Republican Voter Suppression!

[ryoder]

Sanatone why would you lump people who disagree with affirmative action into the group of people who disagree with civil rights and jim crowe laws? By doing that you are calling these people racist. I do not like being called a racist.

[sanantone]

Well, I also believe that a lot of people either misunderstand how AA actually operates or think that it's unnecessary because discrimination is now rare. Of course, most of these people are not minorities and don't see the discrimination that is faced by them still on a regular basis.

[ryoder]

Affirmative action is discrimination and is unconstitutional.

[mrs.b]

Affirmative action is discrimination and is unconstitutional.

Affirmative Action, in theory, is a positive program that benefits virtually everyone and has long-term impact that could free us all of this discussion because it could permanently level the playing field so these regulations are no longer needed. Unfortunately, it is rarely put into practice the way theory dictates, and the likelihood of employment regulations being lifted years down the road are slim to none. While I manage one of these plans (Women & Minorities, and Vets & Disabled) and feel I have a reasonably decent grasp of it, save having a law degree to dig into the more detailed aspects and implications, I am not a supporter of Affirmative Action because of this divergence between theory and practice. It is a flaw with the law and system itself, despite the good intentions and potential benefits attached to it.

There are already discrimination laws in place, in addition to AA. A company may be in full compliance with AA requierments - maintaining or exceeding minority and female goal percentages - which lifts the "tie breaker" forced hand (that's really all AA is, a tie-breaker). Still, candidates cannot be discriminated against or organizations will be penalized. AA seems to be unnecessary duplication in its actual application. If, however, AA were changed to be a positive reinforcement - another side of the coin from these discrimination penalty laws - with incentives involved for organizations that achieved actual diversification of their workforce, I do not think the pull-back would be nearly as significant, while the same ultimate intended destination would be achieved. As in, the workforce would grow more diverse, minorities that are currently clearly underrepesented in many workforce groups would go up, providing more income and balance to those families, giving future minority generations the same opportunities as non-minorities. Sadly, our goverment likes to levy penalties and seems to overlook the ability to influence the market and economy through positive programs.

Edited to Add:
On the other hand, looking at purely the employment statistics, there are deficits in minority and female representation in many workforce categories, so some correction somewhere someway appears to be needed. A review of DOL statistics shows the higher one looks up the managerial chain of command, one will see white male representation increases significantly, far above actual community percentages of first-line workforce numbers. Not to discount the earlier Sonic example, but age is one of the only diversification categories where one can easily explain reasons for misalignment from actual population because more youth work low-income jobs like food service, while older workers tend to fill more of the managerial and administrative positions. In a truly diverse workforce, though, if all the 16-25 year olds are split 40% minority and 60% non-minority, one should see the managerial positions are also represented 40% minority and 60% non-minority. Reality shows us that few organizations achieve that. Are minorities not hard workers or intelligent enough to get the promotions? Most individuals who can breath with mouths closed and no longer have a spitoon collection will answer that question with a firm "no," so why the difference between first-line cultural representation as compared to managerial and administrative cultural representation?

[sanantone]

Affirmative action is discrimination and is unconstitutional.

Can you please explain how it's unconstitutional?

[quasarvs]

What are the signs of this overcorrection?

The signs of this overcorrection are when the federal government takes money, property and the personal freedom of individual choice, unjustly, away from other people.
In other words, an American company should have the right to hire/fire who they want. Otherwise we no longer have free enterprise, but we instead have a socialist government whose only purpose is to control. So in nearly three hundred years America has come the full circle. We started out with a government designed to protect the individuals but more importantly to protect freedom under the law for all. Yet, we end up with a government that is attacking its own principles (free enterprise etc.) under the guise of ‘protecting the individual’. When there is an action there is always a reaction, or a cause and an effect. We may, as individuals, think that the government suing a company for AA violation is not hurting any ‘individuals’, but the truth is that it does affect other people, perhaps in the form of layoffs or a rise in product prices for the general public.

Do blacks and Hispanics have higher employment rates than white people?

How could blacks and Hispanics when their populations are smaller than white people’s? This is one example of the many factors that could cause disproportionality in ratios in the work force.
With your defenses of AA it seems you lay the blame all on racism, which you say causes discrimination. To which I have already conceded that both, can and do still exist, albeit in miniscule minorities. At any rate, why is racism/discrimination the only cause of these disproportions? After all apparently AA only attempts to correct racism/discrimination when in reality it cannot. I think objectively speaking, racism is a much smaller factor and there are other factors which play a significant role in societal race disproportions.
For example the divorce rates among blacks, whites and hispanics, could be and I believe is a factor.
divorce360.com | African-Americans and Marriage

This article indicates that blacks are more likely to divorce than whites and hispanics are more likely to do and in fact have a higher divorce rate. I think there are several reasons for this divorce rate not just poverty as is listed. I think the primary reason is that the man does not rise to the responsibility of leading his family.
Again coming back to my original point, racism is not the only cause for the difficulties that people and races face. Making excuses for problems instead of facing them is only running from responsibility.
Hispanics are in many cases even poorer than black Americans, yet they have lower divorce rates and yet they work hard. This is the kind of thing all Americans can take a lesson from. Where is our pioneer work ethic!?!? Why do we insist on getting something for nothing!?

Do they have higher high school and college graduation rates?

Is it a businesses fault that the applicant doesn’t have a college degree? No. Why should the company still be forced to hire them in order to meet the same proportion of, the perhaps more qualified minorities, that the company down the road from them has?

How are white people being disenfranchised by Affirmative Action, especially when white women have benefitted the most from it?

What about the white male/female business owners? Since when has it been a crime to be a white male or a white rich male?
I would have to say that Affirmative action stacks up all its cards against the white, male business owner. Where are his rights of free choice? Each person’s rights/freedoms under law must be protected or there is no protection at all for anyone.
For example a quote from the movie Seargeant York: “Whereby all men were pledged to defend the rights of each man and each man to defend the rights of all men.” That’s what democracy should be about government by the people for the people. Everyone has a role to play.
There is a general trend towards feminizing everything in today’s society, and that is reflected in our laws. Women from any race get a shot at a benefit in the professional realm, which men don’t get. That’s also racist to men.
It may seem odd but I am a woman and do agree with the above. However, I am choosing to pursue a degree and possibly a career. I may prefer to be a characteriscally more demure woman, but I’m not going to take someone else’s right away to be the totally modern self-made woman either.

The proof is in the history behind laws addressing discrimination. Veterans would not be a protected class if there wasn't a history of discrimination against them.
Do Employers Discriminate Against Veterans?
Are Employers Discriminating Against Hiring Veterans? | Veterans Today
http://jobsforveterans.military.com/849/...stice-act/

Furthermore, regarding the troops,
The Veterans Today article is only one person’s opinion. I didn’t see anywhere where he cited his sources.
The first one apparently had a source but the source only appeared to indicate that the majority of civilians mistakenly think that most troops return with PTSD; however, the study did not support that, that misconception led to discrimination based from a stigma.
The author of this article didn’t offer any support for her statement that veterans have difficulty getting hired because of this stigma. Her source only indicated that misunderstanding of PTSD exists and that it had the possibility of affecting employment opportunities. It did not go on to prove that affect. Her source was actually a survey(poll) in other words a collection of other opinions, which lessens the facts and reliability.
And on the third one, just because the government makes a law on it doesn’t mean there actually is discrimination.
However, I will consent that because of the nature of racism, misconceptions, opinions etc., I’m sure discrimination has happened against troops applying for employment. But that’s not the reason they receive benefits.
The troops are risking all to protect their country, they have earned the “quote” benefits they receive. You can’t earn a favor, therefore they are not being “favored” with their “benefits”. When it comes to employment, I think troops don’t need any special legislation to protect them, because they should stand with every other American with the same qualifications when it comes to getting a job. Something like the G.I. bill is what I consider the troops to have earned for risking everything.
Again let me ask, why do we think we, Americans, should be guaranteed a job? We’re missing the point of our own history and how we got to be successful as a nation to begin with!

At this point a I think a lot of what I’ve said applies to what mrs.b was talking about. If I understood her right, she agrees with AA in theory not in practice. However, I disagree with AA in both because the goal, as she stated was to equalize things, or level the playing field. That leveling only leads to socialism and as ryoder indicated is therefore unconstitutional. The Revolution was fought for individuals to be individual not to be someone else’s standard of the perfect weight, wealth and wisdom

[mrs.b]

One minor pet pieve - women treated differently than men, or vice versa, is not racism. It is sexism, and also a form of discrimination. Racism is also a form of discrimination, but it deals with race. Both are discrimination, but they are very different in definition and application.

No laws anywhere force a hiring manager to hire an applicant with qualifications inferior to another. Affirmative Action is a tie-breaker regulation only, to bring percentages within 20% (not above or even equal to) the average level of similar positions in similar businesses in the same geographic area, and only if two applicants are otherwise equally qualified. If a white male has qualifications superior to a black woman, even if the organization has goals to hire minorities AND females, the white male can and should be hired. The legislation is flawed, but goodness, the layman understanding of it is apparently abysmal. If an employer is not discriminatory in hiring practices, Affirmative Action has little or no impact because the employer will either not have goals to work towards, or will have justifiable and explainable reasons they have not met existing goals (can show evidence of due diligence to recruit the target group with no qualified results).

Still, any reasonably intelligent business owner can hire or fire who they want. Anyone who has worked for any length of time should be aware that any boss who wants someone gone will see it done without much strain. Please take it from someone going on eight years of a 100% defense rate for unemployment hearings for some managers whose decision-making skills make my head hurt.

Discrimination against veterans is a reality. Search "USERRA violation" for an assortment of examples.

Disability discrimination is also quite real. Search "ADA violation" for many examples.

As for Affirmative Action in its theoretical form leading to socialism, I'm amused. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Among employed men, 17 percent of Asians and Whites worked in management, business, and financial operations occupations in 2011, compared with 10 percent of Blacks or African Americans, and 8 percent of Hispanics or Latinos...In 2011, employed Asian and white women were more likely than black or Hispanic or Latino women to work in management, business, and financial operations occupations or in professional and related occupations. These two occupational groups comprised 44 percent of employed Asian women and 42 percent of employed white women. By contrast, 34 percent of employed black women and 25 percent of employed Hispanic or Latino women worked in these occupations." Occupational employment by race and ethnicity, 2011 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

What is the justification for the separation of achievement among the races? Are black and Hispanic/Latino not trying hard enough to advance? How is it their fault their advancement percentages are so much lower than white and Asian workers?

Is unemployment compensation a pathway to socialism? While most of the would-be workers did nothing to deserve their lack of wage - they wanted to work but lost their jobs for reasons beyond their control - everyone on the program is getting a benefit. These two programs are almost identical in intent in their theoretical forms as far as I'm concerned. Both programs provide temporary support due to a disadvantage that was not deserved. Once unemployed individuals find work, they no longer need assistance. There are plenty of employers that do discriminate against protected groups and know the system well enough to get away with it, so a tie-breaker boost with other employers - only if qualifications are otherwise equal to non-protected applicants and the employer lacks diversification in its workforce as compared to similar nearby businesses - is a reasonably minor helping hand. They must still earn and achieve the equal qualifications for Affirmative Action to come into play, and once they have that work history, will be better-qualified for advancement opportunities later down the line without the need for a boost.

[sanantone]

The signs of this overcorrection are when the federal government takes money, property and the personal freedom of individual choice, unjustly, away from other people.
In other words, an American company should have the right to hire/fire who they want. Otherwise we no longer have free enterprise, but we instead have a socialist government whose only purpose is to control. So in nearly three hundred years America has come the full circle. We started out with a government designed to protect the individuals but more importantly to protect freedom under the law for all. Yet, we end up with a government that is attacking its own principles (free enterprise etc.) under the guise of ‘protecting the individual’. When there is an action there is always a reaction, or a cause and an effect. We may, as individuals, think that the government suing a company for AA violation is not hurting any ‘individuals’, but the truth is that it does affect other people, perhaps in the form of layoffs or a rise in product prices for the general public.

Regulation is not socialism, but the U.S. already has socialist elements mixed into its capitalist economy: Social Security and Medicare. The government wanting to control everything is called totalitarianism or authoritarianism, but to apply that term to our government would be a gross exaggeration. It is quite annoying how people these days like to slap "socialism" on everything without even knowing what it means.

How could blacks and Hispanics when their populations are smaller than white people’s? This is one example of the many factors that could cause disproportionality in ratios in the work force.

Oh gee! Here we go again. When I say higher employment rate I mean, for example, 86% of black people being employed vs. 93% of white people being employed. That means that 14% of black people are unemployed vs. 7% of white people being unemployed.

With your defenses of AA it seems you lay the blame all on racism, which you say causes discrimination. To which I have already conceded that both, can and do still exist, albeit in miniscule minorities. At any rate, why is racism/discrimination the only cause of these disproportions? After all apparently AA only attempts to correct racism/discrimination when in reality it cannot. I think objectively speaking, racism is a much smaller factor and there are other factors which play a significant role in societal race disproportions.

Where is your proof that racism is rare? Most Americans have an unfavorable view of black people. Most non-Hispanic white people hold anti-Hispanic sentiments. Then, there are the name studies that prove employers use names to try to guess an applicant's ethnicity.
Racial Views: Poll Shows Majority Harbor Prejudice Against Blacks

For example the divorce rates among blacks, whites and hispanics, could be and I believe is a factor.
divorce360.com | African-Americans and Marriage
This article indicates that blacks are more likely to divorce than whites and hispanics are more likely to do and in fact have a higher divorce rate. I think there are several reasons for this divorce rate not just poverty as is listed. I think the primary reason is that the man does not rise to the responsibility of leading his family.

What does this have to do with unemployment rates? Outside of when the immigration debate gets heated, I would say that black people face more racism than Hispanic people. Hispanics weren’t held as slaves and, while they did have to deal with some segregation laws, they didn’t face nearly the amount of harsh racism that black people did. Anyway, there are some cultural issues that need to be worked out, but this does not wipe away the disparities between EQUALLY qualified people. If you let employers discriminate against people because of their race, gender, disability, etc., expect to pay taxes for those people to live off of government assistance. That is more in line with socialism and infringing upon individual rights in my opinion.

Hispanics are in many cases even poorer than black Americans, yet they have lower divorce rates and yet they work hard. This is the kind of thing all Americans can take a lesson from. Where is our pioneer work ethic!?!? Why do we insist on getting something for nothing!?

They are also less likely to complete college than black people, but I guess that doesn’t count as work ethic to you. I guess earning a higher salary doesn't count as work ethic to you either. Many people work minimum wage jobs and are still a drain on the system because they qualify for and receive government assistance.

Is it a businesses fault that the applicant doesn’t have a college degree? No. Why should the company still be forced to hire them in order to meet the same proportion of, the perhaps more qualified minorities, that the company down the road from them has?

That is not how AA works. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you. Businesses are not forced to hire unqualified or less qualified people.

What about the white male/female business owners? Since when has it been a crime to be a white male or a white rich male?

I don’t know what this has to do with anything we’re talking about.

I would have to say that Affirmative action stacks up all its cards against the white, male business owner. Where are his rights of free choice? Each person’s rights/freedoms under law must be protected or there is no protection at all for anyone.

Does it really hurt a white male that much to hire an equally qualified minority? Gee!

There is a general trend towards feminizing everything in today’s society, and that is reflected in our laws. Women from any race get a shot at a benefit in the professional realm, which men don’t get. That’s also racist to men.

That’s called sexism, not racism; but men are still overrepresented in high-level positions even though there are more than enough females with college degrees out there and men usually make more money for the same positions.

Furthermore, regarding the troops,
The Veterans Today article is only one person’s opinion. I didn’t see anywhere where he cited his sources.
The first one apparently had a source but the source only appeared to indicate that the majority of civilians mistakenly think that most troops return with PTSD; however, the study did not support that, that misconception led to discrimination based from a stigma.
The author of this article didn’t offer any support for her statement that veterans have difficulty getting hired because of this stigma. Her source only indicated that misunderstanding of PTSD exists and that it had the possibility of affecting employment opportunities. It did not go on to prove that affect. Her source was actually a survey(poll) in other words a collection of other opinions, which lessens the facts and reliability.

Even though it doesn’t exactly prove discrimination, one of those articles refers to 1,500 cases of discrimination against veterans that were investigated in one year. Combining those complaints with the comments many veterans make online, many of them do believe they face discrimination. The veterans who are just coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan have a higher than average unemployment rate. The only way one can find out why employers aren’t hiring them is to ask them. That’s the point of the survey.

Again let me ask, why do we think we, Americans, should be guaranteed a job? We’re missing the point of our own history and how we got to be successful as a nation to begin with!

What law guarantees an American a job? Why do you continue to exaggerate on almost everything?

At this point a I think a lot of what I’ve said applies to what mrs.b was talking about. If I understood her right, she agrees with AA in theory not in practice. However, I disagree with AA in both because the goal, as she stated was to equalize things, or level the playing field. That leveling only leads to socialism and as ryoder indicated is therefore unconstitutional. The Revolution was fought for individuals to be individual not to be someone else’s standard of the perfect weight, wealth and wisdom

Again, this is not socialism. The playing field is being leveled for equally qualified people. Employers are not being forced to give jobs to unqualified people, everyone is not guaranteed a job, and employers aren’t forced to pay the same wage for different level positions.

Sorry if I repeated anything Mrs. B said. I was typing this up as she posted.

[OE800_85]

Through this whole discussion, I feel it's become painstakingly obvious. This nation has solid foundations in elements of socialism. Like mentioned above, social security, medicare, and so forth. A core belief is that "all man are created equal" (in modern interpretations, humans) so we set out to give people an equal shot at life. That's been a key part of social movements and policies. The funny thing is, now we seem to be providing these benefits to the rich, and taking them from the poor. Why are we bailing out banks at MASSIVE costs, giving favorable tax policy to large corporations, kicking out the small businessman? It's because these people grease the political machine with money. They're favored, and when you think about it, they receive socialism. They get protection from competition, huge security payments when they fail, and overall a comfortable ride. When this happens to the common man, we're told to read Ayn Rand. That's total bs, if you ask me.

[ryoder]

Its very hard to have a conversation like this with people on the completely opposite side of the spectrum so its probably not worth doing it.
Have this conversation with a Russian or Cuban immigrant and you will understand the evil that is socialism and communism.