Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305065015' post='2239820']
She's right -- you won't be a successful engineer if you enter it simply because of money. I've seen it a lot.

And also as a woman in a male dominated field -- you end up having to work harder to get farther. Definitely. And I want to bet that I get paid less than my male counterparts.

And as a latina -- here's a story. I'm 100% fluent in english, and I speak english with a regional accent (not with a spanish accent). About 2 years into my career, my boss had to stop management from sending me to a training class. What class was it? English as a Second Language. They had picked me out of the group simply because of my spanish surname. Yet I was already proven at work to be one of the best writers, and the person in management had no clue as to who I was. They made an assumption that was WRONG -- especially considering where I was born, the schooling I had, and that I had graduated from one of the top engineering schools in the US.

So yes I'm all for affirmative action if it helps to equalize the disparity. When the disparity stops -- then affirmative action can go.
[/quote]


The pay gap is thing of the past, when you count in senority, experiance and industry it coes pretty close to dissolving. Young urban college educated women make more than men of the same age and qualifications, by something like 7%, and in major Cities, like New York , LA and Houston by much more, 15 to 20%. In 10 years, it will be women under rather that under 30. People tend to only take into account the variables which make thier group appear discriminated against without taking into acount ALL variables , things like senority and experiance. For someone in the sciences that is a very bad habit.

And even if this was not so, it would be an arguement from outcome, not oppertunity. You say "equalize the disparity", I've heard words like that before, they ussually lead to lineing up people against walls and shooting them, in the name of equality.

As I said, I live in one of the major Chem centers on earth, and I have known lots of people who went into it for the money, and were perfectly successful. In my experiance,very few people enter a field becuase they are that interested in it, most people are interested ina nice fat check.

By the way Mestizos racially have always been concidered white. That someone might think you are not a native speaker becuase of your last name is bad management, but not an excuse to institutionalize racism.

[

Edited May 11, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305081168' post='2239898']
The pay gap is thing of the past, when you count in senority, experiance and industry it coes pretty close to dissolving.
...

That someone might think you are not a native speaker becuase of your last name is bad management, but not an excuse to institutionalize racism.
[/quote]

I completely disagree that the pay gap is a thing of the past; and I am taking experience and seniority into account ... but I'll leave it at that.

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.

Edited May 11, 2011 by cmariadiaz

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305081506' post='2239899']

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.
[/quote]


that goes both ways....i have been yelled at and gotten many a dirty look when someone assumes i speak spanish because of my last name...then they find out i don't. that's racist too...

Edited May 11, 2011 by Groo the Wanderer

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305064040' post='2239815']
Um....what is the purpose of rule of law if not to enforce certain behaviors and put consequences on people's failure to live up to these standards?

Yes, I don't want the gov't breathing down my neck and watching my every action. No, I don't want to legislate morality to the point that it's illegal to refuse to help my neighbor (like in Tolkien's 'Leaf by Niggle'). There are limits, and people ultimately have the freedom to act regardless of what the law states. You can (for instance) not pay your taxes, stockpile illegal weapons, and shoot anyone who tries to come onto your property. The law doesn't [i]stop[/i] that from happening...though there are some pretty severe consequences if you choose to go that route.

I'm perfectly fine with the state decreeing that it's not okay for me to kill someone. I'm also fine with them setting consequences if I choose to drive while impaired and kill someone through my own negligence and stupidity. I'm not okay with someone exacting the death penalty for drunk driving. That's...disproportionate. So, yes, I'm okay with their being laws to address racism. I'm not sure that our current laws do the most good, but I am saying that I want to replace them with something better, not necessarily start from scratch.

Earlier in this thread I twice outlined the evolution of Jesuit efforts to address inner city poverty and lack of education in the past 40 years. I think that the current programs are light years better than the original ones, and -- not surprisingly -- it's the current programs that are growing like wildfire while the originals sputtered out or were completely revamped as time went on. They learned, and improved, and weren't afraid to try new things.

I'm hardly going to insist that the method of addressing racism in hiring practices in the 1970s should be in place - unchanged - today. That wouldn't make any sense. But I'm also not going to say that the gov't shouldn't set rules for itself when hiring gov't contractors. After all, if the gov't doesn't make the effort to stamp out institutionalized racism as paid for by tax dollars, then that would be a major step backwards.
[/quote]


The rule of law is there to maintain order, nothing more. Laws are normally made to prevent undesirable [i]behaviors[/i], but traditionally do not discriminate on the behavior itself based on the internal thoughts of the person doing them... They might determine punishment on such things, but not whether the behavior was good or bad.

For example, it is illegal to commit murder, murder has a certian definition, traditionally speaking, if you met that definition you were convicted of murder. Murder is inherently an undesirable behavior.

Drunk driving endangers innocent people and is therefore an undesirable behavior suitable for punishment.
Stealing, threatens the social contrat and is therefore undesirable, the social contract maintains order, breaking it threatens disorder. Stealing, whether or not you are stealling for a noble cause, or a selfish one, is illegal.

In ancient Rome being a Christian was an undesirable activity, which threatened the Order of the state, therefore it was illegal.

Discriminating against people or for people because of thier race is an undesirable activity, yet we are [i]mandating[/i] it by law.

Hiring people is NOT an undesireable activity. It is a desirable activity, an activity that we want to encourage. Yet we wish to interfere in this desirable activity and require that people be racially discriminated for or against.

Some laws are AMORAL, there is no moral reason why one cannot own a machine gun, or buy alcohol before your 21, these exist purly as regulatory means of maintaining order.

In no case does law effect morality or the moral order. One can be a totally moral person and live in the wilderness, without law. One can live in a society with intrinsicly evil laws, be an totally law abiding and yet completely immoral person.

Law does not equal morality.

" I'm perfectly fine with the state decreeing that it's not okay for me to kill someone"

I am not, killing people is not necessarly morally wrong. I hope you meant [i]to murder[/i] someone.

Racism is an attitude, if someone attacks people for their race they should be prosecuted for assault, legally why they attacked them. If they murder them for their race they should be procecuted for murder. But Racism is NOT a behavior, we should not be making laws to "address" it.

I personally find Calvinsm offencive and seriously morally objectionable, but I don't think the state should be passing laws to address the unfortunate belief that some people believe that there are Predestined elect, chosen by God to be saved, and everyone else has been chosen by God to be pieces of human garbage, Damned from the begining.

Racism is a belief, an attitude, the state should not be addressing it at all.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305081506' post='2239899']
I completely disagree that the pay gap is a thing of the past; and I am taking experience and seniority into account ... but I'll leave it at that.

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.
[/quote]


A Spanish Surname is not a race, and how is that racist anyway? Please explain how believeing that someone with a Spanish surname first language is Spanish is racist. If someones last name is williams I assume their firt language is English... is that racist?


As for the pay gap thing.... look it up, I am sure you can find the thing about young college educated women making more than similarly educated and qualified men in the same age range.

[ardillacid]

What about fat people? Fat people get hired a lot less than fit people. Fat people get paid less than thin people. Companies should have a mandatory obesity quota to fill.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1305081821' post='2239904']
that goes both ways....i have been yelled at and gotten many a dirty look when someone assumes i speak spanish because of my last name...then they find out i don't. that's racist too...
[/quote]


I agree 100%.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305086262' post='2239951']
A Spanish Surname is not a race, and how is that racist anyway? Please explain how believeing that someone with a Spanish surname first language is Spanish is racist. If someones last name is williams I assume their firt language is English... is that racist?
[/quote]

They do know my race -- race is on the application and is in the profile. That plus the surname -- hence the assumption.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305086262' post='2239951']
As for the pay gap thing.... look it up, I am sure you can find the thing about young college educated women making more than similarly educated and qualified men in the same age range.
[/quote]

As I said ... I disagree, based on reality (not a survey). I won't discuss it further as I said before, nor am I'm up for a full fledged argument.

Besides we will simply disagree on this -- you and I have different experiences. We can go around in circles, and will never come to an agreement. So I leave it with what I've said.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305127886' post='2240086']
I agree 100%.
[/quote]
So hispanics are racist against hispanics?

[Winchester]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305081506' post='2239899']
I completely disagree that the pay gap is a thing of the past; and I am taking experience and seniority into account ... but I'll leave it at that.

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.
[/quote]
Disagree all you want, it's fact. Again, read some Thomas Sowell, and then proceed to his sources.

No, the fact that someone thought that would be based on culture and individual experience with culture. It in no way indicates someone believes in the superiority of one race over another, or that someone has antipathy toward a certain race.


Also, Spaniards are white.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Winchester

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305086262' post='2239951']
A Spanish Surname is not a race, and how is that racist anyway? Please explain how believeing that someone with a Spanish surname first language is Spanish is racist. If someones last name is williams I assume their firt language is English... is that racist?

[/quote]
Shut up, you White Devil.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305085378' post='2239946']

" I'm perfectly fine with the state decreeing that it's not okay for me to kill someone"

I am not, killing people is not necessarily morally wrong. I hope you meant [i]to murder[/i] someone. [/quote]

Well, actually, involuntary manslaughter is still a bad thing. If you strike a pedestrian with your car by accident, you can still go to jail. And yes, I'm fine with that, because what pedestrian wants to be struck and killed? One who jumps out in front of the car...which is why if you can demonstrate it's a suicide, there's an exception.

So, while murder is obviously more seriously wrong, accidental death can still have legal ramifications. If a company failed to install/use mandatory safety equipment, you can bet they're going to be faced with legal fallout when someone gets killed on the job.

My point is that the cases where killing another person are acceptable are the exceptions to the law, not the starting point. The starting point is that robbing a fellow human being of their life is not a good thing. [And bad for society as a whole, if you're taking that angle.]


[quote]Racism is a belief, an attitude, the state should not be addressing it at all.[/quote]

Well, true enough. You can be as racist as you want, as long as you hire people anyway. You could conceivably think everyone else is scum and not break any laws. 'Hate speech' laws are on such tenuous grounds because of freedom of speech. The government can't really tell you what to think. But...what you think often influences what you say and what you do, so the division isn't always an obvious clear-cut distinction.

What the state is attempting to do is to protect the rights of groups of people that (as minorities) are in a more vulnerable position in society. Not all societies protect the vulnerable, and ours does not protect vulnerable people uniformly. But we do have laws that inconvenience some people to preserve equal access. Public buildings all have to have ramps and elevators and handicap bathrooms so that [i]if[/i] a person confined to a wheelchair wanted to enter...they could. You can argue that your company has no handicapped employees or clients, but it doesn't matter - you have to have that available so that you [i]could[/i].

Yes, it's more expensive and takes up more space and is potentially a 'waste' to make a building accessible to wheelchairs. You could say 'won't they just lose business if they fail to comply?' But the reality is that there are few people out there in wheelchairs, so you could be quite successful without catering to that population. The laws...force the issue. Suddenly, you can't get the building inspector to sign off if you don't comply.

I'm not saying that the laws focusing on the disabled are exactly the same as Affirmative Action laws...but the idea behind them is similar. Ensuring that everyone has access by preventing minorities from being 'overlooked.'

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305081506' post='2239899']
I completely disagree that the pay gap is a thing of the past; and I am taking experience and seniority into account ... but I'll leave it at that.

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.
[/quote]


Is it racism to say that you appear to be hispanic? Would it also be racist to say that most illegal immigrants are hispanic? Can you understand why people might think something like that?

[Socrates]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305031897' post='2239608']
With that much latent distrust in day to day interactions, it's bound to affect hiring decisions. And black people know that they have to 'act white' at work if they want to have a professional job in a mostly-white office building. That's just how things are.
[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by "act white"?

Is it racist to expect that black people live up to the same standards of professional behavior in their jobs as people of other races?

After all, white people in white-collar professional jobs are generally expected not to behave like rednecks or white trash yahoos while on the job.


Unfortunately, I've heard that in many neighborhoods, people, especially young men, who take getting an education seriously or are serious about bettering themselves with an honest career, are ridiculed and ostracized for "acting white."
There are plenty of problems in segments of black culture which can't be blamed entirely on white racism, and are just as responsible for holding black people back.

AA, which in practice means holding blacks to lower standards than other people, is not going to fix those problems, which can ultimately only be solved by action within black communities themselves.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1305131587' post='2240108']
So hispanics are racist against hispanics?
[/quote]


Yes. I have been on the receiving end. Apparently, they feel I am a traitor to the race because I do not speak Spanish. Oddly some people seem to think that the ability to speak a language is genetic. Wish it was...I would speak Spanish, French, and Scot as well....

[cmaD2006]

Ok I'm out of this discussion -- its too personal.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305060821' post='2239790']
By leaving the problem unfixed, you are naturally condoning it by your lack of action in fixing the injustice.
[/quote]

Don John, you were right to take offense to this statement, but you forgot that you are on a Catholic board.

Here's a better way to answer this:

Amppax, what you are saying is that God, because He has the capacity to stop every sin, is obligated to fix every injustice. Otherwise, He is condoning sin.

Clearly, God doesn't do this. Why not? Because we are to be given a choice to do what is right. If we don't have the option to do wrong, we don't have the option to do right either.

Taken to its logical conclusion this seems to imply that laws of man (as opposed to laws which merely uphold natural law) are completely unnecessary and actually hinder God's plan. I'm not certain that this is accurate, but it seems plausible.

Peace,
Joe

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Well, actually, involuntary manslaughter is still a bad thing. If you strike a pedestrian with your car by accident, you can still go to jail. And yes, I'm fine with that, because what pedestrian wants to be struck and killed? One who jumps out in front of the car...which is why if you can demonstrate it's a suicide, there's an exception.

So, while murder is obviously more seriously wrong, accidental death can still have legal ramifications. If a company failed to install/use mandatory safety equipment, you can bet they're going to be faced with legal fallout when someone gets killed on the job.

My point is that the cases where killing another person are acceptable are the exceptions to the law, not the starting point. The starting point is that robbing a fellow human being of their life is not a good thing. [And bad for society as a whole, if you're taking that angle.] [/quote]

Well I don't know where you live, but in Texas, if you were not doing anything wrong at all and you kill someone in an accident, you are not [i]criminally[/i] liable in any way. And that is the way it should be. If you do something that is negligent and someone dies that is completely different, but then that is being punished for the behavior of criminal negligence which led to some ones death, not for killing them, but because your negligence killed them. Not the same thing at all.

[quote]Well, true enough. You can be as racist as you want, as long as you hire people anyway. You could conceivably think everyone else is scum and not break any laws. 'Hate speech' laws are on such tenuous grounds because of freedom of speech. The government can't really tell you what to think. But...what you think often influences what you say and what you do, so the division isn't always an obvious clear-cut distinction. [/quote]

Hate speech laws are on tenuous grounds becuase they are evil and violate the basic human rights of human beings. They also violate the first amendment of the U.S Constitution and numerous State Constitutions. If dealing with your own property you should be able to be as racist as you want anyway, its yours, if your a racist #(&$(#&$ well you have the inalianable right to dispose of your property as you see fit, so long as it is otherwise within the law. Ex. If it is legal to sell your house, then it should be legal tosell it to whomever you want, if it is legal to hire someone to do a job it should be legal to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want.

Corporations and Government however are not personal property, they are corporately owned and should therefore be obliged to treat everyone equally. Affirmative action laws do not do that, they racially discriminate based on a particular state of society measured by current outcomes. They are manifestly no different than the Jim Crow las of old.

[quote]What the state is attempting to do is to protect the rights of groups of people that (as minorities) are in a more vulnerable position in society. Not all societies protect the vulnerable, and ours does not protect vulnerable people uniformly. But we do have laws that inconvenience some people to preserve equal access. Public buildings all have to have ramps and elevators and handicap bathrooms so that [i]if[/i] a person confined to a wheelchair wanted to enter...they could. You can argue that your company has no handicapped employees or clients, but it doesn't matter - you have to have that available so that you [i]could[/i]. [/quote]

No the state is succeding in giving, by legal fiat, an advantage to one certian persons based on their skin color, or the color of their parents, or their sex organs, or thier last name. If this was a law forcing corportations and goverment to hire white men with anglosaxon last names, we wouldn;t be havingthis discussion, becuase somehow being racist one direction is bad, but being racist, or sexist, or namist against white men with anglo lat names is okay.

[quote]Yes, it's more expensive and takes up more space and is potentially a 'waste' to make a building accessible to wheelchairs. You could say 'won't they just lose business if they fail to comply?' But the reality is that there are few people out there in wheelchairs, so you could be quite successful without catering to that population. The laws...force the issue. Suddenly, you can't get the building inspector to sign off if you don't comply. [/quote]

This too is ridiculous, if aprivate buisness owner does not want to put ramps in he shouldn't have too, Governemnt and corporations however are corporatly owned and should be forced to make things equally accessable to all.

Everything should be equally accessable, dining areas, bathrooms , and jobs.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305149021' post='2240217']

Well I don't know where you live, but in Texas, if you were not doing anything wrong at all and you kill someone in an accident, you are not [i]criminally[/i] liable in any way. And that is the way it should be. If you do something that is negligent and someone dies that is completely different, but then that is being punished for the behavior of criminal negligence which led to some ones death, not for killing them, but because your negligence killed them. Not the same thing at all.



Hate speech laws are on tenuous grounds becuase they are evil and violate the basic human rights of human beings. They also violate the first amendment of the U.S Constitution and numerous State Constitutions. If dealing with your own property you should be able to be as racist as you want anyway, its yours, if your a racist #(&$(#&$ well you have the inalianable right to dispose of your property as you see fit, so long as it is otherwise within the law. Ex. If it is legal to sell your house, then it should be legal tosell it to whomever you want, if it is legal to hire someone to do a job it should be legal to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want.

Corporations and Government however are not personal property, they are corporately owned and should therefore be obliged to treat everyone equally. Affirmative action laws do not do that, they racially discriminate based on a particular state of society measured by current outcomes. They are manifestly no different than the Jim Crow las of old.



No the state is succeding in giving, by legal fiat, an advantage to one certian persons based on their skin color, or the color of their parents, or their sex organs, or thier last name. If this was a law forcing corportations and goverment to hire white men with anglosaxon last names, we wouldn;t be havingthis discussion, becuase somehow being racist one direction is bad, but being racist, or sexist, or namist against white men with anglo lat names is okay.



This too is ridiculous, if aprivate buisness owner does not want to put ramps in he shouldn't have too, Governemnt and corporations however are corporatly owned and should be forced to make things equally accessable to all.

Everything should be equally accessable, dining areas, bathrooms , and jobs.
[/quote]

i'm feeling like i disagree with you on just about everything here... not really sure if i'm going to continue in this debate

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305163383' post='2240304']
i'm feeling like i disagree with you on just about everything here... not really sure if i'm going to continue in this debate
[/quote]



What you think that people should go to jail for killing someone in an accident, when they didn't do anything negligent?


Or do you think people do not have the right to dispose of there own property as they see fit? Where exactly does that end? is it discriminitory to not give out equal Christmas gifts? Should the government intervene?

If something is yours, you have the right to do with it as you will, how exactly is it not a violation of the basic human right of property to tell people how they must dispose of those things that are theirs?

Ordo you think that the government really should be telling people what they can and cannot say, and punishing people for saying things deemed "hate speech"? Do you not see how dangerous that is?

Or do youthink that private buisness owners sould have to spend thousands, perhaps tens of thousands to retrofit buildings so a fraction of a percent of people can access thier stores? What aboutthe people that this put out of buisness? what about thier rights?
Again where does that end? Should builders have to make all new homes handicap friendly? Perhaps home owners should have to retrofit their home in order to sell it? The idea is again a violation of the right of property.


Perhaps you don't like that I called AA what it is, prejudical discrmination against white men with non-spanish names.