Colorado takes aim at race, sex preferences

It is never really a tie. The applicants, in the real world, are not equally qualified. The test is that all in the group are minimally qualified.

Then, the beneficiary of affirmative action gets preference, even though, for example, that person is far less qualified.

Baldimo wrote:

My half sister (meaning different father) who is blond haired and green eyed scored on an entrance exam to a nursing school here in CO in the top 2%. She was told that even though she had a great score that she would not be able to start classes because they had to leave slots open for minorties in the class. This isn't a very fair way of doing things in the US. She was crushed and had to wait several years before she was able to get her RN. So much for women getting the same protections as other minorties. If your white forget about equal treatment because of AA.

Reserving slots for minority applicants was declared unconstitutional in the Bakke decision. That was decided nearly thirty years ago. You need to update your anecdotes.

Advocate wrote:

It is never really a tie. The applicants, in the real world, are not equally qualified. The test is that all in the group are minimally qualified.

To be "minimally qualified" is to be qualified. After that, an employer or school is permitted to take other circumstances into account. And, I would hasten to point out, you would too.

Advocate wrote:

Then, the beneficiary of affirmative action gets preference, even though, for example, that person is far less qualified.

If both applicants are qualified, then both are equally fit for the position. I see little reason to give the advantage to the applicant who is "super-qualified."

If I were looking for pilots to hire, I would see very strong reason to hire the much better qualified.

Maybe slots was the wrong word, but there has been cases were they wanted such a % of students in classes or jobs to minorties.

If that were not the case, then why is AA there?

It has been said several times by your hero Jesse The Con Man Jackson...

Baldimo wrote:

Maybe slots was the wrong word, but there has been cases were they wanted such a % of students in classes or jobs to minorties.

Maybe slots was the wrong word because it didn't really happen that way at all. What you're talking about (and what most opponents of affirmative action want to talk about) is quotas, and those have been held unconstitutional for nearly three decades. If you want to attack affirmative action, that's fine. Just attack it for what it is, not for what you think it is.

Baldimo wrote:

If that were not the case, then why is AA there?

It's a tie-breaker, not a quota.

Baldimo wrote:

It has been said several times by your hero Jesse The Con Man Jackson...

That's a good one. I'm sure you first heard that gibe from your hero, Bull Connor.

Advocate wrote:

It is never really a tie. The applicants, in the real world, are not equally qualified. The test is that all in the group are minimally qualified.

To be "minimally qualified" is to be qualified. After that, an employer or school is permitted to take other circumstances into account. And, I would hasten to point out, you would too.

Advocate wrote:

Then, the beneficiary of affirmative action gets preference, even though, for example, that person is far less qualified.

If both applicants are qualified, then both are equally fit for the position. I see little reason to give the advantage to the applicant who is "super-qualified."

Advocate wrote:

If I were looking for pilots to hire, I would see very strong reason to hire the much better qualified.

Let's say you set the minimum passing score on a pilot's exam at 100, and two applicants both passed the test. Applicant A scored 100. Applicant B scored 110. Is Applicant B more qualified than Applicant A to fly your planes?

joefromchicago wrote:

Advocate wrote:

If I were looking for pilots to hire, I would see very strong reason to hire the much better qualified.

Let's say you set the minimum passing score on a pilot's exam at 100, and two applicants both passed the test. Applicant A scored 100. Applicant B scored 110. Is Applicant B more qualified than Applicant A to fly your planes?

Calling it a tie is a distortion. From my actual experience, you are much more likely see Applicant B scoring 140, and sustaining a major body blow when the job (or promotion) goes to the lower scoring person who is not nearly as talented or experienced.

An interesting result is that the minority or woman getting the job or promotion through AA is forever looked upon as tainted, and the subject of considerable disrespect.

Advocate wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Advocate wrote:

If I were looking for pilots to hire, I would see very strong reason to hire the much better qualified.

Let's say you set the minimum passing score on a pilot's exam at 100, and two applicants both passed the test. Applicant A scored 100. Applicant B scored 110. Is Applicant B more qualified than Applicant A to fly your planes?

Calling it a tie is a distortion. From my actual experience, you are much more likely see Applicant B scoring 140, and sustaining a major body blow when the job (or promotion) goes to the lower scoring person who is not nearly as talented or experienced.

An interesting result is that the minority or woman getting the job or promotion through AA is forever looked upon as tainted, and the subject of considerable disrespect.

How about we try that again, only this time you answer the question that I asked rather than the one that you wanted me to ask.

The premise of your question is not realistic. That is why I answered it as I did.

Clearly, they don't advocate abolishing sex- and race-based school admission and hiring policies, they just advocate abolishing the ones that don't favor men and whites.

As for why this is suddenly a big issue, the answer is obvious: the GOP has found that ballot initiatives on hot-button social issues are a way of motivating their core constituencies to go to the polls. The gay marriage issue has lost steam, English-language-only statutes are legally dubious, and flag desecration is so old and busted that even Hillary Clinton favors a flag-burning amendment. So now I guess it's affirmative action's turn to provide a rallying cry for the right wing.

Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination..-Dr Thomas Sowell

mysteryman wrote:

Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination..-Dr Thomas Sowell

Equal opporunity is what AA calls for. . However, in their purview some people are more equal than others

joefromchicago wrote:

Clearly, they don't advocate abolishing sex- and race-based school admission and hiring policies, they just advocate abolishing the ones that don't favor men and whites.

Sums it about up.

joefromchicago wrote:

As for why this is suddenly a big issue, the answer is obvious: the GOP has found that ballot initiatives on hot-button social issues are a way of motivating their core constituencies to go to the polls. The gay marriage issue has lost steam, English-language-only statutes are legally dubious, and flag desecration is so old and busted that even Hillary Clinton favors a flag-burning amendment. So now I guess it's affirmative action's turn to provide a rallying cry for the right wing.

Oh God, sounds like you're on to something. Brother...