Discrimination

[Kuan]

Discrimination seems to be very applicable to multiple issues nowadays. Sometimes I think that we are taking it to far. For example some colleges are required to accept certain amounts of people from different races to be fair. But is this really fair? Lets say a college has to have about 50% white, 30% black, 10% asian, and 10% polynesian attending school. So they meet these requirements but what about the others who didnt get accepted because it was given to another race, even though that one student had a better SAT/ACT score and better GPA?

Another example would be immigration, is it discrimination to send illegal aliens back to their homeland? If its not, what laws are acceptable to enforce it? What about illegal immigrants from Canada, they would be deported almost instantly but a Mexican immigrant wouldnt because it would be discriminating.

Question for debate: Do we put too much focus into not discriminating sometimes that we discriminate against others?

[WinePusher]

Sometimes I think that we are taking it to far. For example some colleges are required to accept certain amounts of people from different races to be fair. But is this really fair?

Affirmative Action is a discriminatory process in and of itself. Not only is it applied in Education, but also the labor sector. I recall the White Firefighters case in New Haven Connecticut where White Firefighters were denied promotions because not enough minorities passed the test. This case is now regarded as a horrible blunder on the part of the 2nd circuit, and it represents the many short fallings of Affirmative Action.

Another example would be immigration, is it discrimination to send illegal aliens back to their homeland? If its not, what laws are acceptable to enforce it? What about illegal immigrants from Canada, they would be deported almost instantly but a Mexican immigrant wouldnt because it would be discriminating.

The immigration laws we have on the books target illegals and do not engage in Racial Profiling, even Arizona's law, and yes, most illegals in this country come from Mexico. If we had illegals and criminals coming here from Canada, we would deport them as well.

Question for debate: Do we put too much focus into not discriminating sometimes that we discriminate against others?

Yes, one examples you already gave is Affirmative Action. I would submit Identity Politics as the other, I say choose the most qualified person for office, but people from both parties have decided to make Race, Gender and Sexuality part of the criteria. That's simply wrong.

[Kuan]

Sometimes I think that we are taking it to far. For example some colleges are required to accept certain amounts of people from different races to be fair. But is this really fair?

Affirmative Action is a discriminatory process in and of itself. Not only is it applied in Education, but also the labor sector. I recall the White Firefighters case in New Haven Connecticut where White Firefighters were denied promotions because not enough minorities passed the test. This case is now regarded as a horrible blunder on the part of the 2nd circuit, and it represents the many short fallings of Affirmative Action.

Another example would be immigration, is it discrimination to send illegal aliens back to their homeland? If its not, what laws are acceptable to enforce it? What about illegal immigrants from Canada, they would be deported almost instantly but a Mexican immigrant wouldnt because it would be discriminating.

The immigration laws we have on the books target illegals and do not engage in Racial Profiling, even Arizona's law, and yes, most illegals in this country come from Mexico. If we had illegals and criminals coming here from Canada, we would deport them as well.

Question for debate: Do we put too much focus into not discriminating sometimes that we discriminate against others?

Yes, one examples you already gave is Affirmative Action. I would submit Identity Politics as the other, I say choose the most qualified person for office, but people from both parties have decided to make Race, Gender and Sexuality part of the criteria. That's simply wrong.

Your points are exactly what im talking about, but I have to acknowledge that the other side has points also and im wondering what they have to say.

[nygreenguy]

Sometimes I think that we are taking it to far. For example some colleges are required to accept certain amounts of people from different races to be fair. But is this really fair?

Affirmative Action is a discriminatory process in and of itself. Not only is it applied in Education, but also the labor sector. I recall the White Firefighters case in New Haven Connecticut where White Firefighters were denied promotions because not enough minorities passed the test. This case is now regarded as a horrible blunder on the part of the 2nd circuit, and it represents the many short fallings of Affirmative Action.

The case became an issue when no blacks passed a test that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOB. . It had nothing to do with their skills as a firefighters and was therefore unfair and automatically disqualified from the position.

Quotas are illegal, but goals can be voluntarily set by the organization. For public jobs, all it really says if if 2 candidates are equally qualified, then you should give consideration to minorities (women, african americans, latin americans, etc...) and even then, only if having a more diverse workplace would benefit the services rendered.

All this reverse-discrimination fear mongering is baseless nonsense.

The immigration laws we have on the books target illegals and do not engage in Racial Profiling, even Arizona's law, and yes, most illegals in this country come from Mexico. If we had illegals and criminals coming here from Canada, we would deport them as well.

Except for they dont. I cant count how many times on the amtrack in buffalo the border patrol comes on and ONLY asks for ID from dark skinned folks. I have NEVER seen them ask a white person for their papers. If you dont think there is profiling, you are not looking.

Yes, one examples you already gave is Affirmative Action.

Which is not at all true.

I would submit Identity Politics as the other, I say choose the most qualified person for office, but people from both parties have decided to make Race, Gender and Sexuality part of the criteria. That's simply wrong.

The fact that we have had nothing but white men for 200 years says something is inherently jacked up.

[Kuan]

Sometimes I think that we are taking it to far. For example some colleges are required to accept certain amounts of people from different races to be fair. But is this really fair?

Affirmative Action is a discriminatory process in and of itself. Not only is it applied in Education, but also the labor sector. I recall the White Firefighters case in New Haven Connecticut where White Firefighters were denied promotions because not enough minorities passed the test. This case is now regarded as a horrible blunder on the part of the 2nd circuit, and it represents the many short fallings of Affirmative Action.

The case became an issue when no blacks passed a test that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOB. . It had nothing to do with their skills as a firefighters and was therefore unfair and automatically disqualified from the position.

Quotas are illegal, but goals can be voluntarily set by the organization. For public jobs, all it really says if if 2 candidates are equally qualified, then you should give consideration to minorities (women, african americans, latin americans, etc...) and even then, only if having a more diverse workplace would benefit the services rendered.

All this reverse-discrimination fear mongering is baseless nonsense.

So you deny that it happens?

The immigration laws we have on the books target illegals and do not engage in Racial Profiling, even Arizona's law, and yes, most illegals in this country come from Mexico. If we had illegals and criminals coming here from Canada, we would deport them as well.

Except for they dont. I cant count how many times on the amtrack in buffalo the border patrol comes on and ONLY asks for ID from dark skinned folks. I have NEVER seen them ask a white person for their papers. If you dont think there is profiling, you are not looking.

I dont know if that is profiling though, more like common sense to me. When 56% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and 22% from other latin america countries, there is a higher chance and probability that Latins are here illegally. In one way it could be discrimination and questioning someone not latin once in a while probably should be done. The fact that this happens in Buffalo, New York has merit with me as being discriminatory, becuase it is very far from the southern borders. If it was somewhere in New Mexico or Arizona, I would call it common sense.

Source: Immigration Percentage

I would submit Identity Politics as the other, I say choose the most qualified person for office, but people from both parties have decided to make Race, Gender and Sexuality part of the criteria. That's simply wrong.

The fact that we have had nothing but white men for 200 years says something is inherently jacked up.

Yes there probably were some instances in the past that were wrong, but should we elect a black or female president who is not qualified because they will be the first one in office? (Im not suggesting that Obama or Hillary Clinton are not qualified.) I think we all agree that qualifications for a job matter more than race or sex.[/url]

[ForkieUK]

Do we put too much focus into not discriminating sometimes that we discriminate against others?

Yes, I think so. I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK if you fill out an application form for a job there is often (nay, always, these days) a page called the "Equal Opportunities Monitoring" form, or words to that effect. Here you answer questions regarding your skin colour, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and disabilities. This is so the company can monitor how "diverse" their applicants (note: not their current employees) are (also note that the forms are anonymous and are separated from the rest of the application form).

I've always thought that, if equal opportunities is really what it's all about, why bother keeping score? Why not just let whoever wants to apply, apply and whether the company ends up with a mostly white, mostly black, mostly Muslim or mostly wheelchair-bound workforce will just be the result of who was most qualified for the job at the time?

[nygreenguy]

I've always thought that, if equal opportunities is really what it's all about, why bother keeping score? Why not just let whoever wants to apply, apply and whether the company ends up with a mostly white, mostly black, mostly Muslim or mostly wheelchair-bound workforce will just be the result of who was most qualified for the job at the time?

Because the people who do the hiring dont always pick the best qualified.

Here in america, people had to be forced to not discriminate because minorities, including women, were qualified, but simply not getting the jobs.

[Kuan]

Quotas are illegal, but goals can be voluntarily set by the organization. For public jobs, all it really says if if 2 candidates are equally qualified, then you should give consideration to minorities (women, african americans, latin americans, etc...) and even then, only if having a more diverse workplace would benefit the services rendered.

I do agree with this idea, but is this the way it turns out every time?

[ForkieUK]

I've always thought that, if equal opportunities is really what it's all about, why bother keeping score? Why not just let whoever wants to apply, apply and whether the company ends up with a mostly white, mostly black, mostly Muslim or mostly wheelchair-bound workforce will just be the result of who was most qualified for the job at the time?

Because the people who do the hiring dont always pick the best qualified.

Here in america, people had to be forced to not discriminate because minorities, including women, were qualified, but simply not getting the jobs.

Pardon my request for a history lesson, but how was non-discrimination forced and how is it enforced in the US?

[nygreenguy]

I've always thought that, if equal opportunities is really what it's all about, why bother keeping score? Why not just let whoever wants to apply, apply and whether the company ends up with a mostly white, mostly black, mostly Muslim or mostly wheelchair-bound workforce will just be the result of who was most qualified for the job at the time?

Because the people who do the hiring dont always pick the best qualified.

Here in america, people had to be forced to not discriminate because minorities, including women, were qualified, but simply not getting the jobs.

Pardon my request for a history lesson, but how was non-discrimination forced and how is it enforced in the US?

Well, we have to eliminate slavery, give women the right to vote, give blacks the right to vote, get rid of poll tax, jim crowe laws, seperate but equal, affirmative action, americans with disabilities act, etc...

We still dont have any laws saying that women should make the same as men for the exact same positions. Women still make $.75 for every $1 a man makes for the same work.