- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Affirmative action is all about meeting a quota. IT is no longer necessary. Employers HAVE to hire a certain number of minorities, especially in the construction industry.
Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy
Time has not quelled controversy over policies of preferential treatment. First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities. These programs are designed as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and timetables to raise the level of minority and female representation, and still others establish quotas to hire or admit a specified number of minority and female candidates.
Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste based quotas are used in Reservation in India. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.[6]
Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.
The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
again you are 100% wrong
QOUTAS are illegal in the US, this fact will not change
any QOUTAS a company sets up they are doing on thier own and they are breakign the law if caught, they can CALL it AA/EO all they want it is factually not true
Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AA is EO
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
and AA/EO is
Sorry, like i said you simply dont understand what AA/EE FACTUALLY is.
many people have programs that they call AA/EO but that doesnt make it true.
The fact remains colleges and employers have broken the law and been found guilty for having qoutas.
That's not evidence that blacks and whites are held to different standards. It's evidence that blacks and whites have different average MCAT scores and GPAs and that med schools take more than MCATs and GPAs into account. The fact is that medical schools eliminate applicants automatically based on minimum GPA and MCAT scores. After that, they look at everything else including race. You're assuming that the only difference between blacks and whites is scores when it's possible that blacks have better recommendations, research experience, internships or other more subjective qualifications. You're just making an assumption based on a surface analysis.Look at the statistics. A black who gets into Med school averages a 27 MCAT and just over 3.3 GPA while a white needs a 31 and just over a 3.6. If that isn't affirmative action, then I don't know what is. But whatever that is, is wrong.
That might be what they claim, but a lot of places do hire by quota to avoid problems. It doesn't even matter if a person is a good worker or even if he/she is qualified, only that they are a minority.
those places can CLAIM what ever they like the facts dont change.
By definition they are not practicing AA/EO and they are breaking the law.
Okay, well my point is that just because a piece of music is superficial does not mean the analysis of it has to be.I'm saying, a song that is meant to be understood at a superficial level only represents society at that superficial level.
That's what affirmative action does. It is to benefit a certain group or groups of people, regardless of merit usually.
Some other reasons to be against AA.
Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prominent people against affirmative action [edit]
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.[43][44]
Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[45] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.[46]
again you are 100% wrong
QOUTAS are illegal in the US, this fact will not change
any QOUTAS a company sets up they are doing on thier own and they are breakign the law if caught, they can CALL it AA/EO all they want it is factually not true
Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AA is EO
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
and AA/EO is
Sorry, like i said you simply dont understand what AA/EE FACTUALLY is.
many people have programs that they call AA/EO but that doesnt make it true.
The fact remains colleges and employers have broken the law and been found guilty for having qoutas.
1.)Quotas are de jure illegal.
2.)Obviously, they are a de facto ingredient in the regular application of any Affirmative Action policy.
3.)Otherwise, there would be no practical way of implementing it.
4.) I don't suppose you believe that companies and institutions arrive at their minority "target goals" by way of a Ouija board, do you?
1.) true
2.) false and if they are then its not AA/EO
3.) also false since the only requirement is OPPORTUNITY not employment
4.) if they have target goals then it proves they arent practicing AA/EO thanks for supporting the facts
My company is advertised as AA/EO and we do government work/contracts, I myself am a key member of recruiting/hiring. We have ZERO qoutas :shrug:
this is called practicing FACTUAL AA/EO the right way
1.)Thank you for this bit of honesty.
2.)"No true Scotsman" fallacy.
3.)Maintaining a sense of unreality does not improve your argument.
4.)"No true Scotsman" again. You'll have to do better than this.
5.)Of course you have quotas, you just do not call them quotas.
6.)It is annoyingly disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.
7.) Do you expect me to believe that you never conduct a head count of how many minority employees you have on the books?
1.) you're welcome
2.) facts prove you wrong
3.) its not my argument im stating facts, this is where you are confused
4.) again no i dont have to do better facts prove your statement wrong
5.) no we have ZERO qoutas LMAO
6.) be annoyed your argument is failing all you want doesnt change the fact we have no qoutas
its a fact for me to state that, you are the only on with the disingenuous issue in this conversation between us lol
7.) it doesnt matter what you "believe" the facts dont change
1.)What you are doing is dodging the issue.
2.)Let's cut the crap.
3.)You and I both know that what we are really talking about is not "Affirmative Action" in its most literal de jure legal interpretation.
4.) What we are talking about is the avoidance of discrimination lawsuits from such entities as the NAACP,
5.) as well as the avoidance of heavy fines and penalties from such entities as state and federal government for non-compliance with EOE guidelines.
6.)For example: If your company has a work force of, say... 1000 employees, and is located in a racially diverse region of the United States, and not a one of your employees is a "minority," then your company is highly vulnerable to the aforementioned lawsuits and fines and penalties, regardless of how fair and "color blind" your recruitment practices may have been, and especially regardless of whether you have presented the most unbiased and color blind opportunity for employment imaginable.
Okay, well my point is that just because a piece of music is superficial does not mean the analysis of it has to be.
That's not evidence that blacks and whites are held to different standards. It's evidence that blacks and whites have different average MCAT scores and GPAs and that med schools take more than MCATs and GPAs into account. The fact is that medical schools eliminate applicants automatically based on minimum GPA and MCAT scores. After that, they look at everything else including race. You're assuming that the only difference between blacks and whites is scores when it's possible that blacks have better recommendations, research experience, internships or other more subjective qualifications. You're just making an assumption based on a surface analysis.
Also, Asians get better scores than Whites. Does that mean Whites are held to a lower standard too?
1.) the reality is im the one focusing on the issue and facts and you dont like it
IF they are in fact practicing unfair policies and discrimination then they are vulnerable to get sued AND LOSE as anybody breaking the law
1.)No, you are DODGING the issue. This is the reality even if you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.
2.)And what sort of evidence would you present of said unfair policies and discrimination, practiced by a company that has zero minority employees though it operates in a demographically diverse region of the United States?
let me know when you are ready :shrug:
Let me know when you are ready to admit that an employer, whether in the private or public sector, can be sued or fined for not having a "sufficient" number of "minority" employees on their payroll. Then I will know that we are on the same page and can continue the discussion.
LMAO i never denied that...
1.)So then, you admit that quotas are indeed utilized by employers
2.) (perhaps even by your own employer, perhaps even by your own self considering your stated position in the company of which you are employed)
3.) in order to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits
4.) even if they are not officially utilized because it would be in violation of AA/EO law?
2.) no my employer has ZERO qoutas
Do you mean to say that your employer has never taken any sort of account in regards to the number of "minority" employees it has on its payroll?
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?