To eliminate equal oppurtunity or not? that is the question

I understand the value of diversity in our lives but what are your thoughts of forcing our American society to diversify? I for one am against forcing universities and workplaces to choose based on race rather then talent. your thoughts.

clubernj wrote:

I understand the value of diversity in our lives but what are your thoughts of forcing our American society to diversify? I for one am against forcing universities and workplaces to choose based on race rather then talent. your thoughts.

What do you mean when you say that universities and employers are forced "to choose based on race rather than talent?" If a university, for instance, has two applicants, one black and one white and both equally qualified, would you permit the university to make race the "tie-breaker" between these two?

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.

Absolutely not.

And "tie breaker" is not usually the case with affirmative action.

Affirmative action is a bad estimate of diversity providing a bad attempt at equality in employment.

Employment, knowledge testing, and school applications shouldn't ask you anything but questions pertinent to the job.

If you didn't get hired based on a qualia not pertinent to the job, sue their asses off.

Portal Star wrote:

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.

By reverse discrimination I mean, discrimination against those who were initally the ones doing the discriminating.

Portal Star wrote:

Absolutely not.

Why not?

Portal Star wrote:

And "tie breaker" is not usually the case with affirmative action.

You're wrong. That's exactly what affirmative action is.

Nevertheless, even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that AA isn't applied fairly in general, why should that affect any one college admission or employment decision in particular? In other words, even if others misuse AA, why shouldn't a college or an employer be allowed to use race or minority status as a "tie-breaker?"

If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay. Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

Portal Star wrote:

Affirmative action is a bad estimate of diversity providing a bad attempt at equality in employment.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

Portal Star wrote:

Employment, knowledge testing, and school applications shouldn't ask you anything but questions pertinent to the job.

Really? So what types of questions are pertinent to ask a college applicant?

Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

Portal Star wrote:

If you didn't get hired based on a qualia not pertinent to the job, sue their asses off.

Not hiring someone based on their qualia? That would be a neat trick.

If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay.

Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

qua·li·a (-l-)
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

Portal Star wrote:

If you look at college admissions where points are awarded, especially in the case of more liberal schools the affirmative action points make a big difference in overal acceptance scores. One of the biggest examples would be a school in California where skin color is worth more than a well-written essay.

Why should a well-written essay be given any points at all?

writing is a skill one needs in college. It also speaks of the writers' intelligence and personality.

Portal Star wrote:

Also, in the business world there are hiring quotas of specified "minorities" that must be fulfilled, regardless of the skills those employees may or may not provide to the business.

No, there aren't. Racial quotas are illegal.

...sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?

Portal Star wrote:

They should not be allowed to use affirmative action because it is in violation with non-descrimination (14th amendment) laws put in place by the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled to uphold it despite non-descrimiation laws.

No, you're wrong again. The supreme court has specifically ruled that racial quotas violate the fourteenth amendment.

Portal Star wrote:

Affirmative action only applies to three majority-minorities. That is not true diversity.

Once again, you're wrong. Affirmative action can apply to any underrepresented minority.

I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Portal Star wrote:

It is not equality in employment because race is not equated to privlidge in the ways that affirmative action assumes it is. A Bulgarian immigrant wiill have a much higher disadvantage than a wealthy American black man, but the black man would get the job - even if they had the same skill levels.

If they were equally qualified, why would it be discriminatory to give the job to the black applicant?

if the tie-braker were based entirely on his being black, that would be racially discriminatory.

Portal Star wrote:

Things like a personal essay, standardized test scores, hobbies and clubs. Any issue that reflects importantly upon the ability to do the job well.

How do hobbies and clubs reflect on a college applicant's ability to do well in college? And what if the applicant's personal essay focuses on the applicant's struggles against racism?

That's a fine application. I'm not saying they would have to tiptoe around the subject, but skin color shouldn't be something awarded points on the application process. As for hobbies and clubs, it's good to know what an applicant is investing their time in. For example, someone who was applying to law school could show they had joined a debate team.

Portal Star wrote:

qua·li·a (-l-)
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

qualia: The subjective qualities of conscious experience (plural of Latin quale).

..sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?

I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Kristie wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action is discrimination, period.

By reverse discrimination I mean, discrimination against those who were initally the ones doing the discriminating.

I have light skin and I didn't discriminate against anyone.

Portal Star wrote:

..sort of. Because of the new supreme court ruling, exact numbers are illigal. But I think they are allowed to have percentage quotas. Also, does that ruling apply to business or was it just schools?

Portal Star wrote:

I have never heard of it applying to more than just those three. It's not legal/illegal to do otherwise, but that is how it is applied.

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rather than base your opinions on what you think the law might be, why not spend a little time researching what the law actually is? Here are some good places to start:

Civil Rights and Racial Preferences: A Legal History of Affirmative Action

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action and Diversity Project