|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by It looks like people are slowly starting to understand affirmative action is just as wrong as good ol' fashioned racism was in the 60s. Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma will soon have the opportunity to vote on initiatives to ban the preferential treatment of minorities in government-funded projects and public schools. The "Civil Rights Initiative," as it is called, has already passed in California, Michigan and Washington.
Perhaps best of all is the simplicity of the proposed legislation:
The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.
There are, however, those strongly against the ban. Their arguments are as confused as ever. Shanta Driver, National Director of United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund, somehow figures the ballot initiative "places us in the position of denying ... equal opportunity to blacks and Latinos."
No, Shanta. It would allow the denial of preferential opportunity for blacks and Latinos - or any other race. And who wouldn't want to be placed in that position?
Add a Comment (5)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
It Was Wrong Then, It's Still Wrong Now by johnny_boy :: NR5 :: on 08 March 2008
My recollection is that these forms of preferential discrimination were meant to be temporary measures required to redress a history of discrimination which had denied women, blacks, and other minorities the opportunity to reach the same levels of power and status as white men had traditionally held. At a time when the major US political contest is to decide between a women and a black man as the next candidate for the US Presidency, this era seems well behind us. For advocates of racial and gender discrimination (which is what "affirmative action" is all about, regardless of the euphemism used to sugar-coat it), I suspect that this temporary corrective measure would become a permanent stain on our cultural landscape. I'm glad to see that people are beginning to adopt a more common-sense ideal of what equal opportunity involves.
RE: It Was Wrong Then, It's Still Wrong Now by Eye.Of.Sage :: NR6 :: on 08 March 2008
True True, think about it. While you give one race more chance to succeed by default, you also decrease other races of their total chance to success.
RE: It Was Wrong Then, It's Still Wrong Now by Occams :: NR6 :: on 18 March 2008
I agree that those lofty motives were probably the basis for it. They should have known better but there was an element of retribution.
Two wrongs cannot make a right, even in close succession. I don't blame those who found themselves in a position where they could take advantage of affirmative action. For them the timing was right and they were just lucky. The victims are those who were discriminated against on the basis of affirmative action. They can moan about it or overcome it. If they are really good they will do the latter.
What annoyed me the most was indicator chasing, you know -
50% of the population are women but only 10 percent of our engineers are women. Hire more women engineers.
But sir, only 2 % of college engineering students are women and those graduates get the first job offers.
Too bad, we want government contracts and we will have to demonstrate that we are an equal opportunity employer.
Equal employers vs equal opportunity employers by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 March 2008
How does a company prove themselves an equal opportunity employer given this status is not necessarily correlated with the makeup of their employees? In other words, it's completely possible for non-biased employer to have an employee base that is not even close to representing the populous - so do they simply audit the hiring processes?
Or, perhaps the distinction being sought is "equal employers" (i.e., removing the emphasis on opportunity)... which would be a very telling thing, in my opinion.
RE: Equal employers vs equal opportunity employers by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 March 2008
How does a company prove themselves an equal opportunity employer given this status is not necessarily correlated with the makeup of their employees?
Exactly! Or even not demonstrated in the set of applicants for jobs, or people qualified in the labor force. Women and PC idiots in the affirmative action movement simply wanted to see at least 50% female in any employment category. To be otherwise was an indication that this was not an equal opportunity employer - no excuses. For a while the government backed these silly claims and would deny contracts to firms that were unable to demonstrate equal opportunity on this basis.
Discrimination on any basis other than competence is not only immoral but it is harmful to the company and so should be self correcting. I have no problem with it also being illegal, but a valid statistical analysis must be used to gather evidence of a breach.