18
   

Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:06 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
A colleague in Kansas, head of the city personnel and human resources department, was frustrated in the same way though he graduated from college Magna Cum Laude and was imminently qualified for the position he held. But he never felt accepted as an equal but was painfully aware that he was seen as the 'essential black man' to balance an otherwise too white work force.

Yes, it's a shame that affirmative action has given racists and bigots an excuse to display their racism and bigotry.

Foxfyre wrote:
Why not take down the last of the stigma so that those who earn and merit their status in life can be appreciated for the fact that they did?

Why not just stop stigmatizing people instead?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:09 am
@joefromchicago,
It won't happen until we take Affirmative Action out of the game plan. Only then will 'bigots' be silenced because then all doubt will be removed that those who make the grade, pass the test, and/or otherwise qualify for their position in life actually qualified via the same criteria that all people qualify regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:09 am
@Foxfyre,
what does "imminently qualified" mean? Smile
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:13 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It won't happen until we take Affirmative Action out of the game plan.

Well, in effect, you're just saying that bigots and racists can't change, so we should dump affirmative action in order to accommodate their bigotry and racism. But why should we make that kind of accommodation? After all, they're bigots and racists. Screw them!
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:14 am
Wandel, it means that the person in question will become qualified so soon as makes no difference.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It won't happen until we take Affirmative Action out of the game plan.

Well, in effect, you're just saying that bigots and racists can't change, so we should dump affirmative action in order to accommodate their bigotry and racism. But why should we make that kind of accommodation? After all, they're bigots and racists. Screw them!


Because it is more humane and unbigoted to give people a fair shot to earn their status in life and thumb their noses at the bigots instead of forcing them to remain in a system where kind-hearted do gooder bigots assume they can't otherwise make it?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:20 am
What I dont understand about the whole thing is why some people have claimed the test was flawed, or that is was somehow racist.

I have never understood how a test of knowledge can be racist in any way.
If everyone that took the test were firefighters, then they should all have had the same knowledge.

The test was based on knowledge of the job, how to approach different situations, how to command fire scenes, knowledge of equipment and policies, and basic firefighting knowledge.
So how could such a test be racist in anyway?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:22 am
@Foxfyre,
Why should you care what the bigots, kind-hearted or otherwise, think? If Barney the Bigot is convinced that his co-worker Mary the Minority got her job through affirmative action, why should that matter? And if there's any accommodation to be made, why not force Barney to change his attitude rather than change the affirmative action program?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:24 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

What I dont understand about the whole thing is why some people have claimed the test was flawed, or that is was somehow racist.

I have never understood how a test of knowledge can be racist in any way.
If everyone that took the test were firefighters, then they should all have had the same knowledge.

The test was based on knowledge of the job, how to approach different situations, how to command fire scenes, knowledge of equipment and policies, and basic firefighting knowledge.
So how could such a test be racist in anyway?


If the test is to determine specific knowledge necessary to do the job, then of course it isn't racist and everybody in that job should have the necessary ability to read and comprehend to pass the test.

In years past, there were incidents of qualifying tests that included language or circumstances that would likely be familiar to one group, but not other, and thereby intentionally favored one group over another. Some of these were quite innovation to ensure that only the 'right' people could qualify.

I am pretty sure that was not the case with Ricci, however.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:27 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Why should you care what the bigots, kind-hearted or otherwise, think? If Barney the Bigot is convinced that his co-worker Mary the Minority got her job through affirmative action, why should that matter? And if there's any accommodation to be made, why not force Barney to change his attitude rather than change the affirmative action program?


I care because it makes a difference to the people who are thus discriminated against and marginalized because of the perceptions about them. Do you want people to think you got your job because you have a rich uncle who bought it for you? Or because you are too incompetent or too dumb or too black or too ignorant to qualify it unless somebody lowers the bar enough for you to be hired? If you bust your butt to be the very best you can be and excel in your field, do you not want to be recognized for that instead of it being assumed that you qualified only because of Affirmative Action?

Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:33 am
@joefromchicago,
The so called quota system is wrong, especially in public service positions. It hurts both parties and puts the public at risk.

There is no denying that only the most qualified police, fireman, teacher be hired.

Only a racist would think otherwise.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:38 am
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

The so called quota system is wrong, especially in public service positions. It hurts both parties and puts the public at risk.

There is no denying that only the most qualified police, fireman, teacher be hired.

Only a racist would think otherwise.


There is that too. Lowering the bar so the 'disadvantaged' can qualify diminishes everybody's accomplishments. And you won't get the best people in the job. Again, there was a time after 100 years of segregation that Affirmative Action was necessary to break down cultural taboos and barriers. Those barriers are mostly down now. Now it is time to become truly color blind in all things and let people rise on their own initiative, ability, and ambition and encourage everybody to strive for excellence with assurance that it will be rewarded. And everybody who deserves to benefit will.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I care because it makes a difference to the people who are thus discriminated against and marginalized because of the perceptions about them.

Really, this is just too comical. You actually want us to believe that ending affirmative action will stop all those nasty bigots and racists from thinking bad thoughts about minorities? You've got to be joking.

The bigots and racists will continue to think that minorities are getting some kind of unfair advantage in life because ... well, because they're bigots and racists -- you know, they're idiots. And they'll be idiots whether affirmative action exists or not. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp. You don't end discrimination against minorities by ending the programs that help minorities. That just sets up a sort of "heckler's veto" in favor of the bigots and racists. What's puzzling to me is why you'd want to accommodate their bigotry and racism.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:46 am
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

The so called quota system is wrong, especially in public service positions. It hurts both parties and puts the public at risk.

Quotas are unconstitutional. There is no "quota system." Quotas don't exist, except perhaps for the quota for dumb remarks made by conservatives complaining about quotas that don't exist. Apparently, we haven't yet reached that quota yet.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:48 am
@joefromchicago,
Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that your opinion is the one that is bigoted and racist even though I believe you do not intend for it to be. My intent is to take racism and bigotry out of the equation by putting everybody on equal footing. I believe black people and others who have been discriminated against in the past are quite capable of accomplishing everything that white people can accomplish now that the doors have been opened. Don't you? So why would you choose to continue a policy that infers that they can't make it on their own initiative but must have 'whitey's' help?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:57 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

The Constitution grants power to Congress to enact laws to remedy discrimination. The law clearly and unambiguously requires employers to consider the disparate impact that hiring or promotion methods may have on minorities. Both the city and the court of appeals applied the law as written. The ultra-conservative wing of the Supreme Court, however, placed adherence to its own ideology above the law. Nothing new there.

When all is said and done, 21 federal judges considered the question presented. 11 of them (including Sotomayor) ruled one way; 10 of them ruled the other way. The final outcome of this case will not affect Sotomayor's nomination. It will, however, give vast numbers of minorities more reason to distrust and vote against conservative Republicans who clobber them at every opportunity.


The law does not guarantee equal, or, as some wish, better outcomes to minorities, although many would like to imagine it does. That was the central issue in this case. The long-standing division of judicial opinions on this issue was clearly evident in the splits that occurred both with the Federal appellate court and the Supreme Court. Moreover it is a reflection of the obvious fact that affirmative action, as some would like to see it applied, is quite obviously legalized racial discrimination.

In my opinion we have long passed the point at which affirmative action delivers any net benefit to our society or even to the groups it purports to help. The process itself creates more antagonism than it alleviates, and encourages attitudes that do more harm than good for its supposed beneficiaries.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 11:00 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, your argument is backwards.

Affirmative Action is not needed because of any failing in minorities (who you are calling "disadvantaged").

Affirmative Action is needed because there is still racism in the system.

The fact is that the majority of wealth, power and opportunity in the United States is in the hands of white people.

When we have an equal system, the wealth, power and opportunity will be spread equally (unless you want to explain why one race performs better than the others).

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 11:00 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that your opinion is the one that is bigoted and racist even though I believe you do not intend for it to be.

Meh. If you want to defend racists and bigots, that's your problem. And if you want to delude yourself into thinking that you're doing it for the benefit of the victims of racism and bigotry, then go for it. I'm sure Jesus still loves you.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 11:03 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

In my opinion we have long passed the point at which affirmative action delivers any net benefit to our society or even to the groups it purports to help. The process itself creates more antagonism than it alleviates, and encourages attitudes that do more harm than good for its supposed beneficiaries.


I respect this argument. Yet, I remain moderately in favor of limited affirmative action... particularly in leveling the playing field as far as opportunity and access to power.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 11:06 am
@joefromchicago,
Then explain why the USSC UPHELD quotas for the university of Michigan law school.

http://www.adversity.net/UMich/MIMainFrame.htm

You can download the USSC decisions from that page and read them yourself.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:37:09