View Full Version : Affirmative Action
I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.
I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.
What do you guys think?
Banquo's Ghost
11-03-2006, 19:20
I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.
I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.
What do you guys think?
I think it would help if you detailed the proposal, as affirmative action can mean quite a lot of different things - especially if you want views from outside the USA, where we might tend to use the term "positive discrimination" or many others.
:bow:
yesdachi
11-03-2006, 19:30
Here are the basics…
Proposal 2, known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, would stop public agencies and universities from granting preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, awarding contracts or admissions.
I will also be voting YES to eliminate AA. I do think it was at one time a needed thing but I don’t think it is needed anymore.
KukriKhan
11-03-2006, 19:31
Text of the actual Proposal they'll be votingon:
"A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.
"Should this proposal be adopted?"
We had a similar 'Proposition' (as it's called in California) in 1996, which passed. Minority uni enrollment is down since then.
What do you guys think?
I think it was a necessary evil done to compensate for several generations of previous discrimination. I think it has almost served its purpose, but not quite, yet. I think they should be allowed to prevail for one whole generation (40 years), then dropped.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 19:34
For me, this is where empiricism has to win out over idealism. Yes, truly, affirmative action should be unnessary in today's day and age. But as Kukri-san points out, data points otherwise, that when AA is removed as an acceptance criteria, minority enrollment drops. I would certainly agree that affirmative action is no longer required for women, as they outnumber men in advanced studies by a full 3:2.
I'm not sure if this exists in other countries or just i the USA, but all non Americans feel free to join this discussion.
I have to vote next week on a proposal which would ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. I am 100% for voting yes on the proposal because AA really does disgust me.
What do you guys think?
Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 19:56
Don't hold back, Pindar, tell us how you really feel. I don't think I've ever seen the Master of the Horse use such strong language.
I agree that AA is not the answer. I understand and agree with all of the arguments against it. And yet, there remains the fact that those people who identify themselves as African American see a decline in their enrollments when AA is forbidden. The answer must be in seeking to solve the cause, not the symptom. But how do you encourage an entire cultural identity group to value education more and work with their children. The single biggest component to the success or failure of a child in the American educational system is parental involvement, yet it's the one that gets the least amount of focus.
KukriKhan
11-03-2006, 20:35
Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.
No argument with any of those 3 sentences. If the post-civil war men in power had held the same enlighted mindset, AA would never have been necessary. But they didn't, so it was.
The only other course to reconciliation and integration I can think of is: monetary compensation. And I submit, that a single generation of AA policies in education and work, is cheaper, more goal-directed, and less fiscally-onerous than trying to figure out a proper amount to pay out.
IIRC, didn't the U.S. Supreme Court rule such things as unconstitutional? Or was that university quotas? Been a while since that particular lecture.
Oh, and it's a despicable practice, it is discrimination just like any other, and, as such, must be abolished.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2006, 20:43
No, the SCOTUS found affirmative action (specifically a Michigan Uni IIRC) not unconstitutional, though I don't recall specifics.
But either way, this is racism; they are choosing people based on their race.
Vote it down.
CR
Don't hold back, Pindar, tell us how you really feel. I don't think I've ever seen the Master of the Horse use such strong language.
Hehe, I'm feeling a bit saucy.
I agree that AA is not the answer. I understand and agree with all of the arguments against it. And yet, there remains the fact that those people who identify themselves as African American see a decline in their enrollments when AA is forbidden.
Irrelevant. The government's job is not to bolster false categories or to foster undeserved standing. University education is not compulsory. If an individual does not have the wherewithal to pass muster so be it.
The answer must be in seeking to solve the cause, not the symptom. But how do you encourage an entire cultural identity group to value education more and work with their children.
It is not the government's job to encourage an entire cultural* identity group anything. The government should only concern itself with the individual qua citizen.
*I also reject the idea pigment is cultural.
Divinus Arma
11-03-2006, 20:47
Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.
Thank you. Exactly.
Prince of the Poodles
11-03-2006, 20:49
Affirmative Action (AA) is a repugnancy. Discrimination to counter discrimination is both theoretically obtuse and practically horrid as it perpetuates a victim mentality and breeds dependency. Race itself is a false category.
Wow.. I couldnt agree more. :thumbsup:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-03-2006, 20:50
Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.
CrossLOPER
11-03-2006, 20:53
Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.
It was apparently a good intention, but went badly when people who had no skill or wish to perform their jobs were being hired. Sometimes, misconduct and rudeness would be overlooked. The result is irritation for everyone.
Edit: lalallaalaalallaalalaala Friday.
No argument with any of those 3 sentences. If the post-civil war men in power had held the same enlighted mindset, AA would never have been necessary. But they didn't, so it was.
The only other course to reconciliation and integration I can think of is: monetary compensation. And I submit, that a single generation of AA policies in education and work, is cheaper, more goal-directed, and less fiscally-onerous than trying to figure out a proper amount to pay out.
Hello Master KuriKhan,
It appears you agree AA is theoretically absurd. The 'necessary' referent above would appear to be a practical appeal. If we follow this line of thought it would seem to be that discrimination is acceptable to redress the evils of the past. How does one determine the necessary condition has been met? Is it based on a time line (a number of years equal to slavery in the Republic?), Is it based on economic standing: X number of the educated oppressed have met economic standing Y? Would this have to be periodically checked so that any dip below Y would constitute a reintroduction of AA? How does one even determine proper benefitee status? Is it any drop of African blood or only Sub-Saharan African ancestry? Is it 1/32 oppressed ancestry, 1/16, 1/8, 1/2 that would constitute government largess? Does AA apply to any minority or only those traceable to the Civil War? What does one do with minorities that despite their own history of oppression in the U.S. nonetheless succeed in university: do we restrict/bar Asians because their too successful?
Rather than embracing absurdities and getting lost in a practical bog it is preferable to understand under basic jurisprudence one cannot be prosecuted for doing something that was legal at one time or expect redress for the same. If times change (as seems the case with the twin evils or slavery and segregation) then best to move on and let each be accounted for the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Recognize the evils of the past by not repeating them: discrimination is an example.
KukriKhan
11-03-2006, 22:12
Honorable Pindar:
You've adroitly addressed both the philosophical and practical pitfalls of using an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership) to combat an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership). I'm certain we agree there, and can only imagine with horror, if, at this late date, a one-time financial compensation scheme were proposed to remedy past discrimination.
When I read:
...If times change (as seems the case with the twin evils or slavery and segregation) then best to move on and let each be accounted for the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Recognize the evils of the past by not repeating them...
I found myself nodding my head "yes". But:
such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.
In short, I only say: Let AA continue until 2012 (40 years after the 1972 statutes, etc were enacted). Then revisit the issue. Anyone who has not taken advantage of AA policies by then: "Too bad, so sad. This is as level a playing field as we can achieve within our (american) system."
Goofball
11-03-2006, 22:53
Man, this is a topic I really hate. I hate it because I see and agree with statements to the effect of "AA is a racist policy and should not exist." But at the same time, I can't block from my mind the thought that those making those statements often are not acknowledging the fact that the other (the home grown, non-leglislated, I'm not comfortable with you because you are brown) kind of racism still exists.
It would be impossible to prove one way or the other, because I don't think there would be any available statistics, but I believe that for every nice white boy who didn't get into uni because he was white, there is a nice black boy who didn't get the job because he was black.
That's only my feeling, so please don't ask me to prove it, but feel free to disagree.
There is no happy answer to the AA question.
Man, this is a topic I really hate. I hate it because I see and agree with statements to the effect of "AA is a racist policy and should not exist." But at the same time, I can't block from my mind the thought that those making those statements often are not acknowledging the fact that the other (the home grown, non-leglislated, I'm not comfortable with you because you are brown) kind of racism still exists.
It would be impossible to prove one way or the other, because I don't think there would be any available statistics, but I believe that for every nice white boy who didn't get into uni because he was white, there is a nice black boy who didn't get the job because he was black.
That's only my feeling, so please don't ask me to prove it, but feel free to disagree.
There is no happy answer to the AA question.
My thoughts exactly :2thumbsup:
Devastatin Dave
11-03-2006, 23:08
Kill Whitey!!!!:laugh4:
I found myself nodding my head "yes". But:
such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.
Very nice.
Man, this is a topic I really hate. I hate it because I see and agree with statements to the effect of "AA is a racist policy and should not exist." But at the same time, I can't block from my mind the thought that those making those statements often are not acknowledging the fact that the other (the home grown, non-leglislated, I'm not comfortable with you because you are brown) kind of racism still exists.
It would be impossible to prove one way or the other, because I don't think there would be any available statistics, but I believe that for every nice white boy who didn't get into uni because he was white, there is a nice black boy who didn't get the job because he was black.
That's only my feeling, so please don't ask me to prove it, but feel free to disagree.
There is no happy answer to the AA question.
Part of the problem is the monochromatic example you have applied to the AA equation. AA may be a blessing to Blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics and a bane to Whites but in some instances it can be a veritable roadblock for Asians, especially East Asians. The racial quotas that apply to Asians have a tendency to match their overall population which is roughly 3-4%. In the aftermath of Proposition 209 Asian enrollment in California schools increased across the board. In the case of California's more prestigious schools Asian enrollment jumped dramatically with their representation in the matriculating freshman class far outstripping their representation in the overall population. Based on the US census Asians outperform every other racial group with respect to academic achievement and socioeconomic standing. Being shoehorned into a 3-4% quota clearly isn't helping Asians make the most out of their efforts in what, for all intents and purposes, should be a purely meritocratic environment.
rory_20_uk
11-03-2006, 23:26
So, you're going to the doctor who is going to do bypass surgery on you. Would you go for the doctor who regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation is good, or are you happy to go to the other one, who has been having the AA leg up since 16; grades notably lower but gets in anyway.
And if you take the "oh, Medicine is different" then do you want the lawyer who isn't as good, or the plumber, or whatever who is where they are not on ability but merely as they're keeping the numbers up?
Or is it that as an idea it's fine - but with the caveat that you'll never be on the receiving end of their potentially substandard services.
~:smoking:
AntiochusIII
11-03-2006, 23:29
I dunno. If I can convince them that me, a first-generation Asian immigrant of the United States with no prior contact or ancestral link with it whatsoever, has an Indian blood in me, I'd get into whatever University I want for the hell of it.
:tongue:
So, you're going to the doctor who is going to do bypass surgery on you. Would you go for the doctor who regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation is good, or are you happy to go to the other one, who has been having the AA leg up since 16; grades notably lower but gets in anyway.
But without it the opposite might occur, the good doctor is infact bad, but got the job over the better doctor who would have got a leg up from the AA, and who without it would not have been employed because of the employers discrimination etc. - its difficult :2thumbsup:
Goofball
11-03-2006, 23:31
Part of the problem is the monochromatic example you have applied to the AA equation. AA may be a blessing to Blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics and a bane to Whites but in some instances it can be a veritable roadblock for Asians, especially East Asians. The racial quotas that apply to Asians have a tendency to match their overall population which is roughly 3-4%. In the aftermath of Proposition 209 Asian enrollment in California schools increased across the board. In the case of California's more prestigious schools Asian enrollment jumped dramatically. Based on the US census Asians outperform every other racial group with respect to academic achievement and socioeconomic standing. Being shoehorned into a 3-4% quota clearly isn't helping Asians make the most out of their efforts in what, for all intents and purposes, should be a purely meritocratic environment.
I dispute nothing that you say.
The other reason I really hate the topic of AA is that, unlike with just about every other issue in the world, I find myself unable to form a solid opinion and take a stand.
Everytime I think I might be leaning one way or the other, somebody points out another facet of the situation such as you have just done, which makes me have to start all over with the problem.
But it usually comes back to being unable to justify eliminating completely the mandating of minority hiring, while still hating that there is a need for it.
The current system ensures that somebody is always getting the crappy end of the stick. I guess for me it just comes down to weighing up who would suffer most from said crappy end.
Maybe the answer is to have affirmative action based not upon race, but on family income?
I don't know.
But without it the opposite might occur, the good doctor is infact bad, but got the job over the better doctor who would have got a leg up from the AA, and who without it would not have been employed because of the employers discrimination etc. - its difficult :2thumbsup:
Yes but the fact that non-white ethnic groups like Chinese, Koreans and Indians are doing so well in the States should tell you that race based discrimination has been severely curtailed to the point where it is the exception and not the rule. When the best and brightest the US has to offer are overwhelmingly 'off-white' in character it's safe to say that the glass ceiling has been effectively shattered.
So, you're going to the doctor who is going to do bypass surgery on you. Would you go for the doctor who regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation is good, or are you happy to go to the other one, who has been having the AA leg up since 16; grades notably lower but gets in anyway.
And if you take the "oh, Medicine is different" then do you want the lawyer who isn't as good, or the plumber, or whatever who is where they are not on ability but merely as they're keeping the numbers up?
Or is it that as an idea it's fine - but with the caveat that you'll never be on the receiving end of their potentially substandard services.
~:smoking:
1) Do those who benefit from AA have substantially lower grades prior to admission ?
2) Do those who benefit from AA have substantially lower grades post admission ?
Major Robert Dump
11-03-2006, 23:36
[QUOTE=KukriKhan]
We had a similar 'Proposition' (as it's called in California) in 1996, which passed. Minority uni enrollment is down since then.
QUOTE]
I was under the impression that while overall minority enrollment was down, Asian enrollment went way up and the enrollment rates statewide are not that far off from the normal racial distribution of the state, with the obvious exception of Asians being over represented. A quota inherently takes opportunity away from someone else who is more deserving. This is proof of that. Also, I've always been amused that even though Asians, by definition, are minorities, they are typically excluded from the same types of AA that benefits other minorities. I might also point out that the drop out rates for minorities has declined there because the undeserving ones are not getting in.
There are far too many community colleges, vo-techs and trade schools available to everyone and their grandma to justify filling quotas in the higher tiered acedemia. If they have the grades to get in they will get in.
Major Robert Dump
11-03-2006, 23:42
Wasn't AA put into place because racist business owners weren't hiring blacks? I don't see why the concept is repugnant.
As I understood it in its original form, yes. But then it morphed into businesses and schools requiring quotas based on race to ensure they were not accused of being institionally racist. AA as a defensive body to keep racism/sexism in employers, agencies and schools in check is fine. The idea is to make sure people aren't being denied based on race or sex. Quotas institute the very thing AA is meant to stop.
Thank you. Exactly.
:bow:
Wow.. I couldnt agree more. :thumbsup:
:bow:
Honorable Pindar:
You've adroitly addressed both the philosophical and practical pitfalls of using an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership) to combat an "evil" (discrimination based on group membership).
Thank you sir.
I found myself nodding my head "yes". But...
such accounting and recognition must start from a position of equal opportunity for all participants in such a society. We have not yet achieved that position, or at least we have not held that wider door of opportunity open long enough so that those previously discriminated against, who want to avail themselves of this temporary preference, may.
Within the U.S. framework, I don't believe there is any jurisprudential referent/justification for economic equity (let alone higher educational equity) only political equity. Thus, if an adult citizen can vote (and similarly participate in the body politic) then it is sufficient: no governmental largess of a chicken in every pot, two cars in the garage or a degree on the wall is required or warranted.
In short, I only say: Let AA continue until 2012 (40 years after the 1972 statutes, etc were enacted). Then revisit the issue. Anyone who has not taken advantage of AA policies by then: "Too bad, so sad. This is as level a playing field as we can achieve within our (american) system."
I've marked my calendar.
It's good to hear a rational, sane dicussion going on here. If i tell most people I wanted vote Yes on proposal two, im either called a racist or ignorant. For example I was talking to my one hallmate who is for it and my other hallmate who is against it. A girl happens to stop by our room and asks:
"What are guys talking about?"
"Oh, I'm just explaning why voting No is the right answer. They think voting Yes is"
Girl- "Well that's very ignorant of you two"
I'm so sick of this ultra leftward, near pinko environment I go to school in.
KukriKhan
11-04-2006, 01:02
Our positions are within handshake distance, I believe.
Within the U.S. framework, I don't believe there is any jurisprudential referent/justification for economic equity (let alone higher educational equity) only political equity.
Yes. But since some level of near-equity of opportunity for social advancement was (rightly, I think) deemed good and necessary, this ugly, compromise thing called AA was instituted as a temporary catch-up measure.
The alternatives were:
1) do nothing. Pretend discrimination didn't/doesn't exist to the significant disadvantage of one group. Or
2) take it to the courts, where there is and was jurisprudential referent for financial compensation for unwarranted damage to one party by another.
The argument the thread starter posed is basically he and his fellow voters deciding: "Have we caught up yet?". Many say 'yes', for reasons you and others have outlined. I think 'not yet'; we need to go the full course of a generation, so that a black man who was 18 in 1972, can have benefitted from AA policies, AND his son - with the AA spigot being turned off just as his grandson is coming into majority - under the assumption that Pa and Grandpa now have the resources to help.
Goofball
11-04-2006, 01:06
It's good to hear a rational, sane dicussion going on here. If i tell most people I wanted vote Yes on proposal two, im either called a racist or ignorant. For example I was talking to my one hallmate who is for it and my other hallmate who is against it. A girl happens to stop by our room and asks:
"What are guys talking about?"
"Oh, I'm just explaning why voting No is the right answer. They think voting Yes is"
Girl- "Well that's very ignorant of you two"
I'm so sick of this ultra leftward, near pinko environment I go to school in.
You'd probably be happier going to school with shining young example of conservatism then:
Brad Patzner, 23, admitted he knew very little about the candidates, but said he was voting to support Bush administration policies, including the war in Iraq. He said a lot of his friends have been deployed to Iraq and he is considering enlisting.
“Our economy has been slipping and it needs to rise, however, I do agree with Bush’s political views,” said Patzner of Fargo, N.D. “I just believe he has strong religious views and that’s an attribute that I really admire.”
Yikes.
Entire story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15504373/
It's good to hear a rational, sane dicussion going on here. If i tell most people I wanted vote Yes on proposal two, im either called a racist or ignorant. For example I was talking to my one hallmate who is for it and my other hallmate who is against it. A girl happens to stop by our room and asks:
"What are guys talking about?"
"Oh, I'm just explaning why voting No is the right answer. They think voting Yes is"
Girl- "Well that's very ignorant of you two"
I'm so sick of this ultra leftward, near pinko environment I go to school in.
Hello,
Aside from instances of direct self-interest I think you will find that most proponents of AA are sincere in their desire to redress the evils of the past and want to help their fellow man live a better life. Consequently the rhetorical posture assumed pushes advocates to see any opposition as immoral in some fashion in that the opposition is presumed to preserve a wrong. The stance often reflects sentimentality trumping rationality.
Our positions are within handshake distance, I believe.
I think so too.
a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety
Yes. But since some level of near-equity of opportunity for social advancement was (rightly, I think) deemed good and necessary, this ugly, compromise thing called AA was instituted as a temporary catch-up measure.
Opportunity discourse does not have to displace meritocractic principle nor should it. To attempt to do so is to run the risk of the swamp AA illustrates.
If we have disenfranchised group X and the source of that disenfranchisement is a socio-cultural bigotry couched in law: the more enlightened civitas can change the law, and thus remove the legal impediment, that is all. The personal failings of the soul are beyond the scope of law. Further, to attempt to redress what was through a reverse bigotry fails both conceptually and practically. We agree on the conceptual question. I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.
The alternatives were:
1) do nothing. Pretend discrimination didn't/doesn't exist to the significant disadvantage of one group. Or
2) take it to the courts, where there is and was jurisprudential referent for financial compensation for unwarranted damage to one party by another.
The argument the thread starter posed is basically he and his fellow voters deciding: "Have we caught up yet?". Many say 'yes', for reasons you and others have outlined. I think 'not yet'; we need to go the full course of a generation, so that a black man who was 18 in 1972, can have benefitted from AA policies, AND his son - with the AA spigot being turned off just as his grandson is coming into majority - under the assumption that Pa and Grandpa now have the resources to help.
I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.
You'd probably be happier going to school with shining young example of conservatism then:
Yikes.
Entire story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15504373/
I'd be happier going to a school that let you think for yourself instead of shoving what they want you think down your throat.
I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.
This was my argument, worded differently, last night. All AA is doing is further dividing the US population.
KukriKhan
11-04-2006, 04:39
a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety
Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!:laugh4:
...I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.
Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).
It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).
However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.
I have appreciated the discourse.
:bow:
And thank you, Ice for the topic :bow:
Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!:laugh4:
I couldn't resist. :2thumbsup:
Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).
It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).
I agree. Of course there is always the Klingon method of resolving issues.
However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.
This is where we come together. I always prefer appeal to the voters over pronouncement from the bench.
I have appreciated the discourse.
Cheers
Major Robert Dump
11-04-2006, 14:27
This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:
Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:
38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.
So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?
This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:
Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:
38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.
So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?
What I like is the "qualified" bit. Unless the requirement for Affirmative Action calls for employing and advancing unqualified Veterans, in which case it wouldn't be so good.
KukriKhan
11-04-2006, 19:55
(a) The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by
eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and
employment which can result from such service;
(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons
performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their
employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by
providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their
completion of such service; and
(3) to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their
service in the uniformed services.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should
be a model employer in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
That's the 1974 language used in the implementing document to add the Act to the US Code. Recall that in '74, we were transitioning from a draftee to a "volunteer" force. Many of the provisions have been changed (generally, expanding 'qualified' service)... as recently as 2003.
My understanding of the use of "Affirmative Action" in this law, is so the Human Resource guys could bundle their "how we comply" plan in one catch-all package, to show the Dept o/Labor guys "Here is how we don't discriminate against race, gender, religion, military service, etc. etc.".
But, I'm not sure I answered your question. Do you challenge veteran/disabled-veteran preference in hiring/contracting?
Major Robert Dump
11-05-2006, 00:43
Not at all. Actually, I was curious though if the word "qualified" meant qualified as in qualified for the job, or qualified as in meeting the criteria to be considered special disabled.
Not at all. Actually, I was curious though if the word "qualified" meant qualified as in qualified for the job, or qualified as in meeting the criteria to be considered special disabled.
Oh crap you may be right. They likely do mean qualified in regards to their disability.
KukriKhan
11-05-2006, 01:56
I should have linked-up earlier. Sorry.
Govt Printing Ofc doc tracker (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+38USC4301)
Qualified = has the right service dates & campaign medals to assert coverage under the VEVRA.
Major Robert Dump
11-05-2006, 19:13
I don't understand why they lump the veteran section under affirmative action law for the sake of simplicity and enforcement, but it really doesn't seem to fit (just like quotas don't fit) except in the spirit of existing to prevent discrimination, i.e. "we won't hire you because we don't like military people."
I'm assuming this is largely overseen by Veterans Affairs in the capacity of job placement assistance and reintegration into veterans old jobs etc. It just seems rather odd that this particular stuff is considered affirmative action.
On a side note, I think quotas are often a friend of companies who impose them, while working against the employees and the customers/beneficiaries of the services provided. Basically, quotas are the easy way out if you can prove you are trying to meet them, because the fact is that not all ethnic groups and sexes apply for certain jobs/schools.
This is why companies save applications for years, and why larger companies give you the option of putting your race on the application if you want. If a Latino man goes to a coffee shop and gets bad service, then sues the coffee shop and uses the lack of Latino employees as further proof of discrimination, how does the coffee shop prove it never gets Latino applicants?
This is why companies save applications for years, and why larger companies give you the option of putting your race on the application if you want. If a Latino man goes to a coffee shop and gets bad service, then sues the coffee shop and uses the lack of Latino employees as further proof of discrimination, how does the coffee shop prove it never gets Latino applicants?
they keep records of the applicants.... :2thumbsup:
KukriKhan
11-08-2006, 14:34
Looks like Michigan voters decided to ditch AA afterall
Proposal - 2 Affirmative Action - Michigan 5651 of 5681 Precincts Reporting
Yes - 2,131,488 - 58.06%
No - 1,539,431 - 41.94%
from Detroit News online (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage)
yesdachi
11-08-2006, 15:32
Its about the only thing I voted for that passed/got elected. :happy: but :sad:
Its about the only thing I voted for that passed/got elected. :happy: but :sad:
Likewise, except my local rep for Congress got relected.
It's funny, the president of the University just had a huge rally in the diag (center of campus) bout how she was going to fight it legally, blah blah blah. Quite funny, how people preach for democracy, especially here, but never really seem to except the results.
yesdachi
11-08-2006, 19:45
Likewise, except my local rep for Congress got relected.
It's funny, the president of the University just had a huge rally in the diag (center of campus) bout how she was going to fight it legally, blah blah blah. Quite funny, how people preach for democracy, especially here, but never really seem to except the results.
At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy. ~D
I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.
- Mary Sue Coleman
But quotas are fair and equal!? :rolleyes:
At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy. ~D
But quotas are fair and equal!? :rolleyes:
Oh I know. I just rolled my eyes as hundreds of students mindlessly clapped and the minorities just shock their heads in agreement.
At lease she was still teaching, the lesson: Hypocrisy. ~D
But quotas are fair and equal!? :rolleyes:
Of course they are! Didn't you get the memo? FYI, it also stated that henceforth 2+2 = 5.
Kanamori
11-08-2006, 21:12
OK, but I call it 2.5.:balloon2:
How do you count decimals, in your system?
OK, but I call it 2.5.:balloon2:
How do you count decimals, in your system?
Very carefully?!? ~:confused:
yesdachi
11-08-2006, 22:21
Very carefully?!? ~:confused:
I don’t. makes for much cleaner bookkeeping.
AA promotes inequality and will only create tension between the sexes when none is necessary! It is an insult to women (and minorities) - to imply that they are somehow inferior and need extra help! I thought the whole purpose of the feminist movement was to free women and make them independent! AA only reinforces the image women have long been trying to ditch: that they are more dependent on men then men are on men or they are on other women - that is, that they are equal to men! Not that they got persecuted and now NEED men to compensate for the poor little helpless babies, and give them extra candy!
AA is stupid, sexist, and racist!!
Cowhead418
11-09-2006, 03:32
AA promotes inequality and will only create tension between the sexes when none is necessary! It is an insult to women (and minorities) - to imply that they are somehow inferior and need extra help! I thought the whole purpose of the feminist movement was to free women and make them independent! AA only reinforces the image women have long been trying to ditch: that they are more dependent on men then men are on men or they are on other women - that is, that they are equal to men! Not that they got persecuted and now NEED men to compensate for the poor little helpless babies, and give them extra candy!
AA is stupid, sexist, and racist!!Aye! It is not only sexist to women and racist to minorities (by patronizing them) but it is also sexist against men and racist against whites. In short, it is degrading to everybody!:thumbsdown:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.