"We're an Equal Opportunity employer"

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Looney

Perhaps, but is firefighting ALL about fighting fires? Could not having women as firefighters, inspire girls to become firefighters? Or make society proud that women are firefighters? Can women not bring things to the job that are unique to women firefighters? Such as in a medical emergency, a woman might be a better role than a man? Or the women that go beyond simply firefighting and become inspectors, instructors, chiefs, etc may bring a female perspective that they would never have gotten a chance to if no women were allowed in the first place.

Now you are using "what if's" to support discriminatory practices. In other words, "yeah they discriminate, but what if it's for a good reason?"

If the women have a point like you mentioned, then they should bring that point up and prove that they really do bring something unique to the table and that they should be hired based on that. But so far, they haven't done that. They're competing for the same job, and they wanted the standards lowered so they can get in easier. How is that justified?

 

[Looney]

The reason I am disagreeing with you... is not because I like having all white male companies... it is because it is still discrimination. no matter what the reason, or explanation... it is still discrimination. If only ONE occasion of a majority person not getting the job because it was given to a lesser qualidifed minority person... is one too many.

And again i ask you, without EO, there are no discrimination?

The % really shouldnt apply, unless they are all equalified for the position. If there were 100 jobs, and 30 blacks, 30 women and 30 white males applied... and if they were all equalified, the company employee base should be reflective of that. But it should not be a case of if out of the 100 jobs... 15 women, 15 blacks and 6o white males applied... that there should be the same %. Especially not if the white males are more qualified. If the company had 100 jobs.. and they went to 95 white men who were more qualifed than any of the blacks/women who applied, then that is who should get the jobs. There should never ever be one case of a qualifed person to be turned away for someone who is less qualifed no matter if he is white, blac, male or female.

But that's the point! If everything was equal and fair, the results SHOULD be the same. That if 30 blacks apply, the amount of blacks that qualify should be the same % that whites apply.

Any HRM will be aware of the term KSAO... knowlege, skills, abilities, and other abilities. The point to this is that if the KSAO was correctly assessed, then the requirement for these should be the same for everybody, no matter the race or gender. But to truly assess what is needed for the job is not as easy as you think... job analysis is a hugely important and complicated matter, and rarely perfect.

Somebody who created the KSAO that is required for a job, may say that for instance, fire fighting requires you to be able to do 50 pushups, be able to run up a ladder in so and so time, etc... but are these REALLY what makes a good firefighter? If somebody with a higher score in these, necessarily better than somebody with a lower score? If somebody that scored 90% on the test, is he 20% better than somebody who scored 70% on the test in being a firefighter? Of course not, things are not as black and white, not as quantifiable as these.

We should have equal results if the testing and procedure is fair. The tests and procedures may be given equally to all, but that doesn't mean it's fair. And in fact, few are. You're assuming that the tests that are given are not only perfect, valid predictors of performance, but that they're completely unbias. Is 50 pushups really required to be a good firefighter?

in a perfect world... only the best qualified applicants would get the job.. regardless of race/gender. But this world is not perfect. That is why we have anti discrimination laws. If someone breaks the laws there are already penalties. But a pre-emptive practice of discrimination to deter discrimination is not the answer.. and it doesnt make it anything else but what it is... discrimination. Any saying that is only happens occasionally doesnt make it less discriminatory.

Again, you're assuming all discrimination is obvious. It's not, and infact most discrimination isn't. And i would rather take a pre-emptive solution rather than post. What are you going to do when you notice a company is being discriminating? Going to shut it down? Fire the HR department, fire 20% of the people, and then rehire more minorities to make it more even?

Again, if everything was perfect, the % that is being hired should be the same across the board. If a company is hiring are 5% of all white males that apply, but only 1% of all women that apply, then something is wrong. The company would probably increase that number by lowering the qualification required for women, but most companies would also question WHY they're hiring so few women, and take steps to see whether their procedures are valid. The CEO of a company would be wondering why the heck the HR deparment are hiring people with qualifications that are 70% of the norm... and would want results to see whether those who would hired with lower qualifictions, are performing at the same level as everybody else.

We don't live in a perfect world. People are bias. Tests and procedures are not perfect, or absolutely valid predictors of performance. There are some instances where EO is badly implemented, but on the whole, it's quite fair. Nothing is perfect. People will always get burn in one instance or another. The trick is for the lesser of two evil. Again, what is your solution? To just do away with it and have the discrimination law deal with it? And yet AGAIN, how are you going to prove discrimination? Not all discrimination is 'only white people need apply'.

I am taking the stance that discrimination is wrong no matter what. and it appears that you are saying it is ok in certain circumstance. I think we will have to agree to disagree here...

It's easy to take the holier than thou attitude if you don't have any other solution, and if you're ignorant of how it actually works.

 

[Looney]

Now you are using "what if's" to support discriminatory practices. In other words, "yeah they discriminate, but what if it's for a good reason?"

So? You discriminate against people who can do 50 pushups to be a firefighter, and those who can't. Oh, because that is a job requirement? But do we really know if doing 50 pushups really does lead to being a good firefighter. Does EVERY SINGLE firefighter that does 50 pushups better than those who can only do 40? Of course not, because not everything about firefighting is about pure strength. So why can't one of the requirement to take into consideration is gender? That a woman can bring things to the job that a man can't?

If the women have a point like you mentioned, then they should bring that point up and prove that they really do bring something unique to the table and that they should be hired based on that.

Um they have. There's been many court cases like these in the last few decades. Women fought the requirements and question whether those requirements really are predictors of performance.

But so far, they haven't done that. They're competing for the same job, and they wanted the standards lowered so they can get in easier. How is that justified?

Because the standards are not perfect predictors of performance. Again, somebody who scored 90% on the tests isn't necessarily better than somebody who scored 70%... in most cases, they are. But then there are other benefits to having women or minorities that can't be evaluated on a test... such as morale of company, better opinion in the public eye because they have diversity, having different perspectives on the job, etc.

 

[Looney]

Let's say they give a skill test to determine who to hire. 900 out of the 1000 applicants were white. They hire all the people with scores of 100- 95, and pass over a white guy who scored a 92 so they could hire a black woman that scored a 90. That is wrong, because you used race as a reason to hire instead of the test score. Looney might say that it's not wrong to do that, because this guy got beat out by all the white people who scored 100-93. But it still doesn't negate the fact that you discriminated against 1 guy who scored higher than the person you hired, and that act of discrimination is due to a discriminatory policy.

It just seems that those with a liberal mindset see nothing wrong with giving out handouts to people, as if they're entitled to handouts. They see nothing wrong with discriminating against the majority as long as it helps the minority. By trying to be politically correct, they are the ones promoting discrimination, only this time it's reverse discrimination. I'm against all discriminatory hiring practices, let the individual's performance be the only basis, and give no handicaps or handouts.

But you don't see the people who would hire a white guy who scored 90 on a test, over the black woman who scored 92 on the test simply because she's a woman or she's black or both.

 

[91TTZ]

Since people seem to get emotionally caught up with issues like this and favor those who they view as an underdog, I'll change it around and give another example:

Let's say that 100 people are competing for 10 spots at a place of work. The place of work is the NBA. Of all the applicants, 90 were skilled black guys ranging in skill from Allen Iverson to Michael Jordan. The other 10 were white guys ranging from Star Wars kid to me.

According to Equal Opportunity hiring practices, 1 of those spots should go to a white applicant, to reflect the pool of candidates. Since I was the best of the white applicants, they hire me.

This would be wrong. There were other candidates that were much more skilled than me, but I was hired based on a racial quota. In what way would this be right? I know they want to be PC and reflect the pool of applicants in their hiring decisions, but such a policy lead to a poor player being hired, while skilled players were passed by due to their race. But according to Loony, the skilled black guys that are complaining shouldn't be blaming the hiring practice since 9 of those spots were given to black players, and they were beaten out by better black players.

While this situation sounds goofy because of the example, the concept is the same that happens everyday- you have lesser skilled people being hired instead of more highly skilled applicants due to their race. Instead of making the workforce more skilled, you are watering it down by making exceptions for lesser skilled people. Requiring a firefighter applicant to lift 100 lbs over their head ensures that you have capable people. But when you lower that standard to 50 lbs just for women so they can get the job, that can only brings on a weaker workforce. Maybe weaker men should apply, too. Maybe a guy can lift only 80 lbs. Not quite strong enough to make it under the old rules, but if you're allowing people to work there that can only lift 50 lbs, 75 doesn't seem too bad.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
Looney, why is hiring 0 women for firefighting somehow evil? If all the male applicants are more qualified than the female applicants, shouldn't the males be hired?

Perhaps, but is firefighting ALL about fighting fires? Could not having women as firefighters, inspire girls to become firefighters? Or make society proud that women are firefighters? Can women not bring things to the job that are unique to women firefighters? Such as in a medical emergency, a woman might be a better role than a man? Or the women that go beyond simply firefighting and become inspectors, instructors, chiefs, etc may bring a female perspective that they would never have gotten a chance to if no women were allowed in the first place.

If women bring something to the job that is unique, and that thing is useful for a firefighter, they are more qualified and fail the clause above.

If you want to be an inspector, be an inspector. And I doubt society gives a damn that women are firefighters, they care that their houses don't burn down.

The problem, again, is less qualified people being hired because they are female/black/whatever. As a firefighter, one job requirement may be to be able to carry 50 lbs easily, perhaps a child out of a burning building. Now here's the flipside. If your house burns down due to incompetent women firefighters, whose to blame? Say a woman can only carry 40 lbs and there is a 50 lb child burning up. What now? Who's to blame?

We should have equal results if the testing and procedure is fair.

Why? Why can't some race/gender combos be better than other at certain tasks? Because some wacko leftist will cry racism if we say so?

The NFL fines teams for not including enough black coaches, funny how they aren't including enough white players.


It should be the minorities' position to prove discrimination, not the employers position to do what they can do avoid a lawsuit. How do you prove racial discrimination? Simple, give just 1 example of a minority passed up for a less qualified white person, just as we are doing.

 

[PlatinumGold]

if u white boys think it is tuf, try being asian male trying to get an IT position

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Looney

So? You discriminate against people who can do 50 pushups to be a firefighter, and those who can't. Oh, because that is a job requirement? But do we really know if doing 50 pushups really does lead to being a good firefighter. Does EVERY SINGLE firefighter that does 50 pushups better than those who can only do 40? Of course not, because not everything about firefighting is about pure strength...... Women fought the requirements and question whether those requirements really are predictors of performance.

But if that's the case, why can't a guy get in if he can only do 45?

What they've implemented is a double standard. Men need to be able to do xx number of pushups, while women only need to be able to do yy number of pushups.

But if the women have accurately pointed out that the number of pushups isn't a good predictor of performance, then why do the men still need to be able to do more? I'm sure a guy could make a very good case that while he cannot lift 100 lbs over his head like the male requirement states, he can still lift more than 50 lbs over his head like the female requirement states. According to rules, a woman may be able to get in

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Looney
And again i ask you, without EO, there are no discrimination?

WITHOUT EO...there may or many not be. but WITH EO there definately is.

But that's the point! If everything was equal and fair, the results SHOULD be the same. That if 30 blacks apply, the amount of blacks that qualify should be the same % that whites apply.

what if 30 smart whites applied and 30 smart blacks applied.. but of the 30 woman who applied, 15 of them were dumber than sh!t? According to your theory, they should get the jobs anyway... instead of the smart blacks and white men that applied. that is discrimination and it is wrong.

Any HRM will be aware of the term KSAO... knowlege, skills, abilities, and other abilities. The point to this is that if the KSAO was correctly assessed, then the requirement for these should be the same for everybody, no matter the race or gender. But to truly assess what is needed for the job is not as easy as you think... job analysis is a hugely important and complicated matter, and rarely perfect.

Somebody who created the KSAO that is required for a job, may say that for instance, fire fighting requires you to be able to do 50 pushups, be able to run up a ladder in so and so time, etc... but are these REALLY what makes a good firefighter? If somebody with a higher score in these, necessarily better than somebody with a lower score? If somebody that scored 90% on the test, is he 20% better than somebody who scored 70% on the test in being a firefighter? Of course not, things are not as black and white, not as quantifiable as these.

If there were certain criteria for any job... any job... that job should go to whomever is most qualified to do the job. I dont care if it is a 200 pound woman, a 150 black man, or a 100 white man.... but it is wrong to say... we have enough women, so dont hire any more... just hire the next black guy who comes in. That is wrong.

We should have equal results if the testing and procedure is fair. The tests and procedures may be given equally to all, but that doesn't mean it's fair. And in fact, few are. You're assuming that the tests that are given are not only perfect, valid predictors of performance, but that they're completely unbias. Is 50 pushups really required to be a good firefighter?

Again, you're assuming all discrimination is obvious. It's not, and infact most discrimination isn't. And i would rather take a pre-emptive solutiona rather than post. What are you going to do when you notice a company is being discriminating? Going to shut it down? Fire the HR department, fire 20% of the people, and then rehire more minorities to make it more even?

It is discrimination. It is saying that you would prefer to hire a certain % of .. whatever... blacks/women/minorities... just because they are minorities... than to hire who is best qualified for the job.

Again, if everything was perfect, the % that is being hired should be the same across the board. If a company is hiring are 5% of all white males that apply, but only 1% of all women that apply, then something is wrong. The company would probably increase that number by lowering the qualification required for women, but most companies would also question WHY they're hiring so few women, and take steps to see whether their procedures are valid. The CEO of a company would be wondering why the heck the HR deparment are hiring people with qualifications that are 70% of the norm... and would want results to see whether those who would hired with lower qualifictions, are performing at the same level as everybody else.

If the 5% of hired men are qualified... and only 1% of the women who applied are qualified ... then only 1% of women should be hired. If 5% of qualified women are NOT being hired... cause only white men are hired... that is discrimination and is already illegal. But it is also discrimination to hire all 5% of women who apply soley because they are women, especially if you are turning away another more qualified applicant just to keep the %.

We don't live in a perfect world. People are bias. Tests and procedures are not perfect, or absolutely valid predictors of performance. There are some instances where EO is badly implemented, but on the whole, it's quite fair. Nothing is perfect. People will always get burn in one instance or another. The trick is for the lesser of two evil. Again, what is your solution? To just do away with it and have the discrimination law deal with it? And yet AGAIN, how are you going to prove discrimination? Not all discrimination is 'only white people need apply'.

My solution... hire the person best suited and qualified for the job regurdless of race/gender. Will there be discrimination.. maybe... but there are already laws in place. Anyone who feels that they have been discriminated against have full access to the courts, and the ACLU and a number of other avenues. If a lawsuit is files.. and the investigation is done... and it is found that QUALIFIED minorities are being turned away because they are minorities... then enough fines, penalities and monetary judgements will put it right... we dont need the governement saying... hire less qualified applicants soley because they are minorities and screw the qualified person. If a minority is qualified... they should get the job. The lesser of two evils is not a trick... it is discrimination.

It's easy to take the holier than thou attitude if you don't have any other solution, and if you're ignorant of how it actually works.

What is holier than thou about not liking discrimination. I dont like discrimination. I dont like it when it is done to the white man, the black man, the white woman, the black women, the hispanic man or woman, or the handicapped man or woman. I am against discrimination for everyone. I am especially against government enforced discrimination. If that is ignorant... then I am blissful... but I still an antidiscrimination.

And again... I am taking the stance that discrimination is wrong no matter what. and it appears that you are saying it is ok in certain circumstance. We will not agree... you cannot convince me that government enforced discrimination is anything else, nor that it is right....I will not fight with you... I think we will have to agree to disagree here...

🙂

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Triumph
blah blah blah, typical liberal BS, it's ok to bend the rules when it suits you. "it's ok to discriminate because the effect is so very little." and yet it's the liberals who cry the loudest when ONE person gets insulted because of some liberal-created category that they fit into. "we can't have christmas trees because it might hurt the feelings of the 0.05% of the population that doesn't celebrate christmas." or how about "we have to change the name of the Washington Redskins because it is disrespectful to native americans." two of many examples, and in both the actual effect on the people in question is very very little.

so in essence, it is OK to discriminate against the white man because the effect is truly minimal, but it isn't OK to "discriminate" against minorities because the effect is truly minimal.

boohoo it truly is awful to be a white man in this society. I know i wouldn't want to be one.

You don't see all the times when you may have it easier than everybody else... but the moment you see the words Equal Opportunity, you claim 'i'm being discriminated'! And that you're not getting the job solely based on the fact that you're a white male... instead of realizing that you lost the same positions to the other 95% of white males that were better than you.

Two wrongs do not make a right, 3 lefts however does.

You can't compare one group, say they are benefitting from society, and decide to punish them by means otherwise deemed unjust simply because they have other benefits. The means are either just or not. Ends don't justify means.

 

[ed21x]

if you are of the oriental demeanor, you can always claim to be filipino =)

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Looney

Let's say they give a skill test to determine who to hire. 900 out of the 1000 applicants were white. They hire all the people with scores of 100- 95, and pass over a white guy who scored a 92 so they could hire a black woman that scored a 90. That is wrong, because you used race as a reason to hire instead of the test score. Looney might say that it's not wrong to do that, because this guy got beat out by all the white people who scored 100-93. But it still doesn't negate the fact that you discriminated against 1 guy who scored higher than the person you hired, and that act of discrimination is due to a discriminatory policy.

It just seems that those with a liberal mindset see nothing wrong with giving out handouts to people, as if they're entitled to handouts. They see nothing wrong with discriminating against the majority as long as it helps the minority. By trying to be politically correct, they are the ones promoting discrimination, only this time it's reverse discrimination. I'm against all discriminatory hiring practices, let the individual's performance be the only basis, and give no handicaps or handouts.

But you don't see the people who would hire a white guy who scored 90 on a test, over the black woman who scored 92 on the test simply because she's a woman or she's black or both.

Assuming this scenario was hypothetically true, you agree it is wrong?

Um they have. There's been many court cases like these in the last few decades. Women fought the requirements and question whether those requirements really are predictors of performance.

So the new requirements only apply to women, not to the men as well?:disgust:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Let's say that 100 people are competing for 10 spots at a place of work. The place of work is the NBA. Of all the applicants, 90 were skilled black guys ranging in skill from Allen Iverson to Michael Jordan. The other 10 were white guys ranging from Star Wars kid to me.

According to Equal Opportunity hiring practices, 1 of those spots should go to a white applicant, to reflect the pool of candidates. Since I was the best of the white applicants, they hire me.

They wouldn't do that. Again, there is a part of the legislations that states 'reasonable accomodation'. If you really are bad, they don't need to hire you. For example, airline pilots may be require to have 20/20 vision (i don't know if they do or not)... obviously this is discriminating against handicapped visually impaired people... but it's a bonafide job requirement.

While this situation sounds goofy because of the example, the concept is the same that happens everyday- you have lesser skilled people being hired instead of more highly skilled applicants due to their race. Instead of making the workforce more skilled, you are watering it down by making exceptions for lesser skilled people.

Well then why is the US so successfully? Why do they have such a strong economy, that products that are Made in the USA have such strong recognition? Because the workforce has been watered down due to less skilled people? Could the US be in even better shape now if there was no legislation? I guess anything is possible... but do you think the EO that have allowed more women to become physicians, have helped or hinder the health industry? Personally i think it's helped. What about more female executives? Again, i think it's helped... it's made companies more aware of women consumers and their needs. Women police officers? Again, i think it's helped... it's helped in how they've intereacted with society, or in things like rapes and women abuses.

 

[CyraKrin]

Originally posted by: eyecandy86
statistics?

Edit: Some companies do try to maintain certain precentages, but that is discrimination.

Some compaines want to know for statistical purposes.

38% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Maetryx]

Two dogmatic principles that drive EO/AA
1) Diversity = strength
2) There are no group differences

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Looney
And again i ask you, without EO, there are no discrimination?

WITHOUT EO...there may or many not be. but WITH EO there definately is.

Wow, you can't be serious.

Just because EO may be in place for a company, doesn't mean ALL minority hiring is based on EO.

what if 30 smart whites applied and 30 smart blacks applied.. but of the 30 woman who applied, 15 of them were dumber than sh!t? According to your theory, they should get the jobs anyway... instead of the smart blacks and white men that applied. that is discrimination and it is wrong.

This isn't how life works. Again, a company does not have to hire people who obviously are unqualified just to meet some quota. As i've stated so many times now, if everything was fair and equal, then the hiring of people would be equal across all groups. if they're not, then something is obviously wrong. It's just basic statistics (if you understand it)... if 100 white people apply for a job, you're going to get 5% who may qualify for the job... and if 30 blacks apply for the job, you should get approximately 5% of blacks who should qualify for the job. If you don't... there's a chance that the black people who apply for the job really aren't qualify... that maybe an ad for the blacks were stapled up in the ghetto and they're getting fast food burger flippers rather than college educated people... perhaps, but more than likely there is something wrong with the testing that is causing the bias.

If there were certain criteria for any job... any job... that job should go to whomever is most qualified to do the job. I dont care if it is a 200 pound woman, a 150 black man, or a 100 white man.... but it is wrong to say... we have enough women, so dont hire any more... just hire the next black guy who comes in. That is wrong.

Except that's not how EO work... if it did, then yes, it would be wrong. Yes, some companies may do this... they may have such bad hiring practices, that they notice a huge skew in their workforce, that they may hire the token black guy. But don't blame that on EO... blame it on the company that was practicing discriminating black people for years, and needed to discriminate white people inorder to 'fix' their problem.

It is discrimination. It is saying that you would prefer to hire a certain % of .. whatever... blacks/women/minorities... just because they are minorities... than to hire who is best qualified for the job.

If their testing procedure was absolutely perfect and fair, then the % they hire WOULD be the same for all... they wouldn't need to PREFER to hire a certain % of whatever, because the perfect testing procedure would CAUSE those types of results anyways.

If the 5% of hired men are qualified... and only 1% of the women who applied are qualified ... then only 1% of women should be hired. If 5% of qualified women are NOT being hired... cause only white men are hired... that is discrimination and is already illegal. But it is also discrimination to hire all 5% of women who apply soley because they are women, especially if you are turning away another more qualified applicant just to keep the %.

*sigh* again, you're assuming that the tests used in the qualification are perfect, are measuring the correct predictors of performance, are without any bias. And again, if they were, the results would always be equal across all minority groups as well. If a test is given to 1000 white males that apply, and 5% of all white males qualify... then if you were to give the test to 1000 black males, 5% of all black males should qualify too. But there aren't too many perfect tests out there.

My solution... hire the person best suited and qualified for the job regurdless of race/gender. Will there be discrimination.. maybe... but there are already laws in place. Anyone who feels that they have been discriminated against have full access to the courts, and the ACLU and a number of other avenues.

Wow, you can't be serious. THINK for just a moment, how does somebody applying for a job, going to know they're going to be discriminated? Because the HR guy had shifty eyes?

If a lawsuit is files.. and the investigation is done... and it is found that QUALIFIED minorities are being turned away because they are minorities... then enough fines, penalities and monetary judgements will put it right

And what is 'putting it right'? What are the qualifying or quantifying variable of 'right'? The EO, as i've explained it many times now, is that the % of those minority who are hired vs how many had applied, should be similar to others.

What is holier than thou about not liking discrimination.

That you think discrimination is right to me. Oh no, you're ALL against it, there shouldn't be discrimination at all. But without EO, discrimination would be rampant. Not only direct discrimination, like somebody's prejudice, but for things like testing bias.

And again... I am taking the stance that discrimination is wrong no matter what. and it appears that you are saying it is ok in certain circumstance.

Testing procedures are not perfect. Anybody who's ever taken any college level course on statistics and tests, would know how rampant bias can be... even if it's unintentional (most are unintentional).

If proper procedure are followed, and the testing process was unbias, then the results WOULD be similar to what EO states. The EO sets a standard for companies to strive for... that the successful hiring of minorities should be similar to everybody else. And again, if an EO is badly implemented, don't blame the EO, blame the company that has been discriminating against minorities for years or decades, and need to make up for it now by having extreme hiring practices.

 

[cronos]

i don't know about everybody else here, but after reading this thread i started to understand why EO is a good thing.
thanks Looney.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Let's say they give a skill test to determine who to hire. 900 out of the 1000 applicants were white. They hire all the people with scores of 100- 95, and pass over a white guy who scored a 92 so they could hire a black woman that scored a 90. That is wrong, because you used race as a reason to hire instead of the test score. Looney might say that it's not wrong to do that, because this guy got beat out by all the white people who scored 100-93. But it still doesn't negate the fact that you discriminated against 1 guy who scored higher than the person you hired, and that act of discrimination is due to a discriminatory policy.

It just seems that those with a liberal mindset see nothing wrong with giving out handouts to people, as if they're entitled to handouts. They see nothing wrong with discriminating against the majority as long as it helps the minority. By trying to be politically correct, they are the ones promoting discrimination, only this time it's reverse discrimination. I'm against all discriminatory hiring practices, let the individual's performance be the only basis, and give no handicaps or handouts.

But you don't see the people who would hire a white guy who scored 90 on a test, over the black woman who scored 92 on the test simply because she's a woman or she's black or both.

Assuming this scenario was hypothetically true, you agree it is wrong?

Yes, it's wrong.

Statistics deal with the whole, and attempts to bring balance by affecting the whole. It's just impossible to go in and figure out which and every HR personel is bias/racist/or just dumb. So they apply standards and regulations that all can follow. Sometimes, it's not fair for a select few.

It's like applying for college... a college can look at a student's past school history, and interview them individually to assess them... but is that practical? It's much easier to standardize a testing procedure... it works most of the time, but unfortunately, a few bright people might not qualify (maybe they were sick that day, was drunk the night before, or just do bad on standardized test).... does that mean the process isn't fair?

So the new requirements only apply to women, not to the men as well?:disgust:

For those requirements that are absolutely essential, the requirements are the same. But for things that are important, but aren't life threatening, then no... women may have lower qualifications, because the fact that they're women can help.

For example, male nurses may have easier qualifications than women... male nurses can bring something to the job, such as their strength in restraining disorderly patients... but strength isn't a requirement in nurses, because generally the job doesn't require it. But you need a certain amount of men in the job, because sometimes a man is needed. *btw, i don't know if male nurses actually have an easier qualification... i just pulled this from my ass, but it's an example*

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: saxguy
i don't know about everybody else here, but after reading this thread i started to understand why EO is a good thing.
thanks Looney.

Thanks! My day wasn't wasted then!

 

[Phoenix86]

So can you explain (again?) how ends justifies means? I'm missing that part.

I'll agree there is discrimination (lots?), and that I don't have the solution, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a bad solution.

 

[rh71]

yes.

 

[zendari]

Couple more question Looney:

Since people are all equal, are you a proponent of removing all women's events from the onlympics and all athletic events? Since they are equal, they should all compete against each other.

Since people are all equal, are you against the grave injustices done by today's divorce courts?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So can you explain (again?) how ends justifies means? I'm missing that part.

I'll agree there is discrimination (lots?), and that I don't have the solution, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a bad solution.

First, the solution isn't bad. It's not perfect, but it's far from bad. You're assuming all hiring of minorities or women are due to EO... that's just not true. In fact, i would bet most companies are hiring just fine. It's just the EO states that if your hiring practices really are unbias and fair, then the results of your hiring should be similar amongst minorities and others. It's the bad companies,the ones who don't know how to properly implement EO, who have flawed testing/hiring procedures, that need to resort to specifically hiring minority to 'fix' their problem. These companies are bad even with EO in place, imagine if there wasn't a guideline for them....

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari
Since people are all equal, are you a proponent of removing all women's events from the onlympics and all athletic events? Since they are equal, they should all compete against each other.

Well men and women are obviously built genetically different. This is different than doing a job... very few jobs require just male genetics. You know there was a time when people thought that women didn't have the logical or reasoning ability to vote? Or were too emotional to lead? I bet if you lived 150 years ago, you would have probably thought the same thing too.

Since people are all equal, are you against the grave injustices done by today's divorce courts?

Hell yeah, if you mean things like 95% of court cases being ruled for the mothers in custody battles and such, i think it's unfair.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So can you explain (again?) how ends justifies means? I'm missing that part.

I'll agree there is discrimination (lots?), and that I don't have the solution, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a bad solution.

First, the solution isn't bad. It's not perfect, but it's far from bad. You're assuming all hiring of minorities or women are due to EO... that's just not true. In fact, i would bet most companies are hiring just fine. It's just the EO states that if your hiring practices really are unbias and fair, then the results of your hiring should be similar amongst minorities and others. It's the bad companies,the ones who don't know how to properly implement EO, who have flawed testing/hiring procedures, that need to resort to specifically hiring minority to 'fix' their problem. These companies are bad even with EO in place, imagine if there wasn't a guideline for them....

I'm not assuming anything. I'm wanting to know how a system that *will* (not always) discriminate is an acceptable solution to stopping discriminatation?

You can take away the incredible irony that the solution is the very means that's causing the problem. Though that's a MASSIVE oversight, I'm willing to pass on it for now.

How is a solution, who's means are bad, acceptable? Your saying that being bad to some people is OK to futher other people because in the end it's "Better". IE, ends justifies means.