It is discrimination if a lesser qualified minority is chosen over a non-minority for any position.

There were many lawsuits against AA and quotas was finally deemed unconstitutional.

where is the ruling that AA is unconstitutional,, I would love to see this....


and can you provide an UNYIELDING definition of more or less qualified,,,?

are we determining qualifications strictly on paper merits (if so , why do employers bother with interviews)

are we determining qualifications with paper experience (again, no need for interviews)

are we determining qualifications on ability to learn , communicate, or people skills ( in that case, why use resumes, why not just give tests to all applicants and interview them, get REAL time information on what they actually know and how they apply it)

the problem with the question of whether one is more or less qualified is in defining the parameters of any job opening and what SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE are deemed important for the job holder to have.

For instance, IF you have one candidate for a managerial job who has worked in their family business for four years, three of them as manager, and another candidate with four years of business management in a school(transcripts not usually mandated, meaning although they attended they could have passed with solid c's)

who is the more qualified?

or, if you have one candidate for an administrative job who went for four years to a college and one who went for eight years to four colleges,,,,

who is more qualified (the one with more years, or the one with more dependability?)

the only thing we can really DICTATE and EXPECT from employers is that they hire QUALIFIED candidates, because in reality employers look at MANY variables when considering whom to hire ,

who will be more or less qualified is a totally subjective standard left to each employer..

Search 'mandated quotas deemed unconstitutional'

I wonder why the Bakke decision is so troublesome for the ones advocating AA ... ?

sigh, QUOTAS are not the same as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFfirmitive action is a category of laws and regulations(and policies created in answer to them) created to address a common goal of combating discrimination.


there have been issues before the courts involving quotas, but these cases are seperate from actual Affirmative Action law.


from minorityjobs.net

Some critics of affirmative action claim this is still a quota system, since it quantifies the number of minorities and women that a company is supposed to hire. But notice that this system does not require a company to hire unqualified people to meet its goals. Also note that goals are flexible, since they are derived from the (changing) number of qualified minority and female workers in the region. Also note that if the company fails to meet its goal, the goal is simply re-established the next year -- and the next and the next, as long as the company fails to find qualified people. This is far different from a rigid quota system, in which a company must hire a certain percentage of minorities and women, or else be penalized by a judge.

I wonder why it would bother them, it doesnt bother me, since the case did not diminish or take away from Affirmative Action in any way


from brittanica.com

on June 28, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court declared affirmative action constitutional but invalidated the use of racial quotas. The medical school at the University of California, Davis, as part of the university’s affirmative action program, had reserved 16 percent of its admission places for minority applicants. Allan Bakke, a white California man who had twice unsuccessfully applied for admission to the medical school, filed suit against the university. Citing evidence that his grades and test scores surpassed those of many minority students who had been ...


DECLARED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL


it would have been ineresting to have heard the plaintiffs research on how many other WHITE students had also been admitted ahead of him with lower grades and test scores,,

in any case, I am one who is fine with the ruling, I recognize that there are some times when the system doesnt work, regardless of the area of law we are debating,,, but the laws and the system are still necessary for all the times when they DO work

Your claim was there were never any mandated quotas. I believe you called them suggestions. Well, those suggestions have been court ruled unconstitutional.

ok,, no Affirmative Action LAW has mandated quotas,, there are policies that have been put in place to work within AA guidelines which involved quotas,, those policies and the quotas within THOSE policies were deemed unconstitutional

This is just his opinion.

CLARENCE THOMAS: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

Quota = Discrimination

Discrimination = Unconstitutional

AA Uses Quotas SO AA is unconstitutional!

How hard can that be?

AA used a points system in all state and federal jobs here as well as enrollment in colleges.

Why do you think UCLA started having such a high failure rate among "minority students."

What DUMBAZZ thinks getting into a name university will do anything for you if you don't have the qualifications to make in the first place? This is what you get when you allow people to dumb down standards!

AA is just another method of 'profiling' (oops - there's that word) to select the unqualified for an advantage they would not otherwise have over people who are actually MORE qualified to do a particular job ... but that's not 'politically correct'. It's a POLITICAL solution that lets the UNqualified be given preference while disquailfying the qualified. It's TRUE, but it's not Pee Cee ...

ok,, by the same logic,,,,

denying abortions - unconstitutional
criminal law (before Roe.V Wade) - denied abortions

therefore criminal law is unconstitutional


ONCE AGAIN CLASS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is not a law

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is a description of a GROUP of laws and policies with a common goal to combat discrimination

as far as points in universities (one of HUNDREDS of types of policies instituted to work towards AFfirmative Action goals)
,,,, I conceded already that they probably werent fair,,,but the interesting thing to me is that people get so up in arms about these points being based in unequal opportunity when the correlation is made with race,,,,,but they have no problem accepting points for unequal opportunity when the points are awarded for whom your parents might have been or where they decided to move you,,,,

it is probably true that many who get in on point systems wont cut it in school, it is probably not true that this represents any higher a proportion of students than those who dont cut it WITHOUT the points given,,,but at least, on the flip side,,,,many of those who get in WITH the points and do far more than 'CUT IT' may have in the past not gotten in at all



the proof is in the pudding, success starts with getting in the door,, and after that maybe you succeed and maybe you dont and that will ALL come down to your performance after you are in,,, but in the past MANY MANY were never given the real chance to even enter,,,

Wow, ever had the feeling that people are not using reading comprehension skills?

AA , in regards to hiring, does not deal with UNQUALIFIED applicants. It only deals with the available pools of QUALIFIED candidates.

Try THAT line of reasoning on someone who's never dealt with the RESULTS of AA 'hiring' ...

IF I can find someone who can prove to me the results they dealt with were actually due to AA laws...... I would love to chat with them,,,

That's where AA is unconstitutional.

It mandates a lesser qualified minority be chosen over a more qualified non-minority.

The point system is a great example.

If the minority weren't given a point handicap, the playing field would be level.

The points are given, not earned. Thereby being discriminatory.

Discrimination is unconstitutional.

It would be nice if, minority's pull up their diapers and quit playing the victim.

The truly successful minority individual doesn't blame or accept gimmies. They earn their position and don't accept excuses like,"Da' white man is keepin' me in da' ghetto so, all's I can do is whine and smoke crack."

I suppose you've never dealt with any 'city employees' ... ? My. What a sheltered life ...

wow,, ok, thats not too offensive,, but anyhow.

as far as the points system it is intellectually dishonest to claim the playing field was level prior to the minority students receiving points. This brings me to the often overlooked and DENIED reality that students and people in general enjoy plenty of UNEARNED benefits by nature of their status in society. In THIS particular situation,, aside from the points for minority students, and BEFORE the points for minority students,, ,,, students were awarded points for where they lived (something they didnt earn, unless child labor rates have really risen) and whom their parents were(something else they didnt earn), and where their parents happened to send them to school( you get my point? unearned)

also those already existing UNEARNED types of points, were less likely to apply to minorities,, who were rarely residents in the named areas, or students at the named schools, and who were also rarely the children of alumni.

so yes, the points system awarded unearned points,, but not just to minorities, also to students of wealthier and more privileged families.,, it was only the ones awarded to minorities that were deemed unconstitutional because race protected from being preferred or discriminated against, and social class is not(and probably never will be).


as to GIMMES,,, lets just ignore the relevance of social attitudes towards race and pretend that without laws to mandate OPPORTUNITIES be made available to all races all those who were in power would have just reached out to those 'other races' instead of sticking to their own

success only can happen once you get your foot in the door. AA was instituted and needed (And still is judging by how people still think) to make sure that people couldnt be turned away SOLELY because of the color of their skin.

My step-father worked civil service and got real peeoed when he came home from work one day. Said a couple of the quota minorities just sat all day doing nothing. They left it for the non-minorities to do it all. When he complained to the supervisor, he was told he could get fired for making a complaint or sued by the quota minorities he was reporting.

That's not exactly what he said. He didn't call them that N word. He called them the t-word. T, because they were hired just to show the quota numbers.