Tim Hardaway, rectally speaking

[zgodt]

Originally Posted by ChildrenofSodom

but why punish the white people, who have no hand in the problem?

In affirmative action, nobody is punishing white people. The problem here is that people look at affirmative action and they only see the "benefit" received by the black person at the end of the process leading up to the job or educational opportunity in question. What they don't see is the benefits received by the white person over the long haul of their life that has put them in a better position to meet certain quantitative criteria. The whole notion of "better qualified" deserves a second look here. Does the white person with better scores have better aptitude for the position? Not necessarily. The white person's scores may be inflated by the relative degree of support he/she has received over the entirety of his/her life by a society which still systematically favors white people.

[hot_turkey_ed]

Originally Posted by zgodt

Does the white person with better scores have better aptitude for the position? Not necessarily. The white person's scores may be inflated by the relative degree of support he/she has received over the entirety of his/her life by a society which still systematically favors white people.

The degree of support necessary to generate merit does not disqualify the achievement itself of merit. That argument doesn't hold weight. Should NASA hire the rocket scientist who can best design the next generation space ship or hire a diverse mediocrity that balances ability with a politically correct sense of multicultural racial accounting?

How about this... would you be ready to impose racial quotas on the PGA tour? Should Q-School be about making the cut, whatever the score required, or should it be racially balanced to achieve diversity?

[zgodt]

Originally Posted by hot_turkey_ed

The degree of support necessary to generate merit does not disqualify the achievement itself of merit. That argument doesn't hold weight. Should NASA hire the rocket scientist who can best design the next generation space ship or hire a diverse mediocrity that balances ability with a politically correct sense of multicultural racial accounting?

How about this... would you be ready to impose racial quotas on the PGA tour? Should Q-School be about making the cut, whatever the score required, or should it be racially balanced to achieve diversity?

My short answer is twofold: First, I'm more interested in fairness than rocketry -- and if the most efficient development of the next generation space ship depends on treating people unfairly, then I'll take the less efficient development model. Second, the assumption that affirmative action promotes "mediocrity" is not borne out by experience. Why do you think so many business and industry leaders, to say nothing of the U.S. military, favor affirmative action? It's not because they love mediocrity in their employees.

[hot_turkey_ed]

Originally Posted by zgodt

My short answer is twofold: First, I'm more interested in fairness than rocketry -- and if the most efficient development of the next generation space ship depends on treating people unfairly, then I'll take the less efficient development model. Second, the assumption that affirmative action promotes "mediocrity" is not borne out by experience. Why do you think so many business and industry leaders, to say nothing of the U.S. military, favor affirmative action? It's not because they love mediocrity in their employees.

I'd rather humanity get off the planet. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't consider it an issue of fairness.

Affirmative Action by goal and definition promotes diversity, not excellence. That's not to say AA can't deliver excellence but it's not the focus. When the goal is not being the best, you will typically get less than the best. Thomas Sowell comments on this: Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of "diversity" in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that "college diversity programs fail to raise standards" and that "a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously."

Business leaders must at minimum give AA lip service because they have to do so. A company like Microsoft may be committed to diversity but you can't honestly deny it was built on IQ points and not quotas.

The military is a much more complicated subject, but let it me suggest that if it was strictly an issue of fairness, I doubt homosexuality would be still be an issue.

[Div]

Originally Posted by ChildrenofSodom

pimping out cars and clothes, stop killing each other, etc...

The same person that is rollin on 20s and pimping new 100 dollar AndOnes by day, is breaking into houses and stealing copper pipes and furnaces at night.

Well that's the common stereotype put out by tv and other media, but the truth is if you're a lower class black person living in the slums you wont be able to afford spinners for your car, let alone a car to begin with, you won't be able to afford diamond encrusted teeth, and you won't be able to afford the latest pair of michael jordan basketball shoes. The people who do most of the ghetto stuff (pimping out your ride, etc) are just suburbanite kids who are too spoiled to see that their parents provided them with a better lifestyle, but instead they'll go backwards and imitate the "black ghetto" culture that the media gives them, and if they dont do that shit they get called "white".

It's just all part of media conditioning if you ask me. And I don't understand how rap stars can be considered as living a ghetto lifestyle. Is it just cause of where they were born? I was born in new york city, but noones calling me ghetto. They live a millionaires lifestyle, blowing money on expensive toys and whatnot.

[ChildrenofSodom]

Originally Posted by Div

Well that's the common stereotype put out by tv and other media, .

I would agree with you on that, if I hadnt already seen it with my own eyes, in Dayton Ohio.

[zgodt]

Originally Posted by hot_turkey_ed

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by hot_turkey_ed

Business leaders must at minimum give AA lip service because they have to do so. A company like Microsoft may be committed to diversity but you can't honestly deny it was built on IQ points and not quotas.

I don't particularly see why business leaders would need to give lip service to affirmative action. And when we're talking about affirmative action, we are not talking about quotas. Quota systems have been discredited and discarded long ago, and where affirmative action is still practiced now, it is practiced quota-free. Of course, legal opponents of it still try to classify a.a. as "de facto quotas" but that's another matter.

Originally Posted by hot_turkey_ed

The military is a much more complicated subject, but let it me suggest that if it was strictly an issue of fairness, I doubt homosexuality would be still be an issue.

That's an interesting point...