Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[IM2]

Less than 10% of the American population of more than 300,000,000 people has earned a Master's degree. When you adjust the numbers for women and specifically black women, the number reduces exponentially. That's not "lots of people", each one of them is a stand-out in his or her particular field.

Not if they got that degree from AA. If they did, they're a "stand-out" in phony credentials.

You don't get a degree from AA. You kinda have to pass the same curriculum as every other student even if you assume AA s what you made up.

Boy you anti AA guys are some dumb asses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Reverse discrimination is alive and well in the United States, judging by what transpired at the Supreme Court last Thursday and a bill that recently passed New York’s state assembly.

In a 4 to 3 ruling, the Court upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action program to admit minorities over similarly or more qualified white applicants.

Abigail Noel Fisher, who is white, had sued over her rejection in 2008. Her case reached the Supreme Court in 2013, was remanded to the Fifth Circuit, and re-emerged this term.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy denied her claim that the university’s race-conscious policy violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Supreme court validates reverse discrimination with University of Texas case

No such thing as reverse discrimination. Thats pretty much an oxymoron. Its either discrimination or its not.

Which is what we've been saying all along. AA is discrimination.

Hpw about you use the 2016 case? OK?
It is not. You are wrong.

Even though I provided a link that clearly explained when discrimination against a white was used by a college?

If you applied for a job, and the person doing the interview told you that you can't have the job because of the color of your skin, what would you call that?

After you answer that question, explain to me how your answer could possibly be different if the interviewer said the exact same thing to a white.

How about you use the 2016 case? OK?

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The US Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, ruling that the "race-conscious admissions program in use at the time" is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The court ruled 4-3 in the university's favor, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor delivering the opinion of the court, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts dissenting.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide the same basic rights to all people in similar circumstances. "

Fisher was not discriminated based on race at UT. In this case it was found that students of color with higher scores than Fishers were also not admitted.

"For just one second, let’s forget that the University of Texas’ admission rate is 40 percent and that it’s on record only 5 people of color with grades worse than her were accepted and 42 white people with grades worse than her were accepted from her class that year. Let’s forget that there were 168 Black and Latino students who got the same grades or even better grades than her but were denied admission. Let’s forget all of that and look at the real issue and problem with the case: Fisher and others refusing to believe that people of color can be smarter than them and can earn admission solely on their brain and not their skin color.

There’s always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action. They didn’t study for their ACTs, they didn’t get 4.0s, they weren’t involved in their high schools. They just applied and the admissions people looked at what race they were and said “She’s brown, let’s get that acceptance letter to her.” But the reality of the situation is if that spot was really yours, you would have gotten it."

Blame Your Own Mediocrity, Not People of Color, For Your College Admission Shortcomings | HuffPost

As to your question, it is an illegal question that cannot be asked in an interview. Nor can an employer tell you why you were not hired for any reason much less due to affirmative action. So if an employer does this, they can be sued for unfair employment practices. So these claims those like you are making are bunk if you base them on employment law and EEOC policy. Some of us here actually know what we are talking about relative to these matters Ray.

I disagree. Maybe if it has something to do with race, but I've inquired why I was not hired for jobs and they told me. That was in my younger days and most often it was because an older person with more experience wanted the same job. One time it was because a former employer blackballed me.

But I want to get back to this University case. I always question Hufffpo because not only are they far left, they have often been accused of reporting false information.

According to that article, 168 minorities with grades better than Fisher were denied entrance, while 42 whites with worse grades were not. Does that make any sense to you? I mean......the slightest hint at discrimination has ambulance chasers coming out of the woodwork and left-wing media all over the story. Yet......crickets.

There is something really fishy about this article when lower scoring whites gain admission into college over higher scoring blacks. Any school would normally be scared to death of a lawsuit if they did anything like that.

 

[rightwinger]

If you benefitted from a tilted playing field for centuries, just declare everything even Steven

The point of affirmative action was to open up opportunities .......it worked

Yes, it radically lowered standards. What a "great" accomplishment, you must be so proud.

Standards were lowered when only white males were offered those jobs

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

We do not know the rationale for individual hiring actions

However, we do know that overall, more white women are in professional positions and executive positions that were once exclusively held by white males

Credit affirmative action

No, we don't know that. Again, no way to prove it one way or another.

Plenty of proof

I have seen a regeneration of the workforce in the 40 years I have worked.
I started in a workforce where almost all the managers and executives were white, male, christians.

Now the workforce and top level positions are open to minorities, women, Asians, gays, handicapped

Thank Affirmative Action

They were always open to those people, however back in the day, most women were housewives with children and minorities didn't have the education to get those jobs. They worked in blue-collar labor like most other white people.

Businesses don't avoid hiring people because of their race or gender. If they avoid hiring people, it's because of the circumstance that comes with them.

For instance years ago I worked for a company owned by a Jewish guy. He avoided hiring young females for the office. He preferred older women. Why? Because of insurance costs. Delivering a baby was always expensive and medical care thereafter a cost as well, so he liked to hire older women who's children were in their teen years or adults themselves. He had nothing against having an office of young attractive females. It's just that he didn't want the expense and girls calling off all the time because of their children's illness or trouble in school, or otherwise decide to quit the job to be a full-time mother.

Ray your post is a lie. There is evidence that shows it be one. Stop making up shit you imagine because you don't want face the truth.

It's a lie? He told me himself. I guess he was lying too?

The only younger girls I remember in that office were those married or soon to be. We didn't have many single younger girls there. Back then, most married women were on their husbands insurance policy and so were the kids or soon to be expected babies.

 

[GreenBean]

Just saw this video in my feed and was quite shocked at the stats it puts forward.

Prager puts out some good data ....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tilly has decided to laugh, and that in itself is funny.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents

According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million white women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies. This pays off in dividends in the labor force and to (mostly) white men and families. You can see how some of these benefits accrue to white women in the following infographic from the Center for American Progress (from 2012):

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Didn't I just say that?????

No. You said when jobs are given to white women nobody knows why.

Yes, and you said the same thing:

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

 

[IM2]

No such thing as reverse discrimination. Thats pretty much an oxymoron. Its either discrimination or its not.

Which is what we've been saying all along. AA is discrimination.

Hpw about you use the 2016 case? OK?
It is not. You are wrong.

Even though I provided a link that clearly explained when discrimination against a white was used by a college?

If you applied for a job, and the person doing the interview told you that you can't have the job because of the color of your skin, what would you call that?

After you answer that question, explain to me how your answer could possibly be different if the interviewer said the exact same thing to a white.

How about you use the 2016 case? OK?

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The US Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, ruling that the "race-conscious admissions program in use at the time" is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The court ruled 4-3 in the university's favor, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor delivering the opinion of the court, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts dissenting.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide the same basic rights to all people in similar circumstances. "

Fisher was not discriminated based on race at UT. In this case it was found that students of color with higher scores than Fishers were also not admitted.

"For just one second, let’s forget that the University of Texas’ admission rate is 40 percent and that it’s on record only 5 people of color with grades worse than her were accepted and 42 white people with grades worse than her were accepted from her class that year. Let’s forget that there were 168 Black and Latino students who got the same grades or even better grades than her but were denied admission. Let’s forget all of that and look at the real issue and problem with the case: Fisher and others refusing to believe that people of color can be smarter than them and can earn admission solely on their brain and not their skin color.

There’s always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action. They didn’t study for their ACTs, they didn’t get 4.0s, they weren’t involved in their high schools. They just applied and the admissions people looked at what race they were and said “She’s brown, let’s get that acceptance letter to her.” But the reality of the situation is if that spot was really yours, you would have gotten it."

Blame Your Own Mediocrity, Not People of Color, For Your College Admission Shortcomings | HuffPost

As to your question, it is an illegal question that cannot be asked in an interview. Nor can an employer tell you why you were not hired for any reason much less due to affirmative action. So if an employer does this, they can be sued for unfair employment practices. So these claims those like you are making are bunk if you base them on employment law and EEOC policy. Some of us here actually know what we are talking about relative to these matters Ray.

I disagree. Maybe if it has something to do with race, but I've inquired why I was not hired for jobs and they told me. That was in my younger days and most often it was because an older person with more experience wanted the same job. One time it was because a former employer blackballed me.

But I want to get back to this University case. I always question Hufffpo because not only are they far left, they have often been accused of reporting false information.

According to that article, 168 minorities with grades better than Fisher were denied entrance, while 42 whites with worse grades were not. Does that make any sense to you? I mean......the slightest hint at discrimination has ambulance chasers coming out of the woodwork and left-wing media all over the story. Yet......crickets.

There is something really fishy about this article when lower scoring whites gain admission into college over higher scoring blacks. Any school would normally be scared to death of a lawsuit if they did anything like that.

What you disagree with is irrelevant. The article was not challenged. You cant be told you were denied for jobs because of your race legally. That s a fact. You can't be told anything but they hired a person who they felt was was better able to do the job. You can't be told you got blackballed, that's discrimination.. You're just wrong here Ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tilly has decided to laugh, and that in itself is funny.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents

According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million white women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies. This pays off in dividends in the labor force and to (mostly) white men and families. You can see how some of these benefits accrue to white women in the following infographic from the Center for American Progress (from 2012):

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

We do not know the rationale for individual hiring actions

However, we do know that overall, more white women are in professional positions and executive positions that were once exclusively held by white males

Credit affirmative action

No, we don't know that. Again, no way to prove it one way or another.

We do know that.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

The report was released on the eve of the first legislative hearing of a measure to end state affirmative action programs, and it sheds new light on an issue that has emerged as one of the most emotional and divisive in the state.

The study found that in 1993, the last year for which figures are available, major California firms employed 17,800 fewer white males in managerial positions than in 1975.

At the same time, 10,500 more African Americans, 19,300 more Latinos, 24,600 more Asian Americans and 57,250 more white women were holding managerial jobs.

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

View attachment 185609 Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women

Affirmative Action Works
Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.

Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years. Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%. Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.

Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.

Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well. In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.

Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.

Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC

This is all circumstantial. Unless somebody does a study where employers report that the only reason they hired minorities or women is because of AA, then these stories are speculation at best.

Since the 80's, more and more women attended college. It's only reasonable to assume that the reason there are more minorities and women in the workforce is because there are more minorities and women that became educated in those various fields of work.

 

[IM2]

Tilly has decided to laugh, and that in itself is funny.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents

According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million white women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies. This pays off in dividends in the labor force and to (mostly) white men and families. You can see how some of these benefits accrue to white women in the following infographic from the Center for American Progress (from 2012):

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Didn't I just say that?????

No. You said when jobs are given to white women nobody knows why.

Yes, and you said the same thing:

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

No I didn't. .

Me: When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Ray: When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is what we've been saying all along. AA is discrimination.

Hpw about you use the 2016 case? OK?
It is not. You are wrong.

Even though I provided a link that clearly explained when discrimination against a white was used by a college?

If you applied for a job, and the person doing the interview told you that you can't have the job because of the color of your skin, what would you call that?

After you answer that question, explain to me how your answer could possibly be different if the interviewer said the exact same thing to a white.

How about you use the 2016 case? OK?

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The US Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, ruling that the "race-conscious admissions program in use at the time" is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The court ruled 4-3 in the university's favor, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor delivering the opinion of the court, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts dissenting.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide the same basic rights to all people in similar circumstances. "

Fisher was not discriminated based on race at UT. In this case it was found that students of color with higher scores than Fishers were also not admitted.

"For just one second, let’s forget that the University of Texas’ admission rate is 40 percent and that it’s on record only 5 people of color with grades worse than her were accepted and 42 white people with grades worse than her were accepted from her class that year. Let’s forget that there were 168 Black and Latino students who got the same grades or even better grades than her but were denied admission. Let’s forget all of that and look at the real issue and problem with the case: Fisher and others refusing to believe that people of color can be smarter than them and can earn admission solely on their brain and not their skin color.

There’s always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action. They didn’t study for their ACTs, they didn’t get 4.0s, they weren’t involved in their high schools. They just applied and the admissions people looked at what race they were and said “She’s brown, let’s get that acceptance letter to her.” But the reality of the situation is if that spot was really yours, you would have gotten it."

Blame Your Own Mediocrity, Not People of Color, For Your College Admission Shortcomings | HuffPost

As to your question, it is an illegal question that cannot be asked in an interview. Nor can an employer tell you why you were not hired for any reason much less due to affirmative action. So if an employer does this, they can be sued for unfair employment practices. So these claims those like you are making are bunk if you base them on employment law and EEOC policy. Some of us here actually know what we are talking about relative to these matters Ray.

I disagree. Maybe if it has something to do with race, but I've inquired why I was not hired for jobs and they told me. That was in my younger days and most often it was because an older person with more experience wanted the same job. One time it was because a former employer blackballed me.

But I want to get back to this University case. I always question Hufffpo because not only are they far left, they have often been accused of reporting false information.

According to that article, 168 minorities with grades better than Fisher were denied entrance, while 42 whites with worse grades were not. Does that make any sense to you? I mean......the slightest hint at discrimination has ambulance chasers coming out of the woodwork and left-wing media all over the story. Yet......crickets.

There is something really fishy about this article when lower scoring whites gain admission into college over higher scoring blacks. Any school would normally be scared to death of a lawsuit if they did anything like that.

What you disagree with is irrelevant. The article was not challenged. You cant be told you were denied for jobs because of your race legally. That s a fact. You can't be told anything but they hired a person who they felt was was better able to do the job. You can't be told you got blackballed, that's discrimination.. You're just wrong here Ray.

No I am not. While there are rules to what a former employer can say, they can convey their message legally. The most common one is one I learned from a former employer. He got the advice from his lawyer.

What the potential employer asks the former is this: If I decide I don't want to hire Ray, and you have a job opening, would you hire him back if I sent him your way?

There is nothing illegal about that question nor the answer the former employer gives.

Now, can they say I hired somebody because they are a person of color? That I don't know. I've never been in that situation. But outside of race, I do know they can blackball you just by answering that legal question.

 

[IM2]

Tilly has decided to laugh, and that in itself is funny.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents

According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million white women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies. This pays off in dividends in the labor force and to (mostly) white men and families. You can see how some of these benefits accrue to white women in the following infographic from the Center for American Progress (from 2012):

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

We do not know the rationale for individual hiring actions

However, we do know that overall, more white women are in professional positions and executive positions that were once exclusively held by white males

Credit affirmative action

No, we don't know that. Again, no way to prove it one way or another.

We do know that.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

The report was released on the eve of the first legislative hearing of a measure to end state affirmative action programs, and it sheds new light on an issue that has emerged as one of the most emotional and divisive in the state.

The study found that in 1993, the last year for which figures are available, major California firms employed 17,800 fewer white males in managerial positions than in 1975.

At the same time, 10,500 more African Americans, 19,300 more Latinos, 24,600 more Asian Americans and 57,250 more white women were holding managerial jobs.

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

View attachment 185609 Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women

Affirmative Action Works
Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.

Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years. Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%. Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.

Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.

Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well. In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.

Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.

Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC

This is all circumstantial. Unless somebody does a study where employers report that the only reason they hired minorities or women is because of AA, then these stories are speculation at best.

Since the 80's, more and more women attended college. It's only reasonable to assume that the reason there are more minorities and women in the workforce is because there are more minorities and women that became educated in those various fields of work.

There is nothing circumstantial about it. Blacks are a minority but you swear we have only gotten things because of affirmative action. Now that you have been shown how whites have befitted the most, suddenly it's circumstantial and opinion. No, it is truth. Just like white men exclusively got what you think AA is for almost 200 years by written law and policy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Didn't I just say that?????

No. You said when jobs are given to white women nobody knows why.

Yes, and you said the same thing:

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

No I didn't. .

Me: When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Ray: When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why

I don't mean to be rude here, but are you sure you went to college??????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First link--not found.

Secondly it's an opinion, not a fact. When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why. It's not like employers sit there and say "We're hiring you because of government quotas."

Fake News.

We do not know the rationale for individual hiring actions

However, we do know that overall, more white women are in professional positions and executive positions that were once exclusively held by white males

Credit affirmative action

No, we don't know that. Again, no way to prove it one way or another.

We do know that.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

The report was released on the eve of the first legislative hearing of a measure to end state affirmative action programs, and it sheds new light on an issue that has emerged as one of the most emotional and divisive in the state.

The study found that in 1993, the last year for which figures are available, major California firms employed 17,800 fewer white males in managerial positions than in 1975.

At the same time, 10,500 more African Americans, 19,300 more Latinos, 24,600 more Asian Americans and 57,250 more white women were holding managerial jobs.

State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses

View attachment 185609 Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women

Affirmative Action Works
Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.

Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years. Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%. Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.

Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.

Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well. In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.

Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.

Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC

This is all circumstantial. Unless somebody does a study where employers report that the only reason they hired minorities or women is because of AA, then these stories are speculation at best.

Since the 80's, more and more women attended college. It's only reasonable to assume that the reason there are more minorities and women in the workforce is because there are more minorities and women that became educated in those various fields of work.

There is nothing circumstantial about it. Blacks are a minority but you swear we have only gotten things because of affirmative action. Now that you have been shown how whites have befitted the most, suddenly it's circumstantial and opinion. No, it is truth. Just like white men exclusively got what you think AA is for almost 200 years by written law and policy.

When did I ever say that blacks have only gotten things because of AA? I never said that. If anything, I said many blacks got to where they are today by their own accord.

 

[Asclepias]

Post evidence of my racism. Punk. I don't lose my expertise because I'm posting on the internet nor do you gain any because you post. Punk.

Evidence of your racism is you support affirmative action. You support racist, racial discrimination.

Since AA is not racial discrimination, there is no evidence.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Reverse discrimination is alive and well in the United States, judging by what transpired at the Supreme Court last Thursday and a bill that recently passed New York’s state assembly.

In a 4 to 3 ruling, the Court upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action program to admit minorities over similarly or more qualified white applicants.

Abigail Noel Fisher, who is white, had sued over her rejection in 2008. Her case reached the Supreme Court in 2013, was remanded to the Fifth Circuit, and re-emerged this term.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy denied her claim that the university’s race-conscious policy violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Supreme court validates reverse discrimination with University of Texas case

No such thing as reverse discrimination. Thats pretty much an oxymoron. Its either discrimination or its not.

Which is what we've been saying all along. AA is discrimination.

It was discrimination and still is discrimination when it benefits whites which it has done since the inception of this country. Stop crying until we Blacks have had exclusive AA for 400 years.

 

[Markle]

But how were you able to teach in a unversity [university] without a Ph.d [PH.D]?

I've taught at several universities and I have but a bachelors degree in a totally unrelated field. It has never been my full-time profession.

For all your self-professed education, I have corrected your spelling. Don't you even have spell check?

For most freshman and many other classes, they are primarily taught by a teachers assistant. Someone with far less than a PH.D. You know that, don't you?

 

[Asclepias]

Since AA is not racial discrimination, there is no evidence.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Reverse discrimination is alive and well in the United States, judging by what transpired at the Supreme Court last Thursday and a bill that recently passed New York’s state assembly.

In a 4 to 3 ruling, the Court upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action program to admit minorities over similarly or more qualified white applicants.

Abigail Noel Fisher, who is white, had sued over her rejection in 2008. Her case reached the Supreme Court in 2013, was remanded to the Fifth Circuit, and re-emerged this term.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy denied her claim that the university’s race-conscious policy violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Supreme court validates reverse discrimination with University of Texas case

No such thing as reverse discrimination. Thats pretty much an oxymoron. Its either discrimination or its not.

Which is what we've been saying all along. AA is discrimination.

It is not. You are wrong.

Even though I provided a link that clearly explained when discrimination against a white was used by a college?

If you applied for a job, and the person doing the interview told you that you can't have the job because of the color of your skin, what would you call that?

After you answer that question, explain to me how your answer could possibly be different if the interviewer said the exact same thing to a white.

"A white person" doesnt represent the entire white race. Thats called an exception to the rule.

I would called that one racist person. Now if everytime I and other Black people went to an interview and the person was white and told me/them that I would call it racism.

 

[IM2]

Hpw about you use the 2016 case? OK?
It is not. You are wrong.

Even though I provided a link that clearly explained when discrimination against a white was used by a college?

If you applied for a job, and the person doing the interview told you that you can't have the job because of the color of your skin, what would you call that?

After you answer that question, explain to me how your answer could possibly be different if the interviewer said the exact same thing to a white.

How about you use the 2016 case? OK?

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The US Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, ruling that the "race-conscious admissions program in use at the time" is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions

"The court ruled 4-3 in the university's favor, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor delivering the opinion of the court, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts dissenting.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide the same basic rights to all people in similar circumstances. "

Fisher was not discriminated based on race at UT. In this case it was found that students of color with higher scores than Fishers were also not admitted.

"For just one second, let’s forget that the University of Texas’ admission rate is 40 percent and that it’s on record only 5 people of color with grades worse than her were accepted and 42 white people with grades worse than her were accepted from her class that year. Let’s forget that there were 168 Black and Latino students who got the same grades or even better grades than her but were denied admission. Let’s forget all of that and look at the real issue and problem with the case: Fisher and others refusing to believe that people of color can be smarter than them and can earn admission solely on their brain and not their skin color.

There’s always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action. They didn’t study for their ACTs, they didn’t get 4.0s, they weren’t involved in their high schools. They just applied and the admissions people looked at what race they were and said “She’s brown, let’s get that acceptance letter to her.” But the reality of the situation is if that spot was really yours, you would have gotten it."

Blame Your Own Mediocrity, Not People of Color, For Your College Admission Shortcomings | HuffPost

As to your question, it is an illegal question that cannot be asked in an interview. Nor can an employer tell you why you were not hired for any reason much less due to affirmative action. So if an employer does this, they can be sued for unfair employment practices. So these claims those like you are making are bunk if you base them on employment law and EEOC policy. Some of us here actually know what we are talking about relative to these matters Ray.

I disagree. Maybe if it has something to do with race, but I've inquired why I was not hired for jobs and they told me. That was in my younger days and most often it was because an older person with more experience wanted the same job. One time it was because a former employer blackballed me.

But I want to get back to this University case. I always question Hufffpo because not only are they far left, they have often been accused of reporting false information.

According to that article, 168 minorities with grades better than Fisher were denied entrance, while 42 whites with worse grades were not. Does that make any sense to you? I mean......the slightest hint at discrimination has ambulance chasers coming out of the woodwork and left-wing media all over the story. Yet......crickets.

There is something really fishy about this article when lower scoring whites gain admission into college over higher scoring blacks. Any school would normally be scared to death of a lawsuit if they did anything like that.

What you disagree with is irrelevant. The article was not challenged. You cant be told you were denied for jobs because of your race legally. That s a fact. You can't be told anything but they hired a person who they felt was was better able to do the job. You can't be told you got blackballed, that's discrimination.. You're just wrong here Ray.

No I am not. While there are rules to what a former employer can say, they can convey their message legally. The most common one is one I learned from a former employer. He got the advice from his lawyer.

What the potential employer asks the former is this: If I decide I don't want to hire Ray, and you have a job opening, would you hire him back if I sent him your way?

There is nothing illegal about that question nor the answer the former employer gives.

Now, can they say I hired somebody because they are a person of color? That I don't know. I've never been in that situation. But outside of race, I do know they can blackball you just by answering that legal question.

I know because I had to learn employment law and that I employed people. The question you posed has nothing to do with being told you were hired or not because of AA or race. And that has been a claim you and others here have been making.

 

[Asclepias]

I spent 40 years in the government

In the early years of affirmative action, people were promoted to positions they were not prepared for. Over time, more qualified minorities and women took those jobs.

Now, nobody even notices

Affirmative action was a success

I believe you spent 40 years in government. Defending the promotion of people for positions they were not qualified for just proves my point. Government is the most inefficient and wasteful way to run something as important as my healthcare.

You have to crawl before you can walk. Women, minorities, the handicapped had to be given opportunities
That they were not instantly successful does not negate the overall success of affirmative action

I believe in treating everyone the same, regardless of skin color. Way past time to bring this racism to an end. Let's live in the dream of MLK.

MLK was a supporter of affirmative action

Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly supported what's now called affirmative action: Jarvis DeBerry

You're reading something that isn't there. MLK supported job training, that's all. Nothing in there about preference over qualified people of a different skin tone. Better read that again.

You have bad reading comprehension. He wasnt just talking about job training you moron.


"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
-MLK

 

[IM2]

But how were you able to teach in a unversity [university] without a Ph.d [PH.D]?

I've taught at several universities and I have but a bachelors degree in a totally unrelated field. For all your self-professed education, I have corrected your spelling. Don't you even have spell check?

For most freshman and many other classes, they are primarily taught by a teachers assistant. You know that, don't you?

You have not corrected anything.

Education Requirements for Becoming a College Professor
Upon completion of a Bachelor's Degree, you would need to enter into Graduate School. College professors need at least a Master's Degree. However, in many cases, a Doctoral Degree is required as well. While in school, those desiring to become a college professor should participate in available internships or employment opportunities that could enhance their teaching and research experience. This could include holding an assistantship in Graduate School (TA) and maintaining good academic and working relationships with professors.

College Professor | Requirements | Salary | Jobs | Teacher.org

Typical Requirements to Become a Higher Education Teacher
Minimum Education Level Master’s degree. Most colleges and universities require a doctorate degree in order to teach, but some allow those with masters degrees.

How to Become a Higher Education Teacher | TeachingDegree

 

[IM2]

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Didn't I just say that?????

No. You said when jobs are given to white women nobody knows why.

Yes, and you said the same thing:

Not fake news and it's fact. When jobs are given nobody knows why.

No I didn't. .

Me: When jobs are given nobody knows why.

Ray: When jobs are given to white women, nobody knows why

I don't mean to be rude here, but are you sure you went to college??????

You questioning my education doesn't change the fact that we did not say the same thing.