"We're an Equal Opportunity employer"

[Looney]

Originally posted by: 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.

LOL and when has there been a legislation that passes that makes 100% of people happy?

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.

The US went to war in Iraq... killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans in the process. Does the end justify the means in this case?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 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!

Looney I love you man.

I agree with everything you said, but I'm tremendously glad that you took some time out of your day to espouse your great wisdom upon these people. Their responses have been callous at times, and for the most part stupid at best, but you never once lost your composure. Great posts.

 

[Triumph]

although I'll agree that the thread is fairly civil, I won't agree that Looney imparted any great knowledge or wisdom here. That is, unless you don't believe in integrity. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. I don't think that definition could be applied to anyone who supports EEO, AA, and the like.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Triumph
although I'll agree that the thread is fairly civil, I won't agree that Looney imparted any great knowledge or wisdom here. That is, unless you don't believe in integrity. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. I don't think that definition could be applied to anyone who supports EEO, AA, and the like.

I think your concious ignorance of the crimes of the past and those that continue to take place in the present leaves you with little to no integrity.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why is it different? Because women obviously cannot run as fast as men? Of course they can't. If the genders aren't equal at athletics, why do they have to be inherently equal at performing most jobs, particularly those that require physical activity? Why should employment for a job like the police, a job that primarily demands strength and fitness? Why can't women be better at being secretaries, due to handwriting and organizational skills? And its not just policemen, there are many jobs that could fit under this category.

I understand that women might get a boost due to some X factor (perhaps they make the male police officers horny, who knows) and that the boost can overcome a negative (lack of physical strength). I just don't understand the automatic assumption that all jobs are equally suitable for all races/genders. If at least 1 thing isn't, then more can be as well, and the EO garbage shouldn't apply.

Minorities really have a stranglehold on the country. If you can't compete, its always due to some error in the system instead of your own shortcomings. If you can't compete, cry discrimination and get your way. And in cases where you have no argument, well, you get seperate criteria anyway.:disgust: And when someone like Rush Limbaugh comes and states something otherwise, they murder him in the media.:roll:

If you want equal, take equal. Draft women into the armed forces 50/50. But apply it fully to everything. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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.

Minorities really have a stranglehold on the country. If you can't compete, its always due to some error in the system instead of your own shortcomings. If you can't compete, cry discrimination and get your way. And in cases where you have no argument, well, you get seperate criteria anyway.:disgust: And when someone like Rush Limbaugh comes and states something otherwise, they murder him in the media.:roll:

Minorities have a stranglehold on the country?

Minorities are misrepresented in every strata of American society - whether it be politics, entertainment or business.

As for Rush Limbaugh - hes a pill-popping hypocrite who really should be in jail. Thats why no sane person listens to him.

 

[computeerrgghh]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I've noticed that on Monster and many other job sites, when you go to apply for a job, they proudly state that they're an equal opportunity employer and your race or gender don't influence hiring decisions. Yet when you go to apply, they want to know your race/gender.

You'd think that if they truly don't discriminate, they wouldn't even need to know what race/gender you are, and that your abilities are all that matters.

However, my girlfriend used to work for an HR agency, and she tells me that in reality, your race/gender does matter. She said that the companies try to maintain a certain percentage of minorities/women, and that when a new position comes available, who they hire depends on the rest of the workforce- if it's all white men, they need to hire more women/minorities. In other words, if you're a white guy applying for that job, your race/gender most likely will decrease your chances of getting hired, since you'd only make the diversity percentages worse. But isn't that discriminating based on your race/gender?

I saw a news story on one of those News Journals on this (I htink it was nightline). They put the same resume for the same person but gave different names. They found that people with more "African" names were rejected more often. For example, say Tyrell handed in a resume and then handed in another one that was named John Doe. John would have a better chance of getting the job.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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.

Why is it different? Because women obviously cannot run as fast as men? Of course they can't. If the genders aren't equal at athletics, why do they have to be inherently equal at performing most jobs, particularly those that require physical activity? Why should employment for a job like the police, a job that primarily demands strength and fitness? Why can't women be better at being secretaries, due to handwriting and organizational skills? And its not just policemen, there are many jobs that could fit under this category.

Because being a police is not always about taking down criminals... it would include things like interacting with the public, and for some things, women police would be preferable... like patting down another woman, checking a woman to see if she's hidden drugs in her vagina, taking statements from a rape victim, etc.

Minorities really have a stranglehold on the country. If you can't compete, its always due to some error in the system instead of your own shortcomings. If you can't compete, cry discrimination and get your way. And in cases where you have no argument, well, you get seperate criteria anyway.:disgust: And when someone like Rush Limbaugh comes and states something otherwise, they murder him in the media.:roll:

A woman and a man are equal in getting a promotion... in the past, the man would generally be preferred over the woman, simply because they would think there's a chance the woman will have a baby, and will take maternity leave. Now, that doesn't mean in this instance a woman will always be prefer simply because they're a woman, but if past promotion practices have generally been men, then the woman may have a greater chance.

Same thing with race... a black and white man are equal... in the past, the white man would more than likely get the promotion, just because he's white... maybe there is a bias, maybe they want to keep the the 'gentleman's club' as all white. You just don't see all the discriminations that have been done in the past, so of course you don't think they've occurred.

If you want equal, take equal. Draft women into the armed forces 50/50. But apply it fully to everything. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm all for women being in the armed forces. In the Olympics, i don't, because men and women are different. But if you can prove with 100% certainly that a job is only for men, that no women anywhere in the world can do it, then you have a bonafide job requirement that requires just men, and you CAN hire just men. But if even one woman out there can do the job, then you can't exclude women.

Of course, you're going to say then the women should require the same requirement as men... yes, in a perfect world it should... and in a perfect world the assessment required for men and women would be fair, and the results WOULD be equal.

But we live in a world with people like you, who believe being a police officer is all about strength and speed. And people like you would create tests that only assess these skills.... thinking these really are the only criteria for being a police officer. But reality is, we have women becoming police officers who aren't meeting these same requirements as men, and they're performing just as good... so obviously the criterias were wrong... but without allowing women in as police officers, we would have never known that.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It's much more complex than most people think.

First of all, the information is used mainly for statistical purposes. Companies are required by law to track the racial and gender make-up of their interviewee pool. It's a sticky situation since they are not allowed to compel applicants to fill out an EEO questionnaire, and even if the applicant does fill out the EEO form, they have the option of filling the form out with "I choose not to respond" to every question. These forms are filed separately from a person's resume are are pretty much strictly HR department material. I would be _very_ surprised if the managers hiring for the positions ever saw the EEO forms.

As far as maintaining a certain percentage of employees of a certain race or gender, while it does happen, it is not nearly as widespread as many would make it seem. A company is out for its own best interest and they don't get anywhere by hiring unqualified individuals. In _most_ instances where minority status (itself a misnomer since women are technically the majority in this country) plays any significant part in the hiring decision it occurs only when the two applicants are essentially identically qualified and capable.

Companies need to prove that they are not discriminating against minorities by not interviewing them, but trust me, the paper trail that a good HR department generates does a very good job of making sure that the best candidate (not necessarily the most qualified for the position, mind you, but the best combination of skillset and fit both within the functional group and within the company) is the candidate hired. Clearly superior candidates will get the nod every time, regardless of ethnicity or gender. The only time minority status will come into play is if there are no strong differentiations between candidates.

ZV

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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.

Minorities really have a stranglehold on the country. If you can't compete, its always due to some error in the system instead of your own shortcomings. If you can't compete, cry discrimination and get your way. And in cases where you have no argument, well, you get seperate criteria anyway.:disgust: And when someone like Rush Limbaugh comes and states something otherwise, they murder him in the media.:roll:

Minorities have a stranglehold on the country?

Minorities are misrepresented in every strata of American society - whether it be politics, entertainment or business.

As for Rush Limbaugh - hes a pill-popping hypocrite who really should be in jail. Thats why no sane person listens to him.

Yup, blacks are completely underrepresented in the NBA and NFL.

It's a nice circle that the EO proponents have created: Everyone is equal, except in situations where you can't BS around that, and anything that shows otherwise is "imperfect" and "flawed". There is no way to disprove the primary assertion. Guess the white man will always be screwed and everyone else will always be left behind.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It's much more complex than most people think.

First of all, the information is used mainly for statistical purposes. Companies are required by law to track the racial and gender make-up of their interviewee pool. It's a sticky situation since they are not allowed to compel applicants to fill out an EEO questionnaire, and even if the applicant does fill out the EEO form, they have the option of filling the form out with "I choose not to respond" to every question. These forms are filed separately from a person's resume are are pretty much strictly HR department material. I would be _very_ surprised if the managers hiring for the positions ever saw the EEO forms.

As far as maintaining a certain percentage of employees of a certain race or gender, while it does happen, it is not nearly as widespread as many would make it seem. A company is out for its own best interest and they don't get anywhere by hiring unqualified individuals. In _most_ instances where minority status (itself a misnomer since women are technically the majority in this country) plays any significant part in the hiring decision it occurs only when the two applicants are essentially identically qualified and capable.

Companies need to prove that they are not discriminating against minorities by not interviewing them, but trust me, the paper trail that a good HR department generates does a very good job of making sure that the best candidate (not necessarily the most qualified for the position, mind you, but the best combination of skillset and fit both within the functional group and within the company) is the candidate hired. Clearly superior candidates will get the nod every time, regardless of ethnicity or gender. The only time minority status will come into play is if there are no strong differentiations between candidates.

Nice, much more eloquently and succinctly than i was able to put it.

 

[ShadowBlade]

its for when hooters looks at your application
duh

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Triumph
although I'll agree that the thread is fairly civil, I won't agree that Looney imparted any great knowledge or wisdom here. That is, unless you don't believe in integrity. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. I don't think that definition could be applied to anyone who supports EEO, AA, and the like.

I think your concious ignorance of the crimes of the past and those that continue to take place in the present leaves you with little to no integrity.

Well... that really isn't the proper use of the word integrity, but whatever. I think your willingness to blame me for the sins of my fathers is quite telling. It could almost be described as malicious revenge. You wouldn't punish me personally for something my father did, right? Now why is it ok to do that on a large scale? Why is it not okay in situation A but it is okay in situation B? Again, we go back to the definition of integrity...

 

[Mildlyamused]

Originally posted by: kinev
Remember, all people are created equal......but some are just more equal than others.

I can't remember where that was from but IIRC that was from the simpsons..

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: 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.

LOL and when has there been a legislation that passes that makes 100% of people happy?

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.

The US went to war in Iraq... killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans in the process. Does the end justify the means in this case?

I never said happy, now who's assuming things? Of course no legislation will make 100% of everyone happy, so I'm not asking for utopia.

Now your drawing things off topic with Iraq. Just answer the question.

Discrimination=unjust/illegal. If it wasn't then we shouldn't be addressing the problem.

To solve the discrimination problem the chosen solution is to <insert unjust means> against others?!?

Now replace <inset unjust means> with, another unjust action (illegal activities, such as murder, slander, assault, jailing, etc) and you see the means is obviously not correct. However you put discrimination in there, and now it's OK? I thought we already decided discrimination is unjust, and that's why it's an issue in the first place.

I'm asking this from a philosophical perspective, not policy. You don't use unjust means to solve a problem and expect good results.

BTW, thanks for a level-headed discussion.

 

[PingSpike]

AA is just plain bullsh|t. How do you expect a policy that effectively makes fair hiring practices based on merit illegal to foster a diverse and tolerant culture? If anything, its a step backwards....and it feeds racism. A racist doesn't have to accept the fact that the black guy next to him is "just as damn good at X as me" because he can always just say that he got in by cheating. How are we suppose see eachother as equals by tipping the balance in the other direction? Two wrongs make a right I guess? A wrong for a wrong that you never even were part of?

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, but this is not the way to fix it. All you're doing is giving them fuel for their fire. Instead of running on ignorance, you give them something tangible that they can use as a justification.

 

[Kelemvor]

SO just answer it that you are a minority and then see what they say when you show up for an interview.

 

[Looney]

I never said happy, now who's assuming things? Of course no legislation will make 100% of everyone happy, so I'm not asking for utopia.

I never asked if you were happy... i asked whether you thought the ends justify the mean?

Now your drawing things off topic with Iraq. Just answer the question.

I'm just trying to point out your hypocracy.

Discrimination=unjust/illegal. If it wasn't then we shouldn't be addressing the problem.

To solve the discrimination problem the chosen solution is to <insert unjust means> against others?!?

No, you're just playing with semantics. There are ALWAYS going to be discrimination when you evaluate people for a job... you discriminate against those who score high versus those who score low on an aptitude test.

Now replace <inset unjust means> with, another unjust action (illegal activities, such as murder, slander, assault, jailing, etc) and you see the means is obviously not correct. However you put discrimination in there, and now it's OK? I thought we already decided discrimination is unjust, and that's why it's an issue in the first place.

And you're going to have MORE discrimination without EEO. Should a police officer not use violence to take down a violent criminal, because violence is wrong? No, because they use voilence for the greater good.

I'm asking this from a philosophical perspective, not policy. You don't use unjust means to solve a problem and expect good results.

BTW, thanks for a level-headed discussion.

We live in a democracy, so if you have a better system, go ahead and write to your senators. Court challenges have been made against EEO policies, and in some cases, they've won... not against EEO itself, but against the way a company may be practicing it. Why doesn't Rush Limbaugh and the conservatives actually fight the EEO? The government is overwhelmingly conservatives now, wouldn't they succeed? Or at least bring the attention of such unfairness of the white man to the forefront? Of course they don't, because when you actually look at the legislation, it isn't discriminating against white men. No, all they can do is just bark that it's unfair, but they won't go into details of how it actually works and why it's unfair, because then their arguments will fall a part.

It's unfair to you, because it takes away the advantages you may have had in the past, and makes the field fair for everybody else.