but equity doesnt depend on equal opportunity -it is a metric for equality of OUTCOMES - not like affirmative action equal opportunity.
I know the difference between equity and equality.
That seems to be because there is an ambiguity in the question:
MLK didn't believe in turning a blind eye to color--he believed in embracing everyone's color as equal, to celebrate differences as unique, but equally important to bring to the table. Otherwise, I agree--we've had too many years of white supremacy in this country. I was raised on the American ideal of "equality for all" and I still believe in that.
I just did. you keep mentioning hiring people equaly qualified for a job must tilt towards a minority hireI know the difference between equity and equality.
I have no idea how you think I'm "mixing up" anything--but if you can prove it by showing where I was unclear, by all means do. I welcome the chance to clarify--whatever it is you have already judged me based upon.
Next time, ask a question instead of assuming your facts
Not correct. Most of us are aware of research that has been going on since mid-20th century showing that prejudice is the cause.
We cannot ever attain full and perfect justice. That is hardly an excuse to not try to do so, and to keep trying to be better.
This, however, is false. See my posts 91 and 108 in this thread.
Again, nope. We reached that conclusion as the end of a long investigation. We didn't start out assuming it. You can find the aforementioned evidence if you have access to a good academic library.Third, it is being pushed by individuals who have made the hypothesis that the West is a singularly oppressive patriarchy an unshakeable axiom, and who will fight tooth and nail any idea that threatens that absolute article of faith, no matter how absurd the arguments that constitute that fight are destined to become.
Equity: When the Left Goes Too Far – Jordan Peterson
www.jordanbpeterson.com
Where there is no diversity--yes, I do agree a minority who is equally qualified should get the job.
No, Affirmative action makes it illegal to give a less qualified person a job (sort of the reason it was created) and quotas are also illegal according to Affirmative Action.
Are you talking about equal pay for equal work? Then yes--just because you hire a black person doesn't mean they should be paid less because they aren't white.
So you think equal pay for equal work is anathema to the American spirit? I disagree.
MLK didn't believe in turning a blind eye to color--he believed in embracing everyone's color as equal, to celebrate differences as unique, but equally important to bring to the table. Otherwise, I agree--we've had too many years of white supremacy in this country. I was raised on the American ideal of "equality for all" and I still believe in that.
meh it wasnt my writing. i dont agree with all of it -but intersectionality has now produced a hydra of factors to evaluate in hiring
no ..look the biden XO - minus all the Prog buzzwords
federalnewsnetwork.com
Did you read the order? He speaks of racial equity--in which all skin colors carry the same honor--to replace the systemic racism our country is based on. He speaks about equal opportunity and equity in government programs. In other words, it is not enough to say "anyone may apply"--it must also be "everyone gets paid the same"--as in equal pay for equal work.no ..look the biden XO - minus all the Prog buzzwords
One new requirement from the executive order calls on agencies to add resources to their agency equity teams, which are tasked with coordinating internal equity initiatives and ensuring equitable outcomes for federal services and programs.3 requirements for agencies under Biden’s new executive order on equity
The executive order launches an annual requirement for agencies to develop equity action plans and tasks agencies with improving community outreach when developing those plans.
I don't see any ambiguity. If race is consideration in your choice of a surgeon, it is a racist, at least by the traditional definition. Saying "I want a white surgeon" is no different than saying "I want a black surgeon".
The phrase "choice of surgeon" is ambiguous. Do you mean choice from among already trained and qualified surgeons? Or do you mean choice from among those who are applying to medical school, who may or will eventually become surgeons? Choosing on the basis of race in 1 is racist, but not in 2.
Why the weirdness? Second, and last time, there is no ambiguity.
Ah, no, not really. Women choose women doctors because they often feel more comfortable--is that sexist? Considering the number of women who are sexually assaulted and/or molested by men, it could be based on the dislike of having strange men between their legs. Of course--then we enter the realm of personal preference that has little to do with thinking a man isn't as qualified as a woman--that's discrimination.
There is no weirdness, and there is an ambiguity--just as there is in this latest post. When you say "I want a black surgeon" do you mean 1) you want there to be such a thing as a black surgeon somewhere, or 2) you want a black surgeon to operate on your mom?
Your question is too ambiguous for me to answer. Can you give me a few more interpretations of my statement "Mom needs her gallbladder out. If I say 'I want a black surgeon' that is [] racist." Perhaps go back to your medical school examples, mom can wait a few years.
it's much deeper then equal pay or equal hiring,, remember this?
And minority farmers were not getting the assistance they qualified for because of implicit bias--this is the equity that needs to be established.it's much deeper then equal pay or equal hiring,, remember this?
Marcia Morales Howard of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in Jacksonville, found that Scott Wynn, a white farmer in Jennings, Fla., who had challenged the program in a lawsuit in May, was likely to succeed on his claim that the program violates his right to equal protection under the law.Judge Blocks $4 Billion U.S. Debt Relief Program for Minority Farmers (Published 2021)
The aid program, part of the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that Congress passed in March, is intended to help farmers who have endured generations of racial discrimination.www.nytimes.com
Known as Section 1005, the program was created as part of the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that Congress passed in March. It was intended to provide debt relief to “socially disadvantaged farmers” — defined by the government as those who are Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander.
“Section 1005’s rigid, categorical, race-based qualification for relief is the antithesis of flexibility,” Judge Howard wrote. “The debt relief provision applies strictly on racial grounds irrespective of any other factor. Every person who identifies him or herself as falling within a socially disadvantaged group who has a qualifying farm loan with an outstanding balance as of January 1, 2021, receives up to 120 percent debt relief — and no one else receives any debt relief.”
where do you get this? "implicit bias" is not measurable, discrimination and violation of equal protection today ARE.
Minorities have had more opportunities and have been preened compulsorily for success for at least the last twenty years. It's hardly an accomplishment.