It means they most likely got the job before white males were discriminated against through affirmative action.
No, what he's really saying is, there should only be white males working in those departments. If any non-white or women are there, obviously it was due to affirmative action..... EDIT: I see I was correct in my assessment.....there should be no doubt that there are an abundant of stormfront members here...
So would that mean before AA minorities and women were being discriminated against and that is why they got those jobs.
No because there were no laws that discriminated against women and minorities then like there are laws today that discriminate against white males.
Bwhahahahahahaha. Bwhahahahahahahaha. Bwhahahahahahahahaha. This must be a troll account, nobody can be this ignorant.
Ad hominen attacks are the last bastion of a position that cannot withstand scrutiny . Name one employment law that discriminated against women and minorities 30 years ago like I can name employment laws that discriminate against white males today.
Thats just it when you run everything there is no need for you to write a law that discriminates, I just don't hire you or I just don't give you a raise or promotion. With that said give us 3 Federal Laws that discriminate specifically against white men today.
No but they should be held accountable for the actions being committed by "white men" today such as invidious discrimination and oppression of non-whites and women that has been repeatedly documented statistically. It is a historical fact that the only "group" that has never been discriminated against and oppressed in the entire history of the United States are White Anglo Saxon Protestant Males and that is as true today as it was 200 years ago.
So, in other words, you believe discrimination is OK as long as the affected race is not fashionable??? Given that you believe racism and sexism are OK today, I wonder what your stance would be in the past when African Americans were discriminated against. Surely, if you lived then, you would think that discrimination was O thenK as well??? Given my stance on discrimination today, I know what my stance on discrimination would be then. I would think it was wrong, and I would do everything I could to stop it, just as I believe discrimination is wrong today, regardless of how unfashionable the race and gender may happen to be.
So, in other words, there were no laws that discriminated against women and minorities 30 years ago like there are laws that discriminate against white males today.
I never said that. Those are your words, not mine. I'm an egalitarean. I believe inequality is wrong when that inequality is a result of discrimination regardless of how, 'fashionable' or 'unfashionable' the race and gender that's being discriminated against may be. For example the reason for the disparity between men and women and their incomes is the result of what they choose to study at University. It's not a result of discrimination. According to the study: Whats it Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors which analyzes data from the 2009 American Community Survey, white men are concentrated in the highest-earning majors, including engineering and pharmaceutical sciences, while women gravitate toward the lowest-earning majors like education, art and social work. Source: http://newsone.com/1252915/college-m...ce-and-gender/
Please don't misrepresent what I've said. Invidious discrimination and oppression is always wrong but the son it not responsible for the actions of the father. We cannot change the past but we should change the present and those committing invidious acts of economic discrimination (invidious discrimination is that discrimination that serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise) are harming the Free Market, the person discriminated against, and, in all truth, even themselves. I find it ironic that those that allow their prejudice to manifest itself in economic discrimination that result in poverty are opposed to the necessity of government to mitigate the effects of poverty they create. By their own actions they will deny the most qualified person for the job which negatively effects their own enterprise based upon the invidious criteria of skin color or gender. Our overall economy suffers because of invidious economic discrimination and yet so many continue to propagate it through prejudice and discrimination. It's not just the person that is discriminated against that suffers but instead all of us suffer from invidious discrimination that has historically been by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Men in the United States. Everyone has suffered from this and while it is unquestionable the person subjected to this discrimination the most in the end we, as a nation, all suffer including th WASP males that are overwhelmingly historically responsible for the discrimination and oppression of everyone else in the United States.
http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/project/totears.htm http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/project/totears.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_immigration_to_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman's_suffrage Shall I continue? The sources are almost endless. There is no statistical evidence that WASP males have ever been discriminated against in the history of the United States. The best anyone can offer are rare anecdotal exceptions showing any discrimination aganst WASP males since the United States was founded.
Civil Rights legislation was a conglomeration of laws and that in the process of doing good that it would also to some degree or the other discriminate against White males is beyond question. Whether we are talking about hiring practices or getting into college in regards to a quota system in regards to whether or not they are good for a nation still the fact remains that some of them were designed with the deliberate intent to discriminate against Whites in general and White males in particular to one degree or another.
Please tell me how all folks having the right to vote discriminates against white males. Tell us how you are beind discriminated against because you might have to drink out of a water fountain that a minority has drank from. Tell us how you are being discriminated against if you get on the bus and all the front seats are taken and you have to sit in the back. So in other words it was good, as long as, you were 100% of the student body instead of 80%. It was good, as long as, you rec'd 100% of the Federal Contracts instead of 90%.
I wrote nothing about voting or drinking out of fountains. That's your race-baiting game. I also did not place a value judgment on hiring practices or college admissions. Again, that's your race-baiting game. You asked for specifics and I gave you some specifics. Everything else is coming from your NEED to find everything racist that does not adhere to your PC ideology.
Nearly every single one of those links are examples of discrimination that occured before everyone alive today was born. So, I guess, with your links, you're saying white men today should be punished for what other white people did before they were born? Moreover, the links about race and sex discrimination laws are examples of racism and sexism because white males are excluded from inclusion and enforcement of these laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action The College Affirmative Action Plan and programs are established in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Federal Office of Contract Compliance Programs, Federal Executive Order 11246, Rehabilitation Act Section 503, Governor's Executive Order 93-07 Affirming Commitment to Diversity and Equity, Re-establishing Affirmative Action and Prohibiting Discrimination, Governor's Executive Orders 89.01, 96-04 and 98-01, RCW 28 B.10, 39.19, 41.06, 49.60, and 49.74. Consistent with Federal and State law, the plan provides for equal opportunity and non-discrimination in all aspects of college employment regardless of protected group status: race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or veteran status.
Wasn't that the main concept of the Civil Rights Act. I missed the specifics in that statement, could you be alittle clearer in your specifics.
