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.
I certainly did not intend my posts here to be 'whining'.
I gave an example of AA in the workplace, and how it does place people into management positions without the usual prerequisites, experience, and education.
It puts incompetent people into management.
Forest beekeeper, first you worked for the gov't so you helped to make my point that AA is limited to a few institutions (gov't and certain companies that receive a certain amount of funding annually from gov't). So again, how is everyone coming up with these personal examples? They start to sound a bit too formulaic, akin to me hearing the sad story of the hardened criminal that killed several people but within a week of being in jail became "saved". I'm sure it happens, but all the time, not so much.
Second, your example showed your superiors had less experience than you and could be indicative of them not being the best candidate (if you assume job performance, interpersonal skills, etc. are not considerations just tenure and education) but you failed to show how they were incompetent. There is a big difference between not being the best for the job and not being able to do the job. I am fine with going with the notion of hiring the best but it's annoying when claims are not explained or exaggerated (i.e. incompetent vs. just not being as good as) to show how bad a policy is. When this happens the real message gets lost and it's why there is such division on this debate.
In terms of a manager/leader not having actual "field experience", that goes on all the time. My manager doesn't have my technical knowledge nor does he match my educational degrees but I do learn from him and he asks the right questions to get what he needs. We get along just fine and I don't question his competency although he's a different race and gender. Management and our political leaders (Our President doesn't have the same level of field experience as many in the military and he's Commander in Chief) may not have the exact field experience or any at all but their overall leadership skills and their ability to hire, motivate, and develop talent is what matters most as you go higher up in the food chain.
Now before I get a post arguing examples like this happens, yes it does (and I'm equally as angry), but not as frequently as everyone is made to believe. If it did, it wouldn't be news worthy. No, I'd venture to say AA/diversity programs resulted more in the Thurgood Marshall's, Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice or Anne Mulcahy's (CEO of Xerox) being provided opportunities than the poor, ignorant loaf with no experience but gets a great job often referenced when talking about AA.
Forest beekeeper, first you worked for the gov't so you helped to make my point that AA is limited to a few institutions (gov't and certain companies that receive a certain amount of funding annually from gov't). So again, how is everyone coming up with these personal examples? They start to sound a bit too formulaic, akin to me hearing the sad story of the hardened criminal that killed several people but within a week of being in jail became "saved". I'm sure it happens, but all the time, not so much.
Second, your example showed your superiors had less experience than you and could be indicative of them not being the best candidate (if you assume job performance, interpersonal skills, etc. are not considerations just tenure and education) but you failed to show how they were incompetent. There is a big difference between not being the best for the job and not being able to do the job. I am fine with going with the notion of hiring the best but it's annoying when claims are not explained or exaggerated (i.e. incompetent vs. just not being as good as) to show how bad a policy is. When this happens the real message gets lost and it's why there is such division on this debate.
In terms of a manager/leader not having actual "field experience", that goes on all the time. My manager doesn't have my technical knowledge nor does he match my educational degrees but I do learn from him and he asks the right questions to get what he needs. We get along just fine and I don't question his competency although he's a different race and gender. Management and our political leaders (Our President doesn't have the same level of field experience as many in the military and he's Commander in Chief) may not have the exact field experience or any at all but their overall leadership skills and their ability to hire, motivate, and develop talent is what matters most as you go higher up in the food chain.
Now before I get a post arguing examples like this happens, yes it does (and I'm equally as angry), but not as frequently as everyone is made to believe. If it did, it wouldn't be news worthy. No, I'd venture to say AA/diversity programs resulted more in the Thurgood Marshall's, Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice or Anne Mulcahy's (CEO of Xerox) being provided opportunities than the poor, ignorant loaf with no experience but gets a great job often referenced when talking about AA.
Just for fun, let's say everything you say is true. When does it end?
[quote=Alexus;4338584]How pathetic. Get a bunch of white people to sign a petition which basically states that racism by whites against blacks NO LONGER EXISTS. Then whites get this put on the ballot, so that more white people can vote that racism by whites against blacks NO LONGER EXISTS. quote]
Funny how a number of the petition signature collectors in my area (eastern part of Nebraska) were people of race other than white.
Once again, your post is not based in reality. Re-read the thread and then reassess WHO is doing the whining. I'd put your post in the whiner pile.
Pls do share how AA protect the institutions and structures that keep the US stable.
Sure, no problem. Look at Barack Obama, a black American on the verge of becoming president of the US. He is--even by his own admission--a benefactor of AA programs. These programs made it possible for him to enter into the higher echelons of our society, and even though he is in such a powerful position, he has shown a complete unwillingness to radically alter the justice system, the financial system or the educational system; three systems whose racist practices are known far and wide. In the case of the financial system, one has only to look at the home foreclosure crisis to see the institutional nature of racism. What ensued was a massive transfer of wealth out of the black community.
Just for fun, let's say everything you say is true. When does it end?
I think proponents will stop pushing this when workplaces and other institutions intuitively reflect the diversity of their communities at all levels in the organization. I think it starts with ensuring that there is equal access to educational resources (i.e. books, computers, competent teachers) and if students achieve a B average or better, they are assured a college education. I think access to comparable education can be the great equalizer in the workplace. You also must eliminate all preferential programs, no alumni or legacy programs, programs for athletics, significant limitations on nepotism (for non-family owned companies) to just name a few. In other words, you can't just eliminate AA and allow other programs that yield similarly unfair results.
Funny how the Asians, Indians, Mexicans have all come to the US, started businesses, become successful & not cried discrimination or needed affirmative action.
Of course they have families who stay together, believe in education and believe in working hard for an opportunity.
This describes millions of U.S.-born blacks as well.
Before and during the civil-rights era, there were lots of blacks, American Indians, Latinos, Asians and women who worked hard, kept their families together and believed in education but who were refused opportunities based on race and sex. Affirmative action was implemented to secure opportunities for groups who had been denied them, and is not supposed to be a pass for every nonwhite or female person regardless of ability or drive. The fact that the mentioned groups are full of people who are hardworking, family-minded, serious about education, etc., doesn't by itself make AA unnecessary since they're the intended beneficiaries of the program and the most likely to take advantage of it.
That said, I don't know that we need affirmative action itself anymore, even though the social disparities it was meant to help correct still exist to a lesser degree. I don't know that it does that all that much good, either.
Until there is a fair starting ground for everyone, then I don't agree that people will ever be able to compete fairly. Is it the fault of a child if they are born to a family with low-income, access to ****-poor schools? Should they not be able to go to college because they did not have the same access to really quality education as some middle to upper class "peers". If we are going to talk about fair competition, then I think things need to be done to level the playing field.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have access to good primary education.
Oh, so screwing someone else who is more qualified is the way to answer this? Perhaps you need to take your fight to the State-level and bi.tch to the NEA.
How pathetic. Get a bunch of white people to sign a petition which basically states that racism by whites against blacks NO LONGER EXISTS. Then whites get this put on the ballot, so that more white people can vote that racism by whites against blacks NO LONGER EXISTS.
Affirmative action in its various stages of development, is NECESSARY. As long as blacks continue to be given less consideration throughout their lives and greater mountains to climb, mechanisms must remain in place to recognize the inequities that inherently work to their detriment and to the benefit of whites. Banning affirmation action is a move in the wrong direction, obviously supported by the same type of people whose warped judgment put Bush in office twice.
You make it seem like there is no racism against Whites perpetrated by Blacks. You are smart enough to realize that hiring ANYONE due to their ethinicity is racism, right? I hire a white guy because he's white is racist. I hire a black guy because he is black is racist as well.
Affirmative Action was needed a lot more decades ago. It now needs to be phased out but don't worry though; this yearning for "diversity" will take its place. Tell me; does an organization with 57% African American employees need more diversity?
While I am not a big fan of George Bush, he appointed Condeleezza Rice as the first African American Secretary of State in the top-5 most powerful positions in America as well as appointed Colin Powell as the FIRST and ONLY African-American to serve in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that is after REAGAN appointed him National Security Advisor.
The Pew Research Center's 2007 Global Attitudes poll found that out of 47 countries, a majority of respondents expressed "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence" in Bush in only nine countries: Israel, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, and Uganda. Notice his approval in the African countries?? He has spent more money on AIDS projects in Africa more than any other President.
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.
