- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #41
And that's not what's happening with AA since whites have benefitted most. Whites like you want to solve the damage caused by white racial preferences by continuing those preferences.
Zone1 Black Favoritism is a Hoax. Pt.2
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #42
I find it really irritating that white women who are where they are because of affirmative action, get attitudes when that is said about them, but want to be the first to tell blacks how they are the only ones getting help. You 2 women have been shown the facts. You both are in positions because of Affirmative Action. And you were put there because you were qualified just like blacks are put in jobs because we are qualified.
Your continued false claims don’t make them any more true. The cut-off for GPAs and test scores are being lowered so enough blacks can make the cut In order to meet a pre-determined racial quota. That is illegal, and SCOTUS will put an end to it.
No more ridiculous, “we rejected all these Asians with near-perfect grades and scores because….waaaaaa……Asians are unlikeable” as an excuse.
Oh, we two women have been shown the facts, have we? Those are facts according to YOU.
Im retired, but I moved up and achieved a senior management position due to skill and talent. I probably could have moved even further, but they gave the promotion I wanted to a less educated, less skilled black female. When she couldn’t do the job she got via AA and expected me to cover her @ss, I found a different job.
The biggest beneficiaries of AA are black women. Just look at Harris and the press secretary as examples. Both got their jobs because black female.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #46
False claims? That's what you do.
Sally Kohn, Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone, Time, JUNE 17, 2013, Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/#:~:text=But%20 study%20after%20study%20shows%20that%20affirmative%20 action,affirmative%20action%20helps%20the%20most%20in% 20America%20today.
Fact Sheet: Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women, July 1, 2000, The National Womens Law Center, Home - National Women's Law Center resources/affirmative-action-and-what-it-means-women/
Tim Wise, Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action, September 23, 1998, http://www.timwise.org/1998/09/is-s...women-and-the-rollback-of-affirmative-action/
Victoria M. Massie, White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents, White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
When ANY of you claim that blacks got hired because of Affirmative Action, you are making a comment without proof. It is illegal for ANY employer to tell a person that somebody was hired because of AA. Had that really been told to ANY of you, you could have sued that company. You see, I've hired people. I've written human resource policies, I know how the law works when it comes to employment.
You are or were working a job that had historically been done by men. Affirmative Action made it possible for you to get that job. All blacks who are admitted into college meet the admissions standards. A college is not letting in a 1.8 GPA black when their admissions say 2.0. So what college did you work for?
Because I don't believe you ever worked in admissions. You don't know even the most basic things admissions look for. You just keep attacking blacks and then complain when what you post gets called anti black bias. You have been shown that more groups besides blacks are included in AA, but you keep claiming that only blacks get some kind of imaginary lower standards. So what do you call what you're doing when you consistently assign inherent racial inferiority to blacks Lisa?
You ain't fighting to end racism..
- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #47
No, they are facts according to places like the NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER.
Face the facts.
“While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.”
-Sally Kohn
"Since only 1983, the percentage of women business managers and professionals grew from 41% of all such persons, to 48%, while the number of female police officers more than doubled, from 6% to 13% (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1995, Table 649). According to a 1995 study, there are at least six million women — the overwhelming majority of them white — who simply wouldn’t have the jobs they have today, but for the inroads made by affirmative action." (Cose 1997, 171)
Sally Kohn, Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone, Time, JUNE 17, 2013, Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/#:~:text=But%20 study%20after%20study%20shows%20that%20affirmative%20 action,affirmative%20action%20helps%20the%20most%20in% 20America%20today.
Fact Sheet: Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women, July 1, 2000, The National Womens Law Center, Home - National Women's Law Center resources/affirmative-action-and-what-it-means-women/
Tim Wise, Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action, September 23, 1998, http://www.timwise.org/1998/09/is-s...women-and-the-rollback-of-affirmative-action/
Victoria M. Massie, White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents, White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
Hold on..I’m making popcorn!
You keep repeating the same crap.
And Sally Kohn, really? I’m supposed to be convinced by HER? Ugh.
And colleges aren’t lowering to 1.8 from 2.0. Jeez Louise! This is university-level work we are talking about! I am talking about a prestigious program where all whites with 3.6 or below are rejected, yet they let in blacks with a 3.2 or 3.3.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #50
“Hoping to create in white men and women a shared sense of victimization at the hands of people of color, conservatives have made sure to ignore whatever gains have come to women through affirmative action and have sought to “racialize” the debate and its attendant imagery.”
-Tim Wise
-Tim Wise
Riff Raff
Platinum Member
- Aug 13, 2022
- 630
- 469
- 483
It will. SCOTUS will put a stop to different admissions standards based on skin color.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Are you being intentionally disingenuous.
The Civil Rights bill of 1991 said, "Trust me, I'm not a quota bill", but then made it a LOT easier for aggrieved minorities to sue for job discrimination. And the best preventive measure for that was to simply hire more minorities. Which is fine if they are qualified. But then you get the person who gets hired because they are just trying to fill a Diversity, Inclusion and Equity quota.
I've seen it happen. I saw it happen when Myself and another white guy who were contractors were passed over for a full time slot to hire a black woman who had no idea what she was doing. They gave her a bunch of work, and then when she failed repeatedly to do it, the rest of us got stuck doing her work while she shopped on Amazon all day.
Ironically, this nitwit gave me a call after I landed my current gig, and said she was interested in a slot we had open. I told her how challenging the job was, and how we need to put in long hours to make things work. (Which was mostly true.) Hard work? She quickly lost interest!
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Yes, it's that stuff that happened 200 years ago that is the problem, not what is happening now. Keep telling yourself that.
But here's the thing. Affirmative Action for women MIGHT have been necessary when women were trying to break into the workforce, when there were still Neanderthals who though they should be home making babies. But really, no one thinks that way anymore. Yes, women make 70% of what a man makes (Still), but more often than not, that's a matter of choice because they figure if they are the second income in the family, they don't need to make more. It's why the Recession of 2008 was often called a "Man-Cession", because employers found it was easier to keep the women and get rid of the higher paid men.
So if you ask white women if they need affirmative action, they'll tell you no. They feel pretty confident in their ability to get jobs without it.
I would argue that affirmative action MIGHT have been necessary in the past when we were only a few years past Jim Crow. But today? The fact that Asians and Hispanics are doing so well despite not being terribly white should say otherwise.
We fix race-based preferences by ELIMINATING race-based practices.
You honestly think that when SCOTUS rules that race cannot be a factor in deciding whom to admit, that the far-leftists in college admissions who are favoring blacks will all of a sudden reverse and start favoring whites? Get real.
And, having worked in the field, I know how they think. What they will do is come up with an attribute more common among blacks, and use that as a factor. They will find a way to still favor blacks after the SCOTUS decision, but it might cut down on the degree.
This was a strong argument. Affirmative action usually takes the form of recruiting qualified candidates anyway. Interesting Asian discrimination result.Simply put, there is no black favoritism.
Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds
21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy
A new report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges. Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices.
Asian American applicants face lower acceptance rates at highly selective colleges compared to other racial and ethnic groups, but they are also much more likely to apply regardless of test scores. Even if standardized test scores were the only factor considered in admissions, the Asian American share of enrollment at selective colleges would increase by no more than 2 percentage points. The data do not support the claim that selective colleges adjust the number of Asian American students they admit to maintain a long-term racial balance of students.
“If we used test-based merit as the singular admissions requirement, the gain for Asian American applicants would be marginal,” CEW Director and lead author Anthony P. Carnevale said. “But on the flip side, 21% of Asian American applicants who were previously admitted would no longer qualify.”
Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds
21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy...www.globenewswire.com
Summary
Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices. The report finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.
Court Cases Allege That Asian American Applicants are Held to an Unfair Standard
Critics claim that if colleges considered only academic merit, Asian American applicants would gain a greater number of seats. SFFA and other affirmative action critics often base their allegations on three factors:
- stagnant enrollment shares for Asian American students
- relatively low acceptance rates of Asian American applicants
- differences in SAT scores between Asian American and non–Asian American students at the most selective colleges.
The Asian American Enrollment Share at the Most Selective Colleges Has Remained Stable Over the Past Decade
The enrollment share of Asian American and Pacific Islander students at Harvard and at the 90 other most selective colleges has kept pace with their growing share of the four-year college-going population. In fact, the Asian American and Pacific Islander share of enrollments at the most selective colleges grew by 4 percentage points even while their enrollment share at all four-year colleges grew by just 2 percentage points between 1999 and 2018.
Asian American Students are More Likely to Apply to Highly Selective Colleges Regardless of Test Scores
Among students who scored 1300 or above on the SAT, 65% of Asian American students applied to one of the most selective colleges in the country, compared to 50% of non–Asian American students. And among students who scored below 1300, 12% of Asian American students took a chance and applied to one of the most selective colleges, compared to only 5% of non–Asian American students. Since more Asian American students apply to selective colleges, they are more likely to be denied a seat, which is not evidence of bias.
(Let's stop right here. Asians are applying to schoools they would not qualify for based on SAT scores and people are talking about discrimination against Asians and black favoritism.)
Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions - CEW Georgetown
There’s no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.cew.georgetown.edu
There is no black favoritism.
MYTHS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.
Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice—they reinforce it.
Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.
Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 70 cents for every male dollar. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, half the median family income, and half the proportion who attend four years or more of college. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students on many campuses would drop below 2%. This would effectively choke off Black access to higher education and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.
A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.
Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker were to displace a White worker, less than 2 percent of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1 percent. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).
If Jewish and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.
This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America—often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.
You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word—discrimination—to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.
Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.
In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned seven different presidential administrations—four Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, despite the current split along party lines, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.
Myth #10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.
Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:
Selection among equally qualified candidates.
Selection among comparable candidates
Selection among unequal candidates.
Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired.
There is no black favoritism. The claim is a hoax used to race bait.
My only quibble is the out of context 70 cents on the dollar for women. That’s not really a good representation of pay as it doesn’t adjust for types of jobs and tenure. All things being equal it’s a few cents as I recall.
If IM2 had composed this himself I would have made the effort to read it. Because he did not make the effort to express these arguments in his own words, I will not make the effort to read it. Anyone can find something on the internet he likes.
I look forward to the likely Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in university admissions. I would also like a ruling against affirmative action in hiring decisions. At the very least, I want the Supreme Court to stop the government from coercing employers to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, rather than hiring on the basis of merit, qualifications, and excellence.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 101,756
- 112,132
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #60
Unfortunately for you I did compose this and did so using supporting evidence. There has been very little done in this nation based on merit, qualifications or excellence. Whitess were hired only because of of skin color and ending laws that provide ottherss besides whites equal opportunnity because of the whining of unqualified whites who didn't get hired or admitteed will only take us back to whites only.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
US conducts airstrike against Al Qaeda-linked militants in Somalia- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 0
-
Massive Muslim Prayer in Turin Sparks Debate on Multiculturalism in Europe
- Started by Persuader
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
