When will the Supreme Court Rule on Affirmative Action?

[nehalem256]

Good lord, you are dim. A name doesn't tell you who a person is. But some people are racist, so they--like you and itchy, from your posts in this thread--incorrectly believe a name does tell you who a person is. Unfortunately, some of these people are in a position to hire people and throw out resumes just because of a name, therefore affirmative action is necessary to counter-act their bigotry.

Apparently the people doing the study thought names were a reasonable way to determine who a person is too. Hence the methodology of the study.

 

[klinc]

Good lord, you are dim. A name doesn't tell you who a person is. But some people are racist, so they--like you and itchy, from your posts in this thread--incorrectly believe a name does tell you who a person is. Unfortunately, some of these people are in a position to hire people and throw out resumes just because of a name, therefore affirmative action is necessary to counter-act their bigotry.

So discrimination is used because of the assumption some people maybe bigots? Good Lord

 

[GreenMeters]

Apparently the people doing the study thought names were a reasonable way to determine who a person is too. Hence the methodology of the study.

Question for the regulars--have all 6000 of nehalem's posts been that stupid?

 

[GreenMeters]

So discrimination is used because of the assumption some people maybe bigots? Good Lord

It's not an assumption. It's a theory backed with evidence, as mentioned several times in this thread.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not an assumption. It's a theory backed with evidence, as mentioned several times in this thread.

You mean evidence that is clearly biased.

 

[klinc]

Names are a product of culture not race.

Apartheid was devision of cultures not race.

 

[klinc]

It's not an assumption. It's a theory backed with evidence, as mentioned several times in this thread.

Evidence or what theory is irrelevant. It is still discrimination.

 

[GreenMeters]

Evidence or what theory is irrelevant. It is still discrimination.

So it's OK that a black person seeking a job is only 50% as likely to get a callback as a white person with an identical resume? It's OK for things to stay like that while society catches up?

 

[klinc]

So it's OK that a black person seeking a job is only 50% as likely to get a callback as a white person with an identical resume? It's OK for things to stay like that while society catches up?

No. You are suppose to give it to previous less privilege communities. If a guy in a wheelchair applies for that job your suppose to give it to him. This is where most people gets confused what affirmative action really is. As soon as you use the word black over white or vice versa you are discriminating on grounds of race and last time I checked in most countries constitution that is not allowed.

 

[GreenMeters]

No. You are suppose to give it to previous less privilege communities. If a guy in a wheelchair applies for that job your suppose to give it to him. This is where most people gets confused what affirmative action really is. As soon as you use the word black over white or vice versa you are discriminating on grounds of race and last time I checked in most countries constitution that is not allowed.

That's not how affirmative action works or how the law works, at least in the U.S.

 

[klinc]

That's not how affirmative action works or how the law works, at least in the U.S.

Please state the exact law for me.

 

[nehalem256]

So it's OK that a black person seeking a job is only 50% as likely to get a callback as a white person with an identical resume? It's OK for things to stay like that while society catches up?

None of what you said is backed by fact.

you mean a person with a "black" name is less likely to get a callback.

 

[GreenMeters]

Please state the exact law for me.

You want me to state the law that doesn't say what you claimed?

 

[Geosurface]

So it's OK that a black person seeking a job is only 50% as likely to get a callback as a white person with an identical resume? It's OK for things to stay like that while society catches up?

Absolutely.

Forcing people through law to become what you PERCEIVE to be more "enlightened" or pretend they are, is disgusting thought-crime nanny-state overbearing bullshit.

And you don't even have the research to demonstrate the fundamental assumption it's all based on, which is that people of all groups are entirely interchangeable.

Not only that, it's not even *possible* for that to be true. Not how evolution works.

 

[klinc]

You want me to state the law that doesn't say what you claimed?

No. What is the official writing that was implemented by the government. It is written somewhere so what does the act exactly say?

You sound very defensive. I am not arguing with you or saying that you are wrong I merely want to show you a different point of view. So lets start with the basic concept that you must give minority preference to the majority. In the US that will be Hispanic, Mexicans, African Americans, Native Indians etc etc as your minority and the whites as the majority.So lets say minority apply at university along with a guy of the majority group one gets denied the other gets admitted. Now you sit with 1 person in your population that you give a education and 1 person in your population where you denied him that. In the public sector you are going to sit with 1 employed person and another unemployed one. But does it it do anything to reduce poverty or unemployment? No. Education? No.

Now what if I go and build two universities instead of 1 and say right minorities you go there and the others go there. You think the public won't crucify me? But my the above mentioned now give both groups a education where the institution can give bonus points grants whatsoever how they see fit where in the "democratic" society where we have individual and human rights that place us on a equal footing say they must deny 1 person a opportunity a education or employment because of his color and give that opportunity to another person because luckily his skin is now the right color. Why wake up a hundred years late?

I mentioned apartheid a couple of times. The South African Apartheid government build 365 schools in the township Soweto alone. They also build a unique Medical university called MEDUNSA which produced amongst others on average 200 black doctors per year. MEDUNSA also trained nurses and other medical staff.

Now did they provide a education and a opportunity to both groups? Yes but it didn't look too good and we all know where it ended. Now you are doing the opposite but instead of seperating them you kick one in the face cause his skin color aint trending in this era. But society accept that as equal. Where is the equality in that?