Arizona Election 2010 - Proposition 107 / Arizona Civil Rights Amendment

[46Young]

Has anyone been following the Arizona Election 2010 - Proposition 107 / Arizona Civil Rights Amendment? Are you for or against it, and why?

Here's a link:

http://phoenix.about.com/b/2010/09/...sition-107-arizona-civil-rights-amendment.htm

You can find many more by googling "Arizona proposition 107." Most have for and against arguments contained within the article.

Here's one blog in support of the measure by Lt Frank Ricci of the New Haven FD (New Haven 20):

http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/merit-matters-for-promotions-vote-yes.html

 

[Shishkabob]

Ban AA... ban it to hell.


Legal racism is all it evolved in to.




Disclosure: I'm an upper-middle class straight white male....

 

[46Young]

Perhaps some of you ought to take a little more interest in such matters. If this bill passes, it will likely spread to other states. No more dipping down on hiring or promotional lists just to fill quotas.

If you believe in "the best person for the job," if you believe that hard work and dedication should be rewarded, then you'll likely be in favor of the bill. If you do all you can to make yourself the most qualified candidate, you'll be chosen first over others. If you're counting on your membership in a protected class to skip over other, more qualified applicants to get hired, to skip over more qualified candidates for promotion, and also be less accountable at your job so that the company can maintain their quotas, then you'll likely be against this bill.

Edit: Same goes for college admission.

 

[46Young]

Ban AA... ban it to hell.


Legal racism is all it evolved in to.




Disclosure: I'm an upper-middle class straight white male....

The best way to stop discriminating on the basis of race/gender is to stop discriminating on the basis of race/gender. It's really that simple.

Edit: If some are struggling with that, I mean that for protected classes to get the position over others, the unprotected are being discriminated against. It's known as reverse racism. One from the racial majority was passed over basis of their race.

 

[TransportJockey]

I'll be glad if this passes. It's time for things to be based on merits, no stupid quotas.

 

[Shishkabob]

My view on this has always been:

Either we are all equal, or we aren't. Choose one. If we ARE equal, quit trying to put some people higher than others. If we AREN'T equal, then, again, quit trying to put some people higher than others.



There is no logical reason to hire a person less qualified for a job simply because they are from a minority, be it for their skin color, family background, or because they have glasses. If the top 100 applicants are white males, so what? Maybe the others should be striving a bit more to be the top, than using something that no one has any say in changing. Don't detest racism, then use it to your advantage.


Yes, it can be argued that 'minorities' haven't had the same life chances as 'non-minorities'... but don't use race as the jumping point. Plenty of poor white people. Plenty of whites were discriminated against in history.


Using someones fiscal stance can be ok... but never skin color.



*sigh*

 

[Cohn]

I voted yes

I am a middle class white male (half American Indian) and I will be looking for a paying job very soon so I rather my skills be looked at rather then them trying to stir the pot some.

 

[Junkman]

Today, you can have a white mother and a black father, and consider yourself to be black, white, or mixed. In the last census counting form, you could be standing in front of the census taker and be lily white, but claim to be black, and that is what they recorded. I really had a hard time wanting to complete the census, since its original intent was to count the number of people living in the US, but the federal government went way beyond that this time, and included questions that have nothing to do with the census at all.

 

[John E]

My view on this has always been:

Plenty of whites were discriminated against in history.


Using someones fiscal stance can be ok... but never skin color.



*sigh*

edited

I wonder if you could share some concrete examples of cases where "plenty of whites were discriminated against in history" where that discrimination was based on their skin color and not to their country of origin?

Or maybe you can explain the reasoning behind determining that African-Americans were at one time considered 3/5ths of a human being in this country? Was that due to their "fiscal stance" (sic), their ethnicity or their skin color?

P.S. what exactly is a "fiscal stance" anyway?

 

[citizensoldierny]

I'd be against if my half middle eastern ethnic background gave me a box to check for preferrence. In all seriousness though AA should have been done away with long ago and discrimination cases treated on a case by case basis.

 

[MrBrown]

It is just reverse discrimination.

You people just dont like Brown because he is a foreigner

 

[usalsfyre]

edited
Or maybe you can explain the reasoning behind determining that African-Americans were at one time considered 3/5ths of a human being in this country? Was that due to their "fiscal stance" (sic), their ethnicity or their skin color?

Actually it can easily be explained. If slaves were counted as a whole person for population purposes (i.e. census) then the southern slave states would have had a majority of seats in the House, despite their voting populations being a much smaller percentage of the population. The 3/5ths rule was actually more of an ANTI-slavery measure to prevent a small voting block in the south from using their large non-voting population to control the House. But you wouldn't have learned that from the revisionist, PC crap that's spewed forth from our excuse of an education system. Please understand concepts a bit better before running with tired cliches'.

 

[YoungMedic]

I will be voting yes for 107

 

[John E]

Actually it can easily be explained. If slaves were counted as a whole person for population purposes (i.e. census) then the southern slave states would have had a majority of seats in the House, despite their voting populations being a much smaller percentage of the population. The 3/5ths rule was actually more of an ANTI-slavery measure to prevent a small voting block in the south from using their large non-voting population to control the House. But you wouldn't have learned that from the revisionist, PC crap that's spewed forth from our excuse of an education system. Please understand concepts a bit better before running with tired cliches'.

I want to be sure that I understand your statement. Declaring that a person is only 3/5ths of a human being was a GOOD thing in your opinion? Really?

Given that the Southern states increased their number of congressional representatives from 1789 until the start of the Civil War, I guess the whole compromise was pretty much a failure if it was meant to LESSEN the number of Southern representatives as you claim.

I could make the point that using black slaves and their status as people in the first place is de facto racism and discrimination but I think the point would be lost.

By the way, just because Glen Beck claims something, doesn't make it true.

As for your comments about the educational system; tell me please, exactly when did it turn into what you call "revisionist PC crap", cause I know when I went to school and you surely don't.

Still waiting for some examples of that wide spread alleged discrimination against whites in the U.S.

 

[Foxbat]

The idea of AA is that, supposedly, without it two equally qualified applicants would have different chances to be employed if they are of different races, since hiring process is subjective.
I've heard of studies that allegedly show that if all other variables are equal, a black candidate is less likely to be hired than a similarly qualified white one, but I haven't seen these studies. Even if they are true, though, AA seems like a poor way of solving this problem.

 

[46Young]

The idea of AA is that, supposedly, without it two equally qualified applicants would have different chances to be employed if they are of different races, since hiring process is subjective.
I've heard of studies that allegedly show that if all other variables are equal, a black candidate is less likely to be hired than a similarly qualified white one, but I haven't seen these studies. Even if they are true, though, AA seems like a poor way of solving this problem.

It would seem that no matter what solution to discrimination is attempted, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. At least with this measure, these positions and admissions will go to the most qualified candidate based on an objective, not subjective testing/qualification process that is color blind.

I first learned of this measure while viewing the FDNY 6019 thread on FH.com. These candidates were placed in rank order for hiring. Judge Garaufis declared that the 6019 test caused "disparate impact." The test was deemed invalid, and six options were given by the judge for hiring, and each one involved quota hiring in some form. The city told him that wasn't acceptable, froze hiring, and is now in the appeals process. Read all about it here:

http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/

Disparate impact says that if a test produces an outcome that has a less favorable effect for one group than for another, than it is presumed to be discriminatory. A test could be intentionally devised to be race/gender neutral and it could still be ruled invalid if certain protected classes are underrepresented by the results.

Look at the NBA. Why aren't whites, asians, latino's, female's, etc. suing for proportional representation based on our nation's demographics? How about hockey?

 

[usalsfyre]

I want to be sure that I understand your statement. Declaring that a person is only 3/5ths of a human being was a GOOD thing in your opinion? Really?

Given that the Southern states increased their number of congressional representatives from 1789 until the start of the Civil War, I guess the whole compromise was pretty much a failure if it was meant to LESSEN the number of Southern representatives as you claim.

I could make the point that using black slaves and their status as people in the first place is de facto racism and discrimination but I think the point would be lost.

By the way, just because Glen Beck claims something, doesn't make it true.

As for your comments about the educational system; tell me please, exactly when did it turn into what you call "revisionist PC crap", cause I know when I went to school and you surely don't.

Still waiting for some examples of that wide spread alleged discrimination against whites in the U.S.

Now your putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the stain on US history known as slavery was a good thing. The thought that someone can "own" another human being is repulsive to me. The point of slaves counting as people being de facto racisim is not lost on me, if the US had truly been interested in the abolition of slavery as an institution then slave would not have counted towards census numbers at all, however slavery was big business in those days. This also acounts for why the southern states gained representatives at a rapid clip, because they imported significant block of their population under force. Imagine if every one had counted one for one, there might well have never been a Civil War.

Glen Beck comes off as a raving lunatic and is far more of an entertainment icon than true conservative thinker. Let's stick to facts rather than name calling cheap shots.

The educational system was revisionist crap when I went through it ten years ago. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to form your own ideas based on fact, not what your professor, high school teacher, parents, preacher or radical friends tell you. The 3/5ths rule may be disgusting to us now, but it was honest attempt to limit slavery in the political climate of the time. Politics, then as now, were not straight forward and there were just as many special interest groups.

 

[John E]

Just to be clear...

I didn't say you thought slavery was good, I asked if you thought that the defining of a black slave as 3/5ths of a person was good. You stated that doing so was an anti-slavery measure which it clearly was not. One can be opposed to slavery and still be a racist, as were the people who proposed that fellow human beings should not be counted as complete human beings in a rather pathetic attempt to control the political landscape.

As for Mr. Beck, you called him a raving lunatic, not me, so much for not taking cheap shots. Your argument, that proclaiming that black slaves should only count as 3/5ths of a person was some sort of anti-slavery movement is the exact same argument that he, Beck, has attempted to make on his show. Given that you and he have espoused the same argument, forgive me for lumping your opinion with his.

 

[terrible one]

Still waiting for some examples of that wide spread alleged discrimination against whites in the U.S.

http://diversityjobs.com/news/white...irly-denied-promotions-because-of-their-race/

 

[LonghornMedic]

Affirmative action was definitely needed at one time in this country. However, it has run its course and it amounts to noting more than reverse discrimination. Get rid of it.