• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Affirmative Action - Could Justice Alito's Vote Change the Game?

That's not what a quota is. A quota is a hiring requirement, in this case. You can't "use a quota" to determine anything. Representation is a simple statistic. A quota is "you must hire 7 Latinos, 8 blacks, 4 Asians, and 3 gays." And those are, as has been stated many times in this thread, NOT USED.
Click to expand...

All well and good. However if you have 200 employees and your geographical demographic says you have 3.5% Latinos, 4% asians, and 1.5% gays in your area you damn sure better have at least that many hired or the first time a disparate impact civil litigation comes up, youre stuck.

Disparate impact civil litigation and the EEOC are ensuring a de facto quota system while de jure, it does not exist.
 
This is what I post in all these threads, AA/EO is 100% needed and 100% fine.

The problem is with people/businesses/ institutions making up there own system and than falsely labeling it AA/EO. The fact remains it is not.

AA/EE benefits ALL of us and thats a fact. If you come across some system that doesn't EQUALLY benefit us all, guess what, its not AA/EO. :shrug:

fix the problem, dont pass the buck or play the blame game.
 
OpportunityCost said:
All well and good. However if you have 200 employees and your geographical demographic says you have 3.5% Latinos, 4% asians, and 1.5% gays in your area you damn sure better have at least that many hired or the first time a disparate impact civil litigation comes up, youre stuck.

Disparate impact civil litigation and the EEOC are ensuring a de facto quota system while de jure, it does not exist.
Click to expand...

false. All you have to do is show that they we not most qualified, and that your qualifications do not consider race. That is really all there is to it.
 
Paschendale said:
That's not what a quota is. A quota is a hiring requirement, in this case. You can't "use a quota" to determine anything. Representation is a simple statistic. A quota is "you must hire 7 Latinos, 8 blacks, 4 Asians, and 3 gays." And those are, as has been stated many times in this thread, NOT USED.
Click to expand...

you don't get to reinvent the meaning of words. I linked to the definition of quota and it agrees with what I am saying.
 
OpportunityCost said:
All well and good. However if you have 200 employees and your geographical demographic says you have 3.5% Latinos, 4% asians, and 1.5% gays in your area you damn sure better have at least that many hired or the first time a disparate impact civil litigation comes up, youre stuck.

Disparate impact civil litigation and the EEOC are ensuring a de facto quota system while de jure, it does not exist.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. You can't prove disparate impact simply by showing that a company's work force doesn't match regional demographics.
 
AdamT said:
That's not how it works. You can't prove disparate impact simply by showing that a company's work force doesn't match regional demographics.
Click to expand...

one problem with disparate impact is the courts require the employer to justify why his hiring practice created the disparate impact by proving he is innocent, not the other way around.
 
Boo Radley said:
Quotas are illegal. Have been since 78.

Sorry.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

lots of illegal things still occur with a facade covering the illegality being offered up.
 
OpportunityCost said:
All well and good. However if you have 200 employees and your geographical demographic says you have 3.5% Latinos, 4% asians, and 1.5% gays in your area you damn sure better have at least that many hired or the first time a disparate impact civil litigation comes up, youre stuck.

Disparate impact civil litigation and the EEOC are ensuring a de facto quota system while de jure, it does not exist.
Click to expand...

nah its more complicated than that. You normally have to show that a neutrally facial hiring practice has a disparate impact on a minority group and that NF hiring practice is not really relevant to the job

example, requiring a law degree might well have a disparate impact on black males but its a reasonable requirement if you are hiring assistant district attorneys. On the other hand, requiring college degrees for manual labor would have a disparate impact on black males even if its facially neutral but you cannot justify that requirement as a job necessity.

proving disparate impact also requires comparisons of qualified members of the work force for the job in question etc
 
TurtleDude said:
lots of illegal things still occur with a facade covering the illegality being offered up.
Click to expand...

Yes, people break the law. But when do we blame the law for those who break it?
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, people break the law. But when do we blame the law for those who break it?
Click to expand...

and of course you were just one more liberal judge from allowing open quotas to be the law.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, people break the law. But when do we blame the law for those who break it?
Click to expand...

when we legalize something that is easily used to conceal illegal actions we have problems. for example (no I am not going to try to find it again) I posted an article that discussed CURRENT AA schemes as being de facto quotas. (like Harvard Law giving black applicants 130 points on their LSAT [when it was on an 800 point scale] and .5 on their GPA)
 
TurtleDude said:
when we legalize something that is easily used to conceal illegal actions we have problems. for example (no I am not going to try to find it again) I posted an article that discussed CURRENT AA schemes as being de facto quotas. (like Harvard Law giving black applicants 130 points on their LSAT [when it was on an 800 point scale] and .5 on their GPA)
Click to expand...

Please, all kinds of things fit that description. Second, there is really no evidence that white males have suffered, are being left out, are losing jobs or college seats. It just isn't happening. Even conservative leaders who don't like affirmative action admit this. Pat Buchanan while acknowledging this some years ago said that we needed to ban it not because what you think is happening is happening, but merely because you think it. Now think about that for a minute.;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Please, all kinds of things fit that description. Second, there is really no evidence that white males have suffered, are being left out, are losing jobs or college seats. It just isn't happening. Even conservative leaders who don't like affirmative action admit this. Pat Buchanan while acknowledging this some years ago said that we needed to ban it not because what you think is happening is happening, but merely because you think it. Now think about that for a minute.;)
Click to expand...

I Know dozens of white males who were rejected from top law and medical schools in favor of far less qualified blacks.
 
TurtleDude said:
I Know dozens of white males who were rejected from top law and medical schools in favor of far less qualified blacks.
Click to expand...

You can't know they were less qualified, or even what the qualifications were. Understand, test scores and grades are only used, even among white males, as an initial cut off. After that, qualifications become much more subjective, even when it it is only between white males. Few understand this.
 
Boo Radley said:
You can't know they were less qualified, or even what the qualifications were. Understand, test scores and grades are only used, even among white males, as an initial cut off. After that, qualifications become much more subjective, even when it it is only between white males. Few understand this.
Click to expand...


horsecrap, they all went to college with me.
 
TurtleDude said:
horsecrap, they all went to college with me.
Click to expand...

Not sue what you mean, but what I speak is the truth. Without knowing the race, I've sat in on selection committees. Scores and grades only matter during the initial cut off. After that, everything else is a subjective review. You really don't know how it works.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sue what you mean, but what I speak is the truth. Without knowing the race, I've sat in on selection committees. Scores and grades only matter during the initial cut off. After that, everything else is a subjective review. You really don't know how it works.
Click to expand...

really? how do you know that. I was a varsity coach at an Ivy league university. I sure knew how admissions worked and my brother was an admissions officer at Yale
 
TurtleDude said:
really? how do you know that. I was a varsity coach at an Ivy league university. I sure knew how admissions worked and my brother was an admissions officer at Yale
Click to expand...

If you did, you would know what I'm saying is correct.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you did, you would know what I'm saying is correct.
Click to expand...

wrong-I saw blacks with 3.2 GPAs and 650 LSAT scores and almost no extra curricular records get into Harvard law ahead of whites with 3.6 GPAs and 740 LSATs who had varsity letters, or major involvement in other campus activities
 
TurtleDude said:
I Know dozens of white males who were rejected from top law and medical schools in favor of far less qualified blacks.
Click to expand...

and legacy admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_admissions

of course, folks like Turtle approve of them loudly and strongly because they benefit themselves and their own kind. Race - not so much because he and his fail to benefit.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
wrong-I saw blacks with 3.2 GPAs and 650 LSAT scores and almost no extra curricular records get into Harvard law ahead of whites with 3.6 GPAs and 740 LSATs who had varsity letters, or major involvement in other campus activities
Click to expand...

Again, those only count in initial cut off. 3.2 qualifies in most places, even Ivy league. SAT means very little to most. After the initial cut off, they are disregarded. So say we have two while males. One has a 3.2 GPA and 650 SAT. The other has 3.6 GPA and 740 SAT. But the school chooses the one with the 3.2 and 650. It happens. Only you can't challenge it because it wasn't due to race or gender or religion. Maybe it was legacy, or they liked him, or his family gave money, or wrote a very good essay, or had an important recommendation. Any number of things could have been the reason. You assume it was race.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, those only count in initial cut off. 3.2 qualifies in most places, even Ivy league. SAT means very little to most. After the initial cut off, they are disregarded. So say we have two while males. One has a 3.2 GPA and 650 SAT. The other has 3.6 GPA and 740 SAT. But the school chooses the one with the 3.2 and 650. It happens. Only you can't challenge it because it wasn't due to race or gender or religion. Maybe it was legacy, or they liked him, or his family gave money, or wrote a very good essay, or had an important recommendation. Any number of things could have been the reason. You assume it was race.
Click to expand...

More BS-we are talking about law schools and when a bunch of blacks with grossly inferior numbers constantly get into schools that constantly reject whites with much higher scores the only obvious answer is race

Legacies-give me a friggin break

since you apparently know almost nothing about law school admissions, they are far more numbers oriented than college. athletic prowess doesn't cut it. legacy admissions are far far less likely (the founder of the STANFORD LAW REVIEW and on its board of governors didn't get in but he managed to make the law review at a fairy equal law school)
 
TurtleDude said:
More BS-we are talking about law schools and when a bunch of blacks with grossly inferior numbers constantly get into schools that constantly reject whites with much higher scores the only obvious answer is race

Legacies-give me a friggin break

since you apparently know almost nothing about law school admissions, they are far more numbers oriented than college. athletic prowess doesn't cut it. legacy admissions are far far less likely (the founder of the STANFORD LAW REVIEW and on its board of governors didn't get in but he managed to make the law review at a fairy equal law school)
Click to expand...

Perhaps they take into account the fact that some applicants had fewer advantages in life and thus their true abilities might not be fully apparent in test scores? Maybe they take into account what applicants had to overcome in order to achieve the scores that they got?

From the horses mouth:

"What are the range of LSAT scores and GPAs of last year's admitted applicants?
Admission decisions are based on the Admission Committee's experienced judgment applied to individual cases, and many factors are taken into account. Each application is given a thorough review, taking account of all available information. Because GPA and LSAT scores alone do not fully or adequately summarize information about individuals that is important to admission decisions, these "numbers" often prove poor predictors of admission decisions on individual applications. At no point on the GPA or LSAT scales are the chances of admission to Harvard Law School 0 or 100 percent. As reported to the ABA, the 75/25 percentile GPAs for the class entering in 2006 were 3.95/3.72 and the 75/25 percentile LSATs were 175/169."

Frequently Asked Questions
 
AdamT said:
Perhaps they take into account the fact that some applicants had fewer advantages in life and thus their true abilities might not be fully apparent in test scores? Maybe they take into account what applicants had to overcome in order to achieve the scores that they got?

From the horses mouth:

"What are the range of LSAT scores and GPAs of last year's admitted applicants?
Admission decisions are based on the Admission Committee's experienced judgment applied to individual cases, and many factors are taken into account. Each application is given a thorough review, taking account of all available information. Because GPA and LSAT scores alone do not fully or adequately summarize information about individuals that is important to admission decisions, these "numbers" often prove poor predictors of admission decisions on individual applications. At no point on the GPA or LSAT scales are the chances of admission to Harvard Law School 0 or 100 percent. As reported to the ABA, the 75/25 percentile GPAs for the class entering in 2006 were 3.95/3.72 and the 75/25 percentile LSATs were 175/169."

Frequently Asked Questions
Click to expand...

you fail again-I saw dozens of black applicants whose parents were wealthy get breaks over far smarter and poorer white kids
 
AdamT said:
Perhaps they take into account the fact that some applicants had fewer advantages in life and thus their true abilities might not be fully apparent in test scores? Maybe they take into account what applicants had to overcome in order to achieve the scores that they got?

From the horses mouth:

"What are the range of LSAT scores and GPAs of last year's admitted applicants?
Admission decisions are based on the Admission Committee's experienced judgment applied to individual cases, and many factors are taken into account. Each application is given a thorough review, taking account of all available information. Because GPA and LSAT scores alone do not fully or adequately summarize information about individuals that is important to admission decisions, these "numbers" often prove poor predictors of admission decisions on individual applications. At no point on the GPA or LSAT scales are the chances of admission to Harvard Law School 0 or 100 percent. As reported to the ABA, the 75/25 percentile GPAs for the class entering in 2006 were 3.95/3.72 and the 75/25 percentile LSATs were 175/169."

Frequently Asked Questions
Click to expand...

tell me what Obama had with his less than a 3.2 GPA (remember 3.72 was in the bottom quarter) that merited entrance? this ought to be fun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom