Eric Holder: Racial Preferences Needed for… National Security [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Eric Holder: Racial Preferences Needed for… National Security


snerd
08-14-2012, 13:09
The Eric Holder Justice Department has filed this brief (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/11-345-US-amicus-8-10-12.pdf) in the United States Supreme Court defending racial preferences at the University of Texas. (Texas, by the way, is also vigorously defending the racial preferences.) Abigail Fisher, who is white, is challenging race preferences that cost her a slot at the University of Texas law school. Because the racial spoils go to Obama’s most loyal political constituency (http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-250_162-57488777.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody), people of color, naturally Eric Holder’s Justice Department is defending them by spending your tax dollars paying lawyers to write the brief.

None of that is a surprise (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596982772/pajamasmedia-20). What is surprising is the argument (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/11-345-US-amicus-8-10-12.pdf) the Justice Department makes in the brief — that racial preferences are vital to national security...........

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/08/14/holder-racial-preferences-needed-for-national-security/
This administration is perhaps the most racist in history. Well, besides Wilson, anyway.

JBnTX
08-14-2012, 13:21
The only reason the government would ask for a person's race is if they planned to somehow use that information.

What they plan to use it for is the scary part?

countrygun
08-14-2012, 13:28
The one thing the Obama administration is not short of is "Racial Preferencing"

GWSHARK
08-14-2012, 13:49
Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.

:dunno:

series1811
08-14-2012, 15:41
I guess I must have missed those security briefings.

series1811
08-14-2012, 15:42
Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.

:dunno:

Some fight for equality, some fight to make sure some are more equal than others.

Lethaltxn
08-14-2012, 15:42
Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.

:dunno:

Which side do you equate to which?

JFrame
08-14-2012, 15:46
Some fight for equality, some fight to make sure some are more equal than others.


Yup.

I have no problem with Equal Opportunity. Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism (or sexism, or whateverism).


.

Brucev
08-14-2012, 16:54
They are demokrats. When they open their mouths, out come lies. This is a lie. No surprise. They are demokrats. When they open their mouths...

Fed Five Oh
08-14-2012, 17:03
Using racism to put an end to racism can only make sense in the brain of a liberal.

concretefuzzynuts
08-14-2012, 17:13
Nothing surprises me anymore.

PawDog
08-14-2012, 17:29
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NwWGysvH5Ck/SqVTS-9mbVI/AAAAAAAAADM/x****PAF7jw/s400/social-justice.png

cowboywannabe
08-14-2012, 17:53
since obama is half white he must be related to david duke. i mean their level racism is the same.

walt cowan
08-15-2012, 07:25
there is no justice, just-us.

cowboy1964
08-15-2012, 13:21
"racial preferences are vital to national security"

Sounds like something Adolf Hitler would say, doesn't it.

Gunnut 45/454
08-15-2012, 14:16
I'd rather have admittance based on acedemic achievement. Race, color, male or female - should have zero to do with it! If your scores/grades don't cut it you don't go!
But this is common sense and of course goes against the PC Liberal way of thinking!:faint:

countrygun
08-15-2012, 14:27
I'd rather have admittance based on acedemic achievement. Race, color, male or female - should have zero to do with it! If your scores/grades don't cut it you don't go!
But this is common sense and of course goes against the PC Liberal way of thinking!:faint:


"Excellence" isn't their goal. "Fairness" is. The problem is "fairness" isn't fair to the "excellent".

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 09:00
Which side do you equate to which?

I'm all for diversity.

JFrame
08-16-2012, 09:01
I'm all for diversity.

Are you for Affirmative Action?


.

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 09:04
I'm all for diversity.

That doesn't answer the question.

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 09:05
Are you for Affirmative Action?


.

It's a shame that it had to come to that... But there was most definitely a need at one point in time.

Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.

oldman11
08-16-2012, 09:11
The one thing the Obama administration is not short of is "Racial Preferencing"
A big +1 on that. :steamed:

JFrame
08-16-2012, 09:11
It's a shame that it had to come to that... But there was most definitely a need at one point in time.

Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.


So you DO believe that a person should be judged by their gender or color. In other words, you believe in institutionalized sexism or racism.

As to your last statement -- it's a straw man positing false binary options.


.

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 09:18
So you DO believe that a person should be judged by their gender or color. In other words, you believe in institutionalized sexism or racism.

As to your last statement -- it's a straw man positing false binary options.


.

In a utopian society a person should not be judged by any of those... unfortunately... we don't live in a utopian society.

JFrame
08-16-2012, 09:21
In a utopian society a person should not be judged by any of those... unfortunately... we don't live in a utopian society.


Again with the false binary options -- Utopian versus entitlement.


.

aircarver
08-16-2012, 09:32
What's needed is 'jerk exclusion' preferences ....

.

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 09:45
JFrame... you know this area... I did K-12 here. Made it to 5th grade before I had another black kid in my class. I'm used to being the odd ball.... the weirdo... the square peg. I'm the size off a redskins lineman easy. I stick out I always have.

Fastword to nowadays... the industry I'm in same thing. I stick out. Folks are taken aback when they see me sitting in meetings with the big wigs. I'm often the only black dude... I'm way younger... way bigger... I'm not as refined... not as eloquent and maybe not as book smart as some of the others in the room. But... I'm an asset. I bring a unique perspective that has proved invaluable in business development and project execution.

When I got hired 15 years ago as an intern I beat out folks who probably thought they had a better shot than me. Yeah... looked great on paper... but thats not everything. I rocked the interview.

Those fighting to exclude... probably think I got the job just because I'm black. If that makes you sleep better at night cool.... All I needed was a chance... after that I shined.

JFrame
08-16-2012, 09:57
JFrame... you know this area... I did K-12 here. Made it to 5th grade before I had another black kid in my class. I'm used to being the odd ball.... the weirdo... the square peg. I'm the size off a redskins lineman easy. I stick out I always have.

Fastword to nowadays... the industry I'm in same thing. I stick out. Folks are taken aback when they see me sitting in meetings with the big wigs. I'm often the only black dude... I'm way younger... way bigger... I'm not as refined... not as eloquent and maybe not as book smart as some of the others in the room. But... I'm an asset. I bring a unique perspective that has proved invaluable in business development and project execution.

When I got hired 15 years ago as an intern I beat out folks who probably thought they had a better shot than me. Yeah... looked great on paper... but thats not everything. I rocked the interview.

Those fighting to exclude... probably think I got the job just because I'm black. If that makes you sleep better at night cool....


Shark -- I am by no means trying to minimize your personal experiences, and how they impact your world view.

By the same token, I trust you will respect my perceptions. I have been involved to some degree or another with the federal workforce for nearly 33 years, with intimate association to five different agencies. During that time, I have not noticed any great disparity of representation by "minorities" at any level of hierarchies. I will say that, from all honest observations, representation of some minorities has apparently gotten disproportionate during that time. This is strictly a matter of mathematics -- I'm not judging the people in those positions -- just saying the demographics are misrepresented.

What do you think of the representation of ethnic "diversity" of D.C. Metro? You might argue that the composition only reflects the reality of the local population. But don't you think diversity should be fairly and equitably enforced?


.

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 09:58
Those fighting to exclude... probably think I got the job just because I'm black. If that makes you sleep better at night cool.... All I needed was a chance... after that I shined.

Well, did you get the job based on your race?
If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
If you blew away the interviewer then they felt you were the most qualified.

If someone thinks you got the job because you're black, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to exclude.
It's a side effect of the Balkanization of America.

oldman11
08-16-2012, 10:20
On a job interview, back in the late 80's, I was told they had to hire 2 more blacks before they could bring me on board. I found a job with another place as I couldn't wait for them to fill their quota. So don't tell me that racial preferencing doesn't happen, I know better.

series1811
08-16-2012, 10:26
Well, did you get the job based on your race?
If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
If you blew away the interviewer then they felt you were the most qualified.

If someone thinks you got the job because you're black, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to exclude.
It's a side effect of the Balkanization of America.

You know who gets treated the worst by affirmative action? The highly qualified black.

We had a black guy I worked with who was one of the sharpest agents I had ever worked with. But, he's competing with blacks who are getting promoted because of a lawsuit that was filed, with an order to give preference to all blacks.

I was constantly having to defend him from people who didn't know him, who figured his meteoric rise in our agency was due to his race, because we have so many unqualifed blacks who were promoted throught the court order.

No matter what the good intentions, and no matter how justified based on past discrimination, affirmative action has made a mess. Why not just stop at leveling the scales? Why try to load them to one side to give those who were never discriminated against a leg up on those who never discriminated?

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 10:30
You know who gets treated the worst by affirmative action? The highly qualified black.

We had a black guy I worked with who was one of the sharpest agents I had ever worked with. But, he's competing with blacks who are getting promoted because of a lawsuit that was filed, with an order to give preference to all blacks.

I was constantly having to defend him from people who didn't know him, who figured his meteoric rise in our agency was due to his race, because we have so many unqualifed blacks who were promoted throught the court order.

No matter what the good intentions, and no matter how justified based on past discrimination, affirmative action has made a mess. Why not just stop at leveling the scales? Why try to load them to one side to give those who were never discriminated against a leg up on those who never discriminated?

Because that's how you get votes.

JFrame
08-16-2012, 10:35
No matter what the good intentions, and no matter how justified based on past discrimination, affirmative action has made a mess. Why not just stop at leveling the scales? Why try to load them to one side to give those who were never discriminated against a leg up on those who never discriminated?


Agreed -- at this point, the scales have been leveled, and then some.

Any further pursuit of these policies is just playing into the self-perpetuating identity obsession of victimization and persecution. It is the policies that have contributed to a mess, rather than addressing the root problems of education (real education -- not throwing more money at teachers' unions) and preservation of the family unit.


.

maxsnafu
08-16-2012, 12:19
They are demokrats. When they open their mouths, out come lies. This is a lie. No surprise. They are demokrats. When they open their mouths...

On this issue, the only difference between the parties is that the Democrats are forthright about their support for Affirmative Action. Republicans quietly vote for it and hope no one notices.

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 12:24
On a job interview, back in the late 80's, I was told they had to hire 2 more blacks before they could bring me on board. I found a job with another place as I couldn't wait for them to fill their quota. So don't tell me that racial preferencing doesn't happen, I know better.

What were the demographics of the hiring agency? Did someone have to force their hand because they had a history of excluding blacks?

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 12:26
What were the demographics of the hiring agency? Did someone have to force their hand because they had a history of excluding blacks?

Why do you assume they were excluding anyone?

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 12:28
You know who gets treated the worst by affirmative action? The highly qualified black.

We had a black guy I worked with who was one of the sharpest agents I had ever worked with. But, he's competing with blacks who are getting promoted because of a lawsuit that was filed, with an order to give preference to all blacks.

I was constantly having to defend him from people who didn't know him, who figured his meteoric rise in our agency was due to his race, because we have so many unqualifed blacks who were promoted throught the court order.

No matter what the good intentions, and no matter how justified based on past discrimination, affirmative action has made a mess. Why not just stop at leveling the scales? Why try to load them to one side to give those who were never discriminated against a leg up on those who never discriminated?


Any unqualified whites get promoted? Nah... that never happens. :upeyes:

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 12:29
Why do you assume they were excluding anyone?

Lets let him answer first.

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 12:31
Any unqualified whites get promoted? Nah... that never happens. :upeyes:


I guess it's better if it's an unqualified minority? Then everything's even, right?

If you're qualified, your qualified.
Let's also remember interoffice politics determine a lot of who's promoted.

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 12:32
Lets let him answer first.

Why is that your first assumption?

series1811
08-16-2012, 12:33
Any unqualified whites get promoted? Nah... that never happens. :upeyes:

So, that's your defense of affirmative action?

You really want that to be your answer?

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 12:41
So, that's your defense of affirmative action?

You really want that to be your answer?

I not defending at as ideal. Im helping you understand WHY it exists.

Groups that have a history of excludes groups... where it be minorities... or women... or old folks etc sometimes have to have their hands forced. Thats why it exists.

series1811
08-16-2012, 12:44
I not defending at as ideal. Im helping you understand WHY it exists.

Groups that have a history of excludes groups... where it be minorities... or women... or old folks etc sometimes have to have their hands forced. Thats why it exists.

I know why it exists. Past racial discrimination that was very real. What I don't agree with, is it being the best practice to end that or compensate the people who were victims of it in the past.

If you can defend that, or explain that, I'm all ears.

Bren
08-16-2012, 12:48
Some fight to include... some fight to exclude.

:dunno:

Where you are "including" or "excluding" people in a limited number of spaces, such as jobs or college admission, every person included, by necessity, excludes another. For that reason, "including" a person based on his race, "excludes" another person, based on his race.

The doublespeakers of the left would like to claim that "including" a person who is white, based on race, is "exclusion" of a minority, but that "including" a minority, based on race, is not "exclusion" of a white person based on race. That doesn't stand up to examination very well.

Some - MLK for example - have claimed they would like to see a system that made no difference based on race. The white liberal has never wanted or attempted such a system and the white liberal is the power behind racism in America today.

Bren
08-16-2012, 12:51
Any unqualified whites get promoted? Nah... that never happens. :upeyes:

Unqualified people of all races get promoted - happens every day. The issue is intentionally making such decisions based on race, as an institutional policy, where we have the power to stop it and make the decisions without even knowing the race of the people involved.

maxsnafu
08-16-2012, 12:52
You know who gets treated the worst by affirmative action? The highly qualified black.




Worse than the White guy who was discriminated against???

GWSHARK
08-16-2012, 12:53
I know why it exists. Past racial discrimination that was very real. What I don't agree with, is it being the best practice to end that or compensate the people who were victims of it in the past.

If you can defend that, or explain that, I'm all ears.

I don't think it's ideal... but it does trouble me more folks are bent out of shape with an attempted solution/remedy than they were bothered by the initial core problem.

Bren
08-16-2012, 12:55
In a utopian society a person should not be judged by any of those... unfortunately... we don't live in a utopian society.

So you really just have these one-liners and no substance to back them up?:rofl:

Not a surprise.

I don't think it's ideal... but it does trouble me more folks are bent out of shape with an attempted solution/remedy than they were bothered by the initial core problem.

It's only a "solution/remedy" because you label it that. It IS the core problem, to those of us objecting.

We say, "if you don't want racism, you need to rteat all races the same."

You say, "if you don't want racism, you need to mistreat one race in the same way the other race used to be mistreated."

Does that really make sense to you?

series1811
08-16-2012, 12:55
I don't think it's ideal... but it does trouble me more folks are bent out of shape with an attempted solution/remedy than they were bothered by the initial core problem.

I'm bothered by preferences and inequality. No matter when they occurred, and to whom, the occurred.

I guess a simpler way to put it would be that I've never seen two wrongs make a right. It only makes two wrongs out of one wrong.

JFrame
08-16-2012, 12:57
I don't think it's ideal... but it does trouble me more folks are bent out of shape with an attempted solution/remedy than they were bothered by the initial core problem.


This makes the unfounded presupposition that the "attempted solution/remedy" is the correct one. Two wrongs don't make a right.


.

engineer151515
08-16-2012, 16:08
Dr. King's dream stands unfulfilled as long as anyone is judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. Which means, in my opinion, as long as "affirmative action" exists.

PawDog
08-16-2012, 18:05
I not defending at as ideal. Im helping you understand WHY it exists.

Groups that have a history of excludes groups... where it be minorities... or women... or old folks etc sometimes have to have their hands forced. Thats why it exists.

Groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Blacks in Criminal Justice, Rainbow Coalition, La Raza, etc., to use your own words, exclude Whites and Asians, but they're OK to legally discriminate against others, obviously in your opinion.

Affirmative Action is simply legal discrimination, no less. The above groups have no desire for equality, but desire superiority.

Bren
08-16-2012, 18:23
JFrame... you know this area... I did K-12 here. Made it to 5th grade before I had another black kid in my class. I'm used to being the odd ball.... the weirdo... the square peg. I'm the size off a redskins lineman easy. I stick out I always have.

Fastword to nowadays... the industry I'm in same thing. I stick out. Folks are taken aback when they see me sitting in meetings with the big wigs. I'm often the only black dude... I'm way younger... way bigger... I'm not as refined... not as eloquent and maybe not as book smart as some of the others in the room. But... I'm an asset. I bring a unique perspective that has proved invaluable in business development and project execution.

When I got hired 15 years ago as an intern I beat out folks who probably thought they had a better shot than me. Yeah... looked great on paper... but thats not everything. I rocked the interview.

Those fighting to exclude... probably think I got the job just because I'm black. If that makes you sleep better at night cool.... All I needed was a chance... after that I shined.

Seems like you've created a whole story to convince yourself you didn't get hired over a better applicant, because of your race. At the same time, you seem to think you did and you pretty much say so. This thread seeems to be a personal issue for you.

You got hired over a white guy with a better resume and you are less polished and refined, less qualified on paper, younger, etc.? You really think you didn't get hired - and the other guy lost an opportunity for which you say he was better qualified - based on race?

How about if you were more "polished" and "refined" had more qualifications on your resume and all that stuff and you got passed over for the company to hire a less qualified white guy? Would you consider that racist? You know you would, no mattter what you say here.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 10:34
So you really just have these one-liners and no substance to back them up?:rofl:

Not a surprise.


Concise & proficient.

Straight no chaser.

a la 3k vs 24k

:wavey:

:rofl:

:cool:

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 10:47
Well, did you get the job based on your race?
If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
If you blew away the interviewer then they felt you were the most qualified.

If someone thinks you got the job because you're black, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to exclude.
It's a side effect of the Balkanization of America.

No... I didn't get the job based on my race. Purely on merit. Over the years... a time or two I sensed from others that it had been implied by a guy who was on the outside looking in....

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 11:07
No... I didn't get the job based on my race. Purely on merit. Over the years... a time or two I sensed from others that had been implied by a guy who was on the outside looking in....

Ok, then why would you advocate for a policy that would actively require businesses to hire regardless of qualification?
What is the benefit?

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 11:42
Agreed -- at this point, the scales have been leveled, and then some.

Any further pursuit of these policies is just playing into the self-perpetuating identity obsession of victimization and persecution. It is the policies that have contributed to a mess, rather than addressing the root problems of education (real education -- not throwing more money at teachers' unions) and preservation of the family unit.


.

I agree with the blue. Not with the red. I'll go on to say that you are kidding yourself or turning a blind eye if you think it has tilted the other way.

Did anyone read the brief in the OP or are we just going off gut feelings? :upeyes:

After a class size re-org at the university there was a trend that the percentage of classes with one or no black or hispanic students had increased to 90% and 43%, respectively. That trend was a CONCERN because they had plans to do a subsequent re-org (goal: smaller classes in order to improve educational experience) which may have increased those %'s even further. They feared an unintended consequence of the re-orgs would be greater racial isolation and less cross-racial interaction. They came to the conclusion that increasing diversity in the overall student body was necessary.... but that does NOT mean that the university sought to ensure that EVERY small class had some minimum number of minority students..

Again did yall at least skim the brief or are we just shooting off the cuff? It's right there in black and white. :whistling:

It's seems outlandish to suggest that an environment where 90%/43% of all classes have 1 or no blacks/hispanics is some how tilted AGAINST the white students. Thats bogus.

Another issue I have is why would anyone automatically assume that the couple of black/hispanic students in the program AREN'T qualified and there on their own merit? Why is it automatically assumed that their presence is what prevented the girl from getting accepted?

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 11:43
Dr. King's dream stands unfulfilled as long as anyone is judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. Which means, in my opinion, as long as "affirmative action" exists.

AA is just a symptom.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 11:47
Seems like you've created a whole story to convince yourself you didn't get hired over a better applicant, because of your race. At the same time, you seem to think you did and you pretty much say so. This thread seeems to be a personal issue for you.

You got hired over a white guy with a better resume and you are less polished and refined, less qualified on paper, younger, etc.? You really think you didn't get hired - and the other guy lost an opportunity for which you say he was better qualified - based on race?

How about if you were more "polished" and "refined" had more qualifications on your resume and all that stuff and you got passed over for the company to hire a less qualified white guy? Would you consider that racist? You know you would, no mattter what you say here.

Bren you are smater than that (I think). You're all mixed up try again.

I'm doing just fine thanks... professionally and personally.

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 11:51
I agree with the blue. Not with the red. I'll go on to say that you are kidding yourself or turning a blind eye if you think it has tilted the other way.

Did anyone read the brief in the OP or are we just going off gut feelings? :upeyes:

After a class size re-org at the university there was a trend that the percentage of classes with one or no black or hispanic students had increased to 90% and 43%, respectively. That trend was a CONCERN because they had plans to do a subsequent re-org (goal: smaller classes in order to improve educational experience) which may have increased those %'s even further. They feared an unintended consequence of the re-orgs would be greater racial isolation and less cross-racial interaction. They came to the conclusion that increasing diversity in the overall student body was necessary.... but that does NOT mean that the university sought to ensure that EVERY small class had some minimum number of minority students..

Again did yall at least skim the brief or are we just shooting off the cuff? It's right there in black and white. :whistling:

It's seems outlandish to suggest that an environment where 90%/43% of all classes have 1 or no blacks/hispanics is some how tilted AGAINST the white students. Thats bogus.

Another issue I have is why would anyone automatically assume that the couple of black/hispanic students in the program AREN'T qualified and there on their own merit? Why is it automatically assumed that their presence is what prevented the girl from getting accepted?

So accepting less qualified people is acceptable?

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 11:51
Ok, then why would you advocate for a policy that would actively require businesses to hire regardless of qualification?
What is the benefit?

Who said that?

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 11:55
Who said that?

You did, unless I misunderstood your stance.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 12:03
So accepting less qualified people is acceptable?

Who said that? I'm arguing qualified but often overlooked.



Another issue I have is why would anyone automatically assume that the couple of black/hispanic students in the program AREN'T qualified and there on their own merit? Why is it automatically assumed that their presence is what prevented the girl from getting accepted?

On top of that... most/less qualified is often subjective.

If 3 companies are bidding on work...

Just because company A has the lowest price doesn't mean they are they most qualified for the work.

Company B may have the best solution, but if their price is too high they aren't the best fit either.

Now if company C offers a technically acceptable solution and a reasonable price... then they are the most qualified candidate.

See... it's often subjective.

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 12:06
Who said that? I'm arguing qualified but often overlooked.



On top of that... most/less qualified is often subjective.

If 3 companies are bidding on work...

Just because company A has the lowest price doesn't mean they are they most qualified for the work.

Company B may have the best solution, but if their price is too high they aren't the best fit either.

Now if company C offers a technically acceptable solution and a reasonable price... then they are the most qualified candidate.

See... it's often subjective.

But that's not what AA does. It may help a few, but the rest who are hired simply to meet quotas or so as not to earn the wrath of some government agency are not there because of their qualifications.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 12:10
I agree with the blue. Not with the red. I'll go on to say that you are kidding yourself or turning a blind eye if you think it has tilted the other way.

Did anyone read the brief in the OP or are we just going off gut feelings? :upeyes:

After a class size re-org at the university there was a trend that the percentage of classes with one or no black or hispanic students had increased to 90% and 43%, respectively. That trend was a CONCERN because they had plans to do a subsequent re-org (goal: smaller classes in order to improve educational experience) which may have increased those %'s even further. They feared an unintended consequence of the re-orgs would be greater racial isolation and less cross-racial interaction. They came to the conclusion that increasing diversity in the overall student body was necessary.... but that does NOT mean that the university sought to ensure that EVERY small class had some minimum number of minority students..

Again did yall at least skim the brief or are we just shooting off the cuff? It's right there in black and white. :whistling:

It's seems outlandish to suggest that an environment where 90%/43% of all classes have 1 or no blacks/hispanics is some how tilted AGAINST the white students. Thats bogus.

Another issue I have is why would anyone automatically assume that the couple of black/hispanic students in the program AREN'T qualified and there on their own merit? Why is it automatically assumed that their presence is what prevented the girl from getting accepted?


Shark -- as I mentioned in a previous post -- I am basing my statements on observations of the federal work force for the past 32+ years -- if it is an anecdotal one, it is most certainly also a rather extensive one, and likely one that would never be reflected in any "academic" ( :ack: ) study.

You also never addressed my statement regarding the composition of the workforce of D.C. Metro. If diversity and equality are something to be enforced, you believe it should also be enforced for that federally funded organization, yes?

Bottom line is -- if you believe in Affirmative Action, you are perforce saying that racial/gender preference should be made a criterion for selecting a candidate. In other words, you aren't really looking for "equality" -- you just want discrimination to be targeted against the "appropriate" people, and that is according to your world view.


.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 12:45
You also never addressed my statement regarding the composition of the workforce of D.C. Metro. If diversity and equality are something to be enforced, you believe it should also be enforced for that federally funded organization, yes?




.

I rarely ride the metro, but it looks fairly diverse to me... (http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/board_of_directors/bios.cfm) Does the balance look out of wack to you?

JFrame
08-17-2012, 12:51
I rarely ride the metro, but it looks fairly diverse to me... (http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/board_of_directors/bios.cfm) Does the balance look out of wack to you?


Wow -- African-Americans comprise 10-13% of the population? Just that link you posted shows representation at close to 50%.

I see you are clearly not one to walk the walk.

Again, it is evident that equality or "just representation" is not what you're interested in -- only that the appropriate people are targeted for discrimination.


.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 12:55
Wow -- African-Americans comprise 10-13% of the population? Just that link you posted shows representation at close to 50%.

I see you are clearly not one to walk the walk.

Again, it is evident that equality or "just representation" is not what you're interested in -- only that the appropriate people are targeted for discrimination.


.

JFrame... You are looking at this backwards. what % of the population in DC would you say is black? ~50+% easy right? So why would a scan of of those faces look like something was out of wack to you? :dunno:

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 13:07
Wow -- African-Americans comprise 10-13% of the population? Just that link you posted shows representation at close to 50%.

I see you are clearly not one to walk the walk.

Again, it is evident that equality or "just representation" is not what you're interested in -- only that the appropriate people are targeted for discrimination.


.

If a person asks the question why is a certain minority group underrepresented in a certain group/program/agency? They are viewed as racist... looking for handouts etc.

But you turn around and scan faces and say there are too many minorities at DC Metro even though the number roughly matches the demographics of the city... and that is not based on race?

Are you implying that the black folks on that board are not qualified for the position they are in? Or that there should be X amount more white folks on the board because they are obviously more qualified? Where are we going with this?

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 13:17
If a person asks the question why is a certain minority group underrepresented in a certain group/program/agency? They are viewed as racist

Who said that? No one has an issue if you want to question why there aren't many blacks or Asians or whatever in a particular field or business, but if its because they can't find people that they feel are qualified don't argue that it's discriminatory if there is no proof of that.
Should NASA hire a C student to be in the JP labs just because he's a minority?
As JF said, AA excludes one group in preference of another. It should not be that way.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 13:43
JFrame... You are looking at this backwards. what % of the population in DC would you say is black? ~50+% easy right? So why would a scan of of those faces look like something was out of wack to you? :dunno:


So NOW your contention is that an organization's demographics needs to reflect the demographics of the municipality it's in? So if a college is in an all-white suburban community, it's okay for the faculty and student body to be commensurately all white?

I think your justifications are all over the board -- and basically boil down to "the policy is the right one if it affords special consideration to my 'preferred' people."


.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 13:45
If a person asks the question why is a certain minority group underrepresented in a certain group/program/agency? They are viewed as racist... looking for handouts etc.

But you turn around and scan faces and say there are too many minorities at DC Metro even though the number roughly matches the demographics of the city... and that is not based on race?

Are you implying that the black folks on that board are not qualified for the position they are in? Or that there should be X amount more white folks on the board because they are obviously more qualified? Where are we going with this?


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the demographics for an organization are considered skewed because there are too many white faces, then the same must apply for any other demographic deemed "out of proportion."


.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 13:49
So NOW your contention is that an organization's demographics needs to reflect the demographics of the municipality it's in? So if a college is in an all-white suburban community, it's okay for the faculty and student body to be commensurately all white?

I think your justifications are all over the board -- and basically boil down to "the policy is the right one if it affords special consideration to my 'preferred' people."


.

You brought up the percentages. You felt there were too many black faces on the board.

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 13:52
You brought up the percentages. You felt there were too many black faces on the board.

That's not what he stated. Quit trying to bait.

GWSHARK
08-17-2012, 13:56
That's not what he stated. Quit trying to bait.

What did he say then... because that EXACTLY how I'm hearing it. A scan of faces and he felt something was amiss.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 14:35
You brought up the percentages. You felt there were too many black faces on the board.

Meh -- you brought up percentages in the first place with too FEW black faces:

After a class size re-org at the university there was a trend that the percentage of classes with one or no black or hispanic students had increased to 90% and 43%, respectively.

...

It's seems outlandish to suggest that an environment where 90%/43% of all classes have 1 or no blacks/hispanics is some how tilted AGAINST the white students. Thats bogus.

I think it's clear to everyone at this point that you aren't remotely interested in "just representation" -- the statistical sampling must ascribe to some arbitrary progressive standard set forth by the Left, and where they become over-sampled, well that's just great too.

At this point, what I said previously should be evident to everyone:

I think your justifications are all over the board -- and basically boil down to "the policy is the right one if it affords special consideration to my 'preferred' people."
.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 14:47
I've been watching this and I have observed some interesting points.


The "nation wide" percentage of blacks should be used to establish proper percentagages in areas where Blacks aren't represented by population.

The "community percentage" should be used where Blacks are in greater number than the "nation wide" percentage"


And at any rate equality is measured by numbers not performance.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 15:03
I've been watching this and I have observed some interesting points.


The "nation wide" percentage of blacks should be used to establish proper percentages in areas where Blacks aren't represented by population.

The "community percentage" should be used where Blacks are in greater number than the "nation wide" percentage"


And at any rate equality is measured by numbers not performance.


Nailed it, countrygun -- I believe that is the "progressive" mission statement for "Affirmative Action" in a nutshell.


.