Unitended racism

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

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 go to HR. You document a discrimination claim and take it to court if you have to. You seem to think that there are no employment regulations outside of affirmative action.

quote:

---

Affirmative Action IS racism

---

Really? Why?Be specific. Do not confuse what you think affirmative action is with what it actually is.Was anybody denied a promotion in the Ricci case?

quote:

---

There are so many things wrong with it, and apparently the Supreme Court agrees.

---

Showing you clearly didn't read the decision.Let's try a test:Without looking anything up, what was the decision of the Ricci case?Do you even know if anybody was denied a promotion?

quote:

---

In what way can I get you to understand that it is wrong, unfair, racist itself, and demeaning to minorities?

---

Well, the first thing would be to show that it is actually "unfair" or "racist." So far, all you've done is parrot Republican talking points and as we all should have learned by now, that's a pretty good sign that the opposite is true.Do you have any evidence that Title VII does anything you claim?Was anybody denied a promotion in the Ricci case?

quote:

---

And in the case in the OP positions were slated for minorities, minorities that never showed up.

---

No, it didn't. You don't know anything about the Ricci case, do you?Again, let's do a little test:Without looking anything up, what exactly happened in the Ricci case?Was anybody denied a promotion?If you don't even know what happened, what on earth makes you think you are in any position to say that what happened was "racist" or "unfair"? Consider the possibility that you do not know what affirmative action is or what the most recent case actually said.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, good workers aren't getting promotions on the basis of what??? On the basis of race.

---

Was anybody denied a promotion in the Ricci case?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

And that isn't socialism, either.You need to stop watching Fox.Question: Is the police department "taking away from someone else who rightfully earns something to give it to someone who doesn't"? After all, the police are paid for by your taxes, those who earn more paying more, and yet those police protect everybody. That's "socialism."What about the fire department? Would you rather we got rid of the "socialist" fire department and go back to the privatized system we used to have where you had to pay a company for fire protection services and put a shield on your door to let everyone know who was allowed to put out a fire.And Chicago burned because of it.What about the "socialist" military? Should we privatize that, too? Blackwater did such a bang-up job in Iraq, right?I dare say, you don't know what socialism is.

quote:

---

Nobody is entitled to a job that doesn't earn it.

---

And if you had any evidence to show that affirmative action was connected this "doesn't earn it" fantasy of yours, you might have a point. But so far, you haven't actually justified your claim. You've simply repeated it over and over again.Was anybody denied a promotion in the Ricci case?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

we're not talking about specific laws here we're talking about the policy and culture of affirmative action aka positive action aka positive discrimination.But if you want to talk specific laws, here's how this policy is implemented here in the UK, as explained in the Equality Bill parliamentary proposal , April 2009:

quote:

---

...contains provisions which enable an employer or service provider or other organisation to take positive action to overcome or minimise a disadvantage arising from people possessing particular protected characteristics.

---

The 'protected characteristics' they're referring to relate to race, gender and ethnicity.In other words, this policy allows and encourages employers to make employment decisions based on their employees' race, gender and ethnicity.Is that clear enough? Frome Merriam-Webster

quote:

---

an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

---

do you disagree with that? what do you think AA is?

---

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

err...didn't the U.S. Supreme Court, as recently as 2003, rule that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions systems amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota?..and wasn't the said admissions systems a direct result of application of AA ?

---

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

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

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

we're not talking about specific laws

---

Huh? We're talking about the Ricci case which was a lawsuit regarding the application of Title VII. How is that not talking about specific laws?

quote:

---

we're talking about the policy

---

How is policy not dictated by law? Do you have any evidence of any policy anywhere that enacts "discrimination based on race, color, or sex"? Be specific.There are plenty of people who want you to THINK that such is the case, but they have a long track record of lying to you. Do you have any actual evidence?

quote:

---

and culture of affirmative action

---

Same problem. Where is the evidence? You have a lot of people saying that it's so, but where is the proof? Given that conservatives are well known for lying about it, why would you trust them now?

quote:

---

aka positive action aka positive discrimination.

---

Again, I can't speak for the UK, but it is not called such here nor does it function anywhere close to what is implied by those phrases.Where is your evidence?

quote:

---

contains provisions which enable an employer or service provider or other organisation to take positive action to overcome or minimise a disadvantage arising from people possessing particular protected characteristics.

---

How is that "discrimination"? If I go out of my way to make sure that minority sources know about an opening, how is that "discrimination"? It is a positive action, but how is it discriminatory?

quote:

---

In other words, this policy allows and encourages employers to make employment decisions based on their employees' race, gender and ethnicity.

---

Incorrect. Where in that definition do you see anything about "employment decisions"? It's talking about "overcoming disadvantages." That doesn't mean you make your decision based upon their decision. It means you take positive action to find those who are qualified but have been disadvantaged.Let me see if I can give a personal example:You're casting a show. You can pre-cast it, pulling from the list of actors you happen to know, no auditions, no ability for anybody outside of your personal list to have a chance, or you can hold auditions.If you hold auditions, there are various ways to announce it and run it. You can let only members of the union known through trade publications. You can go to certain agents so that only their actors are submitted. You can go to certain publications. Or you might do a big campaign to announce the openings far and wide. You might even go recruiting certain sources of actors who might not think they're up to it but who you want to see anyway.That's "affirmative action."How is it discriminatory and how on earth is the "employment decision" made?

quote:

---

do you disagree with that?

---

I don't disagree with it at all. However, you seem to think that the word "opportunity" is a synonym for "decision."

quote:

---

what do you think AA is?

---

I think AA is as Title VII regulates it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

didn't the U.S. Supreme Court, as recently as 2003, rule that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions systems amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota?

---

Technically true, but not what you think. What was found in Gratz et al v. Bollinger et al is that diversity is a compelling state interest but that the method by which the University of Michigan went about it was "not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity."As pointed out in the decision: Quotas were rejected by the US Supreme Court in Bakke back in 1978.Of course, the raising of this issue destroys your point: Affirmative action is not a quota system. Any attempt to establish a quota system is in violation of Title VI and is not what affirmative action is about. The SCOTUS overturned the admissions process of giving all minority applicants 20 points and yet did not strike down affirmative action.What does that tell you about your claim?

quote:

---

and wasn't the said admissions systems a direct result of application of AA ?

---

So any time somebody attempts to address the problems of racial discrimination and screws up, that means affirmative action is completely useless?By this logic, anytime anybody says that two and two are five, that means all of mathematics is a complete failure. No, it isn't the person who failed to implement mathematics correctly...it was the math, itself, that failed.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not a Republican

---

I didn't say you were. Just because you have fallen for the Republican talking point doesn't mean you are a Republican.It just means you fell for it.

quote:

---

but quotas are the only way Affirmative Action could be functional.

---

Except the Supreme Court disagrees. Bakke expressly denies quotas and yet, affirmative action is still legal.What do they know that you don't? Have you read up on the case law?If we find it inappropriate for a person who has a caricature of what evolution is to try and pontificate on what "evolution requires," why would we not find it equally inappropriate for a person who has a caricature of what affirmative action is to try and pontificate on what "affirmative action requires"?You need to do your homework.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Was anybody denied a promotion?

---

​

Yes.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race"

---

Ahem. Was that pulled from the decision or was that pulled from a popular press headline?Do you understand the difference between a headline and a legal decision? If we find it inappropriate for a person to use popular press pontifications about what evolution is, why would we not find it equally inappropriate for a person to use popular press pontifications about what the law says?Nobody was denied a promotion.Question: What did the testing process actually do? That is, did it actually cause anybody to be promoted?And on top of that, did this testing actually accomplish anything or did the law suit immediately get in the way?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

For some reason we see racial discrimination as more abhorrent than how the aesthetically unattractive are discriminated.

---

So we should stop programs that counter racial discrimination because there are other types that also need to be addressed.Yeah, that makes sense.

quote:

---

Because it bases its entire premise on race and it denies people employment based on race.

---

Says who? Republican talking points? You know better than to believe them. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. What do you know that they don't?Note: I am not putting forward the argument from authority. I am asking you to provide EVIDENCE to support your claim rather than bald assertion. The Supreme Court has looked at very specific cases dealing with the question of affirmative action and whether or not it "denies employment based upon race" and has found that it doesn't.If you disagree, this is where you go into specifics to show that their conclusions are wrong. It is not sufficient to just whine, "But it does!" and then pout and hold your breath.Be specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Without looking anything up, what was the decision of the Ricci case?

---

​

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.

---

What did they find? What was the specific point of law that they clarified and used to justify their results?Hint: It has to do with the threat of a lawsuit compared to the actuality of a lawsuit.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you even know if anybody was denied a promotion?

---

​

Yes, they were.

---

No, they weren't. Have you read the decision?

quote:

---

They were denied promotions because they were reserving minority spots for non-existent minority firemen.

---

No, they weren't. Please explain how the phrase "disparate impact" applies.If you don't know what that phrase means and how it applies to this case, what makes you think you understand anything about it?

quote:

---

If that's what I'm doing are you parroting Democrat talking points by default?

---

No, I'm referring to caselaw by default. Are you saying the law is biased toward the Democrats?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have any evidence that Title VII does anything you claim?

---

​

Yes, it discriminates on the basis of race. That qualifies it.

---

Where? How? Be specific.This is where you start quoting the text of Title VII. So far, all you've done is just whine, "But it does!" That isn't good enough. You need to provide actual evidence to support your claim because the Supreme Court, which has looked at the issues, doesn't agree with you.What do you know that they don't?

quote:

---

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's not what the Supreme Court found. No, I'm not going to tell you what they said because I want you to read the decision for yourself. I want you to approach this discussion from a position of knowledge, not from having me spoonfeed you things. We don't accept it when people who haven't done their homework with respect to evolution try to argue about what evolution actually is, so why should we accept you not having done your homework with regard to this topic?

quote:

---

It forced the hand of the City of New Haven to resort to ridiculous means

---

What did they resort to? Be specific.

quote:

---

and in the end discriminated against its own employees in the process.

---

That's not what the Supreme Court said.

quote:

---

A test is colorblind. If you don't do well on a test then that's on you.

---

Oh, really? You have no comprehension of how tests are made, do you? I highly recommend you read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man to see how supposed "objective tests" regarding ability were horrendously biased.

quote:

---

First of all, I do know what happened because I read the article prior to posting it.

---

Huh? Article? You mean you read a news article? That's worse than not reading anything at all. The popular press is a horrendous place to find out anything regarding complicated subjects. They invariably try to "simplify" and in the process, end up distorting the reality to the point that people come away thinking things that literally are not true.Have you read the actual decision? Have you gone onto FindLaw or the Supreme Court's web site and looked up the decision? I ask you to pay particular attention to 2(iv) in the summary.

quote:

---

Secondly, the case was just what prompted me to make the thread in the first place.

---

But you did it not because you've actually read the decision but rather because you relied upon a news story about the decision. We don't accept the popular press's description of the "controversy" of evolution, as if there were an actual "debate" going on among scientists, so why do you think you can trust what the popular press has to say about caselaw?It's a much better story to talk about "discrimination" and "lost promotions" than it is to talk about "disparate impact liability." So, the story gets framed around things that have absolutely nothing to do with reality.Nobody was denied a promotion. The decision has nothing to do with "discrimination." Nor does it have anything to say about affirmative action.

quote:

---

I'm arguing more on the equality of AA in the first place, not necessarily dissecting the Ricci v DeStefano case.

---

But you're the one who brought it up! And now you're backpedaling from it?Since the Supreme Court has found that AA is not racist, what is it you know that they don't?Be specific. Cite the case law. Show how their arguments failed. Whining, "But it does!" and then pouting and holding your breath isn't actually an argument.

quote:

---

Thirdly, I know what AA promotes and I know that it is categorically unfair and inherently racist.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? You haven't even read the relevant case law and statutes. What on earth makes you think you have any conception of what affirmative action really is?The Supreme Court disagrees with you. What do you know that they don't?This is where you provide examples of specific instances that were the result of affirmative action.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you need to stop watching every other media outlet by default?

---

Logical error: False premise.The fact that I did not get my information from Fox does not mean that I got my information from another media source.It is quite possible, and in fact is actually the case, that I got my information from reading the Supreme Court decision directly. There are many sites out there that will give you the text of the decision. The Supreme Court website, for one, as well as FindLaw will both give you information regarding actual court decisions. That way, you don't have to worry about a news reporter who is more interested in telling a "good story" getting everything wrong.How many times have we all complained here about the state of science reporting in the popular press? How they take a finding, try to find the most sensationalistic thing about it, and run with it? "What did you have for dinner that could kill you? Film at 11." Do you really think that the Supreme Court beat is any different?Have you read the decision? If not, what makes you think you understand what it says?

quote:

---

I'm speaking more about socialists than I am about socialism.

---

If socialists don't advocate socialism, what do they advocate for?This is just like the claim that creationists make regarding "atheist scientists." If we don't accept it in that arena, why do you think we should accept it in this one?

quote:

---

I'm talking about the ideological mindset.

---

And where do you find anybody advocating it? The Republicans have been trying to make hay around the bugaboo of the Fairness Doctrine, screaming from the rooftops before the election that if you didn't vote for the Republicans, then the Fairness Doctrine would be reinstated......despite the fact that there wasn't a single Democratic candidate who was advocating for it.You've fallen for the Republican talking point. I daresay that you don't know anything about socialists or socialism. There is an actual socialist in Congress (Bernie Sanders of Vermont). Would you mind providing any evidence of his actions that would be an example of this "taking away from someone else who rightfully earns something to give it to someone who doesn't" mindset that you're talking about?

quote:

---

When a communist

---

Wait just a parboiled second."Communist"? How did we get to communism? Are you saying the UK is filled with communists? The US shares a border with communist Canada?

quote:

---

Just watch this It sums up the philosophy perfectly.

---

What's the problem? She was qualified and succeeded. That's precisely the point behind affirmative action: To note that what we consider "neutral" really isn't and we need to take active steps to take that bias into account.

quote:

---

I didn't do well, and thus didn't earn anything, but I am Puerto Rican. Give me an education now. WTF?

---

That isn't what she said. Listen to it again: Where is this "I didn't do well" that you're referring to? Where do you get this "didn't earn anything" response? She's talking about her test scores: So where is the problem? She was an outstanding student with some bad test scores. Any school would have snatched her up in a second given her academic achievement. She was hardly unqualified or "took the place" of someone else. She earned it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not at all. Have you read the 2nd Circuit decision? You do realize that she was not the only judge on the circuit and that the circuit's decision was unanimous, right?Hint: The 2nd Circuit's decision was a procedural one. What cases were referred to in the 2nd Circuit's decision?Republicans make a huge amount of noise regarding "activist judges" and "not legislating from the bench." How does the 2nd Circuit's decision deviate from that process? It's pretty much nothing more than a, "Because of precedents found in decisions A, B, and C, the judgement regarding this case is the same."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ok, I was talking about the policies and culture of AA, but I just had a look at the OP and it does open with the Ricci case, so fair enough. I'm not familiar with the case so I won't comment on it. I will, however, comment on the application of AA paradigm and its effects. No, policy decisions are made first and then laws and regulations are put in place to implement the policy. The policy is the 'what', the laws are the 'how'. But we're digressing... Only in Message 63 I showed you the official UK parliamentary document that describes 'positive action' as the special treatment of people with certain ethnic or racial characteristics. Discrimination doesn't get more specific than that. Because you're ensuring that more people of a certain race or ethnicity will apply for a position than others. You are exposing more information to certain people based on their race or colour. You are increasing the chances that a person of certain race or colour will be selected. You are giving some people a better opportunity than others. In a nutshell, you are treating people differently based on their race or colour. How is this not clear to you? Dressing it up as 'positive' this or that doesn't change its nature. Tell me, if an employer selectively targeted white audiences to advertise their vacancies how would this be viewed: as 'positive action' or just plain old racism ? Let's not play with words here. If you are an employer, any decision you make concerning who and when to hire is an employment decision. The statement refers to "disadvantage arising from people possessing particular protected characteristics." Most of these 'protected characteristics' refer to ethnic or racial factors. This policy not only allows but actively encourages the different treatment of certain people based on their race or ethnicity. See, the trouble with this is the use of the terms 'disadvantaged' and 'qualified' in the same sentence. Qualifications can be easily measured and objectively compared. The definition of 'disadvantage' is much more subjective, difficult to quantify and keeps changing according to current political views and ideologies. It also carries moral and political overtones regarding the source and cause of the perceived disadvantage. and just what's wrong with that? You're the employer, you're making an 'employment decision' to do that. If you don't get any good actors in your selection, well...it's your decision, your hit. Do you think that's somehow unfair or unjust and needs state intervention which makes much more sense as it gives you a much wider selection of actors to choose from. As a matter of fact, nearly all employers do just that: they advertise globally in specialist or national press and web-sites. if that's "affirmative action" then all current laws and rules for affirmative actiom are obsolete and redundant. Nearly all employers go for the 'big campaign' approach in order to maximise their chances of finding a suitable candidate. And the few ones which don't...well that's their loss.So, if this is "affirmative action" then what's the point of it?Do you know of any employers advertising in 'white-only' press? If yes, what is the percentage? Is it big enough to justify drafting national legislation against it?I don't think that AA is the sanitised, marketable view you're trying to present here. There are plenty of people who want you to THINK that such is the case, but they have a long track record of lying to you.

quote:

---

[AA is] an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

---

So you think that increasing someone's opportunities because of their race, ethnicity or sex doesn't constitute discrimination, is that right? i had a look through the Title VII but I failed to find an exact definition of AA. Could you point it out to me?

---

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

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

Had I claimed that affirmative action is a quota system then my point would have been indeed destroyed. However, that's not what I said. What I said was that the racial quota imposed by the university was the direct result of application of AA.It goes back to my previous point about the distinction between policy and its implementation. Affirmative action is a policy, a mindset, a culture if you like. Governments implement this policy by setting up legislation, employers by setting up employment rules, universities by changing their admission policies.Imposing racial quotas is a reasonable way of adhering to the principles of AA, i.e. making sure that 'disadvantaged' people get an opportunity. it's also brazenly and shamelessly racist. No, just any time an implementation of AA policy is nationally exposed as blatantly racist it serves to undermine the policy's validity and usefulness. Bad analogy. It's more like somebody keep applying a particular mathematical theorem to a problem and failing to produce a solution. It's not that the person's stupid, it's just that the theorem they're using is flawed.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

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