Diversity is our strength?

This book, "Social Problems: Continuity and Change" has a few paragraphs about affirmative action in the fight to decrease racial discrimination before moving on to other programs. I find that the argument in favor of it is profound, particularly in the case of African Americans and their historically low hiring and acceptance to universities.

 

Apparently the Supreme Court has ruled that, in certain instances someone who was not admitted because their prospective spot was given to a recipient of affirmative action must also be admitted. It's a tough call, because diversity is of the utmost importance, but those whose grades would prompt consideration and otherwise be given a spot are no less deserving of one. I still feel that it's a good program though and am glad many universities and corporations incorporate diversity into their hiring and acceptance practices.

 

The fact that this thread even exits exhibiting discussions between racists and non-racists shows the difficulty those with differences from white folks, are facing and have been facing all along. They (you-all) are the bane of those who only want a share of the so-called "american dream." Somehow racists can't decipher the history of humans being brought here in horrendous conditions, were made to work for nothing, were raped, beaten, had parts of their families sold off, never to be seen again, WERE REFUSED EDUCATION--and still are denigrated for whatever they do. "employers HAVE THE RIGHT to discriminate against minorities and women because they are a liability.." With all due respect--THAT IS FUCKED!! You and those like you are the very reason why the 'me too' and affirmative action are necessary. Shallow. Extremely shallow people.

 

It was MLK who put it best. A person should be judged "Not by the color of the skin, but by the content of their character."

As long as we can use these guidelines for hiring and diversifying, this isn't a hard concept to make a great America with. If someone acts in a manner I question, it doesn't help the equation if they happen to be black. Because then I have to be very careful at how I treat them when I tell them they don't get the job, or they can't be a part of our company. If any other race proves to be a jerk, I don't fear legal retaliation if they don't get hired. or they get fired. Only one race has managed this. THAT is part of the problem with diversity. We want to be diverse. But we don't want to have to handle anyone with kid gloves because of a skin color. Then shove it down our throats..............yeah we are going to find ways to resist.

In America as far as I know ( I am not currently doing business with the govt. so things may be somewhat different specifically), if I want to do business with any aspect of a tax paid venture, build a bridge, etc. I generally have to use a points system for the diversity formula. The total number of employees of company and the revenues annually go into a formula that tells us how many points we need to have to meet our Affirmative Action (Diversity is the new word) requirements. If we don't meet these requirements our bids will be considered, but they will also be penalized by a percentage if we don't meet the AA model for points.

So it looks something like this. Minority=Value A(1). Female=Value B(1). Black=Value A+Value B+Value (black will have additional value added+1) Handicap= Value(2). Disabled Vet=Value(2) A black, handicapped disabled female veteran =Yahtzee. So say I need 10 points to qualify. If I can find a Yahtzee candidate, even if less qualified, I'm going to hire her to allow me to not have to find as many points elsewhere. Otherwise I need to find more points to add up to the value they require.

Now if I get well qualified black person in interview, I am going to absolutely hire them to gain my points. That's the easiest aspect to this system. We WANT well qualified blacks as much as we can find them. But if I don't get any qualified black applicants, I still need to fill in the points I don't have. So I hire less qualified, to make the points needed, not the talent required. Now to make up for the lack of talent, I have to find more talented candidates to fill the required skills needed. So now I have more people on staff than I would have needed to have. Further, I now have some that are protected class employees. About 5 times harder to get rid of. This becomes an overhead formula to calculate for just doing business. You have to weigh the possible gains for getting the contract against the cost it takes to provide it. But we in effect have to calculate the cost of the "drag" of less qualified employees, just to keep the points. And if I find someone more qualified than a "drag" value, I have to justify getting rid of the "drag" to replace with better. Not so easy to do if you have to factor in a lawsuit possibility. Not to mention the ADA requirements of the workplace which are being regularly raided and targeted by the attorneys that specialize in this.

If we choose to bid knowing full well we won't meet the required points, we may be the best company for the contract but we will be penalized a value (weight %), so we may not get the job based on that weighted penalty. 7 points is better to have than 4 points in the weight penalty. You can still get the job if after your penalty weight is calculated in, you still may be the best company overall. If 3 companies are competitively priced and close, it will come down to the least penalty weight. There usually isn't a lot of difference in pricing these days. So it will often come down to your Diversity grade.

I'd rather be able to openly seek well qualified minority employees in an open market than a forced one.

Meanwhile the standard white male worker is the easiest to get rid off. Doesn't mean he is the one we should get rid of.

This is where things get disparaging.

 

Thats like citing a list of countries where marijuana is illegal of which there is no shortage and saying "See, see! Marijuana is bad because a lot of other countries agree, too!"

 

First paragraph. Dude thats what I keep saying.

I am on the MLK train.

Today, if you are white and think the same thing MLK does, then you are subject to be labeled racist.

Because now we are in the "everyone gets a trophy" paradigm. So we are expected to overlook individual character.

( Its really the left that lumps people into groups. @hotwater )

 

So everyone who doesn't agree with you is racist.

 

Its ironic that the image and name of MLK has such an overt presence in our society, while Malcom X's personality pales in comparison however Malcom X's ideology has a stronger presence.

MLK is more of a symbol that no one really pays attention to unfortunately.

While the Malcom X victim mentality "white man is evil" mentality prevails.

Interesting to say the least.

 

I'm with Scratcho.

The fact this thread even exists is sad.

 

I am all for real diversity. Not this PC shit that is being forced on people.

 

Yeap. Same thing.

 

Thanks Scratcho!

 

You are propagating a victim mindset. Just like the establishment media is doing to minority youth today.

No currently living black person in America has been through legal slavery. And most young people of color have never experienced Jim Crowe laws that forcefully kept their kind in their place. Yet this type of mentality and propaganda is still being pushed out in universities and the media over and over again. Minorities have not had it better in America than they do nowadays. The left wants to keep people of color to focus on their past, rather than their future. There was one slave woman who didn't let the victim mindset bring her down; her name was Clara Brown. She was emancipated at the late age of 56, and had all her children sold off to the highest bidders. But that didn't stop her from being a wealthy businesswoman and land owner.

White privilege is a lie invented by racists too. The whole definition of racism, is making judgements about a person based on their appearance and stereotyping them in a negative light. When you look at a white person and assume they've had an easy life because of their "privilige" you're being just as racist as assuming a black person cannot succeed unless you lower the grading criteria so they can pass classes with lower scores.

Asians don't have "white privilege" either. Yet somehow they are earning higher income than whites, they are earning PHDs more than whites, they are going to college at higher rates too. And they faced the same racism as everyone else did; they had to drink from the same drinking fountains as all the non-whites. Plus, president Roosevelt confiscated their land and put them all in jail camps during the war. Their land was never returned either. Yet somehow they're succeeding above all the rest of us, because they aren't buying into this victimhood mindset that does nothing more than hold people back.

Sure a lot of you want to tar and feather me for starting this thread. Good. I don't care. It all started out as a question as to why we even value diversity; it's so superficial anyway when you judge people by their physical appearance rather than their personal worth.

 

Because while you intellectually know it, you don’t believe it, or at the very least can’t accept the fact that there are black people out there
that are way smarter than you, and far more successful.

 

You are missing the mark on your judgement of me there, buddy.

 

I wonder why people just don’t treat others as they wish to be treated. It would seem logical, yet we need movements and laws to get people to do just that. And, then eventually, another group gets marginalized. The pendulum swings and never finds a middle.

 

OK If I missed the mark then I apologize, but it will take a lot to convince me otherwise