A
Anglican77
Guest
Wrong. It is for race and gender.
- Status
C
ChrisR246
Guest
AA is a government program. Unlike personal discrimination it has behind it the full force and weight of government and it’s monopoly on the use of violence to impose it’s will. That is where AA is different and wrong.
Anglican77:
Anglican77:
Anglican77:
Anglican77:
We can not have the government dictating subjective choices for us. If you do not like the hiring practices of a business, take your money elsewhere. If you do not like the admissions policy of a school, send your kid elsewhere. Stop insisting that the government come bully everyone into doing exactly what you would like.
In the way you intend, no.
No. If the position is columnist for Ebony magazie, the white has no chance. If the position is head of the NAACP, the white has no chance. If the position is Dean of African American Studies at Howard University, the white has no chance.
It is not AA exactly because the government is not imposing it. Accepting or not accepting the rich kid will not result in anyone going to jail, while making the wrong choice in AA can result in loss of property or freedom.
Discrimination is part of our human nature. We all do it. But it is always subjective. By simply choosing some attributes to apply AA to and other not to you are being discriminatory.
We can not have the government dictating subjective choices for us. If you do not like the hiring practices of a business, take your money elsewhere. If you do not like the admissions policy of a school, send your kid elsewhere. Stop insisting that the government come bully everyone into doing exactly what you would like.
W
wcknight
Guest
In an ideal world, IF no group had ever been discriminated against AND there were no bigots in any position of authority (as in hiring or selection authority) I would say get rid of AA and let everyone obtain employment, attend college or whatever solely by their own merits.
However, there IS still bigotry and discrimination, so AA is essential at least in some form even if it is minimized, to at least attempt to make a level playing field.
I too am an Asian American and my kids were most probably turned away from the top notch schools because of some arbitrary race quota. In spite of scoring higher (they scored much higher in SAT and GPA), getting better grades and having impecable credentials than some other kids, they didn’t even get an offer.
BUT I recognize that Asians do already have a larger proportional population in these schools, and to me it is understandable that the admissions folks have to make some tough decisions in making cuts, otherwise they will end up with a school filled with the vast majority of Asians.
At work, all too often, top management is mostly made up of an all white, sometimes, all male population. Highly qualified minorities are very often passed up for less qualified folks of the right color. We have even seen cases where the minorites who were passed up were even instructed to teach the newcomer the ropes on how to do their job.
Unfortunately such outlandish behavior still persists and very little or nothing is done about it. Not only is AA needed in hiring practices but it is even more essential in promoting practices. Until there is such a time that race or gender truly is not a factor, AA or something similar is absolutely essential.
However, there IS still bigotry and discrimination, so AA is essential at least in some form even if it is minimized, to at least attempt to make a level playing field.
I too am an Asian American and my kids were most probably turned away from the top notch schools because of some arbitrary race quota. In spite of scoring higher (they scored much higher in SAT and GPA), getting better grades and having impecable credentials than some other kids, they didn’t even get an offer.
BUT I recognize that Asians do already have a larger proportional population in these schools, and to me it is understandable that the admissions folks have to make some tough decisions in making cuts, otherwise they will end up with a school filled with the vast majority of Asians.
At work, all too often, top management is mostly made up of an all white, sometimes, all male population. Highly qualified minorities are very often passed up for less qualified folks of the right color. We have even seen cases where the minorites who were passed up were even instructed to teach the newcomer the ropes on how to do their job.
Unfortunately such outlandish behavior still persists and very little or nothing is done about it. Not only is AA needed in hiring practices but it is even more essential in promoting practices. Until there is such a time that race or gender truly is not a factor, AA or something similar is absolutely essential.
A
Anglican77
Guest
It is?? Is there a requirement by the government for schools and employers to use this??? The only reason why the government ever got involved is because schools were employing this practice on their own.
Oh ok. You got me there. So what about the other MILLIONS of jobs in the US?
The only reason the government has not gotten involved is because poor kids haven’t made a stink about it and started a law suit. So if the government did get involved, would you be just as upset about it? Or is it only upsetting when it’s about race? I love that AA opponents ALWAYS forget that it help WOMEN too.
Is it really? Do you have some proof of that assumption?
To my knowledge, the government does NOT dictate that schools or employers MUST use AA. As I said, the schools were doing this on their own and got sued, and the Supreme Court said the schools could keep their AA practices. It was the white kids complaining and suing the schools, so by your argument, sounds like you would have told those kids to go pick another school. Am I wrong?
C
ChrisR246
Guest
If it doesn’t involve a law, how does it end up in court? Why is there an EEOC?
I’m only upset because the government is invovled. I’m all for letting any private party hire, recruit or admit by any standard they want. It’s when the government comes in and says that a private party must bring in a certain race/sex/disability, on pain of fine or imprisonment, that I get upset. It’s none of the government’s business.
Do you have a favorite color? food? If yes, then you discriminate. Would you be willing to let the government randomly assign you a spouse? No, then you discriminate. We all discriminate, that is make choices based on perceived benefits.
Certainly it does. That’s why there is an EEOC.
No at all. I am as much in favor of a (private)school recruiting to include various groups, as I am in favor of a (private)school being allowed to exclude various groups. Or to include/exclude on what ever criteria they wish. It’s the (private) school’s business, not mine.
C
ChrisR246
Guest
I fail to see where the hiring/promotion practices of a private company are in the purview of the government.
A
Anglican77
Guest
The government allows for affirmative action, it does NOT, I repeat does NOT require schools or employers to use it. There are programs that the government uses that award companies who try to create a diverse work environment, however again, it is not required.
C
ChrisR246
Guest
I apologize. You are correct, the government does not require AA.
AA is preferential and discriminatory.
As you pointed out, government not only tolerates it, but actively encourages it. OTOH, other forms of preference and discrimination are not tolerated, let alone encouraged, and in those cases the government brings down it’s full force to stop that discrimination. It is this double standard, by a government that is supposed to treat us all equally, that I find unjust.
W
wcknight
Guest
Open discrimination (even in private industry) should be illegal if it is not already. This happened to be within a federal government agency, that the discrimination is going on.
C
ChrisR246
Guest
1)Why?
2) You don’t really mean that. Certainly you’d agree that the Boy Scouts of America could openly bar convicted pedophiles from being Scoutmasters?(Understandably this is not quite applicable, as Scoutmasters are volunteers, not employees, but you get my meaning, I hope.)
W
wcknight
Guest
I think there is a question here as to whether equal opportunity employment is or should be the law of the land. Yes, we are allowed to have our preferences for what schools we send our kids to or what spouse we choose or what work we want to do.
However when it comes to housing or employement practices, IF we open a home for sale or job opportunity to the public, we can not and should discriminate based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity. As far as I know that already is the law of the land, and an employer or a seller can be sued for breaking that law.
You may be a private company BUT if you have a job opening, you had better not make race or gender etc, a primary determining factor, that’s BOTH illegal and immoral…
However when it comes to housing or employement practices, IF we open a home for sale or job opportunity to the public, we can not and should discriminate based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity. As far as I know that already is the law of the land, and an employer or a seller can be sued for breaking that law.
You may be a private company BUT if you have a job opening, you had better not make race or gender etc, a primary determining factor, that’s BOTH illegal and immoral…
C
ChrisR246
Guest
I understabnd that it is illegal, what I am looking for is a rational, consistent explanation as to why, not simply restating that it is so and should be. If we are free to discriminate in choosing a spouse, why not in choosing an employee.
B
Brendan
Guest
It primarily boils down to Freedom and Equality being mutually exclusve goals.
Where there is Freedom (to hire and fire at will) there is no Equality. And this is true in almost every facet of life.
Where there is Freedom to choose one’s life goals, to excell the the best of one’s ability, there is a subsequent lack of Equality ( one’s ‘best’ varies from person to person).
The question them becomes what the ideal balance between Freedom and Equality are.
C
ChrisR246
Guest
Only if you mean equality of certain measurable result.
Not until you can explain why you have the authority tio interfere with another’s freedom, unless you are only addressing the question to yourself.
W
wcknight
Guest
The common sense answer to why folks are not allowed to discriminate boils down to common fairness. While AA is debatable, discrimination for housing and hiring practices is fundamentally unfair to the prospective employee who may have equal or better qualifications for a job or a home.
There are 2 sets of freedoms and rights at play here, one is the employers (or home sellers), and the other is the employee (or prospective home buyer). Everyone’s rights END where someone else’s rights begin. An employer has a right to hire but he has to do so in a fair and equitable manner.
Restricting hiring criteria based on race/gender infringes on the rights of a prospective employee to find a job for which he is otherwise qualified.
The civil rights laws of the 60’s were long overdue, and they should be stregthened not diluted. Unfortunately some people will not voluntarily practice fairness or common decentcy without government or something else holding a club over their heads.
There are 2 sets of freedoms and rights at play here, one is the employers (or home sellers), and the other is the employee (or prospective home buyer). Everyone’s rights END where someone else’s rights begin. An employer has a right to hire but he has to do so in a fair and equitable manner.
Restricting hiring criteria based on race/gender infringes on the rights of a prospective employee to find a job for which he is otherwise qualified.
The civil rights laws of the 60’s were long overdue, and they should be stregthened not diluted. Unfortunately some people will not voluntarily practice fairness or common decentcy without government or something else holding a club over their heads.
B
Brendan
Guest
Well, I think most of us, for example, have the authority to interfere with a robber’s freedom to rob us
Other than that, I made no claims as to what the balance is.
The very existance of civil law is to counter these mutually exclusive goals.
For example, For example, the Freedom to go what ever speed on wants on the freeway gives way to a measure of Equality of Speed in the interest of safety. The precise speed limit then becomes a balance of Freedom vs. Equality, the specifics of which will vary
In the case of AA, the re are those who place limits on the Freedom to run one’s own business as one sees fit vs. a measure of Equality of Outcome.
But, as in all things were there is complete Freedom, there is no Equality, and where there is complete Equality, that, of necessity, means no Freedom.
The answer I posed is more from a philosophical stand point
In this area, I greatly lean towards greater use of Freedom. And yes, there will be a reduction in Equality of Outcome.
But the
C
ChrisR246
Guest
Fairness is subjective and so can not be legislated.
Best is subjective.
There is no right to employment and there is no right to a home.
A person’s rights end where they harm someone else (harm being used in a broader sense than simply phsyical, but more in a sense of somehow leaves one worse off)
There is no right to that.
Would you extend that to every instance where one feels they are not being treated fairly or decently?
C
ChrisR246
Guest
The robber has no such right, as it harms the victim.Well, I think most of us, for example, have the authority to interfere with a robber’s freedom to rob us
No, the speed one goes on a highway is set by the owner at whatever he desires. The government, being the owner of the highway, in most cases (but why it shouldn’t be is a whole different topic) can decide whatever it wants the speed limit to be. Because the government represents all of us, it has to try to balance all our wishes, because we all own it. A single owner has no such restriction.
- Status