Quoted: Quoted: 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!

DK, what AA was meant to be and what it has become are two seperate things entirely. Now AA DOES mean give the job to the less qualified race/gender. The definition has evolved actually from what it was meant to be to what it actually is.

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

Word.  It happens in favor of blacks in my agency.

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

There is no such thing as "equally qualified." You will never find two people with exactly the same training, experiance, background, ect. If you have a tie between your two best applicants you keep digging until you find a tie breaker.

Quoted: There is no such thing as "equally qualified." You will never find two people with exactly the same training, experiance, background, ect. If you have a tie between your two best applicants you keep digging until you find a tie breaker.

 No, if you have two applicants that good, you do what you have to to hire both. Only a fool turns away quality people these days.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no such thing as "equally qualified." You will never find two people with exactly the same training, experiance, background, ect. If you have a tie between your two best applicants you keep digging until you find a tie breaker.  No, if you have two applicants that good, you do what you have to to hire both. Only a fool turns away quality people these days.

We dont have a hard time finding "qualified" appicants. We have at least 100 people apply for every opening.

DK, what AA was meant to be and what it has become are two seperate things entirely. Now AA DOES mean give the job to the less qualified race/gender. The definition has evolved actually from what it was meant to be to what it actually is.

I guess we're just using the word differently - when I say "what AA means" I'm referring to the letter of the law (the wording of the executive order).

A lot of other people apparently use the expression "what AA means" to refer to how other people have chosen to completely subvert the intent and actual wording of the executive order.



Ultiamtely I think most of us in this thread are in agreement (and my point was all along a purely technical one) ... I've discovered this from arguing with my fiancee - it often turns out that in reality we AGREE - we are usualyl just talking about two slightly different things, or different defintions of the same thing.  

Can I infer from Ericthehun comments that we have a University professor that doesn't know executive orders are not laws? Holy cow batman!