer" means. Are you telling me the only work you do is cosmetic? Only user interfaces NEED to be intuitive and even then it's only if it's practical. If you'll sacrifice necessary function for form, then you're a bad programmer and I wouldn't hire you if you paid me to do so. It's actually the bane of our industry, bad programmers choosing to make things "intuitive" instead of making them work properly.

Um, do you know what "programmer" means. Are you telling me the only work you do is cosmetic? Only user interfaces NEED to be intuitive and even then it's only if it's practical. If you'll sacrifice necessary function for form, then you're a bad programmer and I wouldn't hire you if you paid me to do so. It's actually the bane of our industry, bad programmers choosing to make things "intuitive" instead of making them work properly.

Actually the two needn't be mutually exclusive. In the software development world, we have front-end designers who build the interface, and back-end programmers who make it work. (Smaller projects can allow for the developer to do both if they're able.) A good designer (not necessarily the programmer) will design an interface that's intuitive and easy to use and it's up to the programmer to make it work. If there's a conflict then the two need to get together and come up with a solution that satisfies both function and form, which is then presented to the client. Unlike architecture, it's rarely necessary to sacrifice one to achieve the other.

I'm not sure how that applies to the issue of Affirmative Action, but that's just my $.02 worth...

If your programming something counter intuitively, there is a 75% chance you are doing it wrong.

would be better to rewind social morals back the the good old 'white picket fence' days where everyone didn't need the government to tell them to behave, they just naturally did it and everyone was content

If they "didn't need the government to tell them to behave," why is it that keeping the government from imposing such restrictions has, according to you, destroyed standards?

Should we all just "know how to behave"?

If they "didn't need the government to tell them to behave," why is it that keeping the government from imposing such restrictions has, according to you, destroyed standards?

Should we all just "know how to behave"?
Well, see, certain people "know how to behave," but certain other people don't. This is why the people who know how to behave should make laws that force everybody else to behave right.

And if all the people who already know how to behave just HAPPEN to be white male heterosexual Christians, well, that's just pure coincidence and has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Actually the two needn't be mutually exclusive. In the software development world, we have front-end designers who build the interface, and back-end programmers who make it work. (Smaller projects can allow for the developer to do both if they're able.) A good designer (not necessarily the programmer) will design an interface that's intuitive and easy to use and it's up to the programmer to make it work. If there's a conflict then the two need to get together and come up with a solution that satisfies both function and form, which is then presented to the client. Unlike architecture, it's rarely necessary to sacrifice one to achieve the other.

I'm not sure how that applies to the issue of Affirmative Action, but that's just my $.02 worth...

Well, it's just like every real world solution. It's an excellent analogy in that way. They don't ALWAYS conflict, but they do sometimes. Sometimes the best way to do things simply isn't intuitive or not entirely intuitive. The goal of an interface is to make it as intuitive as possible without sacrificing function. One of the big beefs with Microsoft is that they keep sacrificing usability for technical people to make it more intuitive for non-technical people, basically making it less manageable.

On every major project, there is someone whose job it is to balance usability with function. Ask me how I know? It's MY job to do that. That's why I would never hire a programmer who thinks he should start out ceding function for form. Find the BEST solution, first. Then choose what to sacrifice in order to ensure it's intuitive.

More importantly, user interfaces are not the entirety of programming, so saying "I'm a programmer so counter-intuitive is wrong" not only ignores how stupid that comment is for interfacing, but also ignores the bulk of the industry whose code is masked by those interfaces. It ignores that there are different angles from which intuitive is judged. What you consider intuitive as a programmer is different from what Joe Househusband finds intuitive. There is pretty much nothing about the statement "I'm a programmer so counter-intuitive is wrong" that isn't inane.

And it's fortunate that some people are willing to hit on counter-intuitive solutions. It's intutive that when you make cars go faster that you should make the frames stronger. It's also idiotic. Fortunately, someone who knew what was going on figured out that when you make the car go faster and you make the frame stronger, the driver ends up splattered on the inside like an abstract painting. Counter-intuitive is absolutely necessary in order to find the best solutions. Intuitive is a goal, not a requirement.

If your programming something counter intuitively, there is a 75% chance you are doing it wrong.

Counter intuitive to whom? You? Me? Joe Househusband? Mary Real Estate Agent? I guarantee you each of us finds different things intuitive. Frankly, intuitive is one of the most improperly used terms ever. It's like "common sense". Most people when they actually use that term aren't using it properly.

Intiution - direct perception independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
Intuitive - resulting from intution
Counter-intuitive - counter to what is directly obvious

Hmmm... yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't want every solution I encounter to be independent of reason. It's amusing that people would so willing suggest that solutions should always be whatever is the simplest and most obvious. Thank God we can usually train that rather absurd notion out of people.

And if all the people who already know how to behave just HAPPEN to be white male heterosexual Christians, well, that's just pure coincidence and has absolutely no bearing on anything.

except, of course, that we all know that it was ordained by god that that be the case. we just have to be quiet about it so we don't offend anybody.

at least until we put the world back the way it used to be.

except, of course, that we all know that it was ordained by god that that be the case. we just have to be quiet about it so we don't offend anybody.

at least until we put the world back the way it used to be.

Well, it's common sense that we wouldn't be good people if not for Christianity.

except, of course, that we all know that it was ordained by god that that be the case. we just have to be quiet about it so we don't offend anybody.

at least until we put the world back the way it used to be.

As I recall, the government before Mugabe had the best agricultural production in Africa, and one of the best economies, until Mugabe gutted it on purpose.

Funny how a combination of Marxist ideals can torpedo a country's economy to the point of starvation no matter how many people you imprison, torture, and shoot in order to enforce your ideals.

More importantly, user interfaces are the entirety of programming, so saying "I'm a programmer so counter-intuitive is wrong" not only ignores how stupid that comment is for interfacing, but also ignores the bulk of the industry whose code is masked by those interfaces. It ignores that there are different angles from which intuitive is judged. What you consider intuitive as a programmer is different from what Joe Househusband finds intuitive. There is pretty much nothing about the statement "I'm a programmer so counter-intuitive is wrong" that isn't inane.


Did you mean "user interfaces are NOT the entirety of programming?" Just making sure I understand you.

And I do agree with you.

In terms of how intuitiveness applies to a debate like this one, the problem is what' sintuitive is different depending upon one's perspective. Clearly white people and black people will see the problem in drastically different terms of what's intuitive.

I think people need to take the emotion out of the whole thing and try and come up with some kind of quantitative way to measure what works. Very few people would deny that affirmative action was useful at one time, but is it still useful? Is it generating racism rather than pushing it back? Is there to be a resurgence of white resentment against blacks because of a perceived injustice in the process of selecting applicants for jobs and universities?

As the proportions of the population have changed, are quotas keeping up? Are they still necessary at all in some areas but necessary in others?

One thing we DEFINITELY don't need is this mentality where everybody who questions the usefulness of affirmative action is labeled as a racist. I've seen a little of that in this thread and that is DEFINITELY counter-productive.

Counter intuitive to whom? You? Me? Joe Househusband? Mary Real Estate Agent? I guarantee you each of us finds different things intuitive. Frankly, intuitive is one of the most improperly used terms ever. It's like "common sense". Most people when they actually use that term aren't using it properly.

Th einteresting thing about the software world is that on some level it creates its own intuitiveness. Before Windows/Mac, was double clicking to open an application intuitive? No.. but it sure is now...

...Which is why I wish users would quit double clicking on weblinks :(

Did you mean "user interfaces are NOT the entirety of programming?" Just making sure I understand you.

And I do agree with you.

In terms of how intuitiveness applies to a debate like this one, the problem is what' sintuitive is different depending upon one's perspective. Clearly white people and black people will see the problem in drastically different terms of what's intuitive.

I think people need to take the emotion out of the whole thing and try and come up with some kind of quantitative way to measure what works. Very few people would deny that affirmative action was useful at one time, but is it still useful? Is it generating racism rather than pushing it back? Is there to be a resurgence of white resentment against blacks because of a perceived injustice in the process of selecting applicants for jobs and universities?

As the proportions of the population have changed, are quotas keeping up? Are they still necessary at all in some areas but necessary in others?

One thing we DEFINITELY don't need is this mentality where everybody who questions the usefulness of affirmative action is labeled as a racist. I've seen a little of that in this thread and that is DEFINITELY counter-productive.

D'oh. Yes. NOT. *goes back to edit*

Quotas are illegal. I used to question the usefulness of AA. I certainly didn't promote racism in arguing against it. But I also didn't understand AA. I used to think it WAS quotas. But AA distinctly attempts to avoid quotas. The problem is that when a comparison of employees to the available workforce shows consistantly that certain populations are under-represented then it's clear that a problem exists. That these groups also just "happen" to be the groups we've consistantly marginalized and abused isn't coincidence and places the blame squarely on our collective shoulders as a nation. And that's where the solution must come as well.

As I recall, the government before Mugabe had the best agricultural production in Africa, and one of the best economies, until Mugabe gutted it on purpose.

Funny how a combination of Marxist ideals can torpedo a country's economy to the point of starvation no matter how many people you imprison, torture, and shoot in order to enforce your ideals.

wtf? this relates to what, exactly?

Th einteresting thing about the software world is that on some level it creates its own intuitiveness. Before Windows/Mac, was double clicking to open an application intuitive? No.. but it sure is now...

...Which is why I wish users would quit double clicking on weblinks :(

Well, that's the funny part. Clicking on links just once is counter-intuitive to many. That's why it's a problem. However, if you made a product that required you to double-click them at this point, you'd like be stoned to death.

And, exactly, on the perspective bit. That was my point. That term is so misused. There isn't some magical "intuitive" line we have to cross. User solutions attempt to be most intuitive to the most people. Some developers sacrifice function to do it. Bad developers sacrifice necessary function to do it.

Why are you trying to focus the conversation on quotas when they are already illegal?

One of the biggest problems with these discussions is the number of people who equate "affirmative action" with "quota".

If you're being sued for discrimination, just lacking the proper percentages of a specific group in your employee population is usable in court as evidence of discrimination.

What do you call trying to meet a percentage?

As the proportions of the population have changed, are quotas keeping up? Are they still necessary at all in some areas but necessary in others?

Why are you trying to focus the conversation on quotas when they are already illegal?

One of the biggest problems with these discussions is the number of people who equate "affirmative action" with "quota".

If you're being sued for discrimination, just lacking the proper percentages of a specific group in your employee population is usable in court as evidence of discrimination.

What do you call trying to meet a percentage?

You don't have to meet a percentage. If you're being sued it's because your hiring practices are so disproportionate from the population that the only reasonable explanation is your interference. The purpose of affirmative action is to go after practices that result in disproportionate representation. However, if your hiring pool is the reasoning behind disproportionate representation, then you have no worries. Quotas would cause you to have worries regardless of the hiring pool and are illegal.

Very few people would deny that affirmative action was useful at one time, but is it still useful?

yes. and most everybody that denies its present usefulness always denied its usefulness and fought against it (or would have if they were old enough a few decades back).

Is it generating racism rather than pushing it back?

no. this is easily seen by the decline in overt racism and the gains made by oppressed minorities.

Is there to be a resurgence of white resentment against blacks because of a perceived injustice in the process of selecting applicants for jobs and universities?

this already exists, has for decades. doesn't seem to be doing anything much to increase the hold of racism over the country. in fact, it seems to mainly apply to people who were already racist.

As the proportions of the population have changed, are quotas keeping up? Are they still necessary at all in some areas but necessary in others?

there are no quotas. the goals of affirmative action are specifically linked to population and applicant pools. this has been covered at length in this very thread. do try to keep up.

One thing we DEFINITELY don't need is this mentality where everybody who questions the usefulness of affirmative action is labeled as a racist. I've seen a little of that in this thread and that is DEFINITELY counter-productive.

true, they could just be ignorant. of course, most of those questioning it seem to be awfully sure that affirmative action is bad/counterproductive/made up of magical ponies, and being sure of something despite being ignorant of it should lead us to question that sureness. especially when the attitudes contained within that sureness are fucking racist. and even more especially when the ignorant racist sureness persists even after being shown that it is nothing more than ignorance mashed up with old racist beliefs.

You don't have to meet a percentage. If you're being sued it's because your hiring practices are so disproportionate from the population that the only reasonable explanation is your interference. The purpose of affirmative action is to go after practices that result in disproportionate representation. However, if your hiring pool is the reasoning behind disproportionate representation, then you have no worries. Quotas would cause you to have worries regardless of the hiring pool and are illegal.

Tell that to my lawyer. I'm only lucky because my company is small, and has less than a specific number of total employees.

I've gotten direct, written threats from the NAACP based solely on the percentages.

Affirmative action is Marxist?

Mugabe's version certainly is. That's where he says he got it from.

yes. and most everybody that denies its present usefulness always denied its usefulness and fought against it (or would have if they were old enough a few decades back).

Um...that's a nice strawman you built for yourself there.

As I recall, the government before Mugabe had the best agricultural production in Africa, and one of the best economies, until Mugabe gutted it on purpose.

Funny how a combination of Marxist ideals can torpedo a country's economy to the point of starvation no matter how many people you imprison, torture, and shoot in order to enforce your ideals.Affirmative action is Marxist?

Um...that's a nice strawman you built for yourself there.

except that it is true. the arguments used against affirmative action in this very thread make no distinction based on time or context. your argument in the first post commits you to fighting against affirmative action back in the 60s if you had been around to do so. perhaps you wished to make a different argument than you did?

Affirmative action is Marxist?

better yet, mugabe's agricultural policies are affirmative action?

better yet, mugabe's agricultural policies are affirmative action?

Yes they are. You should read the latest incarnation of one of his decrees.

It's meant to right a perceived social injustice of racism.

except that it is true. the arguments used against affirmative action in this very thread make no distinction based on time or context. your argument in the first post commits you to fighting against affirmative action back in the 60s if you had been around to do so. perhaps you wished to make a different argument than you did?

As I said...straw man.

When you stop with the strawman, then maybe I'll take the question seriously.

i know what he claims. i think you are confused about the topic at hand. or perhaps the nature of sets. mugabe's agricultural policies do not = affirmative action. at best, they may make up a subset of possible affirmative action policies (but not really - they are something else altogether). but this subset has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. at all. in the slightest. why you would think they are relevant is somewhat mysterious.

btw, dk, is that you? or a member of the dk trolling collective, at least?

I believe that Mugabe's rationalizations are the same that are made to justify affirmative action, and the actions taken are not dissimilar. The wording itself is very, very similar.

So it's the same to me.

But that's fine - if they're happy decimating their own population and destroying their own economy - then let them do it.

Yes they are. You should read the latest incarnation of one of his decrees.

It's meant to right a perceived social injustice of racism.

i know what he claims. i think you are confused about the topic at hand. or perhaps the nature of sets. mugabe's agricultural policies do not = affirmative action. at best, they may make up a subset of possible affirmative action policies (but not really - they are something else altogether). but this subset has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. at all. in the slightest. why you would think they are relevant is somewhat mysterious.

btw, dk, is that you? or a member of the dk trolling collective, at least?

explain to me how this argument doesn't commit you to opposing affirmative action from the beginning:



is it your contention that equality could be created by unequal treatment in the past? that we shouldn't want equality at all? what?

In the past? Probably not no. Today? FUCK YEA!

As I said...strawman. Peace out bitch.

As I said...straw man.

When you stop with the strawman, then maybe I'll take the question seriously.

explain to me how this argument doesn't commit you to opposing affirmative action from the beginning:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html
About damn time. Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination and its high time we move into the 21st century. Down with preferential treatment. If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment? They shouldn't. Hopefully this will pass and if it is challenged, held up up the Supreme Court.

is it your contention that equality could be created by unequal treatment in the past? that we shouldn't want equality at all? what?

wtf? your answer, she is nonsensical.

I answered FS. Read.

In the past? Probably not no. Today? FUCK YEA!

As I said...strawman. Peace out bitch.

wtf? your answer, she is nonsensical.

Why are you trying to focus the conversation on quotas when they are already illegal?

One of the biggest problems with these discussions is the number of people who equate "affirmative action" with "quota".

It might be useful, then, to take a moment to explain the difference for those who do not know.

I answered FS. Read.

you wrote words, yes. but those words do not answer the question.

your argument was that affirmative action is wrong because it is 'reverse discrimination' and that equality is incompatible with 'preferential treatment'. these words mean that you must either always oppose affirmative action, no matter the circumstances, or that you think the nature of equality itself has changed over time. the second is stupid, so it must be the first. but if it is the first, then my claim about your argument is true, aka not a strawman.

I believe that Mugabe's rationalizations are the same that are made to justify affirmative action, and the actions taken are not dissimilar.

hahahahahaha

totally dk.

yes. and most everybody that denies its present usefulness always denied its usefulness and fought against it (or would have if they were old enough a few decades back).


In one sentence you've committed two logical fallacies: Firstly, what does 'most everybody' mean? Can you provide something to back that up, or is this just an opinion? Second, You're making a baseless assumption in the latter part.


no. this is easily seen by the decline in overt racism and the gains made by oppressed minorities.


Are you equating an apparant decline in overt racism to be equivalent to a decline in silent racism?

So you acknowledge, in the latter half of your answser, that gains have been made? Is that not reason enough to re-evaluate the necessity of Affirmative Action, or are you committing the logical falacy of assuming that because it was once useful, it must always be useful?


this already exists, has for decades. doesn't seem to be doing anything much to increase the hold of racism over the country. in fact, it seems to mainly apply to people who were already racist.


You are mistaken here. The idea of less qualified applicants being passed over for the sake of offering a position regulated by Affirmative Action to a less qualified person of a different race is frequently used as a recruiting or brainwashing tool for hate groups.


there are no quotas. the goals of affirmative action are specifically linked to population and applicant pools. this has been covered at length in this very thread. do try to keep up.


Then you ought to have no trouble simply linking a post that describes it. No need to be snippy.


true, they could just be ignorant. of course, most of those questioning it seem to be awfully sure that affirmative action is bad/counterproductive/made up of magical ponies, and being sure of something despite being ignorant of it should lead us to question that sureness. especially when the attitudes contained within that sureness are fucking racist. and even more especially when the ignorant racist sureness persists even after being shown that it is nothing more than ignorance mashed up with old racist beliefs.

So you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either racist or ignorant. How's that any better?

If you're being sued for discrimination, just lacking the proper percentages of a specific group in your employee population is usable in court as evidence of discrimination.

Usable as evidence, but not sufficient proof of anything. It takes much, much more to demonstrate discrimination in a court of law.

Usable as evidence, but not sufficient proof of anything. It takes much, much more to demonstrate discrimination in a court of law.

It's enough to get you into court. Which is my point.

I'm running a business. I don't consciously keep count of these things.

All it takes is the threat of a lawsuit, and the actual filing, to cost me several tens of thousands of dollars. Just to get started defending myself.

Just dealing with it costs money, time, and is a fucking waste.

That's why the NAACP drops by - to make the threat. Of course, to make the threat go away, all I have to do is fire about 20% of my employees, and hire African-Americans in their place - and a donation to the NAACP doesn't hurt at the same time.

Or, do what I do - make sure I never hire enough employees to have to comply with any laws - if your business remains small, it's exempt.

It's enough to get you into court. Which is my point.

I'm running a business. I don't consciously keep count of these things.

All it takes is the threat of a lawsuit, and the actual filing, to cost me several tens of thousands of dollars. Just to get started defending myself.

Just dealing with it costs money, time, and is a fucking waste.

That's why the NAACP drops by - to make the threat. Of course, to make the threat go away, all I have to do is fire about 20% of my employees, and hire African-Americans in their place - and a donation to the NAACP doesn't hurt at the same time.

Or, do what I do - make sure I never hire enough employees to have to comply with any laws - if your business remains small, it's exempt.

Oh, dear God. I have to say I run a business and I have exactly no minorities. Not one woman. Not one black man. Yet, I'm not hiding under my desk in fear of the AA boogeyman. Your argument is the feminazi argument that people are out to get you. No one reasonable is going to buy it.

Yes, as long as we attempt to achieve equality you can get sued under charges that you're not treating people equal. Same with sexual harrassment lawsuits. Or other lawsuits about your work environment. You can also get sued falsely for car accidents, people slipping on your sidewalk and your dog barking too loud. But if you're going to pretend this is happening enough for it to be a problem, your rant isn't going to be enough evidence.

As I said...straw man.

When you stop with the strawman, then maybe I'll take the question seriously.

First, I fear you don't actually know what a strawman is. Second, he's right. If, as you say in your OP, it's unacceptable to use "discrimination" to fight discrimination, then it's either true always or a poor argument. Since you're claiming you used to believe AA action was necessary then you've defeated your own argument. Make an argument that relates it to now or simply admit you don't have one.

"Peace out bitch" simply demonstrates that you'd rather not revise your argument to make it tenable, but rather just want to play silly games.

Oh, dear God. I have to say I run a business and I have exactly no minorities. Not one woman. Not one black man. Yet, I'm not hiding under my desk in fear of the AA boogeyman. Your argument is the feminazi argument that people are out to get you. No one reasonable is going to buy it.

Yes, as long as we attempt to achieve equality you can get sued under charges that you're not treating people equal. Same with sexual harrassment lawsuits. Or other lawsuits about your work environment. You can also get sued falsely for car accidents, people slipping on your sidewalk and your dog barking too loud. But if you're going to pretend this is happening enough for it to be a problem, your rant isn't going to be enough evidence.

I get visits from the NAACP at least once a month. So it's not a bogeyman. It's a very real legal threat.

...except it really isn't. You have to have someone who feels that they have been harmed by discriminatory policies come bring a lawsuit.

Some people will make some noise about discrimination based on nothing but percentages, but those people generally don't have the standing to bring a lawsuit.

The NAACP carries quite a bit of weight, and they have the time and the money to file this shit.

In one sentence you've committed two logical fallacies: Firstly, what does 'most everybody' mean? Can you provide something to back that up, or is this just an opinion? Second, You're making a baseless assumption in the latter part.

neither of those are logical fallacies.

anyways 'most everybody' means some but not all, leaning closer to all than to one. i leave it open, because presumably there might be some people who legitimately ignorantly believe that the job of affirmative action is a noble and good one which is now accomplished. i don't know how one could reasonably come to that conclusion, but i guess anything is possible.

the evidence is a basic look at the reality of who actively and publicly opposes affirmative action, and on what grounds. the same people that opposed it originally oppose it now, an the arguments used by the new generation of opponents have only changed to the extent that '****** ****** ******' is no longer an effective public argument to make.

Are you equating an apparant decline in overt racism to be equivalent to a decline in silent racism?

not directly. but a decline in overt racism is a decline in racism.

So you acknowledge, in the latter half of your answser, that gains have been made? Is that not reason enough to re-evaluate the necessity of Affirmative Action, or are you committing the logical falacy of assuming that because it was once useful, it must always be useful?

actually, i am assuming that the people i speak with are not martians who just got here. i am assuming some basic familiarity with the state of the world. perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption?

gains ≠ achievement of the ultimate goal

You are mistaken here. The idea of less qualified applicants being passed over for the sake of offering a position regulated by Affirmative Action to a less qualified person of a different race is frequently used as a recruiting or brainwashing tool for hate groups.

and how large is the membership in those groups compared to their membership in the 60s and 70s, for example?

Then you ought to have no trouble simply linking a post that describes it. No need to be snippy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511672&postcount=28

So you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either racist or ignorant. How's that any better?

truth is its own reward.

It's enough to get you into court. Which is my point.

...except it really isn't. You have to have someone who feels that they have been harmed by discriminatory policies come bring a lawsuit.

Some people will make some noise about discrimination based on nothing but percentages, but those people generally don't have the standing to bring a lawsuit.

I get visits from the NAACP at least once a month. So it's not a bogeyman. It's a very real legal threat.

It's enough to get you into court. Which is my point.

I'm running a business. I don't consciously keep count of these things.

All it takes is the threat of a lawsuit, and the actual filing, to cost me several tens of thousands of dollars. Just to get started defending myself.

Just dealing with it costs money, time, and is a fucking waste.

That's why the NAACP drops by - to make the threat. Of course, to make the threat go away, all I have to do is fire about 20% of my employees, and hire African-Americans in their place - and a donation to the NAACP doesn't hurt at the same time.

Or, do what I do - make sure I never hire enough employees to have to comply with any laws - if your business remains small, it's exempt.

Among other things, you are confusing affirmative action laws with anti-discrimination laws. There are no laws requiring you to have an affirmative action program. There are laws requiring you not to discriminate in hiring and promotions.

Evidence that your hiring practices are grossly out of proportion with the diversity of the qualified workforce is evidence -- not sufficient evidence -- but evidence that your hiring pracvtices are not as egalitarian as they should be.

That your response is not to scrutinize your hiring practices, but rather limit the number of employees you have so as not to fall within the scope of anti-discrimination laws makes your situation seem even more suspicious.

Without further facts, I'd have to agree with the NAACP that your employment practices are cause for concern.

Among other things, you are confusing affirmative action laws with anti-discrimination laws. There are no laws requiring you to have an affirmative action program. There are laws requiring you not to discriminate in hiring and promotions.

Evidence that your hiring practices are grossly out of proportion with the diversity of the qualified workforce is evidence -- not sufficient evidence -- but evidence that your hiring pracvtices are not as egalitarian as they should be.

That your response is not to scrutinize your hiring practices, but rather limit the number of employees you have so as not to fall within the scope of anti-discrimination laws makes your situation seem even more suspicious.

Without further facts, I'd have to agree with the NAACP that your employment practices are cause for concern.

Most small consulting firms keep their employee pool of very low size, so as to avoid having to comply.

That in itself is legal. And the NAACP has had to eat it in court.

It might be useful, then, to take a moment to explain the difference for those who do not know.

Um. The difference between quotas and affirmative action has been discussed at length in this thread. Particularly here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511672&postcount=28).

There is really no excuse but deliberate ignorance for continuing to conflate the two.

Most small consulting firms keep their employee pool of very low size, so as to avoid having to comply.

That in itself is legal. And the NAACP has had to eat it in court.

You are ignoring the point.

First, this has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Second, your travails in seeking to avoid the application of non-discrimination laws to your business are hardly sympathetic.

You are ignoring the point.

First, this has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Second, your travails in seeking to avoid the application of non-discrimination laws to your business are hardly sympathetic.

Sorry, I'm not hiring anyone who is demonstrably incompetent compared to every other employee just to satisfy "affirmative action".

Um. The difference between quotas and affirmative action has been discussed at length in this thread. Particularly here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511672&postcount=28).

There is really no excuse but deliberate ignorance for continuing to conflate the two.

its sad because some people clearly just refuse to read the long version, but also refuse to accept the tl;dr version.

neither of those are logical fallacies.


... because you said so? Actually they are. On the one you're not taking up a specific position, juts some vague notion that 'most everybody' does...

On the other you're making a presumption with absolutely nothing to support it.


anyways 'most everybody' means some but not all, leaning closer to all than to one. i leave it open, because presumably there might be some people who legitimately ignorantly believe that the job of affirmative action is a noble and good one which is now accomplished. i don't know how one could reasonably come to that conclusion, but i guess anything is possible.


Where's the data you're basing this supposition on?


the evidence is a basic look at the reality of who actively and publicly opposes affirmative action, and on what grounds. the same people that opposed it originally oppose it now, an the arguments used by the new generation of opponents have only changed to the extent that '****** ****** ******' is no longer an effective public argument to make.


Such as?


not directly. but a decline in overt racism is a decline in racism.


By 'decline in racism' do you mean a decline in APPARENT racism, or a decline in the number of people engaging in racist words/actions? Because while the former may be true, it, in and of itself, is useless. The latter would be great IF it could be proven to be true.


actually, i am assuming that the people i speak with are not martians who just got here. i am assuming some basic familiarity with the state of the world. perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption?

gains ≠ achievement of the ultimate goal


Then you are asserting that the same approach should be used regardless of the relative level of existing apparent racism without any sort of adjustment or evaluation whatsoever?

When you're filling a container with water from the tap, do you keep the tap valve wide open all the way to the top, or do you start to turn it down as the container is filled?


and how large is the membership in those groups compared to their membership in the 60s and 70s, for example?


Good question. The answer is some have grown, some have not. Most have gone underground. Not a good thing. Better to have it out where you can see it and deal with it. The Internet has NOT been helpful in this area.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511672&postcount=28

Thanks.


truth is its own reward.

Agreed but platitudes aren't the way to win a debate. I presume this means my assessment was correct.

Um. The difference between quotas and affirmative action has been discussed at length in this thread. Particularly here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511672&postcount=28).

There is really no excuse but deliberate ignorance for continuing to conflate the two.

Thanks for the link.

(This thread is well over 200 posts and 15 pages. )

As I look over the post I do see some instances where a person could be forgiven for interpreting this as quotas. For example:

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.

It could be argued that the bolded text implies a quota. If I read this correctly, it says that if my company has 5 job openings, and I receive 50 applications of which 20 are from black applicants and 30 are from white applicants, that I must hold 2 slots for black new hires and 3 for white.

I'm not going to go over every example I'd like to hear your perspective on that. I will say that quotas or not, Affirmative Action does carry with it the inevitable reverse discrimination. Here's an example I'll use to illustrate the point:



Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

'Proactively hiring and promoting' is another term for 'preferential hiring and promoting.' That's racist right there.

Perhaps a definition is in order here?

Affirmative Action: A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/affirmative-action?cat=biz-fin

The devil is in the details.

No one is asking you to.

The local chapter of the NAACP certainly is. Either that, or I get to spend money on defending my company from a lawsuit.

Even if I win, it costs money and time.

Sorry, I'm not hiring anyone who is demonstrably incompetent compared to every other employee just to satisfy "affirmative action".

No one is asking you to.

Perhaps a definition is in order here?

Affirmative Action: A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/affirmative-action?cat=biz-fin

The local chapter of the NAACP certainly is. Either that, or I get to spend money on defending my company from a lawsuit.

Even if I win, it costs money and time.

Let me guess, you're also a lawyer and former military and blah, blah, blah. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't demonstrate anything. You could very much be guilty of discrimination, the evidence in this thread certainly suggests it. You could just not understand AA, the evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt. Your local chapter of the NAACP could be problematic. They aren't above reproach. OR you could just be entirely full of crap.

The solution to figuring which of those it is, stop offering us your anecdotes because, frankly, we've not got the first reason to buy into anything you've got to say and we have every reason to believe you're just blowing smoke.

Let me guess, you're also a lawyer and former military and blah, blah, blah. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't demonstrate anything. You could very much be guilty of discrimination, the evidence in this thread certainly suggests it. You could just not understand AA, the evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt. Your local chapter of the NAACP could be problematic. They aren't above reproach. OR you could just be entirely full of crap.

The solution to figuring which of those it is, stop offering us your anecdotes because, frankly, we've not got the first reason to buy into anything you've got to say and we have every reason to believe you're just blowing smoke.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Military a very, very long time ago.

I can't be guilty of discrimination if my business is below a certain size. I'm willing to interview African-Americans, but so far, none of them are even remotely close to qualified. Not even close.

I don't look at the skin color - most of my guys are from India or China.

All I care is whether or not they're the smartest I can get.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Military a very, very long time ago.

I can't be guilty of discrimination if my business is below a certain size. I'm willing to interview African-Americans, but so far, none of them are even remotely close to qualified. Not even close.

I don't look at the skin color - most of my guys are from India or China.

All I care is whether or not they're the smartest I can get.

Uh-huh. Again, do you have anything real to say? Because I believe you're telling the truth. I also believe your 6'4" and used to fight professionally under the name "Ty Rano Sore Us Mex" in Thailand. See, your claims are just internet claims. Do you have any evidence or are you hoping your credibility is going to actually win you points? Because, frankly, given your posts thus far, I don't buy anything you're selling.

"I'm willing to interview African-Americans." Yeah, where, oh, where would anyone get the impression of prejudice, huh?

Uh-huh. Again, do you have anything real to say? Because I believe you're telling the truth. I also believe your 6'4" and used to fight professionally under the name "Ty Rano Sore Us Mex" in Thailand. See, your claims are just internet claims. Do you have any evidence or are you hoping your credibility is going to actually win you points? Because, frankly, given your posts thus far, I don't buy anything you're selling.

"I'm willing to interview African-Americans." Yeah, where, oh, where would anyone get the impression of prejudice, huh?

It's not prejudice to me if you can pass a complex programming challenge in under three hours.

It's not prejudice to me if you can pass a complex programming challenge in under three hours.

You suck at dodging the point. Your statement smacks of "sure, if I have to, I'll interview one of those people, but we both know they aren't qualified."

I'm calling bullshit on your entire story. If the NAACP has been taking you to court repeatedly when you're giving a programming test as the primary way of selecting a candidate then you've got a great case for harrassment. I'm sure you've filed that correct?

As I look over the post I do see some instances where a person could be forgiven for interpreting this as quotas. For example:

It could be argued that the bolded text implies a quota. If I read this correctly, it says that if my company has 5 job openings, and I receive 50 applications of which 20 are from black applicants and 30 are from white applicants, that I must hold 2 slots for black new hires and 3 for white.

A goal is not the same thing as a quota.

It's more a matter of targeted recruitment. If a medical school recognizes that it's students do not match the demographics of those people who are completing pre-med studies, they may set a goal to match it. In order to achieve this, they may recruit more heavily at predominantly minority schools or change their recruitment style to attract more of those students.

But having the goal does not mean that they absolutely will fill a certain number of slots with said minority.

I'm not going to go over every example I'd like to hear your perspective on that. I will say that quotas or not, Affirmative Action does carry with it the inevitable reverse discrimination. Here's an example I'll use to illustrate the point:

'Proactively hiring and promoting' is another term for 'preferential hiring and promoting.' That's racist right there.

...except they aren't equivalent. Increased recruiting in minority areas, for instance, does not mean that any preferential treatment is given to minority applicants.

At my alma mater, members of SWE (society of women engineers) would go to a local elementary school and help with the after school science program. No preferential treatment was given to the female students. However, part of the goal our participation was to encourage young women interested in science to continue with it - to demonstrate that women can and do succeed in that area. We were, in a sense, employing targeted recruitment. But no preferential treatment was given based on sex.

Similarly, the engineering school would stress things like the percentage of female professors and female students to try and recruit women into engineering - a heavily male-dominated field. But, when it came to admissions, we all had to meet the same requirements and we all got treated the same once we were there.

You suck at dodging the point. Your statement smacks of "sure, if I have to, I'll interview one of those people, but we both know they aren't qualified."

I'm calling bullshit on your entire story. If the NAACP has been taking you to court repeatedly when you're giving a programming test as the primary way of selecting a candidate then you've got a great case for harrassment. I'm sure you've filed that correct?

That costs money as well. Do you believe that filing cases and hiring lawyers is free, and that I can do that every day at no expense?

That's the part of the law that is patently unfair - the fact that a mere threat can become time and money.

That costs money as well. Do you believe that filing cases and hiring lawyers is free, and that I can do that every day at no expense?

That's the part of the law that is patently unfair - the fact that a mere threat can become time and money.

And if you win, who pays? I'm trying to remember. Who pays when you win and show they've been harrassing you and costing your firm money?

Poor victim, there is just no way for you to protect yourself from the evil NAACP. I call 'em like I see 'em and you "case" smacks of a detachment from reality.

And if you win, who pays? I'm trying to remember. Who pays when you win and show they've been harrassing you and costing your firm money?

Poor victim, there is just no way for you to protect yourself from the evil NAACP. I call 'em like I see 'em and you "case" smacks of a detachment from reality.

It usually never gets to court. So I'm out the money I pay my lawyer to fight these things.

You're the one departed from reality. Never heard of a discovery phase, where the NAACP realizes their cooked, and withdraw.

It usually never gets to court. So I'm out the money I pay my lawyer to fight these things.

You're the one departed from reality. Never heard of a discovery phase, where the NAACP realizes their cooked, and withdraw.

Oh, I've heard of it. But if they are repeatedly taking you to court only to withdraw, then simply filing a case against them should recover every penny you've spent IF what you're saying is true.

Honestly, do you think there is anyone reading this that believes this nonsense? Seriously. Take another route, because you're on a seriously fallacious path. If you've got something that speaks to point present it. Your "evidence" thus far is entirely incredible.

A goal is not the same thing as a quota.

It's more a matter of targeted recruitment. If a medical school recognizes that it's students do not match the demographics of those people who are completing pre-med studies, they may set a goal to match it. In order to achieve this, they may recruit more heavily at predominantly minority schools or change their recruitment style to attract more of those students.

But having the goal does not mean that they absolutely will fill a certain number of slots with said minority.


How is a 'numerical goal' different from a quota? Enforcement? That would be meaningless. if a hiring manager fails to meet those 'goals' all he has to do is, what? Claim the applicants weren't good enough? Remember, the 'goal' was set based on applications, not regional demographics. That being the case, he can't say the applicants weren't there. If such a person fails t omeet those 'goals' he would be vulnerable to a lawsuit. That m akes it enforceable and thus, more than simply a goal.

No, if there's a difference it lies elsewhere. I'm hoping that since Cat-Tribe provided the links, he can elaborate on that.


...except they aren't equivalent. Increased recruiting in minority areas, for instance, does not mean that any preferential treatment is given to minority applicants.

At my alma mater, members of SWE (society of women engineers) would go to a local elementary school and help with the after school science program. No preferential treatment was given to the female students. However, part of the goal our participation was to encourage young women interested in science to continue with it - to demonstrate that women can and do succeed in that area. We were, in a sense, employing targeted recruitment. But no preferential treatment was given based on sex.

Similarly, the engineering school would stress things like the percentage of female professors and female students to try and recruit women into engineering - a heavily male-dominated field. But, when it came to admissions, we all had to meet the same requirements and we all got treated the same once we were there.

But that' snot what it said. It said 'proactive hiring and promotion,' not 'proactive recruitment.' If you're just making an effort to get the message out to try and gather more applicants from a given demographic then that's recruiting. The quote said 'proactive hiring and promotion.' Not the same thing.

It seems to me there's the intention of setting up something at least like a quota but trying to avoid language that comes out and admits it.

And if you win, who pays? I'm trying to remember. Who pays when you win and show they've been harrassing you and costing your firm money?

Poor victim, there is just no way for you to protect yourself from the evil NAACP. I call 'em like I see 'em and you "case" smacks of a detachment from reality.

Without taking sides, in fairness I will say that having to pay legal fees and attorneys is an upfront expense that may be recovered by a countersuit, but in the meantime a small business could struggle without those funds.

How is a 'numerical goal' different from a quota? Enforcement?

A quota is a number that you will meet, regardless of qualifications. If you have a quota for 10% black students, you will admit 10% black students, even if you only had enough qualified black applicants to make 8%.

If you have a goal, it is something you are trying to meet, but you may or may not. It is a desired endpoint, but it is not part of the admissions process.

With a quota, part of the process is making sure that a certain number of slots are filled with a certain ethnicity/sex/etc.. With a goal, you go through the process and then see if you've met the goal. If you haven't, you look for ways to recruit more of that group in the future.

But that' snot what it said. It said 'proactive hiring and promotion,' not 'proactive recruitment.' If you're just making an effort to get the message out to try and gather more applicants from a given demographic then that's recruiting. The quote said 'proactive hiring and promotion.' Not the same thing.

Proactive hiring --> Recruitment. You are actively trying to get applicants from a given demographic.

Proactive promotion would be similar. You actively try and recruit that demographic from within your employees to try for higher positions.

It seems to me there's the intention of setting up something at least like a quota but trying to avoid language that comes out and admits it.

That's because you have "quota quota quota" so stuck in your head that you can't see anything else.

Erm ... are you familar with the Bill of Rights, the Due Process gaurantee of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and civil rights laws?

There are some things that are not up to the whims of the majority.

Um, I am.

I did not mention the majority... I mentioned democracy. All of those laws CAN be overwritten. Even the Constitution can be canceled, by the proper amending procedure.
How does your question cancel my argument?

Mugabe's version certainly is.

Mugabe's "version" is neither Marxist nor affirmative action. Not even remotely.

So you acknowledge, in the latter half of your answser, that gains have been made? Is that not reason enough to re-evaluate the necessity of Affirmative Action, or are you committing the logical falacy of assuming that because it was once useful, it must always be useful?

When the problem of racial inequality is solved, affirmative action will no longer be useful.

The fact that affirmative action has been effective at reducing racial inequality in no sense indicates that racial inequality has been eliminated.

Without taking sides, in fairness I will say that having to pay legal fees and attorneys is an upfront expense that may be recovered by a countersuit, but in the meantime a small business could struggle without those funds.

According to him, he's already struggling without those funds. Remember I run a small business to. At this point, it would be a required defense of funds, according to his story. According to him, he is regularly harrassed. He's not balking because if what he's saying is true, he could stop that harrassment. So either it's not quite happening how he says, or he wouldn't win a countersuit. I'm going to go ahead and assume it's both based on the credibility of his claims.

You suck at dodging the point. Your statement smacks of "sure, if I have to, I'll interview one of those people, but we both know they aren't qualified."

I'm calling bullshit on your entire story. If the NAACP has been taking you to court repeatedly when you're giving a programming test as the primary way of selecting a candidate then you've got a great case for harrassment. I'm sure you've filed that correct?

And considering that it's a local chapter even a letter to the heads of the organization might even be helpful if that really is what is happening.

... because you said so?

because i know what the words 'logical fallacies' mean.

Where's the data you're basing this supposition on?

the supposition that most everybody who denies the usefulness of affirmative action now, did or would have denied it in the past as well? my data is the utter lack of people making any arguments against affirmative action of the grounds that it was a good idea that worked well and has now accomplished its vitally important mission. there are no such arguments in this thread, there are no such arguments offered to support the propositions being put on the ballot, the organizations that actively campaign against affirmative action never make such arguments, etc. in so far as they make semi-reasonable arguments at all, they make corny's universalist argument that preferential treatment is fundamentally at odds with equality. but even that is largely just a cheap suit for the old time religion.

take, for example, thomas 'dusty' rhodes, one of the winners behind the current crop of anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives through his 'american civil rights coalition (http://www.acrc1.org/)'. he also is the president of 'national review' and on its board of directors. NR has cleaned up its old-style hating of the darkies (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html) a bit, though the prospect of an obama presidency has brought up some old habits (http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2008/02/nasty.html).

this is where opposition to affirmative action comes from, this is where it is organized. the groups and people organizing this stuff have been around for awhile, we know who they are and what they stand for.

By 'decline in racism' do you mean a decline in APPARENT racism, or a decline in the number of people engaging in racist words/actions? Because while the former may be true, it, in and of itself, is useless. The latter would be great IF it could be proven to be true.

if people are not being overtly racist, then they are not engaging in as much racism as they were previously. that is what words mean. without overt racism, there is less racism around. if quiet and private racism grew to have the same sort of impact as open and overt racism, then it would be open and overt racism.

Then you are asserting that the same approach should be used regardless of the relative level of existing apparent racism without any sort of adjustment or evaluation whatsoever?

When you're filling a container with water from the tap, do you keep the tap valve wide open all the way to the top, or do you start to turn it down as the container is filled?

whatever i do, i do not just turn off the water entirely, which is what you guys are proposing.

Good question. The answer is some have grown, some have not.

hah! dude, the 70s fbi crackdown on the kkk, for example, destroyed it. you just can't organize the kind of anti-black mob violence you could regularly drum up in the 50s and 60s anymore.

Sorry, I'm not hiring anyone who is demonstrably incompetent compared to every other employee just to satisfy "affirmative action".

And no one is asking you too. Don't claim the local NAACP is. That is just bullshit. Hiring the demonstrably incompetent is neither required by civil rights laws nor encouraged by affirmative action. In fact, the opposite is true.

But your equation of African-Americans with the demonstrably incompetent is less than reassuring.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Military a very, very long time ago.

I can't be guilty of discrimination if my business is below a certain size. I'm willing to interview African-Americans, but so far, none of them are even remotely close to qualified. Not even close.

I don't look at the skin color - most of my guys are from India or China.

All I care is whether or not they're the smartest I can get.

Um. No. You can't be found liable for violating civil rights laws because they don't apply to your business because it is too small. That doesn't mean you aren't discriminating. It just means you can't be made to answer for it.

If there truly no qualified African-Americans in the job pool, then you haven't got anything to worry about in the first place. But your attitude suggest that you do indeed have a problem.

That costs money as well. Do you believe that filing cases and hiring lawyers is free, and that I can do that every day at no expense?

That's the part of the law that is patently unfair - the fact that a mere threat can become time and money.

Even if we fully believe the story AS YOU HAVE PRESENTED IT. The only reason the NAACP hasn't been successful in suing you is because you carefully keep the size of your business below that minimum to which the law applies.

That hardly makes you a civil rights hero or a picked on victim.

But if it is so cut-and-dry that the civil rights laws don't apply to you, what then is the threat from the NAACP? What possible basis is there for them to have filed several lawsuits? Meethinks there is more to this story.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with affirmative action programs. In fact, if you had an affirmative action program, you might not be in the crosshairs of the local NAACP.

Thanks for the link.

(This thread is well over 200 posts and 15 pages. )

As I look over the post I do see some instances where a person could be forgiven for interpreting this as quotas. For example:

It could be argued that the bolded text implies a quota. If I read this correctly, it says that if my company has 5 job openings, and I receive 50 applications of which 20 are from black applicants and 30 are from white applicants, that I must hold 2 slots for black new hires and 3 for white.

I'm not going to go over every example I'd like to hear your perspective on that. I will say that quotas or not, Affirmative Action does carry with it the inevitable reverse discrimination. Here's an example I'll use to illustrate the point:

How is a 'numerical goal' different from a quota? Enforcement? That would be meaningless. if a hiring manager fails to meet those 'goals' all he has to do is, what? Claim the applicants weren't good enough? Remember, the 'goal' was set based on applications, not regional demographics. That being the case, he can't say the applicants weren't there. If such a person fails t omeet those 'goals' he would be vulnerable to a lawsuit. That m akes it enforceable and thus, more than simply a goal.

No, if there's a difference it lies elsewhere. I'm hoping that since Cat-Tribe provided the links, he can elaborate on that.

Dem1 has given you more than adequate answer to your queries, but I'll weigh in anyway.

What gave you the impression that affirmative action goals become enforceable quotas? Not from anything I provided since it expressly explained that goals are not enforceable but are used to gage success. And the sources I provided expressly stated that quotas were illegal and unacceptable.

If hiring is truly non-biased then jobs should be proportionately divided in concurrence with the population of qualified applicants. If one's hiring is disproportionate -- and/or fails to meet goals -- then there is cause to further scrutinize the hiring process to eliminate bias.

The premise of your critique somehow assumes that qualified minority applicants won't be hired unless the employer is forced to hire them. Either you are admitting that the normal employment process is biased or you are making a racist assumption. Either way, affirmative action is a fair and reasonable response.

'Proactively hiring and promoting' is another term for 'preferential hiring and promoting.' That's racist right there.

But that' snot what it said. It said 'proactive hiring and promotion,' not 'proactive recruitment.' If you're just making an effort to get the message out to try and gather more applicants from a given demographic then that's recruiting. The quote said 'proactive hiring and promotion.' Not the same thing.

It seems to me there's the intention of setting up something at least like a quota but trying to avoid language that comes out and admits it.

Meh. If you stare long enough at the ink blot, you can make it look like anything you want. That doesn't mean it is a picture of a quota.

Pray tell, what "proactive hiring" is, if it isn't aggressive recruiting and fair employment procedures. There is nothing inherent in the word proactive that means quotas.

But that brings us back to your base complaint which seems to be that minorities getting hired in proportion to their presence in the job pool is somehow not desirable. Care to explain why that is?

In one sentence you've committed two logical fallacies: Firstly, what does 'most everybody' mean? Can you provide something to back that up, or is this just an opinion? Second, You're making a baseless assumption in the latter part.

Are you equating an apparant decline in overt racism to be equivalent to a decline in silent racism?

So you acknowledge, in the latter half of your answser, that gains have been made? Is that not reason enough to re-evaluate the necessity of Affirmative Action, or are you committing the logical falacy of assuming that because it was once useful, it must always be useful?

You are mistaken here. The idea of less qualified applicants being passed over for the sake of offering a position regulated by Affirmative Action to a less qualified person of a different race is frequently used as a recruiting or brainwashing tool for hate groups.

Then you ought to have no trouble simply linking a post that describes it. No need to be snippy.

So you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either racist or ignorant. How's that any better?

You are playing some cute games here. On the one hand musing that affirmative action has not reduced racism (and has even increased it), while claiming at the same time that affirmative action has been so successful that it need not be continued. All of thse insuations you make without any evidence whatsoever, but then object when Free Soviets responds to mere hypotheticals without evidence.

Affirmative action has made demonstrable progress in lessening racism and rectifying the effects of racism. This is discussed at length in the Affirmative Action Review (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html) that I linked earlier. Affirmative action has helped decrease minority poverty, helped decrease the wage gap, encouraged minority role models, etc, etc, etc. If the best you can say in response is "well, some skinheads don't like it" then you should simply concede.

One day affirmative action will have been successful enough that it is no longer necessary and can be phased out. That day hasn't come. We have a long way to go. And denying that is simply ignorance -- deliberate or otherwise.

And, BTW, several of the opponents of affirmative action that have appeared in this thread have been objectively exposed as racists and/or ignorant. So are some opponents of affirmative action racist and/or ignorant? You bet. ;)

Another question...


If I (or anyone else) owns their own PRIVATE business, then if they ONLY WANT TO HIRE WHITES, why can't they? IF they only want to serve whites, THEN WHY NOT? It's their shop! Will the government GET THE **** OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

More to the point, if someone wants to join MY company, I should have an obligation to not discriminate on basis of race? I discriminate based on skill... why not other things?

One more step towards truly ending all forms of discrimination and hate. Not to mention maybe fixing some of the problems.

If I (or anyone else) owns their own PRIVATE business, then if they ONLY WANT TO HIRE WHITES, why can't they?

In theory, there's no problem.

But in practice, when lots of employers engage in these sorts of practices and a group is economically subordinated, the result is a large number of people who are unfairly disadvantaged based on purely arbitrary factors.

And for those of us who believe in equality and justice, that is a problem.

Will the government GET THE **** OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

When "our business" causes serious harm to others? No. Why should it?

One more step towards truly ending all forms of discrimination and hate. Not to mention maybe fixing some of the problems.

Yep. 'Cuz nothing causes discrimination and hate like minorities and women with jobs. :rolleyes: