Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.KingNothing said:Oh no, there are definitely quotas, at least in some industries. Construction, for example: the state of MN has to contract XX% of their contracts to females every year. I met a 'self-made millionaire' who was a female construction contractor. She made a fortune by playing the game: she would charge 2-5 times more than average for a project, and the state would hire her to fill quota. Even when there were people standing in line to do the same job at a fraction of the cost.
When Affirmative Action came out there was definitely a quota for hiring minorities. Where I worked, it was ridiculous, first hardly anyone could pass the required test for employment, so my company waived the tests for them, then they were unable to pass training. See Below.turbo-1 said:Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.
On September 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts. In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include sex on the list of attributes. Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), under the Department of Labor, monitors this requirement for all federal contractors, including all UC campuses, and has developed regulations to which these contractors must adhere. For federal contractors employing more than 50 people and having federal contracts totaling more than $50,000, compliance with these regulations includes disseminating and enforcing a nondiscrimination policy, establishing a written affirmative action plan and placement goals for women and minorities, and implementing action-oriented programs for accomplishing these goals. In addition, an official of the organization must be assigned responsibility for implementation of equal employment opportunity and the affirmative action program.
turbo-1 said:Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.
Evo said:Affirmative Action was mishandled, you can't just throw unqualified people into a job. If the government wanted to increase income and employment for minorities they should have set up training and education for them so that they could qualify for the jobs they wanted.
KingNothing said:I met this lady (her named was Cat) at one of those "female presidents" type conferences, basically it was a bunch of women saying how awesome they are. My GF's mom was a self-made millionaire as well, and I'd run into a lot of rather eccentric individuals that way.
I didn't look it up and frankly I wouldn't know where to start.
DR13 said:You're kinda missing my point. If a poor kid does the same or just a little worse than a rich kid with much less resources, then it is safe to assume that they would have done better if given equivelant resources. This is what should be taken into account when considering college admissions. I would consider this a form of socioeconomic based affirmative action. Hopefully this clears everything up.
Mech_Engineer said:I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.
Drakkith said:How do you know? Is there any evidence backing this up? I don't agree that you can just assume that someone WILL do better just by giving them "resources" (whatever that means).
If you base something off of how well someone does you CANNOT take other factors into it. There is simply no gurantee that those other factors actually made that person do as well/bad as they did.
If you want to base something off of how wealthy someone is, then fine. I have no problem with offering scholarships to people that couldn't afford to go to a decent college otherwise.
I DON'T agree with saying just because you are a certain race you should automatically get something over someone else, all things being equal. Not only do I see it as completely unfair, I also don't think it does any good. I think it perpetuates the idea that certain races are "special" or whatever.
Mech_Engineer said:I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.
To your second paragarph. Seriously? It is not unreasonable to say that a if a kid had better teachers and access to tutors and lived in an environment that valued education then that kid would have better scores.
I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.
DR13 said:I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.
Drakkith said:Being wealthy in and of itself doesn't give you better teachers or mean that you live in an environment that values education.
DR13 said:Yes, it does give you better teachers. The best teachers are not going to want to teach in the inner city schools that have metal detectors at the enterances and students who do not want to learn. Also, smart kids can be teased in the inner city when they want to learn (some of my friends went through this). This is what I mean by an environment that is hostile towards education.
Drakkith said:The point I'm trying to make is that there is NOT a gurantee that wealth equals a better student. In general wealthier people do get a better education. But looking at each individual you cannot say that they will automatically do better with access to more resources. This goes back to the good for the individual vs good for the whole issue.
DR13 said:Well duh. Of course there is no guarantee. On a case-by-case basis there will be discrepancies. However, governmental policy is made for the general case. And when evaluating two individuals it is reasonable to take into account their backgrounds.
Drakkith said:I can see where you can say in general a person would do better with more resources, however I cannot see how giving one person a job/opportunity because of their race is better than giving it to the most qualified people.
DR13 said:I agree. That is why I have said to not base decisions on race. What I am talking about is more applicable to college admissions. Though the rich person may seem more qualified because of their higher scores, the poor student may actually be more qualified because if they had the better resources then they would have had better scores. I hope this thuroughly clears up my point.
Drakkith said:I understand it, but if you are basing things on scores, then I still don't agree that you should give it to the poorer person or the minority.
DR13 said:By scores I mean GPA and ACT which are heavily influenced by circumstance (as I mentioned earlier). I am not saying you should always give it to the poorer person. I am just saying that it is something that must be considered.
ideasrule said:I think the ethics of affirmative action are similar to those of taxation. Modern democratic governments tax the rich much more heavily than they tax the lower classes, and use the money to support welfare for the poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with rich people that would justify taking more of their money, but society has decided that keeping as many people as possible out of poverty is more important than the slight injustice done to the rich. Affirmative action is similar in that it tries to distribute academic/employment opportunities more evenly and minimize socioeconomic gaps in society. Excessive affirmative action is obviously unfair, just as excessive taxation is unfair, but I don't think a government that completely neglects to help its least fortunate citizens succeed is desirable.
On the other hand, it's important to consider how much quality is sacrificed in the name of equality. If obviously-incompetent candidates are consistently being accepted into jobs or universities, that's not good for either the current economy or the future (which will be decided by the university students). This is complicated by the fact that the most accomplished people, the ones who most profoundly change the world, are not likely to be the minorities who get accepted due to affirmative action--they're likely to be rich privileged kids familiar with the upper classes of Western society.
DR13 said:Antecdotes are not evidence. And frankly, you just seem to be bashing any woman who has had professional success.
KingNothing said:Well then, I guess I better pull it from being cited in any major journals. PF has my deepest and sincerest apologies for sharing an anecdote on a forum titled "General Discussion".
To the second point, I think you may be overreacting a bit. Have you ever been to such a conference? Most of the ones I attended were put on by feminist organizations. To say that I met a lot of eccentric people is not a stretch. Sorry if you wish it were otherwise, but that is my experience.
DR13 said:And who cares if there is a "feminist" luncheon? Tons of groups have this sort of thing.
DR13 said:The correct policy would be to give a leg up to those who come from a poor background, regardless of race.
KingNothing said:To the second point, I think you may be overreacting a bit. Have you ever been to such a conference? Most of the ones I attended were put on by feminist organizations. To say that I met a lot of eccentric people is not a stretch. Sorry if you wish it were otherwise, but that is my experience.
Geezer said:What's wrong with being eccentric?