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.
[quote=bigskydude;9521584]
Catering to the race "IS" racism ... as Affirmative action has shown us, time and time again.
quote]
I think there was a time in our history when affirmative action made a lot of sense. There is no question that it was nearly impossible for certain minorities to "get a seat at the table" before affirmative action was implemented.
That being said, I think our society has come a long way from those times, as evidenced by the fact that we have minorities in high level positions in almost every organization. So it might be time to start scaling back and in some cases eliminating affirmative action in some cases. A good example is giving preference for gender to female applicants to law schools. There are currently more female law students than male law students, so it's kind of silly to keep this policy in place. There are several examples like this that are out there.
But in those instances where minorities, or females are dramatically underrepresented, I think affirmative action still makes sense. The idea is to create more diversity, which innevitably improves the organizations where it happens.
This decision is another reason why Sotomayor should not be a Supreme Court judge. Justice is supposed to be blind, not favor one race over another. She obviously does not like whites, especially white men. She will always be known as a left racist judge.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
This decision is another reason why Sotomayor should not be a Supreme Court judge. Justice is supposed to be blind, not favor one race over another. She obviously does not like whites, especially white men. She will always be known as a left racist judge.
how did she favor one race over another in this case?
This is wonderful news. All afirmative action needs to be stopped no matter what for or where. I am considered a minority and the one thing that happens is that people automatically think one got something or somewhere because of affirmative action. Hell, people think that Obama is the first affirmative action President and Sotomeyer can be looked at that way, as Thomas and many others.
This is wonderful news. All afirmative action needs to be stopped no matter what for or where. I am considered a minority and the one thing that happens is that people automatically think one got something or somewhere because of affirmative action. Hell, people think that Obama is the first affirmative action President and Sotomeyer can be looked at that way, as Thomas and many others.
This weakens Title VII, but it does not do away with it. Effectively, this is an anti-employer ruling. Title VII, particularly after the updates in the 1990's, placed the burden on employers to prove that their policies and methods for qualifying potential employees were not racially biased. This ruling places the additional burden on employers when they do deem a policy or test racially biased, that they prove it is racially biased. In the past, racial bias was considered proven by the racial disparity on test results. The court has now said that is not enough. So the employer is now doubly burdened.
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.