Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305062196' post='2239801']
No, [b]that [/b]is bs. I'm not advocating total state domination. All i'm trying to say is that we, as a society, should address injustice. If addressing injustice involves the state, fine, if it doesn't fine. If we don't address the injustice in our society, then we aren't doing something right.
[/quote]


Yes you are, you are saying that the state should discriminate against people based on race, in order to change outcomes and to slowly, magically, alter peoples views on other races. This is subtle thought control, but thought control nontheless.

How exactly is a rule of race and gender neutrality unjust?


How exactly is it just to, by law, require private citizens to depose of their own property in a particular way?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

No,whatyour talking about is control of the moral order by the state... if that isn't total state domination what is?

[MithLuin]

Um....what is the purpose of rule of law if not to enforce certain behaviors and put consequences on people's failure to live up to these standards?

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

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

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

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

[Don John of Austria]

I can't respond now, I will come back later.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304979348' post='2239301']
I was limiting my comments to my own university, which had a top 10 chemistry program. They didn't lower the bar, and the professor vouched for that. My experience was that the people who went into engineering (or science) for the paycheck didn't stick it out. You had to really like the field, be good at it, and put in tons of hours to keep your head above water.
[/quote]

She's right -- you won't be a successful engineer if you enter it simply because of money. I've seen it a lot.

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

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

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

[Don John of Austria]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[

Edited May 11, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[cmaD2006]

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

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

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

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

Edited May 11, 2011 by cmariadiaz

[Groo the Wanderer]

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

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


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

Edited May 11, 2011 by Groo the Wanderer

[Don John of Austria]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law does not equal morality.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited May 11, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

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

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


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


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

[ardillacid]

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

[cmaD2006]

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


I agree 100%.

[cmaD2006]

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

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

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

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

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

[ardillacid]

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

[Winchester]

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

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

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


Also, Spaniards are white.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Winchester