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.
Just a small example from the other side of this argument:
My wife works in human resources for a company that is known nationwide. The other day she was given a stack of applications and resumes that either needed to be filed away as unqualified or contacted for interviews. Someone else had already gone through the applications and somewhat organized them in this manner. However, they had been in a hurry and didn't get everything put together completely. What my wife noticed was that the stack of unqualified resumes had actually been put in two sections when they usually are in one. The first part contained the usual unqualified people lacking things such as education, experience, etc… However, what she noticed about the second part was that everybody had the necessary qualifications and/or experience but they had names usually associated with Black people. This was pretty disturbing considering the size of the company she works with.
Personally I believe the best qualified person should get the job, it shouldn't be about any quotas, biases, or even who you know or are related to. Unfortunately this is not always how it goes down.
The reality is that while frusterating to whites, affirmative action just isn't going away. Learn to deal with it. The reality is that blacks just forty years ago gained fair and equal treatment in regards to the opportunities they were awarded.
That's why, the likes of Ken Chenault (CEO American Express), Charles Wilkins (high up ATT), Aylwin Lewis (CEO Kmart), Pamela Thomas Graham (CEO MSNBC), Richard Parsons (CEO Time Warner), and Stanley O'Neal (CEO Merrill Lynch), all of whom are black, are so amazing to me.
As a high income black individual, I can assure you these people did not get these jobs based off of needs to fill a "quota" - I find that assumption not only ignorant, but insulting, and quite frankly, racist. These people got their jobs because they were qualified, period.
While I admit blacks need to get their acts together, I think affirmative action needs to stay in place for the time being.
I support affirmative action to help level the field for people that didn't have a lot of advantages but managed to succeed. This is why I feel it should be more need\background based. One of my key points is that all of the people you listed above.....their kids will be eligible for affirmative action....having gone to the best schools, tutors, whatever they need....while the single mom that cuts my kids hair and lives in a bad neighborhood....her kids will be competing against those privledged kids for the same slots.
This works out really really well for the children of successful minorities (like yourself) but puts the screws to the ones that haven't made it out yet.
This creates quite a bit of tension between socio-economic groups within races as well as between different racial groups.
P.S. Chenault was a dentists kid from NY....he didn't get where he is because he's black....he got there because his parents pushed education and he worked hard etc etc. I seriously doubt he needed affirmative action but rest assured that since he filled a slot some other minority kid that might have needed an edge due to their background....didn't get in.
But the thing is how do you means test lack of opportunity? Even the richest kid might have abusive, violent parents and end up getting hooked on heroin.
The reality is that while frusterating to whites, affirmative action just isn't going away. Learn to deal with it. The reality is that blacks just forty years ago gained fair and equal treatment in regards to the opportunities they were awarded.
Actually it's already being phased out. California has already eliminated AA in public education and government hiring and other states have similar legislation and ballot initiatives pending.
Additionally private parties have settled several national cases that were headed towards the SCOTUS because they could see the handwriting on the wall and wanted to preserve it for another term.
Now with Bush's new appointee, the new conservative republican slant on the high court, AA may not withstand another test case.
Is your wife's company totally devoid of black employees, Seatown206?
No, they have Black employees. Given the size of the company that would be strange if they didn't. I'm not saying the company doesn't hire Blacks, this just made us raise our eyebrows.
No, they have Black employees. Given the size of the company that would be strange if they didn't. I'm not saying the company doesn't hire Blacks, this just made us raise our eyebrows.
It sounds like someone is making an assumption that points more towards class and culture. Not saying that is acceptable, but its not quite vile racism either.
Now wait a minute. You are stretching the boundaries of racism to the point where it will include anything and everything. Racism is thinking that someone is inferiour due to their skin color. How many people still believe that?
And the US Senate? Are you serious? The Senate is composed of a mere 100 members who serve for 6 years. 100 people out of a population of 300 million. Do the math. Anybody is going to find those odds nearly impossible, although it has not stopped some AAs, one of whom is running for President. Most of us have a better chance of sitting in with the Rolling Stones.
I'm afraid the number of people who still think that way may be more than you think. People may not openly say that, but it may affect their decisions. For example, if there are two qualified candidates, the person making the hiring decision may just go for the person who's more like him or her.
And the US Senate? Are you serious? The Senate is composed of a mere 100 members who serve for 6 years. 100 people out of a population of 300 million. Do the math. Anybody is going to find those odds nearly impossible, although it has not stopped some AAs, one of whom is running for President. Most of us have a better chance of sitting in with the Rolling Stones.
I forgot to respond regarding the Senate. Again you're not following along at all. The Senate is supposed to represent the people, so when you see that very few people from minorities are in there, that's shows that there is a bias among the people voting/running. It's not about an individual's specific chance of getting into the Senate, but how it represents the views of the people as a whole.
It's refreshing to see that the political landscape is changing, it's about time!
And while you're at it, look at the composition of the people who run for the senate.
Then you have to factor in that X% percentage of people just party-line vote without knowing who they're actually voting for. There's no pictures at the booth.
Yes, that is very true, it goes both way. Unfortunately with the system we have today you have to be quite wealthy to run, which is most cases also favors white men disproportionely. Even though there aren't pictures in the booth, you can usually tell if it's a woman or a man running
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.
