You are reduced to offering nothing but personal insults. Let the record show that this is the second time today that I have been personally attacked.
If market forces would run their course, our top universities would be populated by asians and whites, because the other *chosen* minority groups cannot cut it on the test scores. AA is not the free market in action. It's a helping hand, or a GIMME, at most qualified applicants' expense.
I think in this case they are right about this one point. Avoiding lawsuits is a major motivation for large companies to adopt AA. Not the only one, but a big one.
Working hard is a surprisingly small part of this equation. I didn't work hard in high school at all. But because I was born into a relatively affluent suburban home in a solid school district with college-educated white parents, I got a free pass to college. In America, that's the cosmic jackpot. I'd wager most college kids are in this boat. How many minorities are raised in a relatively affluent suburban home in a solid school district with college-educated parents? Because of injustices just a generation ago, probably not as many. So (statistically), they have fewer opportunities to college.
This feeds right into my solution to rid this country of AA. We must improve the schools at which these *chosen* minorities are "learning". As I've said before, I haven't seen any evidence that these *chosen* minorities are genetically lacking compared to other groups, so the problem is either in their schools or in their homes. We can't fix their homes. The schools are what we have to improve. Putting them in a position to fail in top universities and/or into corporate America is a recipe for disaster, which I have seen happen numerous times with my own eyes.
Goophers, having an AA policy will not help you avoid a lawsuit either practically or legally speaking. You can't sue somebody for not having an AA policy. And there is no evidence that suggests that an AA policy is a deterrent to EEOC filings, just pure, baseless speculation by the two-headed ideologue monster, Trader_texxx. But taking this out of the equation, why is the Military so in favor of it then? They can't be sued.
You are arbitrarily defining market forces to suit your own convenience. Market forces HAVE run their course. AA policies are voluntary, they are not enforced by any law. Schools (and our society) as a whole, feels that the benefits of the outcome with diversity minus the costs, outweighs the non-diverse outcome. Sorry, but you're wrong. What you think should be the ideal market outcome in your ivory tower, color blind world, has been discarded by the practicalities of the real world. The market chose. And it didn't choose your idea. Stop whining and deal with the efficiency.
I'm sure the record shows it, as I'm sure you reported it to a moderator. On the contrary, I offered empirical proof that you are way out of the mainstream on this issue, and all you came back with was a whiny "blame the lawyers reply" So, turning back to your insults, pistols at 40 paces or avec les rapiers?
...and in other news, Universities everywhere are scrambling to revamp their admissions processes (as this very thread title implies) to comply with *the law*. Sorry Sammy, but this ain't free markets. It's government regulation.
I agree 100-percent. Schools in poor and/or minority neighborhoods absolutely, positively need to be improved. Once these schools are able to offer the same advantages, opportunities and education that more affluent schools take for granted, I'll be the first to ask for the dismantling of AA in education. Until that time comes, however, AA is the best we have. It's far from perfect, but it is a crucial part of leveling our playing field.
Yes, with the law which LIMITS how much AA they can do, but which does NOT mandate any form of AA whatsoever. How many times do I have to repeat this to you for you to believe it? Wrong again.
Sammy, do you honestly think that large corporations voluntarily want to hire sub-par performers in order to boost profits? Ludicrous. If a large, selective corporation did not have an AA policy, and hired only based on merit, very few under-represented minorities would earn the right to work there. Under this scenario, the corporation would be predominantly comprised of over-represented minorities. When an under-represented minority applies to this corporation and gets rejected, you can bet your bottom dollar that lawyers will have a feeding frenzy as to who can be the first to represent the under-represented minority in their discrimination lawsuit. Having an affirmative action policy bends the rules for the companies and allows them to hire unqualified applicants, thereby boosting their under-represented minority statistics. This way, they are much less of a target for the million-dollar-lawsuit discrimination sharks. You may not like the way this sounds, but it's the way it works out there, big 'un.
Save it TJ, I know far more about the law of Title VII and lawsuits than you do, and your fantasy scenario was conjured out of the recesses of Rush Limbaugh's imagination. Most meritless Title VII cases end up with a form letter from the EEOC and minimal expense. While it's great for you to tilt at the evil lawyer windmill, you have no experience in this area other than reading RNC fundraising letters. But even going into to your alternate reality and pretending like its true, I dare you to answer my question, why does the military favor it then?
First of all, Any corporate Affirmative Action programs are totally different from Acedemic Affirmative Programs, so using the same arguments is ludicrous. Most corporations who support affirmative action, support it at the Acdemic level. They don't want to hire "sub-par" workers, and they don't hire "sub-par" workers, they support A.A. to have a diverse selection to choose from when recruiting. A diverse selection of candidates leads to a diverse working for which benifits corporations, because they want to have a work force that fully understands their entire customer base. Corporations may encourage their H.R. personell to seek out minority candidates, but the notion that corporations seek to fill some government requirement is a bold faced lie, as quotas are illegal. Coporations who support AA support it at the Acedemic level for their own BENEFIT, not to avoid lawsuits.
Sammy, citing your qualifications (whatever those may be) doesn't make you an expert. Putting forth qualified opinions with fact-based support goes a lot further. If you were highly knowledgeable about this area -- it would be readily apparent for all to see. It ain't, bubba. The military most likely favors AA because it would look absurd for them to stray from the laws of the land and it keeps Jester Jackson away from them. Image is everything when you are recruiting soldiers for war -- they don't need anything or anyone attempting to damage their reputation. One visit from Jester Jackson (btw -- is he out of jail yet?) and the extortion game is on.
The military is not a company and is not subject to typical market forces, thus obviating the base argument. That said, I agreed that avoiding lawsuits was ONE reason and not the only reason. My company embraces AA and has seen some benefits to it. However, like everything, there are downfalls. That's why I think AA should be converted in the government to an economic picture instead of a race one. Because minorities are disproportionately poor, it would help them. It would not help minorities who are middle and upper class. And it would not discriminate against white people who happen to also be poor.
That is a cop-out and is completely wrong. The military, and its labor supply IS subject to market forces, just like eveything else. Economics is not limited to situations of Marshallian firms economics is about scarcity and choices that people make as a result of them. The military is an employer like any other, and it has a labor force, like any other, yet it chooses to implement affirmative action and to promote diversity, and, according to trader texx, therefore it promotes "Less qualified" minorities even though people's LIVES are at stake, not just making a few bucks here and there. Why is this? You know what answer the anti-AA lawyer gave for this question when asked about it at the Supreme Court? He said "well, the coast guard didn't file a brief supporting it" That's about as good an answer he could give, and he'd had months to think of something to say.
sam...it may be subject to market forces...but it's also subject to scrutiny as a state actor in ways private companies are not. it's part and parcel of the united state government...which means that pesky constitution comes in to play.
Trader_TExx, get it straight, I'm the one dealing in facts, as in the overwhelming market preference for AA, and I could dig up a bunch of elementary reading for you to do on Title VII, the EEOC, and basic employment discrimination law, as well as EEOC stats, but I'm not going to bother as it will upset your pre-determined inaccurate world view. You're the one who is telling fantasy horror stories about lawyers and practicing amateur psychology. Your military explanation is laughable, yes, I'm sure the mighty US military is going to be brought to its knees by Jesse Jackson. And for the last time, there is no nationwide mandate that AA policies must be implemented. Once again, the AA policies that are in place are due to market forces, and you have yet to provide one SINGLE factual explanation that this is not the best outcome. I think we've exhausted this, you have no answer, as you didn't before.
