What do you all think about racial classification on a lot of government forms, census forms. What is your stand on it ?

Do to the fact that racism still exist in the USA, although more secretly, Its best to still have such classifications for affirmative action purposes.

I always decline to identify my race on forms. Same for religion. My favorite story on this subject is ascribed to Einstein - when things were heating up in Germany in the 1930s, everyone was required to go to their local police stations and "register". Where the form asked for the person's religion, Einstein wrote "Mosaic".

Occasionally I write "human" when a form asks for a racial identification. Of course, they never ask for "race", it's always "ethnicity". Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Heh, heh.

Everybody does racial profiling. You can't legislate it out of existence. Maybe all job interviews ought to be conducted across forums like this one - it would effectively stop even subconsious racial profiling.

As long as affirmative action exists then there is no hope for racial unity. I think people can be classified by race but no benifits should be given to any race despite their potential genetic weaknesses.

I think its the social/cultural weekness to worry about.

As far as I know, many countries guarantee equality in the laws. So yes, racial classification should be abolished. In my eyes there is no reason to preserve it, the difference between race, if there is something like that, is only superficial.

Racial classification is a real danger to any society!! There is a real potential for abuse especially with GW.Bush and the Republicans in power.

As long as affirmative action exists then there is no hope for racial unity. I think people can be classified by race but no benifits should be given to any race despite their potential genetic weaknesses.


Genetic weaknesses?

So basically you just said that [mainly african americans since that is what affirmative action really helps] are geneticially inferior to other races?

I think it's more of disadvantages in education, not genetic weaknesses as some people would like you to believe.

However I think that AA has passed it's time and should be stopped.

Racial Classification when used for the purpose of purely scientific purposes ( like in anthropology) is fine. When used on Govt/ politics, vote counting, university entrance restrictions .. etc is horrific! I'll call that race targeting and this is the sort of shit that winds up making more WAYproblems than solves ( really doesn't solve anything)
Look at what happend in South Africa, now look at whats going on there!! verge of a civil war!!

Racial classification is a real danger to any society!! There is a real potential for abuse especially with GW.Bush and the Republicans in power.

Interesting mindset you have, since it is the Democrats who depend on racial pigeon-holing. Notice the Republicans do not get "ethnic" speakers to convince "ethnic groups" that they can't succeed without government and Democrat assistance.. It is one of the main reasons I could not be a Democrat. If you are opposed to being racially categorized then you might want to switch parties. If you wish to eternally propogate it then stay where you're at.

Do to the fact that racism still exist in the USA, although more secretly, Its best to still have such classifications for affirmative action purposes.

Aaaahhh yes, legalized racism to cure racism. That makes a lot of sense.

Well in your exaggeration it does not. Affirmative action is a set of guidelines that basically says that if a company seems to be racist they will be punished. So if a company as an unusually low number of minorities for its working field it can be closed down. Affirmative Action does not require or ask for minorities to be treated above the majority.

Interesting mindset you have, since it is the Democrats who depend on racial pigeon-holing. Notice the Republicans do not get "ethnic" speakers to convince "ethnic groups" that they can't succeed without government and Democrat assistance.. It is one of the main reasons I could not be a Democrat. If you are opposed to being racially categorized then you might want to switch parties. If you wish to eternally propogate it then stay where you're at.


Well Mr.Pentagon, I am not living in the US so I don't have to worry. Republican's are masters of fear mongering and using ethnic minories to their advantage. Seems like everyday you have a new threat of terrorism. What a way to make people do what you want them to! great stuff ain't it!? Fear is for the Fearful and the weak minded.

What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be helping (or not helping) people based on their race. In today's society, if you want something badly and you are intelligent enough to get it then you have the potential to achieve your dreams.

Affirmative action creates a divide between races especially for those my age. I got into four out of the five Universities that I applied to get into. Other students will be able to get in to the university I didn't get into with a lower Grade Average based on their race due to affirmative action. I'm not just referring to people with an African origin. In Canada, anyone considered to be a visual minority gets preference.

I'm not a racist or anything, but Affirmative action causes many people to argue. Many kids in my high school were accepted with low averages into universities based on their race. The students who weren't visual minorities were declined acceptance with higher averages. This created a divide between people. The only way for people of all races to get along is not to favour anyone. One should be accepted solely based on their skills, not on their race.

Well Mr.Pentagon, I am not living in the US so I don't have to worry. Republican's are masters of fear mongering and using ethnic minories to their advantage.

No, that's what the Democrats have relied on for years, ethnic divionism, not the Republicans. If the Republicans adopt it as a platform I'll stop being one.

However, it never ceases to amaze me how foreigners like yourself have nothing better to do than to form angry opinions about things that are "of no worry" to them.

Affirmative action is a set of guidelines that basically says that if a company seems to be racist they will be punished.

No, Affirmative Action (or Negative Action as I prefer to call it) is a quota system that has its every advocate saying with a straight face that it is NOT somehow a quota system; however it is, and it applies only to people who look "white." It does not "apply" to black-owned businesses. It does not apply to Hispanic-owned businesses. Nor Asian-owned. Just white-seemingly-controlled. This is the very definition of racism.

Affirmative Action, as it is described, is supposed to be illegal. One cannot hire or not hire based on race, creed, religion, etc..but can and should hire based on job qualifications, and similarly one SHOULD not be punished based on the race, creed, religion...of those hired based on job qualifications because that would be "distinguishing" based on race, creed, religion, etc...

As a quota system it ensures lesser qualified people of one or more specific superficial appearance characteristics are hired in place of better qualified people of the targeted superficial appearance characteristics. It's just bad all around.



So if a company as an unusually low number of minorities for its working field it can be closed down.

Exactly....if it doesn't have enough MINORITIES (i.e. Let's create a racist "set of guidelines" that targets people who look white), by whichever angry person's opinion who happens to have a chip on his shoulder and wants to claim that the one Eskimo that just quit drops the company below the "quota" and should now be shut down. Affirmative Action is just racism and nothing else.



Affirmative Action does not require or ask for minorities to be treated above the majority.

Yes it does. It specifically requires a certain percentage be hired, irrespective of qualifications, which means being treated above the "others" who have to compete based on their merit.

Yes I agree with Ilikesalt and Pentagon John, affirmative action is stupid. Actually in Canada anyone who is classified as a minority gets a little better treatment, that includes ethic minorites, and disabled. I think going further left to Marxist state for Canada is an excellent goal. :-)

By the way Eskimo is a derogatory in Inuktatuk term for "eater of raw meat" . It has the same connotation as Nigger or "Spick" or "Jap" ........
They are called Inuit now. Inuit is what "Eskimo" want to be called! :mad:

Affitmative action is not only stupid - it doesn't work! It succeeds in granting middle-managment jobs to minorites and prevents them from ever breaking the 'upper class' threshold.

Pentagon John,

Really, could you show me were in affirmative action it states its a quota system?
Please highlight the offending quota remark for me:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm

Interesting mindset you have, since it is the Democrats who depend on racial pigeon-holing.Actually, they both do.... but that's besides the point.
WCF: Really, could you show me were in affirmative action it states its a quota system?How about the majority of government contracts? Most large federal and state contracts REQUIRE a certain percentage of work to be subcontracted to 'disadvantaged business enterprises'. They also perform audits for minorities and women.

I have a government contract sitting here which I'll quote from for you:As a recipient of Federal funding, -AGENCY NAME- is required to ensure that the Contractor comply with the following requirements:

-4 paragraphs of general non-discrimination language, mostly copied from the DOL-

In connection with the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall cooperate with -AGENY NAME- in meeting its commitments and goal with regard to the maximum utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.... Such persons would include, but not be limited to, Blacks (not of Hispanic orgin), Hispanics, Asians or Pacific Islanders, American Indians or Alaskan Natives, and women, regardless of race or ethnicity.See a slight contradiction there?

This isn't just a 'suggestion'. The contract comes with a point system. Different races/sexes are 'worth' different multipliers. This is multiplied by the percentage of the total contract cost the are performing. You need to have a certain percentage in order to legally do the work.

I have no idea if this is a DOL requirement or not... but it (or something similar) are in all the government funded projects which I have seen.

A little more digging and I found where this is required:
Federal Acquisition Act amendments adopted in 1994 amended the 5% minority procurement goal, and the minority subcontracting requirements in § 8(d), to [CRS-5] specifically include "small business concerns owned and controlled by women" in addition to "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
The specific CFR:48 C.F.R. § 19.001(b) (1994): "Individuals who certify that they are members of named groups (Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent-Asian Americans) are to be considered socially and economically disadvantaged" for purposes of "Socioeconomic Programs" under the Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR).

For a list of other places similar regulations are required:
http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/CRSReport.htm

Just skip half way down the page and a list of regulations will be found.

Persol,

If you read the original amendment of affirmative action it does not specify quota systems or even hint at it, it strictly asks for equal treatment for all.
anti-discrimination or reverse discrimination is a different subject all together based on the warping of affirmative action.

Denying the original ideals of affirmative action is to deny equal treatment.

Non-discrimination and affirmative action are not the same thing.

What you are claiming is affirmative action is really non-discrimnation legislation (the ADA is a good example, and they specially refused to incorporate affirmative action for people with disabilities).

Affirimative action as it stands today is PROACTIVE to ensure 'equality'. The result of this are the hundred or so regulations that give minorities an advantage when dealing with government funding.

I disagree: affirmative action advocates Non-discrimination. The regulations your referred to are not direct derivatives of affirmative action, they are reverse discrimination.

Race is not understood by modern science.

As such, it either tries to disprove it on false grounds or establish it according to political grounds.

Race, Tribe and Caste are inseparable parts of the most logical order.

Where did you come from?
I'm a fan.
I've probably typed up tens of thousands of words trying(and failing) to say what you just said in 3 sentences.

I disagree: affirmative action advocates Non-discrimination. The regulations your referred to are not direct derivatives of affirmative action, they are reverse discrimination.According to your definition, I think we agree.

However, in the future realize that most people do not mean 'equal rights' when they say 'affirmative action'.... they mean:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:AFFIRMATIVE+ACTION

Affirmative action means taking positive action. These are usualyl in the form of quota programs. Non-discrimination is not an action.... it's a method of doing something that you do anyway. Affirmative action nearly always includes the words:
positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group
numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population
A set of proactive measures to counteract the effects
to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs
etc...


Regardless, it seems we agree on implementation... but not definition.

Did you read the Executive Order I posted that is affirmative action? Its specifics equal treatment for all and “nondiscrimination”, if this is what the Executive Order specifics I don’t see ho you can generate opposites definitions.
Here is a cut down version of it:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

1) "that the contractor will take affirmative action". What exactly do you consider the words 'affirmative action' to mean. Why does the clause use the words 'equal opportunity' and 'affirmative action' if they mean the same thing?
2) "American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic individuals are considered minorities for purposes of the Executive Order." Why specifically detail who is considered a 'minority' if the whole goal is non-discrimination. According to equal opportunity you don't base your decisions on race, regardless if they are minorities.
3) "The regulations define an AAP as a set of specific and result-oriented procedures" What exactly is the result of this and how is it measured? The answer is quotas.
4) "define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability"
5) "The female goal of 6.9 percent was extended indefinitely in 1980 and remains in effect today."
6) "The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force."

41 CFR 60-2.14 (which is part of the full affirmative action text) is about 'determining availability'. Specifically, it gives government agencies the right to set quotas.

Now, technically, these quotas are not set in stone. If you can't find qualified applicants then you can explain this to the agency in question. In reality, this requires lawyers and lots of money not to be blacklisted. It's cheaper just to higher people to meet the quota set.

The CFR and almost every definition on the web agree on what affirmative action actually is. I don't see why you're debating it.

1) I could mean any action to prevent racists hiring practices.
2) Why not specify minority groups, if in particular they are usually the ones that sufer from discrimination.
3) It does not specify quotas. You could hirer without interviews and names concealed and thus remove the possibility of racial discrimination in hiring. Quotas are not ask for nor required.
5) Wow that a pretty low percentage of the population, considering 55% of the populations is women if you can’t manage 6.9% something must be wrong, no quota is required there you would have to be actively discriminating to manage lower then 6.9%.
4/6) So if you manage having less minorities in your company then are qualified and available for those positions you must be discriminating because if you were to hirer blind of their race or sex you would end up with appropriate levels, again no quota is needed or asked for.

In all cases quotas are not required.

1) I could mean any action to prevent racists hiring practices. So, what specifically is the difference between the two, by your definition. Then, look at all the definitions google gives you.

But most of all read the CFR. I told you the section that explains how to determine the quota level. It can't get much more straight forward than that.

how much more strait forward could it get that you don't needed a quota system?

Also don't appeal to populace: if a majority of people agree on something that does not mean its correct or true.

how much more strait forward could it get that you don't needed a quota system?Please explain how you determine this without a quota system when the CFR specifically tells you that a minimum minority level needs to be determined? If this isn't a quota, what is?

Also don't appeal to populace: if a majority of people agree on something that does not mean its correct or true.These are definitions... that's how language works.

How are the Feds going to see if your discriminating or not if they don’t know what percentages of ethnic groups are availed of the specific career?

If you hirering without discriminating you would natural achieve the need percentages, without having to hirer by quota.

No, you wouldn't. There is random chance and availability in certain areas. Also, the quotas on on a 'specific career' level... they are overall.

If you have percentages (which you now seem to admit), you have a quota. You can't get any simpler than that.

quota - A number or percentage, especially of people, constituting a required or targeted minimum

That is exactly what this is.... unless you want to argue over the commonly accepted definition of another word.

If you were hiring 1000 people without discrimination you would get the correct number of ethnic people by +/- 3%, hiring 50 people? +/- 14%. if you were discriminating you would be off by far more then 14%.

Again quotas are not needed. You the hirer don't need to hirer by quotas, if you simple do not discriminate you would natural get the correct percentages.

here a defintion for you:
http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Affirmative_Action.htm

Why should we be required to hire anyone? If I want to run a business exclusively of Greek Americans, and not hire any other ethnicity, what's wrong with that?

As long as your company is below a critical number of people you can.

How many is that?

The issue here is not if you think the quotas are fair. The FACT is that the affirmative action law you link REQUIRES quotas (which you said it didn't).

Your very own link states that the first definition is 'dead'.Regrettably, the original non-discrimination definition, Defintion 1, which was race and gender neutral, has died a slow, horrible death at the hands of the incessant lobbying of the professional quota industry.

The "preferences" definition of Affirmative Action (Definition 2) has become the underpinning of today's corrupted version of Affirmative Action.

Like I said, your definition of affirmative action is NOT what people are refering to when they say 'affirmative action'.

You the hirer don't need to hirer by quotas, if you simple do not discriminate you would natural get the correct percentages.You are still missing the point. Most quotas are not determined by job position. When we interview for low paying jobs we get a large percentage of minorities. When we interview for engineers we get almost none. Plenty of foreigners, but few who qualify as 'minorities'. On top of that, the few agencies who do determine the quotas by job level adjust the quotas up to 'encourage minorities in the profesions'.


So, do you agree to the following?
1) Your definition of affirmative action (equal opportunity) is correct and does not require set quotas.
2) The affirmative action law (and the definition everyone uses) requires quotas (as specified by the CFR and Federal Register)
3) Equal Opportunity should be the goal.
4) Higher X number of X color/sex people should NOT be the goal.

In the US, apparently, a higher number of mixed-race people is the social goal.

1) Your definition of affirmative action (equal opportunity) is correct and does not require set quotas.

Yes

2) The affirmative action law (and the definition everyone uses) requires quotas (as specified by the CFR and Federal Register)

No, I stated why and even showed a definition by others that back my view of affirmative action.

Definition 1: Race-neutral, gender-neutral assurance against actual discrimination. This is the type of Affirmative Action contemplated by President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, in which he sought to ensure that individuals have equal opportunity WITHOUT regard to their race, sex, or ethnicity. In this 1965 Executive Order, President Johnson consistently and repeatedly used the term non-discrimination and never once mentioned racial quotas or preferences. The original, unamended version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 similarly emphasized race-neutrality and non-discrimination.

The ideals of affrimative action my have been crupted but that does not mean affrimative action is wrong.

3) Equal Opportunity should be the goal.

Yes

4) Higher X number of X color/sex people should NOT be the goal.

Yes

No, I stated why and even showed a definition by others that back my view of affirmative actionI'm assuming that you are arguing the defintion part, as the quota part is in black and white. Requiring a specific number is a quota... regardless of if it is doable or right/wrong.

But you are trying to support your definition using a page which even says that the definition is 'dead'. You need some better sources:) Your defintion has expired... and you can't expect people not to argue with you when you definition is different than everybody else currently uses.

That's like me calling you a 'bitch' or 'gay' and then wondering why you get upset (because I'm using 40 year old definitions, but you are using the current ones).

Affirmative action has good intentions.