Supreme Court reverses ruling on White Firefighters Case

[fabulouslyghetto]

Maybe next time they should study.

was it concluded that they didn't?

 

[construct]

You should come up with something better than that. Perhaps you could expand on what systemic subjugation was at play that causes you to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling?

I here incorporate by reference all iman's posts in this thread as though they were restated in full here.

He has indicated far better than I ever could the historical length and the cultural breadth of that subjugation.

 

[construct]

... you're lucky I'm not in the mood to pursue this because I don't really care. That and you just tried passing the buck to iman, and I'd rather not have to read all of his posts in this thread.

"Tried"? I did! I recognized early on that he was the water bearer in this thread. That's why my posts here have been so short and generalized.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

"Tried"? I did! I recognized early on that he was the water bearer in this thread. That's why my posts here have been so short and generalized.

they'll learn what you mean after gays have obtained full equality but still face discrimination. the idea that something this nuanced can be undone with a few band aids is as laughable as their certainty in its plausibility.

gays will deal with the same discrimination years after we've won this battle. and then they'll face the same charges, that homophobia "died years ago" so we need to "quit whining and asking for handouts." the irony will be a bitter-tasting one.

 

[bankside]

i can't think of a single person who would agree with this statement. are things better? yup. is the problem over with? not in the slightest.

I'm white. In the world of oil painting, I would be known as "Titanium White."
When I was promoted I hired my replacement, who is from a minority background. And she hired a team of people including many minorities as I did before her.

I didn't do it because of a quota or because of any pressure, or because of any guilt, or to look good. I hired people who earned their positions on equal terms. That does way more for equality than affirmative action, or this kind of nonsense that was just struck down by the Supreme Court.

One of the losing candidates asked me why I made my choice, because she came in second although she previously held a more senior position than my choice. She wondered if I was applying some "equity criteria" and I was able to say: Nope. You were good, but you were out-competed. She knew her stuff. She prepared. And she beat you in the interview. But don't worry; you'll be next - your good too, but it just wasn't your day.

This does not make me a champion of equality, it means I was just doing my job. But as a result of doing my job, I have the best candidate for the job. As a result of having the best candidate for the job, my group does better once I moved on. We win. The people who work for us win. Our clients win. It wouldn't take much for us to push any racist competitors to fail. But we would also drown anyone else who hired their staff based on "positive racial preference" instead of raw talent.

That can be the only criteria, for business, for public office, and for creating an equal society.

 

[construct]

they'll learn what you mean after gays have obtained full equality but still face discrimination. the idea that something this nuanced can be undone with a few band aids is as laughable as their certainty in its plausibility.

gays will deal with the same discrimination years after we've won this battle. and then they'll face the same charges, that homophobia "died years ago" so we need to "quit whining and asking for handouts." the irony will be a bitter-tasting one.

Well you know, as often as I compare the gay civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement, this is one area where there is a huge difference. Gay folk have never asked for or wanted any sort of affirmative action program. In fact, affirmative action doesn't even make sense in a gay context. In order for a gay affirmative action program to work, everyone would have to be ejected from their closets. Gay folk view that as an odious invasion of privacy and wouldn't tolerate it for a New York minute.

The discrimination experienced by gay folk and black folk are analogous, but the remedies for the discrimination won't necessarily be the same (nor should they be).

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^cute story, heartwarming, but hardly indicative of reality. if everyone was following your example we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[opinterph]

raw talent.

… the only criteria, for business, for public office, and for creating an equal society.

Not all personnel actions can be so easily defined.

By law, veterans who are disabled or who served on active_duty in the Armed Forces during certain specified time periods or in military campaigns are entitled to preference over non-veterans both in hiring from competitive lists of eligibles and in retention during reductions in force. [US OPM]

 

[bankside]

Not all personnel actions can be so easily defined.

You raise an interesting point, but anyone can earn that perk by serving in the military, regardless of personal ancestry, etc. Merit, through service to the country, is still the equal criteria used.

(Anyone except openly gay people of course, at least in the states)

 

[opinterph]

equal criteria

That is the key to understanding the intent of affirmative action.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

You raise an interesting point, but anyone can earn that perk by serving in the military

anyone? what about single mothers? who's going to watch the kids for 2, 4, 6 years?

 

[bankside]

fabu, you suggesting that only single people with no children serve in the military?

I'm sure there are lots of kids raised by grandparents while mom or dad is overseas making ends meet. That's how my aunt was raised btw.

Anyway my point was that no one gets preferential hiring via the military route for any personal characteristics. The only criterion is military service.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

fabu, you suggesting that only single people with no children serve in the military?

No. I asked a question. That was cute though, responding with a question that makes a reasonable inquiry sound illogical.

I'm sure there are lots of kids raised by grandparents while mom or dad is overseas making ends meet. That's how my aunt was raised btw.

Not everyone has grandparents or family or even friends they can depend on. Some people's grandparents/parents are on drugs, dead, etc... Not every grandmother is in the kitchen baking cookies while granddaddy sits on the porch reading the paper, just hoping someone will come dump a few kids on them.

 

[hotatlboi]

^cute story, heartwarming, but hardly indicative of reality. if everyone was following your example we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

If you agree with following that example then how can you disagree with this decision? Promoting the people who passed the test would be hiring the best qualified workers. The fact that none were black was probably totally irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as if none of them were left handed or had red hair. There were lot of white people who failed the test too.

 

[bankside]

No. I asked a question. That was cute though, responding with a question that makes a reasonable inquiry sound illogical.



Not everyone has grandparents or family or even friends they can depend on. Some people's grandparents/parents are on drugs, dead, etc... Not every grandmother is in the kitchen baking cookies while granddaddy sits on the porch reading the paper, just hoping someone will come dump a few kids on them.

Okay, I'll bite.

First of all, if you (or anyone) wants to say that preferential military hiring is a bad idea that soldiers don't really deserve, and haven't really earned, I'm open to being convinced.

But as for your specific example, my first impression is that people can plan for a military career or they can plan to start a family. Maybe they plan both at the same time. This single mother, why doesn't the father take care of the kids then? Or pay child support so mom can go overseas? Maybe not everyone can have it all. A woman could have a military career with her husband watching the kids and then he has an aneurism and dies. She quits to take care of the kids, and loses the right to the first job available (I don't know the rules, but just for an example).

Well, it isn't discrimination. Anyone's partner can die. The rules are not stacked against her because she is a woman. It just didn't work out in her favour. The rules are not supposed to give her extras just because her parents don't want to take the kids in, or maybe they are too old.

If the rules could do all that at the same time, I'd like to rub the lamp containing that particular genie.

 

[crzyrazn]

i can't think of a single person who would agree with this statement. are things better? yup. is the problem over with? not in the slightest.

Don't tickle yourself to death just yet, sweetie. I'm not so naive as to suggest racism is dead - sadly it will always be an issue. Racial inequality, however, is dead. And by inequality I mean fair and equal access to education, employment, housing, benefits, freedoms, etc. Racism will always burden society in some form, but in this context, with iman arguing that African-Americans don't have the advantages as others, this is what I meant.

they'll learn what you mean after gays have obtained full equality but still face discrimination. the idea that something this nuanced can be undone with a few band aids is as laughable as their certainty in its plausibility.

gays will deal with the same discrimination years after we've won this battle. and then they'll face the same charges, that homophobia "died years ago" so we need to "quit whining and asking for handouts." the irony will be a bitter-tasting one.

Of course discrimination will always be a negative where society is concerned. Discrimination will always be a feature in society no matter the progress we have made by law to protect against it legally. Deal with it. Homosexuals will have to as well. You think we are going to wake up one day and live in a Utopia where everyone no matter their orientation, ethnicity, race, religion will all be dancing on the village green together in perfect harmony? It will never be that, but at least we have progressed enough that racial inequality is no longer tolerated, at least openly and condoned, that African-Americans, are seen even now not to have opportunities everyone else has. I don't agree with iman that African-Americans are still at a disadvantage on the scale he is arguing. And I don't agree affirmative action should unfairly advantage those who simply do not have the qualifications to pass a fair test because of their skin color, but because of individual potential.

was it concluded that they didn't?

Obviously. The test assessed that. As I recall, when I was in school, those who had the same amount of time and same material and study notes to study either proved they studied by passing the test or failing it. It also depended on your level of intelligence and ability to retain and recall and integrating information, which is a characteristic of qualified students, or in this case, qualified firefighters to obtain promotion. Some have it, some don't - black, white, yellow, or rainbow. It has nothing to do with race.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

by inequality I mean fair and equal access to education, employment, housing, benefits, freedoms, etc.

Umm.... you sure about the items i bolded? A college here in south carolina had an unspoken ban on interracial relationships until last year. The real estate scandal in Compton in the 90s, what about the imfamous study on hiring processes where "black-sounding" names received less call-backs than "anglo-sounding names?"

Your statement is silly unless you believe racist attitudes only exist in the backwoods and dissipate in the office and other professional settings. These attitudes aren't just floating around in outer space, they're here every day affecting the decisions made by those who possess them. Case in point... this situation we're discussing.

Of course discrimination will always be a negative where society is concerned. Discrimination will always be a feature in society no matter the progress we have made by law to protect against it legally. Deal with it.

First it was "it doesn't exist" now it's "deal with it?" Well let's call these firefighters up and tell them to "deal with it."

It will never be that, but at least we have progressed enough that racial inequality is no longer tolerated

You need to watch the news more often. It's not only tolerated, it's celebrated.

I don't agree with iman that African-Americans are still at a disadvantage on the scale he is arguing.

Can you back your disagreement up with some kind of data? He could.

 

[crzyrazn]

Umm.... you sure about the items i bolded? A college here in south carolina had an unspoken ban on interracial relationships until last year. The real estate scandal in Compton in the 90s, what about the imfamous study on hiring processes where "black-sounding" names received less call-backs than "anglo-sounding names?"

Your statement is silly unless you believe racist attitudes only exist in the backwoods and dissipate in the office and other professional settings. These attitudes aren't just floating around in outer space, they're here every day affecting the decisions made by those who possess them. Case in point... this situation we're discussing.



First it was "it doesn't exist" now it's "deal with it?" Well let's call these firefighters up and tell them to "deal with it."



You need to watch the news more often. It's not only tolerated, it's celebrated.



Can you back your disagreement up with some kind of data? He could.

Yes, legally, inequality is dead in all those areas. Is it dead in practice? No, but as said, this will never be a perfect world. Please, explain to me how African-Americans are discriminated against in those areas that, if discovered or challenged, has legal protection? The ban on interracial couples was dropped in 2000, not last year, at Bob Jones University, which is notorious for its ultra religious and conservative values. I have full Asian name that sounds Middle Eastern, and have been looking for a job for eight months now, and I have considered that my name, especially here in the south, could lead some to believe I am a whacky Taliban terrorist. African-Americans are not special in any regards when it comes to discrimination, as I'm sure there are plenty of minorities out there who face the same struggle, but that doesn't lead me to believe that my failure to get a job was based solely on the sound of my name or that discrimination is wide spread everywhere I apply. The issue of the black firefighter is not a case in point. Because it was fair. I'm sorry you refuse to see that because they were black, and you believe African-Americans are targeted.

You should really read what I post more carefully. I said, racial inequality is dead, there are legal protections now. Racism, however, is not, will never be. We all have to deal with it. But when we locate it and find it out, we have been given the social protection so to prosecute it and wipe it out.

What the hell are you talking about saying it's "celebrated"? Are you serious? Maybe I only surround myself with friends and people, to include all sorts of different backgrounds and races, who don't discriminate. But its hard to believe I haven't witnessed any form of sever discrimination that I can prove...

Iman hasn't presented any data besides his own views on the matter...

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The ban on interracial couples was dropped in 2000, not last year, at Bob Jones University, which is notorious for its ultra religious and conservative values.

Legally, yes. That's why I said "unspoken."

African-Americans are not special in any regards when it comes to discrimination

Who said they are?

I'm sorry you refuse to see that because they were black, and you believe African-Americans are targeted.

Huh? I haven't even mentioned that. Your assumption is laughable. Of course being black I would side with them.

I said, racial inequality is dead, there are legal protections now.

Oh. In that case rape and theft are dead because they're illegal. Yay! Theft isn't a problem anymore!

Iman hasn't presented any data besides his own views on the matter...

Where should he begin? The justice system? Public housing? Pay rates of whites and blacks with equal education? Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[hotatlboi]

Where should he begin? The justice system? Public housing? Pay rates of whites and blacks with equal education? Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean it's not there.

None of that has any relevance to this issue. In this case EVERYONE was treated fairly, and the decision of who to promote was based solely on individual performance and not racial prejudice.