• 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!

Institutional Racism [W:344]

Does institutional racism currently exist in America?


  • Total voters
    56
Affirmative action is all about meeting a quota. IT is no longer necessary. Employers HAVE to hire a certain number of minorities, especially in the construction industry.

Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy

Time has not quelled controversy over policies of preferential treatment. First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities. These programs are designed as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and timetables to raise the level of minority and female representation, and still others establish quotas to hire or admit a specified number of minority and female candidates.

again you are 100% wrong

QOUTAS are illegal in the US, this fact will not change

any QOUTAS a company sets up they are doing on thier own and they are breakign the law if caught, they can CALL it AA/EO all they want it is factually not true

Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste based quotas are used in Reservation in India. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.[6]

AA is EO
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.

and AA/EO is
The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Sorry, like i said you simply dont understand what AA/EE FACTUALLY is.

many people have programs that they call AA/EO but that doesnt make it true.

The fact remains colleges and employers have broken the law and been found guilty for having qoutas.
 
again you are 100% wrong

QOUTAS are illegal in the US, this fact will not change

any QOUTAS a company sets up they are doing on thier own and they are breakign the law if caught, they can CALL it AA/EO all they want it is factually not true

Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AA is EO
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm


and AA/EO is


Sorry, like i said you simply dont understand what AA/EE FACTUALLY is.

many people have programs that they call AA/EO but that doesnt make it true.

The fact remains colleges and employers have broken the law and been found guilty for having qoutas.

That might be what they claim, but a lot of places do hire by quota to avoid problems. It doesn't even matter if a person is a good worker or even if he/she is qualified, only that they are a minority.
 
Look at the statistics. A black who gets into Med school averages a 27 MCAT and just over 3.3 GPA while a white needs a 31 and just over a 3.6. If that isn't affirmative action, then I don't know what is. But whatever that is, is wrong.
That's not evidence that blacks and whites are held to different standards. It's evidence that blacks and whites have different average MCAT scores and GPAs and that med schools take more than MCATs and GPAs into account. The fact is that medical schools eliminate applicants automatically based on minimum GPA and MCAT scores. After that, they look at everything else including race. You're assuming that the only difference between blacks and whites is scores when it's possible that blacks have better recommendations, research experience, internships or other more subjective qualifications. You're just making an assumption based on a surface analysis.

Also, Asians get better scores than Whites. Does that mean Whites are held to a lower standard too?
 
That might be what they claim, but a lot of places do hire by quota to avoid problems. It doesn't even matter if a person is a good worker or even if he/she is qualified, only that they are a minority.


those places can CLAIM what ever they like the facts dont change.
By definition they are not practicing AA/EO and they are breaking the law.
 
those places can CLAIM what ever they like the facts dont change.
By definition they are not practicing AA/EO and they are breaking the law.

That's what affirmative action does. It is to benefit a certain group or groups of people, regardless of merit usually.
 
I'm saying, a song that is meant to be understood at a superficial level only represents society at that superficial level.
Okay, well my point is that just because a piece of music is superficial does not mean the analysis of it has to be.
 
That's what affirmative action does. It is to benefit a certain group or groups of people, regardless of merit usually.

as already proven with facts and links your statement is 100% false
 
Some other reasons to be against AA.

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prominent people against affirmative action [edit]
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.[43][44]

Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[45] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.[46]
 
Some other reasons to be against AA.

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prominent people against affirmative action [edit]
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.[43][44]

Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[45] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.[46]

That doesnt give me one reason to be against it because they are talking about the same thing i am. Negative affects and people practicing it WRONG and not actually doing it the correct way.

TO me this logic on the level of being again cops because there are bad cops, thats just silly.

Its pros out weigh its cons and the reality is AA/EO benefits us all by definition, all races, genders, ages etc
 
again you are 100% wrong

QOUTAS are illegal in the US, this fact will not change

any QOUTAS a company sets up they are doing on thier own and they are breakign the law if caught, they can CALL it AA/EO all they want it is factually not true

Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AA is EO
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm


and AA/EO is


Sorry, like i said you simply dont understand what AA/EE FACTUALLY is.

many people have programs that they call AA/EO but that doesnt make it true.

The fact remains colleges and employers have broken the law and been found guilty for having qoutas.

Quotas are de jure illegal. Obviously, they are a de facto ingredient in the regular application of any Affirmative Action policy. Otherwise, there would be no practical way of implementing it.

I don't suppose you believe that companies and institutions arrive at their minority "target goals" by way of a Ouija board, do you?
 
1.)Quotas are de jure illegal.
2.)Obviously, they are a de facto ingredient in the regular application of any Affirmative Action policy.
3.)Otherwise, there would be no practical way of implementing it.
4.) I don't suppose you believe that companies and institutions arrive at their minority "target goals" by way of a Ouija board, do you?

1.) true
2.) false and if they are then its not AA/EO
3.) also false since the only requirement is OPPORTUNITY not employment
4.) if they have target goals then it proves they arent practicing AA/EO thanks for supporting the facts


My company is advertised as AA/EO and we do government work/contracts, I myself am a key member of recruiting/hiring. We have ZERO qoutas :shrug:
this is called practicing FACTUAL AA/EO the right way
 

Thank you for this bit of honesty.

2.) false and if they are then its not AA/EO

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

3.) also false since the only requirement is OPPORTUNITY not employment

Maintaining a sense of unreality does not improve your argument.

4.) if they have target goals then it proves they arent practicing AA/EO thanks for supporting the facts

"No true Scotsman" again. You'll have to do better than this.

My company is advertised as AA/EO and we do government work/contracts, I myself am a key member of recruiting/hiring. We have ZERO qoutas :shrug:
this is called practicing FACTUAL AA/EO the right way

Of course you have quotas, you just do not call them quotas. It is annoyingly disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise. Do you expect me to believe that you never conduct a head count of how many minority employees you have on the books?
 
1.)Thank you for this bit of honesty.
2.)"No true Scotsman" fallacy.
3.)Maintaining a sense of unreality does not improve your argument.
4.)"No true Scotsman" again. You'll have to do better than this.
5.)Of course you have quotas, you just do not call them quotas.
6.)It is annoyingly disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.
7.) Do you expect me to believe that you never conduct a head count of how many minority employees you have on the books?

1.) you're welcome
2.) facts prove you wrong
3.) its not my argument im stating facts, this is where you are confused
4.) again no i dont have to do better facts prove your statement wrong
5.) no we have ZERO qoutas LMAO
6.) be annoyed your argument is failing all you want doesnt change the fact we have no qoutas
its a fact for me to state that, you are the only on with the disingenuous issue in this conversation between us lol
7.) it doesnt matter what you "believe" the facts dont change
 
1.) you're welcome
2.) facts prove you wrong
3.) its not my argument im stating facts, this is where you are confused
4.) again no i dont have to do better facts prove your statement wrong
5.) no we have ZERO qoutas LMAO
6.) be annoyed your argument is failing all you want doesnt change the fact we have no qoutas
its a fact for me to state that, you are the only on with the disingenuous issue in this conversation between us lol
7.) it doesnt matter what you "believe" the facts dont change

What you are doing is dodging the issue.

Let's cut the crap. You and I both know that what we are really talking about is not "Affirmative Action" in its most literal de jure legal interpretation. What we are talking about is the avoidance of discrimination lawsuits from such entities as the NAACP, as well as the avoidance of heavy fines and penalties from such entities as state and federal government for non-compliance with EOE guidelines. For example: If your company has a work force of, say... 1000 employees, and is located in a racially diverse region of the United States, and not a one of your employees is a "minority," then your company is highly vulnerable to the aforementioned lawsuits and fines and penalties, regardless of how fair and "color blind" your recruitment practices may have been, and especially regardless of whether you have presented the most unbiased and color blind opportunity for employment imaginable.
 
1.)What you are doing is dodging the issue.

2.)Let's cut the crap.
3.)You and I both know that what we are really talking about is not "Affirmative Action" in its most literal de jure legal interpretation.
4.) What we are talking about is the avoidance of discrimination lawsuits from such entities as the NAACP,
5.) as well as the avoidance of heavy fines and penalties from such entities as state and federal government for non-compliance with EOE guidelines.

6.)For example: If your company has a work force of, say... 1000 employees, and is located in a racially diverse region of the United States, and not a one of your employees is a "minority," then your company is highly vulnerable to the aforementioned lawsuits and fines and penalties, regardless of how fair and "color blind" your recruitment practices may have been, and especially regardless of whether you have presented the most unbiased and color blind opportunity for employment imaginable.

1.) the reality is im the one focusing on the issue and facts and you dont like it
2.) you are the only one spewing it
3.) no what YOU are talking about is not AA/EO and facts prove this, i am actually talking about AA/EO and you are not. This very post PROVES this fact.
4.) these are NOT the same things and to link them is uneducated and disingenuous. Groups can sue for what ever reason they like.
This has nothing to do with REAL AA/EO
5.) actually if a company practiced AA/EO they way you suggest THAT would get them fined and criminally prosecuted. Again i would know since thats where i work.

6.) 100% false

they have ZERO vulnerability from EOE guidelines if they are following them
they have the same vulnerability as getting sued by anybody as any company does


IF they are in fact practicing unfair policies and discrimination then they are vulnerable to get sued AND LOSE as anybody breaking the law

again facts simply dont support your opinion, you are greatly misinformed as to what AA/EO is

Companies get in trouble for doing what you say and thats the bottom line
 
Okay, well my point is that just because a piece of music is superficial does not mean the analysis of it has to be.

My point is, when you're analyzing something that isn't meant to necessarily be analyzed, it says more about your perception of reality then it does about the song.
 
That's not evidence that blacks and whites are held to different standards. It's evidence that blacks and whites have different average MCAT scores and GPAs and that med schools take more than MCATs and GPAs into account. The fact is that medical schools eliminate applicants automatically based on minimum GPA and MCAT scores. After that, they look at everything else including race. You're assuming that the only difference between blacks and whites is scores when it's possible that blacks have better recommendations, research experience, internships or other more subjective qualifications. You're just making an assumption based on a surface analysis.

Also, Asians get better scores than Whites. Does that mean Whites are held to a lower standard too?

Yes actually. Its pretty well documented that Asians are discriminated against because they are held to much higher standards then any other race. For instance, when Texas switched completely to a top 10% policy for their schools, Asian Americans saw the highest increase in enrollment under the policy.

Also, I would highly doubt that subjective qualifications differ much between races. But I would be happy for you to prove me wrong. Either way, why don't we just solve the issue and forbid colleges from taking race into consideration. If they aren't hold races to different standards, then whats the purpose of race on an application?
 
1.) the reality is im the one focusing on the issue and facts and you dont like it

No, you are DODGING the issue. This is the reality even if you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

IF they are in fact practicing unfair policies and discrimination then they are vulnerable to get sued AND LOSE as anybody breaking the law

And what sort of evidence would you present of said unfair policies and discrimination, practiced by a company that has zero minority employees though it operates in a demographically diverse region of the United States?
 
1.)No, you are DODGING the issue. This is the reality even if you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

2.)And what sort of evidence would you present of said unfair policies and discrimination, practiced by a company that has zero minority employees though it operates in a demographically diverse region of the United States?

1.)no im not dodging anything that is a bold faced lie
your argument fails and FACTS have already proved you wrong you are trying to deflect and your failed insults show your desperation LOL
let me know when you are ready to be honest and talk about facts
2.) that they provided equal OPPORTUNITY exactly what the law requires and exactly what companies do that arent breaking the law lol

no need to get upset because facts prove you wrong

if you would like to discuss how some companies do practice unfair hiring policies thats fine, and its true but the fact is thats NOT AA/EO and your opinion wont change that fact

if you would like to talk about how there are crybaby groups out there that will try to sue for a company not having enough blacks, asians, women, men, older people, young people, gays etc etc that is also true but it also is not AA/EO

let me know when you are ready :shrug:
 
Last edited:
let me know when you are ready :shrug:

Let me know when you are ready to admit that an employer, whether in the private or public sector, can be sued or fined for not having a "sufficient" number of "minority" employees on their payroll. Then I will know that we are on the same page and can continue the discussion.
 
Let me know when you are ready to admit that an employer, whether in the private or public sector, can be sued or fined for not having a "sufficient" number of "minority" employees on their payroll. Then I will know that we are on the same page and can continue the discussion.


LMAO i never denied that, please keep up you are way behind

yes people can try and sue them for that :shrug:
no they can not be fined for that (what you described)

and again this is not AA/EO
 
LMAO i never denied that...

So then, you admit that quotas are indeed utilized by employers (perhaps even by your own employer, perhaps even by your own self considering your stated position in the company of which you are employed) in order to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits, even if they are not officially utilized because it would be in violation of AA/EO law?
 
1.)So then, you admit that quotas are indeed utilized by employers
2.) (perhaps even by your own employer, perhaps even by your own self considering your stated position in the company of which you are employed)
3.) in order to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits
4.) even if they are not officially utilized because it would be in violation of AA/EO law?

1.) yes some employers break the law and they have unfair hiring practices which is NOT AA/EO
2.) no my employer has ZERO qoutas
3.) no its not to avoid lawsuits because having an unfair practice would increase successful lawsuits, any company doing this is retarded
4.) yes if qouats are used it is in fact a violation of AA/EO law and not AA/EO.
 
2.) no my employer has ZERO qoutas

Do you mean to say that your employer has never taken any sort of account in regards to the number of "minority" employees it has on its payroll?
 
Do you mean to say that your employer has never taken any sort of account in regards to the number of "minority" employees it has on its payroll?

no i dont mean to say that, nor did i
why are you consistently trying to make stuff up LMAO, you fail every-time you try

what im saying is my employer has zero qoutas

we account all our employes in many ways
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom