Unitended racism

Which makes AA hard to employ in a single situation, and difficult to get a guilty verdict. What is required is evidence of a history of selecting person of type A over any other type. Most cases that come to court regarding AA are about misaplications, not about a single person pissed because someone got hired over him/her. No, it comes down to looking at the history. If, for any given company, 40% of the qualified applicants are black, but only 5% get hired, then that's an indication that the hiring manager is preferentially picking the non-black applicants. Is that alone enough to convict, probably not, but I'm not a legal scholar either. Yes, just as with any law, there are loopholes or way for people to game the system. Do you think it would make more sense to stop making sexual harrasment illegal because some people assume that men are always the agressors? This was the crux of my question back towards the beginning of the thread. I'm not sure how they decide what "the population" is. If you live in a community that just happens to be predominantly white, then you're going to hire almost exclusively white people. What the law should be, IMO, and for all I know, this is what it says, they should look at the actual applications and ask the hiring manager why these people were deemed unfit. If the hiring director doesn't have a good reason, or actually comes right out and says, "Because black people are lazy," then you have a pretty good indication. I agree with this, and this is my main problem with AA. If our goal is a color-blind society, we should be moving away from making people focus on it. However, I realize the reality of the situation we're in. People aren't color-blind yet, and something needs to be done. I think education is the key, bringing good education to inner cities and poorer communities is the biggest step we could take to correct the racial divide. As you should be, and if this were the case, the employer would be liable under AA laws. THIS IS ILLEGAL. AA doesn't GIVE the job to underrepresented people, it merely says that your work force should match the racial make-up of the qualified applicants to a broad degree. And blatant racism is starting to decline to a great degree, but implicit or even unconscious racism are still prevalent, it's just hard to pin point where it occurs. AA is an attempt (though definitely flawed) to weed out this type of racism precisely because society can't work on things it can't readily see. A sign saying "Blacks not welcome" is easy to spot. A diner that makes black people sit for a long time before serving them, and then only doing exactly what's necessary to get them their food, take their money and get them out is tough to necessarily point to as blatant...it could be the waiter/waitress is just having a bad day, or maybe they're just a bad waiter/waitress in general. What you need is a history of it happening, and for a single instance, you obviously don't have one. Very true. But if someone assumes all blacks or hispanics are thugs, despite how they comport themselves in an interview or on an application, that's racist and needs to be fixed. If someone comes in flashing gang signs and waving a knife in the air, that's a valid reason not to hire them, regardless of their race or qualifications. I don't know of a single instance where someone got a company in trouble for not hiring a "thug".

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, they weren't. Remember, nobody was denied a promotion. You haven't actually read the case or know the history, have you?

---

​

Really? Wierd....

​

From the link in the OP:

---

You know better than to trust mass media. We don't trust it for science...what makes you think you can trust it for judicial processes?Nobody was denied a promotion. Why do you think that might be? Hint: Consider how promotions are actually carried out in the New Haven fire department? If you pass the test, are you promoted?No?So how could throwing out the test deny anybody any promotions?

quote:

---

I haven't actually read the case nor know the history. Do you have a better link?

---

Um, you mean FindLaw (the PubMed of the legal system) and the Supreme Court's web sites aren't good enough for you? It's too difficult for you to go to on your own? You're incapable of using a search engine? I have to do all your homework for you?

quote:

---

Its like scare tactics or something.

---

So your ignorance is the law's fault? Nobody understands the concept of documenting performance history?

---

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:

---

But, repeating myself once again, the U of M weren't aware that they were breaking the law because they weren't expicitly setting racial quotas.

---

That made it something other than illegal? Again, repeating myself, you seem to be upset that the very law that protected the white students actually protected them. Should we get rid of the law and thus remove any legal recourse these white students had?If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault?

quote:

---

Yo do understand that although they didn't 'actually' fix a number of seats they 'essentially' did ?

---

And you do understand that it was just as illegal, just as prohibited by the very law you are claiming caused the illegal action, and just as requiring of injunctive relief by the very law you are complaining about, yes?Affirmative action law works to prevent racial discrimination and while it is inspired by the common racism and sexism against those who aren't white or male, it is quite aware of the need to protect against discrimination against white males in the name of protecting non-white males.You seem to be upset that a law protecting whites had the very gall to protect them.

quote:

---

Yes, but the means you are allowed and encouraged to use are predominantly racist.

---

Huh? How can a law that explicitly and directly outlaws racist actions "allow and encourage" racist actions?The actions of the U of M were illegal, the students sued, and they won! Because of the very law you're complaining about. Should we get rid of the law and thus remove any legal recourse the white students had?You seem to be upset that a law protecting whites had the very gall to protect them.

quote:

---

but that's what I've been saying all along: the U of M mistakenly put a quota in.

---

And the students sued and they won! Because of the very law you're complaining about. Should we get rid of the law and thus remove any legal recourse the white students had?You seem to be upset that a law protecting whites had the very gall to protect them.

quote:

---

These bundle of sticks ("fasces") were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates and were used for corporal and capital punishment.

---

Indeed, but that isn't what "fascism" means. You do understand the difference between a term referring to a political movement that is based upon an ancient symbol and the term for that ancient symbol, yes? The term "fascism" didn't exist until the 1910s. And it was coined specifically to refer to the political movement.You're trying to retcon an etymology.

quote:

---

You've advocating direct state intervention in order to achieve specific workplace demographics

---

Huh? That is expressly disallowed by the law.

quote:

---

without any consideration for the employer's opinion, goals or circumstances.

---

Showing you didn't read the Supreme Court's decision. Do you not understand what "disparate impact" means and what an employer can do with regard to it? The Ricci decision basically says that threat of a "disparate impact" suit is not enough. The suit needs to actually happen and the employer has the ability to defend against it.

quote:

---

So yes, you do exhibit the tendency to impose autocratic control

---

Huh? I support a law that has procedures for companies to explain their actions and that's "autocratic control"?But you haven't answered the question. Where in my position am I advocating for a corporatocracy, nationalism to the point of xenophobia, and a dictatorial system of government?That's what "fascism" is and you have yet to provide a single example of it. You're using it as just a sad ejaculation of an epithet for an argument you don't like and can't defend against.

quote:

---

"Junior, you must eat some sweets to keep your blood sugar up but you can't get any cookies from the cookie jar."

---

Huh? That has nothing to do with my scenario. What makes you think you can change it? You're going to argue diabetes? Fine:"Junior, you know that you don't get to use your diabetes as an excuse to eat cookies. In fact, your diabetes is precisely why you shouldn't eat cookies."

quote:

---

You did ofcourse totally ignored the part where I claimed how accessible computers are these days with free public access at most public buildings

---

Nice try, but you seem to have confused the fantasy in your head with reality. Public access to the internet is akin to access to abortion: Effectively impossible for most people.At any rate, you're missing the point: Computer use and ownership is more predominant among white people than black people and the population is more predominantly white than black.Now, you do understand how to do math, yes? Suppose I have a population breakdown where X% are of one characteristic and Y% were of another characteristic with X > Y. Of those with X characteristic, p% engage in an activity while of those with Y characteristic, q% engage in the activity with p > q.Will the racial breakdown of the breakdown favor those of X or those of Y?
For the characteristic favored, will it be more disparate than the general population or less?

quote:

---

So you're seriously suggesting that a minority person who want to look at the job boards can't get access to a computer for an hour or so?

---

"Can't"? No. That implies universality and completeness. What I am saying is that using the internet as your advertising method is a poor method of reaching people who aren't white.

quote:

---

Qualifications and skills have to do with one's suitability for a particular job

---

But "qualifications and skills" are subjective measures.

quote:

---

They are as objective as you can get.

---

And that's precisely why we need AA laws: You actually believe that. You actually believe that you can be "objective" about "qualifications and skills." No matter the evidence that shows employers don't live up to that claim of objectivity, you'll continue to spout it.Again, there's a reason symphony orchestras were lily white until they started actively avoiding knowing the race and sex of the musician. They were certain they were only looking at "objective" factors, but they clearly weren't.Most employment situations don't have the luxury of having a means to completely anonymize a prospective employee. Thus, we need methods that ensure they're living up to that mandate to be as objective as possible.

quote:

---

You still haven't answered my question about who's more 'disadvantaged'.

---

Because it's a ridiculous question. You're pretending that there is a mechanical method of making such a determination and as the U of M case pointed out, doing so is a quota system and is expressly illegal.Why are you trying to get me to advocate for an illegal act?

quote:

---

Please also tell me how you measure their disadvantage.

---

Carefully, with respect to the law, and with regard to the entire application. Take Sotomayor's college experience. Her standardized test scores weren't so hot but her grades were phenomenal. Since we know that standardized tests routinely favor white males over other groups, shouldn't we take that into account when looking at her? Clearly, she's qualified and we shouldn't be slaves to a single point.

quote:

---

If I state that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job and that person is white then I'm a bigot.

---

Huh? Who said that?Be specific.

quote:

---

so, what is it ??

---

It's some fantasy in your head that you have projected onto others. I can hardly be expected to respond to something that doesn't exist.

---

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 Perdition:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which is why promoting someone because of their race is expressly forbidden.

---

​

No it's not! This is clause 153 of the UK Equalities Bill 2009

---

No, it isn't. It's a hack job of the bill. You have deliberately left out the specific part where what you're complaining about is expressly forbidden: [emphasis added]Now, I know you are aware of that part of the bill because you quoted it. And I pointed it out to you when you did.Is there a reason why you're deliberately overlooking it?If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault?

quote:

---

Until white persons are declared to be disadvantaged or under-represented

---

Um, you do realize that there are white people who are disadvantaged compared to the majority white population, yes?You really don't know the law at all, do you?

---

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:

---

you missed the first sentence

---

No, I didn't. I pointed out that your own source immediately indicates that your interpretation of the first sentence is expressly forbidden. Is that word "not" causing you problems?

quote:

---

You can't automatically treat people who have protected characteristics favourably

---

Which means your fantasy scenario that you're so upset about is expressly forbidden by the law.So what are you complaining about?

quote:

---

how the hell did you infer that this means that "AA goes to quotas"?!

---

Because you directly said so. Have you forgotten your own words? Not only did you say them, I quoted them back to you the last time you tried to claim that you didn't say AA leads to quotas. Message 87: In fact, in this very message, THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE from where you claim you aren't arguing that AA goes to quotas, you say: If you can't remember your own argument....

quote:

---

Argue what I write not what you think I write!

---

If you haven't noticed yet, my style of argumentation is...well, "thorough" would be putting it politely. I tend to quote every single word of the person I'm responding to and pick it apart. So clearly I am responding to what you actually wrote. That's why I'm able to quote you saying exactly what you claim you didn't say. Message 75: Message 80Message 81And that isn't even all of them. If you can't remember your own argument, I'll be happy to repeat your own words back to you.

quote:

---

I was actually talking about the Avon Fire Service case in the UK.

---

While you did, indeed, bring up the Avon Fire Service, the particular reference in that portion of the conversation was about the Ricci case.

quote:

---

And the day when being a white male becomes a protected characteristic you'll have a valid point.

---

And it is. You aren't allowed to discriminate against white males for the same reason that you aren't allowed to discriminate against women and those who aren't white. AA doesn't give a list. Instead, it refers to "race" and "sex" and the last time I checked, white males had both a race and a sex. There are professions that are female-dominated and males seeking employment in them are just as protected by AA as females are in male-dominated fields.

---

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:

---

It is easy for minorities who were fairly not given a job because of lack of experience to pull the race card

---

BWAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that's just precious. Thanks for that. I haven't had a good laugh in a while.You really believe that, don't you?Tell us: Exactly how many racial discrimination suits were brought last year and of those, how many were successful?Here's a hint: You demolish your own argument: "You have no idea why someone else was hired over you." It is extremely difficult for an individual to show why he was passed over since there is rarely any documentation.

quote:

---

Who polices the abuse?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The courts. Do you seriously not know this?

quote:

---

So what are they supposed to do, track down minorities to keep the government out of their business?

---

Yes. It's called "due dilligence" and is a common requirement for lots of aspects of business. Why do you seem to be so upset about it being used in hiring?

quote:

---

Secondly, AA focuses entirely on race.

---

No, it doesn't. You really have no idea what the law actually says, do you? When was the last time you read the various Titles?

quote:

---

How can you tell a soveriegn and private businesses that they can't hire whomever they want?

---

Because this fantasy of yours that a business is "sovereign" and "private" is precisely that: A fantasy. Nothing is truly private because nothing is truly isolated from the rest of society. And since everything necessarily interacts with society, there are rules about how to behave in that interaction.By your logic, banks should be allowed to refuse to lend to black people because they're "sovereign" and "private," right? Separate water fountains, right?You're making a lot of noise about what some would call the "individual," but you don't really believe it. You already agree that regulation is required. We're just arguing over where the line is to be drawn.

quote:

---

If someone comes across as a thug

---

Huh? How on earth did we get to "thugs"?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

There are dozens of reasons why the demographics of selected candidates won't reflect the demographics of qualified candidates.

---

Then you have nothing to worry about. Should you find yourself on the other end of a disparate impact suit, you have a justification to explain why.And if you don't, you find yourself like the U of M and must provide injunctive relief to those you have discriminated against.Again, you seem to be upset that a law designed to protect whites has the temerity to actually protect them.

quote:

---

As it happened, this accent was mainly prevalent among white people, so no problem there I suppose.

---

Huh? Why on earth would you suppose that? Why would discrimination against white people be acceptable? Have you not been paying attention? The white people would have a case against the employer under the very law you are saying should be tossed.How dare the legal system which was set up to protect white people just as much as those who aren't white have the unmitigated gall to actually protect them!

---

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.

It just made the illegality of it ambiguous. They weren't fixing a number of seats, so, striclty speaking, they weren't breaking the law. Instead they had a system which ensured that a number of minorities always got a number of seats. Thankfully, SCOTUS saw that this was essentially the same as fixing seats, hence it was illegal.The AA law required them to ensure that minorities get represented. Which they did. They followed the prime directive of the law and took a racist and illegal action. 'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things.The Nuremberg Laws encouraged racism and discrimination. They promoted the notion that Germans were superior and Jews inferior. They caused the barring of Jews from employment and education. They eventually led to the holocaust. 'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things.I can't decide if you really don't get it or you're deliberately obfuscating.Laws that encourage discrimination will lead to people taking discriminatory actions. Which part of this do you not understand?What is your point? Do you even have one? All you do is repeat the mantra "AA is good...mmmkay...it's not the law's fault that some people are racist...mmkay...white people are protected too...mmmkay".Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Show me why AA is good! Show me the people who benefited from it but not at the expense of others?I've already shown you the people hurt by AA. The people rejected from interviews, barred from open days, rejected from universities. You claim this isn't the result of AA. Then what the hell is it? Did all these university deans, fire brigade commanders and police force commissioners wake up one day and decide to just bar whites from entering? What a happy coincidence that would be!Come on, do share with us, don't be shy. What causes discrimination against white males across both sides of the Atlantic if not AA policies, laws and culture? sorry, which law are you talking about? I'm talking about the one which
"... permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented."i.e. allows an employer to racially discriminate between candidates. But the students already had a legal precedent in their favour: the Bakke case, 1978. This was there long before and irrespective of the AA law. Do you not realise how disingenuous and hypocritical it is to claim that whites are protected by the same law which explicitly states that in specific situations they should be the ones discriminated against ?!You might as well claim that if it wasn't for the Nazi concetration camps, the Jews would be vulnerable to lynching by the mob!

---

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

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You didn't seriously suggest that access to a network of information that is practically ubiquitous in terms of its availability and accessibility and access to which is widely accepted and encouraged equates with access to a physical operation that carries serious health risks, has moral repercussions and is widely condemned by a significant percentage of the population, did you?well, so much for your "minorities don't have adequate access the internet" argument! They're objective enough for disparate employers to reach the same conclusion as to which candidate has the best degree, the widest skill-set, the highest test scores, et al.When you show me how disparate employers can equally determine which candidate is the most advantaged or disadvantaged then I'll accept that 'disadvantage-ness' is objective too. Until then.... Were they looking at qualifications, years of experience, previous work, test scores, etc ? Because auditioning alone isn't objective means at all. So unless they were taking objective, measurable qualifications into account while recruiting only whites this example is totally pointless. Or maybe because you can't! 'Disadvantage' ratings rely heavily on emotional and political factors rather than objective, measurable ones. That's why the two should be kept well apart. ugh? are you really not getting it? I've been claiming all along that 'disadvantage' is such a subjective criterion. Which is precisely why there can be no mechanical method of making such a determination!is it that you can't read or is it that you won't read ? In other words, you haven't got a clue how to measure disadvantage. . It's because there is no objective way to measure disadvantage, disadvantage is pretty much what you want it to be, dependent on your perception and current political correctness trends. how can standardized tests favour white males or anyone else for that matter?! We give standardised Java (the language not the coffee) tests to candidates. We couldn't make them favour any ethnic group even if we tried. It's just impossible. Could it just be that her grades were the result of AA or other favourable factors, while the stahdardised tests reflected the stark reality? In Message 82 YOU wrote:

quote:

---

"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means a white male ('Because customers are just more comfortable discussing figures with a man'), then it's just tough noogies."

​

And you don't see the inherent bigotry?

---

YOU clearly stated that the position that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job even if it's a white male, is *inherently bigoted*Don't YOU even remember YOUR own argument?SO I'm asking once again:If I state that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job and that person is white then I'm a bigot.
If I state that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job and that person is gay, then I'm a...what exactly?it's a simple enough question.

---

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

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

It just made the illegality of it ambiguous.

---

So your failure to understand is my fault? Do you truly not understand the reason for the existence of the court system at that level? Since no law will ever be able to explain every possible situation that could ever arise, there will always be a need for a court system to explain it to people. So since the courts did get involved and since the white people were protected, it still seems amazing that you're upset about it.How dare a law designed to protect white people actually protect them!

quote:

---

The AA law required them to ensure that minorities get represented. Which they did.

---

By doing something expressly illegal. If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?

quote:

---

The Nuremberg Laws encouraged racism and discrimination.

---

Huh? The Holocaust? You're comparing affirmative action to the HOLOCAUST?! If you truly think that the best comparison to affirmative action is 1930s Germany, then you not only don't understand the Shoah, you don't understand your own argument.Where on earth do you find affirmative action laws defining what race is the way the Nuremberg laws did? Where do you find affirmative action laws defining whites as non-citizens, preventing them from getting married, having sex, hire servants, or fly the flag and then threaten imprisonment and hard labor to those who violate it? While you're at it, why haven't you brought up the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service? Have whites been fired from all civil service jobs?Do you have any actual example of anything that even remotely resembles this? Where do we find the laws preventing white people from holding office? Where do we find the affirmative action version of Kristallnacht and with whites forced to live in ghettoes and forbidden to leave? Where do we find laws preventing whites from attending school? Where is the law forcing all white people to add "John" or "Mary" to their names if they don't have typically "white" names so that people can identify them? Where is the law that forces white people to a "C" for "Caucasian" on their passports?Really, Legend. The Holocaust? That's your best analogy?

quote:

---

Laws that encourage discrimination will lead to people taking discriminatory actions. Which part of this do you not understand?

---

The "encourage discrimination" part. If I tell you expressly not to do something, how is that "encouraging" it? You still haven't explained that.

quote:

---

Show me why AA is good!

---

We already have. Women and minorities have been able to achieve that they wouldn't have been able to were it not for AA. Sotomayor, for example. She proudly proclaims the fact that she wouldn't be where she is if it were not for AA.

quote:

---

I've already shown you the people hurt by AA.

---

No, you haven't. What you've shown is white people being protected by AA. You seem to be upset that a law that protects white people actually had the temerity to protect them.

quote:

---

I'm talking about the one which
"... permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented."

---

But not by racism since "the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not."Is there a particular reason why you keep leaving that part out? You're complaining about actions that are expressly forbidden by the very law you're complaining about.

quote:

---

i.e. allows an employer to racially discriminate between candidates.

---

Incorrect. Instead, expressly forbids an employer from racially discriminating between candidates. Does the word "not" hold special problems for you? "The clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not."Is there a particular reason why you keep leaving that part out?

quote:

---

But the students already had a legal precedent in their favour: the Bakke case, 1978.

---

Precisely! That's the entire point! The U of M was breaking the law. It had been settled for decades. The very law you are complaining about is the specific law that the U of M was breaking. You seem to be upset that they got called out on it and were forced to provide injunctive relief to the students who were affected. By your logic, that entire legal precedent should have been thrown away and thus those white students would not have had any legal recourse at all.The law protected the white students and you seem to think that's a bad thing.

quote:

---

This was there long before and irrespective of the AA law.

---

Incorrect. Do you not know anything about the specific laws you're complaining about? The Bakke decision was precisely about affirmative action law since it involved the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The UC Davis program was compared against Harvard's as a comparison. The Bollinger cases, about the U of M, expressly held up the use of race as a factor but rejected quotas.

quote:

---

You might as well claim that if it wasn't for the Nazi concetration camps, the Jews would be vulnerable to lynching by the mob!

---

Right, because affirmative action is just like the Holocaust.

---

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:

---

You didn't seriously suggest that access to a network of information that is practically ubiquitous in terms of its availability and accessibility and access to which is widely accepted and encouraged equates with access to a physical operation that carries serious health risks, has moral repercussions and is widely condemned by a significant percentage of the population, did you?

---

OK, let's break this down:First, abortion, especially when done early, is safer than carrying to term. Therefore, your whining about "serious health risks" is nothing more than scare-mongering.Second, you really don't think that part of the reason for racism has to do with "moral repercussions" and "condemnation"?But notice, you still haven't addressed the issue: The fact that something is ostensibly "public" and "freely available" doesn't mean it actually is.

quote:

---

They're objective enough for disparate employers to reach the same conclusion as to which candidate has the best degree

---

No, they're not. People think they are, but they're not. Do tell us, what is the "objective" criteria that allows one to determine what the "best degree" is?

quote:

---

the widest skill-set,

---

And exactly how does one "objectively" determine if particular skills are necessary? Some may seem obvious, but it's the ones on the fringes that cause trouble.

quote:

---

the highest test scores, et al.

---

When we know the test isn't nearly as objective as people make it out to be?You have this fantasy that there is no subjectivity involved.

quote:

---

Were they looking at qualifications, years of experience, previous work, test scores, etc ?

---

They thought they were looking only at that, but clearly they were looking at race and sex. For all their insistence that they were being "objective" (after all, audition is a direct showing of performance), and yet they were still selecting only those who were white and those who were male.

quote:

---

Because auditioning alone isn't objective means at all.

---

Indeed, but you're missing the point: The race and sex of the performer are irrelevant to the ability to play in such a way that the conductor likes it. Clearly, what the conductor likes as far as interpretation is a purely subjective criterion, but how does skin color or genitalia have anything to do with it? Despite the claims that the jurists were being "objective," they were clearly only going with white males.

quote:

---

'Disadvantage' ratings rely heavily on emotional and political factors

---

Huh? You mean taking a numerical survey of the population and comparing it to the demographic distribution is "emotional" and "political"?

quote:

---

I've been claiming all along that 'disadvantage' is such a subjective criterion.

---

And I'm saying you've got it backwards. Your "objective" criteria are more subjective than you think and your "subjective" criteria are more objective than you are willing to admit.

quote:

---

Which is precisely why there can be no mechanical method of making such a determination!

---

If it can't be done mechanically, how can it possibly be objective? The point you're missing is that all your complaints about "subjectivity" apply precisely and directly to your own arguments as well and your insistence that we use these fake "objective" criteria is doomed to failure.

quote:

---

how can standardized tests favour white males or anyone else for that matter?!

---

You really don't know? There was a good program on NPR the other day about this that gave a good example of how what seems to be clear and precise is actually highly subjective. A gadget was given to people with some instruction on how to use it. The instructor told them that you used it "like a garage door opener."Now, a large number of the people had no idea what that meant. Forget what the concept of an automatic device for opening the garage door might be, these people had no idea what a "garage door" was because where they lived, there was no such thing. Nobody had a garage let alone a door on one. And these were Americans.Testing requires communication which is tied to cultural assumptions.I highly recommend you read The Mismeasure of Man by Gould. There was a huge movement to "objectively" quantify the races through testing. It was a miserable failure, shot through with bigotry.

quote:

---

YOU clearly stated that the position that employers have the right to choose whoever they think is most suitable for the job even if it's a white male, is *inherently bigoted*

---

No, I didn't. This would be where you provide the reference back and the direct quotation.

quote:

---

it's a simple enough question.

---

Indeed, but it is based upon a false premise. Choosing white males is not bigotry in and of itself. Since you seem to have missed my response let's try it again:Who on earth said that?Be specific.

---

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.

quote:

---

the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

It's apparently the word "automatically" that's causing you problems. The law says that you can't automatically treat some people more favourably than others. So you can't say "This year I'll hire more Pakistanis than English", for example. This is essentially the same as the "you're not allowed to fix a number of seats" clause in US law. But, the law clearly states that in a situation where you have to choose between two otherwise equal candidates you're encouraged to choose the minority one. If this candidate is a non-white person, you're encouraged to choose them because they're non-white.So, you're encouraged to selected candidates based on ther race, colour or ethnicity. Which is racist - pretty much by definition!Which part of the above are you having trouble with? ...what??...none of my statements above (or anywhere else) claim that AA=quotas. I've always claimed that AA is the most obvious of many ways to apply AA, NOT the only one.The fact that quotas are banned both sides of the Atlantic is because they are so blatantly racist. This has nothing to do with AA but with a number of court cases against AA, like Bakke, which established quotas as a racist action. Quotas were banned in spite of AA, not because of it! The UK Equalities Bill 2009, clause 152 defines the primary aim of Positive Action as:

quote:

---

enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage

---

The day when being a white male becomes a protected characteristc I'll accept your statement above. Until then, I'm afraid you're only talking self-contradictory nonsense.AA was invented because of the notion that white males held an unfair advantage over minorities and women. Claiming that it aims to equally protect them is frankly laughable. Which is exactly why it's a racist and sexist policy!

---

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

Oh I see! So If I reject the minority candidate because they come across as indecisive, or they're inarticulate, or I just don't like their tie then I'm automatically assumed to be a racist, am I? and I have to justify myself to the self-righteous police, have I? Nice one!and then you dare sarcastically dismiss Hyeroglyphx when he suggests that some people play the race card. How hypocritical! but white people weren't discriminated against! People with a particular accent were discriminated against. They just happened to be white. Ofcourse if they were non-white they could always assume that they were discriminated because of racism and sue, just like you claim above. But yeah, AA really does protect white males....right.... bullshit! YOU've already stated that whites apparently have the best opportunities and hold the advantage in the workplace. Now you're claiming that the legal system was set up to protect them? What from? Themselves?
How disingenuous! Save it for the marketing department.

---

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

[I'm combining the two posts here]Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

Which part of the above are you having trouble with?

---

The part where it's illegal to choose the white one. You still haven't explained how it is legal to discriminate against white people.

quote:

---

none of my statements above (or anywhere else) claim that AA=quotas.

---

And if that's what I claimed you had said, you might have a point. Instead, I quoted you as saying: But AA expressly and specifically forbids quotas, so how can it be "disingenuous"? But AA expressly and specifically forbids quotas, so how could they be "obvious"? But AA expressly and specifically forbids quotas, so how could they be a "direct result of the application of AA"? But AA expressly and specifically forbids quotas, so how could they be a "natural consequence"?

quote:

---

If the effective imposition of a racial quota wasn't the result of trying to follow AA policy and AA guidelines then what was it the result of?

---

Since AA expressly and specifically forbids quotas, how could they be a result of "AA policy and AA guidelines"?

quote:

---

The fact that quotas are banned both sides of the Atlantic is because they are so blatantly racist.

---

Indeed. Which means that white people are protected by the very laws you are claiming discriminate against them. It means that when white people are discriminated against, they can sue under the very laws you say provide them nothing but grief.And then they win their cases and you're upset about it.

quote:

---

Quotas were banned in spite of AA, not because of it!

---

Huh? If that were the case, then AA would have overturned. Do you truly not understand how judicial review functions? Since AA was not overturned, your conclusion that this was some sort of "in spite of" response makes no sense. Instead, the courts did precisely what they were supposed to do: Maintain legitimately-passed law that conforms to constitutional restrictions but provide explanation regarding what it means.

quote:

---

Which is exactly why it's a racist and sexist policy!

---

Huh? "Thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of sex or race" is "sexist" and "racist"? I tell you expressly and specifically not to do something and you take that as an encouragement?

quote:

---

So If I reject the minority candidate because they come across as indecisive, or they're inarticulate, or I just don't like their tie then I'm automatically assumed to be a racist, am I?

---

No, you are automatically assumed to be an employer. If someone wishes to file suit against you, you can easily justify your claims and the suit will be thrown out. And if the suit truly was frivolous, you can countersue for costs.Same question I asked before: Exactly how many successful discrimination lawsuits were there last year? You're acting like this is some sort of common threat just waiting to pounce upon poor, innocent employers who would never do anything wrong.

quote:

---

and I have to justify myself to the self-righteous police, have I?

---

It's called a lawsuit. It wouldn't get to the point of court if there were absolutely nothing to it. The way you show that the questionable parts really are nothing is by justifying your actions. And if the screening process that is supposed to keep frivolous suits out failed, you can countersue for costs.There's an essay from On Ninteen Eight-Four that was published by Stanford University when the year 1984 actually came around. It was a collection of essays regarding how the book has had an impact upon society. One of them was the concept of "doublethink" and how it applies to the judicial system. In American jurisprudence, we have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Therefore, when the lawyer asks you during voir dire if you have made a judgement regarding the client, everybody has to engage in a bit of doublethink:Legally, nothing has been proven but beyond the legal system, something unusual is going on because it wouldn't have made it this far if everything were so clearly innocuous. Investigators have pored over the facts, discovery has taken place, witnesses have been deposed, people who have some knowledge of the law think that there is a case to be made. Despite what the TV shows say, it takes more than a couple days to get a lawsuit together. The defendent is innocent but probably guilty. The entire point behind the trial is to examine all the data on both sides and see if a violation truly has taken place.Of course it sucks to be sued. But it sucks to be the victim of bigotry, too. And since the court system is there to provide restitution to those who have been discriminated against, it would help if the process had some teeth.

quote:

---

and then you dare sarcastically dismiss Hyeroglyphx when he suggests that some people play the race card.

---

When Chicken Little comes around hyperventilating that the sky is falling, you don't play into the hysteria.

quote:

---

People with a particular accent were discriminated against.

---

Right...and accent has no connection to race. "But the grandfather clause doesn't discriminate against black people! It doesn't even mention race anywhere in it. It only says that you can vote only if your grandfather voted. How is that about race?"

quote:

---

But yeah, AA really does protect white males....right....

---

Huh? You mean the Bakke and Bollings cases didn't resolve in the students' favor? The examples you gave didn't resolve in favor of the white people?

quote:

---

YOU've already stated that whites apparently have the best opportunities and hold the advantage in the workplace. Now you're claiming that the legal system was set up to protect them? What from? Themselves?

---

Huh? From the systems we set in place to prevent discrimination against those who aren't white or male.If you've been stealing all the cake and if, after centuries of just letting it slide, we decide that we want to make sure that it gets divided equally, it is just as important to make sure you receive your fair share as it is to make sure everybody else does, too. We want to make sure that the safeguards we put in place to ensure that people who have been oppressed aren't shortchanged don't wide up shortchanging anybody else in the process.

---

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.

BZZZT!!! Perspective alert: I'm not comparing affirmative action to the holocaust. You just made that up in a feeble attempt to derail a losing debate. I used the Nuremeberg Laws as an obvious example of how institutionalised racism is a terrible thing. 'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things! Once again:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented.

---

the law clearly states that in a situation where you have to choose between two otherwise equal candidates you're encouraged to select based on race, colour or ethnicity. Which is racist - pretty much by definition!Which of the above are you having difficulty with? You missed the latter part of the question. Shame, as I even went to the trouble of italicising it. How many other perfectly suitable candidates did Sotomayor step on to be where she is now? I've shown you people hurt because employers were taking Affirmative Action. The fact that it was found to be illegal really demonstrates how misguided and harmful these laws really are.
'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things! the Bakke case came to be because the U of M was taking Affirmative Action. The Civil Rights statute prohibits racial discrimination in federal institutions, however the U of M didn't feel that they were racially discriminating,
they felt they were ensuring fair representation of under-represented minorities. Just like AA dictates. The split decision (5-4) in the Bakke case shows just how open to interpretation the law really is.So your claim that AA laws protected the whites is disingenuous and misleading. The good sense of one judge in the Bakke case is what protected the whites, nothing else. No, it's because your claim that AA was set up to protect white males is as ludicrous as claiming that the Nazi concetration camps were set up to protect the Jews!

---

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