• 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 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.

The fact is, quotas are the antithesis of what Affirmative action stands for. That's then and now. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's simply a shame that the misinformation regarding AA has persisted for so long.
 
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.

That is not the case. There was no lawsuit, no court order. There were state and federal forms that were required by law of all public and governmental entities. Every city and county in California (and presumably around the nation) were required to submit these reports as I have stated. I know. I had to help prepare them.
 
The fact is, quotas are the antithesis of what Affirmative action stands for. That's then and now. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's simply a shame that the misinformation regarding AA has persisted for so long.

I am not giving misinformation. These forms were mandated by the state and federal government. As I have said previously, I had to help fill them out. They may not be required today... I've been out of public service for quite a while... but in the 1980's, they WERE required. Your denial does not negate that fact.
 
That is not the case. There was no lawsuit, no court order. There were state and federal forms that were required by law of all public and governmental entities. Every city and county in California (and presumably around the nation) were required to submit these reports as I have stated. I know. I had to help prepare them.

Should have sued. The courts ruled quotas we illegal.

But, explain the forms. The only forms I've seen say we must prove we are not discriminating. Not that we're meeting a quota.
 
BTW, the original court case was in California. 1978.
 
The fact is, quotas are the antithesis of what Affirmative action stands for. That's then and now. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's simply a shame that the misinformation regarding AA has persisted for so long.

the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.
 
I am not giving misinformation. These forms were mandated by the state and local government. As I have said previously, I had to help fill them out. They may not be required today... I've been out of public service for quite a while... but in the 1980's, they WERE required. Your denial does not negate that fact.

I'm not suggesting you are giving misinformation. Whatever you were involved in had nothing to do with AA as per the actual law.

Again, the law itself does not, in anyway, back what you were required to do back in the 1980's. If you like, we can review the actual law and discuss it. But the fact remains, AA doesn't support that behavior.

What it does support is reviewing why your specific organization has only one specific group in it's ranks. If your group is bus drivers and the only people who are bus drivers are white men, it requires you to exam why you're only attracting that group. What is it about your recruitment process is only attracting white men or reaching white men? If you're accepting government monies via contracts, it's necessary for you to review that aspect of your business.
 
Should have sued. The courts ruled quotas we illegal.

But, explain the forms. The only forms I've seen say we must prove we are not discriminating. Not that we're meeting a quota.

I've already explained the forms in Post #73. All cities and counties in California were required to submit them. They didn't have the word "quota" on them; they used the word "percentages" instead, but the bottom line was the same. If 10% of residents in a specific radius were Hispanic, and 10% of city employees were not Hispanic, then we had to explain why, and every job filled during the period along with all application forms for that job were scrutinized.

Edited to add: I'm not going to go 'round and 'round with semantics on this for you or Tet. Y'all can call it whatever you want. Bottom line, it WAS at its core a quota system whether one could legally call it that or not.
 
Last edited:
the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.

Prove it. No more chatter. Copy the portion of the law that supports your viewpoint or stop spewing lies. I'm tired of the back and forth.
 
I've already explained the forms in Post #73. All cities and counties in California were required to submit them. They didn't have the word "quota" on them; they used the word "percentages" instead, but the bottom line was the same. If 10% of residents in a specific radius were Hispanic, and 10% of city employees were not Hispanic, then we had to explain why, and every job filled during the period along with all application forms for that job were scrutinized.

Percentages isn't a better word.

As for explain why, wouldn't a reasonable explanation be that none qualified applied? Having to explain is not the same as mandating a quota, wouldn't you agree?
 
the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.

Again, quotas are against the law. This is a fact.
 
by the way, the ruling was 5-4, liberal justices had no problem with the quota system.

Not sure the vote was along ideaological lines, but it doesn't matter. It is against the law, right?
 
Prove it. No more chatter. Copy the portion of the law that supports your viewpoint or stop spewing lies. I'm tired of the back and forth.

I already proved it. to determine which group is underrepresented, we applied a quota calculation.
 
Not sure the vote was along ideaological lines, but it doesn't matter. It is against the law, right?

5-4 indicates that the "law" is pretty subjective.
 
Percentages isn't a better word.

As for explain why, wouldn't a reasonable explanation be that none qualified applied? Having to explain is not the same as mandating a quota, wouldn't you agree?

Since you missed it: "Edited to add: I'm not going to go 'round and 'round with semantics on this for you or Tet. Y'all can call it whatever you want. Bottom line, it WAS at its core a quota system whether one could legally call it that or not. "

I feel as if I'm being treated as someone who was against AA when it was originally implemented. I was not. I was all for it, and did not resent the forms we had to fill out one iota. However, I'm annoyed to be treated as if I am a braindead child when I tell folks what was mandated and how we had to implement it, and am told in return that I basically didn't really understand what was the actual purpose of the forms I had to fill out.

Believe what you will guys, I'm outta here. I'm not angry, just tired of playing semantical roulette. :)
 
No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with Affirmative action.

The case in question, in fact it does. To quote the source article:

n 1997, the Texas legislature passed the "Top 10 Percent Law," which mandates that Texas high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their class be automatically admitted to any Texas state university. In addition to that policy, the school considers race along with several other factors for admission. Fisher did not qualify for automatic admission. Instead she competed with other non-top-10-state applicants, some of whom were entitled to receive racial preference. She was denied admission and argued it was because of her race.

Further reference: Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Since you missed it: "Edited to add: I'm not going to go 'round and 'round with semantics on this for you or Tet. Y'all can call it whatever you want. Bottom line, it WAS at its core a quota system whether one could legally call it that or not. "

I feel as if I'm being treated as someone who was against AA when it was originally implemented. I was not. I was all for it, and did not resent the forms we had to fill out one iota. However, I'm annoyed to be treated as if I am a braindead child when I tell folks what was mandated and how we had to implement it, and am told in return that I basically didn't really understand what was the actual purpose of the forms I had to fill out.

Believe what you will guys, I'm outta here. I'm not angry, just tired of playing semantical roulette. :)

we're not playing semantics. this is the part of importance:

As for explain why, wouldn't a reasonable explanation be that none qualified applied? Having to explain is not the same as mandating a quota, wouldn't you agree?

All I'm trying to do is clarify, and suggest that asking for explanation is not the same as saying you have to have x-number. This is not semantics, but a clear difference.
 
Which is why the addition of Judge Alito to SCOTUS makes such a difference.

5-4 not to have quotas. Would 6-3 voting the same way really make a difference?
 
5-4 indicates that the "law" is pretty subjective.

It was early, and it was a question before the court. Then and everyone case afterwards has upheld that decision. You would have right to complain if what you believe wasn't law of the land.
 
Just curious, but do you guys come across longtime unemployed minorities on a regular basis and think to yourself, "Gee, I wonder why THAT person doesn't have a really good job"?

No, most of the longtime unemployed people I have gotten to know are white. And, when the subject came up, I didn't wonder, I asked. The answer was usually that their job was dissolved or sent overseas, or the company they worked for was bought up and went under. And since jobs are disappearing a lot faster than they are being created, a lot of people are competing for very few jobs, especially in fields that tend to be disappearing.

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.

IQ was discounted as a worthwhile measure of intelligence over a decade ago. It was found to be extremely indicative of a person's upbringing in the middle class and not much else. People with higher IQs just scored better on a test. IQ scores have not been found to correspond with raw learning and reasoning ability. Your controversial science isn't controversial because it's contrary to "political correctness". It's controversial because it's contrary to scientific correctness.

the fact is, what you wrote has no bearing on the facts. affirmative action at its core uses quotas to determine which groups are even being underrepresented.

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.
 
5-4 not to have quotas. Would 6-3 voting the same way really make a difference?

Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. So THIS vote will also be 5-4, but the other way. That's what I meant.
 
Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. So THIS vote will also be 5-4, but the other way. That's what I meant.

I doubt that. Alito isn't liberal is he?
 
Back
Top Bottom