Affirmative Action: Is this really necessary?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sure, it's called civil rights. It's called equal opportunity. It has something to do with everyone having an equal chance to persue life, liberty, and happiness.

Nice buzz words. Only truly independent people dare think and speak only in cliche.

What about the business owners "civil rights"? How does he have an "equal" chance at liberty when the goverment is ordering him how to run his business?

Describe a right, identify it's origin. I can guarantee you'll be wrong.

 

[Thorgasm]

Nice buzz words. Only truly independent people dare think and speak only in cliche.

What about the business owners "civil rights"? How does he have an "equal" chance at liberty when the goverment is ordering him how to run his business?

The business owner's "civil rights" are not absolute. They have to follow the law. It is illegal to discriminate against a person due to their race, creed, or religion. The government regulates business owners all the time. Take OSHA for instance.

Describe a right, identify it's origin. I can guarantee you'll be wrong.

The right to vote. As with all rights, they are a social construct. They are granted by those in charge. I suppose you could say that they are really a "priveledge" instead of a right.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The business owner's "civil rights" are not absolute. They have to follow the law. It is illegal to discriminate against a person due to their race, creed, or religion. The government regulates business owners all the time. Take OSHA for instance.

On what basis does the law presume to dictate to a free man how to conduct his business?

It makes perfect sense for the government to pass laws regulating government hiring practices. Where does the authority come from to interfere in private affairs? There is none.

Does the government own the coffee shop on the corner? For this example, the answer is "no".

What is a job? Can you answer that? No, I'll let you off the hook, you must be coming to hate the taste of trichophyton by now. A job is a task that needs doing for which the person needing the task done is willing to pay another to perform.

Does the job applicant own the job? No.
Does the employee performing the job own it? No.
Does the government own this job in the coffee shop? No.

The employer doesn't "own" the job either. But he's just the guy paying to get the job done. He's the only guy that suffers the consequences if the job isn't done. Ultimately, it's HIS money.

So, if the coffee shop owner opts to hire the white girl with the hooters and the IQ of 90, instead of the pimply black boy planning on majoring in accounting at Yale, whose business is it? And if it was the federal government's business, can you cite the passage in the Constitution specifically granting the power to make hiring decisions at coffeeshops to the Federal government?


Does OSHA regulate who gets hired? Or is it serving one of the three legitimate functions of government?

The right to vote. As with all rights, they are a social construct. They are granted by those in charge. I suppose you could say that they are really a "priveledge" instead of a right.

What I do say is that rights do not have any existence whatsoever. What do you think does exist, since "rights" do not?

I answered the other quiz for you. Time for your midterm.

 

[Thorgasm]

On what basis does the law presume to dictate to a free man how to conduct his business?

It makes perfect sense for the government to pass laws regulating government hiring practices. Where does the authority come from to interfere in private affairs? There is none.

Does the government own the coffee shop on the corner? For this example, the answer is "no".

What is a job? Can you answer that? No, I'll let you off the hook, you must be coming to hate the taste of trichophyton by now. A job is a task that needs doing for which the person needing the task done is willing to pay another to perform.

Does the job applicant own the job? No.
Does the employee performing the job own it? No.
Does the government own this job in the coffee shop? No.

The employer doesn't "own" the job either. But he's just the guy paying to get the job done. He's the only guy that suffers the consequences if the job isn't done. Ultimately, it's HIS money.

So, if the coffee shop owner opts to hire the white girl with the hooters and the IQ of 90, instead of the pimply black boy planning on majoring in accounting at Yale, whose business is it? And if it was the federal government's business, can you cite the passage in the Constitution specifically granting the power to make hiring decisions at coffeeshops to the Federal government?


Does OSHA regulate who gets hired? Or is it serving one of the three legitimate functions of government?

Your coffee shop argument is moot. AA affects businesses with 500 or more employees. These are corporations. Corporations are not individual owners.

What I do say is that rights do not have any existence whatsoever. What do you think does exist, since "rights" do not?

I answered the other quiz for you. Time for your midterm.

You acting like a know-it-all teacher type is humorous. But if that is how you build your self esteem, so be it. I already said priveledges granted by those in power.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your coffee shop argument is moot. AA affects businesses with 500 or more employees. These are corporations. Corporations are not individual owners.

Let's call the coffee shop "Star Bucks".

That make any difference to what I wrote? No of course not. Nor does the spreading of the risk among stockholders any different than risk held by a single individual. It's still private risk and not the liability of the government.

You acting like a know-it-all teacher type is humorous. But if that is how you build your self esteem, so be it. I already said priveledges granted by those in power.

The question was what exists if rights do not. Clearly if your statement about privelege was on the mark, I would have expended effort leading you to a different mud puddle to drink from.

Read Orwell. Follow him up with Hayek. Chase it with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

 

[Thorgasm]

Let's call the coffee shop "Star Bucks".

That make any difference to what I wrote? No of course not. Nor does the spreading of the risk among stockholders any different than risk held by a single individual. It's still private risk and not the liability of the government.

If you think that racism doesn't exist anymore, then you don't need AA. It does exist thus AA exists. Civil rights are about the protection of the minorities and oppressed from the majority and oppressors.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If you think that racism doesn't exist anymore, then you don't need AA. It does exist thus AA exists. Civil rights are about the protection of the minorities and oppressed from the majority and oppressors.

Found a new straw man to satisfy your urges?

Why don't you fix your arguments so the evidence is before the conclusion?

Here's what you should be saying:

Affirmative Action exists, therefore racism exists.

Not only is the statement accurate, it also makes sense.

I don't care if racism exists. If a shop keeper or a corporation wishes to hire people based on qualifications not related to job effectiveness, then this is a free country and it's their business, not mine. And it's not yours, either.

 

[Thorgasm]

Found a new straw man to satisfy your urges?

Why don't you fix your arguments so the evidence is before the conclusion?

Here's what you should be saying:

Affirmative Action exists, therefore racism exists.

Not only is the statement accurate, it also makes sense.

I don't care if racism exists. If a shop keeper or a corporation wishes to hire people based on qualifications not related to job effectiveness, then this is a free country and it's their business, not mine. And it's not yours, either.

I know, you don't care about anyone except you and your family. You are incorrect in one thing though. It isn't your business to tell me what my business is.:lol:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I know, you don't care about anyone except you and your family. You are incorrect in one thing though. It isn't your business to tell me what my business is.:lol:

That's fine. I'm not telling you what your business is. I'm telling you what your business is not.

You're telling me what my business is by insisting that I have this non-existent obligation to support people I don't know and didn't volunteer to mother. So, since you now admit that people shouldn't be defining the obligations of others, why don't you stop doing just that?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Without Affirmative Action and all the other unconstitutional racially motivated laws, what grounds would the complainant have had to sue?

Can someone now explain where on earth the government gets the authority to tell private individuals who they can and cannot hire?

Ground your answer in stated assumptions, please.

I think you forget America's love affair with lawsuits. Sorry, discriminative lawsuits were filed long before AA. Sometimes justified, sometimes not, and the winner depended on the wiley ways of a good tort lawyer. This is from the mouths of our law professors here ( Nice bonus of being associated with Academia here even though it pays diddly squat) You did not read my post, she did not have a case, not one cent was spent by myself because when her lawyer reviewed my office managers excellent paper trail, he realized she did not have a case of discrimination so he never pursued it. (he was a good lawyer.)

People who are not owners in a private corporation like I am have not a clue about AA. I hire the best people because dammit, I want to make a profit, I want to pay for overhead, and I want to keep expanding. Government does not tell me who and when to hire. So please stop perpetuating the lie that government controls my hiring practices.

The black guy with a yale undergrad degree vying for a job in coffee shop against a bimbo is mute. The qualifications are specific to the job and I'm sorry, a bimbo can be equally if not better at the cofee shop job (since lower IQs may not get bored with the tedius job.). In fact, I had just such a scenario in my business this spring...

I had a Indian with a MD degree in Ear Nose throat surgery and a molecular biology degree from India's equivalent of MIT apply to be our lab director. ( She like many foreign national physicians could not qualify for American surgical residency programs) She was more "qualified" than the white girl (who happens to be pimply) who had an Associates degree in lab technology who was 23. But, I could barely understand the Indian's english and felt she could not communicate effectively with employees (One of my job specifications is fluency and effective communication skills in english). Guess what, I have no Indian employees. Do you think she has a chance even if she tried to use AA? No, of course not. She did not fit the specifications of the job, and the white girl got it. AA has actually protected businesses like myself when people do try to sue.

 

[Citizen]

baidaidwoman, Affirmative action is not as simplistic as you think. It is deeply rooted in institutional racism. Not a few small vusinesses who hire blacks, whitres or hispanics. Really affirmative action is not really about hiring at all as you and many others may think. It is about leveling the playing field. In most cases, that has to do with higher education, representation on police forces and large corporations practices in management, government contracts, and awarding francises.

 

[bandaidwoman]

baidaidwoman, Affirmative action is not as simplistic as you think. It is deeply rooted in institutional racism. Not a few small vusinesses who hire blacks, whitres or hispanics. Really affirmative action is not really about hiring at all as you and many others may think. It is about leveling the playing field. In most cases, that has to do with higher education, representation on police forces and large corporations practices in management, government contracts, and awarding francises.

Very true, (Once again, I cannot speak for academic institutions.)

I just wanted people to know that it does not constrain us business owners in the least, what it does do is even out the playing field (as you stated) for any black or minority applying for a job who are qualified and fit to work for a company without the shackles of society's persistant prejudicial and discriminatory practice (which many believe are non existant or magically going away.) I have been just focused quite narrowly on hiring practices because it is what I know best.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Without Affirmative Action and all the other unconstitutional racially motivated laws, what grounds would the complainant have had to sue?

Can someone now explain where on earth the government gets the authority to tell private individuals who they can and cannot hire?

Ground your answer in stated assumptions, please.

Using your line of reasing - if someone at your company came out as being gay - you would claim the right to fire them simply on that issue.

For that matter - if I only wanted to hire Democrats who voted for Kerry at my business - you would have no problem with that?

Or only members of the KKK...

Or only anti-death penalty people...

Or only agnostics...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think you forget America's love affair with lawsuits. Sorry, discriminative lawsuits were filed long before AA. Sometimes justified, sometimes not, and the winner depended on the wiley ways of a good tort lawyer. This is from the mouths of our law professors here ( Nice bonus of being associated with Academia here even though it pays diddly squat) You did not read my post, she did not have a case, not one cent was spent by myself because when her lawyer reviewed my office managers excellent paper trail, he realized she did not have a case of discrimination so he never pursued it. (he was a good lawyer.)

Nope, haven't forgotten. But without laws to support the suits, they disappear. Fix the laws, don't enforce new discrimination because old laws get in the way.

Yes, we all know all lawyers are scum and that no decent person associates with one. That's been known since Hamurabi.

People who are not owners in a private corporation like I am have not a clue about AA. I hire the best people because dammit, I want to make a profit, I want to pay for overhead, and I want to keep expanding. Government does not tell me who and when to hire. So please stop perpetuating the lie that government controls my hiring practices.

Well, you don't have a clue about Affirmative Action, that's plain. Look at what you just wrote. First you write that you're harassed by discrimination suits then you write you hire who you want. You wouldn't have the suits if the law recognized your ownership of your business, as it would in a libertarian society.

The black guy with a yale undergrad degree vying for a job in coffee shop against a bimbo is mute.

Firstly, I don't know if the black guy could talk or not, but that would be a major strike against his getting hired, IMO. If you meant to say the p oint is moot, you're simply not understanding the purpose of the example. I didn't mean to imply he was a student at Yale, but that he was intending to become one. However, I don't see where it makes a difference. The shop keeper shouldn't be constrained by law to select his employees on someone else's criteria.

The qualifications are specific to the job and I'm sorry, a bimbo can be equally if not better at the cofee shop job (since lower IQs may not get bored with the tedius job.).

No....I ran a business similar to a coffee shop. And setting your medical industry elitist snobbery aside, I've fired people because they were too stupid to stop picking their noses over the mille feuilles. Smarter people are easier to train and make fewer mistakes, in every industry.

I had a Indian with a MD degree in Ear Nose throat surgery and a molecular biology degree from India's equivalent of MIT apply to be our lab director. ( She like many foreign national physicians could not qualify for American surgical residency programs) She was more "qualified" than the white girl (who happens to be pimply) who had an Associates degree in lab technology who was 23. But, I could barely understand the Indian's english and felt she could not communicate effectively with employees (One of my job specifications is fluency and effective communication skills in english). Guess what, I have no Indian employees. Do you think she has a chance even if she tried to use AA? No, of course not. She did not fit the specifications of the job, and the white girl got it. AA has actually protected businesses like myself when people do try to sue.

If she can't speak english, she's not "more qualified", she's underqualified with a deficiency set different from other unsatisfactory applicants. The example I provided both applicants satisfied the minimum requirements for the job, each had different additional features to offer the employer. (hooters vs brains)

Openly specifying english fluency will open most employers up for EEOC lawsuits. Los Angeles County lost a suit in which a hospital attempted to require it's filipina nurses to speak only in english while on the job.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Using your line of reasing - if someone at your company came out as being gay - you would claim the right to fire them simply on that issue.

I claim the right to fire anyone, at anytime. It's my job, not theirs. Don't introduce irrelevancies such as preferred port of entry into the discussion. I don't care about that at all.

For that matter - if I only wanted to hire Democrats who voted for Kerry at my business - you would have no problem with that?

Go right ahead. It's your business, isn't it?

Or only members of the KKK...

So? Are you beginning to get the picture? It's YOUR business, not mine. Do what you want with it, okay? The only boundary is that you can't take from people what is theirs without paying their agreed price. A job doesn't belong to the employee.

Or only anti-death penalty people...

You can hire OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson (If he wasn't in jail).

Or only agnostics...

Yep. Though you'd be better off with atheists. They're more decisive.

 

[bandaidwoman]

First you write that you're harassed by discrimination suits then you write you hire who you want. You wouldn't have the suits if the law recognized your ownership of your business, as it would in a libertarian society.

Never been harassed. One suit that never went beyond one day of looking at my records. My lawyer never had to be called. Not one penny out of my pocket. Not one day spent in an office congregating with lawyers. .....And so a libertarian society completely eliminate's an individual right to sue if they feel their individual right as a prospective employee is not violated by a potentially prejudicial employer? It runs both ways.

No....I ran a business similar to a coffee shop. And setting your medical industry elitist snobbery aside, I've fired people because they were too stupid to stop picking their noses over the mille feuilles. Smarter people are easier to train and make fewer mistakes, in every industry.

Smarter, educated people are less likely to stay in an underpaid job, that is another adage. Also, a coffee shop is not sued because they make even the simplest mistake unlike the medical industry. (Oh wait, don't tell me, in a Libertarian society malpractice against any aspect of the medical industry that committed a mistake would also go away?)

Openly specifying english fluency will open most employers up for EEOC lawsuits. Los Angeles County lost a suit in which a hospital attempted to require it's filipina nurses to speak only in english while on the job.

Not in georgia. Perhaps that is why businesses are flooding South of the Mason Dixie Line?

 

[bandaidwoman]

No....I ran a business similar to a coffee shop. And setting your medical industry elitist snobbery aside, I've fired people because they were too stupid to stop picking their noses over the mille feuilles. Smarter people are easier to train and make fewer mistakes, in every industry.

Back to that subject. I thought I would provide an example. A receptionist takes a message by phone and forgets to tell the nurse the patient was having chest pain along with their cough. The message gets triaged to low level priority (average 300 calls a day) and the person gets a heart attack while waiting for a call back and sues. Now don't tell me that is the same as finding nose snot in the mille feuilles....so yes, the yardstick for hiring is different, not elitist.

 

[UtahBill]

AA is necessary, and I support it, but not its abuses. It should be expanded to include the poor (but very smart and willing to do the work) who cannot compete with legacy admissions. In no case should a fine mind be excluded from being further developed. Those of us with ordinary minds need to learn to settle for what we are actually capable of. A fact of life is that not all of us are equally blessed with intellect, and we should not be wasting educational resources chasing down some vague concept of equality.
We should have equal opportunity, but that will never guarantee equal results. Success is due mostly to individual effort coupled with natural ability, and those items will never be spread equally among us.
If the rich want to insure a place for their privileged brats in higher education, let them create and fund their own private institutions of learning designed just for them. The alternative is to have them waste space and time in our finer universities. That is how we got the Shrub. In a truly fair world, he would be lucky to be working for the likes of Powell or Rice.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Back to that subject. I thought I would provide an example. A receptionist takes a message by phone and forgets to tell the nurse the patient was having chest pain along with their cough. The message gets triaged to low level priority (average 300 calls a day) and the person gets a heart attack while waiting for a call back and sues. Now don't tell me that is the same as finding nose snot in the mille feuilles....so yes, the yardstick for hiring is different, not elitist.

Yes, you're being elitist. How do I know the snotty nosed kid does have a unique strain of flu and he spreads his fatal infection to Mel Gibson through my pastries?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Yes, you're being elitist. How do I know the snotty nosed kid does have a unique strain of flu and he spreads his fatal infection to Mel Gibson through my pastries?

now that is funny:mrgreen:

However. numbers wise malpractiCe premiums are much higher than other liability insurances. My liability for commercial property ownership ( and rental property business) does not compare to the medical malpractice. Don't know what coffee shop liability insurance is but I don't hear people closing shop because of high liablity insurance in the coffee business compared to the droves of doctors.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think AA was a needed tool when it was first instituted but it has long since outlived its usefulness and should be scrapped.......People should be hired according to their qualifications and not for the color of their skin........

 

[RightOfCenter]

AA is necessary, and I support it, but not its abuses. It should be expanded to include the poor (but very smart and willing to do the work) who cannot compete with legacy admissions. In no case should a fine mind be excluded from being further developed.

Good point, but lets suppose a poor white child has the same qualifications as a rich black child? Who gets picked? Should the black be disqualified because he has enough money to get in or should the white be vetoed because of his race?

So children without perfect grades should just give up? What happened to the American Dream? Can't hard work make up for a lack of natural talent? Plus, educationional resources (public educational resources anyway) are provided by the government, that's everyones tax dollars, even the dumb people.

We should have equal opportunity, but that will never guarantee equal results. Success is due mostly to individual effort coupled with natural ability, and those items will never be spread equally among us.

Of course it won't but hard work still pays its dividends, let me give you an example. I thought the valedictorian at my high school was one of the dumber children I had ever met but the kid put his time in and graduated with the highest GPA in my class. My point is, even without natural talent, hard work can still earn you a comfortable place at a respected university where you will earn and pay for a better education for yourself and your family while those people who don't work hard and ignore the opportunities their given wind up sweeping hallways at their old school

 

[JOHNYJ]

No race based affirmative action,but, There could be such a program based on " economic status ". Which is fairer and will accomplish much of the same thing as the unfair type.