PDA

View Full Version : Republicans: Staunch supporters of Affirmative Action.



markymark69
11-22-2011, 11:43 AM
Why are republicans such staunch supporters of affirmative action?

markymark69
11-22-2011, 11:46 AM
Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988


Discuss

jewelscoff
11-22-2011, 11:56 AM
because corporations are people, and as a people, corporations suffer discrimination?

r0gue6
11-22-2011, 11:57 AM
This was Republicans before being taken over by the religious right.

bcop
11-22-2011, 12:09 PM
This was Republicans before being taken over by the religious right.

Affirmative Action has nothing to do with religion. Nice try.

bcop
11-22-2011, 12:11 PM
Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988


Discuss

Please give a voting record for each of those bills, as well as what specifically, in each bill, supported affirmative action.

Streetbull
11-22-2011, 12:14 PM
Is this 'Use Race As Bait Day for Trolls' ? Okay, so you lost your job and are bored. You start these threads, using race for your amusement. Maybe...go read a good book?

markymark69
11-22-2011, 12:15 PM
Please give a voting record for each of those bills, as well as what specifically, in each bill, supported affirmative action.

I dont need to:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=785402513#post785402513

You seriously need me to explain EOC and FCCWDA to you? The two largest pieces of affirmative action legislation ever passed?

markymark69
11-22-2011, 12:18 PM
Is this 'Use Race As Bait Day for Trolls' ? Okay, so you lost your job and are bored. You start these threads, using race for your amusement. Maybe...go read a good book?

No I am salaried. I'm off all this week....company paid time off. Weather is crappy outside. so I am playing wiht my new tablet and enjoying this

http://i.imgur.com/5pyRo.jpg

bcop
11-22-2011, 12:21 PM
I dont need to:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=785402513#post785402513

You seriously need me to explain EOC and FCCWDA to you? The two largest pieces of affirmative action legislation ever passed?

I don't have first hand knowledge on every bill ever passed, including some important ones. I also don't feel like doing a google search of all of those bills. I tried, and con find no clear summaries. I am also not in the mood of reading through the actual text of those bills (which I did find), which are not easy reading by any measure, especially when I am doing something other than browsing this website.

TaeBoNinja
11-22-2011, 12:24 PM
Someone needs to buy Marky a copy of Skyrim so he can spend his vacation offline.

brb Marky making a Dark Elf who he uses to protest against the Imperial Legion, and the vast Jarl corruption in Skyrim.

brb the Dark Brotherhood and Companions teaming up to take him out.

jkeithc82
11-22-2011, 12:27 PM
No I am salaried. I'm off all this week....company paid time off. Weather is crappy outside. so I am playing wiht my new tablet and enjoying this

http://i.imgur.com/5pyRo.jpg

Mmmmm, scotch.

ToPHeR35
11-22-2011, 12:27 PM
Affirmative Action is government sponsored discrimination

cavymeister
11-22-2011, 12:41 PM
No I am salaried. I'm off all this week....company paid time off. Weather is crappy outside. so I am playing wiht my new tablet and enjoying this

http://i.imgur.com/5pyRo.jpg

Getting started with the cheap stuff I see.

markymark69
11-22-2011, 12:41 PM
I don't have first hand knowledge on every bill ever passed, including some important ones. I also don't feel like doing a google search of all of those bills. I tried, and con find no clear summaries. I am also not in the mood of reading through the actual text of those bills (which I did find), which are not easy reading by any measure, especially when I am doing something other than browsing this website.

Totally understand. However...as for the Republican support....those items are listed all over the internets. It is an establish fact Republican's are staunch supporters of the items listed in my post. ;)

NiceBoat
11-22-2011, 12:57 PM
No I am salaried. I'm off all this week....company paid time off. Weather is crappy outside. so I am playing wiht my new tablet and enjoying this

http://i.imgur.com/5pyRo.jpg

share the wealth imo.

cavymeister
11-22-2011, 12:59 PM
share the wealth imo.

This... you need to redistribute some a few hours north Marky.


On a good note, ABC is having a black friday sale. 10% off $50 or more and 25% off select items.

NCK MIZ
11-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Why are republicans such staunch supporters of affirmative action?

confused by the question?

What does political stance have to do with EEOC policies?

I consider myself a conservative and support such policies.


But unfortnately most people have no idea what AA is and think it is some sort of standardized quota, which is not even close to the truth.

bcop
11-22-2011, 01:23 PM
confused by the question?

What does political stance have to do with EEOC policies?

I consider myself a conservative and support such policies.


But unfortnately most people have no idea what AA is and think it is some sort of standardized quota, which is not even close to the truth.

I don't think that AA has to be a quota system. Please inform me on what you think AA actually is.

NCK MIZ
11-22-2011, 01:33 PM
I don't think that AA has to be a quota system. Please inform me on what you think AA actually is.

Affirmative action is only legally enforced by the govt., an organization that is funded by the govt., or as a result of a successful lawsuit showing adverse impact has happened within said org. Private organizations are not impacted legally by affirmative action unless they are sued.

No one else is required to adopt AA policies until they are actually causing adverse impact (determined as a result of a lawsuit). So you being upset with UPS having as an equal opportunity org. would be like being upset with how much they pay their CEO (it is an organizational decision).

My thoughts on the topic have to do with our limited ability to predict future job performance and the differential prediction that is common across subgroups. If we could perfectly predict job performance with the interviews, tests, resumes, we have it would be one thing. But we can not, so to select on just interview/test scores in a traditional top down fashion is ignorant. It makes sense to take into account a persons background, especially if it adds diversity to an org. which has been shown to increase innovation, decrease group-think, etc.

This doesn't even scratch the surface with regards to differential prediction(different regression lines for races), which are not legal to use. So you end up with a watered down linear equation that does not predict success well in either subgroup because it is expected to fit to diverse a group of people.

Ashton117
11-22-2011, 01:39 PM
A common misconception is that only blacks benefit from AA. But all American students benefit from AA b/c it limits the number of international students. International students outperform American students with ease. Koreans spend on average 2 more years in school b/c of private after schools. You also have international students getting perfect scores on the SAT when English isn't even they're first language

bcop
11-22-2011, 02:38 PM
Affirmative action is only legally enforced by the govt., an organization that is funded by the govt., or as a result of a successful lawsuit showing adverse impact has happened within said org. Private organizations are not impacted legally by affirmative action unless they are sued.

No one else is required to adopt AA policies until they are actually causing adverse impact (determined as a result of a lawsuit). So you being upset with UPS having as an equal opportunity org. would be like being upset with how much they pay their CEO (it is an organizational decision).

My thoughts on the topic have to do with our limited ability to predict future job performance and the differential prediction that is common across subgroups. If we could perfectly predict job performance with the interviews, tests, resumes, we have it would be one thing. But we can not, so to select on just interview/test scores in a traditional top down fashion is ignorant. It makes sense to take into account a persons background, especially if it adds diversity to an org. which has been shown to increase innovation, decrease group-think, etc.

This doesn't even scratch the surface with regards to differential prediction(different regression lines for races), which are not legal to use. So you end up with a watered down linear equation that does not predict success well in either subgroup because it is expected to fit to diverse a group of people.

Why can't we have strict meritocracy? Where decisions on hiring and firing, and on admitting students, are made based on the qualifications of the employee/student, and not on the gender or skin of the potential worker/student.

bcop
11-22-2011, 02:39 PM
A common misconception is that only blacks benefit from AA. But all American students benefit from AA b/c it limits the number of international students. International students outperform American students with ease. Koreans spend on average 2 more years in school b/c of private after schools. You also have international students getting perfect scores on the SAT when English isn't even they're first language

I would rather have a well qualified international student, than a not so qualified american student.

NCK MIZ
11-22-2011, 03:26 PM
Why can't we have strict meritocracy? Where decisions on hiring and firing, and on admitting students, are made based on the qualifications of the employee/student, and not on the gender or skin of the potential worker/student.

First of all skin color, I agree is a bit outdated,

However, a meritocracy is based on the assumption that we can predict the criterion objectively.

Do you honestly believe there is a perfect linear relationship between grades, standardized tests, etc. and student performance in college/grad school? and that the beta weights produced by such a linear regression would perfectly predict everyone's rank order/standing in college/grad school?

If you do then I say perfect let's do it. You find that perfect linear combination that predicts across groups and let's use it.

However, if you think there may be other intangible factors such as a student's motivation to succeed, etc. then the meritocracy idea is also faulty.

The meritocracy argument assumes we have a complete understanding of what makes a person the most qualified. That is a faulty assumption.

Just because something is the best predictor (ie standardized tests) does not mean it is a perfect predictor.

I could also mention the standard error of measurement associated with every test (ie an 89 isn't necessarily better than an 87, they could potentially have equal standing on the latent trait in question).

This also doesn't even take into account the larger societal context of learning to work in a diverse environment and understanding people from different backgrounds and how they have a unique view and understanding of the world around them.

bcop
11-22-2011, 03:33 PM
First of all skin color, I agree is a bit outdated,

However, a meritocracy is based on the assumption that we can predict the criterion objectively.

Do you honestly believe there is a perfect linear relationship between grades, standardized tests, etc. and student performance in college/grad school? and that the beta weights produced by such a linear regression would perfectly predict everyone's rank order/standing in college/grad school?

If you do then I say perfect let's do it. You find that perfect linear combination that predicts across groups and let's use it.

However, if you think there may be other intangible factors such as a student's motivation to succeed, etc. then the meritocracy idea is also faulty.

The meritocracy argument assumes we have a complete understanding of what makes a person the most qualified. That is a faulty assumption.

Just because something is the best predictor (ie standardized tests) does not mean it is a perfect predictor.

I could also mention the standard error of measurement associated with every test (ie an 89 isn't necessarily better than an 87, they could potentially have equal standing on the latent trait in question).

This also doesn't even take into account the larger societal context of learning to work in a diverse environment and understanding people from different backgrounds and how they have a unique view and understanding of the world around them.

Regarding everything but your last sentence: There is no perfect linear relationship, but grades are the most perfect indicator that we have. Therefore we should use them, and nothing else, since everything else is a terrible indicator.

As for your last sentence, there is no societal benefit to working/learning in a diverse environment. That is just liberal gobbledygook.

NCK MIZ
11-22-2011, 03:48 PM
Regarding everything but your last sentence: There is no perfect linear relationship, but grades are the most perfect indicator that we have. Therefore we should use them, and nothing else, since everything else is a terrible indicator.

As for your last sentence, there is no societal benefit to working/learning in a diverse environment. That is just liberal gobbledygook.

So your argument is just use what we have because we can't measure anything else....lol.

If this is the case what is your argument for measurement error? That is where the waters get really murky. if the SEM is 3 points on a 100 point scale. an 87 and 90 are essentially the same score. But wait, so is an 84 and an 87 (doesn't that mean that the 84 should be in with the 90?)............and an 81 is the same as a 84. If we are just using grades how do you fix this issue all great and powerful OZ.

As I have mentioned multiple times the linear relationship does not fit all groups equally well. So if we separate groups (whites, blacks,etc) and there are two different equations that would best predict their respective groups and we decide to try to fit them together with one line how well do you think it will predict both groups?

What if grades are a better predictor for whites than they are for Hispanics.......should we continue to use it because it is fair? Or is it fair?


There are also a lot of organizational studies that would disagree with your last statement. Diverse organizations have higher stock prices, higher levels of production, more creative and innovative ideas, etc.

JohnnyDestroyer
11-22-2011, 04:22 PM
Republicans also started environmentalism, the first environmental bills were republican bills....look it up...


Oh mark, policy is not static, and neither is your rampant ****-stirring......and thanks for the negs yesterday. You know you got nothing right?


Decrying affirmative action, supporting peoples right to loiter on private property and disobey lawful police orders, do you even know who you are anymore? Do you know what era affirmative action was created in? Had I been born of african american decent when the first bill was passed my father would have had his own "special" drinking fountains everywhere he went.

Its pointless now, like the unions, but do you know which party would kick and scream if a neo-con tried to get rid of it? Do you know how hard that party would put its feet down?

....its so sad to see you so full of chit. Just, utter chit.

The_Zodiac
11-22-2011, 06:17 PM
We gonna act like the republican party in 1972 is anything like it is today?

Birdy69
11-22-2011, 06:25 PM
We gonna act like the republican party in 1972 is anything like it is today?

Parties switched places, this is so old.

If another conservative mentions that Democrats voted against Civil Rights I will go ape****.

No, it was modern day republican-esques in the Democratic party.

The_Zodiac
11-22-2011, 06:38 PM
Parties switched places, this is so old.

If another conservative mentions that Democrats voted against Civil Rights I will go ape****.

No, it was modern day republican-esques in the Democratic party.
Two consecutive Democratic presidents also put forward and supported civil rights.
That was so long ago in political terms though the whole landscape is very different. Back then the South was a powerful Democratic stronghold, that alone tells you bringing up anything from then is irrelevent.

bcop
11-23-2011, 02:26 PM
So your argument is just use what we have because we can't measure anything else....lol.

If this is the case what is your argument for measurement error? That is where the waters get really murky. if the SEM is 3 points on a 100 point scale. an 87 and 90 are essentially the same score. But wait, so is an 84 and an 87 (doesn't that mean that the 84 should be in with the 90?)............and an 81 is the same as a 84. If we are just using grades how do you fix this issue all great and powerful OZ.

As I have mentioned multiple times the linear relationship does not fit all groups equally well. So if we separate groups (whites, blacks,etc) and there are two different equations that would best predict their respective groups and we decide to try to fit them together with one line how well do you think it will predict both groups?

What if grades are a better predictor for whites than they are for Hispanics.......should we continue to use it because it is fair? Or is it fair?


There are also a lot of organizational studies that would disagree with your last statement. Diverse organizations have higher stock prices, higher levels of production, more creative and innovative ideas, etc.

I don't understand how Standard Error of Measurement could be relevant to GPA (and yes, I have taken statistics). We are not doing a government census here, or surveys, or scientific measurment, we are just calculating grades. Take a person's transcript, calculate his or her GPA based on their grades, and you are done.

Do you really think that grades are a better predictor for one race than another? Honestly, I don't.

Their are plenty of successful diverse organizations, and their are plenty of successful non diverse organization. It depends on the talent level of their workers, not their worker's race or gender.

Here is what I would consider important if I was in charge of admissions for a University: GPA, and relevant life experience. That's it. Not race or gender.

Here is what I would consider important if I was in charge of HR for a Corporation: GPA, relevant life experience, and relevant skills. That's it. Not race or gender.