Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 16:32:43 GMT -5
Affirmative Action doesn't work that way. Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimination. Affirmative Action is only put into place in order to give everybody an equal opportunity. It's purpose is to give people of a diverse race, color, national origin, religion, or gender a chance at the job. In Canada, it does. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically states that preferential treatment under an AA-type program does not violate the charter, and employers at the federal level of government are in fact REQUIRED to give preferential treatment to women, minorities, aboriginals and disabled people. Even as implemented in the USA, it can easily result in choosing the visible minority in ties among equally qualified candidates, as would be explicitly allowed by a law the UK currently has on the books. .. and when it comes to university admissions, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of outright favoring less qualified candidates on account of race or gender. So no, I don't think it holds that Affirmative Action, in practice, is just "making sure women and minorities get a fair shake", but rather, "allowing some degree of explicit counter-discrimination to compensate for perceived implicit discrimination"
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,664
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jun 3, 2010 17:01:39 GMT -5
Here's an example of something similar to positive discrimination or AA from England: "...It emerged that a council banned white people from applying for an £18,000-a-year traineeship in order to increase staff diversity. Bristol City Council said its policy did not break race relations laws against “positive discrimination” because the two-year placement does not guarantee a job. "
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Jun 3, 2010 17:02:32 GMT -5
.. and when it comes to university admissions, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of outright favoring less qualified candidates on account of race or gender. Actually universities cannot outright favor minorities. It can be used as a factor, but if it becomes a quota, ratio or some other system, then it could be struck down. In the actual case, the University of Michigan was using a points system for admittance, and race was one way someone could receive points. That is what the Court struck down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 17:23:01 GMT -5
.. and when it comes to university admissions, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of outright favoring less qualified candidates on account of race or gender. Actually universities cannot outright favor minorities. It can be used as a factor, but if it becomes a quota, ratio or some other system, then it could be struck down. In the actual case, the University of Michigan was using a points system for admittance, and race was one way someone could receive points. That is what the Court struck down. Okay, but how can you make race a factor without outright favoring one race over another? With all other things being equal, the group for which race is a positive factor will win the tie. How is that not out-and-out favoring one candidate over another on grounds of race?
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Jun 3, 2010 20:34:25 GMT -5
Affirmative Action usually degenerates into quotas. Which makes sense, I mean, seaching for qualified minority canidates sounds all well and good, but the only quantitative way of proving that your efforts have any results is "How many minorities did you hire last year?" I mean, my school had a rather annoying "Diversity" movement, and that's how they measured things. Because the number of minority students and faculty did not match the general population of the United States, it was a sign of either lack of committment or outright racism on behalf of the college administration. How do you prove trying? You can't. The best way to prove results is numbers.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 4, 2010 1:40:02 GMT -5
Actually universities cannot outright favor minorities. It can be used as a factor, but if it becomes a quota, ratio or some other system, then it could be struck down. In the actual case, the University of Michigan was using a points system for admittance, and race was one way someone could receive points. That is what the Court struck down. Okay, but how can you make race a factor without outright favoring one race over another? With all other things being equal, the group for which race is a positive factor will win the tie. How is that not out-and-out favoring one candidate over another on grounds of race? It's a factor due to something you may not agree with, but it's something to consider: diversifying a campus is something that benefits an institution, whether we like to hear that or not. With two equal candidates in front of you, if one comes from a minority background/ethnicity, it's sort of looked at as part of the person's overall package, that they offer more to the campus by providing diversity (racial, social, and other types of diversity all fall under this). Any school caught taking that to extremes would likely have hell to pay for doing it, and there's something inherently unfair about taking a person who has "more to offer" simply from how they look, but, again, diverse campuses tend to be better campuses, just the way it typically goes.
|
|