@wildgrass saidOf course it can exist. It doesn't exist, but that just anything standing in its way should be minimized to the extent possible, not increased. Just because you haven't reached a goal doesn't mean you stop trying.
Yes, sorry, white goes with Princeton. My unconscious bias, I suppose.
It sounds like you agree that "pure meritocracy" - which is the term you used earlier - does not exist and cannot exist as it pertains to hiring practices (or college admissions, or athletics, or anything really).
@Suzianne saidYou're trying to equate the Civil Rights Act and DEI, but they actually contradict each other.
"Tell it the individual getting passed over because of their skin color,"
You know, that is exactly WHY DEI policies were created in the first place and WHY the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. Yet white people have now created this narrative where "white people get bypassed in favor of blacks", which is patently UNtrue. Racism is still so endemic in this ...[text shortened]... is father.
You think DEI is bad? What is bad is the white supremacy of the Trump administration.
Sure, courts have frequently performed wild intellectual acrobatics trying to reconcile them, but the Civil Rights Act tried to take race out of hiring decisions, and DEI tries to put them back in.
@no1marauder saidI don't necessarily doubt that, but I don't think that allowing queue-jumping in completely different contexts solves that problem. At best, it created a counter-problem that partially (or fully, or over-compensatorily) neutralizes the effect.
There's academic studies showing that even having a black sounding name makes you less likely to get a job interview even with an identical resume to a white sounding one.
2 edits
@sh76 saidGo ask a police officer, or fireman, or government worker in a major city in the USA if it's true. 🙂 There's also a thing called: "Veterans preference " where Veterans are put at the top of hiring lists for police, firefighters, etc. 🙂
And you don't understand how what you wrote here is different from "the LAW in the USA says one must hire minorities that apply for a job equal to their population in the USA"?
@sh76 saidNo, the Civil Rights Act tried to take invidious discrimination against minorities out of hiring decisions.
You're trying to equate the Civil Rights Act and DEI, but they actually contradict each other.
Sure, courts have frequently performed wild intellectual acrobatics trying to reconcile them, but the Civil Rights Act tried to take race out of hiring decisions, and DEI tries to put them back in.
It didn't pretend to end all systemic racism in the US and its authors knew it could not. DEI is complementary to the aims of the Civil Rights Act.
@sh76 saidRidiculous. Here we are 60+ years after the Civil Rights Acts and black unemployment rates are still about double whites.
I don't necessarily doubt that, but I don't think that allowing queue-jumping in completely different contexts solves that problem. At best, it created a counter-problem that partially (or fully, or over-compensatorily) neutralizes the effect.
Has the "effect" of systemic racism been "neutralized"?
And "queue-jumping" is misleading unless you think a white guy running a 9 second hundred yard dash on flat ground is really more deserving of being on the Olympic team than a black guy who runs a 9.5 on the same course but with hurdles placed every 10 yards. Our system creates an illusion that one is better qualified when if they had faced the same circumstances reality would surely have been different.
@no1marauder saidFather absence and broken homes, has been identified as one of the leading causes of poor school performance and dropout rates among black teens. This critieria is highest among black families. Obviously this can lead to lower employment opportunities. There is no one to blame except themselves. This problem is not just in the US. It is a worldwide phenomenon among black communities. You figure out why .. but I know you. You are just interested in blaming the govt, white supremacy, the right etc etc.
Ridiculous. Here we are 60+ years after the Civil Rights Acts and black unemployment rates are still about double whites.
Has the "effect" of systemic racism been "neutralized"?
And "queue-jumping" is misleading unless you think a white guy running a 9 second hundred yard dash on flat ground is really more deserving of being on the Olympic team than a black guy who ...[text shortened]... er qualified when if they had faced the same circumstances reality would surely have been different.
@KingDavid403 saidPrivate companies are under no obligation to hire in proportion to representative populations. That's all I said.
Go ask a police officer, or fireman, or government worker in a major city in the USA if it's true. 🙂 There's also a thing called: "Veterans preference " where Veterans are put at the top of hiring lists for police, firefighters, etc. 🙂
@Rajk999 saidI've already showed that there is proof of discrimination against blacks even if applicants have the same criteria.
Father absence and broken homes, has been identified as one of the leading causes of poor school performance and dropout rates among black teens. This critieria is highest among black families. Obviously this can lead to lower employment opportunities. There is no one to blame except themselves. This problem is not just in the US. It is a worldwide phenomenon among black ...[text shortened]... .. but I know you. You are just interested in blaming the govt, white supremacy, the right etc etc.
Systemic racism creates many of the social problems you mention.
I know you and some of the other believe it is because blacks are "inferior" in some way and, unfortunately, many in positions of power - such as educators, hiring professionals, bankers, etc. etc. - harbor the same feelings and act on them to the detriment of blacks. That is precisely the problem that the Civil Rights Acts, DEI and similar government and private programs are meant to deal with. But right wingers don't see discrimination against "inferior" blacks as a problem but as part of the natural order.
@sh76 saidThey were both designed to equalize a playing field dominated by whites for far too long.
You're trying to equate the Civil Rights Act and DEI, but they actually contradict each other.
Sure, courts have frequently performed wild intellectual acrobatics trying to reconcile them, but the Civil Rights Act tried to take race out of hiring decisions, and DEI tries to put them back in.
Equalize, yet you people claim it "preferred" non-whites. That's what equalization means, you know. One side needed to catch up. White people dominated society since Europe dominated the world, but you can't even stand an equalization for less than 60 years. Thinking your superiority is God-mandated is exactly what white supremacy is about.
Why do "special snowflakes" have to be so racist? We're not exactly THAT "special".
In the middle of Southern racism, they knew they couldn't get the CRA passed without easing the language. Some stupid southern supporters thought it was a pro-white bill because of that language. DEI had to put the point out loud to make sure racists got the point this time.
And that's why racists like Donald had to push their agenda all the way to the White House to fight it. Well, that and the ease of embezzling the US Government.
@Rajk999 saidThere is no one to blame except themselves.
Father absence and broken homes, has been identified as one of the leading causes of poor school performance and dropout rates among black teens. This critieria is highest among black families. Obviously this can lead to lower employment opportunities. There is no one to blame except themselves. This problem is not just in the US. It is a worldwide phenomenon among black ...[text shortened]... .. but I know you. You are just interested in blaming the govt, white supremacy, the right etc etc.
Stupidest thing you've said in a long time. Ever heard the scripture by Jesus of "Don't judge" ? You failed; again. 😏
@sh76 saidA hypothetical:
Private companies are under no obligation to hire in proportion to representative populations. That's all I said.
You and your 16 year old son are waiting to board a plane for a flight. The pilot, who is black, walks by and gets on the plane. Let's assume he's wearing a standard pilot's uniform and not in a hoodie, with a joint in his mouth and a 40 ounce malt liquor in his hand as Mott and others would probably envision him.
Your son says "Wow. The pilot's black. Charlie Kirk says he would be worried that black pilots are particularly likely to be unqualified. Shouldn't we get on a safer plane, Dad"?
Your response?
@no1marauder saidFunny how it refers to individuals over and over again, and not just "minorities":
No, the Civil Rights Act tried to take invidious discrimination against minorities out of hiring decisions.
It didn't pretend to end all systemic racism in the US and its authors knew it could not. DEI is complementary to the aims of the Civil Rights Act.
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;” or “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
ALL racial discrimination, no matter the motivation, is invidious and unlawful.
2 edits
@Sleepyguy saidThe authors of the Civil Rights Act were not concerned over the non-existent problem of discrimination against whites because of a belief that they were inferior. As JFK said:
Funny how it refers to individuals over and over again, and not just "minorities":
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such [b] ...[text shortened]... national origin."
ALL racial discrimination, no matter the motivation, is invidious and unlawful.
"Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a state university even though qualified."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-civil-rights-act-1964/
That the Act would be perverted into one which denies the reality of unequal opportunity caused by systemic racism and destroys any realistic remedy for it would be unimaginable to its authors and supporters in 1964.
But don't worry; conservative courts are well on their way to gutting the CRA, the Voting Rights Act and most social legislation from the 1960s, so minority individuals will be unprotected from the effects of racism.
@no1marauder saidSeems to me the courts will be reaffirming the CRA if they enforce the notion that "any individual" actually means any individual, but I'm not a smart lawyer who understands language and stuff.
The authors of the Civil Rights Act were not concerned over the non-existent problem of discrimination against whites because of a belief that they were inferior.
That "problem" is still non-existent.
But don't worry; conservative courts are well on their way to gutting the CRA, the Voting Rights Act and most social legislation from the 1960s, so minority individuals will be unprotected from the effects of racism.