Diversifying in 2012 = racism

[jman19]

OP doesn't know the definition of diversification I guess.

 

[glenn1]

I have no problems with the Obama administration (or any other president) seeking out applicants from under-represented demographic groups. All presidents should do so, and I'm surprised he's so late to do so.

I am mildly surprised that he's had trouble attracting blacks to work in his administration, and has to put out an APB for referrals of qualified black applicants. I guess politically-minded blacks don't consider the Obama White House an attractive place to work compared to the alternatives.

 

[umbrella39]

Wow the desperation and obfuscations are getting pretty thick... must be getting close to another 4 years of Obama...

 

[CycloWizard]

Dictionaries offer alternative definitions, which you have just demonstrated, and you act if it has a single, fixed definition? Like I've said several times here, I know there are narrower and broader definitions to be found in dictionaries, and if you want to define racism in the broadest possible way, fine. Just make sure you are ready to call every past administration "racist" as well. Use the broadest possible definition of any term, be it "racist," "terrorist" or whatever, but be careful what you wish for because people you like might all the sudden fit your own definition.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. If I do anything with race as my prime motivator, it's racist. You can try to distort reality with language all you want, but reality is reality. I don't like anyone, so I don't really care what labels you throw around. I simply believe that people should be hired based on merit with no other considerations made. Is that meritism? If so, I'm a hard core meritist.

 

[Fern]

Racism? Discrimination?

Nah. I think the best description is "PC".

It's not PC to have so many whites, even if you're black.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Obama doesn't believe blacks are superior... otherwise he would have hired only blacks in the first place. He's hiring more blacks because people complained about the lack of diversity.

Which means he thinks whites are superior, since he hired mostly whites.

Must be due to him behing half-white.

 

[cybrsage]

I understand what Obama did and why. It isn't racism, but it is a discriminatory act. I'm not having a fit because I know how it goes. Thomas was probably selected in part because he is black. Now would it be considered racist if someone was hired in part because he was white?

I suppose I'll agree with you on the note of the semantic differences between racism and discrimination. . .

Agreed, I change my position from being racist to being racial discrimination instead. Fits better.

 

[HomerJS]

Agreed, I change my position from being racist to being racial discrimination instead. Fits better.

Hiring a staff that represents a cross section of America as long as they are qualified is neither racist or discriminatory.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hiring a staff that represents a cross section of America as long as they are qualified is neither racist or discriminatory.

It is discriminatory but for a reason. If the best person is black or white or man or woman, picking them for a purpose of "cross sectional representation" is discriminatory by the very definition of the word.

I accept that people are hired for many reasons besides talent. You should too.

 

[HomerJS]

It is discriminatory but for a reason. If the best person is black or white or man or woman, picking them for a purpose of "cross sectional representation" is discriminatory by the very definition of the word.

I accept that people are hired for many reasons besides talent. You should too.

Depends on how you measure best person. If its strictly based on a test score I would have no problem hiring person A with a 94 over person B with a 95 for the sake of diversity.

Usually there are other factors. Unqualified people should never be hired for the sake of diversity.

 

[peonyu]

We should be picking the best Man or woman for the job - its only the Government afterall, and their decisions will effect millions. "Diversifying" for the sake of having a few more brown/black faces in government sounds all warm and nice, but if those people picked are not the best then its a stupid move...And its a reason why other nations are starting to surpass the US in many areas today.

 

[peonyu]

Depends on how you measure best person. If its strictly based on a test score I would have no problem hiring person A with a 94 over person B with a 95 for the sake of diversity.

Usually there are other factors. Unqualified people should never be hired for the sake of diversity.

Why should person B who had a higher test score be screwed out of a job ? What makes person A [who scored less than B] more worthy of work and being able to feed his family than person B, oh let me guess his skin color somehow makes him more worthy of it due to past oppression. And white person being the evil white guy should be happy to move aside, despite earning the job with a higher score. Thats racism whether you like it or not, making race a factor in hiring is always racism no matter how nicely its worded.


Also Asian people, despite being a minority are screwed these days as far as being pitied and given a free ride...It sucks to be a minority that actually has its shit together and is successful on its own. AA doesn't apply to Asians but it applies to other minorities [who seem hopeless in comparison, and its their own fault to].

 

[her209]

Why should person B who had a higher test score be screwed out of a job ? What makes person A [who scored less than B] more worthy of work and being able to feed his family than person B, oh let me guess his skin color somehow makes him more worthy of it due to past oppression. And white person being the evil white guy should be happy to move aside, despite earning the job with a higher score. Thats racism whether you like it or not, making race a factor in hiring is always racism no matter how nicely its worded.

Also Asian people, despite being a minority are screwed these days as far as being pitied and given a free ride...It sucks to be a minority that actually has its shit together and is successful on its own. AA doesn't apply to Asians but it applies to other minorities [who seem hopeless in comparison, and its their own fault to].

Why did you automatically assume person B is white?

 

[Attic]

We should be picking the best Man or woman for the job - its only the Government afterall, and their decisions will effect millions. "Diversifying" for the sake of having a few more brown/black faces in government sounds all warm and nice, but if those people picked are not the best then its a stupid move...And its a reason why other nations are starting to surpass the US in many areas today.

I'm confident the folks who were hired were very well qualified, and that should be the end of it. Those folks ought to stand on their own ground and be seen for it, no need to make a hoopla about their race or diversification IMO.

Diversifying by race with intent to diversify is stupid and discriminatory, always has been and always will be. Diversify through excellence, not race. We ought to demand excellence and let people diversify themselves based on their ability to achieve excellence. But this demands giving individuals power by removing power from institutions and "enlightened" individuals (those who know better than everybody else....), something that scares the living hell out of those "enlightened" ones whom have clamored for political power and are now running government institutions and enjoying their unequal power.

 

[peonyu]

Why did you automatically assume person B is white?

Why would anyone assume Person B was not white is a better question, but lets see here...

1 - Racial quotas dont effect white people. Person A got the job despite having worse test scores in order to fill a racial "diversity" quota. Person A cant be white based on that alone [white people are not diverse apparently].
2- AA does not effect White people. Nor do quotas or racial preference laws [this kills the idea of Person A being white by itself but ill play along and continue on].
3- If a white person scored worse than a black person, and yet landed a job over him based SOLELY on racial-diversity quotas there would be a shit storm over it. Also its not legally allowed anyways, racial quotas are only open to Protected groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group. White people with the exception of Gay whites are not protected at all. It is legally A'ok to hire a black over a white based solely on race [if the person being hired is black to meet a quota], the reverse is not allowed. Ever.

Thats just a small list as to why Person A cannot be White. Person B is white since he was the one [legally] allowed to be screwed over in order to allow a "quota" to be met. Of course that is likely to change in the future...I cant see racism/quotas being legal for much longer in the future, lawsuits will be made against them sooner or later.

 

[trenchfoot]

Being racist is discriminatory, but being discriminatory is not necessarily being racist.

Being racially discriminatory can be used for good and bad purposes, and here is where the argument for Obama's as well as other POTUS' discriminatory practices lie.

It's apparent that the OP's, as well as those who support the OP's premise are being politically motivated to turn a common practice into a weapon of discrimination itself by singling out Obama and his political affliliation from those of the other persuasion who also use that practice.

Isn't being politically discriminatory for the sake of possible employment opportunites just as bad as being racially discriminatory? Or is it now a non-factor in this light?

Every POTUS hires and appoints on this (political) basis.

Woolfe is correct, IMO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why did you automatically assume person B is white?

More to the point is that the highest scorer in a test may not be the best person for the job. I know many intelligent people who would blow most curves and I wouldn't want to work with them as they'd be completely unsuited psychologically and emotionally for a given task. Hiring cannot be entirely objective, with scores playing a part, however not the entire role in determining who wins a position. I'd rather have a competent 90% black person than a 99% white scorer if the second is unfit, but also the reverse is true.