Unitended racism

But that is a non-sequitor, as the only reason we are discussing this is in relation to affirmative action. And if she had done it on her own merits then why does she support affirmative action? That's the way it should be. You carry your own weight and be recognized.It's laughable. I'll just use Cuban-Americans as an example since you are well-versed in that culture. Cuban-Americans have come here with nothing and lived the American dream. The American dream is not some candy-assed promise that you'll come here and you'll be wealthy. The American dream is that you can come here and have the opportunity to make for yourself whatever life you want. That's the dream. And many, many, many Cuban-Americans have succeeded admirably. So if it benefited a latina then it is an inherently good system? What makes her or latina's so special that their race or the gender alone qualifies them?Go to Calle Ocho right now and tell me if things are equal on how inherently good, or inherently flawed, AA really is. How many guerros/gringos work anywhere in that general vicinity? And when I say Calle Ocho, I'm including Flagler and what not or really all of Little Havana. They don't generally hire white or black people because most white or black people don't speak Spanish, but their customers do. That's a big problem. Should whites and blacks pull their race card because in Little Havana things are extremely unequal?Do you see where I'm going with this? It is only a matter of time and statistical destiny that hispanics will predominate all of the America's, not just South and Central America. When hispanics become the majority and whites and blacks become the minorities, will AA work for them?Or is the whole kit and caboodle flawed and based on the inherent perpetuation of segregating people by race in the interest of not segregating people by race?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

The point was not that she didn't earn here entrance to Princeton, the point was that she earned her position to the SC.Furthermore, she did not say her test scores were "not good," she said: "My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."There is a difference. "Not good" implies that she did a shitty job, "not comparable" implies that she did well, well enough to succeed at those institutions, just not when compared to those who didn't have her background. Which if you agreed with the LBJ quote, then you'll agree that her upbringing is a determining factor.She adds:

quote:

---

those were signs test scores alone do not offer the full measure of a person's capability. Test scores, she said, often can be the result of "cultural biases.

---

So clearly, by her own admission, she feels that those test scores did not "reflect her full potential" and can be the result of "cultural biases."The question is, are those tests the only measure of a persons capabilities? And, if they can be shown to be culturally bias, wouldn't she then need some form of assistance to equal that out? I agree, but then again, many have also done the same as she's done and have not become SC Justices. So I would say that she worked hard once given the opportunity, and since she has acheived the position of Justice, it shows that those test score truly did not reflect her full capabilities. Who, those with a privilaged upbringing? Those who come from wealth and private schools? Those who's parents have connections with the school and are themselves alumni? Those who's parents donate to the school to guarantee their childs entrance? Those who's parents golf with the professors, belong to the same Country Club, live in the same neighborhoods; who probably got jobs for most of the administrations kids? ---- Honestly, tough shit. The wealthy do PLENTY to assure their kids entrance into good schools, sorry if one Puerto Rican from the Bronx got a little help. Maybe next time their parents should donate more money.I don't mean to be cynical, not really, but, there are enough advantages for people of wealth to point out a few minorities that got a little assistance. You mean the same white guys that have been in power since the birth of the US? The same ones that dominate every political office, corporation and financial institution? -- Please -- They get no sympathy from me having seen their corruption gain them wealth, power and control. There will always be racial tension and bitter resentment as long as there's a class war. Having looked at the history of the US, and their treatment of minorities, any white person that feels resentment toward any minority is a hypocrite.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

And she did. Where do you feel she didn't carry her own weight?You're making it sound like AA just placed her in the school when she was incapable of being in it. It's not like she was helped throughout her schooling, she worked her ass off. She became judge, she worked her ass off there as well. She carried her own weight IMO. And she did. AA had nothing to do with it. It doesn't. It proved beneficial because we have a SC Justice who was given an opportunity not usually granted to minorities. It proved beneficial because it shows that those test scores did not reflect her full capabilities. If they want to they can. How many want to?And if white people are looking at Miami and saying, hey, the hispanics have taken over and controlling it, they only need to drive 30 minutes to Palm Beach, (and everything north of that), to realize that they still dominate everything else. It seems petty to argue about a single city when they dominate every other one.And wouldn't this be an issue with their qualifications? "Need to be able to speak spanish" - If they can't do something the job requires then they don't qualify for the job, right? Do you REALLY think white people are going to lose their power in the US?[ABE]Maybe when hispanics take over we'll let white people build some casinos, tax free [ABE]Also, doesn't AA already cover minorities, aren't blacks currently minorities? Why would it matter if hispanics were the majority?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Regardless, what we were discussing when you jumped in was that Perdition challenged me to offer an example of someone getting a job they didn't earn, based solely on their race. Sotomayor is such an example, directly if you consider Princeton and Yale, indirectly if you consider the SC job. She also said "..using 'traditional numbers' from test scores, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted.".
If it wasn't for AA she probably wouldn't have been accepted based on her test scores. Yes it was but this is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Sotomayor is an example of someone getting a position based solely on their race. What she feels about the tests is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Her tests weren't as good as others, but she still got a place at Princeton and Yale. Ergo, she got a 'job' she didn't earn based on her race. Justifications for AA have already been discussed. The fact remains that AA encourages people to make employment decisions based on candidates' race, colour and ethnicity amongst other things. It is therefore a racist and discriminatory legislation. You cannot claim that until you know how others with the same or higer scores would have performed in her position. It may well be that the scores truly reflect her capabilities and that would imply that capabilities of others with higher scores would have been even bigger if they were given the opportunity she was. Alas, we'll never know. At last! Now we're getting to the true motives behind AA: class hatred and wealth envy. At least you're honest about it. Let me add 'revenge' to the list. I see: 'paying for the sins of the parents' too.Well, now we really know why AA was invented: to punish all those white males for being rich and powerful and for what their ancestors did to minorities.We can now close this thread down. There's nothing else to really discuss.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No, you're not showing someone getting a job solely on their race. At best your example can be used to show someone getting into a school based parcially on their race, but for the most part she was more than capable of being in that school. If not, she wouldn't have graduated and went on to law school.Let me ask, did George W. Bush get his position as president based solely on his wealth and race? If he wasn't the son of daddy Bush would he have become president on his own?Do you think George W. Bush earned that position? Did he earn his place at Yale and Harvard Law?Sotamayor, got her job as SC Justice on her own merit, and she earned that position by working hard as a judge. Test scores to get into Princeton do not reflect her capabilities. Yes, and all that is an example of is getting into school, not SC Justice. She still had to EARN that position. You, at least in my opinion, are failing to show how test scores and her getting into Princeton makes her getting the position as SC Justice based solely on her race.If it was solely because of her race, then are you saying that any Puerto Rican, or minority would have worked?Or are there other requirements to getting the position as SC Justice? As opposed to what, getting a job because of who your father is or what family you come from? Actually I'll agree that many will feel this way, but I don't give a shit, it makes the playing field at least some-what even. Why should the bais only go one way? Sotomayors daddy couldn't get her into Yale like daddy Bush got his retarded son in there.So if you feel it's discriminatory, maybe try seeing it from the other side of the fence for a change. It's only racist and discriminatory in your eyes. Well, tough shit, so is US politics toward minorities.AA is like the 3 pointer. If it wasn't for the 3 pointer white people wouldn't be able to play pro basketball. If it wasn't for AA, a Puerto Rican raised by a single mother couldn't get into Princeton. If the test scores meant that she wasn't fit to attend Princeton, then she would have failed Princeton. She didn't. She also graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went on to graduate from Yale Law School. You don't just get to do that if you're not capable. Curiously, how did George W. Bush do in school? Hatred and envy? It's funny how you jumped on Rrhain's ass for putting words in your mouth, now you're doing the same to me. I did not say hatred or envy, nor did I imply it.All I'm doing is pointing to the corruption that places the wealthy in positions of power. Did I say anything that's not true?Of course I'm being honest, I'm calling it how it is. What you seem not to like is when it's done back. Ah, well, man up my friend because shit ain't fair and we minorities are the first to recognize that. It hurts when it's done back to you though, right?But you don't seem to give a shit about Bush getting into Yale even though he's a complete idiot. You're mad at the Puerto Rican female that got a little help. Recognize the reality of the situation and stop playing up the wealthy and powerful as some kind of victim. It's complete bullshit. Add whatever you like. You say it as if I'm going to be sympathetic to your position. Recognize the impact that certiain laws and privilages have placed on minorities. Turn around is fair play. Punish the rich and powerful? How, by not cutting their grass properly? By not making their beds the right way? By not cooking their meals to satisfaction?Please explain how the mighty will fall because a few minorities got promoted and got into schools. Are you out of your mind!?All I said is that white people shouldn't feel resentment towards minorities. And I'll add, in the same way that minorities today shouldn't feel any resentment toward white people today.AA levels the playing field that is already leaning, in a HUGE way, to one side.You don't seem to mind when the rich use their influence to get their kids into top schools, or into jobs, or into government, so why give a shit when a few minorities get the same privilage?Suck it up, quit bitching, and keep an eye on your women. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I think it would help if there were some links to the exact wordings of the Affirmative Action law sets. Anyone care to provide them?

---

You've been Gremled!

The UK Equalities Bill 2009, clause 152 defines the primary aim of Positive Action as:

quote:

---

enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage

---

clause 153 states:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented. This can be done only where the candidates are
equally qualified, and the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically
treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

Here's the UK Secretary of State for Equalities and Minister for Women, the person who drafted the Bill, explaining it in her own words:

quote:

---

"we will legislate to give more scope for employers, if they want to increase the number of women or black or Asian employees to take positive action."

---

and:

quote:

---

"This will help the police, for example, who want to make more progress on diversity because they know that they can be most effective when they reflect the ethnicity of the communities they serve"

---

(emphasis is mine).There you have it: the letter and the spirit of the law. It's pretty clear what this law's about.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"