• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

White House opposed to Affirmative Action.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
One of the good things that came out of the problems with the Nazis is that it is illegal to ask for race or creed on any sort of job or admission forms in Germany. I wish we would do that here in the states. There was a Latino kid from my highschool who got into the University of Wisconsin with a 2.2 and white kids with a 3.7 werent getting in.

There is no way that you can justify letting in someone who is less qualified just because they happen to be a minority.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
You're all a bunch of pointy hatted, cross-burning redneck racists.
Click to expand...

I hope, for everyone's sake, that this was a joke.

As much as I hate Bush, I must say that this is a good thing. Being almost forced to choose minorities over qualified white males simply because they're a minority is just as bad as choosing white males over qualified minorities.
 
Originally posted by: Electrode
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
You're all a bunch of pointy hatted, cross-burning redneck racists.
Click to expand...

I hope, for everyone's sake, that this was a joke.

As much as I hate Bush, I must say that this is a good thing. Being almost forced to choose minorities over qualified white males simply because they're a minority is just as bad as choosing white males over qualified minorities.
Click to expand...

Why? What possible effect could anything I say possibly have on "everyones sake"?

BTW read the whole thread and you will have your answer.
 
Any business which chooses to hire a white male over a more qualified minority is doomed to failure anyhow. Simple common sense.

So, any business foced to hire a less qualified minority over a white male....is in the same sinking ship!!!
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: Electrode
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
You're all a bunch of pointy hatted, cross-burning redneck racists.
Click to expand...

I hope, for everyone's sake, that this was a joke.

As much as I hate Bush, I must say that this is a good thing. Being almost forced to choose minorities over qualified white males simply because they're a minority is just as bad as choosing white males over qualified minorities.
Click to expand...

Why? What possible effect could anything I say possibly have on "everyones sake"?

BTW read the whole thread and you will have your answer.
Click to expand...
Gee, Dave, whenever you post, my sake is always in jeopardy. 😉

 
Jesse is not going to like this one bit...

WooHoo!


I have a dream that one day the state of Jesse, whose reverend's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls
and work together as sisters and brothers and not see color*


*edited as necessary to make it relevant
 
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
Click to expand...

cant argue that?? why in the world should a minority with equal qualifications automatically be given a job over an equally qualified white guy? that makes no sense at all and is a totally racist comment. if two candidates are truely equal in ability to do a particular job then they should stand the same chance to get the job.
 
And to think, my school is at the center of all of this.

It's good to be a white, Jewish, male Wolverine. 😀
 
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
Click to expand...

cant argue that?? why in the world should a minority with equal qualifications automatically be given a job over an equally qualified white guy? that makes no sense at all and is a totally racist comment. if two candidates are truely equal in ability to do a particular job then they should stand the same chance to get the job.
Click to expand...

Without affirmative action, you know damn well the white guy would have a much better chance of getting the job. That said, affirmative action is bad, even if the reasoning behind it is sound.
The equal achievement or whatever is not working out too well here in Texas though. UT's enrollment is the highest it's ever been, and expected to increase further.
 
Dude, aren't you guys afraid of the super smart Asians taking over every tech job possible now that quotas are to be eliminated?
 
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
Click to expand...

cant argue that?? why in the world should a minority with equal qualifications automatically be given a job over an equally qualified white guy? that makes no sense at all and is a totally racist comment. if two candidates are truely equal in ability to do a particular job then they should stand the same chance to get the job.
Click to expand...

Without affirmative action, you know damn well the white guy would have a much better chance of getting the job. That said, affirmative action is bad, even if the reasoning behind it is sound.
The equal achievement or whatever is not working out too well here in Texas though. UT's enrollment is the highest it's ever been, and expected to increase further.
Click to expand...

thats why the law says that you cand discriminate. if a company continually chooses white males over equally qualified minorities they can be sued!
 
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Dude, aren't you guys afraid of the super smart Asians taking over every tech job possible now that quotas are to be eliminated?
Click to expand...

Asians aren't smarter than white people and black people. Their parents force them to work harder.
 
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Dude, aren't you guys afraid of the super smart Asians taking over every tech job possible now that quotas are to be eliminated?
Click to expand...

afraid that qualified individuals will actually get jobs over less qualified individuals? umm... no
 
Originally posted by: bunker
Originally posted by: rbloedow
If he persues this argument more, maybe he can deflect the negative attention he's getting from the war and boost his popularity back up 😛
Click to expand...

Not likely. This will piss off the uneducated masses who think affirmative action is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Sadly this is true, and if GW really does pull through with this then the Dems are almost guaranteed a win in '04.

<-- love/hate relationship with Dems...

 
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

WTF?? I think anyone who enjoys freedom from the goverment would argue against that. Who defines who has a hard life?? Getting a job has nothing to do with how hard your life is or how many mistakes you did/did not make. It's about making yourself marketable in your chosen career field by either experence, education or talent. Sorry but having a "Hard Life" doesn't mean much in the corporate world, nor should it.
 
Originally posted by: Jellomancer


Without affirmative action, you know damn well the white guy would have a much better chance of getting the job. That said, affirmative action is bad, even if the reasoning behind it is sound.
The equal achievement or whatever is not working out too well here in Texas though. UT's enrollment is the highest it's ever been, and expected to increase further.
Click to expand...

The white quy wound't get the job at BET....
 
Originally posted by: yamahaXS
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Good, maybe then I can enjoy the benefit of being a white male again!
Click to expand...

It's already banned in California.
Click to expand...

White males are banned in California? I knew this would happen someday.
Click to expand...

I think its related to their emissions standards.
Click to expand...

Hmm, getting a little gassy are we?
 
wohoo! about time.

i have been against AA for years. i dont care what color you are you should NOT have special treatment.

when i heard that blacks were getting into medical colleges with 2.0's i was worried (of course they just flunk out). i dont want a doctor who got a 2.0 giving me medication or telling me if i need surgery.

 
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
Click to expand...

cant argue that?? why in the world should a minority with equal qualifications automatically be given a job over an equally qualified white guy? that makes no sense at all and is a totally racist comment. if two candidates are truely equal in ability to do a particular job then they should stand the same chance to get the job.
Click to expand...

Without affirmative action, you know damn well the white guy would have a much better chance of getting the job. That said, affirmative action is bad, even if the reasoning behind it is sound.
The equal achievement or whatever is not working out too well here in Texas though. UT's enrollment is the highest it's ever been, and expected to increase further.
Click to expand...
That depends a lot on the organization though. Equal qualifications do not me that the two candidates will fit equally well into the corporate structure. Let's say that we have two people with equal talent, ability, and education applying for a job with an established company. One is a black man who comes in wearing a well-tailored suit, speaking proper English, and in all ways exuding a professional attitude. The other is a white man who shows up in dockers and a polo shirt, uses words like "ain't" and calls casual acquiantences "SOB's", and basically seems less professional all around. In that case the black man should get the job. It's a moot point really though, since there is, in reality, no such thing as two "equally qualified" individuals.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I'm happy that Bush is standing against Afirmative Action. The problem us AA was developed so when you have two equal candidates and one is a white male with an easy life and another is a minority with a hard one, then the minority would get the position. That is how AA should work. However, what it turned into was a disgustingly less qualified minority candidate getting preference because of their minority status. I'm happy the SC might get rid of AA, though I still believe if you have two equal candidates then the minority (assuming they had a harder life) should get the position. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
Click to expand...

cant argue that?? why in the world should a minority with equal qualifications automatically be given a job over an equally qualified white guy? that makes no sense at all and is a totally racist comment. if two candidates are truely equal in ability to do a particular job then they should stand the same chance to get the job.
Click to expand...

Without affirmative action, you know damn well the white guy would have a much better chance of getting the job. That said, affirmative action is bad, even if the reasoning behind it is sound.
The equal achievement or whatever is not working out too well here in Texas though. UT's enrollment is the highest it's ever been, and expected to increase further.
Click to expand...
That depends a lot on the organization though. Equal qualifications do not me that the two candidates will fit equally well into the corporate structure. Let's say that we have two people with equal talent, ability, and education applying for a job with an established company. One is a black man who comes in wearing a well-tailored suit, speaking proper English, and in all ways exuding a professional attitude. The other is a white man who shows up in dockers and a polo shirt, uses words like "ain't" and calls casual acquiantences "SOB's", and basically seems less professional all around. In that case the black man should get the job. It's a moot point really though, since there is, in reality, no such thing as two "equally qualified" individuals.

ZV
Click to expand...

And if one canadiate is 6ft tall and the other is 5'7", then the taller man will be hired.

 
IMHO, Bush is closer to the correct vision of how to raise up under-priviledged people. This really should be based on income, and the quality of education available, not just skin color.

As an example, two boys grow up in houses next to each other, their parents have the same income, they both go to the same good schools. Should the minority boy get preferential treament via quotas (or however you want term AA) when he has all the same "advantages" as the white boy? If he does, isnt he taking away an opportunity from a minority (or any poor boy/girl) that did not have any of the advantages of either boy in the example?

Bush's idea of automatically placing the top 10 percent from an underperforming high school into colleges is a pretty good one. It gives poor kids a reason to strive to make that top ten percent, and realistically, anybody below that probably wont cut it in college and would be wasting a slot and money that could educate a person that has a shot at making it through college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top