Affirmative Action vs Reverse Discrimination

Vedderlution_Baby

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I've personally known a guy that barely survived while he paid child support. He had joint custody too, but he couldn't buy his kids anything directly because all of his funds went to his ex-wife. So she was the one spoiling their kids and herself.

It's not always the case, but it does happen, a lot. I knew a girl that had 3 kids, 3 different fathers, she was collecting support from all 3 of them, while still playing the one guy, she kept breaking up with him and stuff, but still seeing him and using him for child support. She also cheated the government into believing she couldn't read and collected disability on top of all the other stuff.

Holy shit. It's people like that that ruin those programs for the people that actually need them.

Ahnimus

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Holy shit. It's people like that that ruin those programs for the people that actually need them.

Yup, I didn't see her with her kids very often either. She pawned them off on her sister or her mother, or sometimes even left them in the care of a 13 year old. I only knew one of the men, but I argue he may have been a better legal guardian.

cornnifer

I sooo wish i had time for this tonight. Having been over this one before on this board, i know it will require much more than i have time for. Affirmative Action in no way means quotas and there is pretty strict criteria that needs to be met before a discrimination case can be established. The general "WMA" who bithces about affirmative action being reverse discrimination really has very limited understanding of affirmative action.

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

I sooo wish i had time for this tonight. Having been over this one before on this board, i know it will require much more than i have time for. Affirmative Action in no way means quotas and there is pretty strict criteria that needs to be met before a discrimination case can be established. The general "WMA" who bithces about affirmative action being reverse discrimination really has very limited understanding of affirmative action.

So you don't think mandating prejudice is unjustified?

Hope&Anger

Let me wade in.

The first poster began by complaining about quotas.

I don't know what's happening outside of the US, but the Supreme Court has ruled out the use of quotas consistently since the 1970's. Most recently, they told the University of Michigan that setting aside any minority places for admissions at all was unacceptable, and they had to revise their admissions process.

And private employers don't have to do this at all, unless they have government contracts.

So could someone please give a specific example of a quota?

Ahnimus

Hope&Anger wrote:

Let me wade in.

The first poster began by complaining about quotas.

I don't know what's happening outside of the US, but the Supreme Court has ruled out the use of quotas consistently since the 1970's. Most recently, they told the University of Michigan that setting aside any minority places for admissions at all was unacceptable, and they had to revise their admissions process.

And private employers don't have to do this at all, unless they have government contracts.

So could someone please give a specific example of a quota?

Hey well, I'm Canadian. You are right, the court has ruled it out.

My point is Affirmative Action in general targets a specific group in an attempt to stop the individual from targetting other groups. It's a hipocritical approach to equality. It's racism to battle racism, sexism to battle sexism. It's not any better, it's all just reverse discrimination.

Hope&Anger

Ahnimus wrote:

Hey well, I'm Canadian. You are right, the court has ruled it out.

My point is Affirmative Action in general targets a specific group in an attempt to stop the individual from targetting other groups. It's a hipocritical approach to equality. It's racism to battle racism, sexism to battle sexism. It's not any better, it's all just reverse discrimination.

Okay, so the first thing that we've established is that you don't know of any specific examples of quotas. Anyone else have an example?

But moving on to your next point -- I don't really follow your version of how affirmative action works, but let me tell you what I know about how it works here in the US.

The University of Michigan Law School had an admissions policy that survived (where the undergraduate one got struck down). Their admissions officers had a gestalt approach. Race was one of a list of different factors that admissions officers considered -- like playing in the band or having another graduate degree or the region of the country they came from and so on. It is true that minorities got a bump on their LSAT scores in this process. But after that, race is just another factor that gets taken into consideration. It's hardly "racism fighting racism."

The Supreme Court said that what they cared about was fixing past discrimination. So they added a requirement that universities and employers have to show that they adopted these affirmative action policies because of a history of discrimination at the school or in the industry. So unless an employer or university can show that there's this history -- no more affirmative action.

Let's face it -- the Bush Administration has basically killed affirmative action, and still there's all this pissing and moaning about how unfair it is. Honestly . . .

I imagine that I've lost out along the way to African-Americans because of affirmative action, but I've done okay for myself. It's hard to say I've lost anything. And speaking from experience, I like working in places with affirmative action better in places that don't have it. I learn a lot from interacting with people who aren't just like me. It makes me more empathetic. And white people -- when left to their own devices -- say the most shocking things . . .

Ahnimus

Hope&Anger wrote:

And white people -- when left to their own devices -- say the most shocking things . . .

See that is a generalization.

Now, I don't know if my employer has this affirmative action thing. But I do know I was hired by a woman, my previous boss was a woman, the legal department is all women and the data group is mostly all women. My current boss is Philipino, the HR manager is Chinese (female), the Secuity guard is Portuguese, there are a handful of Asian-Canadian and African-Canadian people that work here. There are some really fruity guys here in high positions, like Dept. Managers. There was one guy that was transgender, but he is gone now. I'm not sure why he was fired though.

All in all, there are a lot of so-called minorities above me in this company.

Considering the demographics here I am actually a minority for both being non-hispanic white and for being a man.

The only place I've worked that actually discriminated against people was a backwards ass hick company and no amount of laws or affirmative action is going to change them.

Regardless of laws, the whole concept is bad. It's like woman's rights groups. It's a totally situational and bias organization. Just like men's rights groups or anything like that. Anything that seperates people into groups based on ethnicity, gender, age, etc.. are prejudice. That is the deffinition of prejudice.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

I always wondered why Women were considered minorities. I live in a city where the ratio of Women to Men is 4 to 1.

Just imagine being the guy in a domestic violence case, or a child custody battle when 4 out of 5 of the jury are women. Imagine being one of the guys in the jury.

you really do hate women. did she beat you with a shoe?

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

Regardless of laws, the whole concept is bad. It's like woman's rights groups. It's a totally situational and bias organization. Just like men's rights groups or anything like that. Anything that seperates people into groups based on ethnicity, gender, age, etc.. are prejudice. That is the deffinition of prejudice.

your not seeing the bigger picture. and besides that, you only seemed to be concerned that women are given jobs in your company. hippiemom was right, you really hate women.

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

you really do hate women. did she beat you with a shoe?

I don't hate women, quite the contrary I love women. I'm just sticking to my beliefs. I've seen what I've seen and I know what I know. That's the basis for my statements. I hold no animosity towards women in general. The feminist movement, yea, I have some beefs with that.

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

your not seeing the bigger picture. and besides that, you only seemed to be concerned that women are given jobs in your company. hippiemom was right, you really hate women.

Take a hike.

Hope&Anger

Ahnimus wrote:

See that is a generalization.

Yeah, I know. Shocking, huh?

Ahnimus wrote:

Now, I don't know if my employer has this affirmative action thing. But I do know I was hired by a woman, my previous boss was a woman, the legal department is all women and the data group is mostly all women. My current boss is Philipino, the HR manager is Chinese (female), the Secuity guard is Portuguese, there are a handful of Asian-Canadian and African-Canadian people that work here. There are some really fruity guys here in high positions, like Dept. Managers. There was one guy that was transgender, but he is gone now. I'm not sure why he was fired though.

All in all, there are a lot of so-called minorities above me in this company.

Considering the demographics here I am actually a minority for both being non-hispanic white and for being a man.

Let me see if I can break this down.

You don't know whether your employer's hiring policies is based on an affirmative action policy or not. That seems pretty important. I mean, maybe they hired all these women and minorities that you work with because they were the best candidate for the job -- not because they were "forced to" by any law or policy. So I'm not sure whether your workplace even counts as an example of affirmative action. I mean, maybe all these folks got chosen because of their credentials . . .

Ahnimus wrote:

The only place I've worked that actually discriminated against people was a backwards ass hick company and no amount of laws or affirmative action is going to change them.

Yeah, that's what Southerners said about Jim Crow laws in the US. But oddly enough, they're all gone now.

Ahnimus wrote:

Regardless of laws, the whole concept is bad. It's like woman's rights groups. It's a totally situational and bias organization. Just like men's rights groups or anything like that. Anything that seperates people into groups based on ethnicity, gender, age, etc.. are prejudice. That is the deffinition of prejudice.

I don't really know what you mean by "situational and bias organization." But you worked for "a backwards ass hick company." You basically want to leave them alone to their own devices -- hopefully to die out on their own. I guess I think that minorities and women need to get together to fight off folks like the backward ass hicks.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

Take a hike.

you cant handle my observations? im sorry.

paintEDbig

this is a good conversation; we need to recognize it as such and not try to solve the problem here. a lot of way smarter people have tried to debate this for many years. there is no right answer. some points:

- just because whites arent a majority, doesnt make them a minority. They usually become a plurality. meaning, they outnumber other groups, but no longer represent over 50%

- AA programs are not mandatory, only certain employers have to enforece these, either by court order (for discriminating and getting caught), govt contract or self-imposed.

- This is a SOCIAL program; how can you argue with trying to make up for taking an entire class of people from their native lands, enslaving them and then denying them equal rights in the new land.

food for thought?

Ahnimus

Hope&Anger wrote:

Let me see if I can break this down.

You don't know whether your employer's hiring policies is based on an affirmative action policy or not. That seems pretty important. I mean, maybe they hired all these women and minorities that you work with because they were the best candidate for the job -- not because they were "forced to" by any law or policy. So I'm not sure whether your workplace even counts as an example of affirmative action. I mean, maybe all these folks got chosen because of their credentials . . .

Yea, I think they were hired because they have the necissary skills, and also because they are what applied. You won't get a whole heck of a lot of WMAs applying for any jobs in this city.

I don't really know what you mean by "situational and bias organization." But you worked for "a backwards ass hick company." You basically want to leave them alone to their own devices -- hopefully to die out on their own. I guess I think that minorities and women need to get together to fight off folks like the backward ass hicks.

Situational means it depends on your situation. If you are an employer and the best person for the job happens to be a white male, then you would want to hire that person, but if you are a black female applicant, you would want to be hired and possibly cry racism or sexism if you don't get it.

Pretty well everyone in these organizations is in the same situation. How many men are involved in women's rights movements? How many employers are out there asking for mandates on who they hire?

That's also what makes them bias.

Ahnimus

paintEDbig wrote:

- This is a SOCIAL program; how can you argue with trying to make up for taking an entire class of people from their native lands, enslaving them and then denying them equal rights in the new land.

Don't even try. It's impossible. All you can do is give them status, which is prejudice.

Hope&Anger

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I think they were hired because they have the necissary skills, and also because they are what applied. You won't get a whole heck of a lot of WMAs applying for any jobs in this city.

Okay, so your workplace is NOT an example of affirmative action. Right?

Ahnimus wrote:

Situational means it depends on your situation. If you are an employer and the best person for the job happens to be a white male, then you would want to hire that person . . .

Which is what happened at your workplace, right? I mean, they hired you and all your colleagues, in their multi-racial glory, because you were the best qualified among all the applicants.

Ahnimus wrote:

. . . but if you are a black female applicant, you would want to be hired and possibly cry racism or sexism if you don't get it.

Maybe. Of course, filing complaints about discrimination is so traumatic that many studies have shown that people would rather lump it than pursue them. Most experts on this agree that there are far fewer complaints of discrimination than discriminatory acts.

Which you wouldn't guess from all the blathering in this country about the "litigation crisis" -- but that's another thread.

Ahnimus wrote:

Pretty well everyone in these organizations is in the same situation. How many men are involved in women's rights movements? How many employers are out there asking for mandates on who they hire?

That's also what makes them bias.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean -- from your example, employers and black women seem like their in very different situations. Anyway, I know a lot of men involved in women's movements opposing violence. And I guess most employers don't want anyone telling them who to hire.

But I think you might be making an argument that I was making. One of the great things about affirmative action is that -- in the few places where it's required -- it forces us to meet and talk to people who aren't like us. And that's good for us.

Here's an example -- the US military. An incredibly success story for affirmative action. Harry Truman ordered the military integrated in the 1950's. If the military is good at anything, it's really good at taking orders. So they integrated the forces, and they implemented affirmative action, and it has been an amazing success. The military is the best integrated employer in the US. (Credit where credit is due.)

Ahnimus

Maybe you mean Affirmative Action as an employer's willingness to hire anyone that applies and meets the job qualifications. That's a personal choice though, it's not a mandate or a law.

I don't see how having an affirmative action group even applies to that kind of thing. It's the segregation I have a problem with.

If an employer says "I am going to hire 50% women and 50% minority." then assuming the 50% women are also minorities then 50% of the workforce might be white men. However, if it's not possible to hire 50% female minorities, or the are just not that strict about going over their limits, then you end up with maybe 20% - 40% of white males. So the majority population becomes the minority workforce.

At any rate, that kind of thing is seperating people based on gender and race. It's prejudice. The whole concept makes it look like white men are prejudice and need to be told how to run their business. I am personally kind of sick of being catagorized with racist or sexist people.

Hope&Anger

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe you mean Affirmative Action as an employer's willingness to hire anyone that applies and meets the job qualifications. That's a personal choice though, it's not a mandate or a law.

I don't see how having an affirmative action group even applies to that kind of thing. It's the segregation I have a problem with.

If an employer says "I am going to hire 50% women and 50% minority." then assuming the 50% women are also minorities then 50% of the workforce might be white men. However, if it's not possible to hire 50% female minorities, or the are just not that strict about going over their limits, then you end up with maybe 20% - 40% of white males. So the majority population becomes the minority workforce.

Didn't we establish that this never happens? We don't have quotas. I thought Canada didn't have quotas. Who has quotas?

Now, you're in the minority in your workplace, but you don't have any idea how it got that way. It might be affirmative action, or it may just be your employer choosing to hire a lot of women and minorities who were the best qualified in the pool of applicants.

Ahnimus wrote:

At any rate, that kind of thing is seperating people based on gender and race. It's prejudice. The whole concept makes it look like white men are prejudice and need to be told how to run their business. I am personally kind of sick of being catagorized with racist or sexist people.

But the whole idea of affirmative action is forcing people from different races to interact with each other. It's the very opposite of segregation.

And it's true -- it's telling employers how to run their businesses, but at least here in the US, it's only when there's been a history of racial discrimination in the business or industry. Now, that happens to be practically every business and administration. The days when African-Americans (and women) were excluded from jobs just because of these characteristics is not that long ago.

And finally, I'm sorry that you feel that you are categorized as racist or sexist just because you're a white man. White men feel very put upon, I know. But from where I sit, they control government, business, education. And the people in power -- the elites -- they're the ones telling white men that their problem is reverse discrimination and they should be mad at women and blacks. When in reality, maybe we should be mad at the people running government, business, and education.

Just a thought . . .