Who believes in racial bias?

[BanginJimmy]

Simple yes or no question. Do you believe racial bias should be used in making hiring and firing decisions?


I will explain further after I get some responses. Poll is public.

[2turbo4u]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA

[5speed]

It happens. I have known a person to get a job at the bank bc he was white. The bank has to feel the "white quota" according to the manager.

[bu villain]

Generally speaking no but I think there are some instances where racial bias is legitimate.

Say an organization helps new immigrants from China become accustomed to life in America. The immigrants may be more comfortable with a Chinese person as apposed to a black person and thus all other things equal, a Chinese candidate may be given preference for that position.

Or if you go to an Indian restaurant the customers might want to feel like they took a mini vacation to India, but if the staff is a dozen white dudes, it kind of kills the vibe.

I think if there is a strong reason why someone's race would be beneficial to the business it can and should be taken into consideration but most jobs would not fall into this category.

[BanginJimmy]

Generally speaking no but I think there are some instances where racial bias is legitimate.

Say an organization helps new immigrants from China become accustomed to life in America. The immigrants may be more comfortable with a Chinese person as apposed to a black person and thus all other things equal, a Chinese candidate may be given preference for that position.

Or if you go to an Indian restaurant the customers might want to feel like they took a mini vacation to India, but if the staff is a dozen white dudes, it kind of kills the vibe.

I think if there is a strong reason why someone's race would be beneficial to the business it can and should be taken into consideration but most jobs would not fall into this category.

I agree with you 100%. For some jobs a racial, or I prefer to say cultural, bias in genuinely good for business.

[BanginJimmy]

I guess I will post the article now with where this comes from. I already know what Blender will say about it so he doesnt even need to bother responding to the thread.

In the financial overhaul bill that is on the cusp of becoming law, House Democrats have included a largely overlooked provision that would create diversity czars to promote racial and gender hiring in federal agencies -- a move that has sparked concerns about racial quotas, government waste and charges that Democrats are attempting to politicize the Federal Reserve.

The bill would establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at each federal financial services agency to "ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity" of the work force and senior management.

The diversity czars would also aim to "increase the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts" of each agency and conduct "an assessment" of those goals.

Each diversity czar would be a presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate and have power "comparable to that of other senior level staff," the bill says.

In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal accused Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., author of the provision, of trying to politicize the Federal Reserve.

"The Waters provision will also give Congress and the White House a new and powerful lever to influence the operation of the 12 regional Fed banks," the newspaper wrote. "Accusations of racial or gender indifference, much less outright bias, are politically deadly."

"With the threat of such an accusation in their holster, the Waters czars will have enormous clout to influence Fed governance and regulatory decisions, perhaps including monetary policy," the newspaper added.

Waters' office did not respond to a request for comment but the lawmaker vigorously defended the provision in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, saying the newspaper's critical editorial was "filled with misrepresentations, unsupported conclusions and outright distortions."

"Nothing in the bill mandates lending to minorities or women," she wrote, denying charges that the provision would politicize the Fed or allocate credit by race and gender. "The provision does not even mention lending. The offices will only be responsible for employment, management and business activities of the agencies."

"What this legislation will do is help address an indisputable problem, the lack of diversity in financial services," she said, arguing that studies show the "discrimination that women and minorities face compared to white men of similar educational background and age."

Waters cited the Treasury Department where minorities make up 17.2 percent of employees at senior pay levels and a recent Government Accountability Office report that shows the lack of diversity within the financial services industry has barely improved at the management level from 1993 to 2008.

"The provision is designed to broaden and improve the work force of these agencies and expand opportunities for our nation's small businesses – including minority-and women-owned businesses – to participate in programs and contracts instead of continuing to rely on the same 'old boy' network and handful of Wall Street firms responsible for the crisis in the financial markets."

The provision remained in the legislation during a conference committee between House and Senate negotiators. The House approved the final version of the bill late last month but the Senate delayed its vote until after the July Fourth holiday.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the bill should be sent back to conference stripped of this provision, citing concerns about racial quotas and costs.

"The chief concern is that you're moving from a situation where discrimination is prohibited, which is well and good and that is established law, to a situation where there are quotas in the workplace," she told FoxNews.com, contending that the law would extend the provisions to contractors and subcontractors – a situation that could lead to quotas in the private sector. "And those are two very, very different things."

The law would create at least 20 new offices and up to 29 if every Treasury agency is required to create a minority office, she said.

"It would probably cost a million or over" to operate on an annual basis for each office, she said.

Furchtgott-Roth also noted that the Cabinet-level departments all have similar offices in place and questioned why more is needed.

"This is a very serious concern," she said. "We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. Every American knows that we need to cut the deficit and not only is this a waste of money but it implies that the existing offices we have are a waste of money."

[blaknoize]

I think I voted wrong by clicking twice at the top of the page... lol IE6 FTW

[AirMax95]

Oh, and it const too damn much to fund.....not the time at all.

[bafbrian]

I guess I will post the article now with where this comes from. I already know what Blender will say about it so he doesnt even need to bother responding to the thread.

That provision comes several cases filed against the FBI stemming from the 1980s till today about the lack of diversity in minorities in high ranking positions. In one instance, during an investigation into the prevalence of Hispanic-Americans (HA) in the FBI during the late 80s and early 90s, it found that for every 100 HA's employed by the FBI, about 1-3 had high ranking positions, even though many more were qualified for positions. They were passed over, in some cases, several times by individuals with less experience and seniority. This comes from a psychology video available at SPSU from the Psychology Department, if you would like to view the entire source.

[AirMax95]

That provision comes several cases filed against the FBI stemming from the 1980s till today about the lack of diversity in minorities in high ranking positions. In one instance, during an investigation into the prevalence of Hispanic-Americans (HA) in the FBI during the late 80s and early 90s, it found that for every 100 HA's employed by the FBI, about 1-3 had high ranking positions, even though many more were qualified for positions. They were passed over, in some cases, several times by individuals with less experience and seniority. This comes from a psychology video available at SPSU from the Psychology Department, if you would like to view the entire source.

That is good information!

The hard part is defending "qualifed" vs. a "good fit" for the position. Attributes such as lazy, hard to work with, tardiness, etc. come into play when filling a position. Some people may not be qualifed, but may have the better attitude and can be trained to learn the job duties.

[bafbrian]

That is good information!

The hard part is defending "qualifed" vs. a "good fit" for the position. Attributes such as lazy, hard to work with, tardiness, etc. come into play when filling a position. Some people may not be qualifed, but may have the better attitude and can be trained to learn the job duties.

With regards to the FBI, it isn't. Given the extensive records that the Office of Professional Conduct and Office of Personnel maintains on agents and employees, knowing who's qualified and not is merely a matter of accessing one's record and evaluating. As for other government agencies, I don't know. I for one don't like the idea of a quota system, however, BanginJimmy has a valid point in that a FEW jobs and organizations in which certain groups are better suited than others.

As for racial bias, I will agree on the point that it exists, but as far as its uses regarding preferential treatment towards certain groups, I think it is unfair. This is coming from someone who happens to be minority, multi-racial in fact. However, if racial bias is related to say, Affirmative Action, it been shown that that legislation can work for any group, reference the student who applied to Law School at UC Berkeley IIRC, was denied and sued the Board of Regents based on the premise of Affirmative Action, and succinctly won his case, justifying that Affirmative Action as it relates to quota systems in to benefit one group, but all groups.

In the case of this legislation, just because it is geared towards increasing diversity within the government, doesn't mean that certain groups will benefit while others don't, it can be by anyone.

[AirMax95]

I voted no, but I am on the fence because there are people who are still racially charged in their lifestyles. That goes for the small business owner to the senior level management at a Fortune 500 company.

In regards to this bill, its pointless. This bill makes things worse and opens the door for 1) Laziness amongst those "included" in the bill; in a sense that something is owed to them because the bill is in place, 2) Those that are racially choosing employees will find more creative ways to weed people out. On top of that, there are TONS of programs that get THE BEST lending for women and minority business, simply to encourage participation. In regards to Gov't contracts, that line of business is still more on a "Who you know" hookup relationship.

Minorities and women do have to work twice as hard to get "to the top". Complaint? Not at all, its rather something that is accepted. It goes from the industry that you are employed to the culture in the office you work in on a daily basis. The awesome thing about it is that once you know you have to bust more ass to "succeed", it makes the success much more gratifying.

I think there needs to be a study done, if possible, to show the applicants by race. That is the only way to rightfully say that there is an issue. Just because certain people are not in these position, does not mean that they are not getting chosen....there may not be many applying. I know for a fact that the Ga State tax auditors office is split, lol.


Bottom line, if you need a bill on the books to motivate you to fight for what you want, you don't really want it.

*Excuse my scattered rant, but I'm having a shitty morning. Any errors, or lack of clarity, please charge it to lack of coffee*

[Total_Blender]

I dare anyone to protest the construction of a Christian church on the basis that Christians have bombed abortion clinics, let's see the reaction to that; I can guarantee it won't be pretty.

Hence why organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU are necessary. Some on the right are saying we should have a "national association for the advancement of white people" or whatever but how much farther than the other races do they want to advance? I mean so far only White people have been to the surface of the moon so they have a pretty good lead.

I don't know if anyone has read the "Mark Williams Letter" or heard him say that the NAACP "belongs on the trash heap of history" (on NP fucking R no less). Its one thing to raise questions on these issues but its another thing entirely to say that the organizations which work for the rights of ALL Americans belong on the trash heap. And the way which he used stereotypes of the "lazy shiftless blacks" in his letter... Jesus Christ on a cracker. You see in the letter that he uses broad language to say "all Black people," which would even include those who don't agree with the NAACP (and I'm sure there are some that don't).

The Teabaggers need to understand that when their "leaders" like Williams, Rushbo, Glenn Beck, etc make these racist statements, by not challenging them, by not questioning them, by allowing them to keep doing it unchecked they are essentially letting these people speak for them and their "movement". Its the same thing with the signs, when these people are allowed to sit with the group it reflects badly on the whole. I'm sure I would be asked to leave if I showed up to a tea party event with a sign that had Noam Chomsky on it and the words "Worker owned cooperatives are fucking awesome!!1!". If racism is not part of their politics, why not show the racists the door as well?

[BanginJimmy]

The Teabaggers need to understand that when their "leaders" like Williams, Rushbo, Glenn Beck, etc make these racist statements, by not challenging them, by not questioning them, by allowing them to keep doing it unchecked they are essentially letting these people speak for them and their "movement". Its the same thing with the signs, when these people are allowed to sit with the group it reflects badly on the whole. I'm sure I would be asked to leave if I showed up to a tea party event with a sign that had Noam Chomsky on it and the words "Worker owned cooperatives are fucking awesome!!1!". If racism is not part of their politics, why not show the racists the door as well?

Why dont you find some of these racist statements from Beck and Limbaugh and signs from the tea parties for us. It seems that no one else can.

When you cant find any, will you admit that the NAACP is simply using racism as a way to discredit the tea party for purely political reasons?

It also seems that your posts are ill informed, as usual. Williams and the tea Part Express have been excluded from the Tea Party Federation as of today.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/...rty.imbroglio/

[BanginJimmy]

I'll add a little light to the hypocrisy of the left. People want to call anyone that compares Obama to the a socialist a racist, yet they were quick label Bush as everything from a terrorist to a facist, even a sign very similiar to the one that the little lefties called racist.







Why is it that we didnt hear the lefties coming out and denouncing these people and throwing them out? Oh, thats right. Its ok if a little leftie it, but anyone on the right is simply a racist.

[Total_Blender]

I posted that yesterday morning before I got a chance to check the news. Its good that the "Tea Party Federation" condemend the statements and denounced Williams, but do they speak for the whole organization?

Some Tea Partiers have their doubts and think the "federation" is trying to take control and hijack their movement. Such a move as to be the group that denounces Williams would definitely give them momentum in doing so. In one move they eliminate Williams as competition and get support from the "msm".

One Tea Partier discusses the "Federation":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbhW...eature=related
This guy actually sounds pretty reasonable for a Tea Partier.

Which brings us to the more "unreasonable" of the bunch...
[quote+Williams]
That careless individual tea partier who assumed the mantel of 'leadership' did so long enough to turn a critical and serious movement and delicate peace with skeptical groups into a World Wrestling style personality conflict with me at the center[/quote]

Williams has yet to acknowledge that his statements were racist, he's even calling the relationship between himself and groups like the NAACP as a "delicate peace". How is it a "delicate peace" when you suggest that a group "belongs on the trash heap of history" ? So his definition of "peace" with Black advocacy groups and Black culture allows him to perpetuate racist stereotypes and make sweeping negative generalizations about Black people?

As far as the liberals with the Nazi signs... here are some thoughts:

1.) Those kids are White. W is White. Hitler is white. Not trying to say anything detrimental to Whiteness, but as far as "racism" is concerned they are on a level playing field. If one White person were to call another White person a "Cracker," what would that even mean?

2.) The Bushes actually have connections to the Nazis and the Bin Ladens. Prescott Bush (W's grandfather) lobbied Congress on behalf of Germany and was involved with several companies that made money trading with the Hitler regime. Their assets were seized in 1942 under the "trading with the enemy act" and returned after the war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

The Bin Ladens financed W's first oil company.

3.) Most of the time I defer to Godwin's law, and the Reductio ad Hitlerum (google it) when it comes to comparisons to Hitler or Nazis. But it raises the question that if

A.) Instigating a unilateral war that was un-necessary for national defense/security.
B.) Institutionalizing a policy of torturing prisoners of said war and confining them in concentration camps indefinitely without any sort of charges being brought against them.
C.) Institutionalizing a culture of government intelligence spying on its own citizens (FISA wiretaps and the USA PATRIOT act.)

these things don't warrant comparisons to the Nazi's rise to power then, what does? Remember that the Nazi's were originally a fringe party and they didn't instantaneously bring about the atrocities such as the holocaust. The Nazi rise to power took the better part of a decade to come to its realization and the appropriate parallels should be drawn if we are to avoid repeating that history. The appropriate comparisons should be drawn concerning areas like genocide, eugenics, propaganda, and totalitarian regimes which are the most objectionable facets associated with Nazis. That being said, I do think its in bad taste to present these comparisons using a medium as glib as a billboard or a rally sign.

[bu villain]

I'm confused, what does calling someone a terrorist or a communist have to do with race? If you want to see some anti obama signs that are actually racist, just do a quick image search on google.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm confused, what does calling someone a terrorist or a communist have to do with race? If you want to see some anti obama signs that are actually racist, just do a quick image search on google.

There was a sign put up in Iowa that depicted Obama as a Hitler and/or Stalin type and is was called racist.

[preferredduck]

There was a sign put up in Iowa that depicted Obama as a Hitler and/or Stalin type and is was called racist.

i think bush had the same done to him too.

[Total_Blender]

I'm confused, what does calling someone a terrorist or a communist have to do with race? If you want to see some anti obama signs that are actually racist, just do a quick image search on google.

Its kind of insulting/demeaning to the people of Europe who actually did suffer under Nazi oppression, and the Jews who suffered the holocaust. Theres a difference between making an empirical comparison that is relevant and in context versus just "playing the Nazi card".

[bu villain]

Its kind of insulting/demeaning to the people of Europe who actually did suffer under Nazi oppression, and the Jews who suffered the holocaust. Theres a difference between making an empirical comparison that is relevant and in context versus just "playing the Nazi card".

I agree it's inappropriate but it has nothing to do with racism.

[Total_Blender]

I agree it's inappropriate but it has nothing to do with racism.

The Jews are a race in addition to being a religion. Christians and Atheists can still be ethnically "Jewish". From what I understand Hitler's antisemitism had more to do with eugenics than it did the actual Jewish religion.

[AirMax95]

Not all are racist, but you get the point.

[AirMax95]

[preferredduck]

ok everyone get a visitors pass to the richard b russell building in athens and i'll point out about 100 things that will make you want to throw up and ask for your tax money back. sorry no details i have worked there and honestly the budget can ge cut by 40 to 50% if some people would actually come to work more than 2 days a week and do something.