Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2004 2:11:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 2:14:57 PM EST by AR15fan]
Viva La Raza!

Deputy Indicted On Sex Charges

Accused Of Raping Two Women While They Were In Custody

Aug 26, 2004 11:58 am US/Pacific
LOS ANGELES (AP) A federal grand jury has indicted a sheriff's deputy for allegedly forcing three women to perform sex acts with him and grabbing a fourth woman's breast, officials said.

Gabriel Gonzalez was indicted on four felony charges of violating the women's civil rights and a single misdemeanor charge involving the alleged breast grabbing.

Gonzalez worked in Compton before being suspended by the Sheriff's Department.

The indictment accused Gonzalez, 36, of raping two women in 2002 while they were in his custody. He also is accused of forcing a third woman to perform oral sex in January 2003 and forcibly touching the fourth woman's breast through her clothes on Dec. 24, 2002.

He was suspended with pay within two days of allegations surfacing against him, said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore. He has since been suspended without pay.

If convicted, he could receive a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Gonzalez could not be reached for comment. There was no local listing for him, and sheriff's officials said Wednesday night they did not know if he was in custody.

No arraignment date has been set.



"Condoms? we dont need no stinking condoms!"
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 2:14:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Viva La Raza!

Deputy Indicted On Sex Charges

* * * He was suspended with pay within two days of allegations surfacing against him, said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore. He has since been suspended without pay.

If convicted, he could receive a maximum sentence of life in prison. If released on bail, he will be killed by an irate husband or boyfriend. Film at 11.


Link Posted: 8/26/2004 2:58:20 PM EST
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?

Is this also the end result of affirmative action?
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/186193_nwbriefs13.html

Friday, August 13, 2004

State trooper denies new sex charges

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF

A Washington State Patrol trooper pleaded not guilty yesterday to three new charges of sexual misconduct and unsuccessfully urged a judge to reduce his $750,000 bail so he could be free while awaiting trial.

Michael Idland now faces 10 charges that he groped women under their clothes while purportedly searching them, along with an additional charge that he tried to extort sex from one of them. Investigators said he'd pulled the women over for possible drunken driving along state Route 520 between September 2002 and January 2004.

Idland's attorney, Robert Williams, asked King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector to reduce the man's bail to $50,000. So did Idland, whose voice shook as he said he had a 16-month-old son at home whom he loved very much.

"I'm not a danger to anyone. I will stay home. You have my word," Idland told the judge.

King County deputy prosecutor Scott O'Toole, however, said Idland "presents grave danger to the community" and that each of the 10 alleged victims had expressed fear of him.

Spector left bail at $750,000, saying she had "a duty to the community" and noting that the alleged crimes "went undetected for so long."

or this?
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/183915_shooting28.html

Corrections officer faces charge for coercing inmate into having sex

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF

A state corrections officer accused of talking a woman into having sex with him instead of picking up litter as part of her prison sentence is facing a charge of custodial sexual misconduct.

Seattle police say David Thomas Ellis was supervising a state Department of Corrections road crew between the summers of 2002 and 2003, when the 32-year-old woman was working to fulfill the conditions of her sentence.

Police say Ellis, 51, began separating the woman from the other workers and offering to let her avoid picking up garbage by having sex with him in the woods.

She told police he warned her more than once: "You better not tell anyone we're doing this," according to court documents.

Ellis is scheduled for arraignment in King County Superior Court tomorrow.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:12:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior. Same with Raphael Perez. guys who never even should have passed background, getting hired becuase of their race.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:15:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior.



I didn't see ANY of that in the story you quoted.

What other sources do you have that you;re not posting here???
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:19:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior.



I didn't see ANY of that in the story you quoted.

What other sources do you have that you;re not posting here???



11 year OTJ including recruiting. Seeing White veterans with flawless records passed over so we could hire women with admitted drug abuse, and minority males with criminal histories.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:22:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 3:22:48 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior.



I didn't see ANY of that in the story you quoted.

What other sources do you have that you;re not posting here???



11 year OTJ including recruiting. Seeing White veterans with flawless records passed over so we could hire women with admitted drug abuse, and minority males with criminal histories.




Soooooooo - the ONLY reason you have for stating that this particular person has a criminal past, and has a personality profile that is indicative of criminal behavior - is the fact that he is Latino? (because you've in the past seen SOME OTHER Latinos who fit that profile??)

Did I get that right???


Seriously, that's about as close to the textbook defintion of "racism" as I have ever seen on ar15.com.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:35:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior. Same with Raphael Perez. guys who never even should have passed background, getting hired becuase of their race.



Are you assuming that? How do you know he wasn't #1 on the hire list due how he did during the hiring process?

Profiling, is it a term that rings a bell?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:39:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 3:40:21 PM EST by Jeeper21]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Soooooooo - the ONLY reason you have for stating that this particular person has a criminal past, and has a personality profile that is indicative of criminal behavior - is the fact that he is Latino? (because you've in the past seen SOME OTHER Latinos who fit that profile??)

Did I get that right???


Seriously, that's about as close to the textbook defintion of "racism" as I have ever seen on ar15.com.



+1
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:44:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 3:45:29 PM EST by Jeeper21]
But for the record... I consider myself caucasian. And I once applied for a job as a recruit police officer:

I passed the test with flying colors against one other caucasian and few other races.

I was the only one who passed the written test.

I was the only one who showed up for the phsycial test (the trainer had about 7 laterals who were supposed to be there also)

Went to the interview dressed up as nice as I could, answered all questions they gave me as best I could. I have no criminal record and I have NEVER used drugs in my entire life.

Got a letter in the mail basically saying fuck off. In other words, I didnt get the job.

I was very nervous during the interview though, it was my first police interview. I have a couple cop friends and they told me they never made it in the first time either, so I shouldnt take it personally.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:20:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:36:14 PM EST
We had a black deputy convicted of custodial sexual misconduct here. I met him once, kind of an, um, interesting fellow.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:36:53 PM EST
Oh man, you are naive if you did not know that civil employment is the great bastion of AA. Either that, or your state is completely different from mine.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:42:44 PM EST
Racial averaging is also a form of racism. It puts race before qualifications. Should we use racial averaging for Olympic selection too? How about translators? 60% of all translators have to be white?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:50:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior. Same with Raphael Perez. guys who never even should have passed background, getting hired becuase of their race.




How's that hook feel in your mouth little fishy?

This Latino cops was hired...
Becuase he is Latino...
...hired becuase of their race

Tell me, how do you get that smoke smell out of your hood?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:09:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By stator:
Oh man, you are naive if you did not know that civil employment is the great bastion of AA. Either that, or your state is completely different from mine.




Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Racial averaging is also a form of racism. It puts race before qualifications. Should we use racial averaging for Olympic selection too? How about translators? 60% of all translators have to be white?



That's great fellows.

What evidence is there listed in the article that the suspect was hired due to Affirmative Action concerns?

How do you know he didn't ace the hiring process?

Did you make certain assumptions based on his ethnicity?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:10:53 PM EST
When I was younger, I always thought affirmative action meant hiring the more qualified person even if he/she wasn't white. Instead of hiring a less qualified white person. Guess its the other way around. Doesnt make sense to me that way though.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:23:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 5:24:19 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
When I was younger, I always thought affirmative action meant hiring the more qualified person even if he/she wasn't white. Instead of hiring a less qualified white person. Guess its the other way around. Doesnt make sense to me that way though.



Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class. Affirmative action has NEVER demanded, or even endorsed, hring a less qualified person because of race, gender etc. It really was intended merely to "level" the playing field, not to give anyone an advantage.


LOTS of organizations and companies CHOOSE to use quotas, or to hire less qualified people so that they can claim to have "diversity" - but if they are hiring less qualified people, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - it is because of company choice or policy.

Believe me - it irritates me A LOT because I see it a lot in a university setting. In academia, if you are a black woman, you can pretty much write your own check. I personally know completely incompetent researchers that have jobs at top universities - and they never seem to be white guys that are getting these jobs despite being completely unqualified for them.



However - the fact that I see an abuse of AA in my field doesn't automatically mean that EVERY woman and EVERY minority person is less qualified than me, and somehow didn't deserve their jobs. In academia, I have met some super-smart women, that are certainly equally or better qualified than me!!! (My finacee is one of them ).
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:23:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:40:21 PM EST
A few years ago, I was one of 220 qualified applicants to survive a year's worth of testing that weeded out 6,480 other people who wanted to become Connecticut State Troopers. Originally, the class we were to join was supposed to be 80 recruits, but budget cuts reduced it to 40. I was told by people *in the know* that regardless of scores, 10 blacks out of the 220 "qualified" applicants would be chosen and 4 women would be chosen as well.

That means there could have been (and probably were) women and blacks that had lower final cumulative scores after the six phases of testing than other white applicants. However, since a certain threshold was met that was deemed "sufficient for qualifying," the minorities and women had an ace in the hole the whites did not, total score be damned.

BTW, I was not chosen for the recruit class.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:50:12 PM EST
why do these freaks always cornhole their victims?

I have read about 3 or 4 and they have had charges of forced sodomy.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:25:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
When I was younger, I always thought affirmative action meant hiring the more qualified person even if he/she wasn't white. Instead of hiring a less qualified white person. Guess its the other way around. Doesnt make sense to me that way though.



Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class. Affirmative action has NEVER demanded, or even endorsed, hring a less qualified person because of race, gender etc. It really was intended merely to "level" the playing field, not to give anyone an advantage.


LOTS of organizations and companies CHOOSE to use quotas, or to hire less qualified people so that they can claim to have "diversity" - but if they are hiring less qualified people, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - it is because of company choice or policy.

Believe me - it irritates me A LOT because I see it a lot in a university setting. In academia, if you are a black woman, you can pretty much write your own check. I personally know completely incompetent researchers that have jobs at top universities - and they never seem to be white guys that are getting these jobs despite being completely unqualified for them.



However - the fact that I see an abuse of AA in my field doesn't automatically mean that EVERY woman and EVERY minority person is less qualified than me, and somehow didn't deserve their jobs. In academia, I have met some super-smart women, that are certainly equally or better qualified than me!!! (My finacee is one of them ).



Thanks for the clarification.

So many people around here easily buy into the belief that AA causes white people to lose opportunities to less qualified minorities. But like you said, it is really the companies fault and not so much AA.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:27:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:
why do these freaks always cornhole their victims?

I have read about 3 or 4 and they have had charges of forced sodomy.






True.

Even if its a straight man on man rape, he uses a toilet plunger handle! Wasnt that a white NY cop who did that to a Haitian immigrant awhile back?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:36:13 PM EST
While I’m certainly no defender of racial preferences, it’s not like things used to be better, cause they weren’t.

Nearly thirty years ago, a co-worker of mine was involved in a similar issue. He was a white Irish-Catholic male. At the time, no one would have thought to suggest that his race was a factor in what happened.

Back then, grossly incompetent white males were hired, protected and promoted because they were somebody else’s’ drinking buddy.

Now, equally incompetent non-whites are hired, protected and promoted because of their race or sex.

Things really haven’t changed – which is a shame since they need to!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:56:04 PM EST
There is hope for whites-claim you are a homosexual. Start your oral doard off by saying "Hi, My name is Steve-AND I AM A HOMOSEXUAL!!" You'll get hired on the spot.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:03:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:
why do these freaks always cornhole their victims?

I have read about 3 or 4 and they have had charges of forced sodomy.



Cuz it's tighter, silly.

It's a joke people, relax a little.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:07:13 PM EST
All hail AA the might AA
any how my new name is
Jesus Rodriguez
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:10:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 9:11:18 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By olyarms:
All hail AA the might AA
any how my new name is
Jesus Rodriguez



Hey Jesus - read my post.

The problem is NOT Affirmative Action, the problem is local administrators, politicians, universitiy adminsitrators, etc - that CHOOSE these fucked-up hiring practices. AA doesn't mandate any kind of stuff like that.



I KNOW I'm being anal about this - but I just hate the lack of accuracy when people are talking about one thing and calling it something else.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:13:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:
why do these freaks always cornhole their victims?
I have read about 3 or 4 and they have had charges of forced sodomy.


Doesn't have to be a cornholing to be forced sodomy. I can be the freak forcing the victim to do him
orally.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:23:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
When I was younger, I always thought affirmative action meant hiring the more qualified person even if he/she wasn't white. Instead of hiring a less qualified white person. Guess its the other way around. Doesnt make sense to me that way though.



Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class. Affirmative action has NEVER demanded, or even endorsed, hring a less qualified person because of race, gender etc. It really was intended merely to "level" the playing field, not to give anyone an advantage.


LOTS of organizations and companies CHOOSE to use quotas, or to hire less qualified people so that they can claim to have "diversity" - but if they are hiring less qualified people, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - it is because of company choice or policy.



In a word, bullshit.

You are correct in that the LAW does not mandate quotas, and the SCOTUS has actually said that quotas are illegal. However, try telling the EEOC that.

Here is an example of how not following quotas can hurt you:

"In 1987, EEOC's local field office wrote me a letter saying they had reason to believe I didn't have enough women 'food servers' and 'busers.' No woman had complained against me. So the EEOC advertised in the local paper to tell women whose job applications we had rejected -- or even women who had just thought of applying -- that they could be entitled to damages. Twenty-seven women became plaintiffs in a lawsuit against me. The EEOC interviewed me for hours to find out what kind of person I was. I told them in Sicily where I came from I learned to respect women. I supplied them with hundreds of pounds of paper. I had to hire someone full time for a year just to respond to EEOC demands. Six months ago I finally settled. I agreed to pay $150,000 damages, and as jobs open up, to hire the women on the EEOC's list. Even if they don't know what spaghetti looks like! I have to advertise twice a year even if I have no openings, just to add possible female employees to my files. I also had to hire an EEOC-approved person to teach my staff how not to discriminate. I employ 12 food servers in these two restaurants. Gross sales, around $2 million. How much did it all cost me? Cash outlay, about $400,000.

"What the government's done to me -- devastating. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."

Still think quotas are optional?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:57:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Drakich:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
When I was younger, I always thought affirmative action meant hiring the more qualified person even if he/she wasn't white. Instead of hiring a less qualified white person. Guess its the other way around. Doesnt make sense to me that way though.



Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class. Affirmative action has NEVER demanded, or even endorsed, hring a less qualified person because of race, gender etc. It really was intended merely to "level" the playing field, not to give anyone an advantage.


LOTS of organizations and companies CHOOSE to use quotas, or to hire less qualified people so that they can claim to have "diversity" - but if they are hiring less qualified people, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - it is because of company choice or policy.



In a word, bullshit.

You are correct in that the LAW does not mandate quotas, and the SCOTUS has actually said that quotas are illegal. However, try telling the EEOC that.

Here is an example of how not following quotas can hurt you:

"In 1987, EEOC's local field office wrote me a letter saying they had reason to believe I didn't have enough women 'food servers' and 'busers.' No woman had complained against me. So the EEOC advertised in the local paper to tell women whose job applications we had rejected -- or even women who had just thought of applying -- that they could be entitled to damages. Twenty-seven women became plaintiffs in a lawsuit against me. The EEOC interviewed me for hours to find out what kind of person I was. I told them in Sicily where I came from I learned to respect women. I supplied them with hundreds of pounds of paper. I had to hire someone full time for a year just to respond to EEOC demands. Six months ago I finally settled. I agreed to pay $150,000 damages, and as jobs open up, to hire the women on the EEOC's list. Even if they don't know what spaghetti looks like! I have to advertise twice a year even if I have no openings, just to add possible female employees to my files. I also had to hire an EEOC-approved person to teach my staff how not to discriminate. I employ 12 food servers in these two restaurants. Gross sales, around $2 million. How much did it all cost me? Cash outlay, about $400,000.

"What the government's done to me -- devastating. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."

Still think quotas are optional?




If you're going to call a LAW on the books bullshit, it would help if you provided a source for what appears to be an unsubstantiated story - I say source because the thing you posted is in quotation marks, so I'm assuming the person it happened to is not you. (if it was you, then sorry I misunderstood).

Where did this take place? What restaurants? If this person agreed to SETTLE, then it seems likely that he had in fact violated the law. Here's my guess - possible these restaurants are in an area that has a significant black population, but the italian owners refuse to hire any blacks - regardless of how many apply for jobs or how qualified they are. There's a LOT about that story that smells like bullshit, in fact (or, at least not getting the WHOLE story). This may be nothing more that a guy who got nailed for violating Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964) and who is whining about it and trying to act like a victim. Some of it sure sounds odd - being "forced" to advertise for positions that don't exist. Being "forced" to hire an extra employee to teach people how not to discriminate. It's especially suspicious that the writer suggests that he is being forced to hire unqualified people ("even if they don't know what spaghetti looks like").

The story MIGHT not be bullshit - I'm just saying it's hard to tell without knowing where it came from, and some more detail.

PLUS - the thread (and my points) were about Affirmative Action. The EEOC also enforces Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the EPA.


So unfortunately, you are wrong - because you're not talking about the same thing (so be careful when you tell people that are full of shit).

I'll say it again. Affirmative Action very specifically states that people have to be EQUALLY QUALIFIED for the job before you can even consider things like gender and race. You don't even HAVE to hire people that are under-represented, as long as you can demonstrate that you made the effort to advertise and find people that are underrepresented.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:28:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Soooooooo - the ONLY reason you have for stating that this particular person has a criminal past, and has a personality profile that is indicative of criminal behavior - is the fact that he is Latino? (because you've in the past seen SOME OTHER Latinos who fit that profile??)

Did I get that right???


Seriously, that's about as close to the textbook defintion of "racism" as I have ever seen on ar15.com. hock.gif



+1





+2



Roy
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:36:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 10:43:48 PM EST by olyarms]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By olyarms:
All hail AA the might AA
any how my new name is
Jesus Rodriguez



Hey Jesus - read my post.

The problem is NOT Affirmative Action, the problem is local administrators, politicians, universitiy adminsitrators, etc - that CHOOSE these fucked-up hiring practices. AA doesn't mandate any kind of stuff like that.



I KNOW I'm being anal about this - but I just hate the lack of accuracy when people are talking about one thing and calling it something else.



I was kidding, I read the thread, just having fun.




in the United States, government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. The policy was implemented by federal agencies enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two executive orders, which provided that government contractors and educational institutions receiving federal funds develop such programs. The Equal Employment Opportunities Act (1972) set up a commission to enforce such plans. The establishment of racial quotas in the name of affirmative action brought charges of so-called reverse discrimination in the late 1970s. Although the U.S. Supreme Court accepted such an argument in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), it let existing programs stand and approved the use of quotas in 1979 in a case involving voluntary affirmative-action programs in unions and private businesses. In the 1980s, the federal government's role in affirmative action was considerably diluted. In three cases in 1989, the Supreme Court undercut court-approved affirmative action plans by giving greater standing to claims of reverse discrimination, voiding the use of minority set-asides where past discrimination against minority contractors was unproven, and restricting the use of statistics to prove discrimination, since statistics did not prove intent. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed a federal government's commitment to affirmative action, but a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts; the affected government programs were revamped in the late 1990s to encompass any person who was "socially disadvantaged." In the late 1990s, in a public backlash against perceived reverse discrimination, California and other states banned the use of race- and sex-based preferences in state and local programs. In Europe, the European Court of Justice has upheld (1997) the use in the public sector of affirmative-action programs for women, establishing a legal precedent for the nations of the European Union.




Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.




Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:45:35 PM EST

If you're going to call a LAW on the books bullshit, it would help if you provided a source for what appears to be an unsubstantiated story - I say source because the thing you posted is in quotation marks, so I'm assuming the person it happened to is not you. (if it was you, then sorry I misunderstood).


Nope, not me, that's why I put in the quotes.


Where did this take place? What restaurants? If this person agreed to SETTLE, then it seems likely that he had in fact violated the law.


Or, a more likely scenario, he couldn't fight the continuing cost of litigation against a government with unlimited purse strings.


The story MIGHT not be bullshit - I'm just saying it's hard to tell without knowing where it came from, and some more detail.


Story came from 1993 Forbes article by Peter Brimelow:
http://www.vdare.com/pb/when_quotas.htm


I'll say it again. Affirmative Action very specifically states that people have to be EQUALLY QUALIFIED for the job before you can even consider things like gender and race. You don't even HAVE to hire people that are under-represented, as long as you can demonstrate that you made the effort to advertise and find people that are underrepresented.



And I'll agree with you again, that the law states what you say it states, but I'll also say IT DOES NOT MATTER. The EEOC, as an enforcement agency, measures "discrimination" by using quotas. So even if you are not de jure required to maintain a quota, de facto you are.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 2:18:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class.


I call bullshit as well. As I stated in my previous post, all the .gov does is lower the threshold for what is considered "qualified" and then anyone who meets that criteria is considered so. It doesn't matter if the white guy has a score 25% higher than the cutoff and the minority has a score that is merely 3% higher than the minimum standard. The minority, since he is over the threshold, can beat out all the other candidates, even though their scores were higher.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:19:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
How exactly is this the end result of affirmative action?




This Latino cops was hired over more qualified whites, becuase he is Latino. Becuase he is Latino they likely also overlooked items in his criminal past, and personality profile that were indicative of this type of criminal behavior.



I didn't see ANY of that in the story you quoted.

What other sources do you have that you;re not posting here???



11 year OTJ including recruiting. Seeing White veterans with flawless records passed over so we could hire women with admitted drug abuse, and minority males with criminal histories.




Soooooooo - the ONLY reason you have for stating that this particular person has a criminal past, and has a personality profile that is indicative of criminal behavior - is the fact that he is Latino?



No. Becuase he sexually assualted three women. You dont just wake up one morning and decide to do that. It's something that shows up in the persons background, and the only reason it would be overlooked is to fill a quota.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:22:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
How do you know he didn't ace the hiring process?





Becuase someone who aces the hiring process would never sexually assault three people. Those that "ace" the hiring process don't have those kind of criminal tendancies and mental health issues.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:26:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By rdsr:

Originally Posted By Jeeper21:
+1


+2
Roy


+3

I have my own experience with this little piece of legislation, but I just sent in my membership
payment and don't want to get banned, so I'll be quiet.......
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:29:34 AM EST
From the Providence Journal Bulletin. Warwick is about as White a town as you can get.

Warwick fires, suspends police officers

A criminal investigation did not result in any criminal charges against officers accused of sexual misconduct with a female cadet.


01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 26, 2004


BY BARBARA POLICHETTI
Journal Staff Writer



WARWICK -- Two of five police officers accused of having sex with a 17-year-old girl, while she was a member of a police-run youth group in 2002, have lost their jobs and three have been suspended without pay, city officials announced yesterday.

Of the two officers who left the department, one was fired and the other resigned, the police announced at a news conference yesterday. A sixth officer, who was accused of having a "nonsexual but inappropriate" relationship with the teenager when she was a member of the department's Explorer program, was exonerated by a hearing board, Mayor Scott Avedisian said at the news conference.

Avedisian said that the punishments were meted out by administrative hearing panels convened under the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights and that the city is appealing four of the cases to Superior Court in an attempt to terminate the officers. Citing the pending court appeals and confidentiality clause in the Bill of Rights, city officials declined to name the officers.

Police Chief Stephen M. McCartney said that he initially recommended firing all six officers, and that the city will ask the court to terminate the officer who resigned as well as the three who received unpaid suspensions, which range from 20 days to nine months.

The city is not appealing the case involving the officer who was exonerated.

McCartney and Avedisian said that the officer who was fired has filed his own appeal in Superior Court.

McCartney said an internal investigation was launched last year after a criminal investigation, led by the state police and attorney general's office, did not result in any criminal charges against the accused officers.

In November 2003, a grand jury declined to indict any of the officers, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges.

Avedisian credited McCartney and the department for aggressively pursuing the internal investigation after the criminal case was over.

"When the grand jury came back . . . that is the point when it would have been an easy decision to say, 'That's it, the matter is over,' " Avedisian said. "But that's not what the department did."

"At that point [the department] began an intensive internal investigation."

Starting its Explorer program in 1974, Warwick was the first police department in the state to initiate a local chapter of the national program, which is affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America and is intended to teach teenagers the basics of police work and prepare them for possible careers in law enforcement.

The allegations of misconduct first came to light last year when the girl, then 18, told the police of sexual misconduct by at least one Warwick police officer.

A news release issued by the Warwick police yesterday said that the girl also disclosed having "consensual sexual relations" with four other Warwick police officers in August 2002 while she was a cadet in the Explorer program. And, it states, she described a nonsexual but inappropriate relationship with a sixth officer.

McCartney yesterday declined to discuss any details of the alleged incidents, but in explaining the disciplinary actions of the hearing boards, said that two of the sexual encounters allegedly occurred when the accused officers were on duty and three when the officers were off duty.

The officers who allegedly had sex with the girl while not on duty are the ones who received the suspensions, he said. One of the officers was placed on a 20-day unpaid suspension, which has been completed, McCartney said.

He said that officer has returned to work and been assigned to the department's administrative-services division.

Of the other two suspended officers, one will be out for six months and the other for nine months, McCartney said. He said it is not been determined where they will be assigned when they return.

McCartney said that the case has been difficult for the approximately 180 men and women in the Warwick Police Department. "I would be remiss if I didn't say that we were all shocked by this kind of conduct," he said.

He and Avedisian said that the Explorer program was suspended as soon as the allegations were made last year.

It was reinstituted in January, they said, and steps were taken to improve oversight of the program, including creation of a civilian advisory board and the assignment of more female officers as mentors.

McCartney said that the Explorer program, which currently has about 25 members between the ages of 16 and 21, has remained popular in the city and that throughout the investigation he received numerous calls from parents who were eager to see it resume.


Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:31:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
A few years ago, I was one of 220 qualified applicants to survive a year's worth of testing that weeded out 6,480 other people who wanted to become Connecticut State Troopers. Originally, the class we were to join was supposed to be 80 recruits, but budget cuts reduced it to 40. I was told by people *in the know* that regardless of scores, 10 blacks out of the 220 "qualified" applicants would be chosen and 4 women would be chosen as well.

That means there could have been (and probably were) women and blacks that had lower final cumulative scores after the six phases of testing than other white applicants. However, since a certain threshold was met that was deemed "sufficient for qualifying,"...



Pass/fail scores are common becuase they protect those who hire less qualified individuals from civil action. Every part of the testing process should have a score attached, not simply pass or fail. The person who score the highest should get the job, period. those who have borderline personality disorders should be rejected. Those with admitted drug use should be rejected. Those with any criminal history above a traffic ticket should be rejected. Those who have negative credit marks should be rejected. Bonus points should be assigned for college degrees and miitary service. Race should never be a factor.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:35:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class.


I call bullshit as well. As I stated in my previous post, all the .gov does is lower the threshold for what is considered "qualified" and then anyone who meets that criteria is considered so. It doesn't matter if the white guy has a score 25% higher than the cutoff and the minority has a score that is merely 3% higher than the minimum standard. The minority, since he is over the threshold, can beat out all the other candidates, even though their scores were higher.



Correct. It's the same standard we use for admissions to California Universities.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 6:02:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Actually, what Affirmative Action ACTUALLY SAYS and MANDATES and how it is implemented, is often very, very different. Reading the original executive order is very eye-opening and infomrative.

Affirmative action, by itself, is really not a bad thing. Affirmative action (which applies only to employers that receive federal fundings, contracts or grants) merely states that if two EQUALLY QUALIFIED people apply for a job, and one of them happens to be in an under-represented class (say, african-american), then you should hire the minority applicant. Affirmative action also says that you have to make an effort to find minority candidates so that you can consider them (i.e. you have to make an effort to advertise the position).

However, NOWHERE in the law does it say that a LESS QUALIFIED person can be hired on the basis of belonging to an underrepresented class.


I call bullshit as well. As I stated in my previous post, all the .gov does is lower the threshold for what is considered "qualified" and then anyone who meets that criteria is considered so. It doesn't matter if the white guy has a score 25% higher than the cutoff and the minority has a score that is merely 3% higher than the minimum standard. The minority, since he is over the threshold, can beat out all the other candidates, even though their scores were higher.



Correct. It's the same standard we use for admissions to California Universities.





Instead of calling "bullshit" why don't you guys actually READ the law (I'm NOT talking about Title VII here, but about the executive order).

I'm not talking about how various assholes around the country IMPLEMENT the law, I am making a relatively anal and specific point about WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS - and it is very clear.

I;ve already stated several times that I see abuses of this ALL THE TIME in university setting and I am completely aware of the abuses in thing like police hiring, civil servants etc - I've dealt with the INS on a number of occasions, and they are probably the worst offender of them all.


My POINT is that when people say "Affirmative Action is ....... " and usually prattle on about how LESS QUALIFIED people are being hired because of race, they are wrong. That's not what Affirmative Action says - it's what LOTS OF PEOPLE DO, and then claim affirmative action as their excuse.

Plus - the line is getting blurred somewhat in this discussion because peopel are NOT differentiating between the specifics of Affirmative Action, and the much more general Title VII. I'm sure the EEOC might be completely assholes about Title VII, but that aint affirmative action.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 6:38:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 6:38:50 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 6:50:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
In other words, DK-Prof, you are telling us what the real world should be, according to those who enact these types of laws, not what the real world is actually like, according to those who have sometimes suffered under incorrect enforcement of those same laws?

Am I correct?

Eric The(NotLivingInAnIvoryTower)Hun



No - I'm not telling anyone how the world SHOULD be - I am merely correcting people who inaccurately describe a particular law. I am sufficiently anal that I like people to be specific and precise - especially when complaining.

Isn't that what we do ALL THE TIME on this site when some asshat reporter incorrectly whines about the Assault Weapon Ban?? Everyone gets all worked up, and wants to send letters and everythign to correct people - so that they can correectly understand what the law says and what it doesn't. Barely a day goes by without someone venting their frustration because some idiot thinks that the AWB deals with full-auto. Same thing for me - when people incorrectly state that Affirmative Action is designed to give job to less qualified people because of race or gender.

Affirmative Action and Title VII are two completely different things. The way that Affirmative Action is written, it's actually NOT a bad things at all, so it frustrates me when people continually post incorrect things about what Affirmative Action "says" or "means" or "madates"

No flame intended - but I'd think a lawyer would be particularly interested in people being specific and accurate in their descriptions of legal matters. You slight dig about "the Ivory Tower" is silly, because I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that academia is where you see excessive abuses of this kind of crap - and it really pisses me off. But, unlike others, I don't INCORRECLY blame it on a particular law.


Ultimately, yes - I am making a fine distinction, and a somewhat anal point (AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE) - but I still thing it's important to be accurate and precise.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:56:36 AM EST
I think DK-Prof, and I were trying to make the point, DK-Prof was also making some other points, was that NOTHING in that article indicates that AA had anything to do with that person being hired as a Deputy Sheriff.

Assuming that because he is a minority he was an AA hire is? (I think racist, or prejudiced is the answer).

For all any of us know he was the most qualified applicant during the hiring process he want through, and was hired on that basis.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:05:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By stator:
Oh man, you are naive if you did not know that civil employment is the great bastion of AA. Either that, or your state is completely different from mine.




Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Racial averaging is also a form of racism. It puts race before qualifications. Should we use racial averaging for Olympic selection too? How about translators? 60% of all translators have to be white?



That's great fellows.

What evidence is there listed in the article that the suspect was hired due to Affirmative Action concerns?

How do you know he didn't ace the hiring process?

Did you make certain assumptions based on his ethnicity?



Although I agree that no evidence was presented that he DIDN'T ace the hiring process and was hired because of affirmative action, the result of affirmative action is that it casts doubt on any employee who happens to be a minority class or female. Although they may have been hired REGARDLESS of minority status, the doubt exists BECAUSE they ARE given preference.

The guy may not have had any red flags in his background, but because of affirmative action and hiring quotas a doubt exists as to if he was really qualified or if he was hired because of affirmative action.

In short, we need more information to make a valid decsion as to whether or not the guy should or should not have been hired.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:09:33 AM EST
In my experience, the company I worked for was bidding on US Gov't contracts. When the inspectors showed up, their primary complaint was that our workforce didn't represent the demographics of our community. They were correct, in that most of our community was not interested in working from 6AM to 4:30PM five days a week and another six hours on Saturday. Nor were they interested in working 7/12's three weeks at a shot whenever the company needed it, which was not infrequent, usually several times a year. It was hard to find people smart enough to do the work, but dumb enough to work for the company, when Boeing was at the other end of the field, hiring and then training all the demographic trainees they needed.

The company scoured the community for willing workers and managed to come up with a handful of new employees. To meet the demographic averages, the company had to lay off experienced workers and hire burger flippers to run CNC milling machines. In order to find work for the new employees, some of whom spoke very little english, our company had to give up some lucrative contracts that depended on highly skilled workers, and pick up contracts for simple parts that diluted the profit margin.

With the new workers in place, entire fabricating departments had to be eliminated and two plants were closed to finance new equipment that was simple enough for the low skilled workers to use.

By the time the company had corrected the demographic errors, they could not offer the government the capability to bid on the contracts they were after in the first place.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:10:44 AM EST
Ok, I still don't see how the LEO in the article is a reflection/product of AA hiring practices. Can someone please enlighten me? All I have so far is the ol' "based on my training and experience" line which would make the topic another rant based on someone's personal bugaboos (which is a bit out of character for the author) instead of a fact based observation.

While I do not have the statistics or personal experience to comment on the ones that "ace the hiring process", I do know that in my racially diverse department, most of our rotten apples were white.

Even so, this did turn into an interesting dialogue on AA.

NorCal
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:22:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 8:23:23 AM EST by lvgunner777]
Anything that uses race as a qualifier/disqualifier is essentially flawed. You can't have a society where everyone is to be treated equally if minorities are given a break when it comes to test scores, ability to perform the job, and below par backgrounds. This is not a level playing field, it says if you are a minority, you are less capable of getting the job/promotion on your own accord so we are going to lower the bar for you. I'm sure some very capable blacks that hold high positions hate this aspect because everyone will look at them and think, "hmm, did he get the job because he was better than everyone else who applied or did he get it because the company had to fill a quota for blacks that year"???

I am a firm beleiver that everyone should be treated equally, and that means everyone has the same entrance requirements to schools, everyone has to pass the same tests to get a job, and no one gets promoted faster due to race or gender. (that goes for everyone, white, black, brown, or purple)

Affirmative action is one of the most flawed government implemented social policies ever in my opinion.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:32:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 8:36:37 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:40:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:
Anything that uses race as a qualifier/disqualifier is essentially flawed. You can't have a society where everyone is to be treated equally if minorities are given a break when it comes to test scores, ability to perform the job, and below par backgrounds. This is not a level playing field, it says if you are a minority, you are less capable of getting the job/promotion on your own accord so we are going to lower the bar for you. I'm sure some very capable blacks that hold high positions hate this aspect because everyone will look at them and think, "hmm, did he get the job because he was better than everyone else who applied or did he get it because the company had to fill a quota for blacks that year"???



Exactly, and if Affirmative Action was implemented as it is written, nobody would have those concerns - because race/gender would only be used as a tie-breaker for those cases were EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants are trying to get a job.

This bullshit of lowering standards because of race, and hiring less qualified people becuase of race or gender is a terrible thing, and it absolutely exists - but it really has NOTHING to do with affirmative action.


That's my only point - and I think I'm going to bow out now, because I'm just repeating myself.



Let there be no doubt in this thread however, how much this also PISSES me off. My job is a very difficult and very competetive one - and I am still many years away from success. If I were a black woman, I would already have tenure, and my choice of jobs - I could write my own check at Harvard, Stanford or anywhere else. Because I'm a white dude, I'm actualyl going to have to work for my promotions and sucess. This pisses me off enomrously!

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top