Affirmative Action...Please Explain

It's strictly voluntary. None of the recent court cases say that it is mandatory to do it, they simply say that it is legal to do it if a state chooses to do it.

 

But if you choose not to do it, expect Jester Jackson and the NAACP protesting on your doorstep within hours. Also expect to be extorted out of a large sum of money and an extensive smear campaign launched against your organization. As Sam said, strictly voluntary.

 

Do you not see where the original poster state this?

"factual information would be best."

Not speculation, nor your post hoc rationalization as to the overwhelming market preference for affirmative action. Go back to your little social scientist laboratory and contact us when you invent a new excuse, OK?

 

Sam, would you care to explain the incident with NASCAR and Jesse's Rainbow-Push Coalition?

 

What does that have to do with affirmative action?

 

My apologies to the original poster for aiding and abetting the thread hijacking.

But I'm sure you have some spiel involving Jesse Jackson to explain why the only people who actively oppose affirmative action are right wing cranks and ideologues like yourself, and why the academy, the fortune 500, and the military overwhelmingly support it.

But I don't need to hear it again, I'm sure you do a much better job explaining it than me; why don't you put it in a PM or E-mail to Lil Pun OK?

 

It means that if you don't 'volunteer' to make AA a part of your hiring practice, you can expect to be extorted by people of the same ilk as Jesse Jackson.

 

Actually, SF, unless you consider me to be an extreme right wing crank/idealogue, ( and why not? I seem to be called everything else without substance) that's not accurate. I am firmly against it, although I suspect for different reasons than many who oppose it.

In simple form, I am against it because it promotes racism, the very ill it attempts to cure. We can get into an extended debate, no problem, as my oversimplified statement is wide open to counters, but that is my position.

And, wonders never ceasing, I am also in agreement with T_J that Jackson is a glory seeking self promoting sophomoric hypocite...however, unlike T_J, I don't see the connection between that opinion and affirimative action.

 

So every company that doesn't actively seek to hire minority candidates gets extorted by Jesse Jackson. I work at a publicly traded company that doesn't have any policies on minority hiring but I've never seen Jesse Jackson at one of our offices. The NASCAR story has nothing to do with affirmative action.

 

I was referring to the fact that the Amicus briefs in the supreme court consisted of the establishment (universities, fortune 500, and the military) who were for AA while the people writing briefs against AA were the usual right wing suspects: (Heritage foundation, Cato Institute, etc.) In other words, people with an actual stake in it vs. people who don't.

Which underscores the fact that AA is a market chosen outcome, the achilles heel of mr. markets Trader Jorge's anti AA ranting, as this essay says:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/strauss-victory.html

He tries to explain it away by blaming Jesse Jackson. pretty weak, IMO.

 

Sam, for the last time, my views towards AA are not inconsistent with free market principals and the basic economic principals of profit maximization. Here is a simplified choice that a CEO confronts:

Scenario A: Hire the best people qualified for the job, even if this means having a homogeneous employee base. Open yourself up to discrimination lawsuits and public image tarnishing by minority groups when one of 'their own' gets fired or does not get a job offer. Risk losing your business' reputation as a result of the public outrage generated by the extortion artists. Your profits will be higher, but the threat of lawsuit is also high.

Scenario B: Have an AA policy at your firm, even if it means dramatically lowering the standards for new hires and overlooking poor performance by minorities. Your profits will be lower, but the threat of lawsuit is reduced.

In today's age of a highly litigious society and with self-interested race baiters like Jesse Jackson on the prowl, a company can not risk losing its business because the incompetent secretary that is fired launches a racial discrimination suit again them. Vinson & Elkins, a Houston-based law firm, is struggling with this now. When they went to fire an underachiever, they were accused of being discriminatory. Their reputation has been damaged by the media exposure. No firm wants this brought upon them. The path of least resistance is just hiring them and putting up with lower performance in an effort to mitigate the lawsuit risk.

 

Fact: affirmative action is voluntary.

 

Fact: You dodged the very salient points which I presented, presumably because you are either incapable of disputing them or you agree with them.

Point: Trader_Jorge

 

Fact: If corporations, the military, and the acadamey saw affirmative action as a disadvantageous and that they would be economically better off without it, they would work in the courts and legislature to get rid of it.

 

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think that this would not lead to hordes of negative publicity? Do you not think that this negative publicity would negatively impact their reputation and therefore their business. They have no other choice but to accept the law and 'voluntarily' comply with this hideous distortion to the labor market.

 

Fact: I said I was going to stop helping you ruin this thread so now I will.


Let me know when you get documentation on that mentally challenged OU fan.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65688&perpage=30&pagenumber=4

Bye.

 

But T_J...and I'm against AA, just arguing your point here...that would be a free market decision of theirs. It would be a matter of weighing, if true, the negative effect of the lower performance against the negative effect of another group excercising it's part in the free market system; not purchasing said distributor's service/product, and advocating others to do so for the same reason. There is no deriviation for the free market system ( as if we really are one), unless they advocate others not using it for inaccurate reasons, such as the product is defective. In this case, so long as the group with the problem onnly createes negative publicity on the grounds that the company doesn't practice AA, which is accurate, it is up to the consumer to decide if that is sufficient cause to not purchase the product at the price, and/or for the distributor to decide how to react to that possibility...

They have a choice, and it's consistent with a free market decision.

 

Woah.....I concur...

I feel dirty.

DD