Mike, about affermitive action.

April 29, 2002

This is just because I hate changing the purpose of threads.

You said this in another thread.

"affirmative action is a total joke"

This is a topic I would love to discuss. It is like the ultimate taboo for some reason because some people never want to discuss it. Or alot of people say they agree with it just becasue they don't want to seem like a racist or something(it is ridiculous to say someone is a racist because they disagree with it.) You usually have very interesting opinions on things, so give me your 2 cents on this and why you think it is a joke.

P.S. To anyone else, please do not turn this thread into race war. Please only mature comments on your beliefs on the subject at hand.

April 29, 2002

I, myself, don't necessarily buy into affirmative action anymore. I mean, yes, there used to be a big deal about it, but now, I think the hiring should be most qualified. Period. The affirmative action thing, in my opinion, is like political correctness, except I don't hate affirmative action with a passion. Try sending two applications to the University of Michigan, both the same but one a caucasian ethnicity and the other any minority and the minority is automatically chosen. Stuff like that is what gets on my nerves.

April 29, 2002

Let's discuss this:

Affirmative action has decided to use the policy of racism to allegedly reverse the racism of the past.

What have present white or Asian college students done to warrant being held to a different standard? And isn't it insulting for Hispanic and black students to basically be told that the ONLY way they can possibly make it to a good school is if standards are lowered for them?

I firmly believe that if you expect minority students to compete on the same level as whites and Asians, then they will do so. It won't be immediate, but unlike the current situation, it will eventually bear fruit.

-=Mike

April 29, 2002

I think when JFK and LBJ started AA it was somewhat of a good idea, in theory at the time because they're was nothing close to an even playing field, however what many Republicans (who we're and are very much in favor of equal rights, more GOP voted for the Civil Rights ACt of 64 than Dems) felt would happen did, it created a further divide between the races and continues to do so. Plus equal rights are supposed to be equal, not anti-white. I also question the Constutionality of AA very much.

April 30, 2002

My problem with affirmative action, racial quotas, etc, is that things like that force an equality of results. That's simply preposterous and not guaranteed anywhere. Laws guarantee the equality of opportunity, which is a very good and sensible measure. But equal opportunity is all that should be guaranteed. Everyone has to earn the results for themselves.

April 30, 2002

I agree with Mike in principle. Minorities can and do achieve the same standards to which everyone else is held, and lowering the bar just to fill quotas is unfair and counterproductive.

That said, I don't think it's a bad idea to use race as a tie-breaker. White men have had centuries of affirmative action in their favour. If a member of a minority group (including women, though we're like 52% now, aren't we?) is equally qualified for a position in every way, she should be appointed before a white male.

April 30, 2002

I agree with Mike in principle. Minorities can and do achieve the same standards to which everyone else is held, and lowering the bar just to fill quotas is unfair and counterproductive.

That said, I don't think it's a bad idea to use race as a tie-breaker. White men have had centuries of affirmative action in their favour. If a member of a minority group (including women, though we're like 52% now, aren't we?) is equally qualified for a position in every way, she should be appointed before a white male. >>>

Why should she be appointed before a whilte male?

How is that equal or just?

-=Mike

...Personally still waiting to reap the benefits of being a white male that so many minority groups seem to think I have

April 30, 2002

Because of centuries of historical discrimination against her. It would begin to redress the imbalances. Come on Mike, if she were equally qualified in every way, where's the harm?

April 30, 2002

Because of centuries of historical discrimination against her. It would begin to redress the imbalances. Come on Mike, if she were equally qualified in every way, where's the harm? >>>

Why should I be punished for "centuries of historical discrimination"?

Did I personally discriminate? No.

You can't punish ME for what people did in the past.

And, Marney, if the man were equally qualified, where's the harm in hiring him? It does go both ways here.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

Well, as I'm not entirely comfortable with this idea anyway, I won't insist on it. I think it would be nice to see a macro-level number of women and minorities in top jobs proportional to the percentage of society they represent, but I'm not sure that race or gender can ever be a valid criterion for selection, regardless of how laudable the motive may be. In sum, I think you're right. Discrimination is a bad idea in any context. I guess we should focus on ensuring equality of opportunity and waiting a few decades for the results, rather than trying to artificially engineer the outcomes we want through targeted injustice.

April 30, 2002

Well, as I'm not entirely comfortable with this idea anyway, I won't insist on it. I think it would be nice to see a macro-level number of women and minorities in top jobs proportional to the percentage of society they represent, but I'm not sure that race or gender can ever be a valid criterion for selection, regardless of how laudable the motive may be. In sum, I think you're right. Discrimination is a bad idea in any context. I guess we should focus on ensuring equality of opportunity and waiting a few decades for the results, rather than trying to artificially engineer the outcomes we want through targeted injustice. >>>

BUT, how do we know that equality isn't what we have today? We have the press decrying unequal treatment, but they never really examine the issue.

You can read in the papers that female college grads get paid less than men.

That sounds bad.

However, points are left out---such as that women, disproportionately, migrate towards fields that don't pay well (social work, education, etc.) while men tend to migrate towards business, engineering, etc. That ALONE would explain away pay differences.

We hear that women get paid less than men in the same field? However, how many of those women took maternity leaves (which will affect your performance)? How many are willing to sacrifice their family to put in the ungodly hours necessary to move up the ladder (by most accounts, not many---and that is a good thing)?

We hear that girls are not treated fairly in public school---but there are more women in college than men.

We hear that girls have bigger issues with self-image than boys---but boys commit suicide more often.

We hear a lot of the bad that women have to face---but we seldom hear it put in any kind of a context.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

Yeah, fair points. On the other hand, men get paternity leave now, which is probably the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of in my life. And if we have perfect equality right now, where are all the black presidents?

We should keep trying to address the disparities, in my opinion, but we should make sure that the way we address them isn't merely a reversal of previous racism.

April 30, 2002

Yeah, fair points. On the other hand, men get paternity leave now, which is probably the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of in my life>>>

No argument there.

<<<And if we have perfect equality right now, where are all the black presidents?>>>

The only guy who's come close is Jesse Jackson and I can't think of a less credible candidate than he.

<<<We should keep trying to address the disparities, in my opinion, but we should make sure that the way we address them isn't merely a reversal of previous racism. >>>

Agreed.

-=Mike

April 30, 2002

Jesse Jackson is awful. If he were President <crosses herself> we'd have a Five Year Plan for the economy in his first State of the Union address. It's sad that lunatics like him, Farrakhan, and Sharpton are the most visible black leaders around. (Marion Barry seems to have disappeared for a hopefully final time.) On the other hand, Cory Booker (candidate for mayor in New Jersey) seems very promising, and definitely has presidential potential.

April 30, 2002

I would firmly be against affermitive action if it weren't so necessary. At one point I believed that it wasnt necessary at all.

Most AA laws only require a small percentage of minoritys to recieve whatever is at hand(be it school admission, jobs or state contracts). If you look at studies, you will see that they almost always adhere to the percentage exactly. If 20% is required then 20% is usually all that gets it. This tells me that if it weren't for affermitive action that they would get none what soever. I refuse to believe that minoritys are never more qulified. You can even look at cases when AA is taken away and the percentage of minoritys drop so drastically it is shocking (I remember the year after AA was done away, Minority admission to Berkely went from 5% to 1 person. ONE PERSON.)

A majority of state contracts don't always go to the best. A lot of times some ties to goverment officials, some type of favor being repaid for campain donations and such. The small percentage that goes to the minority firms keeps them in business. I personally refuse to believe that they are of lesser quality than another because the owners are of a minority. But they are surley instances that people are turned down solely because of race. I myself have experienced it many, many times. I personally wouldn't want to work on a job that I wasn't wanted because of my race, but in the case of school admissions and goverment contracts, I believe that it is very important to safe guard agaisnt discrimination.

If the policy is that at least 20-30 % of admissions must be a minority, then what is really wrong with it. Most colleges have a policy where student whose parents were alumni will be placed at a higher priority than those who weren't. Alot of colleges didn't even allow minorities to be admitted in earlier years. Therefore, they don't get that privilege, either(true, lower income white americans don't get it either but you see my point here. )

In a perfect world, discrimination and stereotypes wouldn't exist and AA wouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in that world. There is nothing more annoying than to not get a job because of you race(or I am assumeing sex since I can't be sure) I'm all for hiring who you want in equally qualified cases, but my point is that there are a lot of minorities losing positions to lesser qulified individuals and race is the only reason. If AA safeguards against that(and I believe it does...if they have to hire minorities, thier going to take the most qualified) then I am all for it.

April 30, 2002

"I think it would be nice to see a macro-level number of women and minorities in top jobs proportional to the percentage of society they represent..."

Great, so when are we going to have that whitey-dominated NBA lineup?

I know I took your quote out of context. Sue me.

April 30, 2002

Sure, let me just ring up Johnny Cochrane.

May 1, 2002

<<<I would firmly be against affermitive action if it weren't so necessary. At one point I believed that it wasnt necessary at all. >>>

They aren't necessary. At all.

<<<Most AA laws only require a small percentage of minoritys to recieve whatever is at hand(be it school admission, jobs or state contracts). If you look at studies, you will see that they almost always adhere to the percentage exactly. If 20% is required then 20% is usually all that gets it. This tells me that if it weren't for affermitive action that they would get none what soever.>>>

If they could provide better service for less money performed more quickly, they would get the jobs.

They either cannot or, more likely, WILL NOT do so and, thus, contracts are given to them only because they have no other option.

People act as if giving business to whites only is good for companies. Companies would KILL to give their business to minorities (great p.r. for them)---but the minority-owned companies just don't provide the service as inexpensively and as quickly as whites.

And should we even get into the companies that are "minority-led" in only the most liberal sense of the word?

<<<I refuse to believe that minoritys are never more qulified.>>>

It's nothing to do with qualification. It's got everything to do with the rates charged, the quality of the work, and the speed of performing the work. I'm sure minority-owned companies can do the work as well as white companies---but obviously, they don't do it for as little cost or as quickly.

If they did, they'd get the contract left and right.

<<<You can even look at cases when AA is taken away and the percentage of minoritys drop so drastically it is shocking (I remember the year after AA was done away, Minority admission to Berkely went from 5% to 1 person. ONE PERSON.)>>>

Guess what---maybe, just maybe, only one minority QUALIFIED for Berkeley. If they cannot qualify by the same standards as other groups, why should they be allowed in? In the end, the minority students will improve their scores and achieve enough to be accepted solely upon their merits.

And, I'd love to see a study of how may minority students DROPPED out of elite schools inside of 2 years.

<<<A majority of state contracts don't always go to the best. A lot of times some ties to goverment officials, some type of favor being repaid for campain donations and such. The small percentage that goes to the minority firms keeps them in business. I personally refuse to believe that they are of lesser quality than another because the owners are of a minority.>>>

It's not. It's due to the cost of the project, the speed of the work, and the quality of the work. If minorities feel that campaign contributions are what gives white companies the contracts, maybe they should play that game.

God knows Democrats are beholden to minority groups.

<<< But they are surley instances that people are turned down solely because of race. I myself have experienced it many, many times. I personally wouldn't want to work on a job that I wasn't wanted because of my race, but in the case of school admissions and goverment contracts, I believe that it is very important to safe guard agaisnt discrimination.>>>

There's no difference in the fairness of discrimination FOR and AGAINST minorities.

BOTH are equally offensive.

<<<If the policy is that at least 20-30 % of admissions must be a minority, then what is really wrong with it.>>>

Perhaps there aren't that many qualified minority students? Why should spots in freshman classes go to minorities of lesser qualifications just for the sake of "diversity"?

Heck, if somebody can actually point to a benefit of "diversity", I'd love to hear it. It's not like there's a wide chorus of differing opinion of much of anything on college campuses---if you're a conservative, you learn to shut up.

<<< Most colleges have a policy where student whose parents were alumni will be placed at a higher priority than those who weren't.>>>

Yup. Life isn't always fair and that isn't a good policy.

Adding MORE bad policies doesn't make it better.

<<<Alot of colleges didn't even allow minorities to be admitted in earlier years.>>>

Nope, they didn't.

But, you can't punish TODAY'S students for what happened in the past.

<<<Therefore, they don't get that privilege, either(true, lower income white americans don't get it either but you see my point here. ) >>>

You seem to ignore that there are A LOT of lower-income whites out there. Why should they be shafted at the altar of "equality"?

<<<In a perfect world, discrimination and stereotypes wouldn't exist and AA wouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in that world. There is nothing more annoying than to not get a job because of you race(or I am assumeing sex since I can't be sure)>>>

But, what if you don't get the job because somebody, legitimately, is more qualified than you?

I've not gotten every job I ever applied for.

I don't sit there and blame others. I blame MYSELF for lacking the qualifications.

As long as minority groups tend to blame others for their own shortcomings, they'll always have those shortcomings.

<<<I'm all for hiring who you want in equally qualified cases, but my point is that there are a lot of minorities losing positions to lesser qulified individuals and race is the only reason.>>>

Really? Where is that happening? Most companies bend over backwards to hire a more "diverse" work force.

Where is this amazing benefit that white skin is supposed to provide? Lord knows I've never seen it.

<<<If AA safeguards against that(and I believe it does...if they have to hire minorities, thier going to take the most qualified) then I am all for it. >>>

The "most qualified minorities" don't NEED AA to get a job in the first place. Their accomplishments are tarnished by AA.

-=Mike

May 1, 2002

Dr Condoleezza Rice is an outstanding example - she's black and female, and she's accomplished a hundred firsts. I don't believe for a moment that that was because of any kind of affirmative action.

And she's from my sorority!

May 1, 2002

She's also a babe. Opps, I shouldn't have said that *although Ariel Sharon (sp) did.*

Heck, she also likes football. What more could you ask for in a woman?

May 1, 2002

She's also a babe. Opps, I shouldn't have said that *although Ariel Sharon (sp) did.*

Heck, she also likes football. What more could you ask for in a woman? >>>

A twin sister?

With really low standards? :-)

-=Mike

May 1, 2002

She is pretty cute, yeah.

May 1, 2002

I think that it is a major misconception that because AA is in place, that the minorities getting the jobs are less qualified and that some overly qualified white was passed over. Mike, can you say that you truely believe that only one minority person was qualified to get into Berkley. I do understand how hard it can be to relate, but when you have experienced yourself(far too many times for someone my age) I tend to believe that it is happening to more people. So far I have been turned down for 10 jobs because of race. I know, you are going to ask how I know this. How do I know I wasn't turned down for other reasons but here is how.

I am a computer artist. All my work was available to the employer(s) where they can decide wether or not my work is a reflection of what they look for. Most jobs for this profession do not lie in Atlanta(where I live) so most times, when I am called in to meet the prospective employer, I have to travel. So, on 5 of these job interviews(and I swear the stories are exactly alike) I would have a series of phone conversations, they would see my work and give the praises and say how impressed they are with it. They 3 of the companys even paid for the bus ticket(yeah I know, they were cheap bastards...bus??? ) for me to go to their company. So on the 2 interviews in North Carolina, 1 in Florida, 2 in Virginia and 1 in South Carolina this EXACT same scenario played out.

Me: Hi, I'm William, I'm here to meet with Mr.(or Mrs.) ____.

Receptionist: Oh...Oh..um...you can take a seat right there and he will be with you in a minute.

At which moment EVERY SINGLE TIME the receptionist would leave for about 20 minutes, and come back.

Receptionist: Oh he's in a meeting but he said he will be with you very soon.

Now a time that ranged in between 30 minutes to 2 hours would pass and I would finally be called in the office to be told:

"We have really looked over your work and decided that we want to go in a different direction than what we orignially intended. You just don't fit our new direction."

That one I appreciated..kinda...because at least it was somewhat believeable. But then there were the.

"I'm sorry, you're just not what we're looking for."

So I am to believe that I have given 3-4 phone interviews, came hundreds of miles, sometimes paid for by you, just so you could tell me I'm not what you're looking for?? The only thing that changed when I stepped in was they saw my face. Sometimes, I didn't even get the chance speak more than my name, so I am pretty sure it wasn't how I presented myself.

Now don't get me wrong. I have missed alot of jobs and the people didn't even flinch about my race, they just didn't like my work. But I personally know that there are still plenty of people that hire on the basis of race. If this has happened to just me these amount of times and so blatantly, I can only guess how much it happens through out entire races.

I know women must have it really tough too, but they have the privilage of the people knowing they are women before they get there. Even lower income whites still have the white skin as a advantage(and yes Mike, it has advantages you wouldn't even notice were there unless you weren't white).

I can't help but to believe that there is a huge amount of Black, latino and women that are not only equally qualified but even more qualified than thier white counterparts, but are having the trouble getting their foot in the door because of stereotypes, racism, sexism and favortism for people of the white race. If AA helps get their foot in the door, which it has for many minorities, then i am all for it. If the white counterparts are so overly qualified, they won't have trouble finding work anyway. A overly qualified minorty has the problem of still being considered just another black man, or Latino man, or Woman.

May 1, 2002

I have to agree with what Ripper said. And yes, being white is a major advantage. It's silly to pretend it isn't. I don't believe that only one minority applicant qualified for Berkeley in a whole year either.

Still, I think quotas and race-based programmes are the wrong way to go. I think ensuring equality of opportunity, forcing institutions to use transparent selection procedures, and punishing those that exclude qualified minorities, in courts of law, is a much more palatable solution. The reversal of injustices cannot be accomplished merely by redirecting them. They must be eliminated.

May 1, 2002

"I think ensuring equality of opportunity, forcing institutions to use transparent selection procedures, and punishing those that exclude qualified minorities, in courts of law, is a much more palatable solution. The reversal of injustices cannot be accomplished merely by redirecting them. They must be eliminated."

I agree completely and that is a great sugestion. But there HAS to be some type of safe guard, and most anti-AA advocates don't present any like you did. It is mostly the usual "Its not needed so do away with it."

Marney, you should run for office...I'd vote for ya!!!

May 1, 2002

Thanks Ripper! But I am a girl, and gay to boot. <g> You really think I'd have a chance?

I want Hillary to be President again. She has a good shot at it. Forget her dumbfuck socialist leanings for a moment, and just think of how wonderfully sweeeeeeeeet it would be to watch Middle Eastern despots bowing and scraping to her:

"What?! Those filthy infidels dare to send a woman to the Holy Land? They shall suffer jihad! We shall send her back in disgrace before she further defiles our sacred..."

"...oh. She's also the President of the United States, and she has the power to wipe my pathetic litterbox of a country off the map by twitching her little finger. Hmm. Ah, it is a great pleasure and an honour for this humble servant of Allah to meet you, Madame President! May I lick your shoes clean?"

May 1, 2002

Here's something I'll toss out.

If you knew you where hired because your employer had to hire a certain group. Would you take the job and show that you did deserve it, or not take the job because you feel you didn't earn it.

May 1, 2002

Well, there are 2 ways of looking at it. I personally wouldn't want a job if i weren't wanted there on talent and talent alone. BUT if I were in a field, say a government position or trying to get into college that would greaten my chances of advancement in my chosen career, or keeping my busniess on its feet by taking a governement contract, all the while knowing that I deserve it in the first place, I would try to get my foot in the door by any means necessary.

May 1, 2002

I think that it is a major misconception that because AA is in place, that the minorities getting the jobs are less qualified and that some overly qualified white was passed over. Mike, can you say that you truely believe that only one minority person was qualified to get into Berkley.>>>

Only one desering minority applies, apparently. It's not like Berkeley is this cauldron of right-wing sentiment. Berkeley is about the most liberal campus on Earth. Their board of admissions have tried to circumvent the banishment of AA for years now.

<<<I do understand how hard it can be to relate, but when you have experienced yourself(far too many times for someone my age) I tend to believe that it is happening to more people. So far I have been turned down for 10 jobs because of race. I know, you are going to ask how I know this. How do I know I wasn't turned down for other reasons but here is how.