awwww, the poor little college grad
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No he didn't. It was just the unfocused belligerent ranting of a guilty conscience.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well then show it to me. The US Commerce Department shows from the 2000 census that there's about 1.3 million African Americans who are unemployed but about 112 million whites who are employed. So even if all those African Americans were to be employed only about 1% of White workers would be affected. Further more Affirmitive action only applies to job qualified candidates so the actuall percentage of whites affected would be a fraction of 1%.
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. Affirmitive action has had very little impact at all.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
you're all wet hoser. There are more than two races. So your data is woefully incomplete.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I never claimed that it was. I challenged you to show me your data supporting your stance. You didn't because you can't.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You showed no data to disprove it.
If it's having no impact, would you be fine with eliminating it?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Here's a good article
Are White Males Getting Shortchanged?
By Marty Nemko
We are constantly urged to make greater efforts to improve the lot of women and African-Americans. Yet it seems fairer at this point in American history to make greater efforts to improve the lot of white males.
I can hear you laughing. After all, most CEOs and political leaders are white males. But when you leave that top 0.1%, things look different.
I have career counseled almost 2,000 people, and unless they're stars, my white male clients have a tougher time getting hired than do women and minorities.
We accept as gospel the widely-reported statistic that women earn 77 cents on the dollar. Fact is, according to research by Dr. Warren Farrell, when all variables are controlled for: for example, actual hours worked, experience, work hazards, commute distance, and performance evaluations, for the same work, women earn more than men.
Yet white males continue to see more and more efforts to help everyone except white males:
Employers often practice reverse discrimination, if only because they fear the EEOC will count noses. And when there's a downsizing, employers resist firing women and minorities, knowing that many of them would file a wrongful termination suit.
If minorities or women receive less pay or are so-called underrepresented in a particular profession, for example, in the boardroom, women's groups insist it's mainly because of sexism, that white males have essentially erected a glass ceiling through which they allow pitifully few women to seep. Privately, however, most of my female clients (I've worked with 1,400!), most of whom are well-educated and middle class, say they are unwilling to put in the long hours it takes to rise to the top. They want a moderate worklife with plenty of time for spouse, children, and/or avocations. Many more of my male clients are willing to work the long hours it takes to rise to the top.
The media gives millions of dollars of free exposure to the sexism argument, for example, unquestioningly promulgating the misleading "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" statistic yet gives virtually no exposure to opposing views.
And if men are underrepresented, for example, as they are in colleges--colleges are now 59% women, 41% men--you barely hear a peep about it in the media.
Professional baseball, football, and basketball are dominated by minorities. Ever hear the media decry the underrepresentation of white males?
Most seriously, men die six years younger than women, yet there's no call for more spending on men's health. Where are all those advocates who scream when women and minorities get the short end of the stick? They're still calling for more medical studies on women even though the days are long gone when most medical research was done on men. Every day, it seems there's another fundraiser for breast cancer" buy a Loew's movie ticket, a dollar goes to breast cancer. Buy a bra, a dollar goes to breast cancer. Buy a US postage stamp, money goes to breast cancer! When was the last time you heard of a fundraiser for heart attack, the main cause of early death among men? The Oakland A's, a team watched mainly by men, have a breast cancer day. They don't have a prostate cancer day or heart attack day. Meanwhile, there are more than four widows for every widower.
The rule seems to be: discriminate--as long as the ones being discriminated against are white males.
Defenders of discrimination against white males argue that it is needed to level the playing field, for example, to compensate for the legacy of slavery. But do two wrongs make a right? Should the oppressed become the oppressor? Activists said yes. We need reverse discrimination temporarily. Well, it’s already been 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and activists demand reverse racism more fervently than ever.
The real question is why have African-Americans not achieved socioeconomic parity? If it is, as the activists claim, because of the legacy of slavery and lingering racism, then why is there not one country of the world’s 200—whether majority black or majority non-black, previously colonized or not—in which blacks have even an average standard of living, while other groups such as the Jews, who have been persecuted for thousands of years—from the Roman times through the Inquisition, through the pogroms, through the Holocaust, and with anti-Semitism remaining even today--on average, do well. Asians have suffered discrimination in the US, even placed in internment camps, yet, on average, do well. Arab- and Muslim-Americans have been and are subject to prejudice, yet have done better than have African Americans. I believe we must engage in a more thoughtful examination of the reasons why African-Americans continue to struggle before imposing the terrible pain of reverse discrimination on white males. In my office, many, many of my white male clients--competent, well-adjusted people--have cried (and occasionally yelled) in frustration at their inability to get a decent job while less qualified minorities and women leapfrog them.
To impose reverse discrimination on white males seems particularly unfair because, as a group, they’ve hardly been a scourge on society. Yes, males, of all races, make the wars. But they’ve also died in the wars protecting us. White males have also been largely responsible for some of humankind’s greatest achievements: from refrigeration to television, Amazon to Xerox, Plato to Beethoven to Spielberg. White male scientists brought about most of the medical advances that have extended our life expectancy from 50 in 1900 to 78 today. In addition to those exceptional people, most white males, like many other people, work hard to make our lives work: they build our houses, our cars, maintain our telephone poles, etc., etc., etc.
So, next time you hear a plea to support women and blacks, you might save just a little kindness for the not-so-terrible, no-longer so privileged white male.
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/are-white-males-getting-shortchanged_id1229
Are White Males Getting Shortchanged?
By Marty Nemko
We are constantly urged to make greater efforts to improve the lot of women and African-Americans. Yet it seems fairer at this point in American history to make greater efforts to improve the lot of white males.
I can hear you laughing. After all, most CEOs and political leaders are white males. But when you leave that top 0.1%, things look different.
I have career counseled almost 2,000 people, and unless they're stars, my white male clients have a tougher time getting hired than do women and minorities.
We accept as gospel the widely-reported statistic that women earn 77 cents on the dollar. Fact is, according to research by Dr. Warren Farrell, when all variables are controlled for: for example, actual hours worked, experience, work hazards, commute distance, and performance evaluations, for the same work, women earn more than men.
Yet white males continue to see more and more efforts to help everyone except white males:
Employers often practice reverse discrimination, if only because they fear the EEOC will count noses. And when there's a downsizing, employers resist firing women and minorities, knowing that many of them would file a wrongful termination suit.
If minorities or women receive less pay or are so-called underrepresented in a particular profession, for example, in the boardroom, women's groups insist it's mainly because of sexism, that white males have essentially erected a glass ceiling through which they allow pitifully few women to seep. Privately, however, most of my female clients (I've worked with 1,400!), most of whom are well-educated and middle class, say they are unwilling to put in the long hours it takes to rise to the top. They want a moderate worklife with plenty of time for spouse, children, and/or avocations. Many more of my male clients are willing to work the long hours it takes to rise to the top.
The media gives millions of dollars of free exposure to the sexism argument, for example, unquestioningly promulgating the misleading "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" statistic yet gives virtually no exposure to opposing views.
And if men are underrepresented, for example, as they are in colleges--colleges are now 59% women, 41% men--you barely hear a peep about it in the media.
Professional baseball, football, and basketball are dominated by minorities. Ever hear the media decry the underrepresentation of white males?
Most seriously, men die six years younger than women, yet there's no call for more spending on men's health. Where are all those advocates who scream when women and minorities get the short end of the stick? They're still calling for more medical studies on women even though the days are long gone when most medical research was done on men. Every day, it seems there's another fundraiser for breast cancer" buy a Loew's movie ticket, a dollar goes to breast cancer. Buy a bra, a dollar goes to breast cancer. Buy a US postage stamp, money goes to breast cancer! When was the last time you heard of a fundraiser for heart attack, the main cause of early death among men? The Oakland A's, a team watched mainly by men, have a breast cancer day. They don't have a prostate cancer day or heart attack day. Meanwhile, there are more than four widows for every widower.
The rule seems to be: discriminate--as long as the ones being discriminated against are white males.
Defenders of discrimination against white males argue that it is needed to level the playing field, for example, to compensate for the legacy of slavery. But do two wrongs make a right? Should the oppressed become the oppressor? Activists said yes. We need reverse discrimination temporarily. Well, it’s already been 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and activists demand reverse racism more fervently than ever.
The real question is why have African-Americans not achieved socioeconomic parity? If it is, as the activists claim, because of the legacy of slavery and lingering racism, then why is there not one country of the world’s 200—whether majority black or majority non-black, previously colonized or not—in which blacks have even an average standard of living, while other groups such as the Jews, who have been persecuted for thousands of years—from the Roman times through the Inquisition, through the pogroms, through the Holocaust, and with anti-Semitism remaining even today--on average, do well. Asians have suffered discrimination in the US, even placed in internment camps, yet, on average, do well. Arab- and Muslim-Americans have been and are subject to prejudice, yet have done better than have African Americans. I believe we must engage in a more thoughtful examination of the reasons why African-Americans continue to struggle before imposing the terrible pain of reverse discrimination on white males. In my office, many, many of my white male clients--competent, well-adjusted people--have cried (and occasionally yelled) in frustration at their inability to get a decent job while less qualified minorities and women leapfrog them.
To impose reverse discrimination on white males seems particularly unfair because, as a group, they’ve hardly been a scourge on society. Yes, males, of all races, make the wars. But they’ve also died in the wars protecting us. White males have also been largely responsible for some of humankind’s greatest achievements: from refrigeration to television, Amazon to Xerox, Plato to Beethoven to Spielberg. White male scientists brought about most of the medical advances that have extended our life expectancy from 50 in 1900 to 78 today. In addition to those exceptional people, most white males, like many other people, work hard to make our lives work: they build our houses, our cars, maintain our telephone poles, etc., etc., etc.
So, next time you hear a plea to support women and blacks, you might save just a little kindness for the not-so-terrible, no-longer so privileged white male.
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/are-white-males-getting-shortchanged_id1229
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
When affirmative action is nothing but discrimination
By Stuart Taylor
National Journal, September 23, 2002
Dennis Worth had been working happily and winning high performance evaluations for 16 years in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's St. Louis office when things started going sour. In 1994, he was turned down for two promotions for which an independent merit-staffing panel had rated him "highly qualified." By 1995, it "kind of hit me," Worth recalls, "that minorities and women were being promoted and advanced, and white males were not."
Worth checked this impression by doing a tally: Of the 43 people who since 1986 had been hired or promoted by his division, 42 were black or female; only one was a white male. Worth compared notes with colleagues elsewhere. "We started understanding that there was a very deliberate effort coming from somewhere to exclude white males from getting positions. It replicated itself over and over again to the point that [by 1995] it was blatant and flagrant."
Since 1994, all but one of the dozen or so promotions and transfers that Worth has applied for have gone to black or female applicants whom he considered no better qualified than he, and in most cases less qualified, because they had far less relevant experience and seniority. Some of them had little or no college education. (Worth has a B.S. from Washington University.) He and similarly demoralized friends would ruefully remark that HUD "may as well put 'white males need not apply' on the job vacancy announcements." This pattern, which Worth initially attributed to the Clinton administration's passion for racial and gender preferences, continued into the Bush administration. Since 1997, only one of the 16 hires and promotions in Worth's division has gone to a white male.
Now the 55-year-old Worth is the name plaintiff in a nationwide class action against HUD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The suit alleges unconstitutional discrimination against white males both at HUD and throughout the government. Filed in August by the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights, which boasts a string of groundbreaking legal victories, this potential bombshell claims that the EEOC has perverted its mandate and become the primary architect of a racial- and gender-based spoils system that has trumped the congressionally mandated merit selection process.
The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages, but rather a simple court order telling HUD and the EEOC to stop discriminating. It also puts the Bush administration on the spot: Although the administration has strained mightily to duck affirmative-action controversies, it may have a hard time finessing a lawsuit that plausibly accuses agencies that it now administers, and that it represents in court, of pervasive discrimination against a group that happens to be part of the president's political base.
Some caveats are in order: Allegations in legal complaints tend to be one-sided; white males are no more immune than anyone else from the temptation to blame their disappointments on sometimes-imagined discrimination; statistics can be manipulated to mislead; "overrepresentation" (to borrow from the EEOC's lexicon) of minorities may not extend to the highest-paying jobs and may be explained to some extent by the demographics of the Washington area, where HUD is based; and the government has not yet presented its defense. (HUD declined to comment.)
But the evidence cited by Worth's attorneys consists mainly of HUD's own thick, EEOC-approved "affirmative employment plan" for women and minorities, together with the government's own statistics on the racial and gender breakdowns of its employees and of the relevant labor pools.
Among the lawsuit's statistical claims: Racial minorities as a group have a larger percentage of jobs in every one of the 40 departments and agencies listed in a federal Office of Personnel Management report last year than their percentage of the qualified labor force. Minorities have roughly twice as many federal jobs as they would under a system of proportionate representation of qualified workers in all groups. With only 15 percent of the relevant labor pool, minorities make up 46 percent of HUD's workforce and 61 percent of the EEOC's workforce. And yet all of these agencies still enforce EEOC-mandated "affirmative employment plans" for minorities as well as for women.
The more-detailed HUD numbers show that in all four of its major job categories, the department employs disproportionately large numbers of women and most minority groups and disproportionately small numbers of white males. (The categories are "professional," "administrative," "technical," and "clerical.") The affirmative employment plan nonetheless requires racial and gender preferences for minorities and women in a wide range of employment decisions, in effect pushing to reduce even further the number of already-under-represented white males. This despite the fact that no pattern of discrimination against minorities or women has occurred at HUD since it was created in 1965.
A little law: The 1964 Civil Rights Act bans "any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in government personnel actions. The Supreme Court has held that governmental job preferences are unlawful except when necessary to redress past discrimination or (perhaps) to reduce a "manifest imbalance" in "traditionally segregated" job categories. HUD's plan and the EEOC's regulations purport to require preferential hiring or promotion "goals" only when the percentage of blacks, Hispanics, other preferred minorities, or women is so disproportionately small relative to their percentages of the workforce as to amount to a "manifest imbalance."
So how can HUD justify continuing to give preferences to women and to minority groups that are already overrepresented in its workforce? It does so, the Center for Individual Rights asserts, by manipulating the numbers in at least four ways, producing an intricate formula for evading the law while aggravating the already dramatic under-representation of white males.
First, HUD subdivides its major job categories into so many narrowly defined sectors that women or specific minority groups are statistically under-represented in some of them even though they are overrepresented overall. For example, HUD's plan claims that there is a "manifest imbalance" among its construction analysts because black females are statistically under-represented -- even though black females have four times as many jobs in the "administrative" category (of which construction analysts are a subset) than they would have under a system of strict racial and gender proportionality.
Second, HUD classifies even the tiniest statistical under-representation either of women or of any of several preferred racial groups, in any job sector, whether or not "traditionally segregated," as a "manifest imbalance" requiring use of preferential goals. For example, when HUD calculated in 2001 that the number of Asian males in its "professional" job category (3.4 percent) was lower by one-tenth of 1 percent than the number in the relevant labor force (3.5 percent), it set a preferential "goal" of hiring more Asian males. This seems likely to come at the expense of white males, who are already under-represented in the "professional" category.
Third, HUD's plan explicitly provides that the under-representation of white males is of no concern and has no bearing on the requirement of preferences for women and minorities in each and every corner of the department in which they are under-represented. Thus HUD is happy to have white males, who make up 36 percent of the relevant labor force, compose only 5 percent of the 1,200 employees in the broad "technical" job category.
Fourth, in especially bold defiance of Supreme Court precedents, HUD continues to use preferences even after any under-representation of women or minorities in some sector of its workforce has been eliminated, if necessary to maintain proportionate or supraproportionate representation indefinitely.
Like other agencies monitored by the EEOC's race-and-gender cops, HUD provides powerful pressures for its managers to meet their preferential racial- and gender-based goals. HUD documents state that managers are "held accountable for utilizing every hiring, promotion, reassignment, and employee development opportunity for meeting the Department's goals." Those who fail "to take the necessary actions" risk poor performance ratings and thus reassignment, demotion, or removal.
Legal issues aside, this lawsuit raises a fundamental question of policy for President Bush and his EEOC appointees, who could end official job preferences in the federal government with a few strokes of the pen: Why should the nation's largest employer, which has been running a system of preferences for women and minorities for decades, perpetuate that system even though the white males against whom it discriminates are now under-represented in its workforce?
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/147.html
By Stuart Taylor
National Journal, September 23, 2002
Dennis Worth had been working happily and winning high performance evaluations for 16 years in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's St. Louis office when things started going sour. In 1994, he was turned down for two promotions for which an independent merit-staffing panel had rated him "highly qualified." By 1995, it "kind of hit me," Worth recalls, "that minorities and women were being promoted and advanced, and white males were not."
Worth checked this impression by doing a tally: Of the 43 people who since 1986 had been hired or promoted by his division, 42 were black or female; only one was a white male. Worth compared notes with colleagues elsewhere. "We started understanding that there was a very deliberate effort coming from somewhere to exclude white males from getting positions. It replicated itself over and over again to the point that [by 1995] it was blatant and flagrant."
Since 1994, all but one of the dozen or so promotions and transfers that Worth has applied for have gone to black or female applicants whom he considered no better qualified than he, and in most cases less qualified, because they had far less relevant experience and seniority. Some of them had little or no college education. (Worth has a B.S. from Washington University.) He and similarly demoralized friends would ruefully remark that HUD "may as well put 'white males need not apply' on the job vacancy announcements." This pattern, which Worth initially attributed to the Clinton administration's passion for racial and gender preferences, continued into the Bush administration. Since 1997, only one of the 16 hires and promotions in Worth's division has gone to a white male.
Now the 55-year-old Worth is the name plaintiff in a nationwide class action against HUD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The suit alleges unconstitutional discrimination against white males both at HUD and throughout the government. Filed in August by the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights, which boasts a string of groundbreaking legal victories, this potential bombshell claims that the EEOC has perverted its mandate and become the primary architect of a racial- and gender-based spoils system that has trumped the congressionally mandated merit selection process.
The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages, but rather a simple court order telling HUD and the EEOC to stop discriminating. It also puts the Bush administration on the spot: Although the administration has strained mightily to duck affirmative-action controversies, it may have a hard time finessing a lawsuit that plausibly accuses agencies that it now administers, and that it represents in court, of pervasive discrimination against a group that happens to be part of the president's political base.
Some caveats are in order: Allegations in legal complaints tend to be one-sided; white males are no more immune than anyone else from the temptation to blame their disappointments on sometimes-imagined discrimination; statistics can be manipulated to mislead; "overrepresentation" (to borrow from the EEOC's lexicon) of minorities may not extend to the highest-paying jobs and may be explained to some extent by the demographics of the Washington area, where HUD is based; and the government has not yet presented its defense. (HUD declined to comment.)
But the evidence cited by Worth's attorneys consists mainly of HUD's own thick, EEOC-approved "affirmative employment plan" for women and minorities, together with the government's own statistics on the racial and gender breakdowns of its employees and of the relevant labor pools.
Among the lawsuit's statistical claims: Racial minorities as a group have a larger percentage of jobs in every one of the 40 departments and agencies listed in a federal Office of Personnel Management report last year than their percentage of the qualified labor force. Minorities have roughly twice as many federal jobs as they would under a system of proportionate representation of qualified workers in all groups. With only 15 percent of the relevant labor pool, minorities make up 46 percent of HUD's workforce and 61 percent of the EEOC's workforce. And yet all of these agencies still enforce EEOC-mandated "affirmative employment plans" for minorities as well as for women.
The more-detailed HUD numbers show that in all four of its major job categories, the department employs disproportionately large numbers of women and most minority groups and disproportionately small numbers of white males. (The categories are "professional," "administrative," "technical," and "clerical.") The affirmative employment plan nonetheless requires racial and gender preferences for minorities and women in a wide range of employment decisions, in effect pushing to reduce even further the number of already-under-represented white males. This despite the fact that no pattern of discrimination against minorities or women has occurred at HUD since it was created in 1965.
A little law: The 1964 Civil Rights Act bans "any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in government personnel actions. The Supreme Court has held that governmental job preferences are unlawful except when necessary to redress past discrimination or (perhaps) to reduce a "manifest imbalance" in "traditionally segregated" job categories. HUD's plan and the EEOC's regulations purport to require preferential hiring or promotion "goals" only when the percentage of blacks, Hispanics, other preferred minorities, or women is so disproportionately small relative to their percentages of the workforce as to amount to a "manifest imbalance."
So how can HUD justify continuing to give preferences to women and to minority groups that are already overrepresented in its workforce? It does so, the Center for Individual Rights asserts, by manipulating the numbers in at least four ways, producing an intricate formula for evading the law while aggravating the already dramatic under-representation of white males.
First, HUD subdivides its major job categories into so many narrowly defined sectors that women or specific minority groups are statistically under-represented in some of them even though they are overrepresented overall. For example, HUD's plan claims that there is a "manifest imbalance" among its construction analysts because black females are statistically under-represented -- even though black females have four times as many jobs in the "administrative" category (of which construction analysts are a subset) than they would have under a system of strict racial and gender proportionality.
Second, HUD classifies even the tiniest statistical under-representation either of women or of any of several preferred racial groups, in any job sector, whether or not "traditionally segregated," as a "manifest imbalance" requiring use of preferential goals. For example, when HUD calculated in 2001 that the number of Asian males in its "professional" job category (3.4 percent) was lower by one-tenth of 1 percent than the number in the relevant labor force (3.5 percent), it set a preferential "goal" of hiring more Asian males. This seems likely to come at the expense of white males, who are already under-represented in the "professional" category.
Third, HUD's plan explicitly provides that the under-representation of white males is of no concern and has no bearing on the requirement of preferences for women and minorities in each and every corner of the department in which they are under-represented. Thus HUD is happy to have white males, who make up 36 percent of the relevant labor force, compose only 5 percent of the 1,200 employees in the broad "technical" job category.
Fourth, in especially bold defiance of Supreme Court precedents, HUD continues to use preferences even after any under-representation of women or minorities in some sector of its workforce has been eliminated, if necessary to maintain proportionate or supraproportionate representation indefinitely.
Like other agencies monitored by the EEOC's race-and-gender cops, HUD provides powerful pressures for its managers to meet their preferential racial- and gender-based goals. HUD documents state that managers are "held accountable for utilizing every hiring, promotion, reassignment, and employee development opportunity for meeting the Department's goals." Those who fail "to take the necessary actions" risk poor performance ratings and thus reassignment, demotion, or removal.
Legal issues aside, this lawsuit raises a fundamental question of policy for President Bush and his EEOC appointees, who could end official job preferences in the federal government with a few strokes of the pen: Why should the nation's largest employer, which has been running a system of preferences for women and minorities for decades, perpetuate that system even though the white males against whom it discriminates are now under-represented in its workforce?
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/147.html
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
the war on white males is real.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
First, despite the fact that Afirnative Action is a household term, most people really and truly have no idea what it really means and encompasses. It’s not a quota system (quota systems ARE illegal), it’s not allowing unqualified people a free reign on jobs, it’s not just about hiring, it's not black vs. white…the list of assumptions/misinformation goes on and on,. Companies that are not federal contractors or sub-contractors do not fall under the federal Affirmative Action program and while they may implement their own programs under the guise of AA, AA is NOT any of the above things.
Let's get to the definitions of AA, shall we?
The basic premises of Affirmative Action (Executive Order 11246) can be read here:
http:www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
and http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofc...ccp/fs11246.htm
and http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofc...cp/ca_11246.htm
From first link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals.
From second link: Each government contractor with more than 50 employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written Affirmative Action Program (AAP) for each of its establishments…
Expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training, and other areas are some of the affirmative steps contractors can take to help members of the protected groups compete for jobs on equal footing with other applicants and employees…
OFCCP conducts compliance reviews to investigate the employment practices of government contractors. During a compliance review, a compliance officer examines the contractor’s [AAP]; checks personnel, payroll, and other employment records; interviews employees and company officials; and investigates virtually all aspects of employment in the company.
By the way
The DOL conducted a study in 1995 in which they determined that in1994, there were some 3,000 discrimination suits filed, only 100 of which were related to "reverse discrimination". Only six of those claims went on to be substantiated (http://www.dol.gov/esa/media/speeches/2-22-00.htm). True, that is just looking at one year, but I think it's at least worthy to note that this notion of widespread "reverse discrimination" appears to be largely an "urban myth" used to inflame and infuriate. I don't think anyone is in favor of the notion of anyone who is less qualified getting a job over someone who is more qualified (that's not what AA is about, contrary to popular belief). However the VAST majority of people I've encountered who disagree with AA have offered some type of personal anecdote as their reason for being against AA.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Wrong. Bottom line, it's racial/gender discrimination against white males.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Yeah that ends the debate because YOU said it was so
It's unlikely that my words/experiences will change the minds of those staunchly against AA. The harrowing fact is that most people take the information given in the media (which, with respect to AA, is sadly misrepresented and falsely defined) and take it for fact. Most people really do not understand AA and think it's a black/white issue.. AA programs largely benefit white women (more than any other group), Native Americans (to include native peoples of Alaska), Hispanics, Asians (to include all peoples of the Asian continent and Pacific Islands), AND Blacks.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Yeah that ends the debate because YOU said it was so
Asshat wins all arguments.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yeah that ends the debate because YOU said it was so
The program functions by using gender/race data to discriminate. Period.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Again
The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But it does use race/gender data to discriminate. It is racial/gender discrimination.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
My GOD do you EVER stop whining?!?
"I didn't get this"..."I never had that"..."I was too white"...boo hoo hoo.
Sack up crybaby.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
To get a better feel for AA and what it encompasses, I'd encourage anyone to go to DOL Affirmative Action pages and check out all of the links provided.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm#doltopics
The majority of "issues" AA tackles deal with discrepancies within the workforce (people who have already been hired) - pay and promotions being the two main areas of discrimination found on the job.
The most qualified person WILL get the job (assuming they had a favorable interview and any other "requirement"), unless an employer is practicing discrimination. AA simply does NOT mean less qualified people are getting jobs over the most qualified people. I think the only time that would happen would be in construction with respect to women since they do employ quotas (6.9%).
I really would urge you (not just you, everyone) to look into the facts on AA a little more since what's presented as "fact" to the general public is usually not fact. I really can't explain it any more without repeating myself - I'm sorry you still think it's racist/sexist and about hiring less qualified people.
Last edited:
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Youre completely full of shit.
The facts are that it's race/gender discrimination. How else would it work?
Can it function without collecting race/gender data?
Then it's using it for something. That something is discrimination.
The best person is often passed over due to AA discrimination. You're just living in a delusion.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
WOW...another Rightie uses an OPINION PIECE filled with unsubstantiated hearsay, and claims it counts as "evidence."