What is wrong with the concept of "race"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
No, I am saying that AA allows lesser educated people to get jobs... and the reason it was created in the first place was to help black people, that is why they were being used as an example, because they weren't as well educated as whites.

You sir, are ignorant. If you look at both the period in which AA was created and at the actual law itself, you will realize you are talking out of your arse.

The purpose of AA was to force companies to treat Black and white applicant's equally. That is, if a qualified Black person or white women applied for a position, they could not simply be denied on account of race or gender. In other words, companies became required to take the best person available for the psoition, instead of simply hiring a white man. The law also give the government the power to seek remedies in cases where it is proven that the company has a racist or sexist hiring policy.

In response to this law, some companies have resorted to quota systems or bumping up less qualified minority candidtates, but this was very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court within a few years of the law's passage.

AA was created to deal with the problem of hiring and promiting lesser qualified white males over white women and Black people. By and large, only white women have benefited from AA, as Black people are still not represented proportionally within business or higher education.

Tingkai is correct, however, in stating that many HR people use AA to soften the blow to white men's egos by telling them that they had to promote someone else for diversity reasons. I've heard HR people admit this. When a woman or minotiry candidate is passed over, generally they are told it is because they weren't as qualified. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it ain't. There is still a lot of old boy networking going on, and still a lot of sexism and racism in the workplace.

For those who think that companies that would rather hire an inferior white man over a more qualified white woman or minority candidate are simply shooting themselves in the foot, consider that when this was the practice of the land in the '50s and '60s, US business was by far and away the most dominent business in the world, so hiring lesser qualified people certainly didn't hurt, at least not in the short run. Most jobs don't require the best person available, and certainly the best person for the job isn't always available. Most jobs can be done by less qualified individuals, which means that passing over a more qualified women or minority cnadidate isn't really gonna hurt you, unless that candidate finds out and sues.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
I do not see any legitimate argument against affirmative action that uses the term reverse discrimination.

Many sociologists see reverse discrimination as an oxymoron, that has no basis in argumentation.

You should phrase things as simply as possible so that by trying to seem more educated / intelligent than you really are you don't give the opposite impression.

The term should simply be called discrimination, but we got into the habit as a society of assuming that all discrimination had caucasian or male subjects and non-caucasian or female objects, so discrimination against men or caucasians became known as 'reverse discrimination'. I never bought into this newspeak myself, to me discrimination is the same no matter who perpetuates it.

AA is racist crap when all is said and done. If people discriminate then they can be sued. Companies that utilize the best talent will succeed. There is no need to add a layer of complexity / expense to the whole equation. The government makes it painful and expensive enough as it is to actually hire someone.

As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days. People are wising up to the fact that at best AA is a slippery slope and at worst it is as bad as what it replaced. Discrimination by any party against any other party is more and more likely to be followed by a visit to court, which is just fine with me.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander

You should phrase things as simply as possible so that by trying to seem more educated / intelligent than you really are you don't give the opposite impression.

So, you're using the ad hominem fallacy in your counter-argument??

Anyway, I have not given any false intention -- it's based on books and articles that I have read.

Try reading sometime.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days.

Why do you say that?

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You sir, are ignorant. If you look at both the period in which AA was created and at the actual law itself, you will realize you are talking out of your arse.

The purpose of AA was to force companies to treat Black and white applicant's equally. That is, if a qualified Black person or white women applied for a position, they could not simply be denied on account of race or gender. In other words, companies became required to take the best person available for the psoition, instead of simply hiring a white man. The law also give the government the power to seek remedies in cases where it is proven that the company has a racist or sexist hiring policy.

In response to this law, some companies have resorted to quota systems or bumping up less qualified minority candidtates, but this was very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court within a few years of the law's passage.

The problem is, that quotas, in a way, still exist... And they try to put 'minorities' in leadership positions where they have no business being (of course some DO and those are the ones which a restricted AA program I would support putting in those positions!

AA was created to deal with the problem of hiring and promiting lesser qualified white males over white women and Black people. By and large, only white women have benefited from AA, as Black people are still not represented proportionally within business or higher education.

Tingkai is correct, however, in stating that many HR people use AA to soften the blow to white men's egos by telling them that they had to promote someone else for diversity reasons. I've heard HR people admit this. When a woman or minotiry candidate is passed over, generally they are told it is because they weren't as qualified. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it ain't. There is still a lot of old boy networking going on, and still a lot of sexism and racism in the workplace.

I realise that... And I hope those people who say that it is to soften the blow- but it should not be as such for that is racist speak- I am still sure htat there are incompetent peoplee becuase of AA, and yes, I do realize that without AA, incompetent white people would hold some jobs- both ways are troublesome, with AA and without it.

Chegitz- I do think you have some good points, however, I think that AA does allow a fair amount of lesser qualified people through, and I would like to elimjinate that.


----Mr Fun-

I do not see any legitimate argument against affirmative action that uses the term reverse discrimination.

Many sociologists see reverse discrimination as an oxymoron, that has no basis in argumentation

It is not reverse discrimination- it is racisim all over again, except the other way around, not reverse. At least when lesser qualified people rise above better qualified people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

It is not reverse discrimination- it is racisim all over again, except the other way around, not reverse. At least when lesser qualified people rise above better qualified people.

Nope --- using the racism or reverse discrimination argument for AGAINST affirmative action is oxymoronic.

[DarkCloud]

No it isn't AA and regualr racism can be exactly the same- AA sometimes cheating out people who deserve their jobs and racism doing exactly the same thing. (but to different types of people)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
No it isn't AA and regualr racism can be exactly the same- AA sometimes cheating out people who deserve their jobs and racism doing exactly the same thing. (but to different types of people)

So you disagree with many of the sociologists who are experts in their field??

Ok, if that suits you.

[DarkCloud]

Mr Fun-
1.) I doubt that.
2.) If so it is merely because they arer all liberal socialistic communist pinko fiends who lie and think that "oh TWO WRONGS DO MAKE A RIGHT"

Two wrongs never make a right- they are merely magnifying the problem.

I know people like those which you cite- and they are horribly wrong.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Mr Fun-
1.) I doubt that.
2.) If so it is merely because they arer all liberal socialistic communist pinko fiends who lie and think that "oh TWO WRONGS DO MAKE A RIGHT"

Two wrongs never make a right- they are merely magnifying the problem.

I know people like those which you cite- and they are horribly wrong.

In your OPINION.

You can read all the conservative sociologists you want, and I can read the liberal sociologists.

Affirmative action is not a wrong. But many white people are fearful of blacks who want to achieve the same success that so many whites have achieved.

[DarkCloud]

That is not to imply that all communists are fiends- merely that the people who say what Mr Fun claiemd are communists.

[DarkCloud]

Mr fun, I listen to both sides- but you didn't listen to me- I said that when AA gives a man who is not as competent a job- everyone loses.

that is when AA is wrong.

If the qualifications are equal- I 'might' support the 'minority' receiving the job, however I feel that it seperates groups nevertheless, although I yeild on the equal qualifications issue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Mr fun, I listen to both sides- but you didn't listen to me- I said that when AA gives a man who is not as competent a job- everyone loses.

that is when AA is wrong.

If the qualifications are equal- I 'might' support the 'minority' receiving the job, however I feel that it seperates groups nevertheless, although I yeild on the equal qualifications issue.

Affirmative action involves aggressive hiring of minority applicants who are qualified for the job -- not hiring incompetent people.

Do not distort the purpose for AA.

[DaShi]

Re: What is wrong with the concept of "race"?

Originally posted by ranskaldan
What is inherently different between classifying human appearances and, say, classifying chemicals, rocks, stars or climates?

Race does not exist? -
Neither do rock types, chemical types, star types or climate types, by themselves. These are all pigeonholes used for easy description and reference. So, why can't we see race as "human appearance types"?

So, once again, what is wrong with the concept of "race"?

1

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by MrFun


Affirmative action involves aggressive hiring of minority applicants who are qualified for the job -- not hiring incompetent people.

Do not distort the purpose for AA.

I am not distoriting the purpose I know the purpose- I also know however, that some people don't care if people who are unqalified receive jobs.

That is the type of AA that I was arguing against.
-
Oh and a note to Ming- just wondering did you ban DaShi after his latest round of spam?