I'm "African American"

[Peikko 1,575]

just keep trying to cover up your bigotry, it's amusing.

Your inability to accept that your remarks regarding your article and the winning candidate were bigoted is not, particularly as I am supposed to accept that you have the ability to discern what is and isn't racism when policing VJ MENA/PI forums. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted.

[Peikko 1,575]

it's strange ... you're the one tossing the "bigot" word around so liberally ...

i just stated that some people simply would not be comfortable accepting a job because they were were given preferential treatment based on their skin colour ... and not their skill sets ..

wonder what MLK would say about colour being the determining factor for being given a job ... and not the content of the persons character?

You just stated that minorities have lower moral standards again.

Colour is not the determining factor when these people are being given jobs via affirmative action - what it does is ensure that not all positions are filled by the candidate that fits the white middle class male profile. You don't get it, I know, but it is bigoted because you think that such actions are just 'pc' and will lead to a general lowering of standards. I don't know how to make myself more clear, but obviously you either can't see or don't want to see.

[SMOKE 1,426]

You just stated that minorities have lower moral standards again.

Colour is not the determining factor when these people are being given jobs via affirmative action - what it does is ensure that not all positions are filled by the candidate that fits the white middle class male profile. You don't get it, I know, but it is bigoted because you think that such actions are just 'pc' and will lead to a general lowering of standards. I don't know how to make myself more clear, but obviously you either can't see or don't want to see.

if it ensures not all positions are filled by a candidate that fits 'the white middle class profile'. then doesn't it mean color is a determining factor?

Edited February 9, 2010 by SMOKE

[Ban Hammer 14,813]

Your inability to accept that your remarks regarding your article and the winning candidate were bigoted is not, particularly as I am supposed to accept that you have the ability to discern what is and isn't racism when policing VJ MENA/PI forums. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted.

yawn. i'm all for a level playing field, you apparently want the deck stacked so white guys can't get a job. so who's the real bigot here?

[Peikko 1,575]

yawn. i'm all for a level playing field, you apparently want the deck stacked so white guys can't get a job. so who's the real bigot here?

Yeah, clearly that's my agenda, and oh so likely considering the CONTEXT of the current state of play in the US.

Stick your head back down under the parapet Charles, your not yet the last GREAT WHITE HOPE.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm just glad we don't have affirmative action in my industry. Safety first, political correctness last.

[natty bumppo 297]

You just stated that minorities have lower moral standards again.

Colour is not the determining factor when these people are being given jobs via affirmative action - what it does is ensure that not all positions are filled by the candidate that fits the white middle class male profile. You don't get it, I know, but it is bigoted because you think that such actions are just 'pc' and will lead to a general lowering of standards. I don't know how to make myself more clear, but obviously you either can't see or don't want to see.

no it's not what i stated ... it's what you read into it.

if you are qualified ... apply. if you're not ... apply if you wish. if you don't get the job ... then maybe you better work on your qualifications. you keep bring up minorities. if a job opening eliminates or opens doors for a candidate based solely on physical characteristics of a person. pffft ... so much for looking for the best candidate.

one last time ...

prohibiting a person of any race, colour, creed, gender from applying for or being considered for a job creates a playing field where you can potentially eliminate the best qualified candidate. open the position to all persons legally able to work and base the decision on merit alone or you are discriminating.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm just glad we don't have affirmative action in my industry. Safety first, political correctness last.

Affirmative Action policies as you and many here define them, has already been ruled unconstitutional. Diversity of candidates is the only form of Affirmative Action that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

(below is the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor...that ulra-left wing liberal that that Communist Ronnie Reagan appointed)

.....

In the University of Michigan Law School case, Grutter v. Bollinger, eventually decided by the Supreme Court in June 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's lead opinion declared: “today we endorse Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”^[35] Diversity was alive after all. But how it worked its affirmative action elixir remained no clearer in 2003 than in 1978. To see why, consider how in Grutter v. Bollinger Justice O'Connor posed the issue:

The [Law School's] policy aspires to “achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education and thus make a law class stronger than the sum of its parts.” […] The policy does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for substantial weight in the admissions process, but instead recognizes “many possible bases for diversity admissions.” […] The policy does, however, reaffirm the Law School's longstanding commitment to “one particular type of diversity,” that is, “racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against.”

^[

³⁶

^]

Now, posing the issue this way and allowing the Law School to assert a special interest in “one particular type of diversity” invites the conflation of general diversity—a diversity of opinions, experiences, backgrounds, talents, aspirations, and perspectives—with ethnic and racial diversity that Justice Powell appeared strongly to resist. After all, the Medical School too had asserted in its defense a similar special interest.

Diversity is many things insisted Powell; it cannot be reduced to one thing. But why not? This question—and Justice O'Connor's acquiescence in the Law School's way of framing its affirmative action goal—spotlights a crucial gap in Powell's Bakke opinion. Diversity is many things—so many things, in fact, that institutions will think it worthwhile to concentrate on some diversity factors rather than others. One college may emphasize admitting foreign students; another may make its mission to educate poor students; a third may specialize in getting science students who have shown unusual promise in high school. If colleges have a legally protected interest in choosing a diverse student body, why don't they have a legally protected interest in deciding which part of the diversity spectrum to single out for special attention? If they can single out a part of the spectrum, why can't they use a simple device like set-asides to effect their purpose?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

[Peikko 1,575]

no it's not what i stated ... it's what you read into it.

if you are qualified ... apply. if you're not ... apply if you wish. if you don't get the job ... then maybe you better work on your qualifications. you keep bring up minorities. if a job opening eliminates or opens doors for a candidate based solely on physical characteristics of a person. pffft ... so much for looking for the best candidate.

one last time ...

prohibiting a person of any race, colour, creed, gender from applying for or being considered for a job creates a playing field where you can potentially eliminate the best qualified candidate. open the position to all persons legally able to work and base the decision on merit alone or you are discriminating.

One last time, best fit is not a determination ability, it's a determination of 'suitability' which is often based on what people's previous experiences of what is 'suitable' are. If every judge in history has been a middle aged white guy, it's normal to assume that that is the 'best fit' so lo and behold middle aged white guy gets hired every time. If there were ten candidates, 8 of whom are middle aged white guys, and two of whom are a middle aged white woman and a middle aged black guy, the middle aged white guys are going to win every time because they are deemed 'suitable' as well as qualified. The ONLY hope for someone that is outside of the 'usual' experience is someone who is somehow exceptional, and even then, experience shows us that most of the time, people who are faced with a choice of exceptional but unfamiliar or acceptable and familiar, they go for acceptable and familiar every time.

*WARNING* This explanation has been kept SIMPLISTIC for ease of understanding.

Understand I am not suggesting for one moment that EVERY BUSINESS operates in the same way, or that EVERY BUSINESS needs affirmative action in order to allow everyone equal opportunity.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 14,813]

Yeah, clearly that's my agenda, and oh so likely considering the CONTEXT of the current state of play in the US.

Stick your head back down under the parapet Charles, your not yet the last GREAT WHITE HOPE.

another racist jab. maybe you should learn about what the great white hope is....

Edited February 9, 2010 by charles!

[Peikko 1,575]

However, in areas where we know that minorities are underperforming, affirmative action 'levels' the playing field.

[Ban Hammer 14,813]

However, in areas where we know that minorities are underperforming, affirmative action 'levels' the playing field.

i don't know what job market you work in, but around here underperforming = a pink slip.

[natty bumppo 297]

One last time, best fit is not a determination ability, it's a determination of 'suitability' which is often based on what people's previous experiences of what is 'suitable' are. If every judge in history has been a middle aged white guy, it's normal to assume that that is the 'best fit' so lo and behold middle aged white guy gets hired every time. If there were ten candidates, 8 of whom are middle aged white guys, and two of whom are a middle aged white woman and a middle aged black guy, the middle aged white guys are going to win every time because they are deemed 'suitable' as well as qualified. The ONLY hope for someone that is outside of the 'usual' experience is someone who is somehow exceptional, and even then, experience shows us that most of the time, people who are faced with a choice of exceptional but unfamiliar or acceptable and familiar, they go for acceptable and familiar every time.

*WARNING* This explanation has been kept SIMPLISTIC for ease of understanding.

Understand I am not suggesting for one moment that EVERY BUSINESS operates in the same way, or that EVERY BUSINESS needs affirmative action in order to allow everyone equal opportunity.

so now the word "suitable" is tossed in with "best fit" and business as usual. well qualified just left the building ....

oh well ...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does anyone honestly think that the "best qualified" candidate for a job will always get the position?

You can have a first class resume, but if you're an arsehole or can't get along with the people you're interviewing with - then you can't be surprised if you don't get employed.

Has no-one ever trumped up their resume to get a job ahead of candidates with better paper qualifications? Its not unheard of... hiring decisions aren't exactly made on the basis of scientific criteria...

[Ban Hammer 14,813]

Does anyone honestly think that the "best qualified" candidate for a job will always get the position?

You can have a first class resume, but if you're an arsehole or can't get along with the people you're interviewing with - then you can't be surprised if you don't get employed.

Has no-one ever trumped up their resume to get a job ahead of candidates with better paper qualifications? Its not unheard of... hiring decisions aren't exactly made on the basis of scientific criteria...

but that should be what all strive for. sure, one can trump up a resume, but one is also putting their neck on the block should that info be discovered to be false. i've known of people to be terminated years later for having a false resume.