Unitended racism

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge." LinkThe idea behind Affirmative Action is to give a fair advantage to minorities in the workplace, as a way to "even the playing field," so to speak.I am of the opinion, however, that Affirmative Action only further perpetuates racially charged issues and in no way evens the playing field. For if you promote or hire someone solely on the basis of their race, how is that any better than denying a promotion or employment based on race? Is that not still racism?The US Supreme Court seems to think so and so do I.If you were a Justice of the Supreme Court, how would you rule and why?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Fixed link

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Abilities and qualifications should be the only thing relevant to procuring or keeping employment. Is that always the case? Psh, yeah right. Ideally that would be great though.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

A few conclusions could be drawn from this:1. Minorities statistically don't work harder.
2. Majorities have a much larger work force.
3. Racism prevents minorities from getting promotions.Any of them could be factors. In my mind it doesn't really matter if the premise doesn't follow. If combating racism is done with racism, doesn't that invalidate the premise entirely? That would be true assuming that more women choose to enter the workforce versus those who choose a more traditional role. I don't know how many women are in the workforce compared to women who choose traditional roles. I don't know if any study has been conducted to determine that. It could also be that more men are in the workforce because more men enter the workforce and not necessarily because everywhere wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant. My sister chooses not to enter the workforce so she can better raise her children. It's not that she can't get a job or that she's never worked. It is just something that her and her husband decided. If you got a job solely because you are a black woman and not because you happen to be the most qualified candidate for the job, regardless of your race or gender, how does that help the situation? Does that rid racism or does it further perpetuate it?

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

So how else are you supposed to determine how somebody gets hired?A forensic pathologist was hired, not because she went to school specifically for pathology for 10 years during medical school but because it was a first-come, first-serve thing?What other basis do you have in giving someone a job other than experiences and qualifications? I have a minority-sounding last name. I've never had any problems. The only time I've ever had a problem is when applying for a job I wasn't qualified for. The President of the United States is mulatto, but identifies most with being black... The only reason he could have won that election was because white voters voted him in and still knowing that fact about him and not caring. Hasn't this remarkable and unprecedented change demonstrate that collectively the average US citizen doesn't want to live under old pretenses? I've never seen or heard of any study on this so I guess I can't comment on it. I'm sure you have and perhaps you can post it for us all to review. In the meantime what is your solution, because you also say that you are against affirmative action for unspecified reasons?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typos

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

You aren't guaranteed anything in life. So what's your solution? Not work hard because Uncle Sam will come and wipe your ass and dry your tears for free? Not necessarily, but perhaps. I don't think a private company should be forced to pretend they aren't racist through a government mandate. As if that actually fixes anything, least of all racial animosity. If anything it inflames it. People keep citing these statistics. Do you have them on hand? I can't seem to find any, but I want to see their methodology. That's not a solution to anything. It's offensive on so many levels. "Here, you get a job because you are black and because you're a woman, not because you've earned it.... Ahhhh, now I feel so sanctimonious because I helped a black person!" I would be more offended and think less of myself if I only got a job out of pity. That actually would make it worse than being discriminated against the first time. At least the openly racist is honest enough to tell you to fuck off to your face, as opposed to the closet racist who praises your blackness to your face but hopes you get hit by a car on the way to work tomorrow. Yes, I am aware that racism is still alive and well, as if this is a new, shocking phenomenon. But you are making it sound far more prevalent it actually is. Actually, wait a minute. Where do you live? That might have something to do with it. Geography plays a big part in it. Maybe I've just always lived in places where it exists, but is not at all widespread. Having the government force mandates on private companies to pretend they're no longer racist doesn't help. First of all, that doesn't take away racism, it just creates more animosity and feeds the notion to the racists that minorities couldn't otherwise get a job on their own merits unless it was spoon fed to them. How utterly offensive.You want to fix the disparity, well it's been fixing itself year by year. This country is the least racist it has ever been with a noticeable trend showing that it's not slowing down. The President of the United States is black. That says everything about where this country is going.I love the idea of equal opportunity employing, where the business itself sets its own standard, not the fucking government. Besides, why would anyone want to willingly work for a company that you know is racist and only gave them a job because they're black in the first place? No, it certainly isn't. It's about equality, as in "to be equal."

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I agree. However, I see AA as being worse than that. I see it as exacerbating overall race relations.There is this sense of white guilt, particularly amongst left-leaning individuals, that the only way to atone for the sins of the past is to self-denigrate.It doesn't combat racism though, it just further points to differences instead of pointing to similarities. The only effective way the United States has healed from its heinous crimes is through love, as sappy and sentimental as it might sound. Groups like the Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam did more to make a mockery of the ideals and philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr than it did to help. They did just as much damage to the de-segregation movement as the Ku Klux Klan did!What has worked is the slow assimilation of cultures until they become indistinguishably one and the same. It is people who have won the hearts of people, not policy. King won the hearts and minds of the people, and made the bigots say to themselves "this is wrong."The way I see it, the more that people segregate themselves as black or white or Asian or Hispanic, even in the professed interest of "equality," it still is divisive and not conducive to healing.If we're going to be equal, then be equal. You can't force people out of bigotry no matter how many policies you create. You have to win their hearts and minds to achieve a true and lasting peace.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Oh, this was the best part... That post was wicked. Shit, with that kind of natural wit you should be a writer.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Yes, which is what I stated in my second post. It sounded as if you were disagreeing with me. And so your solution is compulsory hiring of minorities? I don't get it. No, I'm being serious. I'm hispanic. I'm obviously not going to divulge what my last name is, but you get the idea. Though in all fairness, I don't look very hispanic. I get mercilessly teased for it by both whites and hispanics... It's all in jest I think that's a great idea. All that matters is how you play, right? Whether we like or not people are always judging us on how we dress, how we speak, our mannerisms, etc. That's human nature and you can't get around that.If people are not hiring minorities strictly on that basis alone, you and I both know that it's bullshit. That's wrong. There is no nice way of putting it. I'm contending with the proposed solution which in my best judgment adds to the existing problem. What the hell is a "black-sounding name," anyway? Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Arabic... That makes sense, but most black and white people share predominantly English, Irish, and Scottish names, no?For instance my boss is black and his name is John McDonald. How about Equal Opportunity employment where the company decides of its own free will that they stand for integrity. It may not always work, but again, would you really want to work for a company that despises you anyhow? That would suck...

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Let me ask you something: If you work for a boss who has it out for you and you get passed up for a promotion again and again, what is there to do? You have a couple options. You could file an official grievance, you could find a better job, you could confront your boss respectfully to find out what's up his ass, etc, etc.What's my point, though? Well, what is the difference between this kind of discrimination that happens all the time versus racial discrimination? Answer: Nothing. Racism is not a crime and people have freewill. But there is good news. Though racism isn't a crime it is taboo, meaning that in very few places in society people openly admit to having racist ideals.The very best weapons used in combating racism have all come from the emotion of human beings which won over the hearts minds of people. That's what even gave a black guy and chance to even dream about being in the White House, let alone actually occupy it. Affirmative Action IS racism and it does NOT combat the root of the problem. How does this make racism go away??? As Legend stated, it's like hoping that 2 wrongs somehow make a right. There are so many things wrong with it, and apparently the Supreme Court agrees. In what way can I get you to understand that it is wrong, unfair, racist itself, and demeaning to minorities?Suppose the only reason Barrack Obama was president because he was black. The rationale was that all who've preceded his presidency were all white uncovering a terrible injustice. And so they gave him the presidency strictly based on something that he didn't even have the ability to choose or earn, his race. And they took away that job from somebody else strictly based on something that he didn't even have the ability choose or earn, his race.So not only does Affirmative Action promote racism to combat racism, it's also demeaning to minorities, tacitly suggesting that they couldn't get a job of their own merits. And in the case in the OP positions were slated for minorities, minorities that never showed up. Meanwhile, good workers aren't getting promotions on the basis of what??? On the basis of race.How can anyone honestly think this promotes fairness or is morally just to anyone? Both minorities and majorities are adversely effected.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

It was a hypothetical. It was intended to make the reader think about their position more clearly by looking at it from a different point of view. There is no solution other than to educate people. It's like AIDS. There is no solution more valuable than education on it. Like some horrible communicable disease, there is no one size fits all solution to cure everyone from racism. It can't be done because we all have free minds.Like I said before, people should be allowed to be racist if they want to. That's their right and their prerogative and it would be yet another injustice-to-stop-injustice solution to limit people's personal freedoms. As predicted, racism is now very taboo. Society has taken care of the problem far better than any policy the government could dream up. That is the solution. My idea of fairness might be a lot different than the socialist way of handling things. I don't think that it's fair to take away from someone else who rightfully earns something to give it to someone else who doesn't. That's not my idea of fairness.Nobody is entitled to a job that doesn't earn it. A job is not a birthright, it's earned through competition. We don't give Olympic medals to athletes from Lithuania if the Lithuanians in (whatever sport) didn't earn it because Lithuania doesn't have any medals and Sweden has 8. That is a convoluted sense of "fairness."Even nature abhors the kind of fairness that goes along with Affirmative Action.Predictably, AA isn't working. It creates more unnecessary animosity than what occurs without it. The answer in my opinion is society. Never have minorities been in a better position than they are now. That trend seems to indicate no slowing down either, but even more improvement. Though it is a work in progress I can't wait to see the final product.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

I'm not a Republican, but quotas are the only way Affirmative Action could be functional. How else would they know if company X has too many white employees and not enough black employees? Obviously they keep track of things like that. Yes."The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race"

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Not every company has a human resources department, especially in small business. You managed to miss the point though. Discrimination exists everywhere and for various reasons. For some reason we see racial discrimination as more abhorrent than how the aesthetically unattractive are discriminated.I dare say that ugly people are discriminated against more than any other people. Nobody seems to care enough to take up their cause. Does one form of discrimination trump another, and if so, why?

quote:

---

Affirmative Action IS racism

---

Because it bases its entire premise on race and it denies people employment based on race.I think many people think racism is only racism when it means you're angry at another race and couldn't be racism if you're trying to help another race. Showing preferential treatment on the basis of race is racism. It doesn't have to necessarily include white hoods and white robes, southern drawls and spitoons. I don't understand. What do mean? It was 5-4 in favor of the New Haven firefighters. I don't know what you are specifically looking for. Yes, they were. They were denied promotions because they were reserving minority spots for non-existent minority firemen. If that's what I'm doing are you parroting Democrat talking points by default? Yes, it discriminates on the basis of race. That qualifies it. The city of New Haven was doing whatever it could to avoid lawsuits from minority groups. In so doing, they ended up discriminating against other firefighters out of their self-interest. That makes Affirmative Action even worse in my book. It forced the hand of the City of New Haven to resort to ridiculous means and in the end discriminated against its own employees in the process. Had the city of New Haven not invalidated the tests, this would have never happened. And let somebody try and sue them. On what basis? A test is colorblind. If you don't do well on a test then that's on you. First of all, I do know what happened because I read the article prior to posting it. Secondly, the case was just what prompted me to make the thread in the first place. I'm arguing more on the equality of AA in the first place, not necessarily dissecting the Ricci v DeStefano case. Thirdly, I know what AA promotes and I know that it is categorically unfair and inherently racist.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Do you need to stop watching every other media outlet by default? Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Extreme left-wing and right-wing policies are shockingly ignorant. I'm speaking more about socialists than I am about socialism. I'm not really talking about the economic plan, I'm talking about the ideological mindset. I dare say that I do. When a communist pokes fun at a capitalist and vice versa, are they talking about their economic plan, or are they poking fun at each others ideological beliefs? The answer is the latter. You are taking what I said out of context. Just watch this It sums up the philosophy perfectly.I didn't do well, and thus didn't earn anything, but I am Puerto Rican. Give me an education now. WTF?Just a little background on Sotomayor. She is Pres. Obama's nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice. She and the Ricci case are connected in that she oversaw the original mandate back when she was a district judge. That's a strange twist of irony.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Again, if I fell for Republican talking points does it mean that you default to falling for Democrat talking points? Why must it be polarized or being duped in to a position instead of either agreeing with AA or not? Affirmative Action and its practices are somewhat ambiguous in how it is supposed to be practiced. For instance, this:"Goals & Timetables: The numerical goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. Numerical benchmarks are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer's work force. The regulations specifically prohibit quotas and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. Numerical goals do not create quotas for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results." SourceBecause of the Bakkes decision quotas and numerical goals are "expressly prohibited." While the number may be arbitrary as to how many minorities a company employs, is there not an expected percentage? How is that not numerical? It's vague as to what it expects except for the fact that it wants minorities being hired. It gives the appearance of no quotas, as in a pre-determined, quantified number, but nonetheless it still needs to report its numbers and those numbers are given percentages. If that isn't a quota system then what is it? Then riddle me this if you don't think anyone was denied anything: What did the case go to the Supreme Court for?The answer is that the city only invalidated the tests because a group of minorities stated that they would sue, thus not promoting the 2 white firemen and 1 hispanic fireman who scored very well. These supposed racially biased test claims are absurd. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that they cried wolf because they didn't pass the test. New Haven city officials hired a testing firm to design a work-related, nondiscriminatory test to use in fire department promotions, whatever that means. What could be racially discriminatory about fighting fires? Anyway, it wasn't until a Reverend Al Sharpton/Jess Jackson type ingratiated himself and threatened a lawsuit, did the city immediately kowtow. "The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

​

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision.

​

The controversy started when New Haven voided its entire 2003 promotional exam after the results made 18 whites - but no blacks - eligible to become officers. When the city decided to promote no one, the white firefighters called that invalid under the Constitution." CBS NewsAs you can see, they were denied. If you feel that somehow I'm wrong as well as every media outlet out imaginable, then please support your position.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

No, the problem is that 1. You have no idea why someone else was hired over you. It is easy for minorities who were fairly not given a job because of lack of experience to pull the race card because companies are so terrified of litigation that they'll generally cave in under pressure.We therefore have a crux and an impasse to deal with.Who polices the abuse? How can we prove someone was not hired because of their race rather than their overall lack of experience or general disposition (come across as having a bad attitude, indifferent, lazy, etc)? Or how can you prove there were no racist motives in the decision? It comes down to a he said/she said thing.This is alot like sexual harrassment cases. It used to be that because it was so serious an issue, even the very mention of it by a woman was grounds enough to believe her. That's not fair to the male who very well may be the victim, not the victimizer, to a vindictive woman. The very same thing can and does happen with race/employment issues.The only way to really know is if you see a disproportionate amount of minorites not hired even though they have more experience or expertise, not merely that not alot of minorities work at company X. Because perhaps not many applied in the first place. So what are they supposed to do, track down minorities to keep the government out of their business? Other than that it is an easy card to play for minorities.Secondly, AA focuses entirely on race. It's not merely counterintuitive, it perpetuates the very thing they want to do away with.To be honest I 'd be horribly offended knowing that I got a job because I'm a minority. Worse yet, why would I want to work for a company that only gave me the position because I'm of a certain gender, race, or creed?Society has dealt with this issue far better than anything else. It is like societal acceptance of nicotene use. It is becoming unpopular to smoke, which is a complete 180 degrees from where it began. It's the same with racism.The problem practically resolved itself. And if it doesn't, so what? How can you tell a soveriegn and private businesses that they can't hire whomever they want? Racism isn't a crime, but it is socially unacceptable.I also would estimate that if certain minorities don't get a job because of prejudice, I would say that it has less to do with race than it does cultural differences. If someone comes across as a thug, regardless of race, that person is sending a red flag, "Hey, I'm going to be a problem if you hire me. So why even bother with the hassle?" That is regardless of race.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson