Affirmative Action

[Eiger]

Since affirmative action has come up in a few threads lately, I thought I'd toss this out there so that people can better understand what affirmative action is and discuss it.

I'll start off with this general description from the Washington Post and then provide some really good links for those who want to get in deeper:

What Is Affirmative Action?

Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals.

In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man. Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates. And they are not supposed to harm anyone through "reverse discrimination."

The Politics of Affirmative Action

President Clinton, asserting that the job of ending discrimination remains unfinished, strongly defends affirmative action. "Mend it, but don't end it," he says.

Conservatives, however, see ending affirmative action as a powerful political issue. Heartened by recent Supreme Court decisions that have limited affirmative action – and by the passage in 1996 of a California ballot initiative abolishing sexual and racial preferences – Republicans are taking up the battle wherever they can.

The debate over affirmative action takes on a particularly bitter tenor in the trenches. "Angry white men" blame affirmative action for robbing them of promotions and other opportunities. And while many minorities and women support affirmative action, a growing number say its benefits are no longer worth its side effect: the perception that their success is unearned.

Judging simply by the results, the playing field would appear to still be tilted very much in favor of white men. Overall, minorities and women are in vastly lower paying jobs and still face active discrimination in some sectors. At this point in our nation's history, does affirmative action make things better or worse? The debate rages on.

Links

1. Affirmative Action and Diversity Project - This is the best one I've found for providing a ton of info, data, and a variety of views: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/

2. US Govt info provided by the U of Colorado Library: http://www-libraries.colorado.edu/ps/gov/us/affact.htm

3. Ten Myths about Affirmative Action: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

4. An essay on the practical and ethical defense of affirmative action: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3638/action.html

5. Washington Post resource page on AA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm

[Sage the Mage]

Why is affirmative action in place?
To allow disadvantaged blacks to achieve a higher standard of living. The key word here is, "disadvantaged." If your not disadvantaged, it shouldn't exist.

[Cale The Dark]

I wouldn't have a problem with A.A. if it worked the way it was supposed too. Since I'm currently in college, that's the instance I focus on. You see, as I understand it, college applications are looked at as a series of areas where points are awarded (at least in big schools). You are given points based on things such as your S.A.T. (A.C.T.) and your class ranking. However, thanks to affirmative action, they also award points based on race. So a minority student gains an automatic advantage over a student of non-minority background. Now, if this were maybe 1 point to break a tie, I wouldn't be writing this. I can't remember the exact numbers, but as both my parents are teachers I remember hearing all about this...right about the time that Michigan got sued. Anyhow, the extra points are substantial enought that it is entirely possible that a poorer student could get in ahead of a student who scored higher and performed better in high school. This simply is not right.

that is my major reason for not liking A.A. Besides that though, I see it as reverse discrimination and wrong. It is racism no matter how much you try and butter it up. A.A. is but a symptom of the problems in America today. If a school has an African American Club, it's all fine and dandy, but if some students start a Caucasian Club, well...they're just little KKK wannabes. There are many other examples, such as the social acceptability of Black racism (directed towards whites) vs. White racism (directed towards blacks). A.A. was a good idea at one time, and I'm not saying that we live in a perfect and equal American yet (I doubt we ever will), but A.A. has taken us as far as it can, it needs to get the axe before it stirs up more racial tension.

[Essex]

ah but A.A. also rewards white people. For instance if I was to apply to Michgan I would get points for being from a small rural town, so I'm not saying that it helps all white people but it helps some. Its not just race it helps to diversify

[Sage the Mage]

Ah, but rich white people have Legacy to back them up :)

[Essex]

right so those people dont' need A.A. however I would, so would someone who is black, or a woman... the list goes on.

The playing field is far from even in many ways this just levels it a bit in my opinon.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

History shows that the tragedy of solving one problem brings another, by means of overcompensation.

[Leon[fp]]

History shows that the tragedy of solving one problem brings another, by means of overcompensation.

Would history be so kind to give examples?

Oh, and with your current wordings solving one problem is a tragedy :uhhuh: ("the tragedy of solving one problem"). I know you didn't mean it; I just couldn't help pointing that out.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Surely, you're a clever one Leon. I'd be happy to give you an example, which deals with matters of doctrine. I'm not sure if you've looked at any philosophy, but the trend has been one intellectual school being superceded by another that is nigh the polar opposite of the other. The empiricists of the17th century overshadowed the rationalists, who were far removed from empirical data as a norm for knowledge. Rationalism was an extreme overcompensation of scholasticism, and wished to divorce reason from faith.
It's generally a typical reaction to any doctrine that's being "phased out". However, there is usually a synthesis in the end, as we've seen with 18th century philosophy (which offered a holisitc approach), and in this case, I perceive that all will be given equal opportunity based on merit, not as a reaction to a social flaw.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I think Affirmative Action is actually pretty stupid.
I can understand wanting to give people with a disadvantage a break but I would hardly call a persons skin colour or being a woman a disadvantage. Not any more at least.

What it comes down to is less qualified people getting ahead of higher qualified people because of their race or sex, wich is wrong no matter how you look at it. It also promotes racism. Not just in getting a job but how many times have you heard of a coloured person in a high up job be called an affirmative action piece of ****.
If the government want to help people with a disadvantage it needs to simply provide them with more chances to get the nescessary qualifications for better employment, not just give them jobs because of a percieved disadvantage that is decidedly outdated in most of the world these days.

[Essex]

if it doesn't matter to be a woman, then why do women still make about a dollar less on average than men?

[Essex]

[QUOTE=AoA] Surely, you're a clever one Leon. I'd be happy to give you an example, which deals with matters of doctrine. I'm not sure if you've looked at any philosophy, but the trend has been one intellectual school being superceded by another that is nigh the polar opposite of the other. The empiricists of the17th century overshadowed the rationalists, who were far removed from empirical data as a norm for knowledge. Rationalism was an extreme overcompensation of scholasticism, and wished to divorce reason from faith.
It's generally a typical reaction to any doctrine that's being "phased out". However, there is usually a synthesis in the end, as we've seen with 18th century philosophy (which offered a holisitc approach), and in this case, I perceive that all will be given equal opportunity based on merit, not as a reaction to a social flaw.[/QUOTE=AoA]

Leon don't worry he does this all the time, we just pat him on the head smile and nod like he's actually talking English and then move on. lol

[Eiger]

I think Affirmative Action is actually pretty stupid.
I can understand wanting to give people with a disadvantage a break but I would hardly call a persons skin colour or being a woman a disadvantage. Not any more at least.

What it comes down to is less qualified people getting ahead of higher qualified people because of their race or sex, wich is wrong no matter how you look at it. It also promotes racism. Not just in getting a job but how many times have you heard of a coloured person in a high up job be called an affirmative action piece of ****.
If the government want to help people with a disadvantage it needs to simply provide them with more chances to get the nescessary qualifications for better employment, not just give them jobs because of a percieved disadvantage that is decidedly outdated in most of the world these days.
Well, I'd have to disagree with that. Having any skin color other than white is a disadvantage in the United States of America. Sure, a few people are getting through the glass ceilings, and more will follow as time passes. But social change is really really slow. We can change laws, but it takes people who don't want to adjust to change a long long time to make that adjustment. Regarding race, change takes generations. The disadvantages aren't gone - and if you need evidence, just ask a few people of color - assuming they'd be willing to talk about it, of course.

Affirmative Action is about taking two similarly qualified people - which generally doesn't happen very often (I've done some hiring - and after sifting through a couple hundred applications it's often difficult to find 5 to interview, at least at the management/administrative level), you take the person of color. It's about making an effort to have a diversified workplace. People tend to want to hire people who are just like themselves - socio-econ background, education, interests, gender, color, etc. AA asks employers to think outside the usual box.

I've never heard of anyone referred to as an "AA piece of ****" by the way. Just my experience though. But I have been in the workforce for quite a while now and we do AA process in hiring.

Interesting that you note that the government needs to give disadvantaged people more opportunities to get the necessary qualifications for better employment. That's exactly what AA is at the university admissions level....

Regarding overcompensation, I think a more thorough reading among the links I provided should overcome notions of AA being overcompensation.

Regarding university admissions, that's a really weird process that I'm really glad I'm not involved in implementing. I mean how do you tell who's more qualified or not? The SAT and other tests are biased against minorities and don't measure the ability of a person to succeed in college - the biggest screw ups I've known had high SATs. Perhaps I'm saying they don't measure a person's desire and will to succeed.

How do you measure performance in high school on a level playing field anyway? Grades? So inflated these days. Everyone's got straight As it seems. Back when I was in school that was rare. And of course not all schools are created equal - but then the better private schools are well known and applicants get extra consideration for having gone there - another benefit of wealth getting people a leg up from the start. Are high schools in Mississippi of equal caliber to those in Virginia? or Montana? or New York? (I don't know the answer to that one by the way) This is just a huge morass. Yuck!

I'm not going to get into the black club/white club thing though. Is that really an issue? Does anyone really want to have a white club? What would a white club do? Do any whites want to join a black club? Is the black club closed to whites? It wasn't at my high school... Does the black club get involved in racist activities? Reminds me of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity back at one university I went to - throwing a MLK Trash Party one year - complete with costumes. Needless to say, that didn't go over well. Ok, I guess I got into it. Oops, hehe.

[Sage the Mage]

if it doesn't matter to be a woman, then why do women still make about a dollar less on average than men?

Can you get a link to these statistics please? :)

[Essex]

bah what was i thinking women make 73 cents to every dollar a man makes I dunno what I was doing...I hadn't ate yet so I blame that.

here's a link http://www.womenwork.org/issues/wagedisc.htm

intersting for black women its 63 cents and 53 cents for a latino woman.

again sorry bout my error on the numbers

[Dark Knight]

I'm thoroughly against institutionalised discrimination....... so a big thumbs down.

[Bartleby]

To qualify my opinion, I live in southern california and I've heard it argued that our views on of gender and race is ahead of the curve.

I don't see the discrimination, and neither do any of the people I talk to regardless of gender or race.

The place where I do see discrimination is against poor people. Not just poor minorities, but against all poor people. If affirmative action assistance was based on socio-economic factors I would be all for it, but it's not. It's based on race and gender. Which means rich minorities get preference and poor non-minorities get the shaft.

Also, to say that the SATs are biased is bs. The problem these students have is that their teachers are running daycare not school. If they get A's just for showing up and not bothering the teachers, how is that going to translate into an education? The SAT gets dumbed down more every year, but it's the only way you can determine a person's basic knowledge at a given time. It does not however give you a clue as to a student's desire to learn. In my mind, essays and activities are the only place where you can begin to guage that attribute. For instance student X has a part time job after school to help mom (and hopefully dad) pay the bills. On days student X doesn't work (s)he is in church/school/whatever volunteering their time at sports/programs/whatever. Student X happens to make great grades at school Y, but gets mediocre SAT scores. When compared to other students at school Y, student X is in the upper tiers of his classmates. To me that says the student has a lot of potential, but happened to be at a school that doesn't focus enough on education.

The advantage or preference these pricey prep schools (at least ones like Exetar) are getting in admissions is that the ivy league colleges have close relationships with these schools, are aware and to some degree influence the curriculum, and have a history of former prep school students' performance in their college from which to base their opinions. The other good private and public schools are also known for the quality of student that passes through their system, although the grades may be inflated through offering more AP classes then most other schools can afford. But truly the only advantage they have is that their students are well prepared for the SATs.

The "bias" is that at some schools you have the opportunity to get an education and at others you do not.

[Eiger]

Can you get a link to these statistics please? :)
You'll find some here: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/pages/econ.html (from the first link in the first post which will have something on just about every question - just check the sidebar)

And this report should provide you with what you're looking for - I just glanced at it though. See pages 3, 10, 12 and 13 among others. 12 and 13 has the more obvious info. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf

[Graav Wolfsong]

Well, I'd have to disagree with that. Having any skin color other than white is a disadvantage in the United States of America. Sure, a few people are getting through the glass ceilings, and more will follow as time passes. But social change is really really slow. We can change laws, but it takes people who don't want to adjust to change a long long time to make that adjustment. Regarding race, change takes generations. The disadvantages aren't gone - and if you need evidence, just ask a few people of color - assuming they'd be willing to talk about it, of course.

Well, since I'm not an American so my statement was aimed more on a global level. We have AA here in Norway too, as do most countries. The U.S. may be a little off-beat on some things but I hardly think it is that much worse. Sure, in some places you have people holding on to their racist attitudes but that is changing pretty fast. Most of the racism sticks around because of older people in charge.
AA only promotes more racism and more often than not, makes the "angry\stupid white men" resent people of color. AA asks employers to pick between similarly qualified candidates not based their personalities or how likable they are but based on their race or gender, thats wrong.
You'll always have the racist guys who wants to hire other racist guys, AA doesnt change that, a racist guy will be a racist guy no matter what.
A resonable employer will pick their emloyees based on how they present themselves, so if a black guy present himself better than a white guy he'll get picked. I realize that might be too idealistic thinking but forcing anyone to do anything wont fix anything at all. Not in the long run.

The whole thing boils down to, education or workplace, pick people based on who they are, not what they are. AA only serves to draw more lines in the sand, not bring people together.


Interesting that you note that the government needs to give disadvantaged people more opportunities to get the necessary qualifications for better employment. That's exactly what AA is at the university admissions level....


You missed my point. What I mean is more schools, more open spots in colleges. And more important that that, better educational services for inner city youth. To pick a black kid over a white kid on college level does very little but give crutches to someone who does not need it. Many less fortunate people, no matter the skin color, never has a chance to go to college, simply because they were not given the opportunity to achieve anything at school.
AA in education brings with it the notion that coloured or female students are just dumber, but theyre not, they need to compete on equal terms.
A black kid from Compton is just as able as a rich white kid from Beverly Hills, he does not need to be pushed through the system because he comes from a more unfortunate background and has a different skin color, he only needs to be given the chance to make something of himself. What the government needs to do is rework the educational system so people from all walks of life have an equal opportunity. When everyone has the same educational opportunities it will automatically open doors for everyone, no matter what race or gender. Wich will lead to a much more balanced job market.

The whole college, private school thing is corrupt to the core anyway, a dumb rich guy can get in if his father donates enough money anyday.
Lets face it, the American educational system is lacking at best, its set up in an unfortunate capitalistic way in wich the guys with the money gets all the breaks while the poor people, no matter how brilliant, have trouble making it.

AA is simply a half-assed short term solution to a problem that could be easily fixed if both the government and the people really tried to fix it.


if it doesn't matter to be a woman, then why do women still make about a dollar less on average than men?

That really depends on the employer. Traditionally, employing a woman is more risky simply because of the pregnancy thing. If a woman gets pregnant, the employer is not allowed to fire her, she goes on leave with pay, wich costs alot of money for the employer while he gets nothing in return, and the employer has to hire someone to replace her while shes gone wich costs even more money. This is the simple reason woman can potentially be risky to employ, especially for small companies, so as a precationary means, women sometimes gets paid less because she can potentially cost the emplyer alot of money. A man is often a safer bet. There has even been times when women have had to sign contracts that states they will not get pregnant within the first few years of employment or whatever.
Is this right, is this fair? No, not at all. But its understandable.
An employer can potentially lose alot of money on hiring a woman if she gets pregnant shortly after taking the job.
I'm not even sure what can be done to prevent this, save some kind of compensation from the government if a female employee gets pregnant and has to leave work for an extended period of time.

But to call women a minority and say they are being opressed and need AA to compete in the world is wrong.

[Eiger]

To qualify my opinion, I live in southern california and I've heard it argued that our views on of gender and race is ahead of the curve.

I don't see the discrimination, and neither do any of the people I talk to regardless of gender or race.

The place where I do see discrimination is against poor people. Not just poor minorities, but against all poor people. If affirmative action assistance was based on socio-economic factors I would be all for it, but it's not. It's based on race and gender. Which means rich minorities get preference and poor non-minorities get the shaft.

Also, to say that the SATs are biased is bs. The problem these students have is that their teachers are running daycare not school. If they get A's just for showing up and not bothering the teachers, how is that going to translate into an education? The SAT gets dumbed down more every year, but it's the only way you can determine a person's basic knowledge at a given time. It does not however give you a clue as to a student's desire to learn. In my mind, essays and activities are the only place where you can begin to guage that attribute. For instance student X has a part time job after school to help mom (and hopefully dad) pay the bills. On days student X doesn't work (s)he is in church/school/whatever volunteering their time at sports/programs/whatever. Student X happens to make great grades at school Y, but gets mediocre SAT scores. When compared to other students at school Y, student X is in the upper tiers of his classmates. To me that says the student has a lot of potential, but happened to be at a school that doesn't focus enough on education.

The advantage or preference these pricey prep schools (at least ones like Exetar) are getting in admissions is that the ivy league colleges have close relationships with these schools, are aware and to some degree influence the curriculum, and have a history of former prep school students' performance in their college from which to base their opinions. The other good private and public schools are also known for the quality of student that passes through their system, although the grades may be inflated through offering more AP classes then most other schools can afford. But truly the only advantage they have is that their students are well prepared for the SATs.

The "bias" is that at some schools you have the opportunity to get an education and at others you do not.
After growing up in Cincinnati, Ohio (remember the riots there a few years ago?), having lived in Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona prior to my current residence of 16 years in the Seattle area, I can comfortably say that attitudes on the west coast are far far different than those in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, I see subtle discrimination and racism on a regular basis here - in one of the most liberal cities in the country. Even my wife, who's from Canada, has remarked time and again how much more racist this country is than BC just a hundred miles up the road. Perhaps you're just not attuned to it? (that last sentence is not intended to be a criticism or cut, but just a question - I mean no harm)

As for the SATs, I must admit to just hearing over and over again that they're biased. Not intentionally, but it does test on a cultural standard - and if you have a different cultural background, it makes sense to assume that you will have some handicap on that test - especially on the verbal sections, less so on the math. You have a good point on the socio-economic status aspect and I tend to agree with you. I think you'll be very interested in this article from last November's Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/11/mathews.htm

One other reason that all colleges, private and publich, look favorably on the Exeters, Andovers and Country Days - the greater likelihood of future alumni donations. :lol:

[Eiger]

bah what was i thinking women make 73 cents to every dollar a man makes I dunno what I was doing...I hadn't ate yet so I blame that.

here's a link http://www.womenwork.org/issues/wagedisc.htm

intersting for black women its 63 cents and 53 cents for a latino woman.

again sorry bout my error on the numbers
You might have seen the 76 cents figure (Bowler, 1999 - see the 10 myths link above).

[Eiger]

I'm thoroughly against institutionalised discrimination....... so a big thumbs down.
From the 10 myths link above: The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

[Eiger]

1) The U.S. may be a little off-beat on some things but I hardly think it is that much worse. Sure, in some places you have people holding on to their racist attitudes but that is changing pretty fast. Most of the racism sticks around because of older people in charge.

2)AA only promotes more racism and more often than not, makes the "angry\stupid white men" resent people of color. AA asks employers to pick between similarly qualified candidates not based their personalities or how likable they are but based on their race or gender, thats wrong.
You'll always have the racist guys who wants to hire other racist guys, AA doesnt change that, a racist guy will be a racist guy no matter what.
A resonable employer will pick their emloyees based on how they present themselves, so if a black guy present himself better than a white guy he'll get picked. I realize that might be too idealistic thinking but forcing anyone to do anything wont fix anything at all. Not in the long run.

3) You missed my point. What I mean is more schools, more open spots in colleges. And more important that that, better educational services for inner city youth. To pick a black kid over a white kid on college level does very little but give crutches to someone who does not need it. Many less fortunate people, no matter the skin color, never has a chance to go to college, simply because they were not given the opportunity to achieve anything at school.
AA in education brings with it the notion that coloured or female students are just dumber, but theyre not, they need to compete on equal terms.
A black kid from Compton is just as able as a rich white kid from Beverly Hills, he does not need to be pushed through the system because he comes from a more unfortunate background and has a different skin color, he only needs to be given the chance to make something of himself. What the government needs to do is rework the educational system so people from all walks of life have an equal opportunity. When everyone has the same educational opportunities it will automatically open doors for everyone, no matter what race or gender. Wich will lead to a much more balanced job market.

4) AA is simply a half-assed short term solution to a problem that could be easily fixed if both the government and the people really tried to fix it.

5) That really depends on the employer. Traditionally, employing a woman is more risky simply because of the pregnancy thing. If a woman gets pregnant, the employer is not allowed to fire her, she goes on leave with pay, wich costs alot of money for the employer while he gets nothing in return, and the employer has to hire someone to replace her while shes gone wich costs even more money. This is the simple reason woman can potentially be risky to employ, especially for small companies, so as a precationary means, women sometimes gets paid less because she can potentially cost the emplyer alot of money. A man is often a safer bet. There has even been times when women have had to sign contracts that states they will not get pregnant within the first few years of employment or whatever.
Is this right, is this fair? No, not at all. But its understandable.
An employer can potentially lose alot of money on hiring a woman if she gets pregnant shortly after taking the job.
I'm not even sure what can be done to prevent this, save some kind of compensation from the government if a female employee gets pregnant and has to leave work for an extended period of time.
1) The US is much worse, take my word for it, or come visit. See for yourself. Attitudes among young people are not changing rapidly - they are changing, but not rapidly.

2) Nope, personalities should always be taken into account during hiring. AA would assume that both personalities are similarly acceptable for job performance. This is a crux issue in that people tend to want to hire people just like themselves - AA helps mitigate that effect.

3) More open spots are always nice, but if it's mostly white kids getting them, what's the point?

4) Ok, what do you propose that would be better? Relating specifically to reducing job discrimination among equally qualified candidates that is. Because that's the primary focus behind AA. We all know that the education system needs to be better, but that's not the primary issue here.

5) Pregnancy can be a drag. I've been there. I've hired women who've gotten pregnant 3 months later. It sucks, but you deal with it, and it's only temporary. I'm really hoping that people don't justify paying less as "a precautionary measure" against pregnancy, though I'm sure it's crossed others' minds as well. Thing is - with paternity leave these days - men are risky, too. And more men are taking paternity leave all the time. I've seen a lot of couples do maternity leave for 3 months then dad takes the next 3 months, then the kid discovers daycare, hehe.

[SpiritWalker]

Well, since I'm not an American so my statement was aimed more on a global level. We have AA here in Norway too, as do most countries. The U.S. may be a little off-beat on some things but I hardly think it is that much worse. Sure, in some places you have people holding on to their racist attitudes but that is changing pretty fast. Most of the racism sticks around because of older people in charge.
AA only promotes more racism and more often than not, makes the "angry\stupid white men" resent people of color. AA asks employers to pick between similarly qualified candidates not based their personalities or how likable they are but based on their race or gender, thats wrong.
You'll always have the racist guys who wants to hire other racist guys, AA doesnt change that, a racist guy will be a racist guy no matter what.
A resonable employer will pick their emloyees based on how they present themselves, so if a black guy present himself better than a white guy he'll get picked. I realize that might be too idealistic thinking but forcing anyone to do anything wont fix anything at all. Not in the long run.

The whole thing boils down to, education or workplace, pick people based on who they are, not what they are. AA only serves to draw more lines in the sand, not bring people together.




You missed my point. What I mean is more schools, more open spots in colleges. And more important that that, better educational services for inner city youth. To pick a black kid over a white kid on college level does very little but give crutches to someone who does not need it. Many less fortunate people, no matter the skin color, never has a chance to go to college, simply because they were not given the opportunity to achieve anything at school.
AA in education brings with it the notion that coloured or female students are just dumber, but theyre not, they need to compete on equal terms.
A black kid from Compton is just as able as a rich white kid from Beverly Hills, he does not need to be pushed through the system because he comes from a more unfortunate background and has a different skin color, he only needs to be given the chance to make something of himself. What the government needs to do is rework the educational system so people from all walks of life have an equal opportunity. When everyone has the same educational opportunities it will automatically open doors for everyone, no matter what race or gender. Wich will lead to a much more balanced job market.

The whole college, private school thing is corrupt to the core anyway, a dumb rich guy can get in if his father donates enough money anyday.
Lets face it, the American educational system is lacking at best, its set up in an unfortunate capitalistic way in wich the guys with the money gets all the breaks while the poor people, no matter how brilliant, have trouble making it.

AA is simply a half-assed short term solution to a problem that could be easily fixed if both the government and the people really tried to fix it.




That really depends on the employer. Traditionally, employing a woman is more risky simply because of the pregnancy thing. If a woman gets pregnant, the employer is not allowed to fire her, she goes on leave with pay, wich costs alot of money for the employer while he gets nothing in return, and the employer has to hire someone to replace her while shes gone wich costs even more money. This is the simple reason woman can potentially be risky to employ, especially for small companies, so as a precationary means, women sometimes gets paid less because she can potentially cost the emplyer alot of money. A man is often a safer bet. There has even been times when women have had to sign contracts that states they will not get pregnant within the first few years of employment or whatever.
Is this right, is this fair? No, not at all. But its understandable.
An employer can potentially lose alot of money on hiring a woman if she gets pregnant shortly after taking the job.
I'm not even sure what can be done to prevent this, save some kind of compensation from the government if a female employee gets pregnant and has to leave work for an extended period of time.

But to call women a minority and say they are being opressed and need AA to compete in the world is wrong.
Great post Graav, couldn't have said it better myself, I agree with everything you posted 110%. :thumbsup:

[Bartleby]

While I haven't tallied my friends' ethnicities, it's very diverse, so I wouldn't say I'm not attuned to it (although if that were so, how would I know?:scratch:), but maybe that it just doesn't play out like that as much in SoCal.



As for the SATs, I must admit to just hearing over and over again that they're biased. Not intentionally, but it does test on a cultural standard - and if you have a different cultural background, it makes sense to assume that you will have some handicap on that test - especially on the verbal sections, less so on the math. You have a good point on the socio-economic status aspect and I tend to agree with you. I think you'll be very interested in this article from last November's Atlantic Monthly:
Those differences are borderline inconsequential with the data he used, although I see a reason to look into it further. It follows in line with my belief that there has to be a way to qualify differences resulting from socio-economic backgrounds, otherwise you're misrepresenting poor people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/11/mathews.htmpedagogy to education, although I agree that kids shouldn't have to take SAT courses to discern the analogies. Overall an interesting read and worth investigating, but it's all speculation right now.
One other reason that all colleges, private and publich, look favorably on the Exeters, Andovers and Country Days - the greater likelihood of future alumni donations. :lol:Ain't it the truth... how did I forget to leave that one out? :scratch: But you do agree with my previously mentioned reasons.

[Bartleby]

From the 10 myths link above: [snip] The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.
But when you treat the body with medicine or vitamins you're restoring balance to places where balance is lacking without exception to any component. A.A. also helps those middle class and rich minorities who need no help at all, but does not help disadvantaged non-minorities who need the help just as much as their ethnically preferred counterparts. Your pill is overkill in some areas and ineffective in others hence we need to change the medication.

[Eiger]

But when you treat the body with medicine or vitamins you're restoring balance to places where balance is lacking without exception to any component. A.A. also helps those middle class and rich minorities who need no help at all, but does not help disadvantaged non-minorities who need the help just as much as their ethnically preferred counterparts. Your pill is overkill in some areas and ineffective in others hence we need to change the medication.
That's certainly true, though I expect the number of rich minorities is relatively few (relatively being the operative word), so I'm assuming there isn't too much overkill.

It's interesting to note the effects on minority owned businesses once participation requirements were made into goals. While it used to be a pain to just find a minority owned business to do certain aspects of a contract to meet the 10% requirement, it's impossible now, because most went out of business. There was a big deal in the newspapers here a few years back because a bunch of these little minority owned construction businesses could no longer find work. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

[Havard]

Clearly, blacks and latinos have suffered injustices, including discrimination in college admissions. However, that fact does not spontaneously necessitate policy changes such as affirmative action. The fact is that a special privilege cannot be created for one person without creating a special disadvantage for another. In the case of preferential admissions, a special privilege for black and latino students translates into a special disadvantage for white and Asian students.

You have to ask what have those individual white and Asian students done to deserve punishment? Were they at all responsible for the injustices, either in the past or present, suffered by blacks or latinos? If the justification for this preferential treatment is to redress past grievances, how just is it to have a policy where a black of today is helped by punishing a white of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday? This idea becomes even more questionable in light of the fact that so many (most?) whites and Asians cannot trace the American part of their ancestry back as much as two or three generations. You cannot knowingly disadvantage an innocent person based upon race, sex or other natural condition, IMO.

Before anyone (Eiger? :lol: ) says there is no punishment, remember that admissions and hiring is a zero-sum situation. And if you don't think that it actually is very unfair, I will be happy to site many, many documented examples of large score and student capita discrepancies.

I think a higher payoff can be realized by focusing on real factors such as the poor education system, family dysfunction, and hostile condtions in black and latino neighborhoods.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Yeah!

What he said. Totally dude.

[the_guse]

Clearly, blacks and latinos have suffered injustices, including discrimination in college admissions. However, that fact does not spontaneously necessitate policy changes such as affirmative action. The fact is that a special privilege cannot be created for one person without creating a special disadvantage for another. In the case of preferential admissions, a special privilege for black and latino students translates into a special disadvantage for white and Asian students.

You have to ask what have those individual white and Asian students done to deserve punishment? Were they at all responsible for the injustices, either in the past or present, suffered by blacks or latinos? If the justification for this preferential treatment is to redress past grievances, how just is it to have a policy where a black of today is helped by punishing a white of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday? This idea becomes even more questionable in light of the fact that so many (most?) whites and Asians cannot trace the American part of their ancestry back as much as two or three generations. You cannot knowingly disadvantage an innocent person based upon race, sex or other natural condition, IMO.

Before anyone (Eiger? :lol: ) says there is no punishment, remember that admissions and hiring is a zero-sum situation. And if you don't think that it actually is very unfair, I will be happy to site many, many documented examples of large score and student capita discrepancies.

I think a higher payoff can be realized by focusing on real factors such as the poor education system, family dysfunction, and hostile condtions in black and latino neighborhoods.

wow. i really wanted to put my opinion in some sort of intelligent fasion, but im too damn stoopid to voice it.
--what he said is my opinion as well.

[Dark Knight]

From the 10 myths link above: The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.
Am I right in saying that a person may have an easy ride of things in so far as getting poorer grades, (or perhaps not being quite as clever) as his competitor?

If so consider this hypothetical situation.

A close loved one is lying dying in a hospital operating room and his life is in one doctors hands entirely - and theres a strong % he still may die (you get the idea).

Would you rather the doctor was the guy with the best grades / more intelligent, or the guy that got an easy ride?

<I strongly believe that it is, but in the event that this scenario is not relevant to AA then remember I'm English so I dont have a "US"ers view on it.>

[the_guse]

Am I right in saying that a person may have an easy ride of things in so far as getting poorer grades, (or perhaps not being quite as clever) as his competitor?

If so consider this hypothetical situation.

A close loved one is lying dying in a hospital operating room and his life is in one doctors hands entirely - and theres a strong % he still may die (you get the idea).

Would you rather the doctor was the guy with the best grades / more intelligent, or the guy that got an easy ride?

<I strongly believe that it is, but in the event that this scenario is not relevant to AA then remember I'm English so I dont have a "US"ers view on it.>

you dont really need to live here in the states to have a view on this, and you made a good point. take it another step further, your a white male who grew up from a poor nieghborhood, and you're dieing of liver problems. the guy next to you is black, has the same problem and grew up as your neighbor. the doctor came in and says thier is only 1 liver that they have, and they by law have to give it to your nieghbor because of AA (this is total speculation. AA has nothing to do with this, but it's a point on how it discriminates. DK gave me a great idea).
Now your nieghbor deserves that liver just as much as you, but he recieved it because the government felt he was at a disadvantage in life because of his skin color, even though you both had the exact same life.
--how is this fair again?

[Havard]

you dont really need to live here in the states to have a view on this, and you made a good point. take it another step further, your a white male who grew up from a poor nieghborhood, and you're dieing of liver problems. the guy next to you is black, has the same problem and grew up as your neighbor. the doctor came in and says thier is only 1 liver that they have, and they by law have to give it to your nieghbor because of AA (this is total speculation. AA has nothing to do with this, but it's a point on how it discriminates. DK gave me a great idea).
Now your nieghbor deserves that liver just as much as you, but he recieved it because the government felt he was at a disadvantage in life because of his skin color, even though you both had the exact same life.
--how is this fair again?

Hmm.... that's a pretty extreme example, I pray that affirmative action will never be used in that way. While this is sort of a slippery slope argument, I won't deny that such a case isn't possible in the future if political climates sway left a little more.

[Bartleby]

That's certainly true, though I expect the number of rich minorities is relatively few (relatively being the operative word), so I'm assuming there isn't too much overkill.
Minorities continue to make up more of the middle class, but I don't know about the ranks of the rich. I know there are some, but I don't think it's much. However, A.A is not supposed to be helping the middle class, because they are not disadvantaged. When you said "that certainly true," were you also acknowledging the issue of A.A's turning a blind eye to the vast majority of poor caucasians?

It's interesting to note the effects on minority owned businesses once participation requirements were made into goals. While it used to be a pain to just find a minority owned business to do certain aspects of a contract to meet the 10% requirement, it's impossible now, because most went out of business. There was a big deal in the newspapers here a few years back because a bunch of these little minority owned construction businesses could no longer find work. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.It seems to reason that the businesses that failed likely did so for less sensational and more common sense reasons ie. due to low levels of working capital and the inability that comes with low capital to secure larger more profitable contracts. To me it's still a poverty issue, not a race issue though there are, by percentage of race, more poor minorities than caucasians. My guess is that as a total number there are more poor caucasian people than any other individual race, but again that's speculation.

[Havard]

[/color]
Minorities continue to make up more of the middle class, but I don't know about the ranks of the rich. I know there are some, but I don't think it's much. However, A.A is not supposed to be helping the middle class, because they are not disadvantaged. When you said "that certainly true," were you also acknowledging the issue of A.A's turning a blind eye to the vast majority of poor caucasians?

Here is the data on income in the US: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

It starts to break down the races' income levels on pg. 24

[Essex]

the problem with income levels is that its deciveing. My mom makes 27,000 a year that may be enough to live well around here in small town TN, but she is also horribly indebt due to years of her having to carry both her and my father's load when it came to paying bills and the like.

She is going to file for bankruptcy in Janurary, however she isn't at the poverty level is she? But she can barely afford to pay her bills... see what i'm saying Income isn't everything.

I know this has no baring on A.A. I just wanted to get that point across.

[Bartleby]

This is an american problem... we are one of the most indebted people on the face of the earth.

[Bartleby]

Yeah, after looking at the data, as a percentage of total members of their race, the races across the board all have about the same number percentage of people in the middle class. Where it differs is poor versus affluent. This is about what I expected.

Black and Hispanic are more more skewed to poverty versus the other races and whites and asians are more skewed to affluence. And interestingly enough, asians are doing better than the other races.

What does that all mean? That the middle class is about equally represented as a percentage of race, ie. for a given location their are 120 people: 100 white people, 45 of which are middle class and 20 Black people, 9 of which are middle class. Both have about 45% of their people in the middle class. Where it differs is that of the remaining 55 white people, 27 are affluent and 28 are poor; and for the remaing 11 black people, 3 are affluent and 8 are poor. As you can see for caucasians it's about split between affluent (>75,000) and poor (<25,000) for their non-middle class, where as for black people 3/4's are poor and 1/4 are affluent for their non-middle class. Asians have a slightly smaller middle class (42%) and of their remaining non-middle class 60% are affluent and 40% are poor.

Makes a problem for those that want affirmative action to be based on race not actual need.

[Essex]

heh I knew there was more than one reason I was attracted to asian guys

[Havard]

heh I knew there was more than one reason I was attracted to asian guys

Gold-digger :uhhuh:

[Bartleby]

ROFL

Gooooool-diggin Essex, drivin me crazy I can't take it no mo' fella's sing it!

[Leon[fp]]

Am I right in saying that a person may have an easy ride of things in so far as getting poorer grades, (or perhaps not being quite as clever) as his competitor?

If so consider this hypothetical situation.

A close loved one is lying dying in a hospital operating room and his life is in one doctors hands entirely - and theres a strong % he still may die (you get the idea).

Would you rather the doctor was the guy with the best grades / more intelligent, or the guy that got an easy ride?

<I strongly believe that it is, but in the event that this scenario is not relevant to AA then remember I'm English so I dont have a "US"ers view on it.>

Maybe it would be fairer to say that imagine a white doctor is operating you because of no AA. You could have been operated by a black doctor who happened to be better, but because of a lack of AA and prejudice and such (it happens all the time) the white doctor got hired first. Now you certainly know the answer which you prefer.

[Essex]

lol you can call it what you want I call it financial security :)

[Havard]

']Maybe it would be fairer to say that imagine a white doctor is operating you because of no AA. You could have been operated by a black doctor who happened to be better, but because of a lack of AA and prejudice and such (it happens all the time) the white doctor got hired first. Now you certainly know the answer which you prefer.

Yeah, that's wrong. But AA is institutionalizes discrimination, making it much worse. I am sure that there are a few cases where black doctors are still discriminated, but it's certainly not common practice, let alone legitimized by a social program.

[Leon[fp]]

Yeah, that's wrong. But AA is institutionalizes discrimination, making it much worse. I am sure that there are a few cases where black doctors are still discriminated, but it's certainly not common practice, let alone legitimized by a social program.

It's not openly legitimized and almost no employer (or anyone else for that matter) would admit to discrimation. In fact, practically no one realizes it. However, at job interviews prejudices unconsciously sneak in; that's just the way it is. It's hard to test, but I'm sure that if you would do a thorough and sound testing of prejudice at job interviews you'd be surprised how much it still plays a role. This also applies to male/female prejudice.

I read somewhere that a job interview is usually decided when the employee enters the door, meaning that the following interview isn't of much help when the employer doesn't like how you look, how you walked in, who gender/race you are. Note that this is all subconscious and that the employer might not even be aware of this. Also note that "I read somewhere" isn't the same as "I have definite proof here," so take these statements with a grain of salt ;).

[Bartleby]

lol you can call it what you want I call it financial security :)
Essex = bon bon munching trophy wife :lol:

[Dark Knight]

Well my point is Leon.. Though I am against negative racial discrimination (which your example portrays), we are talking about Affirmative Action here.. Which I believe to be the process of saying to people "well.. you weren't actually up to par but we will let you >X< anyway".

[Leon[fp]]

Well my point is Leon.. Though I am against negative racial discrimination (which your example portrays), we are talking about Affirmative Action here.. Which I believe to be the process of saying to people "well.. you weren't actually up to par but we will let you >X< anyway".

Yeah it's not the best solution, but I'm willing to hear a better solution to counter negative discrimination.

[Cale The Dark]

I admit that some of the people here against AA have idealistic views. However, Eiger, your views of AA are at least AS idealistic, maybe more so. AA is a corrupt system, just look at college applications. you talk of these "identical applicants" that just don't exist. Fact is that minorities get a boost whether they are being compared to an equal applicant or not. it's just standard procedure to give them more points.

Discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

I'd say that AA fits that definition pretty well wouldn't you? "consideration based on class or category"...that about sums it up for me. Affirmative Action = wrong and harmful.

[Essex]

Essex = bon bon munching trophy wife :lol:
just call me Peg Bundy :)

hey at least I sound like Lela from Futurama lol

[Sage the Mage]

The great thing about mentioning wages is, what do wages have to do with AA? Nothing!

[Bhs Crew]

Well if I'm running a business and its one I own then I should be able to hire whoever I want. The government should be able to make AA for government jobs if it wants, as long as it leaves privately owned businesses alone. If I own some company and I'm a raciest and I only want to hire asian people between 5'8 and 5'10 I should be able to do so. It doesn't make me a good person, but it is my business.

As far as schools go, the important thing is that children get educated before they get to college. As long as everyone who wants to is able to get a decent highschool eduaction and go to college if they want then life is ok. In California I'm far more worried about how our Junior Colleges are supposed to handle more students while their funds are being cut, then I am of the racial brakedown of UC Berkeley.

[Leon[fp]]

Ai, that isn't really a sound ideology, Bhs Crew. I mean, you're practically saying that racism is good as long as you own a company. You know, business owners aren't people who have no responsibility at all. They have just as many rights and duties as non-business owners and they have no more "right" to be racist than anybody else. It's a trend of the last few decades to view businesses and business owners as the be-all-and-end-all in politics and economy, where the entire society should give up their rights, wealth, dignity and what not to serve the "economy."

It's sickening.






Am I ranting?

[the_guse]

Well if I'm running a business and its one I own then I should be able to hire whoever I want. The government should be able to make AA for government jobs if it wants, as long as it leaves privately owned businesses alone. If I own some company and I'm a raciest and I only want to hire asian people between 5'8 and 5'10 I should be able to do so. It doesn't make me a good person, but it is my business.

AA is illeagle, and discrimination is also illeagle. you cant hire someone based on thier race, but you can on thier size if the job description has certain requirements, such as you need to be a certain height to run some machine, or you need to beable to lift a certain amount of weight consistantly. having a job description that requires a certain ethnicity is illeagle.

[Eiger]

you dont really need to live here in the states to have a view on this, and you made a good point. take it another step further, your a white male who grew up from a poor nieghborhood, and you're dieing of liver problems. the guy next to you is black, has the same problem and grew up as your neighbor. the doctor came in and says thier is only 1 liver that they have, and they by law have to give it to your nieghbor because of AA (this is total speculation. AA has nothing to do with this, but it's a point on how it discriminates. DK gave me a great idea).
Now your nieghbor deserves that liver just as much as you, but he recieved it because the government felt he was at a disadvantage in life because of his skin color, even though you both had the exact same life.
--how is this fair again?
Sorry, but that's too extreme an example. It's not in the realm of possibility given current laws (or in the future either). Not worth responding to. We might as well start saying that the government will start requiring family integration - musical chairs with babies - whites raise the black kids and blacks raise the whites. Hey wait a second - that's a great idea!! I'm gonna go write my senator right now! Back in a few!

[Eiger]

1) Minorities continue to make up more of the middle class, but I don't know about the ranks of the rich. I know there are some, but I don't think it's much. However, A.A is not supposed to be helping the middle class, because they are not disadvantaged. When you said "that certainly true," were you also acknowledging the issue of A.A's turning a blind eye to the vast majority of poor caucasians?

2) It seems to reason that the businesses that failed likely did so for less sensational and more common sense reasons ie. due to low levels of working capital and the inability that comes with low capital to secure larger more profitable contracts. To me it's still a poverty issue, not a race issue though there are, by percentage of race, more poor minorities than caucasians. My guess is that as a total number there are more poor caucasian people than any other individual race, but again that's speculation.
1) No, AA is also supposed the help the middle class and up as well. AA is intended to help provide a more diverse workplace - it's not an anti-poverty program that ends once you get beyond the poverty line. It's anti-discrimination and that means anti-glass ceiling as well. Check back in on post #1.

2) No, those businesses were doing fine and were very healthy just prior to the law change. Capital was available. However, it's real difficult to maintain access to capital and pay your employees once all your contracts dry up and you can't find new work. No business can run without revenue. And the funny thing is is that there's just about none of them left. Have law, have lots of small-medium black owned construction sub contracting companies. Law goes away and nearly all companies go away. Statistically speaking, stuff like that doesn't happen.

I can understand that AA might be all about poverty to you, but then you misunderstand the purpose of AA. AA is about discrimination and race very directly. Poverty may or may not be an associative factor.

[Eiger]

']It's not openly legitimized and almost no employer (or anyone else for that matter) would admit to discrimation. In fact, practically no one realizes it. However, at job interviews prejudices unconsciously sneak in; that's just the way it is. It's hard to test, but I'm sure that if you would do a thorough and sound testing of prejudice at job interviews you'd be surprised how much it still plays a role. This also applies to male/female prejudice.

I read somewhere that a job interview is usually decided when the employee enters the door, meaning that the following interview isn't of much help when the employer doesn't like how you look, how you walked in, who gender/race you are. Note that this is all subconscious and that the employer might not even be aware of this. Also note that "I read somewhere" isn't the same as "I have definite proof here," so take these statements with a grain of salt ;).
Leon's got a good point and one that is readily recognized by most managers - seeing as that's mentioned in just about every job interview skills book you'll ever read. People tend to hire people that are similar to themselves - people they feel comfortable with. This happens quite naturally and many, perhaps even most don't even know they are discriminating against a person because of that person's race. But when this happens - and it happens an awful lot, that means that since most companies are owned and run by caucasians, that caucasians have some damn serious affirmative freakin action going on in their favor.

Institutionalized or not, when the government comes in and says that when you are faced with two similarly qualified candidates, please take the person of color - they are trying to take a step in the right direction to re-balance the playing field. There's no quotas, no preference for underqualified individuals.

To all of you who don't like AA, I challenge you to post a better suggestion for reducing discrimination in hiring. Forget the improve the education system cop out - everyone knows we need to do that, but that since it ain't gonna happen anytime soon, it's also a nice "I can feel good"/delaying tactic - because this model is referring to equally qualified people.

Next time you're out and about, look around you. Every time you walk into a business, look around. Next time you're in the bank, look around. How many people of color work there? How many are in management positions? Do this for about a month then ask yourself whether you saw a reasonable amount of Affirmative Action or the good old caucasian majority status quo in action action.

[Eiger]

Well if I'm running a business and its one I own then I should be able to hire whoever I want. The government should be able to make AA for government jobs if it wants, as long as it leaves privately owned businesses alone. If I own some company and I'm a raciest and I only want to hire asian people between 5'8 and 5'10 I should be able to do so. It doesn't make me a good person, but it is my business.
I'm not entirely sure how the rules are applied. I know that if you do business with the federal govt, you may need to follow AA policies - though it's difficult to enforce and is not well enforced (since the enforcement office has had some serious budget cuts over the years - wonder who did that, huh?)

Here are some of the rules:

6. THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS (DOL)



This Part offers a summary of the Department of Labor's program to promote equal employment opportunity practices by private firms who have contracts with the federal government.

6.1 Concepts & Principles

OFCCP's primary responsibility is to implement and enforce an Executive Order and several statutes banning discrimination and establishing affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors. While these policies have roots in the 1940s, the seminal requirements are contained in E.O. 11246, signed by President Johnson, and in regulations promulgated pursuant to that order in 1970 under President Nixon, which introduced the concept of goals and timetables. Specifically, OFCCP may require goals for hiring and promoting women and minorities as part of the affirmative action program (AAP) which contractors are required to develop and/or implement; however, race- or gender-based hiring and promotion are not required, and quotas are prohibited.

6.2 Policies & Practices


Coverage: With certain exceptions, E.O. 11246 applies to Federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts of more than $10,000 per year. In FY 1993, some 92,500 nonconstruction establishments and 100,000 construction establishments were covered. These establishments employed approximately 26 million people and received contracts of more than $160 billion.

Affirmative Action Requirements: OFCCP regulations impose different requirements on construction and nonconstruction firms.

- Nonconstruction firms with 50 or more employees or contracts of more than $50,000 must develop and maintain a written affirmative action program (AAP). The contractor keeps the AAP on file and carries it out; it is submitted to OFCCP only if the agency requests it for the purpose of conducting a compliance review. As part of its AAP, the contractor must conduct a workforce analysis of each job title, determine workforce availability of women and minorities for each job group, and conduct a utilization analysis to determine whether women or minority group persons are "underutilized" in any job group. Based on these analyses, the contractor establishes goals to overcome the "underutilization," and makes a good faith effort to achieve those goals.

- Construction firms are not required to maintain written AAPs, but must make good faith efforts to meet demographic goals informed by place-specific census data for minorities and a nation-wide goal for women.

- OFCCP regulations expressly prohibit discrimination and the use of goals as quotas. (48) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/footnotes.html#aa48)

Goals & Timetables: The numerical goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. Numerical benchmarks are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer's work force. The regulations specifically prohibit quotas and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. Numerical goals do not create quotas for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.

Enforcement Procedures: A contractor's failure to attain its goals is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Executive Order; failure to make good faith efforts is. OFCCP undertakes compliance reviews for certain contractors flagged by a computer program as having below average participation rates for minorities or women. OFCCP also conducts reviews of contractors selected randomly and identified through complaints. (49) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/footnotes.html#aa49) In FY 1994, OFCCP conducted more than 4,000 reviews, roughly 3.26 percent of its supply-and-service contractor universe, and 1.55 percent of its construction contractors. If a firm is found to violate affirmative action requirements (or antidiscrimination requirements) OFCCP attempts to conciliate with the contractor; in a very small percentage of cases, no agreement is reached and the case is referred for formal administrative enforcement.

Incentives: OFCCP gives Exemplary Voluntary Efforts (EVE) and Opportunity 2000 awards to those companies who demonstrate significant achievement in equal opportunity and affirmative action.

Sanctions: A contractor in violation of E.O. 11246 may have its contracts terminated or suspended, or be debarred. Such administrative actions are rare, and there is ample due process accorded the contractor before hand.

[Havard]

Institutionalized or not, when the government comes in and says that when you are faced with two similarly qualified candidates, please take the person of color - they are trying to take a step in the right direction to re-balance the playing field. There's no quotas, no preference for underqualified individuals.


What is this nonsense... I have plenty of experience with real-life AA hires, and plenty were noticeably underqualified. The idea that AA only factors between "similarly qualified candidates" is so naive I don't know where to begin. I know several minorites in my field (law) who suck *** at their jobs and are never questioned about it because they are a protected class. My g/f works with an AA hire partner who does horrendous work, drinks on the job, and had a known affair with an associate, and he'll never be let go. A g ay associate at her firm brought his b/f and his underage (16) houseboy to the firm Xmas party... and was caught having sex in the bathroom... and nothing happened to him. All this is at a top, international firm... Tell me, do you like trading one old boys' club for another?

To all of you who don't like AA, I challenge you to post a better suggestion for reducing discrimination in hiring. Forget the improve the education system cop out - everyone knows we need to do that, but that since it ain't gonna happen anytime soon, it's also a nice "I can feel good"/delaying tactic - because this model is referring to equally qualified people.


First off, affirmative action does not reduce discrimination, it is designed to couteract the effects of discrimination. It does, categorically add to discrimination, you just happen to think that this kind of discrimination is justified. Second point: you suggest that a law or government program must be implemented to solve this problem. Bullsh!t. Yes discrimination is bad... that doesn't take a genius to figure that one out... but discrimination in hiring is also illegal. I know, Eiger... you're going to say that people do it anyway. Well, if you can't catch the criminals, don't punish the innocent for their mistakes. Your logic is flawed, my friend.

Next time you're out and about, look around you. Every time you walk into a business, look around. Next time you're in the bank, look around. How many people of color work there? How many are in management positions? Do this for about a month then ask yourself whether you saw a reasonable amount of Affirmative Action or the good old caucasian majority status quo in action action.

It sounds like you are implying that when you see lots of minorities, it's because of AA, and if you see lots of whites, it's because of private discrimination. An unfounded assumption, but ok... Depending on what neighborhood I'm in, I see all kinds of people. If I go to Daly City, there are tons of asians in management positions, because it's an asian neighborhood. If I go to the Mission, all of the management is Hispanic. Downtown, there are more whites, but your argument fails here, because the businesses in the financial district (Fortune 500's like Citibank, BofA, WellsFargo, Merrill, Schwab, Morgan Stanley, etc...) *do* practice AA. Now what... :cheesy:

[Eiger]

1) What is this nonsense... I have plenty of experience with real-life AA hires, and plenty were noticeably underqualified. The idea that AA only factors between "similarly qualified candidates" is so naive I don't know where to begin. I know several minorites in my field (law) who suck *** at their jobs and are never questioned about it because they are a protected class. My g/f works with an AA hire partner who does horrendous work, drinks on the job, and had a known affair with an associate, and he'll never be let go. A g ay associate at her firm brought his b/f and his underage (16) houseboy to the firm Xmas party... and was caught having sex in the bathroom... and nothing happened to him. All this is at a top, international firm... Tell me, do you like trading one old boys' club for another?



2) First off, affirmative action does not reduce discrimination, it is designed to couteract the effects of discrimination. It does, categorically add to discrimination, you just happen to think that this kind of discrimination is justified. Second point: you suggest that a law or government program must be implemented to solve this problem. Bullsh!t. Yes discrimination is bad... that doesn't take a genius to figure that one out... but discrimination in hiring is also illegal. I know, Eiger... you're going to say that people do it anyway. Well, if you can't catch the criminals, don't punish the innocent for their mistakes. Your logic is flawed, my friend.

3) It sounds like you are implying that when you see lots of minorities, it's because of AA, and if you see lots of whites, it's because of private discrimination. An unfounded assumption, but ok... Depending on what neighborhood I'm in, I see all kinds of people. If I go to Daly City, there are tons of asians in management positions, because it's an asian neighborhood. If I go to the Mission, all of the management is Hispanic. Downtown, there are more whites, but your argument fails here, because the businesses in the financial district (Fortune 500's like Citibank, BofA, WellsFargo, Merrill, Schwab, Morgan Stanley, etc...) *do* practice AA. Now what... :cheesy:
1) I too, have experience with AA hires and have no similar complaints. Perhaps your firm should do a better job of hiring and not hire the underqualified folks. Your gf's firm should get a backbone and fire the sucker. If they don't, that's their problem and has nothing to do with AA. As for the g ay guy, I fail to see the relevance as AA doesn't do sexual preference to the best of my knowledge.

2) Ok, counter-effect then. Fair enough. Same question applies with that language change. I think I've addressed your other point already.

3) Yup, that's what I'm implying. And my implication stands. The area in which I live is far less segregated than the Bay Area it appears. Most people travel 30-60 minutes to work and work outside their neighborhoods. In certain neighborhoods such as the International District, you'll find mostly asians working in small businesses. Duh. But in most places you'll find the effect I refer to. Could it be also that whites prefer not to work in the Mission or Daly City?

[Bartleby]

1) No, AA is also supposed the help the middle class and up as well. AA is intended to help provide a more diverse workplace - it's not an anti-poverty program that ends once you get beyond the poverty line. It's anti-discrimination and that means anti-glass ceiling as well. Check back in on post #1.
Which is why I'm against AA. It helps those who no longer need it, but ignores some that do. At some point you have to get up and walk on your own two feet. It's not the government's job to make you successful, only to ensure that you aren't precluded from it and only an idiot would fail to take a qualified minority candidate over an unqualified caucasian candidate, because he didn't like the color of his skin. How do you explain the success of asians, who have, in terms of financial success, exceeded caucasians? How did they break through the glass-ceiling that only government can pierce and out perform their caucasian counterparts while hispanics and blacks lag behind? Is it that caucasians are racist only against blacks and hispanics? Did the powers that be somehow forget that asians were not white?


2) No, those businesses were doing fine and were very healthy just prior to the law change. Capital was available. However, it's real difficult to maintain access to capital and pay your employees once all your contracts dry up and you can't find new work. No business can run without revenue. And the funny thing is is that there's just about none of them left. Have law, have lots of small-medium black owned construction sub contracting companies. Law goes away and nearly all companies go away. Statistically speaking, stuff like that doesn't happen.
If you were not aware, many minorities (my best friends mother for example) takes advantages of these laws in California. She slaps her name, as a general partner, on an engineering firm partnership in order to give that firm access to these contracts. I love her to pieces, but her only contribution to this minority owned business is her ethnicity and gender as a general partner. I have a sneaking suspicion that they'd dissolve the firm and remove her as a partner if these set asides were removed.


I can understand that AA might be all about poverty to you, but then you misunderstand the purpose of AA. AA is about discrimination and race very directly. Poverty may or may not be an associative factor.Which is why I am 100% against AA in it's current form. It is inherently racist and provides special rights and privileges to the exclusion of others, which are in my mind wholly un-American.

[Bhs Crew]

']Ai, that isn't really a sound ideology, Bhs Crew. I mean, you're practically saying that racism is good as long as you own a company. You know, business owners aren't people who have no responsibility at all. They have just as many rights and duties as non-business owners and they have no more "right" to be racist than anybody else. It's a trend of the last few decades to view businesses and business owners as the be-all-and-end-all in politics and economy, where the entire society should give up their rights, wealth, dignity and what not to serve the "economy."

It's sickening.

Am I ranting?

Let's say I am a one man business selling rugs. I do well and I have the means to hire another rug selling person. The business wouldn't even exist without me. Why shouldn't I be able to hire whomever I want?
Let's say it works really well and I now own an 100 man company selling rugs. Why is it anyone else's business who I hire? I own the company and I could shut it down tomorrow. Any jobs I give help the economy. All I want to do is hire the people I want to hire with no restrictions. Why is that evil?

You are ranting. But I was ranting first.

[Havard]

Which is why I'm against AA. It helps those who no longer need it, but ignores some that do. At some point you have to get up and walk on your own two feet. It's not the government's job to make you successful, only to ensure that you aren't precluded from it and only an idiot would fail to take a qualified minority candidate over an unqualified caucasian candidate, because he didn't like the color of his skin. How do you explain the success of asians, who have, in terms of financial success, exceeded caucasians? How did they break through the glass-ceiling that only government can pierce and out perform their caucasian counterparts while hispanics and blacks lag behind? Is it that caucasians are racist only against blacks and hispanics? Did the powers that be somehow forget that asians were not white?

Great point Bartleby... I was thinking a similar thought about the discrimination against Irish and Italians in the 18th and 19th centuries... they managed to make it without AA. JFK was one of the most popular presidents, something that would have been unheard of 100 years prior. Of course, your example is even better as it is more generation-appropriate, and because Irish and Italians are less identifiable from "WASP" whites than asians are.

[Leon[fp]]

All I want to do is hire the people I want to hire with no restrictions. Why is that evil?

It's not "evil," except when you intentionally hire people because of racial preferences. And I wouldn't call it evil, cause I don't like calling anything evil. It's more a danger to society. You could have done good in providing jobs but you do so excluding certain groups of people even without checking whether they might be as good or better than other applicants.

I don't want you to be allowed to discriminate just because you have a business. You've not become a saint suddenly simply because you provide some jobs. Remember that while you provide jobs, the employees provide their services to you. While they may be grateful to you, you should be grateful to your employees too. And applicants should be judged on their merits alone. If you consciously refuse to do that, then you no longer have a positive influence on society and should be corrected.

[Essex]

also there was a time like that when no company would hire black people at all... so you could say that only a handful of companies would do it, but about 90% of businesses did it befoe and after the civil rights movement. So that's why it has to be illegal does it still happen? sure a hell of a lot, but at least its not suuppose to.

[Havard]

So that's why it has to be illegal does it still happen? sure a hell of a lot, but at least its not suuppose to.

Huh? Unclear on what you're saying, Essex.

[Essex]

sorry, i'm saying that does racial descrimination happen on the job? yes it does, quite often, but at least your breaking a law when that happens instead of it being approved of.

[Bhs Crew]

']
I don't want you to be allowed to discriminate just because you have a business. You've not become a saint suddenly simply because you provide some jobs. Remember that while you provide jobs, the employees provide their services to you. While they may be grateful to you, you should be grateful to your employees too. And applicants should be judged on their merits alone. If you consciously refuse to do that, then you no longer have a positive influence on society and should be corrected.

My point is that in a personal business I'm not hurting anybody by being raciest in hiring because the alternative is that I don't hire anyone. All it means is there is one less unemployed person in whatever group I favor. I realize that it is ethicially wrong but that doesn't mean I should be forced to hire whomever the government thinks I should.

[Eiger]

Which is why I am 100% against AA in it's current form. It is inherently racist and provides special rights and privileges to the exclusion of others, which are in my mind wholly un-American.
I just see it as a somewhat reasonable means to balance an unbalanced system. Not likely we'll agree it appears. I'm still waiting to see suggestions of a better alternative though...

[Eiger]

My point is that in a personal business I'm not hurting anybody by being raciest in hiring because the alternative is that I don't hire anyone. All it means is there is one less unemployed person in whatever group I favor. I realize that it is ethicially wrong but that doesn't mean I should be forced to hire whomever the government thinks I should.
That's kind of a specious argument Bhs. Because when you have a company, the alternative doesn't really exist. And I don't think people will dissolve their company just because the government requires they do something they don't want to do - unless that something makes them unprofitable.

[Essex]

That's kind of a specious argument Bhs. Because when you have a company, the alternative doesn't really exist. And I don't think people will dissolve their company just because the government requires they do something they don't want to do - unless that something makes them unprofitable.
but bh what if the largest employer in the country was to make that choice? What if 10 of the largest employeers did that. See where it could get out of hand and the governement has to stop it?

Wal-mart started off as one store you never know how far a company will go.

[Bartleby]

The best idea in my mind is base AA assistance on socio-economic factors, but have on the books (like we already do) that discrimination is illegal and allow the lawyers to go after the racists. Maybe make labor statistics like how many individuals of a given ethnicity work at or applied at and are accepted by company X. Publish the information to allow the consumers and the lawyers to correct the racists.

Businesses should not be allowed to exclude workers based on race or sex, because if you can get the job done, then why should it matter? Although I doubt it is very prevalent in professional jobs, the fact of the matter is that it happens there too(How many white boys do you think they hire at The Source magazine? :lol: Let consumers and lawyers hit them in the pocket book and they'll think twice.

My point is that in a personal business I'm not hurting anybody by being raciest in hiring because the alternative is that I don't hire anyone. All it means is there is one less unemployed person in whatever group I favor. I realize that it is ethicially wrong but that doesn't mean I should be forced to hire whomever the government thinks I should.

Actually, some races, caucasians and asians in the US for example, have more ability to exercise discrimination in that they are the one's offering the majority of the jobs. So if they are allowed to be racist it will be at the detriment of a select few ethnicities, who can be precluded indefinitely from the opportunity of achieving success.

But then some black guy coming in for a job would, wonder why you didn't hire him even though he was qualified, he'd look up your information and realize that you had a history of not hiring qualified black applicants. Then that's where the lawyers would come in and crucify you both publicly and financially; your business would serve as an excellent example of the type of behavior that is considered to be infringing on the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The lawyers would get their fee, the people you'd discriminated against would get financial restitution, and you'd likely be out of business, and others with similar inclinations would think twice about their ignorant views. Happy ending.

On a side note, if you want to base AA on race then I demand that the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc be forced to follow AA guidelines. Asians, Hispanics and white people are woefully misrepresented in professional sports and this travesty must be rectified.

[HR_Hellfire]

Ah, petty petty racism.. *sigh*
Canada.. so pure.. so clean.. what am I saying.. theres a goddamn swastica on a publicschool a few blocks away... *shakes head*
It's not that I have a problem with racist people.. they can be nice.. it's just when they start insulting all black/brown/ect people I take it as a direct attack on my friends and feel an burning desire to bury a blunt object into their forhead.. Anyway.. back to the issue at hand.. yeah.. how you do in school is a direct result of effort, intrest and motivation.. well.. maybe not 'direct' but close enough.. the system isn't fair and the numbers should at least be scaled back so the affect is small.. underprivliged deserve a chance.. but they need to earn it like the rest of us.. or buy it for the insanly rich among us.. meh, who cares.. I'm going to a Canadian Uninversity.. unless WoW takes over my life at which point I'll be a gutter gamer.

Oh, and back to my rant- reverse racism is annoying too but I laugh it off because over time they will be assimilated anyway..

[Eiger]

But then some black guy coming in for a job would, wonder why you didn't hire him even though he was qualified, he'd look up your information and realize that you had a history of not hiring qualified black applicants. Then that's where the lawyers would come in and crucify you both publicly and financially; your business would serve as an excellent example of the type of behavior that is considered to be infringing on the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The lawyers would get their fee, the people you'd discriminated against would get financial restitution, and you'd likely be out of business, and others with similar inclinations would think twice about their ignorant views. Happy ending.

On a side note, if you want to base AA on race then I demand that the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc be forced to follow AA guidelines. Asians, Hispanics and white people are woefully misrepresented in professional sports and this travesty must be rectified.
This is what I suspect we're heading towards actually. Many blacks are starting to speak out against AA because they don't like the stigmatism associated with it and feel it hasn't worked much anyway. Additionally, more and more blacks are saying that they need to get their own house in order - make sure their kids get a good education and have the drive to succeed. Ultimately, this combined with legal action against discriminators will be a more successful and respectable strategy which gets at some of the root issues.

I mean to say that AA doesn't bother me as I don't fear it. I'm hoping that I'm significantly better qualified than the next best applicant for a job and don't get stuck in a position where I'm just as good as the next guy, which allows the possibility of an AA hire to get in instead of me. And if it does happen, that's just one job, there are others and it's unlikely the same thing would happen again and again. So that's basically my personal position.

Regarding sports - obviously, there are some jobs which are based purely on performance which can be very objectively determined. You could do AA there, but it wouldn't make much difference really, hehe. Say you have an open position at shortstop and you've got your current guys, available free agents, and minor league guys ready to move up. If you've got the money for an Alex Rodriguez, case closed. If you don't, you get to choose from Rich Aurilia, a minor leaguer, Miguel Tejada or whoever. For some stupid reason you pick the white guy Aurilia over Tejada. Ok, I'm being silly, but that's what the Mariners did last year. Actually, they really screwed up, because Tejada wanted to come to Seattle, but they didn't want to spend the money. So they picked Aurilia which was about the best performer they had left to choose from (there was no one else equally qualified) - though that's real debatable after his performance so far this year, hehe.

[Adamwsat]

This topic effects me quite a bit, as am I am going to be applying to colleges next year. I am quite outraged in a society that is supposed to be blind to race that such a system can, not only exist but, be enforced by the government. It is kind of odd that I am not getting benefits of AA, as I am a Caucasian man living in San Antonio Texas, a city with a Mexican American Majority, yet I get no benefits of being a minority. The truth of the matter is that AA is not to help minorities, it is to establish a basis to make the public believe it cares. I should not have a problem getting into a colledge, but the fact is I could easily get into an IV league school If I were a minority. Though the thought of AA seems good to most I find it horrid, It is like saying, "Ok sorry my ancestors have treated you wrongly, I'll now continue this by treating you different some more". I myself had a friend that was of mixed ethnicity, a caucasian and a mexican american parent, that did not get into college with his first application into college, then on his next he marked that he was mexican american, and not only got into the college but got a nice minority scholarship. In practice AA does not function, it, in some cases, discourages the acceptance of the most qualified applicant. For example, in the case of my friend, when he wasn't going to be accepted, due to his race, there was another man in the spot. Once he resubmited his application, marking a different race, he was accepted, then what of the person who no longer got that spot. I fear I may some day be that person.

[Bartleby]

Regarding sports - obviously, there are some jobs which are based purely on performance which can be very objectively determined.
Bless you're heart but if you truly believe all or most athletes are based purely on performance, then you my friend are a tad delusional. Sports teams are in the BUSINESS of pride. They will spend inordinate amounts of money to gain stars that will carry them to the top, but they will also spend inordinate amounts of money for stars that will get fans in the seats and buying merchandise and in turn attract sponsors and advertising revenue.

Who's the best point guard in the NBA? Nobody knows because the stats are all about the same and it depends on your style of play and players on the roster, but my guess is most people would say Kobe Bryant, because he commands attention.

I guess what I'm getting at (in a very round about way) is that in any job there are far more subjective qualities (real or perceived) that are difficult to quantify; so how do you know how someone will perform in the office or on the court until you bring them into your organization? In sports we have stats which estimate but do not ensure performance (Gary Payton, Chauncey Billups), but in most other fields comparable information isn't available. And it's in those subjective qualities that discrimination (real or perceived) can be found.

That again is why I say leave it to the lawyers, because they most likely wouldn't go for a case unless they reasonably sure they could win. That would protect most people from perceived discrimination as rational minds would prevail, and catch obvious discrimination because the case would be a slam dunk (still got Lakers on the brain).

If AA is used to help the poor and since lawyers can be used to end discrimination I don't see how the current form of AA makes any sense.

Anyway, I've been a tad verbose of late and am now of the mind to take a course in brevity.

[Bhs Crew]

I just have a question. I'm not speaking on what is the law, I'm asking what you think should be the law.
Anyway, here goes:

If I have a one man business and I want to hire my cousin to work for me, (Thus I am discriminating against anyone who isn't my cousin) is that ok?

If that is ok, at what magic number of employees should I not be allowed to hire whoever I want to work in my business?

[Bartleby]

If all discrimination is wrong then, speaking technically no it's not okay, because that is discriminatory, but then all decisions are discriminatory to some degree :lol:
That's why determining severity and scope of discrimination is important, but a slippery slope, one of those vague "I'll know it when I see it" kind of things. This is why I believe for some action to be proved discriminatory against a race, gender, or other group like one legged people, etc the burden of proof is on those that feel the owner is discriminating, not on the owner to prove he doesn't discriminate. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Eiger]

Bless you're heart but if you truly believe all or most athletes are based purely on performance, then you my friend are a tad delusional. Sports teams are in the BUSINESS of pride. They will spend inordinate amounts of money to gain stars that will carry them to the top, but they will also spend inordinate amounts of money for stars that will get fans in the seats and buying merchandise and in turn attract sponsors and advertising revenue.

Who's the best point guard in the NBA? Nobody knows because the stats are all about the same and it depends on your style of play and players on the roster, but my guess is most people would say Kobe Bryant, because he commands attention.

I guess what I'm getting at (in a very round about way) is that in any job there are far more subjective qualities (real or perceived) that are difficult to quantify; so how do you know how someone will perform in the office or on the court until you bring them into your organization? In sports we have stats which estimate but do not ensure performance (Gary Payton, Chauncey Billups), but in most other fields comparable information isn't available. And it's in those subjective qualities that discrimination (real or perceived) can be found.

That again is why I say leave it to the lawyers, because they most likely wouldn't go for a case unless they reasonably sure they could win. That would protect most people from perceived discrimination as rational minds would prevail, and catch obvious discrimination because the case would be a slam dunk (still got Lakers on the brain).


Sports are an example of where you can get the best idea of how someone's going to perform. And yes, of course, players are not hired just on their stats, but also on leadership abilities, catcher's abilities to work a pitcher, and box office draw.

You never know how they're going to turn out. Take last year's Mariners' 3rd baseman - a career .300 plus hitter bats .200 the whole time he was here.

Ya, no one can predict the future, but one does their best. And this is why AA is darn near unenforceable - interviewing is a very subjective process, full of bias - often biases the interviewer doesn't even know they have. Anyway, I don't see why caucasians get so worried about this on the job side, the odds of getting "AAed" out of a job are pretty slim...

On the college side, things get a little stickier - especially if your grades are marginal. Keep those grades up!

[Eiger]

I just have a question. I'm not speaking on what is the law, I'm asking what you think should be the law.
Anyway, here goes:

If I have a one man business and I want to hire my cousin to work for me, (Thus I am discriminating against anyone who isn't my cousin) is that ok?

If that is ok, at what magic number of employees should I not be allowed to hire whoever I want to work in my business?
Hehe, knock yourself out. Hire all the family members you can get your hands on. But once you've exhausted that avenue, AA should kick in.

[Bartleby]

On the college side, things get a little stickier - especially if your grades are marginal. Keep those grades up!

Now see this is where I have some gripes. With so many schools passing their students with grades that are not proportional to their actual understanding of the subject, how is the student who goes to a school that does not just give out A's for showing up supposed to compete? The easiest answer is on the SAT or some other standardized test, but even that's starting to be taken away.

[Bhs Crew]

Hehe, knock yourself out. Hire all the family members you can get your hands on. But once you've exhausted that avenue, AA should kick in.

What about friends. I have many friends who need jobs. I own a business. Can I hire them?

[Bartleby]

On a personal note, you should almost never work with or hire family and friends, because unrelated information and obligations are allowed to affect business decisions. Friends and family are more likely to think of you as their (insert relationship here) or as a partner and less like their boss, and you really don't want that.

[Eiger]

Now see this is where I have some gripes. With so many schools passing their students with grades that are not proportional to their actual understanding of the subject, how is the student who goes to a school that does not just give out A's for showing up supposed to compete? The easiest answer is on the SAT or some other standardized test, but even that's starting to be taken away.
I haven't said much on AA as it relates to college entrance. I've never quite understood how it works or really checked into it. Basically, it seems different than workplace AA where instead of choosing between two equally qualified people, college AA seems to be quota based and/or based on allowances being made for poorer performance. That I don't like. But like I said, I don't know how it works...

[Eiger]

On a personal note, you should almost never work with or hire family and friends, because unrelated information and obligations are allowed to affect business decisions. Friends and family are more likely to think of you as their (insert relationship here) or as a partner and less like their boss, and you really don't want that.
I agree. The wise man may help out a buddy temporarily, but permanent hires I'd avoid.

[Bhs Crew]

True.
However both of you missed my point. My question is at what point am I no longer allowed to hire whoever I want? Is it the size of the company that matters?

[Bartleby]

I already answered that:

If all discrimination is wrong then, speaking technically no it's not okay, because that is discriminatory, but then all decisions are discriminatory to some degree
That's why determining severity and scope of discrimination is important, but a slippery slope, one of those vague "I'll know it when I see it" kind of things. This is why I believe for some action to be proved discriminatory against a race, gender, or other group like one legged people, etc the burden of proof is on those that feel the owner is discriminating, not on the owner to prove he doesn't discriminate. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Basically while all decisions involve discrimination, not all decisions are discriminatory in the commonly used sense of the word. Thus for me to determine that your hiring practices with respect to friends and family in general are discriminatory, I'd need a lot more data to prove it. How do I know that you are hiring friends just so that you don't have to hire Mexicans? I don't, so it's on me to prove it.

[Bhs Crew]

But proving it is impossible. There are so many variables in a person that there is no way to prove that race was the reason in any case.

So what you're saying is that even if I start my own one man business and want to hire a second person, I shouldn't be allowed to not hire someone based on race?

If so then it is the government's job to force me to hire him?

[Cale The Dark]

What is this nonsense... I have plenty of experience with real-life AA hires, and plenty were noticeably underqualified. The idea that AA only factors between "similarly qualified candidates" is so naive I don't know where to begin. I know several minorites in my field (law) who suck *** at their jobs and are never questioned about it because they are a protected class. My g/f works with an AA hire partner who does horrendous work, drinks on the job, and had a known affair with an associate, and he'll never be let go. A g ay associate at her firm brought his b/f and his underage (16) houseboy to the firm Xmas party... and was caught having sex in the bathroom... and nothing happened to him. All this is at a top, international firm... Tell me, do you like trading one old boys' club for another?




First off, affirmative action does not reduce discrimination, it is designed to couteract the effects of discrimination. It does, categorically add to discrimination, you just happen to think that this kind of discrimination is justified. Second point: you suggest that a law or government program must be implemented to solve this problem. Bullsh!t. Yes discrimination is bad... that doesn't take a genius to figure that one out... but discrimination in hiring is also illegal. I know, Eiger... you're going to say that people do it anyway. Well, if you can't catch the criminals, don't punish the innocent for their mistakes. Your logic is flawed, my friend.



It sounds like you are implying that when you see lots of minorities, it's because of AA, and if you see lots of whites, it's because of private discrimination. An unfounded assumption, but ok... Depending on what neighborhood I'm in, I see all kinds of people. If I go to Daly City, there are tons of asians in management positions, because it's an asian neighborhood. If I go to the Mission, all of the management is Hispanic. Downtown, there are more whites, but your argument fails here, because the businesses in the financial district (Fortune 500's like Citibank, BofA, WellsFargo, Merrill, Schwab, Morgan Stanley, etc...) *do* practice AA. Now what... :cheesy:


I agree with this. I think that just because Eiger has had "good" experiences with AA hires, that doesn't give him the right to make blanket statements such as AA is great and wonderful. Fact is that AA is discrimination. I posted the definition and AA fits it perfectly. You pass laws that force people to accept things before they are ready and willing and you wonder why all the black construction companies went away when the law expired? Duh! Perhaps people were pissed at having choices forced on them. What a novel idea! Perhaps they were as pissed at this blatantly discriminatory yet "ok" practice as I am. Why can't you face the fact that AA is only hurting us. It only causes more rifts. Instead of seeing a single black woman who has worked hard for her position and is knowlegable and qualified, people might now see just another AA shmuck who played the system. AA isn't breaking down stereotypes...it's creating them. I just don't understand why people continue to defend this. We can't have AA forever. As long as there is AA there can be no true progress work-equality. I think your judgment in this matter is flawed Eiger.

[Cale The Dark]

Sports are an example of where you can get the best idea of how someone's going to perform. And yes, of course, players are not hired just on their stats, but also on leadership abilities, catcher's abilities to work a pitcher, and box office draw.

You never know how they're going to turn out. Take last year's Mariners' 3rd baseman - a career .300 plus hitter bats .200 the whole time he was here.

Ya, no one can predict the future, but one does their best. And this is why AA is darn near unenforceable - interviewing is a very subjective process, full of bias - often biases the interviewer doesn't even know they have. Anyway, I don't see why caucasians get so worried about this on the job side, the odds of getting "AAed" out of a job are pretty slim...

On the college side, things get a little stickier - especially if your grades are marginal. Keep those grades up!


Then what is the point? If AA is only between "equally qualified candidates" and this almost never happens...and you admit that the college AA sucks *** (you would if you researched it), then what is the point? what gain is there? just to make yourself feel good and say "I have stood up for racial equality..."? What a waste. Seems to me that you admit that AA has few advantages (none in my opinion) and whether you can see them or not, the disadvantages are there. As this thread progresses, your arguments are growing weaker...like the tired thrashing of a landed fish. Perhaps you need to just admit the folly that is AA.

[Bartleby]

No Crew, that's not what I said at all (I assumed your last post was directed to me). I said discrimination is a hard thing to prove and that most people know it when they see it. I also said go about your business, do what you want, but if you open positions up to the public at large and are being noticeably discriminatory, don't be suprised when a lawsuit comes your way. That's all I've said, nothing more, nothing less.

[Bhs Crew]

No Crew, that's not what I said at all (I assumed your last post was directed to me). I said discrimination is a hard thing to prove and that most people know it when they see it. I also said go about your business, do what you want, but if you open positions up to the public at large and are being noticeably discriminatory, don't be suprised when a lawsuit comes your way. That's all I've said, nothing more, nothing less.
I wasn't asking what the law is. I know what the law is. I personially am not raciest and I'm not going to be hiring people based on race anytime soon. I am asking about what you believe the level of government control should be over a business.

[Bartleby]

"I am asking about what you believe the level of government control should be over a business."

Very little. I think it's the government's job to set flexible laws and I think it's the lawyers job to bring the issues to court and the court's job to interpret the laws in light of the facts.

[Eiger]

Then what is the point? If AA is only between "equally qualified candidates" and this almost never happens...and you admit that the college AA sucks *** (you would if you researched it), then what is the point? what gain is there? just to make yourself feel good and say "I have stood up for racial equality..."? What a waste. Seems to me that you admit that AA has few advantages (none in my opinion) and whether you can see them or not, the disadvantages are there. As this thread progresses, your arguments are growing weaker...like the tired thrashing of a landed fish. Perhaps you need to just admit the folly that is AA.
Hehe - I never said it WORKED. I just don't have any problem with the concept of AA as it relates to the work place and I feel that some redress in this area to compensate for rampant discrimination in this country is reasonable - even if it's compensation of a similar nature. I'm comfortable with my performance and ability to get whatever job I want, so I don't fear it.

I do have a few problems with AA related to college entrance - but then I've got a variety of issues with college entrance - mostly related to privilege, so on balance the AA stuff bothers me less than legacy admittances for example.

[Dementor]

I wonder if there's been any case of a white man winning a suit against a black employer on the basis that that employer was biased against white people.

[Bartleby]

America isn't yet ready to admit that everyone is racist and that being human means that every race and gender lays claim to an equal portion of the stupidity that sometimes is being human.
I had a black guy stand up in class once and say that black people can't be racist, because anything they do or say is just a response to what was done to them or their ancestors. My other favorite is that only white people can be racist, because only they have the ability to act on their discriminatory beliefs. Now what was neglected to be mentioned is that while that was true in 1950, nowadays there are plenty of non-causasian males in the position to exercise their particular breed of racism and for those that don't yet would love to have the opportunity. IMO this has scary implications for our future.

[Eiger]

nowadays there are plenty of non-causasian males in the position to exercise their particular breed of racism and for those that don't yet would love to have the opportunity. IMO this has scary implications for our future.
Hehe, God forbid having a situation in which white men are discriminated against! Now that would be bad! (I'm being sarcastic, in case someone's not getting that...)

[Bartleby]

Hey, I get enough of that at home, I don't need it anywhere else :)

[Bhs Crew]

Hehe, God forbid having a situation in which white men are discriminated against! Now that would be bad! (I'm being sarcastic, in case someone's not getting that...)
Sarcasim noted. You would think discrimination would still be a bad thing though, regardless of who it's against.

[Essex]

there's a pretty good song from the Avenue Q soundtrack (who'd have thought me? a broadway queen) anyway... kazza it download it whatever.

its called

"We're all a little bit racist"

also get "It sucks to be me" but that one is just for kicks has nothing to do with this.

[bobxii]

Instead of AA, why don't we just ignore the person's race/color? Why don't we?

Instead of trying to compensate for something that often doesn't happen (discrimination) but often does, why don't we STOP DISCRIMINATING.

Take "race" off of the stupid little ballot cards; take "race" off of our school entrance applications; take "race" off of our college entrance applications; take "race" off of the SAT's and the ACT's and the AP tests. Remove "race" from our culture, and it will cease to be a problem. Understand?

All Affirmative Action is is giving handouts to people who shouldn't get SHlT, because they don't work for it.

The people who work for their living -black, white, whatever- DON'T NEED AA. That leaves... who? The "poor", "helpless" people who don't work, don't try to work, stay on welfare indefinitely, and generally aren't worth sh*t on a log. That's who's left for AA to work with.

AA is an idiotic crutch given by morally misguided people who don't pay the bills anyway - it's like your psycotic wife giving out your money - the money you worked your butt off to get - to people because they are "poor" and "needy". Those people aren't poor nor needy - they're lazy. Period.

AA rewards laziness - that's stupid, immoral, unjust, and idiotic.

Who needs "race" to define themselves to other people? Not me.

[Cale The Dark]

Hehe, God forbid having a situation in which white men are discriminated against! Now that would be bad! (I'm being sarcastic, in case someone's not getting that...)


Wow, this is exactly the type of thing that the overcompensation for the racism the blacks experienced creates. It creates a society in which it is ok to be racist...as long as you aren't white. It's considered ok if the discrimination is towards white people. Fact is that discrimination based on race is bad. That's the bottom line. Anyone who wants to dispute this fact should do us all a favor and skydive without a parachute because they are wasting our air.

[Essex]

Instead of AA, why don't we just ignore the person's race/color? Why don't we?

Instead of trying to compensate for something that often doesn't happen (discrimination) but often does, why don't we STOP DISCRIMINATING.

Take "race" off of the stupid little ballot cards; take "race" off of our school entrance applications; take "race" off of our college entrance applications; take "race" off of the SAT's and the ACT's and the AP tests. Remove "race" from our culture, and it will cease to be a problem. Understand?

All Affirmative Action is is giving handouts to people who shouldn't get SHlT, because they don't work for it.

The people who work for their living -black, white, whatever- DON'T NEED AA. That leaves... who? The "poor", "helpless" people who don't work, don't try to work, stay on welfare indefinitely, and generally aren't worth sh*t on a log. That's who's left for AA to work with.

AA is an idiotic crutch given by morally misguided people who don't pay the bills anyway - it's like your psycotic wife giving out your money - the money you worked your butt off to get - to people because they are "poor" and "needy". Those people aren't poor nor needy - they're lazy. Period.

AA rewards laziness - that's stupid, immoral, unjust, and idiotic.

Who needs "race" to define themselves to other people? Not me.
alright all that will happen that you just listed, this utopia of a perfect raceless society, but first... we have to all agree to have our eyes taken out because that's never gonna happen. Racism exsists in all places on this earth not just america.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I'm not sure I agree that there will always be racism.

Racism comes from ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. That lack of knowledge usually comes from tradition and culture, wrong things parents taught their children. That is what must be changed. Prejudice and racism can be fought with education with the purpose of bringing understanding. Understanding that we are no different no matter what the color of our skin is, or our gender, or where we were born, or what our religion is, or what our sexual preference is.

Does AA teach anyone these things? Does AA change anything at all? No.
I mean, sure, AA might bring a middle eastern guy into an office and then the racist guy next to him might come to understand that not every middle eastern person is a terrorist. This happens because AA in a way forces integration of societies. But just as often that racist guy will despise the middle eastern guy for "taking a white mans job" or whatever.
AA was set up to combat racism and prejudice in the workplace, but it doesnt, it helps people get jobs but that is not a solution. All it does is draw more lines in the sand between people. All it does is point out that we are different and that anyone that is different needs special care and andvantages over white people. All it does is tell people that "Hes different so he needs help". How is that going to combat racism? How is that supposed to bring anyone together?

AA could work to a certain degree if it was drastically changed but in its current form it should be abolished.
If AA would be changed to simply help the "lower parts" of our society it would be on the right track. If it would help the ones who need help regardless of skin color it would be on the right track. If it would just help the unfortunate people that are limited by a lack of money.

But instead all AA does is put people into separated groups instead of leading us all together.
Anyone see my point? Am I getting through at all?
People of all colors and nationalities needs to be encouraged to mix together, the old "us and them" culture needs to be changed. Saying "We have to help them because they need it" certainly wont remove any "us and them" notions.

Here in Norway I grew up in a place called Fjell, a few miles outside of Oslo. here, alot of the immigrants from the 70's settled. About about 70% of the people in this place are immigrants. There have been culture clashes between older people at times but among us who grew up together, racism is a joke. My three closest friends is from Vietnam, Turkey and Cap Verde. We dont care about skin color because we grew up together and have seen that there are no difference. There are no "us and them" mentality at all.
Sure, we throw out our share of racist remarks but it is jokes, I call them gooks and ni**ers and they call me cracker and honkey. Its all good.

-Quick note
Actual conversation we had once on the basketball court:
I miss a dunk and take a bad spill on the asphalt.
Young, my Vietnamese friend says "Hahahaah, told ya crackers cant jump"
I reply "Maybe, but you damn VC gooks are no better" (His uncle was a vietcong soldier, we remind him of that alot)
Roberto, the guy from Cap Verde throws down a mean windmill slam just to show off and says "Hey hey hey, dont pick on the honkey, he didnt miss because hes white, he missed because he sucks"
Ali, my turkish friend then mentions that Roberto can only pull that stuff off because hes "A black mother****er and has basketball in his blood"
Roberto says "I resent that! Thats just a stereotype"
Young says "yeah right, damn ni**ers"
Roberto says "you dinks are just jealous because of your short height and small dicks"
I say, "I'm alright by the way, thanks for caring"
Young says, "Dont be such a whiny woman, lets play ball"

Granted, that is one of the more racist conversations we ever had, wich is why I remember it so well, and because it really hurt when I missed that dunk. :( But is was all in good spirits, just a bunch of stuff we consider jokes and quips. Its not an issue at all.-

But if I were to say something like that while visiting New York I would get the crap beaten out of me. Several times. And then probably fined by the police. Even if I would say something like that in various places in Norway they would have that same reaction. Simply because they see eachother as different.

And thats when you see the difference in culture, but how to you replicate the integrated society culture for people who do not live in such a situation? That is not easy.
When you think about it like that, AA almost makes sense doesnt it? But it works against its own purpose by creating borders and pointing out differences. Its a difficult situation that there are no quick fix solutions to. Wich is what AA is, a lame half assed attempt at a quick fix solution.

Wich brings me back to my point about education and changing the culture. Older peoples view is twisted by the "Us and them" culture and the biggest priority must be to make sure these twisted views are not passed on to children. Because if children are taught that there are no difference no matter what color your skin is youre rid of the racism problem.

[Eiger]

Wow, this is exactly the type of thing that the overcompensation for the racism the blacks experienced creates. It creates a society in which it is ok to be racist...as long as you aren't white. It's considered ok if the discrimination is towards white people. Fact is that discrimination based on race is bad. That's the bottom line. Anyone who wants to dispute this fact should do us all a favor and skydive without a parachute because they are wasting our air.
Nah, just pointing out the irony of the angry white man is all.

[Eiger]

But instead all AA does is put people into separated groups instead of leading us all together.
Anyone see my point? Am I getting through at all?
People of all colors and nationalities needs to be encouraged to mix together, the old "us and them" culture needs to be changed. Saying "We have to help them because they need it" certainly wont remove any "us and them" notions.


Ok, but how do we do something now? What you're talking about takes generations to accomplish... Those who are subjected to discrimination just may not want to wait that long...

[Graav Wolfsong]

Ok, but how do we do something now? What you're talking about takes generations to accomplish... Those who are subjected to discrimination just may not want to wait that long...

Theres not really anything anyone can do about it now. I realize people want to be rid of the racism problem as soon as possible but that just wont happen over night.
Its not like anyone can just flip a switch and everything will be as it should be.

A law can not fix a cultural problem, it can only supress it. But the problem will still be there.
The government could even pass a law that says something like "Commit an act of racism and you will be shot" and it would still not fix the problem. People probably wouldnt act racist openly for fear of being shot but that doesnt mean they wont be any less racist, it doesnt mean people will like eachother any better. The problem will simply be supressed and will continue to boil under the surface until something gives. People cant be forced to get along, they have to want to get along.

Its just like cleaning your house, you can hide all the dirt in under the rug so it cant be seen but it will still be there, and eventually there will be so much dirt under there that it spills out. In the long run the only thing to do will be to really clean it up, because eventually you will have to clean it up anyway.

Some people dislike, or even fear what they percieve as different, if we can make people understand we are all the same regardless of color, creed, gender or sexual preference, we will have removed racism and prejudice.
So the only thing that can really be done now is to work to change the "us and them" culture and raise awareness and educate people so they understand that we are all the same and do away with all the ridiculous prejudices people have against those they see as different.
Changing culture and tradition and the way people relate to one another is a long and gradual process, but it simply cannot be escaped if the racism problem is to be really fixed.
This is a process that really should have been started back in the 70's at the latest.

The way I see it, it is better to try to really fix things in the long run so that your children and grandchildren can grow up in a better world than to attempt a quick fix solution that only supresses a problem and will eventually blow up in our faces in order to help people right now. No, thats not right, it wont blow up in our faces, it will blow up in our childrens faces. I for one, do not want that.


Edit: *sigh* I keep getting X-Men flashbacks every time I post in this thread. :lol:

[Bartleby]

Hey all, I'm back from the honeymoon and I couldn't think of any better way to resume my posting activities than with a point contrary to Eigers :lol:

Ok, but how do we do something now? What you're talking about takes generations to accomplish...

Some times the best choice is to not do something. This may or may not be that time (although in my IMO it's time to focus on poverty not race), but you make it sound like it would take centuries, and I guess I'm just wondering if it really isn't a little less daunting? I'll ask for a little leeway here because I'm just reasoning here based in part on fact and part on personal observation/understanding.

A new generation is heralded about every decade, is recognized about a decade later and comes into a modicum of political power in their mid 20's when they actually start voting (although the 2004 elections show a major increase in the under 30 crowd). Beyond that these individuals have relatively small circles of influence until they're in their 40 and 50's when they are more likely to come into a position of power within their chosen career path and have started families. Now these individuals can exert more political and social power through means of contacts, position, and money. The people just now beginning to coming into power within the last decade are those born in the 1940's and 1950's and that actively experienced the civil rights movement(it can hardly be argued that anyone born after 1955 had much of anything to do with the civil rights movement as they wouldn't even be 15 until 1970). The founders of the civil rights movement are taking the torch from those opposed hence all the turmoil in the late 80's up until today regarding race relations. The tides are turning here and the old ways of thinking are dying off (literally). This is not to say that up and coming generations in existence are free of racists; instead I'm putting forth that the majority of the members of those generations are not racist or tolerant of racist views.

My guess is that by the time my baby brother (age 20) comes into his 40's race could be a non-issue if we just let it go. Of course seperatist race pimps, most notably Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other charlatans of their ilk, keep doing things to divide us for their own personal and political gain. They are examples of some of the more sophisticated racists that have a strong impact on our society as a whole.

My earlier posts showed how each race is equally represented in the middle class, but that black and latinos skewed slightly more towards poverty and asians more so than caucasians skewed more towards affluence. My gripe with AA is that if you're blind to socio-economic factors and pay attention only to race then you help those that don't need it and dismiss others that do. How will that improve race relations? It just opens old wounds and makes new ones in the process.

It's time to focus on poverty not race and let time do what it does best.

Anyway, with that I'm glad to be back and to be married. I'll find a place to post wedding and honeymoon pictures if anyone's interested. Hav, Eiger I missed bs'ing with you guys.

[Booms]

This. Was. Dead.

[Havard]

That's ok, there are plenty of other topics to b.s. about :thumbsup:

[Bartleby]

Booms, deal.
I just got back from my honeymoon and I'm having rpgforums seperation anxiety. Plus, I don't pay much attention to the dates of the last post. Do I smell a revival?

[Havard]

As long as you weren't thinking of rpgforums during your honeymoon... then, I'd be worried. :lol: