As noted by George Joyce at the American Thinker, in his speech in Cairo while sucking up to the Muslim world, President Obama made the statement, "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.”
Affirmative action promotes minorities over the majority simply because of racial and ethnic status. Effectively, affirmative action is telling minorities that they are too stupid to make on their own and they need outside help to make anything out of their lives.
It's good to see Obama realizes this and is coming around on the issue.
http://thetommorrissey.com/national/obama-opposes-affirmative-action/
I oppose affirmative action also. and, it is used by idiots to justify their discriminatory practices. Affirmative action can't be eliminated until some other method is created to keep these idiots from coming up with excuses to keep from hiring and promoting qualified women and minorities. Most women and minotities I know want a level playing field, not special treatment because of gender or race. Repeatedly I here,we can't hire this person because they wouldn't be happy here or we are not ready for them yet. It's just excuses not to hire women or people of color in key roles, or to hire or promote them, period. Affirmative action must stay until there is another solution.
"Most women and minotities I know want a level playing field, not special treatment because of gender or race."
This is a more accurate description of affirmative action policies. Tom, who I shall from here on refer to as "The Future", is adhering to the specious argument that any actions that help curtail discrimination is actually discrimination. It's the same argument some Christians make when their homosexual-discrimination tendencies are threatened.
Pink Slip
Is affirmative action not saying you minorities over here need our help to make it in life?
I never said any action to curtail discrimination is discrimination. That's your assumption. Please don't put words in my mouth.
We all have hurdles and difficulties to overcome in life. Some have higher hurdles than others. Discrimination is morally wrong, but the action originates in the heart. Legislation cannot change one's heart, can it?
You like the future comment Ms. Pink? I had forgotten that was even on there. lol.
My friend who is an excellent web designer - www.benjaminminnich.com - put that up there. I'll let him know you liked that.
funny.
I have a friend who was hired under the affirmative action concept about 40 years ago. During his career he was perceived to be unqualified and a con-artist regardless who he met or what he accomplished. Even the people who didn't know he was hired as a result of affimative action assumed he was. This friend fought this sterotype year after, year by continuing to be successful at what ever he did. Even after he repeatedly accomplished remarkable successes, the establishment labeled him as being lucky or an idea thief, and his own race labled him as a sellout. Regardless what happened he perservered anyway and became one of the top five professionals in his field in the world. I wonder what his story would be if there was no affirmative action. Just a note, his father went to college just like my friend did. Received his Bachelors and Masters Degrees in the same field of study, but only managed to get a job as a common laborer with the railroad. I wonder how his father would have faired if there was affirmative action in the 1940.s.
In the military Affirmative Action has been used successfully for many years. It was used way before it was even suggested in the private sector. But then again the military has been proactive on almost every social issue out there (homosexuality being one exemption but there are reasons for it).
But there's two reasons I believe it has succeeded. First off, in the military there's the "get it done" aspect. More so than any other part of government in the military emphasis is placed on results because the price of failure is lives lost.
The other reason is if no qualified minorities apply (which happens more than you'd think) then non-minorities are given the spot. Too many times in other forms of the gov't and private sector if a minority quota isn't found then the position isn't filled. This practice is slowly dieing away but it still exists.
MikeyA
If you're trapped in a burning building, who would you rather have trying to rescue you, someone that passed the physical agility and aptitude tests with flying colors, or someone that had far lower scores but passed due to extra points given on account of their gender or skin color?
Damn, talk about run on sentences.:P
"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni
JeepMaker,
You are not listening. It's not about putting unqualified people into positions, it's about making sure the people in power don't discriminate against qualified people because they are women or minorities. There are many people who automatically believe that women and minority are inferior the moment they are born, and, that is not true. To continue on about my friend. I remember when he couldn't get hired at the State of Ohio because they said his academic performance wasn't good enough. Yet, classmates he tutored and barely met GPA requirements to graduate, were hired. He was denied employment four times even though he graduated 3rd in the Toledo University Graduate School out of 200 and was inducted into the National Honor Society. He worked in a rendering factory, as a desk clerk, as a liquor salesman, as a truck driver and as a janitor on his way to become one of the greatest performers in science and technology, creating a dozen useful inventions and writing over twenty acclaimed books and publications in the field of engineering. Affirmative action tore down barriers that were keeping this person from giving all of us the greatness we all have benefitted from, including you, JeepMaker.
Are you saying that a person who "graduated 3rd in the Toledo University Graduate School out of 200 and was inducted into the National Honor Society. He worked in a rendering factory, as a desk clerk, as a liquor salesman, as a truck driver and as a janitor on his way to become one of the greatest performers in science and technology, creating a dozen useful inventions and writing over twenty acclaimed books and publications in the field of engineering" could not make it without Affirmative Action?
Are you saying that, because he is an obviously intelligent and talented person who happens to be a minority could not make it without being singled out for preferential treatment at the expense of other racial groups?
It sounds like you don't think a minority can do anything by themselves. It sounds like you think that minorities are inferior and need to be helped when it is obvious that the person you describe above would have excelled on his own merits.
Why is it that you think intelligent, driven minorities cannot make something of themselves without help from the Government? Why do you prejudice people keep trying to keep talented minority individuals dependent on the Government for their success?
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
You could have just said you refuse to answer. It's quicker.
Affirmative action is quotas. As soon as you start hiring using gender or race as any of the criteria, you're discriminating.
"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni
No LCBM, actually that example shows that affirmative action shouldn't be needed.
Bottom line, take the most qualified regardless of race or gender. If someone TRULY hires based on the best qualifications, how could you legitimately object?
It's too bad there isn't some way people could be anonymous during the hiring process.
"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni
JeepMaker,
I'm saying that some people in the majority and who are in power set different standards for women and minorities. It's hard enough for a person to achieve great things. It's even harder when people require women and minotities to get a "S" tatooed on there chest just to do ordinary things. My point is, laws and compliance with those laws made it possible for this friend to be treated fairly. If it weren't for the laws, your latest hotdog may have been made by my friend using his engineering expertise instead of the great things he accomplished. People still haven't shifted their paradigm to unintentionally practice justice for all.
Affirmative Action was originally designed to make sure that all people were treated justly. Somewhere along the way the same people who wanted to continue to discriminate twisted the concept to convince others like themselves that the idea was to treat incompetent people more equal than others. Affirmative Action isn't wrong, but many of the people who administer Affirmative Action intentionally misuse it.
is Affirmative Action when a very qualified white male is refused employment at a minority owned business because of the color of his skin. Or how about a proprietor of a vending route being turned away from possible clients because the owner of the carry-out boldly says " I will not carry any product in my store sold by a white man". How can Affirmative Action be defended when such cases of reverse discrimination take place all the time.
"I have a friend who was hired under the affirmative action concept about 40 years ago. During his career he was perceived to be unqualified and a con-artist regardless who he met or what he accomplished. Even the people who didn't know he was hired as a result of affimative action assumed he was. This friend fought this sterotype year after, year by continuing to be successful at what ever he did. Even after he repeatedly accomplished remarkable successes, the establishment labeled him as being lucky or an idea thief, and his own race labled him as a sellout. "
http://swampbubbles.com/20090606/obama-opposes-affirmative-action#comment-42963
In other words, the existances of laws requiring preferential treatment for specific groups of people have created prejudice. The existence of laws requiring preferential treatment for specific groups of people means that the Government has agreed that racial minorities cannot make anything of themselves. Therefore the laws themselves have created animosity towards the very groups that Affirmative Action laws were supposed to protect.
The existence of laws requiring preferential treatment for specific groups of people also is insulting to those groups of people. Those laws mean that racial minorities are, in fact, less qualified, less intelligent and less motivated and need to have the backing of Government in order to succeed. Do minorities actually believe that they must have help? Do minorities actually believe that they cannot succeed on their own individual merits, intelligence and accomplishments?
Due to the existence of the laws, it has created a perceived reason to hire unqualified people under the pretence of "being fair".
In short, it creates more racial tension because it created an atmosphere wherein an accomplished minority can be marginalized. After all, as seen in the post above, it gives reason to think that minorities are inferior.
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
White males of European decent have enjoyed Affirmative Action for over two centuries. If you were a woman or minority during most of those two centuries you received very little or nothing. As soon as woman or minority gets fair treatment and justice, those whose group who benefitted from Affirmative Action, from the first day this country was founded, all of a sudden think they are being discriminated against.
It's amazing how people think. " I don't get everything anymore because I'm a White male from European decent, so I'm being discriminated against." I have another name for this way of thinking. It's called greed.
When people say "how does it feel to get it thrown back at you?" I tell them
1) My being Caucasian and male never automatically got me a "pass" on having to be qualified for employment.
2) it feels just like it did for the Black , woman or ....... who had it done to them in the past. Eliminating the evil of discrimination is not accomplished by merely changing or shifting the target. It is every bit as absurd as the original problem.
A Yahoo Answer
I agree.
But the reality is that employers still discriminate aginst women and minorities for rediculous reasons. The employers don't have written policies anymore to discriminate like the written racist and gender bais policies of the 1940's and 1950's. Employers come up with things like: we are not ready for him or her yet, they are not a good fit for our culture, his or her GPA is too high, they can't be practical, he or she have very poor interpersonal skills, he or she have poor communication skills, he or she don't have leadership qualities, if they were good at what they do they wouldn't be looking for a job, people won't take them seriously, I don't believe they are the person they say they are, why hire them, they won't be happy here and will leave before we want them to leave, he or she is intimidating because they are big, she is single so she must be a lesbian. I have sat in meetings with hiring managers who blurted out this garbage about women and minorities and wouldn't hire or promote them. Case in point. This friend of mine at one time was told that he had poor presentation skills which hurt his chances for a promotion. The year before he received an award from a prestigious organization that ranked him the best guest lecturer of all time during the organization's 25 year history. The company didn't give him the promotion and hired a white male who they assigned to my friend to train. Some of the hardcore discriminators out there will say, these are isolated cases, but the reality is, it happens all the time. The isolation is that it occurs thousand of times year after year - one women or minority at a time.
The people who practice this type of discrimination obviously don't think women and minorities share this type of information with each other.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (written and passed by Republicans I might add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party) already covers discrimination based on race, gender,color, religion, sex or national origin.
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
So why do we need "Affirmative Action" quotas any more? If an individual is qualified and not hired, they already have the law on their side.
Besides, I have been told the exact same thing when not being offered a job. Is it discrimination for a middle aged white male to be told he is not a "good fit"? Or when I was told I was "overqualified" for a job?
Why is it not racism when a white male is told those things but it is racism when a black female is told those exact same things?
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
You are right, white males are told they may not be the right fit because they don't have the right skill set. Many times women and minorities who have the right skill set are turned away because they are women and minorities. It's obvious that these people who discriminate because of gender or race want to keep women and minorities as second and third class citizens. Turning away a white male who doesn't have the right skill set is not gender or racial discrimination.
It's discrimination because the applicant isn't qualified. That isn't against the law.
"Many times women and minorities who have the right skill set are turned away because they are women and minorities."
Pure speculation and assumption - unless you can prove this........
What would you accept as proof, Thomas? I've seen this on both sides of the manager's desk.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
Unless a signed document , video or audio is produced it's almost impossible to prove discrimination. I interviewed for a job a few weeks ago and the intervewer told me my career was over because they needed younger blood. Did the interviewer discriminate? Yes. Can I prove it? No. It's his word against mine, but the discrimination did occur.
when a woman or minority is turned away because they ...."don't have the right skill set". they cry discrimination and run for the Affirmative Action apron; it may very well be true that they just do not have the right skill sets and there is no discrimination. A white male cannot turn to Affirmative Action in these cases as they would claim (as you state) they are just whining because their "GREED" is being stifled. How hypocritical.
Some do cry discrimination no matter what the reason for being turned down. It's part of the Willie Lynch concept that the slave owners forced down slaves throats in the 1700's and it's still prevalent today. Most don't cry discrimination, they just move own. As far as proof that minorities and women are turned away because of gender and race, the proof is documented by the government, social service organizations, churches, libraries, civil rights commissions, human rights groups,etc., but I have a feeling that you may say that the Haulocust did't happen either.
From LibsCanBlowMe: So why do we need "Affirmative Action" quotas any more? If an individual is qualified and not hired, they already have the law on their side.
Because if we don't enforce affirmative action quotas the unqualified minority workers will be passed over in favor of qualified workers. The argument is based on the inability of private sector industry to find qualified workers in a large labor pool of minority workers. For instance, the knee jerk argument: "You mean out of 25,000 available African Americans your company can't find five who are qualified for this new position? That's impossible! You're a racist!" The critic fails to mention that the new position requires a PhD in nuclear physics and a minor in economics.
From LibsCanBlowMe: Besides, I have been told the exact same thing when not being offered a job. Is it discrimination for a middle aged white male to be told he is not a "good fit"? Or when I was told I was "overqualified" for a job?
Ah, yes, the old tried and true 'overqualified' rejection. This may well be a valid reason. I wouldn't hire someone for unskilled labor who was bright and well-educated. The main reason being that the person will quit just as soon as something better comes along, and will make mischief while he's at work because his mind is idle.
The 'good fit' reason is a cover up which means the company can't talk about the real reason without kicking over a nest of hornets.
From LibsCanBlowMe: Why is it not racism when a white male is told those things but it is racism when a black female is told those exact same things?
It isn't. Racism deals with a state of mind and hence motivation. What you're referring to is discrimination. It's likely that you've been discriminated against, but that kind of thing is very difficult to prove. The individuals and special interest groups who take legal action against discrimination are finding fewer victims to defend these days, and unless they stay busy they are likely to find themselves out of a job. Why keep a rat catcher on your staff if the rats have all been exterminated?
Finally, as a personal aside to LibsCanBlowMe, will you please stop using the phrase exact same? Take a look at the thread over on ToledoTalk entitled '10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid.' Here's the link:
http://toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/tt.pl/article/37454/10_flagrant_grammar_mi... ">Flagrant Grammar Mistakes
Here's another link to the original article on ZDNet:
ZDNet Flagrant Grammar Mistakes
I've been reading your posts for quite a while, and you are losing impact due to weak grammar. Eventually your insufferable opponents will take advantage of this to discredit you (always attack the individual, never the argument!) and your remonstrations.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?