- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- 2,874
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That may be true in today's job market, but it was not true in the 1980's. I worked for a SoCal city. BY LAW that city was required to employ minorities in direct proportion the the percentage of minorities living in a certain radius around our city. BY LAW we had to prepare massive state and federal reports every quarter listing our employees by race, comparing those percentages to the percentage of minorities by race, documenting any changes from last quarter, and justifying any dip in the percentage of those employed to the baseline of minorities in the area.
Hon, if that isn't a mandated quota system, I don't know what is.
It was then, as now, against the law unless ordered by a court. it would only have been ordered by a court if the company lost a law suit showing they failed to higher more qualified minorities in favor of less qualified whites.
The fact is, quotas are the antithesis of what Affirmative action stands for. That's then and now. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's simply a shame that the misinformation regarding AA has persisted for so long.
That is not the case. There was no lawsuit, no court order. There were state and federal forms that were required by law of all public and governmental entities. Every city and county in California (and presumably around the nation) were required to submit these reports as I have stated. I know. I had to help prepare them.
The fact is, quotas are the antithesis of what Affirmative action stands for. That's then and now. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's simply a shame that the misinformation regarding AA has persisted for so long.
I am not giving misinformation. These forms were mandated by the state and local government. As I have said previously, I had to help fill them out. They may not be required today... I've been out of public service for quite a while... but in the 1980's, they WERE required. Your denial does not negate that fact.
Should have sued. The courts ruled quotas we illegal.
But, explain the forms. The only forms I've seen say we must prove we are not discriminating. Not that we're meeting a quota.
the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.
I've already explained the forms in Post #73. All cities and counties in California were required to submit them. They didn't have the word "quota" on them; they used the word "percentages" instead, but the bottom line was the same. If 10% of residents in a specific radius were Hispanic, and 10% of city employees were not Hispanic, then we had to explain why, and every job filled during the period along with all application forms for that job were scrutinized.
BTW, the original court case was in California. 1978.
the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.
by the way, the ruling was 5-4, liberal justices had no problem with the quota system.
Prove it. No more chatter. Copy the portion of the law that supports your viewpoint or stop spewing lies. I'm tired of the back and forth.
Not sure the vote was along ideaological lines, but it doesn't matter. It is against the law, right?
Percentages isn't a better word.
As for explain why, wouldn't a reasonable explanation be that none qualified applied? Having to explain is not the same as mandating a quota, wouldn't you agree?
No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with Affirmative action.
n 1997, the Texas legislature passed the "Top 10 Percent Law," which mandates that Texas high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their class be automatically admitted to any Texas state university. In addition to that policy, the school considers race along with several other factors for admission. Fisher did not qualify for automatic admission. Instead she competed with other non-top-10-state applicants, some of whom were entitled to receive racial preference. She was denied admission and argued it was because of her race.
The case in question, in fact it does. To quote the source article:
Further reference: Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
by the way, the ruling was 5-4, liberal justices had no problem with the quota system.
Since you missed it: "Edited to add: I'm not going to go 'round and 'round with semantics on this for you or Tet. Y'all can call it whatever you want. Bottom line, it WAS at its core a quota system whether one could legally call it that or not. "
I feel as if I'm being treated as someone who was against AA when it was originally implemented. I was not. I was all for it, and did not resent the forms we had to fill out one iota. However, I'm annoyed to be treated as if I am a braindead child when I tell folks what was mandated and how we had to implement it, and am told in return that I basically didn't really understand what was the actual purpose of the forms I had to fill out.
Believe what you will guys, I'm outta here. I'm not angry, just tired of playing semantical roulette.
Which is why the addition of Judge Alito to SCOTUS makes such a difference.
5-4 indicates that the "law" is pretty subjective.
Just curious, but do you guys come across longtime unemployed minorities on a regular basis and think to yourself, "Gee, I wonder why THAT person doesn't have a really good job"?
That is about the weirdest thing I've heard on these threads. There are arguments against the findings of IQ by race which are based on 'cultural bias' but I have never heard this.
the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.
5-4 not to have quotas. Would 6-3 voting the same way really make a difference?
Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. So THIS vote will also be 5-4, but the other way. That's what I meant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?