PDA

View Full Version : Fine, I'll bring the stirring stick


Roguish Lawyer
01-30-2004, 13:54
NDD is preoccupied with administrative matters, so I'll try to get some discussion going here.

Affirmative Action. Are you for it or against it? Under what circumstances? And what do you understand this term to mean?

CPTAUSRET
01-30-2004, 14:03
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
NDD is preoccupied with administrative matters, so I'll try to get some discussion going here.

Affirmative Action. Are you for it or against it? Under what circumstances? And what do you understand this term to mean?

I'll bite, I am against it:

In theory it may provide certain answers, but in practice it puts less qualified people ahead of other, more qualified individuals, and at some point the "Peter" principle, (often) rears it's ugly head:

In "theory" Communism sounds great:

Terry

longrange1947
01-30-2004, 14:10
Rogue you are a mean one!

Against, it hands out what is normally earned. It is also used under the worse possible circumstances due to idiots handleing the bad idea in the first place.

Anytime you place anyone ahead it causes problems. The "whites" were ahead and the blacks were heald back. Thsi equals friction. You do not end that friction by reversing the discrimination. Affirmative action reverses teh discrimnation.

Diversity is highly overrated.

Jump in and bash me guys! :)

CommoGeek
01-30-2004, 14:37
In theory: a great idea. In reality: a crutch used to get ahead. The best qualified should be hired, regardless of who or what they are.

Standards are standards, not quotas.

D9
01-30-2004, 15:19
I'm against this for the same reasons I am against other manifestations of authoritarianism.

CRad
01-30-2004, 15:41
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer


Affirmative Action. Are you for it or against it? Under what circumstances? And what do you understand this term to mean?

In reverse order: A program designed to create more diversity in schools, workplaces, etc. A program that if managed correctly will bring the strengths of different cultures, ethinic and socio-economic backgrounds to the forefront to the benefit of all. There's a great deal the Dean of Harvard Law could learn from a black street cop from NYC, however, given the probable economic situation of the street cop the Dean is going to be robbed of a valuable learning experience. AA could remedy that. Given those circumstances I am for it 100%.

On the other hand, AA attacks the notion of meritocracy (the more one does the more one is allowed to do), and in many cases is not only unnecessary and stigmatizing, it can close off ways for people to prove themselves on their abilities.

If the education and economic playing fields were level there would be no need for Affirmative Action. Even that is not quite true, though. If the education field were more equal then the economics would straighten themselves out sooner or later.

My thinking is that the military is the great equalizer in that all troops are given the same schools regardless of family background or ability to pay. DoD schools on post get the same funds regardless of local tax base. (Military Academies excluded for various reasons)

D9
01-30-2004, 16:24
The real question with affirmative action, and all other like programs is this:

Do you think the government exists to protect the rights of the individuals in a society to make their own way, or do you think individuals exist to fulfill some "social" outcome dictated by whatever authority establishes such goals?

I hold the former to be the only legitimate interpretation of a just government. "Diversity," as forced on people by affirmative action, is not a value they are free to choose or resist for themselves. It is an injunction issued on the authority of law. It equates not hiring a desirable mix of ethnicities into your business with a violation of another person(s) rights. In other words, to give someone else their "rights" (to a job, say), you must be deprived of some of yours (the right to choose what to do with your own property - your business). A "right" that can only be enforced by infringing on the rights of others is absurd on its face, and a ridiculous contradiction. Once a right such as this has been established, it is a de facto abolition of the universality of rights, making them favors done for some at a cost imposed on others. There is no desirable outcome that can come from a system such as this. You will have, instead, all the degenerative symptoms of cultural decay that you have in The West today: class warfare, general malevolence and cynicism, and increasing consolidation of power in the central government as groups clamor at once for special protections from others and favors for themselves. That's the only kind of "Great Society" that has ever come from the stuff affirmative action is made of.

Maybe a white Harvard professor could learn a lot from a black NYC beat cop, but he could learn a lot from a white NYC beat cop too. But I don't think it's the job of the authorities to see that he takes on self-improvement projects of any kind.

Mi dos centavos.

brewmonkey
01-30-2004, 17:21
I am against any affirmative action programs.

We are taught to not discriminate against race, creed, color, religion etc... yet the Government sanctions a program that does just that. In any affirmative action program someone is being discriminated against. Jobs, school admission and many others should be based on the talent and experience required for the assignment/position/school.

My understanding of it is that it is a tool used to "level" the playing field in an area/talent that may have a disproportionate number of a certain type (be it male, femlae etc...)

Roguish Lawyer
01-30-2004, 17:43
We need another lib to really get this going . . .

brewmonkey
01-30-2004, 17:50
Maybe someone should send Kid A an invite? :D

cernunnos
01-30-2004, 18:09
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
We need another lib to really get this going . . .

***

I'm usually 'classified' as a lib around these parts ; 'I think affirmative action was a good thing at the time.'

But it has lost relevence, been subverted, and the concept
overhauled.

Surgicalcric
01-30-2004, 18:29
Originally posted by cernunnos
***

I'm usually 'classified' as a lib around these parts ; 'I think affirmative action was a good thing at the time.'

But it has lost relevence, been subverted, and the concept
overhauled.

Just when would that "time" have been?

It has always been a means of making others feel inadequate because of their race. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change. Programs, regardless of their intent, will never replace drive.

JD

The Reaper
01-30-2004, 19:09
Opposed.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

It also has the opposite of its intended effect and causes thinking people to question the creds of minorities they encounter in professional positions. Do you want a neurosurgeon working to save your child's life who may have gotten his position based on the color of his skin? Do you want a defense attorney representing you in a capital case who was given an admission to Law School despite not meeting the minimum admission standard? Does anyone thing the NBA would be better if every team had mostly white guys, with two blacks, two Hispanics, and one Asian per team for "diversity" and to correct "underrepresentation", or should it be talent based?

I believe that when the color barrier in baseball was broken, it was successful because the black players admitted were as good or better than their white counterparts. This removed any argument that they didn't belong. When barriers are broken, it needs to be by people who are as good, if not better, not because someone said, every department has to have a token minority member or ten. The process of admitting people who do not meet the standard increases resentment (how should the better qualified majority applicant who loses out feel?), causes doubt about the quals of the new members, and foments increased racism, rather than bringing the two sides together. I sincerely hope that we never have to do that in SF, or we are going to get people hurt.

I have served with at least 30 black SF soldiers and there was only one who didn't measure up, about the same percentage as white soliders who slip through the program and shouldn't. If I were to pick an SF All-Star ODA, at least two of the soldiers would be black, not because someone said I had to pick two, but because they are the very best at what they do. That is how you break down a barrier and eliminate prejudice, not by making people sit through a class.

Our solution to increase minorities in SF is to try to get as many minority applicants into the pipeline as we can without lowering standards. Another good program is mentoring of minority soldiers (or any soldiers) by cadre members.

Even when underrepresented parties achieve parity, it is almost impossible to terminate the program, because it is then viewed as an entitlement.

Why is it race based and not economic? If SAT scores are a valid test media for college applicants and are predfictive of college performance, should Michael Jordan's kids get admitted to with an SAT score 200 points lower than their majority counterparts because of the discrimination and lack of opportunity they have experienced?

Why is the program not extended to other minorities? Were Asian or Irish immigrants brought here as indentured servants to build the TransContinental railroad not also disadvantaged and discriminated against? How about Vietnamese boat people? Illegal immigrants from El Salvador? Eastern European political prisoners who escaped?

This is an inequity supported by those benefitted, and the limo libs who feel guilty.

Just my .02, and worth what you paid for it.

TR

brownapple
01-30-2004, 19:10
Affirmative Action is and was nothing but government sponsered racism. I am against it, and do not feel it ever had a place. I do feel that it significantly hindered the improvement in race relations.

Roguish Lawyer
01-30-2004, 19:42
TR has made many of the points I would make.

In doing so, he has identified and I think endorsed another form of affirmative action with which I don't have a problem. This does not involve standards or actual hiring decisions, but simply an effort to try to find qualified candidates from unrepresented minority groups and encourage them to apply.

This technically is a form of affirmative action and it arguably is discriminatory. In my view, however, there is nothing wrong with noticing that a company is all white or black or green, and trying to do something about it without discriminating. My office has no black lawyers right now (or at least last time I checked). I'd like to hire one if he can get the job done well.

What do people think about this more benign form of affirmative action? Is it OK for my firm to sponsor an event for a black lawyers or law students group for recruiting purposes?

Slightly tougher question: can you use race as a tie breaker? Let's say I have two equally qualified candidates, one white and the other black. I have no black lawyers now. Can I hire the black candidate because I want to diversify the firm?

Does it make a difference if diversity benefits the firm? For example, what if I want the ability to have a black lawyer at the counsel table when trying a case to an inner-city jury? Is that form of hiring discrimination OK?

Gypsy
01-30-2004, 21:13
I'm against it for many of the reasons already expressed here. As a recruiter I feel a certain pressure when a client will continue to stress their "diversity" requirements and I don't like it. I believe the most qualified person should be hired for the job regardless of the color of their skin or their sex. (male/female not orientation)

Ockham's Razor
01-31-2004, 08:34
Against. It seems to have done it's job. The barriers have been broken for years. It's not odd to find a member of any ethnic group to be at all levels of public and private corporations. The idea was to break down the barriers and make things more open and fair to all groups, correct? Well, I think we are there now, and it's time to go back to strictly earning such positions, or slots at school based upon merit, or nepotism. :)

longrange1947
01-31-2004, 08:43
I find diversity to be the liberal calling for keeping "Affirmative Action". It is over rated as a general rule.

Now when a group is dealing with another group, then it is nice to have a memeber of that group for counsel.

However, if I am to stay on the diversity side then I would need to hire atleast one Chinese, one Japanese, one Indian, one Arab, etc. Why does diversity only seem to mean members of one group? Why do I need to set up one group for failure in the name of diversity/affirmative action?

Example, my daughter and her friend both applied to Chapel Hill. My daughter was not picked even though she had higher grades, more extra activities, etc. My daughter went to UNCW and graduated. My daughter's friend went to Chapel Hill based on Affirmative Action/Diversity. My daughter's friend realy was not prepared to go to that school, and she failed out her freshman year. She now considers herself a failure. Did Affirmative action do anything other then get the numbers up for the incoming class? Yes, it set up a young woman for failure.

Guy
01-31-2004, 08:52
Just another way for people to get over!

Every job/occupation has it standards/quals...either meet them or exceed them and you will do just well.

;)

CRad
01-31-2004, 09:14
Originally posted by longrange1947
I find diversity to be the liberal calling for keeping "Affirmative Action". It is over rated as a general rule.

Now when a group is dealing with another group, then it is nice to have a memeber of that group for counsel.



Ignoring affirmative action and talking only about diversity, when soldiers from a different country come here and train with our guys or vice-versa, would you call that diversity? Is it beneficial?

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 09:41
I'm for it, in a radically different form than it is now.

I agree with CRad, D9 and The Reaper. I also like what RL had to say.

NBG - as a white male from RI, you can't say the "barriers have been broken for years." There are still barriers, in the South, "things" are understood. Usually those "things" involve demarcation by railroad tracks, believe it or not. They don't use the GS dogs and water hoses too much anymore, but the barriers still exist. Look at the conflict and comments made when someone goes over that invisible line. The only ones that can say the barriers have been broken are those pushing against them.

I agree with TR, the military in general and SF in particular are based on skill more than probably any other place I've ever seen. One of the best medics and finest soldiers I ever served with was not a WASP. I don't know what he was, I never asked. But it is still noticeable, obviously. I have never met Guy, but I know he is not a WASP - why do I know that? How do I know that? I think DD (?) is of Chinese descent because he mentioned it once. I know about Guy because of what others have posted. Until we habitually say "You know, Bob Smith, SF Medic?" instead of "You know, Bob Smith, that Black/Chinese/Mexican SF Medic?" We're not there.

I think diversity still needs a push sometimes. Hell, if I was still in, there's a chance I could be SMA or at least USASOC CSM (LOL) - and I can remember when the schools were integrated, when there were separate drinking fountains in the county courthouse and when we had separate swiiming pools. One hour a quarter in "Living with Others" class isn't going to erase all that.

Group dynamics. We have a tendency to want to fit in, so we seek groups that facilitate that. I fit in better with rednecks from the South better than with black men from NYC. Left to my own devices and military experience taken out of the equation, I would probably not have allowed myself the opportunity to meet Guy, DD (I think I have the right guy here) and some others on this board. And that would be my loss. I definitely would not have made cyber friends with the lawyers - they need AA and an expense account to get people to talk to them.

What I don't believe in are quotas. I think that given an even playing field in the beginning with a mechanism to override preconceived notions due to race that merit should be the discriminator. But until we can honestly judge people as they are, at this time and in this place - without those preconceived notions, we still need a mechanism that forces us to at least take a look.

Most of this discussion appear to address the black community - what about discrimination yet to come? There will always be somebody new to hate.

I do agree that AA and diversity are used as political tools to "control" blocks of votes and in its present form, it does more harm than good. Especially to the very groups it proposes to protect.

I am the minority down here. I'm the "Spic". And you know what, its been an eye opener from day one. Everything takes me twice as long. I had to put my business in my wife's name because Gringos can't own security companies - we're not trustworthy (can't swim, can't see well in the dark, can't do math - sound familiar?) People assume I am very wealthy because of the color of my skin - I am at a higher risk of kidnapping because of it. People assume I work for the Embassy because I'm a white boy. I get called Gringo, Mono, etc., even by little kids. People I don't know speak to me like I'm retarded because they assume I don't speak Spanish well enough to understand a normal conversation. My wife and her family used to put their hands out to keep me from crossing the street because they thought I didn't know how to do it, down here. I accept it because there's 44 million of them and one of me. And its their AO.

So, I am in favor of diversity in schools, maybe up to and including college. After that, you've had your playing field evened and need to make it on your own. I am in favor of diversity in civil government - without it, you run the risk of oppression and having a government that is not representative. I am not in favor of forced diversity in the workplace or the military.

Just .02 pesos from a White Boy livin' in a Salsa World.

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 09:49
Nice stick BTW, RL.

CRad
01-31-2004, 10:51
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc


So, I am in favor of diversity in schools, maybe up to and including college. After that, you've had your playing field evened and need to make it on your own. I am in favor of diversity in civil government - without it, you run the risk of oppression and having a government that is not representative. I am not in favor of forced diversity in the workplace or the military.

Just .02 pesos from a White Boy livin' in a Salsa World.

Those are ideas I can get behind especially the being on your own after school. If you still have problems reaching your potential then the problem is likely you and not the system. Good point on the government. I hadn't thought of that.

brownapple
01-31-2004, 10:57
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Most of this discussion appear to address the black community - what about discrimination yet to come? There will always be somebody new to hate.

That is the very thing that affirmative action, the race card, the Jesse Jacksons of the world... have stifled.

Historically, there was always somebody new to hate. And when that someone showed up, the previous hated became accepted. Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.

But affirmative action solidifies that position. No more of a new group displacing the old. New groups just get added.

I'm one who is more comfortable with the boys up on West 106th Street than I am with rednecks in Georgia... but I'm living in Thailand, and making my own way on my own accord, regardless of discrimination (and it's here, just like it's there...but I don't want affirmative action in any manner, not for me or my daughter). We make it on our own terms. And that just earns that much more respect.

Valhal
01-31-2004, 11:02
I think AA is the child of something more devious and undermining. Political Correctness. PC has to be the one invention of modern society that could ultimately destroy us. I know, pretty dramatic statement, maybe a little too dramatic, but consider the influence of PC together with the power of today's mass media. There is an incredible pressure to think and act a certain way. PC invented AA but is its agenda really to promote diversity? Or is it a means of covertly coercing diversity into one thought. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Just some observations.

Mark

The Reaper
01-31-2004, 11:03
NDD:

Your example appears flawed.

You are the living in a society that currently discriminates against you because of your nationality, not really your race or ethnicity. Canadians would probably get the same there, so "Norte Americanos".

There is no AA or diversity issue in your example.

Let's say that the CO or EC Government decided to give gringos and their kids preferential admission to schools, favored status foir hiring, preferential treatment for contracts, established diversity laws requiring institutions and businesses to have a certain minimum number of Gringo employees, and punished those who did not comply, then you would have an AA or diversity situation.

Back to reality, do you see those governments giving benefits to Indios because of past discrimination and maltreatment of them?

Good discussion, BTW.

TR

cernunnos
01-31-2004, 11:08
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Just when would that "time" have been?

It has always been a means of making others feel inadequate because of their race. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change. Programs, regardless of their intent, will never replace drive.

JD

---------------------------------

Mid to late 60's. I give it credit for providing legitimacy and some impetus to the civil rights movement.

There were/are certainly abuses, there are any any system. I think the concept should be overhauled completely, but it should
exist in some form.

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 11:26
Originally posted by Greenhat
That is the very thing that affirmative action, the race card, the Jesse Jacksons of the world... have stifled.

Historically, there was always somebody new to hate. And when that someone showed up, the previous hated became accepted. Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.

But affirmative action solidifies that position. No more of a new group displacing the old. New groups just get added.

I'm one who is more comfortable with the boys up on West 106th Street than I am with rednecks in Georgia... but I'm living in Thailand, and making my own way on my own accord, regardless of discrimination (and it's here, just like it's there...but I don't want affirmative action in any manner, not for me or my daughter). We make it on our own terms. And that just earns that much more respect.

Excellent points.

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 11:37
You are the living in a society that currently discriminates against you because of your nationality, not really your race or ethnicity. Canadians would probably get the same there, so "Norte Americanos". No, not nationality. They treat all caucasions the same, although they seem to be a little more tolerant of the British, probably Europhilia.

With the other, the difference is the black people in the US are born there. I'm not really following you.

Back to reality, do you see those governments giving benefits to Indios because of past discrimination and maltreatment of them?

Yes. I estimate they are in the pendulum swing we had in the 1970s. Ecuador more so than Colombia. In Ecuador, there is a law that if you have X number of employees, you have to hire an indig and they must be permitted to wear traditional garb. Bolivar and his boys basically wiped out the indig population in Colombia, so it is less of an issue. Most countries are much more AA with regards to the indig now - they are running Bolivia and less so Peru.

Ockham's Razor
01-31-2004, 12:11
NDD- Fair enough. I'm a whitey from up North. However, can I qualify my reasoning with the fact that when my father was with AT&T middle-mangement he was taken aside by a Senior VP and told he was not going to be promoted for at least 10 years because he was not black and was not female? This was in the early 80's.

Are we going to have a strict distinction between AA and Diversity? Because I agree with diversity, just not the forced implementation of it through AA.

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 12:20
Agreed - for diversity. Against AA. But how do we get diversity with those that refuse to accept it.

Ghostrider
01-31-2004, 12:44
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Agreed - for diversity. Against AA. But how do we get diversity with those that refuse to accept it.

Concur, but that, as they say is "the rub".

Unfortunately, those who refuse to accept diversity probably never will. That being the case, is "forced" diversity truly beneficial to that particular group? Even if such diversity occurs there will always be the "clique" that will find ways of obstructing further progress of the "others" who were forced on them.

Personally, as an American of Filipino ethnicity (normally, I only say that when asked specifically), the whole AA thing has been twisted into something beyond it's original intent.

Ockham's Razor
01-31-2004, 12:46
That is where it gets into a sticky gooey mess. Do we apply the same standards across the board. As in, (arbirtrary numbers) say we have 11% of the population is Hispanic, 10% Black, 5% Asian... etc etc.... Would we have to mandate that out of 10,000 workers we have to have the exact same precentages in comparison to their percentage in over-all society? I think we both agree that is just not possible. Do we get a token representative from each group and call it a day, that's not what we're really looking for though.

Would we treat UMASS Medical center to the same standards as say KPMG in saying, "you need 5 more ethnic doctors"? Would we sacrifice quality for satisfying a quota, or not even a quota, but an ideal diverse environment?

Do we need diversity, damn right we do. I think that is what makes this country so great, is that we are diverse. I'm also aware of several places that do not wish to involve themselves in this, and wish to work among those like themselves. It is those groups that we have to figure out how to deal with. And with that I am obviously out of my league. I think someone with legal backround should help guide us on how to deal with those who do not like the idea or practise of diversity. Anyone? Lawyer?

Roguish Lawyer
01-31-2004, 13:37
Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
I'm also aware of several places that do not wish to involve themselves in this, and wish to work among those like themselves. It is those groups that we have to figure out how to deal with. And with that I am obviously out of my league. I think someone with legal backround should help guide us on how to deal with those who do not like the idea or practise of diversity. Anyone? Lawyer?

I'll do my best, but I don't understand what you are asking.

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 13:40
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I'll do my best, but I don't understand what you are asking.

...that'll be a thousand dollars. Please pay the nice lady at the front desk on your way out."

Roguish Lawyer
01-31-2004, 13:41
Good discussion, I think. (NDD: I am the acorn . . . :D )

I do have a question. Hopefully doesn't violate OPSEC; you can decline to answer if it does.

I would think we'd like to have a whole bunch of Korean and Chinese SF guys. I suspect that these groups are underrepresented in SF.

1. Is it "affirmative action" to try to get more Korean and Chinese guys into SF?

2. Is it wrong to do this? This really is the same as my black-lawyer-for-the-inner-city-jury issue . . .

Ockham's Razor
01-31-2004, 13:44
heh... Are you calling me wishy washy, counselor? Well, you'd be right.

How do we propose a system, perhaps a set of laws but not strictly defined to laws, that will help foster diversity without forcing it upon businesses in such a way where hiring is solely based on ethnicity rather than on ability? Is there a way to find a middle-ground to perhaps select based on ability from a pool of diverse candidates, or does the market aleady do that for us?

How can we arrive at the best case of acheiving diversity without resorting to the constraints of AA?

D9
01-31-2004, 14:06
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
1. Is it "affirmative action" to try to get more Korean and Chinese guys into SF?


No. The insidious aspect of affirmative action is the coercive imposition of "diversity" for it's own sake, and as a reward to minority groups. Affirmative action would not say, "because of the mission, we need more Chinese and Korean guys in 1st SFG." By contrast, affirmative action would say, "whether it helps the mission or not, you need to have no more than 4 whites, at least 2 blacks, 2 hispanics, 3 women - preferably two of them Asian - and an American Indian on each 1st SFG ODA, even if there are better candidates from a less diverse alternative." In the first instance "diversity" is not the sought after ends, but perhaps a rational means to achieving a legitimate end (better language and cultural skills, whatever). In the second case, which is what affirmative action is about, "diversity" is the standard for its own sake.

[Note: obviously I am not qualified to speak on who should be in SF. All above examples intended hypothetically.]

Valhal
01-31-2004, 14:27
Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
heh... Are you calling me wishy washy, counselor? Well, you'd be right.

How do we propose a system, perhaps a set of laws but not strictly defined to laws, that will help foster diversity without forcing it upon businesses in such a way where hiring is solely based on ethnicity rather than on ability? Is there a way to find a middle-ground to perhaps select based on ability from a pool of diverse candidates, or does the market aleady do that for us?

How can we arrive at the best case of acheiving diversity without resorting to the constraints of AA?


I believe the 'leave no child behind' initiative is a good start. AA is like medicating the symptom instead of concentrating on a preventive regimen of more and better education at the grade school level.

As for Korean and Chinese SF recruitment, the economic demographics of these particular groups in America will make that difficult. They tend to lie on the richer side of the scale.

DoctorDoom
01-31-2004, 16:06
x

D9
01-31-2004, 16:50
Dr. D,

I think your statements above that AA is more to "encourage" than "force" has turned out to be different in practice. In reality, out of fear of lawsuits if they don't appear to meet the "diversity" standards laid down by these laws, all manner of private companies are forced to bend their hiring practices to meet quotas as well. The risk of expensive litigation is too high otherwise. So the effect in practice is that all companies are forced to either play along, or face enormous risks. Whatever your idea is about what makes a nice pallette of colors for your company, I don't think you or anybody else has the right to impose that on everyone else. If some guy, who is a racist, starts a business and only wants to hire his racist buddies then he should be allowed to do it. Ultimately, if he is basing his hiring practices on an irrational and irrelevant criteria (skin color) then his actions will be self-defeating. That is the mechanism of justice appropriate to this kind of stupidity, not pre-emptively treating every business owner as a potential racist and imposing quotas on him under threat of litigation.

BTW, welcome aboard.

Roguish Lawyer
01-31-2004, 22:09
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
...that'll be a thousand dollars. Please pay the nice lady at the front desk on your way out."

Nice.

Roguish Lawyer
01-31-2004, 22:16
Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
heh... Are you calling me wishy washy, counselor? Well, you'd be right.

How do we propose a system, perhaps a set of laws but not strictly defined to laws, that will help foster diversity without forcing it upon businesses in such a way where hiring is solely based on ethnicity rather than on ability? Is there a way to find a middle-ground to perhaps select based on ability from a pool of diverse candidates, or does the market aleady do that for us?

How can we arrive at the best case of acheiving diversity without resorting to the constraints of AA?

If I understand your question correctly, I encourage you to read Richard Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws. He argues that we should just repeal all such laws, and that the market will solve all of the issues you've identified. I know Epstein and like him a great deal. He teaches at the University of Chicago Law School.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674308085/qid=1075608838/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-6254913-7872865?v=glance&s=books

If anyone is interested in more explanation, I'll do it later. Have to go . . .

NousDefionsDoc
01-31-2004, 22:49
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Nice.

LOL - don't tell me you're getting all sensitive? I was bored, I had to pick a fight with somebody. Come on! Give me a smiley face!:D

Ockham's Razor
01-31-2004, 22:55
Thanks RL.

Time to hit the Pay Pal account for some more damage :)

Valhal
01-31-2004, 22:58
Originally posted by DoctorDoom
That's a common misconception of those ethnic groups in America, and ultimately strays from the purpose of AA. Another flaw in your commentary is that PC postdates AA by several decades, so I don't see PC as an outgrowth of AA. In any case Asians are defined as not qualifying for AA since they are an "overrepresented minority," leading to the curious situation of qualified Asian applicants being rejected because there are "too many of them." You don't see many opponents of AA making a stink about that though..

Dr. D,

Upon reflection I believe I may have understated my intent with my last post. My first failure is that I am not even sure if there is a lack of a Chinese and Korean presence in SF. I inferred it by a previous question by RL and not by a stated fact. My apologies.

I believe it would have been better to say that different ethnic groups have intrinsic cultural directions. I was born and raised on the left coast of California, in the Bay Area, I have many Asian friends and they all came from strict hard working families with an incredible work ethic. That is too much of a blanket statement, lets go one step further. Most immigrants are hard working, regardless of race or religion. Why is that?

I am a first generation immigrant. My father came to this country from Norway when he was 16. German soldiers kicked his family out of their house during WWII. He worked hard here and made a good life for his family, he beat that work ethic into my head. Never be satisfied, always strive for that next level.

As I said previously AA is a band-aid for an injury, we should go and prevent what caused that injury in the first place.

OH, and I never said that PC postdated AA.

Regards,
Mark

brownapple
01-31-2004, 23:36
Originally posted by Valhal
Most immigrants are hard working, regardless of race or religion. Why is that?

Because many, possibly most, immigrants come from an environment where hard work is necessary to survival, and the ooportunity to have their hard work pay increasing dividends is a new experience, one they appreciate.


Many multi-generation Americans take America for granted. They're lazy and don't think their way of life will ever be challenged. Complacent.

DoctorDoom
01-31-2004, 23:46
x

Roguish Lawyer
02-01-2004, 11:57
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - don't tell me you're getting all sensitive? I was bored, I had to pick a fight with somebody. Come on! Give me a smiley face!

LOL

No, you've got it all wrong. Nice as in "well done," not as in the opposite of mean. :)

BTW, admin suggestion: one smiley per post is oppressive. (I'd add another smiley here if I could! LOL)

Roguish Lawyer
02-01-2004, 12:13
D9:

Have you considered other screen names? I have some suggestions.

The Anti-Bulldozer
Cat Killer
The Deere Hunter
KomatsuNo

Just trying to help . . .

:D

longrange1947
02-01-2004, 14:40
RL - BTW, admin suggestion: one smiley per post is oppressive. (I'd add another smiley here if I could! LOL)

Here here, as they say in the stuffy Parliment game! :)

AngelsSix
02-02-2004, 08:25
Wow, this thread really took off!! I got here a bit late, please bear with me!!

Okay, my 2 sense(pun intended).......

First of all, do the job you are qualified for based on how HARD you worked to get to that qualification. IOW.....study hard and make good grades in high school, etc. Parents can't afford college?? Not your fault.....I think some help would be a good idea here. But I also believe that you should PROVE you deserve that help, i.e.: not going to college on a basketball, football or other sports scholorship. Education must be your first priority, not sports. I hate sports scholorships!!
Okay, so now you work your ass off, get a college diploma.....go to work. Do you deserve a job as a VP or even as a Supervisor?? No, because you have no experience. You have to start somewhere.
Doesn't matter if you are black, white, Spanish, female or immigrant. I think everyone should have to maintain the same standards. It might make people get off their sorry asses and actually do something besides feel sorry for themselves. My personal feelings are that if you aren't qualified, the job isn't for you. I think AI is truly a crutch people use. I agree that some people have less oppotunities than others. But we go out of our way in this country to avoid offending the minorities, and it is really annoying.
Sorry if this doesn't make a whole lot of sense....it's early, LOL!!

Roguish Lawyer
02-05-2004, 15:00
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
My wife and her family used to put their hands out to keep me from crossing the street because they thought I didn't know how to do it, down here.

Maybe they saw your skillful negotiation of the manhole?