I Can't Believe 88 Went Through. Hello??? Fifty Years Of Struggles Just Poof!! Vanished?? (lawyer, litigation)

[sylentvoyce]

Originally Posted by rjshae

The wording on the initiative seemed a bit shady for me. What does it mean to "be a factor"? How is it not preferential treatment? The fact that it passed on the night of the final day of the session was also a bit dubious. It's all very nudge-nudge-wink-wink. To me, if you want to treat discrimination in hiring, fix it in those doing the hiring. Have a first-pass interview with a member of a group of people representative of the general population. Or have a diverse interview board meet the candidate and provide a recommendation for the second interview.

Another one I like is not doing face to face interviews. Do them either over the phone or behind a blind curtain. Only ask qualified questions, nothing about the personal life. No telling me about yourself. Only your education level, volunteer experience, and work experience. Collect references through email with a questionnaire of job related questions. Did they work for you on these dates? Are they rehireable?

Employers cannot meet the employee until after they have hired them, based on the blind interview and the resume alone.

This idea isn't perfect, but it would go a long way toward eliminating preferential treatment.

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

Why would you want affirmative action? This is the real discrimination.

Because they're brainwashed mouthpieces, obviously.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by travis t

It was certainly a confusing ballot measure, but that was mostly just a consequence of the process. The group that got it on the ballot ('Asians for Equality) needed 'no' votes to get their desired result. That's the opposite of what might have been expected.

You don't seem to understand R-88 (not 'I-88). Again, I voted to reject R-88, which means that I opposed reinstatement of affirmative action. There was nothing in there about "white men controlling everything."

[pnwguy2]

The actual results of this referendum are and will be very small, effecting very few. A lot of angst about something that really won't matter to most. It is oddly a political argument that has been around for decades but rarely results in changes to current law. I'm glad it was rejected.

[Returning2USA]

I hope it's rejected.

It's dumbing down the entire state.

And, how do some ethnic & racial groups get preference when others don't?

If one cannot compete then then one needs to go to what they are qualified for.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Returning2USA

I hope it's rejected.

It's dumbing down the entire state.

And, how do some ethnic & racial groups get preference when others don't?

If one cannot compete then then one needs to go to what they are qualified for.

How could it be dumbing down the entire state, when African Americans and Hispanics are relatively few, compared to other states? How many members of "some ethnic & racial groups" are benefitting from Affirmative Action anyway? Not a whole lot, since they're a small demographic. Or does AA benefit Indian techies, too? haha As if they need AA.

[Transmition]

Originally Posted by Returning2USA

And, how do some ethnic & racial groups get preference when others don't?

Maybe reading about the history of the USA would help you understand that. Events decades ago still have a lasting effect.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

How could it be dumbing down the entire state, when African Americans and Hispanics are relatively few, compared to other states? How many members of "some ethnic & racial groups" are benefitting from Affirmative Action anyway? Not a whole lot, since they're a small demographic. Or does AA benefit Indian techies, too? haha As if they need AA.

It depends on where you are. I remember when in the 1960s the Oakland police had about 700 officers of which only 16 were black, despite Blacks being 34%. Their AAA program at the time was basically only Blacks could be hired. I was a supervisor in Oakland, CA in the mid-late 1970s when we had a whole AA department, led by an AA Officer. My public agency employer at the time with Oakland at 44% black chose to use recruiting as the AA tool. They would hold training sessions and invite targeted minority members to learn how to take our civil service tests, and practice interviewing. The end result, unfortunately was many hired but failing to pass probation, in fact I was once called into the AA officer's office for an explanation. In my many years as a hiring manager/supervisor since then I have always hired the best person for the job regardless of race, and have not had anyone fail probation.



Here in Seattle I have hired about 20 people since starting here in 1993, with 20-50 applicants for every opening. I can only remember one black job applicant in that time, most often it's about half Asian, half white applicants.

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

How could it be dumbing down the entire state, when African Americans and Hispanics are relatively few, compared to other states? How many members of "some ethnic & racial groups" are benefitting from Affirmative Action anyway? Not a whole lot, since they're a small demographic. Or does AA benefit Indian techies, too? haha As if they need AA.

My friends that have their last name then ends in a vowel qualify for AA.

Even if Italian. One cousin has an Italian last name and another friend of mine has distant Basque ancestry and therefore qualifies because of his last name.

[Guineas]

The OP needs to stop posting his gibberish on this thread. It's painful to read his confusion and misinformation. He must represent the typical King County voter who supported R-88/I-1000 because "white man control everything" even though one of the biggest groups to oppose R-88/I-1000 were Asian-Americans who would have the most to lose under affirmative action policies due to their small share of population but high relative achievement.

Rejecting R-88/I-1000 simply returned Washington to where we were for the last 20 years, which was a ban on state-led discrimination based on race and gender. It's a good thing and agrees with our state's libertarian tendencies. R-88/I-1000 was the most Orweillian legislation I have read, basically "defining" itself as not a quota even though it was essentially a racial spoils quota.