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.
And yet all these other non-race-based preferential admission standards, which dwarf race-based AA in terms of # of students that get affected, never get challenged.
If this your understanding of what "discrimination" is...real discrimination, then you have no factual context or real-world concept of discrimination.
Keep spreading the lie, I'm sure there are plenty of mush-heads eating them up.
So it is not discrimination to hire,promote or advance someone based solely on race or gender?
Continuing to support affirmative action is akin to saying that minorities are incapable of performing at a level that competes with other races, which is extremely unfair to every single minority member that I have ever met.
The problem with that argument is it assumes minorities today are merely judged on their skills rather than their race or ethnicity. I have never seen a recent socioeconomic report which backs that claim up. Every single one I have seen has shown that minorities still tend to be the last hired and the first fired. One that I read put out resumes and applications where the test subject checked black as their race and got no responses, but when they released the same resume while checking white they quickly got many responses. A similar one was based on the names put on resumes. Those who had more ethnic names (such as Shardae or Amir) were far less likely to get hired than those who had more "white or neutral" sounding names (such as John or Mary). I've read many such reports. (I don't have the time to look up the specific studies I have in mind at the moment, and I'm not sure if most people could even access the data bases I frequent... Sorry about that, but I might be able to look them up later and pm them if you're interested in reading. It's kind of dense yet absolutely fascinating.)
So, no, I don't think in the real world they are being fairly judged based on their merit and it's a little naive, or perhaps wishful thinking, to ignore the reality of how discrimination against ethnic and/or racial minorities still plays a huge part in hiring. And don't even get me started on gender discrimination in the workplace!
AA was set up to match the system that White males already benefit from. See my first post. Lesser qualified White males get in over other Whites ALL the time. Suddenly the SAME sliding standard gets applied to non-Whites, and NOW it's a problem, but when it benefits those non-Whites.
Quote:
You also left out where I asked how is this right to do to anyone?
You didn't. I quoted you. You chose gender & race as the context that made that choice unfair.
You can make the argument that non-race-based admission preferences are not mutually exclusive from race based admissions as well...
For example, in the great name of Egalitarianism that plagues every other facet of education, why are sports exempt from "leveling the playing field"???
Standardized testing, for example....it's done a great deal to make sure that lower testing states have been pulled up only at the expense of pulling the better testing states DOWN. So, why can't we do similar with athletic based programs? So we can have more of these "less gifted" white kids playing basketball...which is dominated by black kids...in case you haven't noticed.
If you want to start a thread on that, have at it. We're talking about the tacit approval of selective admission when it benefits Whites, and the disapproval when it benefits minorities.
70 years ago.
As I have said I dont disagree with the idea. I disagree with how it was too often implemented.
How do you know how it was "too often implemented?"
No one here knows anything about the hiring policies of other companies or how they procedurally implement Affirmative Action if they use it at all. Most people don't even know the hiring policies of THEIR OWN company, let alone those of a company they don't work at. If you don't work in Human Resources, you have no idea how people are hired.
If you want to start a thread on that, have at it. We're talking about the tacit approval of selective admission when it benefits Whites, and the disapproval when it benefits minorities.
How about you provide some links first? Because I'd like to know what you are basing this off of....
If it is off of legacy admissions... I have no problem with those whatsoever.
So it is not discrimination to hire,promote or advance someone based solely on race or gender?
You confusion comes in believing that promoting of an qualified individual, al be it a minority, is done to harm another.
You have come to believe, arbitrarily, that there is an actual person recieving damamges by allowing the AA person to advance.
How could anyone show that they had an actual admission into a spot... but the school notified them that thier spot was being given to a less qualified minority?
All the person could show is that since the school allowed admissions base on race, thier likelihood of thier acceptance chances may have dropped due to AA.
actual persons claiming actual harm...that is the law.
You don't believe that. If you did, you'd be complaining about all the 3.0 - 2.0 gpa students that get into schools over kids with better grades. If you believed this, you'd be dumbfounded that IVY leagues aren't only filled w/ kids who scored in 99% in grades & standardized tests. But b/c to call this out would also call out all the WHITE KIDS that get in over Asians, and all the White males that get in over White females.
What on earth are you talking about? I went to one of the top ranked schools in the country. No one in the university had a 2.0 GPA in high school. Someone with a 2.0-3.0 ranged GPA in high school would have been laughed out of the admissions office. You are 100% wrong about this.
What's wrong urban life, can't do it on your own so you need special help. So do you ride the shortbus too?
And the people who support the IRS targeting concervatives are democrats.
It's always hilarious group when members of the one group that has received, far and away, the most help in the US blather to black people about how they "made it on their own" , as eRay does here.
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.
If you don't work in Human Resources, you have no idea how people are hired.
democrats.
