Affirmative Action and Race Discussions Should Be Moved to Its Own Forum

[Anonymous]

Alas, another thread of woe is us and how POC are taking our jobs and college spots.

And as Jeff said:

Most of those discussions turn racist almost immediately, so people should just report the inappropriate posts and eventually maybe people will lose interest in posting about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

What's the difference between "person of color" and "colored person"? I thought it was impolite to say the latter, but we're essentially back to the same old term! Political correctness seems a bit like an animal chasing its tail -- it comes full circle.

I doubt you have the nerve or the cojones to call someone colored to their face. Of course, very brave when posting anonymously. So much for your full circle hypothesis.

So why isn’t “person of color” also considered an offensive term? It certainly shows the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology. It's also a ridiculous term – as President Obama has quipped, ex-Speaker Boehner is a person of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

What's the difference between "person of color" and "colored person"? I thought it was impolite to say the latter, but we're essentially back to the same old term! Political correctness seems a bit like an animal chasing its tail -- it comes full circle.

I doubt you have the nerve or the cojones to call someone colored to their face. Of course, very brave when posting anonymously. So much for your full circle hypothesis.

So why isn’t “person of color” also considered an offensive term? It certainly shows the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology. It's also a ridiculous term – as President Obama has quipped, ex-Speaker Boehner is a person of color.

Boehner is a Redskin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

What's the difference between "person of color" and "colored person"? I thought it was impolite to say the latter, but we're essentially back to the same old term! Political correctness seems a bit like an animal chasing its tail -- it comes full circle.

I doubt you have the nerve or the cojones to call someone colored to their face. Of course, very brave when posting anonymously. So much for your full circle hypothesis.

So why isn’t “person of color” also considered an offensive term? It certainly shows the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology. It's also a ridiculous term – as President Obama has quipped, ex-Speaker Boehner is a person of color.

You might grab a history book and learn about the connotation of 'colored' and how it came about. Then learn about the inclusiveness worldwide of 'people of color' and its non-offensive connotation.

Maybe some historical perspective might give you some insight about "the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

That's certainly what I've observed in the professional world. It's a huge advantage to be a POC.

Yes, that's exactly why all the executives on Wall Street are all POC. And that includes middle and lower management also, all POC.

Maybe they are not there because they don't qualify.

And maybe they aren't as big of cutthroat thieves as the ones who are there.

Look at a place like Google; insanely successful, full of bright people with innovative ideas. They hire based on merit. The diversity grievance industry is getting all worked up because they don't have a lot of black and Hispanic technical professionals. Lots and lots of diversity, but not the type the race hustlers care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

That's certainly what I've observed in the professional world. It's a huge advantage to be a POC.

Yes, that's exactly why all the executives on Wall Street are all POC. And that includes middle and lower management also, all POC.

Maybe they are not there because they don't qualify.

And maybe they aren't as big of cutthroat thieves as the ones who are there.

Look at a place like Google; insanely successful, full of bright people with innovative ideas. They hire based on merit. The diversity grievance industry is getting all worked up because they don't have a lot of black and Hispanic technical professionals. Lots and lots of diversity, but not the type the race hustlers care about.

There are black and Latinos that make a lot of money at google in sales and ad positions - google is an ad firm (look at their revenue breakdown).

Why does it matter if they are tech vs non-tech. The non tech in these companies seem to be happier, have more fun, are more attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

What's the difference between "person of color" and "colored person"? I thought it was impolite to say the latter, but we're essentially back to the same old term! Political correctness seems a bit like an animal chasing its tail -- it comes full circle.

I doubt you have the nerve or the cojones to call someone colored to their face. Of course, very brave when posting anonymously. So much for your full circle hypothesis.

So why isn’t “person of color” also considered an offensive term? It certainly shows the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology. It's also a ridiculous term – as President Obama has quipped, ex-Speaker Boehner is a person of color.

Boehner is a Redskin

Hail to the Redskins!

[Anonymous]

URMs that go to elite schools many times get exposed when they apply to companies like mine. We ask for SAT and if the candidate has already taken them, GMAT/gre scores for entry level direct from college hires. We also ask for transcripts. URMs that go to elite schools don't push themselves academically (in general) from the hundreds of transcripts and scores that I've seen while being on the recruiting committee. They take easier classes and easier majors. There are always URMs that have the total package and they are fiercely fought over with tons of job offers from us and our competitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POC have it easier? Are you listening to yourself! Really? Maybe you should walk a day in my son's shoes.

What's the difference between "person of color" and "colored person"? I thought it was impolite to say the latter, but we're essentially back to the same old term! Political correctness seems a bit like an animal chasing its tail -- it comes full circle.

I doubt you have the nerve or the cojones to call someone colored to their face. Of course, very brave when posting anonymously. So much for your full circle hypothesis.

So why isn’t “person of color” also considered an offensive term? It certainly shows the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology. It's also a ridiculous term – as President Obama has quipped, ex-Speaker Boehner is a person of color.

You might grab a history book and learn about the connotation of 'colored' and how it came about. Then learn about the inclusiveness worldwide of 'people of color' and its non-offensive connotation.

Maybe some historical perspective might give you some insight about "the intellectual vacuousness of P.C. terminology."

Colored person > Negro > Black > Afro-American > African-American > Person of color.

But the term must just drip with "worldwide inclusiveness" if it encompasses John Boehner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:URMs that go to elite schools many times get exposed when they apply to companies like mine. We ask for SAT and if the candidate has already taken them, GMAT/gre scores for entry level direct from college hires. We also ask for transcripts. URMs that go to elite schools don't push themselves academically (in general) from the hundreds of transcripts and scores that I've seen while being on the recruiting committee. They take easier classes and easier majors. There are always URMs that have the total package and they are fiercely fought over with tons of job offers from us and our competitors.

That's been my experience as well, which is why I said earlier that competent POC have it easier in the corporate world. Really competent URMs are a hot commodity.

[Anonymous]

That's interesting 17:32. Sounds like you've got a pretty selective hiring process in place.

[Anonymous]

As a hiring manager, I know I scrutinize URM hires very closely. It is just very hard to ever get rid of a low performing URM - you basically have to wait for them to quit, moving them around to find something they can do. Contrast that with someone 'unprotected' and if they do not perform you do the little HR dance for a few weeks and away they go. Everyone is afraid of a lawsuit and the reputational risk of being dragged through the courts or media. Or you know that a termination will come with a likely accusation of racial bias, which usually goes away with a little settlement money.

The sad thing is we have some wonderful URM hires - but it only has to happen to you once for you to become very careful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I know I scrutinize URM hires very closely. It is just very hard to ever get rid of a low performing URM - you basically have to wait for them to quit, moving them around to find something they can do. Contrast that with someone 'unprotected' and if they do not perform you do the little HR dance for a few weeks and away they go. Everyone is afraid of a lawsuit and the reputational risk of being dragged through the courts or media. Or you know that a termination will come with a likely accusation of racial bias, which usually goes away with a little settlement money.

The sad thing is we have some wonderful URM hires - but it only has to happen to you once for you to become very careful.

At least you're admitting your racist bias, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I know I scrutinize URM hires very closely. It is just very hard to ever get rid of a low performing URM - you basically have to wait for them to quit, moving them around to find something they can do. Contrast that with someone 'unprotected' and if they do not perform you do the little HR dance for a few weeks and away they go. Everyone is afraid of a lawsuit and the reputational risk of being dragged through the courts or media. Or you know that a termination will come with a likely accusation of racial bias, which usually goes away with a little settlement money.

The sad thing is we have some wonderful URM hires - but it only has to happen to you once for you to become very careful.

At least you're admitting your racist bias, I guess.

NP - what is PP racist? Hiring carefully is being racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I know I scrutinize URM hires very closely. It is just very hard to ever get rid of a low performing URM - you basically have to wait for them to quit, moving them around to find something they can do. Contrast that with someone 'unprotected' and if they do not perform you do the little HR dance for a few weeks and away they go. Everyone is afraid of a lawsuit and the reputational risk of being dragged through the courts or media. Or you know that a termination will come with a likely accusation of racial bias, which usually goes away with a little settlement money.

The sad thing is we have some wonderful URM hires - but it only has to happen to you once for you to become very careful.

At least you're admitting your racist bias, I guess.

NP - what is PP racist? Hiring carefully is being racist?

When you have one type of employee you can hire and fire based strictly on performance, and another type that you must spend double or triple the time to deal with performance issues - well, you become very careful about hiring the second type.