The Beginning of the End (of discrimination)

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

You are very boring, Blots. lol

 

Where does the federal government gain the authority to violate the rights of private property owners? Does forcing integration really solve the issue or merely perpetuate it? What has helped more in regards to civil rights -- forced integration or a changing and evolving mindset of the public?

 

To the extent that we could assume a right to property exists, it is subject to due process. So in the context you are using it, there is no right being violated by legislation barring private business from discriminating against its customer base. To my knowledge, the only right to property is the 5th Amendment, which merely prevents the government from confiscating private property for public use without proper compensation. It says nothing about regulation of private property, which seems to be the source of the SCOTUS's two unanimous opinions ruling against challenges to the Civil Rights Act.

 

Edit; And as far as the rights OF property owners go, if that's the argument being made, I'm not sure I understand what right of theirs is being violated.

 

The Civil Rights Act and subsequent civil rights legislation forced integration. Has this perpetuated racism or sexism? Doesn't seem to be much evidence in favor of this argument.

 

 

I think you could VERY EASILY make the argument that forced integration only perpetuates racism / sexism / etc. Look no further than affirmative action. Supposed to fight discrimination while promoting discrimination -- it's fantastic.

 

Thanatos made my point as to it's not needed anymore today -- and it isn't. Integrate, and move on. If we were to repeal the Civil Rights act, I don't think we'd see segregation all of a sudden pop up again or have some weird Civil War II, lol. It's not necessary anymore and I think it does hurt us.

 

 

How does affirmative action promote discrimination?

 

If the Civil Rights Act no longer needs to be enforced, then why does it need to be repealed? If your argument is truly that it's no longer necessary or relevant, then you serve no purpose on either side of this issue by repealing it or leaving it be. And this doesn't really take into effect the symbolic or emotional effect on non-white demographics of repealing landmark civil rights legislation.

 

I understand where you're going with this but it seems silly to me. It relies, I think on a misguided brand of democracy where people who don't like racism or bigotry will, by economic power, force these firms out of business by not supporting them. I've seen Ron Paul say this frequently back when he was kinda sorta but not really relevant. I don't think the world works that way, and psychological research doesn't seem to support this theory either.

[southgadawg 52]

No offense but do you really think that affirmative action does NOT promote discrimination? I can tell you from my own experience in business I saw situations where quotas and that type policies time and time again caused people to be discriminated against.

 

There is all kinds of discrimination. People can be discriminated against because of their color, their ethnic background, and their sexuality of course but what about the people who are discriminated against against because of the way they look (not pretty enough, too pretty, for example), because of what church or school they went to (and yeah i am not talking about a program at a certain university giving an edge), or how many children someone has?...and before you laugh i assure you 100% these things have happened in the past. I am all against any sort of quota on hiring too because it doesn't always put the best qualified PERSON in the job.

 

When I was healthy enough to work I helped mentor a ton of people of various types of diversity. I had several minorities (either women or minority based on race/ethnic background) call me IMMEDIATELY after an interview and tell me they had an auto-fail type interview (one where they knew before hand certain questions had to be answered or they would fail the interview).

 

Later they called me to tell me that despite all of that somehow someway they got the job. I congratulated them of course on their promotion (and most all of them were very successful in their new roles) but they would had been one of the first to tell you that it was likely that if there wasn't some other agenda pushing the situation that they would not had gotten the position. In all honesty you cannot necessarily say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they or the other candidates were the best person for the job...but you can say that based on the criteria they knew before their interviews that they clearly failed their interview.

 

Maybe I am just adamant about this but I believe if you are in the corporate world and making a business decision it needs to ONLY be made from a business perspective and NOT based on any sort of influence that may put outside factors in to it.

 

Unfortunately these type of discrimination happens in business all the time but the ability to PROVE it is extremely difficult and in all likely hood the pursuit of which would cause more difficulty in the one's who call foul. If this stuff happens in large multi-million dollar business who are afraid of lawsuits and public opinion and have put into place guidelines to reduce some of it's frequency (and yeah i am talking about other things that affirmitve action) then how much so does it happen in small business everyday. Sad but true.

 

Maybe I just interpreted what you said wrongly but I took the point to be that with affirmative action in place there would be no discrimination. That just aint true.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

No offense but do you really think that affirmative action does NOT promote discrimination? I can tell you from my own experience in business I saw situations where quotas and that type policies time and time again caused people to be discriminated against.

 

There is all kinds of discrimination. People can be discriminated against because of their color, their ethnic background, and their sexuality of course but what about the people who are discriminated against against because of the way they look (not pretty enough, too pretty, for example), because of what church or school they went to (and yeah i am not talking about a program at a certain university giving an edge), or how many children someone has?...and before you laugh i assure you 100% these things have happened in the past. I am all against any sort of quota on hiring too because it doesn't always put the best qualified PERSON in the job.

 

This argument is a tired one.

 

First of all, some of the examples of "discrimination" you gave are vastly different from race or sexual preference. They're mostly life choices for which affirmative action policies don't exist, and shouldn't, because they probably don't bear significant weight. They don't carry broad social stigmatization.

 

Second, your argument is based on the idea that firms are hiring less qualified individuals due to affirmative action. That this bias even exists inside people's minds is telling. You're assuming minorities are unqualified or less qualified right from the start for no reason other than the fact that affirmative action exists. Why must affirmative action policy necessarily equate to under-qualified hires? That has bogus written all over it.

 

It feels like people are making up hypothetical scenarios where policies like this in a vacuum might cause detrimental effects to firms but where has anyone actually seen studies showing that affirmative action reduced productivity in US firms? And I'm not talking about silly anecdotes. Again, the evidence doesn't seem to exist.

[OSUViking 505]

I assume talk of affirmative action and its relation to discrimination is on topic, so I'll voice my own concerns.

 

I don't have the experience to say that affirmative action DOES promote reverse discrimination, and in fact AA is something I'm pretty torn on. However, there does seem to be a trend in education that trends towards "We want more diversity" instead of a focus on bringing in the best students. Again, I don't have personal experience from this but I do recall there being several SCOTUS cases relating to this very topic. Now, I don't really mind a private organization or a private university allocating their scholarship funds and their positions to people based on ethnicity, but I do have a grievance when public schools are doing this. I don't agree with a school receiving government funding choosing people specifically based on a desire for diversity, when there are students who perform much better who either get turned down or receive much less in benefits.

[OSUViking 505]

-snip-

Not trying to refute here. Actually, I appreciate that you put up a legitimate response to that point. Most of the time when I voice my concerns about affirmative action, people insinuate that I am racist or that I don't like it because it doesn't allow me (a white male growing up in an upper-middle class family) to take advantage of anyone. So, I appreciate that you at least put up an intelligent response instead of doing what, frankly, most supporters of affirmative action do today and just pull out the "You're racist!" card.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I have direct experience with affirmative action hiring less-qualified individuals, except its students that are being accepted in the university. There are minorities being taken over more qualified individuals because they need to fill out their quota.

 

My dad is a professor at a university who is part of the committee that looks at accepting students, and routinely brings this up. It does happen, and it happens quite a bit.

 

AA needs to go, its obsolete.

 

 

But the precedent, oochymp. You are giving business owners carte blanche to refuse service to anyone "if it furthers their lifestyle," as Dmac puts it, (and said "lifestyle" is against their religious beliefs- and btw using lifestyle to describe homosexuality is bogus. Might as well say I live a "brown-haired lifestyle."

 

So if a business owner is racist, sexist, homo"phobic", ageist, w/e-ist, they can refuse service on the grounds that it goes against their beliefs.

 

Its an interesting topic. Because even when Jesus did do miracles, and serve others, he did so while making it known that he was doing it with the intentions of changing whoever's life he was serving to become a better Christian... Or a Christian if he wasn't one to begin with.

 

He doesn't "make it known" during many of the miracles he does. Serving the five thousand? Turning water into wine?

 

Jesus isn't doing miracles solely with the intention of "changing someone's life" though their life would be changed merely by the fact that they had witnessed a miracle. To stretch that and say that somehow means you should be worried about what people are going to do with the services you provide them if such service is part of a ceremony to promote sin... well. To call that stretching is an understatement.

 

Its not your business, as a Christian, to worry about that. That is between the person you are serving and God.

 

The ONLY way I could see it being justified biblically is if the person you are serving is another Christian. Then there could be an argument made that you are supposed to help your brother/sister out and lovingly point out their sin.

 

The feeding of the 5000 is the perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Everything he did was done for a reason. It'd be silly to think otherwise, because his disciples were usually always with him, and before he rose up he told his disciples to go out and do exactly what he was doing, for the intentions of spreading the gospel.

 

Jesus spent so much time around people who were regarded the worst by others (alcoholics, tax collectors, etc) because he wanted to convert them.

 

 

There is nothing that says he told them to spread the gospel. As a matter of fact, after several healings and miracles he specifically asked the person involved NOT to tell others what had happened. Jesus spent so much time around people who were regarded the worst because he loved them. Conversion was not the primary motivation, that is made abundantly clear in the gospels and in the epistles.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The great commission?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Anyone who says affirmative action doesn't promote discrimination doesn't know what affirmative action is. I don't say that to be insulting -- it's just a fact.

 

Affirmative action IS giving a leg up on groups of minorities that were once discriminated against. Regardless of credentials... before credentials are even LOOKED AT.. Affirmative Action programs put the minority a step up on competition, whether it's employment, education, or the like.

 

Not only does AA discriminate to accomplish its goals... But then you have a lot of under-qualified people (not all) in either jobs or schools that they don't belong at. And I don't mean that in a negative way. If I were to randomly be accepted into Harvard, I would get my ass kicked figuratively speaking. I don't belong there. You are actually hurting a portion of minorities by allowing them into schools or jobs they will either struggle mightily at or fail completely... All for what? Meeting a quota?

 

That failure will DESTROY some people, regardless of color / race / gender / etc. Letting people into schools or jobs that they aren't ready nor qualified for is so much more damning than beneficial.

 

According to a 2009 book, “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life,” by Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, a black student with an otherwise similar application to a white student receives the equivalent of a 310-point bump in SAT scores.

 

New York Times

 

A law professor at U.C.L.A., Richard H. Sander, published a provocative article in the Stanford Law Review, which focused on how affirmative action affected law students. Mr. Sander claimed that “a student who gains special admission to a more elite school on partly nonacademic grounds is likely to struggle more” and contended that “if the struggling leads to lower grades and less learning, then a variety of bad outcomes may result: higher attrition rates, lower pass rates on the bar, problems in the job market. The question is how large these effects are, and whether their consequences outweigh the benefits of greater prestige.”

 

New York Times

 

Based on US census data, a hypothetical prospective applicant pool of 1,000 students from Michigan would include 141 African-Americans, 23 Asian-Americans, 796 European-Americans and 4 Hispanics. Bout of these, if we consider mathematics qualifying scores, we might expect to see approximately 10 African-Americans (the number who applied multiplied by the percent qualified), 14 Asian-Americans, 318 European-Americans, and perhaps 1 Hispanic student. Adding these numbers, it would mean that in merit-based admissions, out of the original applicant pool, 343 people were admitted, which is about 30% lower than the rate at which Michigan actually admits its students. Based on this, we would expect an average entering class would should be approximately 92% white, 4% Asian-American, 3% Black, and less than 1% Hispanic. According to data from 2009, the actual acceptance statistics were: 5.8% Black, 12.1% Asian, 65.0% white, 4.1% Hispanic, and 5.7% International, with about 7% of people declining to state their race.

 

RidingtheTiger

 

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students -- the regular admissions program and the special admissions program.

 

A separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups, operated the special admissions program.

 

Special candidates, however, did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against candidates in the general admissions process.

 

Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke

 

^ Supreme Court case upholding affirmative action. Race is a viable factor in accepting / denying college applications. Banned the use of a formal "quota" system.

 

The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use".

 

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's "plus" system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited the fact that the percentage of African American applicants closely mirrored the percentage of African American applicants that were accepted.

 

Grutter v. Bollinger

 

^ Supreme Court case that also upheld AA... Race, once again is a prevalent factor and can determine acceptance into school.

 

After both decisions were made, California and Michigan swiftly moved to adopt state-level legislation that would disallow race to play a factor in college admissions.

 

Fisher V. University of Texas is also a case to look at.

 

 

Now... Even though these cases uphold the Constitutionality of AA, that isn't what is being argued here. What is being argued is

How does affirmative action promote discrimination?

 

 

You have the Supreme Court of the United States telling you that colleges most definitely can, do, and will admit students based on race. That... is discrimination. By definition. Well... reverse-discrimination, I guess?

It's very clear. This is FACT. This is book DEFINITION. Unarguable in every way. There is no opinion to be had here, in this regard. The mere existence of AA is (reverse) discrimination.

If you want to argue whether or not that is Constitutional or not... Fine. That has two sides or more. That has a line we can draw between opinions. You want to argue whether AA is obsolete or not? Fine. That has two sides and we can draw a line between our opinions.

The FACT that AA discriminates against the majority is not arguable. There are no two sides...

Edited February 24, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

The great commission?

 

I meant during the feeding of the five thousand specifically.

 

Back on the topic of AA:

 

I also want to point out its not good for the students either. My dad is also on the AC board and the majority of students who are in trouble grade point wise are minorities, even though they are not a majority at the school. This is not because of any inherent racial advantage as far as schooling goes, of course, its because they are forcing in students who simply don't belong in that institution just because their race is one that will allow them to tick off a box saying they have hired x number of a certain minority.

 

There are also those who don't do well but then turn it around in college and go on to do great, but the fact remains that taking someone who is less qualified than another merely because their skin color is different is the very definition of racism.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

The only thing I want to add to my previous post & in response is this: The incumbent arguments for affirmative action rest on shaky ground right now. I don't believe we've entered a post-racial society (or even close to it), nor do I believe minorities are finally on a level playing field with whites. That being said, proponents of this policy didn't articulate the intuition behind it as well as they probably could have when it was initially being debated and signed into law. They should have had the foresight to see how it might be perceived 50 years later.

That being said, I don't think it should be repealed. Rather, some pieces of it should be reformed. Colleges should take on affirmative action for wealth and income inequality. Many poor students are left out because they lack the prestige or resources of their peers but who are equally as intelligent. Coincidentally, many of these students happen to be minorities. It gives a less race-based reason for accepting these students and seems as if it would be more meritocratic--intelligence isn't defined by wealth or income. These students deserve as much of a chance as anyone else.

 

I don't have the faith yet in this country to warrant repeal of affirmative action.

[southgadawg 52]

Philadelphia I am only speaking from personal experience with excess of 25 years in some managerial role (mainly for what were at the times Fortune 500 companies) before my own health robbed me of the ability to work. I was not speaking of generalizations at all....I was speaking about SPECIFIC instances where I have facts not only from the applicants who received the jobs but in many cases also from several of the applicants who were turned down AND in some cases from the actual ones who did the promotions. I know things that were put through on unofficial backchannel documents and conversations even in some cases. Yes I did also include more than strictly AA instances in my last posts but I figured the intellect of the readers here would lend to them knowing the differences and perhaps wasn't as specific in notating that as I should had been. I think I have made it more than abundantly clear that I could care less what group someone belongs with if they are the best person to do a job then they should have the job plain and simple (and for the record I am certainly against using seniority for the basis of promotions as well having worked in both union and non -union settings in my life). If you THINK I am making anything up well that is just your opinion. If you THINK that I am assuming ANYTHING about minorities or any group you are vastly mistaken. You know very little if anything about what I place high value on in the workplace and I assure you it has nothing to do with anything except tangible historical performance for the specific people involved. You may hold light situations where you are dealing with the hiring/firing/promoting of people but in all seriousness those decisions affect some real person and their livelyhood. I don't jest about that stuff it is just too important.

 

With all that said I also certainly cannot attest to more than my personal experience or what someone's personnel file shows.. As I said in a previous post discrimination is extremely hard to prove and often no one wants to go to the extra effort and headaches to prove it (of which I guess I am guilty of failing to expose it when it happened as well).

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Why were your firms so averse to diversity that they frequently brushed up against affirmative action quotas?

[southgadawg 52]

Why were your firms so averse to diversity that they frequently brushed up against affirmative action quotas?

Maybe I don't actually understand your question...brushed up against? sorry that doesn't make any sense to me.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Alright, I'll be more blunt..why were your firms so full of white people that you had to actively seek out minorities to fulfill affirmative action quotas

 

That this happens is kind of hard for me to even fathom. I've never worked at a place or went to school where there wasn't a wealth of minorities. Maybe it has something to do with living in Texas, but complaints about affirmative action seem bizarre to me. There's no way white people are so over-qualified in a particular industry that a firm has to hire minorities over the more qualified white people to avoid violating affirmative action policies. It's mind-boggling.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[southgadawg 52]

LOL what gave you the ideal that there were little minorities in management in those companies Philadelphia? Truly you are assuming the worst in those situations which might show some bias of your own. The places I worked probably had more minorities in MANAGEMENT in EVERY location than the actual demographics of each town the were located in. Not once did I say that these people were HIRED I think in the affirmative action TYPE situations (where a minority or woman were promoted over a more qualified white male) I said received PROMOTIONS. I think you saw the word applicant and automatically assumed applicant for a job not applicant for a promotion ...perhaps I threw you accidently and should had more correctly used the word candidate....but in the previous companies I worked they had to apply (or put in for a promotion request if that makes more sense to you). Just like I seriously didn't understand what you were asking me because to my knowledge they never actually had any affirmative action quotas to meet (perhaps the situation was just similar) the question you asked didn't make any sense to me. The whole point I was trying to make earlier when I replied to you is that (correct or incorrect) my perception of you from the posts here is that you could very narrow minded (in your own way) and without much real world experience. In the real world unfortunately just about ANY perceived bias can cause some type of discrimination (hence why I mentioned so many things in one of my posts that CLEARLY were not AA type issues). Remember I never said in EVERY case in my work history did I see discrimination only that I had witnessed it first hand. In post number 51 your whole post struck me as if you almost felt it was a joke that could happen (you may not had intended it that way) and so I more or less responded that I had seen discrimination in action. I think maybe it is possible that both of us have misunderstood the intentions of the other one and If so then I apologize for my own faults in that. As far as the companies I worked for at the time I am sure they are not much unlike any other company ...full of human beings that make mistakes and because of that often the top level management over compensates in an attempt to maintain the best public perception possible in order to make the share holders happy. Certainly I did not agree with all of their decisions (and I feel that one of them has definitely slipped further into the dark hole of greed in the last three years) but unfortunately I couldn't get the hard evidence I needed on a couple of things and even admittedly didn't take the hard road that in retrospect I probably should have more often than I did. In all honestly I don't think either you nor I want to see anyone discriminated against, I just feel that affirmative action helps contributes to it in some cases unfortunately.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

See, I think that is a big disconnect that not only you but a lot of us are having with Phail. It seems like, to me... That when we talk about AA and the inclusion of minorities that he is automatically deducting that every single instance of a black person or other minority gets hired or admitted into school it's because they are of color and severely under-qualified when compared to their white counter-parts which just isn't the case.

There are a plethora of well equipped, skilled, and diligent minority people in the workforce and being admitted to schools based on their own and deserved merits. And every instance of a minority getting hired or getting into school is not a direct result of AA initiatives by aforementioned businesses or institutions of higher learning.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[southgadawg 52]

See, I think that is a big disconnect that not only you but a lot of us are having with Phail. It seems like, to me... That when we talk about AA and the inclusion of minorities that he is automatically deducting that every single instance of a black person or other minority gets hired or admitted into school it's because they are of color and severely under-qualified when compared to their white counter-parts which just isn't the case.

 

There are a plethora of well equipped, skilled, and diligent minority people in the workforce and being admitted to schools based on their own and deserved merits. And every instance of a minority getting hired or getting into school is not a direct result of AA initiatives by aforementioned businesses or institutions of higher learning.

agreed 100%

[Guest Phailadelphia]

You'll have to excuse me for having a hard time understanding you. Reading a wall of text with no coherent start, end, or change in ideas is difficult.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

See, I think that is a big disconnect that not only you but a lot of us are having with Phail. It seems like, to me... That when we talk about AA and the inclusion of minorities that he is automatically deducting that every single instance of a black person or other minority gets hired or admitted into school it's because they are of color and severely under-qualified when compared to their white counter-parts which just isn't the case.

 

There are a plethora of well equipped, skilled, and diligent minority people in the workforce and being admitted to schools based on their own and deserved merits. And every instance of a minority getting hired or getting into school is not a direct result of AA initiatives by aforementioned businesses or institutions of higher learning.

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. This is the typical complaint of people who dislike AA--it forces businesses to hire less qualified candidates. And the underlying statement when that argument is made is that the business is so full of white people that the only way they can avoid AA litigation is to hire what they perceive as less qualified minorities. These are the only instances I've been talking about in this thread. I haven't once made any broad over-arching argument about the aggregate hiring of minorities.

 

Southdawg made it sound like his firm handed out promotions or made job hires based almost entirely on the race of a person. If that wasn't his intention then fine, but it's hard to keep track of his point through a wall of text.

[southgadawg 52]

Thank you Phailadelphia. I greatly appreciate that you showed me brotherly love to point out my shortcomings with constructive criticism. I will strive to do better in the future so you don't have to stare at any more walls of text.

 

I will readily admit that I have long since stopped trying to impress people with my intellect (or apparent lack there of) since I have left the public workforce. But in the interest of clarity I will strive to do better. :grinyes:

Edited February 25, 2014 by southgadawg

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

See, I think that is a big disconnect that not only you but a lot of us are having with Phail. It seems like, to me... That when we talk about AA and the inclusion of minorities that he is automatically deducting that every single instance of a black person or other minority gets hired or admitted into school it's because they are of color and severely under-qualified when compared to their white counter-parts which just isn't the case.

 

There are a plethora of well equipped, skilled, and diligent minority people in the workforce and being admitted to schools based on their own and deserved merits. And every instance of a minority getting hired or getting into school is not a direct result of AA initiatives by aforementioned businesses or institutions of higher learning.

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. This is the typical complaint of people who dislike AA--it forces businesses to hire less qualified candidates. And the underlying statement when that argument is made is that the business is so full of white people that the only way they can avoid AA litigation is to hire what they perceive as less qualified minorities. These are the only instances I've been talking about in this thread. I haven't once made any broad over-arching argument about the aggregate hiring of minorities.

 

Southdawg made it sound like his firm handed out promotions or made job hires based almost entirely on the race of a person. If that wasn't his intention then fine, but it's hard to keep track of his point through a wall of text.

 

 

I am not going to argue any further because I think I've said what I needed to...

But I think this will finalize the little side thing going on right now. Two bolded statements directly contradict and that's where the disconnect is, IMO.

 

Me "I think Phail thinks that we mean that all minority hires are under-qualified folks who get in because of their skin color"

 

Phail "That's not what I am saying. Dawg is making it sound like all hires are under-qualified minorities who are getting in because of their skin color alone"

 

 

It is what it is. From the perspective that I have... Knowing what AA is and how it is incorporated in the real world, I had no problem reading or comprehending what GA said. With a lower base knowledge of AA and what it is, though, I can definitely understand where any of those mis-comprehensions come from.

 

At least we are all on the same page now.

 

 

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

See, I think that is a big disconnect that not only you but a lot of us are having with Phail. It seems like, to me... That when we talk about AA and the inclusion of minorities that he is automatically deducting that every single instance of a black person or other minority gets hired or admitted into school it's because they are of color and severely under-qualified when compared to their white counter-parts which just isn't the case.

 

There are a plethora of well equipped, skilled, and diligent minority people in the workforce and being admitted to schools based on their own and deserved merits. And every instance of a minority getting hired or getting into school is not a direct result of AA initiatives by aforementioned businesses or institutions of higher learning.

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. This is the typical complaint of people who dislike AA--it forces businesses to hire less qualified candidates. And the underlying statement when that argument is made is that the business is so full of white people that the only way they can avoid AA litigation is to hire what they perceive as less qualified minorities. These are the only instances I've been talking about in this thread. I haven't once made any broad over-arching argument about the aggregate hiring of minorities.

 

Southdawg made it sound like his firm handed out promotions or made job hires based almost entirely on the race of a person. If that wasn't his intention then fine, but it's hard to keep track of his point through a wall of text.

 

Me "I think Phail thinks that we mean that all minority hires are under-qualified folks who get in because of their skin color"

 

Phail "That's not what I am saying. Dawg is making it sound like all hires IN THE FIRMS HE'S WORKED FOR are under-qualified minorities who are getting in because of their skin color alone"

 

 

 

I really don't know how you're not understanding this. But, per the usual, you've resorted to navel-gazing when you begin to believe your position on an argument is infallible, so I'm going to go ahead and step out here before this gets stupid.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[blotsfan 2,112]

Arizona governor vetoed the bill. Who do you think is gonna be next to try this law? I think North Dakota.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/GS_022614_SB1062Remarks.pdf

 

So much subtext.