Any liberal or progressive towns in Nassau/Western Suffolk?

[Port North]

Originally Posted by azzurrony

The problem is that poor whites have no real recourse in present day America. They are the "invisible" poor. It is ok to make fun of them and put them down in our society. You see it all the time in the media.

Who really is at more of a disadvantage in America today? The poor white boy from Toledo, Ohio or the poor black boy from Queens? Only one of those boys can benefit from colleges and universities adjusting their admission criteria to allow for more of their race. Only one of these boys will be able to get certain grants and aid from the government based on the color of his skin. Only one of these boys will have the advantage of corporate hiring practices that openly use skin color as a criteria for filling self-imposed quotas at their company.

The real victims in America will be the poor white. They really have no voice out there pushing for them and shaping policy on their behalf. They are the forgotten.

And, this is what happens when you base government and business policy around skin color rather than based on socio-economic status.

I agree that poor whites don't get as much attention as they deserve but there are plenty of programs out there to help poor/working class whites also.

I got partial assistance with tuition when I went to college and I paid for the rest by serving in Americorps for two years. I've more then paid back the tax dollars I used by taking advantage of these programs.

I agree though that hiring should be by merit no matter what your color is.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by Port North

I agree though that hiring should be by merit no matter what your color is.

.
.
Secular-progressive-liberals think otherwise.
.
.

[azzurrony]

Anyone who has any access to Corporate HR departments around the country knows what is going on. I do. Masking behind each "diversity initiative" at these corporations is a concerted effort to analyze the skin color and racial makeup of an organization and to reach quota targets in hiring practices to reach those goals. HR leaders are clearly instructed to give deference to certain races in their hiring practices. (Yes, that means less qualified candidates will be given hiring preferences if they meet a certain racial category.) It's all behind closed doors but it's happening. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. The same has applied to universities for the last 20 years.

The real losers in this type of system are the poor and lower middle class whites. They are at a competitive disadvantage because of these practices. They have to work that much harder to overcome these barriers to entry. Deference should not be given because of race. I can understand preferences enacted for socioeconomically challenged people (regardless of race), but preferences established to meet diversity quotas is abhorrent.

Pointing to Corporate Boardrooms as an argument has always baffled me. It has nothing to do with helping poor whites in this country. Are you saying that because senior management in this country tends to be disportionately white that this now justifies slanted hiring practices that hinder whites?

Race based hiring practices that exclude poor and middle class whites, who otherwise would merit the position, are disgusting. Look up the Ricci vs. DiStefano case in New Haven Ct. to fully understand the lengths companies, admissions officers, and government agencies will go to in order to reach racial quotas. Thank goodness the Supreme Court overturned that ridiculous judgement.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by azzurrony

Anyone who has any access to Corporate HR departments around the country knows what is going on. I do. Masking behind each "diversity initiative" at these corporations is a concerted effort to analyze the skin color and racial makeup of an organization and to reach quota targets in hiring practices to reach those goals. HR leaders are clearly instructed to give deference to certain races in their hiring practices. (Yes, that means less qualified candidates will be given hiring preferences if they meet a certain racial category.) It's all behind closed doors but it's happening. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. The same has applied to universities for the last 20 years.

The real losers in this type of system are the poor and lower middle class whites. They are at a competitive disadvantage because of these practices. They have to work that much harder to overcome these barriers to entry. Deference should not be given because of race. I can understand preferences enacted for socioeconomically challenged people (regardless of race), but preferences established to meet diversity quotas is abhorrent.

Pointing to Corporate Boardrooms as an argument has always baffled me. It has nothing to do with helping poor whites in this country. Are you saying that because senior management in this country tends to be disportionately white that this now justifies slanted hiring practices that hinder whites?

Race based hiring practices that exclude poor and middle class whites, who otherwise would merit the position, are disgusting. Look up the Ricci vs. DiStefano case in New Haven Ct. to fully understand the lengths companies, admissions officers, and government agencies will go to in order to reach racial quotas. Thank goodness the Supreme Court overturned that ridiculous judgement.

Ironically, the winners in said programs are whites as well. White women have benefited the most from said programs and in turn when you consider who they are most likely to marry, Whites in general benefit. Think about it, White women make up about a third of the nation's population. That is about the same amount for all people of color combined in this country. So, that along would have influence on that considering that in terms of race and gender, they are the largest historically(and to a degree still, currently) disenfranchised group in the US.

Then, you have instances of where couples get into business and have their wives as the heads of said business to get grants for minority businesses based on realities I mentioned. So, you have to look at the broader picture.


Check this information out:
At the elite colleges - dim white kids - The Boston Globe

Wilson, On Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action: Who Benefits?

Focus on Affirmative Action

Who wins out when it comes to affirmative action?

With that said and to get back on the subject, possibly look at a wide variety of demographics and look at the communities you have an interest in and go from there to decide.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by pro cop anti corruption

I think before we start kicking and screaming that we need "diversity", we must first understand and define diversity. We cannot simply state that 45% of the country is minority, therefore 45% of boardrooms should comprise of minorities.

We must define the population from which to draw. Are educated white males more drawn to the business world than educated white women? What % of the qualified work staff for high level business position are minorities? What % of women put their careers on hold to give birth? That's time off that their male counter-parts continue to work and obtain valuable experience.

There are many more questions to ask before we know what "diversity" really means to a company. I do agree that diversity (true diversity and not forced diversity) is great for business. Varying life experiences, opinions, and attitudes makes for greater innovation.

However, let's not be reckless and assume that since board rooms are filled with "white dudes" that diversity does not exist. Let's also not be reckless and assume that the composition of board rooms reflects the diversity "quota's", or lackthereof in middle and senior management.

Good points.....

[hotkarl]

Forced or unwelcome diversity sucks. Causes problems and tension.
I believe more in letting the cards fall where they may.
This whole politically correct crap sucks. I think it's causing more harm than good for everybody.
Quota's suck.
It is 100% true that many business' hire not based totally on qualifications, but by "diversity" quota's. Fact.
Wife works for a big corporation. They have certain hiring "quota's".

[Jrprofess]

Originally Posted by azzurrony

Anyone who has any access to Corporate HR departments around the country knows what is going on. I do. Masking behind each "diversity initiative" at these corporations is a concerted effort to analyze the skin color and racial makeup of an organization and to reach quota targets in hiring practices to reach those goals. HR leaders are clearly instructed to give deference to certain races in their hiring practices. (Yes, that means less qualified candidates will be given hiring preferences if they meet a certain racial category.) It's all behind closed doors but it's happening. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. The same has applied to universities for the last 20 years.

The real losers in this type of system are the poor and lower middle class whites. They are at a competitive disadvantage because of these practices. They have to work that much harder to overcome these barriers to entry. Deference should not be given because of race. I can understand preferences enacted for socioeconomically challenged people (regardless of race), but preferences established to meet diversity quotas is abhorrent.

Pointing to Corporate Boardrooms as an argument has always baffled me. It has nothing to do with helping poor whites in this country. Are you saying that because senior management in this country tends to be disportionately white that this now justifies slanted hiring practices that hinder whites?

Race based hiring practices that exclude poor and middle class whites, who otherwise would merit the position, are disgusting. Look up the Ricci vs. DiStefano case in New Haven Ct. to fully understand the lengths companies, admissions officers, and government agencies will go to in order to reach racial quotas. Thank goodness the Supreme Court overturned that ridiculous judgement.

I run a large private sector corporate HR function and have never, ever, but given quota instructions. And to say that boardrooms and leadership that are overwhelming white somehow mask the plight of the white working class applicant is silly. What if I were to make the counter argument, that a boardroom that is overhwhelming hispanic/black still means that lower class minority groups are being hindered or slighted. I would suggest that you think that theory is flawed. I would agree.

I can not speak to colleges (althought the elites are still overwhelmingly caucasion and/or "model" minority) or the government.

When you look at diversity from an employment standpoint it should never be done out of compliance. There is no value to the company in that scenario. But if you are a company situated in a major metropolitan area, and you know from a demographic standpoint your are situated in an area which has (I am making this up as an example) 9% African American, 12% hispanic, 14% asian, and the remaining is mixed caucasian or caucasian (and 54% female overall). Plus the surrounding population breakdown includes a majority with a minimum of Associates degree or higher...and then you look at your employee population and see 1% African American (and they are mostly on the loading dock) 4% hispanic and 6% asian, plus of all your management roles 4 of the 80 VPs are female, well, then you need to look at your employment programs because you are missing out on talent. And when most of those VPs are Irish/German/Italian/Jewish -american guys from the NY metro region who have maybe () chuckled or told a "black" joke in their lifetime (I've heard my fair share from white collar white males standing around the bbq, who assume I want to hear it) I think it is safe to say some attention needs to be paid to your employment branding message and leveling the playing field for all applicants. By the way this is not to say because you are a white male you are automatically racist. I was giving a hypothetical.

We are all human, and in the end most individuals are most comfortable with people like themselves...this often makes its way into the hiring process even if it is subconsciously. There is nothing wrong with taking a step back and realizing you might be missing out on talent especially when you look at your employee population relative to your surrounding demographics. It is also a huge miss for the business, because if you are not getting the full interest of all demographics for an opportunity for your company, you are likely missing out on these same consumers for your products.

Now I have to get back work...I just spotted a transvestite latino-asian female applying for a Research Scientist role....

P.S. I do agree that the best level playing field for college admissions is socio-economically.

[azzurrony]

Jrprof,

I didn't say boardroom representation masks the plight of poor white. What I'm saying is that you are talking about 2 totally different subjects. I was talking about barriers to entry in new employment and college admissions. You were talking about the makeup of a bunch of 60 yr olds. The racial makeup of boardrooms is dictated by the talent pool available...not by some sort of concerted effort to exclude minorities. Shareholders have too much at stake to be worrying about promoting racism. Now, you and I can certainly have a discussion of how the talent pool became the way it was, but that is a totally different story.

Back to the subject at hand. I can't speak for your company. But, I can speak to Fortune 50 companies all over the country with whom I have benchmarked. Make no mistake, they all have diversity programs. And, if you don't think they keep racial statistics on their employee population, you are being naive. Some HR departments are very clear about the quotas they want to reach so that their company can trumpet its diversity. Others are more subtle about it. They simply chastise their hiring staff if they don't see "improvement" in the percentage breakdowns.

I completely disagree with your method of what is proper racial makeup of an organization. First off, everyone can agree that different ideas and perspectives are immensely important to a successful organization, but those ideas are not born of skin color..they are born of experiences no matter what your skin color is. To infer that a company's racial makeup should reflect the general population surrounding it is completely contrary to fair hiring practices. The company's makeup should be determined by the best candidates..period.

A company in Utah should not be forced to have a staff of 90 percent caucasians, nor should a company in New Orleans be expected to have a staff of over 50 percent African American. The companies should look at the talent pool available to them and pick the best talent. If that doesn't reflect the general population, then so be it. That's where you address lack of education and infrastructure in certain areas, but a company should never be forced to make hiring decisions based on skin color.

[GCGuy]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

I agree with Dix Hills.

However, I would not agree with RVC.

RVC is not diverse:

Races in Rockville Centre:

White Non-Hispanic (86.5%)
Hispanic (7.7%)
Black (3.7%)
Other race (2.8%)
Two or more races (1.0%)

It is also not a liberal town. Maybe there was some liberal in charge once upon a time which is where they got their low-income housing project from.

For example, why did Rockville Centre refuse to have this community, Lakeview, in their school district and foist them off on a different Village, Malverne:

Races in Lakeview:

Black (84.9%)
Hispanic (6.9%)
White Non-Hispanic (5.2%)
Two or more races (3.9%)
Other race (3.4%)
American Indian (1.3%)

Ancestries: West Indian (23.8%), Subsaharan African (2.7%), United States (2.4%), Irish (1.4%).

********

Why did they not welcome these children?

Lakeview is so closely associated with Rockville Centre, that when you are looking for homes on the website of the MLS of LI, the houses in Lakeview are actually listed on the website under Rockville Centre. There is no category at all for Lakeview itself.

Go on there (MLSLI.com – Long Island Real Estate – Find A Home in Nassau, Suffolk & Queens) and search Rockville Centre for homes. The homes listed as going to the Malverne School District are actually in the Hamlet of Lakeview.

I could be wrong, but a long time ago I swear there was a massive fight by Rockville Centre to shunt Lakeview children off to the Malverne SD. Feel free to correct me if I am imagining things.

PS: I wonder how many RVC residents that read this are going to dash off angry emails to the MLS of Long Island.

I'm thinking they wanted RVC to stay nice. Call me CRAZY.

[mrs.lea]

When the OP says "diverse" I also assume they mean "accepting". However, I wouldn't put "progressive liberal" and "accepting" in the same sentence.