Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
You do know you're bring a hypocrite now, right? Essays, EC, random selection -- those are all subjective valuations not based on merit. You're giving a pass to every other non-merit based selection... except race.
How is it more noble to pick someone based on the subject matter of their essay vs. their race?
Honestly, how else would you pick if you had 8 very qualified candidates? You only have so much information in that application packet. And if I remember correctly from seeing my sons apps a few years back, you had an application and an essay. Yes, their subjective, but the whole application process is subjective in and of itself. I saw kids who got in who had a lot worse numbers than my son academically, while he got a rejection notice. Perhaps they needed a cellist for the orchestra and he wasn't musical. Didn't mean that they didn't want him... it just meant that subjectively he wasn't needed for that particular matriculating class.
I wasn't trying to be noble, by no means... I was being honest in answering the question put forth. Every choice is subjective... the question is.. how do we make those subjective decisions less biased by race?.... at least IMHO...
My children will have to achieve whatever they want to achieve on their own merit. There will be no affirmative action. I don't see what's supposed to be wrong with that. Everybody has the same chances in the U.S. Affirmative Action covers up the root of the problem, which is poverty, HS drop out rates, attitude, and whatever else it may be. If you aren't good enough, you got to study harder ( in this case ). Don't blame others. People just don't know how to appreciate what they have here. 95% of this planet is much worse of than any American. The only exception is would accept is some conditions such as ADHD and learning disabilities.
Oh, and I am a liberal. Sorry that I don't fit your stereotypes.
You only covered part of what AA does, the other part is that it gives minorities a chance to get hired in government and private positions that they whould not otherwise get a chance of even getting an interveiw. As far as the education aspects are concerned, without AA many top rated schools would be filled with legacy kids with family connections. Has it ever occurred to you that if your child who I assume is a minority and a white child that have equal qualifications who do you think will be chosen?
Don't believe that clarence thomas crap that you or your kids will do just as well w/o AA "based on their own merits". If they are never let in the door in the first place how in the hell can they be able to prove themselves?
Well, i'm only for getting rid of it in college admissions. Black folks don't need it and haven't needed it in years. The ones that can't get into a Stanford or Harvard will just have to double down their efforts. But not ONE less black person will go to college than would previously go IMO. I got rejected from a boatload of colleges because i didn't cut the mustard. I'm no worse for wear because of it. I still got into a major university and received a good education.
Besides, there are ways around it anyway. Instead of race, make family income and take into consideration the performance of that particular high school vs other high schools. That way, smart kids in underperforming schools still have a change. Just don't use race, and it's fair for everyone.
As far as private employers are concered, they'd retain their right to hire whomever they want. If they want to do an outreach to hire more minorities, no amount of anti-Affirmative Action legislation can stop them anyway. Frankly, it WON'T stop them. Companies like Apple or Microsoft will always look for minority talent where they can find it. Even the non-techies will still want a healthy number of minority employees and will use whatever means they please to do so. If it's quotas, then so be it. No one can prove they're using quotas to begin with.
That's why i laugh at the "most qualified" arguments. No one knows what that means in any real setting. They just think they might be getting shafted. Well i got news for you: we all get shafted, and we all do the shafting from time to time. None of us will turn down an advantage whether we earned it or not. No one has any idea if they're more qualified than the guy down the hall for the same job. But some of these folks see a black competitor, and assume that they MUST be better qualified. It's arrogance...that's all.
To sum it up...i doubt anything would change. Any black person doing well is doing so because they deserve it, not because some white person was put at a disadvantage. And i can't be convinced otherwise.
Obviously, it didn't benefit this white female. I think that if blacks/minorities have made the progress they claim, then maybe it is time to do away with AA.
AA does benefit white females, look at the progress that they have made in the last 20 years. Minorities have made some progress but not a hell of a whole lot. If you doubt what I'm saying look at the difference in unemployment between whites and blacks. If AA is gone it would be alot worst
Volunteered?? They were paid a salary for the job they did.
How many jobs do you know that sends you over to a country that you have no desire to do things that are against what you believe in and possibly get injured or killed for? To top it off you get paid considerably less than your civilian counterparts.
If you had ever served you would know exactly why veterans get what they get as far as preferences
AA does benefit white females, look at the progress that they have made in the last 20 years. Minorities have made some progress but not a hell of a whole lot. If you doubt what I'm saying look at the difference in unemployment between whites and blacks. If AA is gone it would be alot worst
Hell, if the "quotas" are as bad as white males claim they are, it benefits white males too. Quotas would cap the numbers of qualified minorities and leave the rest for white males.
There will always be racism. White on black, black on white etc.
To have a policy that demands hiring or programs for one race or gender over another is discrimination. The EQUAL Rights Act made it illegal to do so.
If a person has a complaint, file a suit. THAT is the American way.
Remember it is still an ACT and not a law, which makes illegal hiring so much easier to get around.
For some reason white males are using the same excuse that minorities are being hired over more qualified whites, this is not true in the majority of cases. No one is going to hire someone that is substandard over a more qualified applicant. They still will hire their friend or family member over anyone else regardless of gender or skin color
Well, i'm only for getting rid of it in college admissions. Black folks don't need it and haven't needed it in years. The ones that can't get into a Stanford or Harvard will just have to double down their efforts. But not ONE less black person will go to college than would previously go IMO. I got rejected from a boatload of colleges because i didn't cut the mustard. I'm no worse for wear because of it. I still got into a major university and received a good education.
Besides, there are ways around it anyway. Instead of race, make family income and take into consideration the performance of that particular high school vs other high schools. That way, smart kids in underperforming schools still have a change. Just don't use race, and it's fair for everyone.
As far as private employers are concered, they'd retain their right to hire whomever they want. If they want to do an outreach to hire more minorities, no amount of anti-Affirmative Action legislation can stop them anyway. Frankly, it WON'T stop them. Companies like Apple or Microsoft will always look for minority talent where they can find it. Even the non-techies will still want a healthy number of minority employees and will use whatever means they please to do so. If it's quotas, then so be it. No one can prove they're using quotas to begin with.
That's why i laugh at the "most qualified" arguments. No one knows what that means in any real setting. They just think they might be getting shafted. Well i got news for you: we all get shafted, and we all do the shafting from time to time. None of us will turn down an advantage whether we earned it or not. No one has any idea if they're more qualified than the guy down the hall for the same job. But some of these folks see a black competitor, and assume that they MUST be better qualified. It's arrogance...that's all.
To sum it up...i doubt anything would change. Any black person doing well is doing so because they deserve it, not because some white person was put at a disadvantage. And i can't be convinced otherwise.
You support affirmative action in business and at the same time say you cannot be convinced that a black person is doing well because a white person was put at a disadvantage. There's congnitive dissonance there. How do give hiring preference to minorities and yet simultaneously not have any minorities hired due to preferences?
Honestly, how else would you pick if you had 8 very qualified candidates? You only have so much information in that application packet. And if I remember correctly from seeing my sons apps a few years back, you had an application and an essay. Yes, their subjective, but the whole application process is subjective in and of itself. I saw kids who got in who had a lot worse numbers than my son academically, while he got a rejection notice. Perhaps they needed a cellist for the orchestra and he wasn't musical. Didn't mean that they didn't want him... it just meant that subjectively he wasn't needed for that particular matriculating class.
I wasn't trying to be noble, by no means... I was being honest in answering the question put forth. Every choice is subjective... the question is.. how do we make those subjective decisions less biased by race?.... at least IMHO...
Race-based selections aren't any more or less biased than most other subjective selections. It's just a reversal of the trend that necessitated its creation.
Given the choice, minorities are overwhelmingly discriminated against when it comes to these showdowns. They have to be significantly better to beat out a lesser qualified White person otherwise, if it's equal qualifications, they are at a serious disadvantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
