Coke goes Full Woke

AssHatZombie said:
....
SCOTUS Divided Over Affirmative Action in College Admissions
The charge of "reverse discrimination"-meaning racial discrimination against whites or sexual discrimination against men-is fast becoming one of the most explosive issues in the field of civil rights. It has grown out of the various "affirmative action" programs, often required by Federal agencies, designed to place women and minorities in positions not generally open to them in the past. Some of these plans may involve quotas or preferential systems based on race or sex. The question is whether it is legitimate to use a preferential system to fight a discriminatory one. The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to rule on this emotion charged matter in a case from California. Allan Bakke, who is white, twice applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis, and twice was rejected. On the strength of his academic record, Bakke may well have deserved one of the 100 spots in the entering class. But up to sixteen of those places had been set aside for "disadvantaged" students under an affirmative-action program designed to increase the number of Chicano, black, Asian and American Indian doctors in the state. Bakke alleged that he had been the victim of reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court of California agreed with him and the university appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://www.newsweek.com/affirmative-action-reverse-discrimination-645648
Click to expand...
As noted below, the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II (2016) case was both a narrow ruling, 4-3, over a narrow issue, not a general action on AA.


https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the-supreme-court-and-the-future-of-affirmative-action/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.

 
Dutch Uncle said:
As noted below, the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II (2016) case was both a narrow ruling, 4-3, over a narrow issue, not a general action on AA.
Click to expand...

Right, but this is college admissions, and SCOTUS ruled that race can be a criterion in college admissions.

But you and Asshat were talking about HIRING PRACTICES.

You switched to college admissions, and even then, held back some exculpatory information about what SCOTUS decided.

You still have yet to provide any proof of discrimination in hiring thanks to AA, which isn't a bill at all anyway.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
As noted below, the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II (2016) case was both a narrow ruling, 4-3, over a narrow issue, not a general action on AA.


https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the-supreme-court-and-the-future-of-affirmative-action/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...

one step in the right direction though, mr. diminishment of good things.
 
it's on record that aa does use race, despite fuckos desperate denials, obfuscations, sophistry and insults.

god bless tiny victories.















that's what she said.
 
AA is not legislation but it is a set of guidelines that must be followed in hiring. It is basically paperwork that is easy to get around if one wants to do so. It does not require quotas (which are illegal) or giving preference to any category.

However, the discrimination that occurs is often due to decisions by administrators who want to hire more minorities who pressure, require, or select applicants---not because AA required them to do so.

I have seen administrators require a selection committee to present him with three applicants and he would choose. In one instance he chose a minority who was ranked last. Another time he selected the pretty young lady.

In another instance a local black state legislator was pushing for more minority hires and a black guy was hired to do "inventory" just to placate the legislator.

In another instance a woman who was part-time and well-liked by students was hired by simply advertising the position in the local newspaper resulting in only one application saving everybody the time and expense of bringing in other people for interviews.This was a "legal" way to get around affirmative action requirements.
 
Big Money Dolla said:
Coke has admitted to the facts.

https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-...ng-plan-was-about-workplace-inclusion-1570875

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-racism-robin-diangelo-coke-b1806122.html
Click to expand...

A Coca-Cola spokesperson confirmed that the course is "part of a learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace," but also noted that "the video circulating on social media is from a publicly available LinkedIn Learning series and is not a focus of our company's curriculum."
 
Flash said:
AA is not legislation but it is a set of guidelines that must be followed in hiring
Click to expand...

Instead of getting the Flash half-truth/spin, let's get what AA is straight from the horse's mouth:

An affirmative action program includes those policies, practices, and procedures that the contractor implements to ensure that all qualified applicants and employees are receiving an equal opportunity for recruitment, selection, advancement, and every other term and privilege associated with employment.
Click to expand...

This only applies to federal contractors, and it doesn't say anything about quotas.
 
Yeah, there are assholes on both sides of the fence.

The attitude that just because you're born of caucasian skin and you unknowingly may benefit from societal "white privilege" from time to time DOES NOT make one biologically geared to be a racist. If that's the case, the USA (if not the world) would still be carrying on an international slave trade, black folk would still not be considered full human beings, etc., etc.

Fortunately, this type of BS gets it's 15 minutes before fading off into the sunset of cultural oddities and errors.
 
Flash said:
AA is not legislation but it is a set of guidelines that must be followed in hiring. It is basically paperwork that is easy to get around if one wants to do so. It does not require quotas (which are illegal) or giving preference to any category.

However, the discrimination that occurs is often due to decisions by administrators who want to hire more minorities who pressure, require, or select applicants---not because AA required them to do so.

I have seen administrators require a selection committee to present him with three applicants and he would choose. In one instance he chose a minority who was ranked last. Another time he selected the pretty young lady.

In another instance a local black state legislator was pushing for more minority hires and a black guy was hired to do "inventory" just to placate the legislator.

In another instance a woman who was part-time and well-liked by students was hired by simply advertising the position in the local newspaper resulting in only one application saving everybody the time and expense of bringing in other people for interviews.This was a "legal" way to get around affirmative action requirements.
Click to expand...

All bullshit anecdotes, of course. Nothing here is sourced. It's all third-hand from Flash's recollection.

We already know that anecdotes are not acceptable in a debate because all anecdotes are filtered through the prism of bias.

Now, if you ask Flash to prove any of these things, he won't. Instead, he will accuse you of being mean because you expect him to back up what he is saying.

You also can tell that what Flash writes is bullshit because he talks about AA, but doesn't actually address AA at all. The one time he did, it didn't work out well for him because the official definition of what AA actually is doesn't fit any of the things he accuses AA of doing:

An affirmative action program includes those policies, practices, and procedures that the contractor implements to ensure that all qualified applicants and employees are receiving an equal opportunity for recruitment, selection, advancement, and every other term and privilege associated with employment.
Click to expand...

That's from YOUR LINK, Flash.

So it would seem you are deliberately misstating, misinterpreting, or just messing up Affirmative Action in order to fit it within the myopic narrative you're trying to create, which really boils down to the fact that you want to use the N-word and don't want to catch shit for doing so.
 
AProudLefty said:
A Coca-Cola spokesperson confirmed that the course is "part of a learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace," but also noted that "the video circulating on social media is from a publicly available LinkedIn Learning series and is not a focus of our company's curriculum."
Click to expand...



so its true. I accept the concession my friend!
 
AProudLefty said:
Already explained. I want the full course so I can see for myself, not some photos taken by a "whistleblower" (lol at that) and tweeted. How can we confirm anything if we do not have the facts?
Click to expand...



coke admitted it, they hedged it by saying the slides were public, but it seems they showed it, it wouldnt surprise me have you seen this?


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/coke-demands-diversity-among-law-firms-it-uses/
coke is setting quotas for outside law firms or they face penalties whatever that is?


its very aggressive so the topic here isn't very far fetched.
 
Big Money Dolla said:
coke admitted it, they hedged it by saying the slides were public, but it seems they showed it, it wouldnt surprise me have you seen this?


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/coke-demands-diversity-among-law-firms-it-uses/
coke is setting quotas for outside law firms or they face penalties whatever that is?


its very aggressive so the topic here isn't very far fetched.
Click to expand...

It might be aggressive but it is no different from trainings on sexual harassment, sexism and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top