Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[WEATHER53]

My wife was denied employment with Park and Planning because she was white. They even bothered to stupidly put in writing "...although Mrs P is the more qualified and experienced candidate, the minority applicant does achieve the minimum established standards ...and the AA goals take precedent in the hiring". It kicked off a firestorm, this was in 1983 by the way.
The lady who was hired quit after two weeks so a hearing was held in Her behalf. My wife had Park employment experience with a 6 Flags
At the hearing the lady was asked if she was harassed. Her response was "Goodness no I was not harassed..I had no idea the building was in the woods...all the spiders and snakes out there scared me"
This trend of set asides absent any sense or purpose is mostly what AA is about

Your wife was not hired because the company as still practicing racial discrimination. It would be nice if whites just stopped talking about this policy until they went back and learned the entirety of their history.

We do not need to learn, we lived it. My wife was not hired because the "tie breaking"factor was that she was not black

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your wife was not hired because the company as still practicing racial discrimination. It would be nice if whites just stopped talking about this policy until they went back and learned the entirety of their history.

Speaking of history, an extensive study of African-American slavery illuminated my perception of current events regarding race relations and the circumstances in low-income black neighborhoods. Ignorance of the details of this history really inhibits one's ability to understand the reverberations that still impact our culture. Once thoroughly understood, the fact that they do, in fact, continue to impact our culture cannot be denied.

 

[IM2]

My wife was denied employment with Park and Planning because she was white. They even bothered to stupidly put in writing "...although Mrs P is the more qualified and experienced candidate, the minority applicant does achieve the minimum established standards ...and the AA goals take precedent in the hiring". It kicked off a firestorm, this was in 1983 by the way.
The lady who was hired quit after two weeks so a hearing was held in Her behalf. My wife had Park employment experience with a 6 Flags
At the hearing the lady was asked if she was harassed. Her response was "Goodness no I was not harassed..I had no idea the building was in the woods...all the spiders and snakes out there scared me"
This trend of set asides absent any sense or purpose is mostly what AA is about

Your wife was not hired because the company as still practicing racial discrimination. It would be nice if whites just stopped talking about this policy until they went back and learned the entirety of their history.

We do not need to learn, we lived it. My wife was not hired because the "tie breaking"factor was that she was not black

Yes you do need to learn. Because if you had learned you'd understand that the fact she was not hired was because the company was forced to hire the minority because the company was breaking the law. I've lived with white racism my whole life whereby whites are still breaking the law and there was no tie breaker for me. So what was the name of this company? And why didn't you guys sue for illegal employment practices due to the fact that company cannot reveal such information legally.

 

[IM2]

Your wife was not hired because the company as still practicing racial discrimination. It would be nice if whites just stopped talking about this policy until they went back and learned the entirety of their history.

Speaking of history, an extensive study of African-American slavery illuminated my perception of current events regarding race relations and the circumstances in low-income black neighborhoods. Ignorance of the details of this history really inhibits one's ability to understand the reverberations that still impact our culture. Once thoroughly understood, the fact that they do, in fact, continue to impact our culture cannot be denied.

True but as we see here most of these guys want to deny it.

 

[protectionist]

You're the space cadet not me. If blacks were benefitting from AA racial preferences as much as you suggest they do...why is the wealth gap between black and white families widening instead of closing? Why is black unemployment rates always more than twice that of the white unemployment rate?

Don't get me wrong. There are many successful blacks. However, Affirmative Action has not been that great of a factor in improving the economic status of the black community as a whole. But even there you begrudge any thing you percieve being done to level the playing field for your fellow black Americans.

1. Where is your protests against white women, Asians, and others who have benefitted more from Affirmative Action than blacks could ever dream of?
2. High achieving Asians are being denied admission to prestigious institutions that offer preference to less qualified Whites. Meritocracy ? What a sham...

A 2009 Princeton study showed that Asians had to score a hundred and forty points higher on the S.A.T. than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities.

Your questions reflect the typical mindset of liberals, greatly information-deprived, as a result of watching liberal OMISSION media.

1. WHO says the he wealth gap between black and white families is widening ? I SEE it as closing sharply. Decades ago, you didn't see blacks en masse, living in nice homes, driving shiny new cars (like I SEE in my apt complex) and in WalMart parking lots. Sometimes the eyes and ears are more reliable than liberal sources (which you didn't even cite)

2. It has been long well-known (at least by conservatives) that despite AA advantage, blacks have had high unemployment due to:
a. Simple lazieness to go out and get a job
b. Unpreparedness in job interviews
c. Inability to perform on the job, and high job loss

3. I wouldn't call racial AA a leveling of a playing field for anyone. I don't totally oppose the idea of AA though >> AA based on financial need could be a leveling of playing field for the poor, as opposed to the black.

4. White women and Asians have NOT benefitted more from Affirmative Action than blacks. By far, the majority of white woman suffer loss from AA due to discrimination against them by race, and being relatives (dependents) of discriminated-against white men (daughters & wives)

5. You contradict yourself. first you say >> "...Asians ... who have benefitted more from Affirmative Action", and then you say >> "High achieving Asians are being denied admission"
You were right the second time. When I was denied an assistantship in graduate school, the only recipients were the only 8 blacks who applied. Among the AA victims ? >> 2 Asians, 3 Hispanics, 5 women.

 

[WEATHER53]

My wife was denied employment with Park and Planning because she was white. They even bothered to stupidly put in writing "...although Mrs P is the more qualified and experienced candidate, the minority applicant does achieve the minimum established standards ...and the AA goals take precedent in the hiring". It kicked off a firestorm, this was in 1983 by the way.
The lady who was hired quit after two weeks so a hearing was held in Her behalf. My wife had Park employment experience with a 6 Flags
At the hearing the lady was asked if she was harassed. Her response was "Goodness no I was not harassed..I had no idea the building was in the woods...all the spiders and snakes out there scared me"
This trend of set asides absent any sense or purpose is mostly what AA is about

Your wife was not hired because the company as still practicing racial discrimination. It would be nice if whites just stopped talking about this policy until they went back and learned the entirety of their history.

We do not need to learn, we lived it. My wife was not hired because the "tie breaking"factor was that she was not black

Yes you do need to learn. Because if you had learned you'd understand that the fact she was not hired was because the company was forced to hire the minority because the company was breaking the law. I've lived with white racism my whole life whereby whites are still breaking the law and there was no tie breaker for me. So what was the name of this company? And why didn't you guys sue for illegal employment practices due to the fact that company cannot reveal such information legally.

We did not sue because in 1983 Affirmative action was permissible in the context I presented it. Park and Planning is a state and county run agency around D.C. We were advised to not pursue it as the boundary of the minority applicant meeting the qualifications
was permitted. My wife did not have to be hired because she was more qualified and experienced versus the overall goals of AA. That was how it went in 1983

 

[protectionist]

Look idiot, you are trying to argue against documented history, supreme court decisions and public policy that shows how for 75 percent if the time this nation has been in existence whites by law were given advantages only because of race.

FALSE! I am saying nothing whatsoever about the pre-affirmative action era, which (at my age of 71) is before my time (and yours too).

YOU are the one who has your pants in wad about that, not me​

I have no need to address that. I have not been through benefits from those early years, nor have you lived through the hardships of them, so stop whining about what you weren't a part of..

 

[protectionist]

Affirmative Action insures a meritocracy. If we would have been one, AA would never have been needed. If the stats showed we are one now, AA would not be needed. But we aren't.

If we aren't it's not because of anything AA can help. See Post # 725 (# 2)

 

[IM2]

You're the space cadet not me. If blacks were benefitting from AA racial preferences as much as you suggest they do...why is the wealth gap between black and white families widening instead of closing? Why is black unemployment rates always more than twice that of the white unemployment rate?

Don't get me wrong. There are many successful blacks. However, Affirmative Action has not been that great of a factor in improving the economic status of the black community as a whole. But even there you begrudge any thing you percieve being done to level the playing field for your fellow black Americans.

1. Where is your protests against white women, Asians, and others who have benefitted more from Affirmative Action than blacks could ever dream of?
2. High achieving Asians are being denied admission to prestigious institutions that offer preference to less qualified Whites. Meritocracy ? What a sham...

A 2009 Princeton study showed that Asians had to score a hundred and forty points higher on the S.A.T. than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities.

Your questions reflect the typical mindset of liberals, greatly information-deprived, as a result of watching liberal OMISSION media.

1. WHO says the he wealth gap between black and white families is widening ? I SEE it as closing sharply. Decades ago, you didn't see blacks en masse, living in nice homes, driving shiny new cars (like I SEE in my apt complex) and in WalMart parking lots. Sometimes the eyes and ears are more reliable than liberal sources (which you didn't even cite)

2. It has been long well-known (at least by conservatives) that despite AA advantage, blacks have had high unemployment due to:
a. Simple lazieness to go out and get a job
b. Unpreparedness in job interviews
c. Inability to perform on the job, and high job loss

3. I wouldn't call racial AA a leveling of a playing field for anyone. I don't totally oppose the idea of AA though >> AA based on financial need could be a leveling of playing field for the poor, as opposed to the black.

4. White women and Asians have NOT benefitted more from Affirmative Action than blacks. By far, the majority of white woman suffer loss from AA due to discrimination against them by race, and being relatives (dependents) of discriminated-against white men (daughters & wives)

5. You contradict yourself. first you say >> "...Asians ... who have benefitted more from Affirmative Action", and then you say >> "High achieving Asians are being denied admission"
You were right the second time. When I was denied an assistantship in graduate school, the only recipients were the only 8 blacks who applied. Among the AA victims ? >> 2 Asians, 3 Hispanics, 5 women.

You are arguing against documented information. You are simply incorrect.

A 2009 Princeton study showed that Asians had to score a hundred and forty points higher on the S.A.T. than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities.

You miss what this says completely. Asians are discriminated against only compared to whites. But given this is not 2009 and that about 1,000 universities today have made SATS optional along with the fact that test scores are not the sole requirement for college entry, your opinion is bunk.

Why is black unemployment rates always more than twice that of the white unemployment rate?

Continuing white racism.

You've been shown plenty of sources, you just don't want to accept that your racist premise is totally false.

 

[IM2]

Affirmative Action insures a meritocracy. If we would have been one, AA would never have been needed. If the stats showed we are one now, AA would not be needed. But we aren't.

If we aren't it's not because of anything AA can help. See Post # 725 (# 2)

I don't need to see any of your dumb ass posts. I know what the problem is, you deny it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

 

[IM2]

Look idiot, you are trying to argue against documented history, supreme court decisions and public policy that shows how for 75 percent if the time this nation has been in existence whites by law were given advantages only because of race.

FALSE! I am saying nothing whatsoever about the pre-affirmative action era, which (at my age of 71) is before my time (and yours too).

YOU are the one who has your pants in wad about that, not me​

I have no need to address that. I have not been through benefits from those early years, nor have you lived through the hardships of them, so stop whining about what you weren't a part of..

At 71 you were born and grew up during the pre AA period. I was born and grew up in the civil rights era so I did endure things and still do because white racism still exists. So look idiot, you are trying to argue against documented history, supreme court decisions and public policy that shows how for 75 percent if the time this nation has been in existence whites by law were given advantages only because of race. In 146-47when you were born, your parents as whites benefitted from racism. That means you benefitted, unless you worked on your own, bought your own house and raised yourself from birth.

 

[Markle]

Look idiot, you are trying to argue against documented history, supreme court decisions and public policy that shows how for 75 percent if the time this nation has been in existence whites by law were given advantages only because of race.

The point being? It was NOT for the past half-century. How long do you expect to continue whining troll?

 

[IM2]

Look idiot, you are trying to argue against documented history, supreme court decisions and public policy that shows how for 75 percent if the time this nation has been in existence whites by law were given advantages only because of race.

The point being? It was NOT for the past half-century. How long do you expect to continue whining troll?

Why We Are Not Making Progress Against Racism

“At this point, the whole race thing is over . . . it doesn’t matter anymore. We’ve transcended it. Now we have a black president, so clearly we are not racist,” stated one young woman after the first election of Barack Obama as president of the United States.http://www.demos.org/blog/9/21/17/why-we-are-not-making-progress-against-racism#_edn1 In the euphoria of Obama’s first election, many Americans—on the left, right, and center—agreed that America had become post-racial. Today, many on the left recognize that America is still struggling with racism. But what liberals may not fully appreciate is the degree to which the rest of America is still deep within a post-racial haze.

New research from social psychologists at Yale and Northwestern Universities reveals that Americans—especially rich, white Americans—greatly overestimate how much racial progress we have made toward economic equality. Averaging across 5 economic measures, the researchers find that Americans estimate that we have made about 25 percent more progress toward black-white economic equality than we actually have made.

Worse still, Americans are most inaccurate on the most important economic measure—wealth. Scholars have come to recognize that wealth—the value of assets minus debts—is the most important measure of a family’s overall economic well-being. The social psychologists find that Americans overestimate our progress toward black-white wealth equality by about 80 percent. Today, for every dollar of wealth that whites have, blacks have only a few cents."

More.

For those who believe that black people are already equal with white people, any policy that seeks to address anti-black discrimination looks like an attempt to give blacks an advantage over whites. Many Americans, particularly Republicans, believe that today there is more discrimination against white people than against black people.

Because so many Americans are not grounded in the reality of American racism, the call for a “conversation on race” is a bad idea. We need Americans to go on fact-finding missions on racism, not try to engage in conversation when there is no agreement on the basic facts.

We have to be aware that because we are a segregated society, many white people learn about black people from the media. Some white people see prominent, highly successful black people in movies and on television and assume that those individuals are indicative of the economic standing of African Americans. Also, there is right-wing media that consciously tries to mislead white Americans about racism and to foster a sense of white victimization.

Why We Are Not Making Progress Against Racism

 

[dblack]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

 

[IM2]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

You weren't refuting anything. Your post made no sense.

 

[dblack]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

You weren't refuting anything. Your post made no sense.

Which part confused you?

 

[IM2]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

You weren't refuting anything. Your post made no sense.

Which part confused you?

None of it,

 

[dblack]

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

You weren't refuting anything. Your post made no sense.

Which part confused you?

None of it,

Well, you said my post made no sense. I'm happy to clarify anything if you have questions. In the meantime, please stop equivocating on the meaning of equal rights. The shell games are tiresome and only distract from actual conversation.

 

[IM2]

.

Law enforcement agencies are "government" and they enforce a ton of laws that forbid certain behaviors - drinking alcohol in public comes readily to mind. Someone with a drink in their hand, standing outside of a drinking establishment while smoking a cigarette (another thing that they've forbidden to do at least inside) - those are laws that regulate behavior and I'd dare say that the smoker with a beverage in their hand is causing a lot less harm, if any, than someone who is willfully and maliciously acting in ways to deprive another of their rights due to animus regarding their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. So it would seem that some laws are okay but others are not?

Not really sure what you're going on about here. I was refuting IM2's equivocation on "equal rights". Try to keep up.

You weren't refuting anything. Your post made no sense.

Which part confused you?

None of it,

Well, you said my post made no sense. I'm happy to clarify anything if you have questions. In the meantime, please stop equivocating on the meaning of equal rights. The shell games are tiresome and only distract from actual conversation.

You fail to understand that law and policy dictate individual behavior.