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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear cut. Many minorities are given opportunities they did not or we're not prepared for. Thus when you seek professional services - do not engage with these people. Also when hiring. Choose the most qualified available.

Your statement also applies to non-minorities.
BTW do you know the difference between we're and were?

that's real petty. it says more about you than the first pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear cut. Many minorities are given opportunities they did not or we're not prepared for. Thus when you seek professional services - do not engage with these people. Also when hiring. Choose the most qualified available.

Your statement also applies to non-minorities.
BTW do you know the difference between we're and were?

that's real petty. it says more about you than the first pp

That's real petty. It says more about you than the first pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear cut. Many minorities are given opportunities they did not or we're not prepared for. Thus when you seek professional services - do not engage with these people. Also when hiring. Choose the most qualified available.

Your statement also applies to non-minorities.
BTW do you know the difference between we're and were?

that's real petty. it says more about you than the first pp

That's real petty. It says more about you than the first pp.

?? not sure why you repeated my post but that's really impressive...

[Anonymous]

Talking about Big 3 Consulting. Guessing McKenzie based on so many tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talking about Big 3 Consulting. Guessing McKenzie based on so many tests.

Probably; I just googled it and there's a lot of information out there about it. The test actually looks fun, but I've always liked those kinds of things.

[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?

I've tried to avoid reading this thread, because so much of it is racist and offensive to me as an AA female who went to a top three law school (and yes I had a high GPA, was phi beta kappa in college, and had high LSAT scores). But I don't want the prior PP to have to shoulder the burden alone. So I will answer this rhetorical question. The RACIST and BIASED aspect of the post is the fact that a hiring manager admits that he scrutinizes URM hires very closely. Note that he does not say that he scrutinizes female hires, or Asian hires (assuming it's a field where they are not underrepresented), or disabled applicants, all of whom (plus whites) also could file a discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws to challenge a personnel decision. That is racist and biased because the PP is treating URMs differently than people in other groups, based on an assumption about the risks of hiring them. It is judging all URM applicants based on an anecdoctal experience with someone in the past. It is unfair and yet this thread and much of the other BS I read about race on DCUM suggests that it is pretty common.

[Anonymous]

So I assume you are against Affirmative Action than right PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I've tried to avoid reading this thread, because so much of it is racist and offensive to me as an AA female who went to a top three law school (and yes I had a high GPA, was phi beta kappa in college, and had high LSAT scores). But I don't want the prior PP to have to shoulder the burden alone. So I will answer this rhetorical question. The RACIST and BIASED aspect of the post is the fact that a hiring manager admits that he scrutinizes URM hires very closely. Note that he does not say that he scrutinizes female hires, or Asian hires (assuming it's a field where they are not underrepresented), or disabled applicants, all of whom (plus whites) also could file a discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws to challenge a personnel decision. That is racist and biased because the PP is treating URMs differently than people in other groups, based on an assumption about the risks of hiring them. It is judging all URM applicants based on an anecdoctal experience with someone in the past. It is unfair and yet this thread and much of the other BS I read about race on DCUM suggests that it is pretty common.

Perhaps if you did not call everyone racist, people would not be so fearful of being called racist. Honestly, it's beginning to lose its edge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I've tried to avoid reading this thread, because so much of it is racist and offensive to me as an AA female who went to a top three law school (and yes I had a high GPA, was phi beta kappa in college, and had high LSAT scores). But I don't want the prior PP to have to shoulder the burden alone. So I will answer this rhetorical question. The RACIST and BIASED aspect of the post is the fact that a hiring manager admits that he scrutinizes URM hires very closely. Note that he does not say that he scrutinizes female hires, or Asian hires (assuming it's a field where they are not underrepresented), or disabled applicants, all of whom (plus whites) also could file a discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws to challenge a personnel decision. That is racist and biased because the PP is treating URMs differently than people in other groups, based on an assumption about the risks of hiring them. It is judging all URM applicants based on an anecdoctal experience with someone in the past. It is unfair and yet this thread and much of the other BS I read about race on DCUM suggests that it is pretty common.

Perhaps if you did not call everyone racist, people would not be so fearful of being called racist. Honestly, it's beginning to lose its edge.

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

[Anonymous]

Had someone work a couple levels down from me - never met him as he worked remote and on site. Couple customers threw him off projects for not being competent, and we came to that conclusion ourselves. So we let him go. He had a pretty generic surname, but he was in fact Hispanic. I had never met him, and only spoken to him a few times. He had no accent. I did not know he was Hispanic until I got the EEOC notice of a complaint that I let him go because he was Hispanic. I had to call his manager to confirm, and even he was not sure is he was Hispanic.

No one should be a victim of racial discrimination, but examples like the above leave you feeling that a lot of times it's just a scam. We fought it and won, BTW. He got nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had someone work a couple levels down from me - never met him as he worked remote and on site. Couple customers threw him off projects for not being competent, and we came to that conclusion ourselves. So we let him go. He had a pretty generic surname, but he was in fact Hispanic. I had never met him, and only spoken to him a few times. He had no accent. I did not know he was Hispanic until I got the EEOC notice of a complaint that I let him go because he was Hispanic. I had to call his manager to confirm, and even he was not sure is he was Hispanic.

No one should be a victim of racial discrimination, but examples like the above leave you feeling that a lot of times it's just a scam. We fought it and won, BTW. He got nothing.

News flash-- the laws that protect hispanics against national origin and race discrimination also protect whites, asians, blacks, jews, christians, muslims, males, and females against race, color, sex, national origin, or religious discrimination. I have seen discrimination complaints filed by members of all of those groups (including white males) in my law practice. Some lawsuits are successful, most are not. When hiring, I recognize that it is possible that any applicant might sue us if he or she is not selected. That's a reality in our litigious society. I do not let that color my hiring decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I've tried to avoid reading this thread, because so much of it is racist and offensive to me as an AA female who went to a top three law school (and yes I had a high GPA, was phi beta kappa in college, and had high LSAT scores). But I don't want the prior PP to have to shoulder the burden alone. So I will answer this rhetorical question. The RACIST and BIASED aspect of the post is the fact that a hiring manager admits that he scrutinizes URM hires very closely. Note that he does not say that he scrutinizes female hires, or Asian hires (assuming it's a field where they are not underrepresented), or disabled applicants, all of whom (plus whites) also could file a discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws to challenge a personnel decision. That is racist and biased because the PP is treating URMs differently than people in other groups, based on an assumption about the risks of hiring them. It is judging all URM applicants based on an anecdoctal experience with someone in the past. It is unfair and yet this thread and much of the other BS I read about race on DCUM suggests that it is pretty common.

Perhaps if you did not call everyone racist, people would not be so fearful of being called racist. Honestly, it's beginning to lose its edge.

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think POC have it easier to be honest. If you're a reasonably talented minority you're golden.

This attitude is a part of the problem. Yes, POC that are in the top 1-5% are very desired and golden. But so are the top 1-5% of whites, Asians and Hispanics. It isn't the uber-talented that have a problem.

The problem is that when you look at the remaining 95%, that blacks have significantly lower hiring rate than their peers, e.g. the lower 95% of white applicants. When you take candidates that are otherwise equal, the black candidates get fewer calls, callbacks and get hired less than their white counterparts. I think it's unfair that many people look at the unqualified black students that get into college due to AA, but don't question the unqualified candidates that get into college on an athletic scholarship.

Often it's not even based on the criteria or qualifications of the candidates, just being black is a deterrent in getting a job. Just one example,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination wrote:
We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.
...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

Ok. The sad and tragic part is that Asian American's complaint of racial discrimination goes NOWHERE whereas racial discrimination complaints by Blacks are taken VERY SERIOUSLY mostly due to political influence. It is sad we do not yet have "Equal Protection Under Law" in this country.