Buddrow_Wilson

My "ancestors" came to this country in the 1930s. We had nothing to do with slavery. I am definately reaping absolutely no benefits of discrimination. I'm poor and unlucky in life. To think I should be paying anything to blacks or other minorities is insanity.

What are these reparations supposed to accomplish? Say we have a lengthy court battle and in the end every black is paid 200,000 dollars as an apology for slavery. Would this change discrimination and racism? Hell yes, there would be more of it. The time for such an idea was during the generation that slavery ended. Its far too late for that.

How do you determine if a person is legally of a certain race. Genetic testing? What percentage is the cut-off line? 1/4...1/8?

"Sorry, Mr. Johnson. You're only 1/8 negro; that means you don't count."

The arguments for AA and reparations seem to be rooted in emotion.

Tristan Scott

Nothing could be further from the truth. Affirmative Action does not require that anyone hire someone who is incompetent.

What may happen is if a field office or plant has a prior record of discrimination in their hiring practices a corporation will institute a quota on them which could result in an incompetent hiring. Many times these incompetents will be hired puposely in an attempt justify past discrimination. Quotas are not demanded by AA laws, in fact they are discouraged. I refer you to the AA employment order itself (Revised Order No. 4, December, 1971) where it states that "Goals" are not to be "rigid and inflexible quotas" but "targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work."

Incompetence in the work place is not a reality of AA, but a reality of poor management, or more to the point, poorly managed AA programs within a company.

Koyaanisqatsi

Excellent posts luna! :notworthy

If you are an American citizen then you both pay the price and reap the rewards for what America does as a nation. Your nationality mandates your rights and you abide by the laws and actions of that nation. If Bush goes to war, he does so in your name, whether you agree or not.

That's what it means to be a citizen and pay taxes and blah, blah, blah. You are an American citizen before you are an individual in this regard, whether you just came here or were on the Mayflower. Once the "oath of citzenship" is taken (if you're born here, it is axiomatically applied) you are part and parcel to the sins and benefits of that Nation.

Just try smuggling out national secrets or stop paying your taxes as an individual and you'll see what I mean.

They are supposed to accomplish two things as I outlined repeatedly:

1. Reparation for officially sanctioned crimes against any minority (yes, luna, Native American Indians are included, which I'll get to in a minute, as are women)
2. A method of legally determining reparations have been satisfied, so that the guidelines can be removed after the proposed time period is up

Again I will ask everyone to limit their comments to my proposal and only my proposal and not just post generalized personal comments that aren't directly relevant to my OP.

If you don't think my proposal provides a fair and equitable means (to minorities; again, caucasin considerations are irrelevant to this discussion) to both effect reparations and provide means to extricate the guidelines, then please post only a means to correct the problem in kind.

Posts of "AA should be removed" are likewise off-topic to this discussion and you're free to start a thread of your own in which you make this proposal.

AA is in place. The question I am seeking to address is how to best legally justify its continued existence and how to best insure that a fair and equitable (to the minorities) reparation has been established in order to rescind the guidelines within a legally recognizable term limit, commensurate in some way with the amount of time officially recognized as being detrimental.

Once again, all of this is a matter of legal record and not academic speculation, so any ancillary comments regarding the "should or shouldn't" of AA are off-topic.

The crime America as a Nation has committed toward Americans of African descent, for example, as well as Native American Indians and women have all been legally established and they are "on the books." This thread is not concerned with whether or not something should or shouldn't be considered a crime, it is only concerned with what to do now that such things have been considered a crime.

Actually, such consideration was already a matter of official National policy (search for "40 acres and a mule" on google and you'll see what I mean).

Reparations! The topic of this thread is how best to effect reparations for crimes already admitted to and confirmed by official National declaration.

This thread has nothing to do with stopping or trying to change discrimination or racism, nor does it care whether or not caucasins will be inflamed or not by it, since AA is already on the books.

Further, the fact that my proposal seeks to end AA in a fair and equitable matter (something that is not currently a part of AA), should only ease tension regarding AA, not inflame it.

Regardless and for the last time; caucasin concerns are irrelevant to this discussion.

Do not bring up racism or reverse discrimination again (anyone, not just Buddrow).

The topic is reparation for crimes already "confessed" to by our Nation and how best to implement and insure their eventual removal in a fair and equitable manner (for the minorities).

It was implemented in that time ("40 acres and a mule") and our Nation (as a Nation) was in breach of promise and did not fulfill that particular contract. AA came about precisely because of this official recognition.

It is therefore not "far too late" for anything of the sort. If you are a citizen of this country then you both pay the price for being one and reap the benefits for being one. You can't have one without the other.

If a certain portion of our citizenry were officially discriminated against and those crimes were officially recognized at a later date by a later administration, then there are no time limits or statutes of limitations upon those crimes. The establishment of AA in the first place is an admission of guilt and culpability.

The only thing this thread seeks to address is how best to insure that reparations are concluded, not whether they are deserved in the first place or at what time they should have been implemented.

They have already been implemented and remain an open question with no clear guidelines as to when or how they can be concluded.

That is the purpose of this thread.

And my apologies to you Buddrow, for using your post specfically for my forth general admonitions, but it served my purpose as you can see. It wasn't meant to single you out, it was meant to clarify yet again what the topic of this thread is.

NOBODY ELSE MAY POST ANOTHER POST ON THIS THREAD THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH REPARATIONS AND HOW BEST TO INSURE THEIR CONCLUSION.

Is that perfectly clear now to everyone here what this thread is supposed to be about?

If you don't agree we should engage in reparations, then this thread has nothing to do with you. AA has already established the precedent (as well as the general precedent of reparations that both myself and lunachick have brought up), so anything else is off-topic.

As to the genetic testing, this too is already on the books (though genetic testing is not necessary). To be considered a Native American Indian, for example (and therefore qualify for certain reparation benefits), one must be 1/8 Indian. It is determined by proof of lineage.

I know and acknowledge that this is an emotional issue in general, which is why such content is expressly forbidden as being entirely off-topic.

Propose solutions or present reasons why my own proposal will not obtain fair and equitable reparations to minorities or do not post anything.

Those are anyone's only choices in this thread.

Thank you.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods
- a group's percentage within the successful applicants must not be below 80% of the percentage of total applicants from that group (e.g. if 30% of applicants to a particular college are black, blacks must make up at least 24% of the total accepted; if 40% of a company's candidates for promotion to manager are Hispanic, at least 32% of their new managers must be Hispanic)

Horrible. Better make it total *QUALIFIED* applicants. What happens now is that when unqualified people don't get it they scream discrimination.

Also, instead of a fixed threshold, how about removing the company size from the equation but specifying it at the 90% confidence interval? This will in effect remove the small companies from it anyway as that will include zero within the error margin.

- quotas will remain in effect for a minority group until the national median income for that group is 90% of the median for whites (there's your time limit or ending condition, Koy)

Far better than the current system.

2) Change school funding so that all public primary and secondary school can spend at least 80% of the national mean or median (whichever is higher) cost-of-living-adjusted per student amount.

I don't think that's as much the issue. So long as education funding is handled at the state level the inner-city schools don't get shortchanged, and even at the county level they likely aren't.
The true problems lie elsewhere:

1) The inner city schools spend more money on non-educational things. Like security, repairing vandalism etc.
2) The inner city schools spend more money on special ed. This is partially due to having more true problems (FAS is more common amongst the poor, for example.) and more fake disabilities (to get aid. The amount means a lot more to a poor person than someone who makes more, thus the incentive to do it is higher.)
3) There are too many disruptive students in the classes. The teachers spend too much of their time dealing with that rather than teaching.
4) They don't merely need equal education, they need more to overcome the lack of support they are getting at home.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
Nothing could be further from the truth. Affirmative Action does not require that anyone hire someone who is incompetent.

The law doesn't. The courts do. You have to make yourself an unattractive target or you'll get sued.

We see the same thing with school athletics and Title IX. Men's sports teams are being cut because not enough women play sports and having a disparity in the number of players (never mind how many are interested in playing) brings trouble.

Quotas are not demanded by AA laws, in fact they are discouraged.

Discouraged by the law, strongly encouraged by the courts. The business looking to the bottom line will hire the incompetents and try to keep them from doing harm.

Lohan

Just to make sure it hasn't got subsumed into the rest of the debate around AA, for Koy, Luna, and all other supporters of AA here I still would like to see how AA has improved the overall quality of life for minorities in this country on its own. Again I am not speaking of individual success stories, as even the most poorly implemented programs can have a success here and there. But nationally speaking, has AA improved the overall quality of life for minorities in the US, independently of inner city school improvement programs and such (as these are most definitely not AA)?

PopeInTheWoods

The problem with specifying *QUALIFIED* is the same as specifying "all other things being equal" in Koy's original proposal. It's too easy to fudge with the standards, thus enabling discrimination. Maybe we could agree on some definition of "minimally qualified" for employment, perhaps some sort of standardized testing (some general some industry-specific) comparable to Civil Service exams? For university admissions, disallow ranking students by SAT scores once a reasonable minimum (one to two standard deviations above the mean by race?) has been attained.
I like it! The 90%, 80%, etc. figures I proposed were just ballpark anyway, we can play with them if necessary.
Thanks. Again, I was trying to think of something results-based.

Interesting points, especially number 4). Do you have any data on 1) and 2)? I was thinking that unequal opportunity at the earliest educational levels was a major problem, and improving those conditions would help at the higher levels, getting my "quotas" eliminated earlier. But maybe before that happens, the improving economic levels supposedly brought about by my quotas will help equalize educational opportunity across race. Where in the cycle would intervention do the most good? Would breaking in at more than one place speed things up?

Andy

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods
The problem with specifying *QUALIFIED* is the same as specifying "all other things being equal" in Koy's original proposal. It's too easy to fudge with the standards, thus enabling discrimination. Maybe we could agree on some definition of "minimally qualified" for employment, perhaps some sort of standardized testing (some general some industry-specific) comparable to Civil Service exams?

However, a company is going to want to hire the best people it can. Minimally qualified doesn't cut it very well.
Considering my own field, I would leave a position open rather than fill it with a minimally qualified (as defined by the people who do get hired) person.
How about: Eliminate those who are not minimally qualified from consideration. Administer your test (the test may be a way of eliminating non-qualified applicants, also). Hiring must not lie more than two standard deviations out from the mix in the top half of your test scores. (With the provisio that a non-hire because someone fails pre-employment screening does not count against you, they are simply removed from the pool of qualified applicants and the numbers adjusted.)

For university admissions, disallow ranking students by SAT scores once a reasonable minimum (one to two standard deviations above the mean by race?) has been attained.

I partially agree. SAT becomes of little relevance in such realms (as does any test--tests normally are useful only over about 1 standard deviation around the mean.) There should be another test for admission to the high standards universities.

Interesting points, especially number 4).

#4 is the heart of the problem.

Do you have any data on 1) and 2)? I was thinking that unequal opportunity at the earliest educational levels was a major problem, and improving those conditions would help at the higher levels, getting my "quotas" eliminated earlier.

I haven't seen data.

But maybe before that happens, the improving economic levels supposedly brought about by my quotas will help equalize educational opportunity across race. Where in the cycle would intervention do the most good? Would breaking in at more than one place speed things up?

The problem is that the problem for the most part isn't discrimination. Thus anti-discrimination measures only "help" to the extent that they penalize whites--and breed resentment.

Lestat de Lioncourt

The following are real world examples of what Affirmative Action, Quotas, etc. have done for this country as of late:

The 2003 report of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management shows wild overhiring of protected minorities.

Philadelphia Fire Quotas - This Pennsylvania city must hire black firefighters at any cost, by Court Order.

Boeing Spends $1.3 Billion on Racial Quotas! - Aerospace giant caves in to Jesse Jackson and the quota industry.

Jesse Jackson being the ogre of quotas, preferences and Affirmative Action. Especially whenever he can $cash$ in on it for his own selfish purposes. Which is, of course, always at the expense of those he professes to work for in protecting their interests (yeah, his interests are more like it!). This is a man who lied about his whereabouts when MLK was shot, his ties to the mob via his brother, hasn't filed his taxes in years, lies about where the funding goes he gets for his PUSH and Rainbow Coalition, etc. etc. etc. The list of laundry is long and really dirty when it comes to Jesse Jackson.

Jessica Haak v. Rochester School - 10 year old Jessica denied school transfer because she's white.

FayComm vs. U.S. DOT. Contractor is the wrong color (white) for government work. White contractor loses $417,417 for being the wrong skin color.

White Teacher v. Benton Harbor Michigan Schools: Sandy Atkins is white and according to the school district she cannot be promoted due to her skin color.

Northern Arizona University vs. White Male Teachers: NAU deliberately excluded 192 white male teachers from pay raises BUT granted pay raises to virtually all female and minority teachers.

White McDonald's employee John P. FitzGerald sued McD's for denying him promotions, and finally firing him, because he is not a minority! McD's quota program includes reserved "diversity positions" for which whites need not apply regardless of qualifications!

Pomonok is located in Flushing, NY (in Queens County). The Courts have ruled that the public housing project known as "Pomonok Houses" CANNOT encourage working poor families to move in until whites move out!

Suffolk County, NY Police Dept. -- Under the Department of Justice's questionable "disparate-adverse impact" theory, if you are too intelligent or too white, then the Suffolk County Police Department cannot hire you.

These are just a few real world examples among countless others that clearly show how Affirmative Action/Quota program(s) are just simply not working. Never have and never! Especiallyl in this highly Politically Correct culture that we have put ourselves in.

Bottom line, anyone and I mean anyone applying for a job should only be given the job based on his/her qualifications for that job. When it comes to promotions, it should be based strictly on merit and merit alone, period!

We need to stop this nonsense of 'special consideration' just because you're an African-American, a Hispanic (or any other minority) and/or a woman. You are either mentally capable of doing the duties of the job you are applying for or were hired to do or you are not. Simple as that. If you cannot handle it or are simply unqualified to do it, don't whine about it and use 'racism' as an excuse for what you are not adequately prepared to do (i.e., pass proficiency tests, drug tests, physical tests (if needs be), performance tests, etc.). Just move on to the job you are qualified to do and go get it!

The one example that irks me the most is the law enforcement proficiency exams. There's one story I read that just lingers in the back of mind about minorities whining that the Sergeant's exam was too difficult for them and claimed it was racially insensitive to their educational level which resulted in them being denied promotions. The solution that was given, they lowered the score expectations that would equalize with their white counterparts taking the same exam. So basically, if you ever needed a cop in this town (one you'd trust was proficient at their job and knew what they were doing) you could expect a minority cop to show up who likely scored low on their Sergeant's exam and was promoted while his white partner was denied even though he scored much higher. A real fine example of the Peter Principle at work.

Another example that irks me is a friend of mine who was in the service who witnessed a black female get promoted over a white and male soldier who were up for the same promotion. The white soldiers, especially the female, had high marks on all their proficiency tests and their performance was above average. The black female scored low on her performance tests, couldn't pass the tape test (she was too fat) and her work performance was below average yet she was the one promoted. :banghead: What's wrong with this picture???!!!??? Affirmative Action/Quota programs simply do not work and in my opinion, are a recipe for disaster (as if that hasn't been proven and witnessed by so many already). Therefore, my solution is get rid of it - all of it - and start judging people on their qualifications (which goes without saying the content of their character as well).

Lestat

"I'll give you the choice, that I...never had."

lunachick

Wow. Aside from the continued derailing of the thread by focussing on points not relevent to the OP - with the help of a moderator - the bigotry here is making me feel ill. You guys are really just white male supremists at heart aren't you?

I'm outta here. I'm going to go listen to Lou Reed's New York album - I need to find another American with some soul. So few of you have it.

Over and out.