Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
TScott said:Could you cite the case? I'm referring to the policies. can there be occasional instances of exceptions? I suppose there could be, but if they are in court, I'm sure they will sort it out. I believe there was such a case a few years ago at Michigan, but it was involving admissions to a graduate school at the University, which would not fall under the auspices of Federal AA statutes.
Here you reveal the authoritarian and despotic character of AA, by claiming that not only is it helping those who didn't pass but got in anyway (those who have a certain chosen trait) but also those who deserved to get in (who met the standards set voluntarily by the instititution) but who were barred!TScott said:The system of AA in college admissions has an excellent record. You could fill a book with the thousands of success stories associated with it. Regardless of the myths you may hear on the internet, the only non-minority students that have been turned away because of AA have been students with marginal GPAs and SAT scores. Most of these students would probably be better off going to a community college for a year or two till they get their act together anyway.
Yeah, but you are talking about the way things aught to be, not the way they are. If people weren't prejudiced by the color of people's skin then these people would not be under-represented in the work force. There are many people even today that will not hire from one group or another. If we wait until there is no longer any more prejudice, whole generations of people will be relegated to the back of the bus, Bill, and that simply is not right. You tell someone that someday. Tell them "maybe when your grand children grow up, things will all be better."Billnew said:IDo we accept racial descrimination or don't we? Either it's bad either way or its acceptable both ways.
Is it okay, to not hire a minority because the company has enough? If you force people to hire minorities, then they aren't going to want to hire them when they don't have too.
IMO it should be qualifications, not color-ation.
Billnew said:I will have to check my post, I believe I said you'd be hard pressed to find a AMerican male Doctor. If I said it as if I have done a study, I appologize.
I currently interpret for several DR in the hospital Iwork for. I don't speak a foriegn language I am just able to hear better and figure out what they are saying.
I work with approx 20 Residents, 2-3 are Male white, 2 white females and the rest are minorities(very few African Americans(2maybe?))Oriental, Arabic, and other third world countries.
I have worked in hospitals in 2 states, and it is all personal experience.
I currently work at a teaching hospital(Federal controlled Hostpital)
If someone can show med students or interns based on race, I have no doubt
the male white is in very small numbers. Probably American born would be low numbers too.
As far as Arizona, It is County sheriff, but if the Federal goverment does it, then
States and COunties follow suit.(Lawyer claims-Federal goverment does this, so why doesn't this section of goverment?)
Even if not fully adopted, AA influences all choices if any minorities are involved.
THINKING PROCESS:
Candidate A is better then all others, but Candidate E, is a minority, and we currently are low on minority employees at this level, can we hire "A", and defend this if we have to go to court? And would the experience difference be worth the court costs, if we don't hire "E"?
Do we accept racial descrimination or don't we? Either it's bad either way or its acceptable both ways.
Is it okay, to not hire a minority because the company has enough? If you force people to hire minorities, then they aren't going to want to hire them when they don't have too.
IMO it should be qualifications, not color-ation.
Lifesaver said:Here you reveal the authoritarian and despotic character of AA, by claiming that not only is it helping those who didn't pass but got in anyway (those who have a certain chosen trait) but also those who deserved to get in (who met the standards set voluntarily by the instititution) but who were barred!
"They had only marginal scores. It is best for them to go to a community college for a year or two." - this is what you say of those who succeeded in getting fairly into their selected colleges but who were barred because of the State's arbitrary choice of putting someone else ahead of them for the reason of having a certain different trait (skin colour, gender, etc).
Those who are unfairly helped, they deserve to get in, afterall, they are persecuted and opressed. But those who lost their place because of these, these are better off outside going to a community college for two years.
You basically deny people the right to choose their own lives and achieve their own aspirations, claiming to know better than them.
Neverstop said:That is exactly what it means...it is not racist because it does not oppress whites as a group. If Aff. Act. oppressed whites, as a whole group, then I would be totally against it.
rac·ism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Billnew said:Even if not fully adopted, AA influences all choices if any minorities are involved.
Billnew said:THINKING PROCESS:
Candidate A is better then all others, but Candidate E, is a minority, and we currently are low on minority employees at this level, can we hire "A", and defend this if we have to go to court? And would the experience difference be worth the court costs, if we don't hire "E"?
Do we accept racial discrimination or don't we? Either it's bad either way or its acceptable both ways.
Is it okay, to not hire a minority because the company has enough? If you force people to hire minorities, then they aren't going to want to hire them when they don't have too.
IMO it should be qualifications, not color-ation.
Trogdor the Burninator said:
AA = racism.
Trogdor the Burninator said:Spot on.I doubt the people supporting AA would be happy if I didnt hire a minority candidate because we already had enough to match the community. But AA keeps getting spun as not racism, even when the vast majority of the community sees it that way.
Neverstop said:Definitions in dictionaries are not arbitrarily handed down from God. They are created and placed there by those in power...who just happen to be mostly white men.
The world is bigger than Webster.
Perhaps then you should read my whole post, not the piece quoted by someone else without the full context.mhatten said:Well now that you have put it in such simple terms after much discussion, I am convinced.
Not
Yes, but it found for the University Law School in this case. It only re-affirmed that AA is not intended to encourage actual quotas. In it's decision, written by Sandra O'Conner, the court acknowledged that the University of Michigan's program, while narrow was also highly individualized.mhatten said:Acutally the case did fall under federal guidelines and was one of the cases that went to the Supreme court which struck down actual quotas in college admissions.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html
Affirmative Action does not promote the belief that anyone's race accounts for any differences in their character or their ability. Affirmative Action acknowledges that people have been held back in the past because of their race, and that employers and colleges must "take affirmative action, to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."Trogdor the Burninator said:AA = racism.rac·ism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
So in other words, since nonminorities are denied admissions because of low GPA or SAT scores, that means that minorities are gaining admission based on merit. Is that correct?TScott said:Could you cite the case? I'm referring to the policies. can there be occasional instances of exceptions? I suppose there could be, but if they are in court, I'm sure they will sort it out. I believe there was such a case a few years ago at Michigan, but it was involving admissions to a graduate school at the University, which would not fall under the auspices of Federal AA statutes.
TScott said:Yes, but it found for the University Law School in this case. It only re-affirmed that AA is not intended to encourage actual quotas. In it's decision, written by Sandra O'Conner, the court acknowledged that the University of Michigan's program, while narrow was also highly individualized.
The Court is satisfied that the Law School adequately considered the available alternatives. The Court is also satisfied that, in the context of individualized consideration of the possible diversity contributions of each applicant, the Law Schools race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants. Finally, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
No. They did both. I'll repeat-they re-affirmed that Affirmative Action does not ask for quotas, it never did. Quotas were never intended to be part of Affirmative Action, in fact the original language for AA specifically rejects quotas.mhatten said:Then I quoted the wrong case because there were two cases, one from the grad school and one from undegrad, they found in favor of one and struck down quotas in the other. Colleges can no longer use hard numbers or formulas that equate effectively to numbers when considering minoirty admissions. They can weight minorites differently however, which most do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?