2
   

Colorado takes aim at race, sex preferences

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 05:29 pm
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.


Why do you believe that competition on an equal basis favors men and whites. and all others require a crutch. IMO 50 years of AA and preferential treatment has leveled the playing field for those who want to make the effort to compete.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 06:48 pm
au1929 wrote:
IMO 50 years of AA and preferential treatment has leveled the playing field for those who want to make the effort to compete.

Yes, thats the opinion of a great many white men (and only a few, if oft-quoted, blacks).
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 10:10 pm
Quote:
IMO 50 years of AA and preferential treatment has leveled the playing field for those who want to make the effort to compete.


Just curious. On what do you base this opinion that now the playing field is level?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 06:15 am
Snood
The playing field has been leveled by virtue of preferential treatment on schooling,job, contracts for public works and equal opportunity. Those who take the opportunities afforded are playing on a level playing field. Those who do not have only themselves to blame.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 06:47 am
Bear with me as I'm still not 100% clear on this, okay au?

When exactly did the leveling of the playing field happen? Was it in 1964, or last week? Was the field leveled during your lifetime, in the last 10 years?

And does this also apply to women? Is the field level for them, as well? If you're saying that now anyone in America is limited only by their personal determination, then the only "glass ceilings" exist in the hearts and minds of individuals?

You're saying (just so I'm clear) that Dr King's dream has been realized, and there is equality now in America?

Please excuse my slowness on this one, but I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 07:00 am
Snood
I am saying the brass ring is there for anyone who wants to work hard to grab it. Did it happened overnight or was there a cutoff date, of course not. It happenened over time and has been fostered by AA. IMO at this point AA has achieved it's goal and it is up those who benefited from it to take full advantage.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 10:23 am
Discrimination should be an individual matter. Thus, if a minority or woman thinks there was discrimination, he or she can file a claim for this. But to give preference to such a person because of pigmentation or gender is a scam, and results in discrimination against an innocent person.

Joe, I didn't answer your question as stated because to do so would give validity to your distorted premise. It implies that, typically, the AA beneficiary is almost as qualified as the top person. This is seldom the case.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 08:56 pm
au1929 wrote:
Why do you believe that competition on an equal basis favors men and whites. and all others require a crutch.

I don't believe that competition on an equal basis favors men and whites. It's discrimination that makes the competition unequal.

au1929 wrote:
IMO 50 years of AA and preferential treatment has leveled the playing field for those who want to make the effort to compete.

And you base that opinion on...?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2007 09:02 pm
Advocate wrote:
Discrimination should be an individual matter. Thus, if a minority or woman thinks there was discrimination, he or she can file a claim for this.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Advocate wrote:
But to give preference to such a person because of pigmentation or gender is a scam, and results in discrimination against an innocent person.

How is an innocent person discriminated against when he is passed over for a position by another qualified applicant?

Advocate wrote:
Joe, I didn't answer your question as stated because to do so would give validity to your distorted premise.

No, that can't possibly be true. My question, after all, posited two job applicants, applicant A and applicant B. Nothing about my question suggested that either of the applicants was a minority. Indeed, it doesn't matter if neither, one, or both of them are. Clearly, you avoided answering because you couldn't come up with a sensible response, not because you didn't want to "give validity to my distorted premise."

Advocate wrote:
It implies that, typically, the AA beneficiary is almost as qualified as the top person. This is seldom the case.

I'd be very interested in seeing your evidence for that assertion.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 06:45 am
au1929 wrote:
Quote:
IMO 50 years of AA and preferential treatment has leveled the playing field for those who want to make the effort to compete.

JFC wrote
Quote:
And you base that opinion on...?


You seem to think this post is called 20 questions with you asking the questions. Why not answer some given to you.

As to what do I base my opinion on. Looking at the reality of conditions not with preconceived notions as you are.

As a reminder, based on what could only be perceived as a distorted view of interviewing and hiring a candidate for a job. I asked if you have ever interviewed and hired anyone {and I would add if so how frequently } No answer!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 08:00 pm
au1929 wrote:
As to what do I base my opinion on. Looking at the reality of conditions not with preconceived notions as you are.

Or, in other words, you're just making it up as you go along.

au1929 wrote:
As a reminder, based on what could only be perceived as a distorted view of interviewing and hiring a candidate for a job. I asked if you have ever interviewed and hired anyone {and I would add if so how frequently } No answer!

I have interviewed people for employment positions. How many times I cannot say. More than one and less than fifty. What that has to do with anything is completely beyond me, but there's your answer.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 06:04 pm
Census: Minority Population Tops 100M
One-In-Three Americans Is A Minority; 4 States Have "Majority Minority" Population


WASHINGTON, May 17, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





(CBS/AP) The United States is becoming more diverse, with ethnic and racial minorities topping 100 million for the first time in 2006, according to data from the Census Bureau.

The data suggest about one in three Americans was a minority last year.

The nation was 66.4 percent white, non-Hispanic; 15 percent Hispanic; 13.4 percent black; 5 percent Asian, and 1.5 percent American Indian or native Alaskan. Three-tenths of a percent identified themselves as Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

The percentages add up to more than 100, in part because some people identify with more than one race and Hispanics can be of any race.

"To put this into perspective, there are more minorities in this country today than there were people in the United States in 1910, Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon said. "In fact, the minority population in the U.S. is larger than the total population of all but 11 countries."

California led the way with a minority population of more than 20 million, followed by Texas with just over 12 million.

A year ago, the minority population was 98.3 million.

Some highlights:


Hispanic was the fastest-growing minority group, enlarging 3.4 percent between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006 for a total of 44.3 million. Asian was second with a 3.2 percent growth, totaling 14.9 million.


The black population surpassed 40 million and increased 1.3 percent.


White, non-Hispanics accounted for less than 18 percent of the nation's population growth. The population of non-Hispanic whites who indicated no other race totaled 198.7 million in 2006.


The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group has reached 1 million.


Four states, along with the District of Columbia, are "majority-minority" in 2006. Hawaii was first (75 percent minority), followed by the District of Columbia (68 percent), New Mexico (57 percent), California (57 percent) and Texas (52 percent). No other state had a minority population exceeding 42 percent of the total.

Based on the Census data, an analysis by The Associated Press showed that Illinois is the most average state in the country.

The study examined 21 demographic factors, including race, age, income, education, industrial mix, immigration and the share of people living in urban and rural areas.

Each state was then ranked on how closely it matched national levels. Illinois was followed by Oregon, Michigan, Washington and Delaware.

West Virginia was the least typical state: poorer, whiter, more rural followed by Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont and Kentucky
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2007 09:26 pm
Hide the liquor and the women - thar goes the whole blamed neighborhood....
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 08:46 am
Snood
Too late for that Embarrassed

Note: Two can play the same game.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 09:27 am
someone already got your liquor and women????
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 01:12:42