lol, no but I have spoken in depth with my mom over the years about the HUNDREDS of city and government employees whose cases she personally traveled the country(and often took me with her) investigating,,,,, I have also dealt with co workers who didnt seem to have the knowledge I did but were above me and they happened to be white,, should I be assuming their position was GIVEN them because of race,,,,

as so many seem to be trying to do by misstating the scope of AA laws to describe some experience they perceive to have been racist or racially biased?

lol,, so his supervisor actually offered up as FACT that these employees were there on a quota?....lol,,,,sounds suspicious, either alot of personal interpretation in that story or else a ripe opportunity for your father to have won some money ,, had he called an EEO investigator such as my mom and learned the FACTS (not just what his supervisor , who may have had an interest in keeping the peace and the status quo) may have told him.

or,, was this supervisor,, a PERSONAL FRIEND? lol

Your post isn't very offensive.
It is just your opinion. No actual facts to back anything up.
You would look more credible using relevant links to back up your opinion.

I think the bigger picture here is that AA can be used by minorities,government officials,and others as a cop out for not hiring white people no matter what the reason.It really doesn't matter what the law says because our Government seems to have every excuse in the world to back up AA.You can have a black owned company with nothing but black workers and that is just fine.But you have a white owned company with nothing but white workers and the Government is going to demand you start hiring minorities.White people fighting these AA cases is nearly always a lost cause and until recently winning a court case was a rarity.Nobody is going to rally the cause of white discrimination because as far as the United states is concerned what ever discrimination comes your way you deserve it.

I have worked for companies where I was the supervisor and I was responsible for hiring and firing employees.The owner of the company told me several times that we should have at least one African american,and a few more employees of some other race so the labor department wasn't visiting his business on a weekly basis and asking him why he had a problem hiring someone other than white people.He said if you were hiring nothing but white people and had nothing but white people working for you the Government had this attitude like it wanted to take a flame thrower to your company.

I think it is also pretty clear which way our Government leans towards equality.Your living in a fantasy world if you think the Government wants everything equal.I think if our Government didn't care what the public thought it would give all of its contracts to minorities and nothing for white owned companies.It gives minorities including illegal's every type of program and assistance you could possibly imagine. t gives them higher test scores in colleges,pays their tuition,and hires them before other white people.

AA is racism.All you have to do it type in "affirmative action" in your search browser and read all the controversy it has created.Read all the lawsuits and court cases.AA is not fair,it is not justified,and it prevents the most qualified person from getting that job based on his or her skin color.

This issue also spills into the movie industry.It is more less law that you have to have a minority playing some kind of important role in movies produced in the United states.That is why if you watch any movie produced in the last 8 or so years you will always have some sort of minority featured in the movie.

Got stuff to do, for now. But I will make a friendly request that people go look up Affirmative Action(not commentaries about Affirmative Action and not individual claims about their experiences with Affirmative Action) ..


research what the laws and regulations ACTUALLY say,, and how they read.

Anecdote: A certain teenager my family knows worked for a fast food company which worked them quite often more than eight hours and NEVER gave him lunch or a break. He was told by his supervisor this was the nature of the job and he had to eat while he worked. He believed this because they did pay him for the full time. However, this is AGAINST the law.,,,That the heads of a department or a supervisor, or manager might TELL an employee something doesnt make it true. I wish more people would actually RESEARCH their rights instead of taking the word of people who may have other interests in mind.



I repeat, one last time, with hopes that one sole BRAIN will grasp it.

AA LAWS do not mandate quotas, AA LAWS do not mandate that unqualified applicants be hired, and AA LAWS do not mandate discrimination or preferential treatment


....and now I have some errands to run..

I could care LESS what COLOR someone is. Nobody can pick the skin suit they're born into. What I DO care about is what's INSIDE that skin suit. If one suit is more qualified than another, THAT's the one I want doing whatever the job in question may be. It's no different from when I played music. We didn't care what color a player was. The question was: Can he PLAY? If the answer was 'no', he din't get on stage with us. The same simple solution carries over into every OTHER aspect of employment. CAN THEY DO THE JOB? It's a 'yes' / 'no' question. If the answer is 'no', I don't care WHAT color they are - they're NOT HIRED just because of some fake 'qualification' like skin color. End of problem.

Privileged Black EPA Employee Sues for Discrimination
Congressional Republicans Attack EPA's Racial Fairness
Posted Oct. 14, 2000
In August, black EPA employee Marsha Coleman-Adebayo won a $600,000 judgment in a racial discrimination lawsuit against the EPA. Ms. Adebayo has worked for the EPA for about 10 years, and she makes about $90,000 per year. Her current job is described as "senior adviser to the director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics."

Her lawsuit against the agency alleged racial harassment, and included an undocumented and specious charge that she had been called "an honorary white man" by a supervisor. But mostly Adebayo's lawsuit seemed to focus on her undocumented allegation that she did not get the promotions to which she felt she was entitled, and her unproven assumption that the reason she did not get her preferred promotions was because of her dark skin color.

But the story behind Ms. Adebayo’s lawsuit is much stranger than the lawsuit suggests. Consider these facts:
http://adversity.net/fed_stats/fednews_EPA.htm

Pick me up a candy bar while your out!

did I post anything REMOTELY as negative as

'The truly successful minority individual doesn't blame or accept gimmies. They earn their position and don't accept excuses like,"Da' white man is keepin' me in da' ghetto so, all's I can do is whine and smoke crack."


...doubtful,, not quite MY style, but to each their own

as far as facts, I have given you pieces of the original Executive Order which refers to AA,,, and most of what I have written has only involved reading that Order and comprehending it,, no opinion there,, it says what it says,,,,

as far as U of MIch points system, not that Im in the habit of needing to lie to strangers,,, but if you need to see the PROOF of the pretty specific points I metnioned,,here is the link

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/q&a.html

NOTE : up to 10 points for attending a competitive high school(students earn the place their parents send them to school?)

For instance, 16 points are given to students from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
( students earned the neighborhood their parents moved into?)

my point stands , regarding the points system, either the whole thing was wrong or the whole thing was right. But the points given for the UNEARNED status of being minority were stricken because RACE happens to be a category which is protected from preferential or discriminatory practices. The points for the UNEARNED status of neighborhood or school of attendance,, still stand.

good, then you are following the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAWS

And my candy bar???

I see my point was completely missed. What a waste of time ...

more on the case

http://www.eatthestate.org/05-07/NaturePolitics.htm

Obviously she had proof that she was not treated fairly and whoever wrote the story didn't like that.

There is nothing here to show that someone used the AA law illegitimately.

lol, what world are you living in,

if by minority you mean ANYONE who is not white,,,,why should a movie about any topic in america(saving segregated communities)have NOTHING but white folks in it

if by minority you mean black folks, well that assertion is HILARIOUSLY inaccurate

top ten (grossing)movies of 2009

dawn of the dinosaurs
monsters vs aliens
the blind side
star trek
the hangover
New Moon
Up
harry potter and the half blood prince
avatar
transformers:revenge of the fallen



out of the top ten,,,

four are animated features in which only ONE contains a'minority' character(speaking about the actual actress and not the character who is presented as another species..lol)

of the other six, only Star Trek and Blind side have a minority in a feature role

sorry, but the INDUSTRY is still LARGELY 'fair skinned' and its not an affirmative action issue when the industry decides it can reach the pockets of another demographic if it sometimes features certain actors and actresses.

didnt feel like stopping at the store,,maybe next time.

In my opinion I think the best candidate for the job shoud get it. They shouldn't get it just because they are a minority, but because they have the experience or education needed for the position.

I agree,, noone should receive or be denied a position JUST BECAUSE of their race.

Fantasy world???No Ms harmony I am just better informed thats all.

http://www.thescoopnews.com/news/articles/18/hollywood-adopts-new-affirmative-action-rules

Hollywood Adopts New Affirmative Action rules
Published December 1999
Related Topics



HOLLYWOOD, CA – Studio executives from Warner Brothers Studios have announced they will adopt a new affirmative action policy on all projects in the future and those currently in production.

In compliance with the new equal opportunity rules, Gary Coleman, the beloved black, imp-like man, best known for his role as Arnold on TVs “Different Strokes,” has been cast as Charles Foster Kane in the remake of Orson Welles’ classic, “Citizen Kane.” The role was originally to be filled by a white actor, Ben Affleck.

Coleman will Headline a cast that includes other top minority actors such as Ben Stiller, Paul Rodreguez, Roberto Benigni, Harvey Firestien, Whoopi Goldberg, Christopher Reeve, with Spike Lee directing. There will also be an intro from America’s most beloved Jew, Billy Crystal, who will appear in the opening credits to spread the message of racial harmony.

The new “rules” state that for every white, American, male heterosexual actor, there must be three minority actors cast. Addressing action movies, the “rules” also say that those minority roles can not be killed off within the first 2 minutes of the movie. This last rule is expected to effect the sci-fi market most of all.

http://racerelations.about.com/od/thelegalsystem/a/WhiteFirefightersAccuseNewHavenofRacialBias.htm


Just what constitutes reverse discrimination? In a 2009 case known as Ricci v. DeStefano, a group of white firefighters presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a case that challenges conventional notions of bigotry. They argued that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against them in 2003 when it threw out a test that white firefighters passed at a 50% greater rate than blacks. Because performance on the test was the basis for promotion, none of the blacks in the department would have advanced had the city accepted the results.

To avoid discriminating against black firefighters, New Haven discarded the test. By making that move, however, the city prevented the white firefighters eligible for promotion from advancing to captain and lieutenant rank.

The Case in Favor of the Firefighters
Were the white firefighters subjects of racial discrimination?

It’s easy to see why one would think so. Take white firefighter Frank Ricci, for example. He scored the sixth highest on the exam out of the 118 test-takers. Seeking advancement to lieutenant, Ricci not only stopped working a second job, he also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews to pass the oral and written exam, according to the New York Times. A dyslexic, Ricci even paid $1,000 to have someone read textbooks onto audiotapes, the Times reported.

Why were Ricci and the other top scorers denied the chance to promote simply because their black and Hispanic colleagues failed to do well on the test? The city of New Haven cites Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from using tests that have a “disparate impact,” or disproportionately exclude applicants of certain races. If a test does have such an effect, the employer must show that the assessment directly relates to job performance.

In April, counsel for the firefighters argued before the Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStefano that New Haven could have proven that the test directly related to work duties; instead, the city prematurely declared the exam unfit. During the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts doubted that New Haven would have chosen to discard the test had the outcomes by race been reversed.

“So, can you assure me that…if…black applicants…scored highest on this test in disproportionate numbers, and the city said…we think there should be more whites on the fire department, and so we’re going to throw the test out? The government of United States would adopt the same position?” Roberts asked.

But the New Haven attorney failed to give a direct and coherent response to Roberts’ question, prompting the judge to remark that the city would not have discarded the test had blacks scored well and whites not. If New Haven only did away with the test because it disapproved of the racial makeup of those who excelled on it, the white firefighters in question were no doubt victims of discrimination. Title VII not only prohibits “disparate impact” but also discrimination based on race in any aspect of employment, including promotion.

The Case in Favor of New Haven
The city of New Haven asserts that it had no choice but to discard the firefighting test because the exam discriminated against minority applicants. While counsel for the firefighters argues that the test administered was valid, the city’s lawyers say that an analysis of the exam found the test scores had no scientific basis and critical design steps were omitted during its development. Moreover, some of the qualities assessed on the test, such as rote memorization, didn’t directly tie in to firefighting in New Haven.

In discarding the test then, New Haven didn’t seek to discriminate against whites but to give minority firefighters a test that would not have a disparate impact on them. Why did the city so emphasize protecting black firefighters from discrimination? As Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, traditionally in the U.S, “fire departments were among the most notorious excluders on the basis of race.”

New Haven itself had to pay $500,000 to two black firefighters in 2005 for unfairly promoting their white counterparts over them in the past. Knowing this makes it difficult to buy the white firefighters’ claim that the city prefers minority firefighters to Caucasians. To boot, New Haven substituted the controversial test given in 2003 with other exams that did not have a disparate impact on minority firefighters.

The Supreme Court's Ruling
What did the court decide? In a 5-4 ruling, it rejected New Haven’s reasoning, arguing that, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

Legal analysts predict that the decision could generate a bevy of “disparate impact” lawsuits, as the court’s ruling makes it harder for employers to discard tests that adversely affect protected groups such as women and minorities. To prevent such lawsuits, employers will have to consider the impact a test may have on protected groups as it is being developed rather than after it’s been administered.