Affirmative Action

[praying]

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.

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

 

[Lifesaver]

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.

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. This is wrong.

 

[TScott]

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.

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."

It wouldn't be that difficult to fix. I've worked for a contractor with the feds for thirty years and my company has always found that if you simply do not use the color of the person's skin as a criteria that you will usually have a work force that mirrors the community you are in. At my present local, we have not had an EEO based complaint filed against us in twenty years.

 

[k]

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.

That's cool...no hassles, but it would be interesting to see the racial/gender make up of doctors in the US.

I have no doubt that AA gets abused in certain areas and I have no doubt it will eventually run its course of good use.

AA is the combination of qualifications and ethnicity.

 

[TScott]

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.

You completely misrepresented everything I said.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

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.

AA = racism.

 

[k]

AA = racism.

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.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

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 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.

Spot on. I doubt the people supporting AA would be happy if I didn’t 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.

 

[praying]

AA = racism.

Well now that you have put it in such simple terms after much discussion, I am convinced.




Not

 

[k]

Spot on. I doubt the people supporting AA would be happy if I didn’t 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.

AA is NOT racism for the SIMPLE FACT it is NOT based on RACE ALONE!!!

People have to be QUALIFIED for the jobs they apply for...where as Racist people only care about the color of one's skin (among other things)

 

[k]

Well now that you have put it in such simple terms after much discussion, I am convinced.




Not

HAPPY THANKSGIVING M.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

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.

How very convenient. Sounds like more spin to me.

 

[k]

How very convenient. Sounds like more spin to me.

What?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Well now that you have put it in such simple terms after much discussion, I am convinced.
Not

Perhaps then you should read my whole post, not the piece quoted by someone else without the full context.

 

[praying]

HAPPY THANKSGIVING M.

You too!!!

 

[TScott]

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

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 School’s 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.

 

[TScott]

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.

AA = racism.

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."

The quote above come from the original Affirmative Action document written by President Kennedy in March 1961. This was where the phrase was first coined.

 

[MachZer0]

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.

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?

 

[praying]

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 School’s 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.

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.

 

[TScott]

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.

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.