Thread: "white only" scholarship

hat duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel. Forcing a company to hire someone that is less qualfied than someone else applying for a job is WRONG. Plain and simple.

exactly, you know what the problem is in America? It is that everyone expects to get their "fair share". The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.

Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc., I don't see an affirmative action plan for nerds. If I don't hire minorities, it is my business. why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients. I would not be rascist, I would be logical, would you hire a white person who: could not read or write, was a convicted felon, and was a beggar? I don't think so.

One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:

Women A is a graduate of harvard university, obtained a 4.0 GPA, and worked with Alan Greenspan during the course of a year internship.

Women B is a graduate of the University of Arkansas, obtained a 3.0GPA there, and has no internship/employment records.

This is often what is on people's resumes in summation. Who am I going to choose, or even interview? Woman A, or woman B? It does not matter what race they are. However, by affirmative action rules, if I have a place that has only 30% blacks working, and Woman B is black, I have to HIRE HER over Woman A, or not hire at all. How does that make sense?

>How many all white colleges do you know of?

who in their right minds would want to go to a "all white" (by design) college. It would not succeed.

>Yet there are all minority schools.

I dont know of a single school that rejects applicants simply becuase they are not of a particular minority race. Please give some examples.

>Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc.

Thats not prejudice.

>why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients

Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.

No one is asking you to hire an illiterate person for a job that requires one to be able to read.

> That duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel.

>This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:...

You are citing an extreme case. A much more likely senario is given two qualified applicants for a particular job, one minority and one not, a business would have to hire the minority if their workforce didnt meet a certain race distribution.

Echo Clownpimp.

echo ober

The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)

Well, I thought you already said they're equal...if they really are equal, then you've already weighed all of the possible qualifications to determine that they're equal, and subsequently if you need to meet a race distribution then I could see, in this case, why it is somewhat reasonable to pick the minority person. Otherwise they're unequal, and they should be chosen by the superior qualifications.

STFU

hehe, jk

EDIT:
I just want to re-iterate (after re-reading your college scholarship example) that I really do think merit should be based on performance and qualifications, not race (either for or against any race)

Originally posted by sean_mackrory
I've got a couple of short points to make.

First of all, another echo to ober, I was thinking the exact same words.

Second, I never had slaves. I never forced segregation. I shouldn't be excluded from scholarships and college application benefits because I'm white. That's just more discrimination.

Third, having been to Africa very recently, and having seen how the blacks live there, anyone who is expecting repayment for having been taken out is an idiot. Yes slavery was tough, but that was for the ancestors of today's African-Americans. Where they are now, they're way better off. If anything, you should only be asking for repayment on things that happen now.

Four, about things that happen now. Don't expect legal immunity because you're black. As soon as a black celebrity is arrested for something like child molestation, the race card is played inevitably EVERY time.

Hmmm.... isnt this a bit rude... And i agree with some of your points.. but if i am right.. wasnt the legal system biased against the blacks for some time....

i might be worng...

>>One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities.<<

Actually it's not. The purpose of government is to prevent coercion. If I hold a gun to your head and say "Let me work for you, for at least $5.25 an hour, or I'll blow your brains out." that is a form of coercion and I have no right in doing that.

Whether its me or the government, it's wrong.

>>"one persons personal freedoms end where another's begins"<<

This is absolutely correct; apparently you don't know what this quote means.

We live in a capitalist society, not a socialist one. If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.

If people don't like the services or products I offer, then they do not conduct business with me. If potential employees do not like the terms I set forth in my business (rate of pay, rules of conduct, etc.) then they do not apply for employment. If, for any reason, I do not like a potential employee it is well within my right to not hire that employee.

It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.

>>The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.<<

This is a very good point. I have the right to free speech, but I do not have the right to compel others to provide my forum. I have the right to earn a living, yet I do not hold the right to compel others to provide my living.

>And you're trying to tell me that that isn't racist? C'mon! Given the two equals, a business should not be "forced" to pick one or the other. The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)

As I stated in my first post to this thread i agree that it is a form of racism. But racial bias in procedure is much more preferrable than racial bias in outcome.

>I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a minority. Am I right?

Yup.

>Have you ever been in debt from college while a less deserving (in terms of financial need) minority recieves scholarships that you could have gotten if they had been open to you? That's not affirmative action, but it's the same damn concept.

Well, no. Minority only scholarships are created by private organizations. AA is enforced by the federal government. There are scholarships for all kinds of things: being disabled, knowing how to fly a plane, being the child of a member of a certain organization, being an avid square dancer, etc. Minority only scholarships are no different.

>STFU.
calm down d00d.

>Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights?

>If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.

Yes, but you dont--and shouldnt have the right to discriminate.

>It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.

It is if Congress says it is =P

See, I would just blame the British.

That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.

j/k

maybe we should blame the French instead...

cloudpimp :
Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.

where did I get it? the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists...
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/

EDIT: PS I was slightly wrong, it is close to 42.8% for homicide

> People forget that not all discrimination is bad.

I mean discrimination in the sense of choosing or not choosing someone because of their race.

>the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists

I didnt say that the statistics were discrimination, I said your statement was discrimination ("why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education....")

>If I have a business, and you come to me asking for work, I have the right to not hire you because you're a minority.

Again, businesses do not and should not have that right. You need to look back 100 or so years and see what practices like this did to minority groups, specifically blacks.