Affirmative Action - Get rid of it...work for a living!

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Mani

The basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable. Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse? The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

BTW, have you considered that even going thru the GOB network, thinks like will get my mother in law off my back if i hire my brother in law IS a qualification AND the government SHOULDN'T interfere with that. It goes to my right to "pursuit of happiness" (btw, don't go off on this, i'm not making a constitutional argument but just making a joke).

soo many things go into hiring decisions besides just resume or paper qualifications. if i hire someone i know from church, i already know a lot of things about their character that i'd never see in a resume or even in an extended interview. why should the government have the right to punish me because i want to exercise judgement?

qualifications to do a job are more than just experience in that job, i must also consider, trustworthiness, character conflicts, work habits, relationships with co workers. all of those things are PART of the decision making process albeit many of them are sub conscious. so what. are you going to call me a racists because i'd rather hire someone i feel comfortable with?

 

I have not read this thread, but I do have some input. I just started a new job with really strong affirmative action protocols. The odd thing is that I'm in the bible belt and this company is an exception. They're the only one I know of with this agenda in this area.

When I interviewed there was a female and an "african american" (oxymoron) shooting for the spot. I think I only got it because of inside contacts. The weird thing is that I'm in the minority there. We have alot of foriegners, and they are damn good programmers. We have alot of Muslims (almost unheard of in SC), and they seem to seeth the white population there.

The funny thing is that I'm 1/16 Cherokee Indian, and that qualifies me for A.A.. I don't play that angle though.

I used to hate the A.A. protocol, but in some instances it does work. Of course there are exceptions to the rule.

All in all, I believe it's a wasted program, and it's time to redo or eliminate it.

 

[classy]

Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

Colin Powell also admitted that he really shouldn't have been considered for one of his promotions because he was not of agem didnt he?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

Colin Powell also admitted that he really shouldn't have been considered for one of his promotions because he was not of agem didnt he?

I didn't understand what the end of your response was. But if your arguement is over one promotion is not the point. If people of this caliber need AA to get oppurtunities, to argue against AA is really dumb. They are examples that go against every arguement in disapproval of AA.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

Colin Powell also admitted that he really shouldn't have been considered for one of his promotions because he was not of agem didnt he?

I didn't understand what the end of your response was. But if your arguement is over one promotion is not the point. If people of this caliber need AA to get oppurtunities, to argue against AA is really dumb. They are examples that go against every arguement in disapproval of AA.

YAY - wheel out 2 success stories to demonstrate to success of a bullsh!t program! Woohoo! Let's all pat ourselves on the back...

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

and that's about what AA is good for classy, for a couple of people to reach the very top and the majority of black people to remain on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
It should be as easy as taking a test. If you went to a tough high school and didn't learn anything, tough. If you went to an easy high school and learned nothing (but got good grades), tough.

Entrance exams should be about what you already know and shouldn't be based on anything else. Just your own knowledge. If you speak a second language, GREAT! But having to study abroad to recognize that you're bilingual is ridiculous.

Take the damn test. Did you pass? Did you fail? It should be as simple as taking a math test at the end of the semester.

I disagree... you have to remember that smart kids can be stuck in crap schools. They may still make excellent employees, regardless of less (initial) academic knowledge, because of inherently better problem solving and reasoning abilities when compared to idiots in good schools. Taking the top x% of every class should give you a pretty good set of kids.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

Colin Powell also admitted that he really shouldn't have been considered for one of his promotions because he was not of agem didnt he?

I didn't understand what the end of your response was. But if your arguement is over one promotion is not the point. If people of this caliber need AA to get oppurtunities, to argue against AA is really dumb. They are examples that go against every arguement in disapproval of AA.

YAY - wheel out 2 success stories to demonstrate to success of a bullsh!t program! Woohoo! Let's all pat ourselves on the back...

Well the point is if these two couldn't earn it without AA although they were or are superior to their white counter parts in almost every aspect, you tell me how else they would have been able to get the oppurtunity. If you and and all these other geniuses are so smart you tell me another way in which the scales can be balanced? Are these two lazy? No. Uneducated? No. Is either of their lifestyles able to be criticized? No. But yet they needed the help of AA. The fact is many of you here want to do away with AA and the like so you can practice your prejudices without penalty. Thats really where its at.

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: classy
Colin Powell and Condolessa Rice, two of the top blacks in America both support AA and both have acknowledged that AA is what opened the doors for them. Think about that for a second. Two highly intelligent individuals, highly educated, and very hard working, but yet they needed the help of AA to help open closed doors for them. They would have been shut out of the doors of success, not because they were lazy, lacked education or intelligence, but because they are black. Not to mention they are staunch republicans as well. So if quality people like this say we need AA, who the hell is anyone else to argue otherwise. Just a thought

Colin Powell also admitted that he really shouldn't have been considered for one of his promotions because he was not of agem didnt he?

I didn't understand what the end of your response was. But if your arguement is over one promotion is not the point. If people of this caliber need AA to get oppurtunities, to argue against AA is really dumb. They are examples that go against every arguement in disapproval of AA.

YAY - wheel out 2 success stories to demonstrate to success of a bullsh!t program! Woohoo! Let's all pat ourselves on the back...

Well the point is if these two couldn't earn it without AA although they were or are superior to their white counter parts in almost every aspect, you tell me how else they would have been able to get the oppurtunity. If you and and all these other geniuses are so smart you tell me another way in which the scales can be balanced? Are these two lazy? No. Uneducated? No. Is either of their lifestyles able to be criticized? No. But yet they needed the help of AA. The fact is many of you here want to do with AA and the like so you can practice your prejudices without penalty. Thats really where its at.

But how can we determine that they really "needed the help of AA." Should we go by their own claims? How do we know they were superiod to their white counterparts? And what really did they need AA FOR? Did General Colin Powell need AA as he claims? Or did he just need it to pick up the rank of General before he was supposed to? And what do you think his peers thought of that? The non-black colonels who had just as many qualifications, if not more, but were stuck at their current rank because they didn't rate an EXCEPTION on the grounds of their race. Is this truly what we want to do to be fair?

How about asian americans, who traditionally get shafted from AA? Doesn't your logic also hold if a hard working Asian American says he needs AA to get that extra boost, he should get it? Because, after all, he "needs the help of AA." He's not "lazy" or "uneducated," so we should therefore extend those benefits to him, as well.

And like MWilding said, for every success story about AA, there's a million failures with the system. Is that one alleged success worth the cost we must pay?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Mani

1. My conclusions are not based on my experience, they are based on common sense. Try immigrating to the US if you have no area of expertise in skilled labor. Try finding an immigrant that is not incredibly hard working and/or skilled.

2. The Chinese "slave" descendents are a tiny percentage of the total Chinese population in this country, not even significant enough to draw conclusions from. But even if they were a significant percentage of the current population, they had two things that fundamentally differentiate them from black slaves. One, they were paid. Two, they were not banned from getting an education. They were essentially brought in as cheap labor, not slaves. They did not enjoy the same rights as whites, but they had far more freedom than black slaves did.

my conclusions ARE based on my experience, i've seen many koreans that came over with NO skills, got jobs doing manual labor or WHATEVER was available, worked 2 jobs full time if necessary so that their family could get ahead.

"hard working" is not a talent or skill given to just CERTAIN people, "hard working is something that ANYONE can achieve.

Obviously, but not everyone is hard working. The fact is, it requires either skill or incredible tenacity and work ethic to immigrate to this country. I know because I know what my father and his peers have gone through just to come here. They most certainly do NOT represent the average Indian - they represent the most enterprising, focused, skillful, and hard working. And I can almost assure you that the same holds true for most other immigrants from asian countries. You simply cannot compare the asians in this country to the blacks - they come from two VERY different sets of circumstances.

soo many things go into hiring decisions besides just resume or paper qualifications. if i hire someone i know from church, i already know a lot of things about their character that i'd never see in a resume or even in an extended interview. why should the government have the right to punish me because i want to exercise judgement?

First off, let me make clear one thing - I have never advocated or even implied that the government should be cracking down on the GOB network or dabbling any further into hiring requirements. I brought up the GOB network bit because the biggest argument against AA is that people get hired despite having inferior qualifications - particularly to highlight that this happens much more frequently without the help of AA.

qualifications to do a job are more than just experience in that job, i must also consider, trustworthiness, character conflicts, work habits, relationships with co workers. all of those things are PART of the decision making process albeit many of them are sub conscious. so what. are you going to call me a racists because i'd rather hire someone i feel comfortable with?

Absolutely not. You're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not coming out against anyone who hires on a basis other than purely skill qualifications. Examples I am referring to are when say, you hire your brother's son because your brother asked you to get him a job. Or using your influence in a company to get your slacker friend hired because he has been chronically unemployed. Or using your influence as a large customer of a company to get your son hired in there. These are examples of cases where vastly underqualified people can come into positions are are just as, if not even more unfair than AA.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: ManiThe basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable.

That's a good point and I wouldn't agree that applies in every situation, but that it could apply here. However, it has to be demonstrated that it is unexercised due to something more than that being the way things worked out.

Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse?

Yes. When the government creates a right to something it is much different than when something just occurs. Government rights can be enforced, which means that people can be punished. No one can be punished for preventing whites from hiring their friends and family in the way that we are talking.

The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

To me it still comes down to the fact that the government encourages and supports one and not the other. It's a big deal to have something protected by the government.

It looks like we just disagree on the significance of being a government sponsored program. To me, being government endorsed doesn't really make much of a difference at the end of the day just because a very large percentage of companies try to hire minorities as a part of an internal "diversity requirement" - not always because the government is instructing them to. This requirement may be to get a more diverse workforce in perspectives brought to the table, or perhaps just to avoid bad PR for having an all-white workforce. If AA went away as a government-sanctioned program tomorrow, I don't see much if anything changing in hiring practices. So to me in this regard, AA is no different from the GOB network with the exception that there is legislation written around it.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: ManiThe basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable.

That's a good point and I wouldn't agree that applies in every situation, but that it could apply here. However, it has to be demonstrated that it is unexercised due to something more than that being the way things worked out.

Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse?

Yes. When the government creates a right to something it is much different than when something just occurs. Government rights can be enforced, which means that people can be punished. No one can be punished for preventing whites from hiring their friends and family in the way that we are talking.

The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

To me it still comes down to the fact that the government encourages and supports one and not the other. It's a big deal to have something protected by the government.

It looks like we just disagree on the significance of being a government sponsored program. To me, being government endorsed doesn't really make much of a difference at the end of the day just because a very large percentage of companies try to hire minorities as a part of an internal "diversity requirement" - not always because the government is instructing them to. This requirement may be to get a more diverse workforce in perspectives brought to the table, or perhaps just to avoid bad PR for having an all-white workforce. If AA went away as a government-sanctioned program tomorrow, I don't see much if anything changing in hiring practices. So to me in this regard, AA is no different from the GOB network with the exception that there is legislation written around it.

one thing your forgetting is that Municipal, State and Federal spending is almost 50% of our economy and guess what, all of that HAS to meet AA standards. when they look at bids, MINORITY owned businesses get preferential treatment. any company that does a significant amount of business HAS to have minorities in management positions to be able to effectively bid on these projects.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: ManiThe basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable.

That's a good point and I wouldn't agree that applies in every situation, but that it could apply here. However, it has to be demonstrated that it is unexercised due to something more than that being the way things worked out.

Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse?

Yes. When the government creates a right to something it is much different than when something just occurs. Government rights can be enforced, which means that people can be punished. No one can be punished for preventing whites from hiring their friends and family in the way that we are talking.

The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

To me it still comes down to the fact that the government encourages and supports one and not the other. It's a big deal to have something protected by the government.

It looks like we just disagree on the significance of being a government sponsored program. To me, being government endorsed doesn't really make much of a difference at the end of the day just because a very large percentage of companies try to hire minorities as a part of an internal "diversity requirement" - not always because the government is instructing them to. This requirement may be to get a more diverse workforce in perspectives brought to the table, or perhaps just to avoid bad PR for having an all-white workforce. If AA went away as a government-sanctioned program tomorrow, I don't see much if anything changing in hiring practices. So to me in this regard, AA is no different from the GOB network with the exception that there is legislation written around it.

one thing your forgetting is that Municipal, State and Federal spending is almost 50% of our economy and guess what, all of that HAS to meet AA standards. when they look at bids, MINORITY owned businesses get preferential treatment. any company that does a significant amount of business HAS to have minorities in management positions to be able to effectively bid on these projects.

That certinainly happens, but not to the extent that you purport. I work for a company that sells the government an incredible amount of equipment and frequently bids on government contracts. Despite not having many minorities in management positions, we have never been denied a government contract on that basis.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: ManiThe basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable.

That's a good point and I wouldn't agree that applies in every situation, but that it could apply here. However, it has to be demonstrated that it is unexercised due to something more than that being the way things worked out.

Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse?

Yes. When the government creates a right to something it is much different than when something just occurs. Government rights can be enforced, which means that people can be punished. No one can be punished for preventing whites from hiring their friends and family in the way that we are talking.

The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

To me it still comes down to the fact that the government encourages and supports one and not the other. It's a big deal to have something protected by the government.

It looks like we just disagree on the significance of being a government sponsored program. To me, being government endorsed doesn't really make much of a difference at the end of the day just because a very large percentage of companies try to hire minorities as a part of an internal "diversity requirement" - not always because the government is instructing them to. This requirement may be to get a more diverse workforce in perspectives brought to the table, or perhaps just to avoid bad PR for having an all-white workforce. If AA went away as a government-sanctioned program tomorrow, I don't see much if anything changing in hiring practices. So to me in this regard, AA is no different from the GOB network with the exception that there is legislation written around it.

one thing your forgetting is that Municipal, State and Federal spending is almost 50% of our economy and guess what, all of that HAS to meet AA standards. when they look at bids, MINORITY owned businesses get preferential treatment. any company that does a significant amount of business HAS to have minorities in management positions to be able to effectively bid on these projects.

That certinainly happens, but not to the extent that you purport. I work for a company that sells the government an incredible amount of equipment and frequently bids on government contracts. Despite not having many minorities in management positions, we have never been denied a government contract on that basis.

That is because it is not a basis for denial, it's a basis for consideration. If a given contract is under $3 million, the gov. doesn't even have to look at your firm, or even consider your firm to compete for a given contract. It's called 8A. The concerned agency can just directly go to a minority-owned firm.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: jumpr
"But," you say, "that happened thousands of years ago!" Yes, it did. But Jews have NEVER, EVER demanded preferential treatment because of their heritage. Ever heard of a place called Aushwitz? It was tougher, hotter and deadlier than the hottest Mississippi cotton field in 1855. My grandparents almost died there, but the Allied army rescued them.

I'm not sure why Jews don't complain about their treatment over the past 5,000 years. Maybe it's because we realize that minorities have it tough, and that we must work for our achievements. You could learn a lot from a Jew.
is darker than mine, it doesn't mean that your trials and tribulations are ANY worse. Wake up and realize that other people in this world have had to work for their place in society. You obviously don't want to.

Funniest thing I've read all week. You could learn a lot from picking up a history book, or even a newspaper.

 

[nan0bug]

I'll simply quote Slick Rick in regards to this whole thread:

Tired of the basement placed in? Take responsibility for your actions as a race then.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: ManiThe basic right to the GOB network is irrelevant if that right is almost un-excerciseable.

That's a good point and I wouldn't agree that applies in every situation, but that it could apply here. However, it has to be demonstrated that it is unexercised due to something more than that being the way things worked out.

Does the fact that AA is government sanctioned make it any worse?

Yes. When the government creates a right to something it is much different than when something just occurs. Government rights can be enforced, which means that people can be punished. No one can be punished for preventing whites from hiring their friends and family in the way that we are talking.

The most popular argument against AA is that it allows underqualified people to access jobs....as if this is something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. The amount of underqualified people let in through AA is almost insignificant compared the number of people benefitting from the good ol boys.

To me it still comes down to the fact that the government encourages and supports one and not the other. It's a big deal to have something protected by the government.

It looks like we just disagree on the significance of being a government sponsored program. To me, being government endorsed doesn't really make much of a difference at the end of the day just because a very large percentage of companies try to hire minorities as a part of an internal "diversity requirement" - not always because the government is instructing them to. This requirement may be to get a more diverse workforce in perspectives brought to the table, or perhaps just to avoid bad PR for having an all-white workforce. If AA went away as a government-sanctioned program tomorrow, I don't see much if anything changing in hiring practices. So to me in this regard, AA is no different from the GOB network with the exception that there is legislation written around it.

one thing your forgetting is that Municipal, State and Federal spending is almost 50% of our economy and guess what, all of that HAS to meet AA standards. when they look at bids, MINORITY owned businesses get preferential treatment. any company that does a significant amount of business HAS to have minorities in management positions to be able to effectively bid on these projects.

That certinainly happens, but not to the extent that you purport. I work for a company that sells the government an incredible amount of equipment and frequently bids on government contracts. Despite not having many minorities in management positions, we have never been denied a government contract on that basis.

That is because it is not a basis for denial, it's a basis for consideration. If a given contract is under $3 million, the gov. doesn't even have to look at your firm, or even consider your firm to compete for a given contract. It's called 8A. The concerned agency can just directly go to a minority-owned firm.

Just out of curiosity, do you work for the government and/or handle their business awards? Do you know for a fact that this is common practice? I'm just wondering because a lot of people here seem awful stirred up by something they may or may not have any first-hand experience with. My company is also encouraged to award business to minority-owned companies forour suppliers but it's never been a basis for consideration.

 

[SaigonK]

Wow! What a stir I caused with that statement!