• 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?

ARealConservative said:
you are talking about hiring quotas.

I am taking about using quotas to determine representation
Click to expand...
Quotas aren't used to determine representation. The reality of the workforce and college applicant pool is used to determine under representation.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Quotas aren't used to determine representation. The reality of the workforce and college applicant pool is used to determine under representation.
Click to expand...

the applicant pool in comparison to the workforce is a textbook definition of a quota. I linked the definition to you, you can pretend to be ignorant on this but it is ignorance.


quota said:
a proportional part or share of a fixed total amount or quantity.
Click to expand...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, there really isn't though. If race were deterministic in education, then Nigerians wouldn't be the highest educated group in the United States.
Click to expand...
That is about the weirdest thing I've heard on these threads. There are arguments against the findings of IQ by race which are based on 'cultural bias' but I have never heard this.
 
ARealConservative said:
hiring quotas are sometimes ruled illegal (colleges find ways around the law), but the term quota is exactly how we determine which groups are underrepresented.
Click to expand...

Not sometimes, they are illegal. Flat out illegal. And when and if someone breaks the law, do you really find the law the problem or the law breaker?
 
Meathead said:
It means nothing more than it says. It is not just this link but a standard which whose findings are repressed because of their nature. The publication of research like this is a sacrifice at the alter of political correctness. It is none-the-less true.
Click to expand...

I have said nothing about political correctness. And your link did express doubt. But I asked you a question: However, for clarity, lets say there is a bases for it. What do you think that means in the real world?

Can you answer?
 
So many of you have no idea what "Affirmative action" does. It does not favor one group over another specifically. It's not about race, specifically (white women have and continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action). It is and continues to be about employers hiring and giving salaries based on factors related to actual ability. Excluding, refusing to hire or giving far lower salaries to people based on sex, skin color and/or sexual persuasion, is and should be against the law. I see no reason to reverse this for any reason.

Quotas are exact the opposite of what Affirmative action is all about.
 
Meathead said:
That is about the weirdest thing I've heard on these threads. There are arguments against the findings of IQ by race which are based on 'cultural bias' but I have never heard this.
Click to expand...
Why is it weird? It's true. If members of the black "race" are the highest education group in the United States, then obviously being black is not the problem.
 
justabubba said:
you acknowledge bias exists and yet you prefer - make that advocate - for the elimination of the very actions which would serve to eliminate such bias

tell me what i got wrong
Click to expand...

No, I say one particular action does not solve the problem. See, once again instead of having read what I wrote, you made things up. Read my words and stop spinning them.
 
Tettsuo said:
So many of you have no idea what "Affirmative action" does. It does not favor one group over another specifically. It's not about race, specifically (white women have and continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action). It is and continues to be about employers hiring and giving salaries based on factors related to actual ability. Excluding, refusing to hire or giving far lower salaries to people based on sex, skin color and/or sexual persuasion, is and should be against the law. I see no reason to reverse this for any reason.

Quotas are exact the opposite of what Affirmative action is all about.
Click to expand...

there si a lot of misinformation concerning the issue, and misinformation dies a slow, slow death.
 
ARealConservative said:
the applicant pool in comparison to the workforce is a textbook definition of a quota. I linked the definition to you, you can pretend to be ignorant on this but it is ignorance.
Click to expand...
I did use the definition you linked to. Definition #1: the share or proportional part of a total that is required from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, state, person, group, etc.. This is the definition that people refer to when they talk about quota systems in discussions about AA.
 
Redress said:
No, I say one particular action does not solve the problem. See, once again instead of having read what I wrote, you made things up. Read my words and stop spinning them.
Click to expand...

what i read is that you oppose the very actions intended to eliminate the bias you acknowledge continues to exist
i am quite certain that is a correct assessment of your position
probably hurts to read such insensitive positions when they are your own
 
Redress said:
No, I say one particular action does not solve the problem. See, once again instead of having read what I wrote, you made things up. Read my words and stop spinning them.
Click to expand...

What action do you feel does not solve the problem? Or did I miss your answer in an earlier post?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have said nothing about political correctness. And your link did express doubt. But I asked you a question: However, for clarity, lets say there is a bases for it. What do you think that means in the real world?

Can you answer?
Click to expand...
These are not isolated findings. There is very little to dispute them except the 'culture' difernces in IQ testing which is a serious stretch. To your question, I think that it addresses the futility of affirmative action. It may help some, but the overwhelming problem of racial inequality will not go away.
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
These are not isolated findings. There is very little to dispute them except the 'culture' difernces in IQ testing which is a serious stretch. to you question, I think that it addresses the futility of affirmative action. It may help some, but the overwhelming problem of racial inequality will not go away.
Click to expand...

You're still deflecting.

However, for clarity, lets say there is a bases for it. What do you think that means in the real world?

Can you answer?
 
Meathead said:
These are not isolated findings. There is very little to dispute them except the 'culture' difernces in IQ testing which is a serious stretch. to you question, I think that it addresses the futility of affirmative action. It may help some, but the overwhelming problem of racial inequality will not go away.
Click to expand...

You do know that this is not related to AA in any way right? AA does not give jobs to the unqualified.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I did use the definition you linked to. Definition #1: the share or proportional part of a total that is required from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, state, person, group, etc.. This is the definition that people refer to when they talk about quota systems in discussions about AA.
Click to expand...

right, so quotas are used to determine who is underrepresented. we agree
 
Tettsuo said:
You do know that this is not related to AA in any way right? AA does not give jobs to the unqualified.
Click to expand...
No, it probably doesn't. What is does give is jobs to the less qualified. I would not let my son be operated on by a AA surgeon. You may do as you please.
 
ARealConservative said:
right, so quotas are used to determine who is underrepresented. we agree
Click to expand...
If you use the second definition, sure. However, I fail to see why this matters which is why I use the first definition. The entire admissions system is a quota system. So your original post:

ARealConservative said:
affirmative action and other quota based system of policement are the only tools available to determine if "rights" are being violated.
Click to expand...

is just saying that you are against college admissions and hiring which doesn't make sense.
 
I haven't read the thread so I am probably repeating comments already made by others. Affirmative Action, when it was first implemented, was absolutely necessary to give discriminated minorities a foothold in the jobs market and educational opportunities that they had previously been denied. I was very much in favor of it. However, it's time has now gone. We have women and minorities in every facet of society, including in boardrooms, state and national elected office, and everything in between.

Now, however, it remains entrenched in our educational system. Blacks and Hispanics from middle-class or wealthy homes are given admission and scholarship preference over White and Asian students from low-income homes. This is bass-ackwards. Educational preferences should be based on economic, not racial issues only.

I hope that SCOTUS agrees and recinds this disingenuous and unfair block to low-income non-minority students.
 
Meathead said:
These are not isolated findings. There is very little to dispute them except the 'culture' difernces in IQ testing which is a serious stretch. To your question, I think that it addresses the futility of affirmative action. It may help some, but the overwhelming problem of racial inequality will not go away.
Click to expand...
If race explains differences in education levels, why are Nigerians the most educated group in the United States?
 
Meathead said:
No, it probably doesn't. What is does give is jobs to the less qualified. I would not let my son be operated on by a AA surgeon. You may do as you please.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with Affirmative action.
 
Tettsuo said:
So many of you have no idea what "Affirmative action" does. It does not favor one group over another specifically. It's not about race, specifically (white women have and continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action). It is and continues to be about employers hiring and giving salaries based on factors related to actual ability. Excluding, refusing to hire or giving far lower salaries to people based on sex, skin color and/or sexual persuasion, is and should be against the law. I see no reason to reverse this for any reason.

Quotas are exact the opposite of what Affirmative action is all about.
Click to expand...

That may be true in today's job market, but it was not true in the 1980's. I worked for a SoCal city. BY LAW that city was required to employ minorities in direct proportion the the percentage of minorities living in a certain radius around our city. BY LAW we had to prepare massive state and federal reports every quarter listing our employees by race, comparing those percentages to the percentage of minorities by race, documenting any changes from last quarter, and justifying any dip in the percentage of those employed to the baseline of minorities in the area.

Hon, if that isn't a mandated quota system, I don't know what is.
 
Meathead said:
No, it probably doesn't. What is does give is jobs to the less qualified. I would not let my son be operated on by a AA surgeon. You may do as you please.
Click to expand...

No. Qualifications are not lowered. It is not only possible, but likely that equally qualified people are at the finishline together. Then things other than qualifications are the deciding factors.
 
DiAnna said:
That may be true in today's job market, but it was not true in the 1980's. I worked for a SoCal city. BY LAW that city was required to employ minorities in direct proportion the the percentage of minorities living in a certain radius around our city. BY LAW we had to prepare massive state and federal reports every quarter listing our employees by race, comparing those percentages to the percentage of minorities by race, documenting any changes from last quarter, and justifying any dip in the percentage of those employed to the baseline of minorities in the area.

Hon, if that isn't a mandated quota system, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

It was then, as now, against the law unless ordered by a court. it would only have been ordered by a court if the company lost a law suit showing they failed to higher more qualified minorities in favor of less qualified whites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom