Originally Posted by
Onfinal
First. Dude take the time to read and re-read the posts. It seemed like you responded before I even hit the SUBMIT button. I thought I was clear enough but nonetheless...
If you can call me dude, can I call you son? I've read your posts. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension. It would have been quite impossible for me to read your post and quote you before you hit the SUBMIT button, but that claim is no less fantastic than some of the others you make here:
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Neo-con, because it is the cry of the neo-conservatives, that all AA, EEOC, MBE, WBE, DBE, programs be eliminated.
Absurd.
Do you not see the difference between Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity legislation?
Let's look at some EEO legislation, beginning with the Act that established the EEOC.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
An Act
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon
the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief
against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney
General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public
facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights,
to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
...
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.
...
(j) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require
any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint
labormanagement committee subject to this subchapter to grant
preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group
on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total
number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for
employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to
membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or
employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison
with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or
other area, or in the available work force in any community, State,
section, or other area.
Did you read that last paragraph carefully?
I'm reading what you write carefully. You're saying that because I advocate the policy that -- let me quote here -- "We hire pilots based on their ability, integrity, and professionalism. Not racial status, or gender." -- I am a neocon, and, therefore, I want to eliminate the above law?
Wrong.
Here's another:
The Equal Pay Act of 1963
(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this
section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such
employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying
wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at
which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority
system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any
other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is
paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage
rate of any employee.
Eliminate that one? Nope.
How 'bout this one:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
PROHIBITION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION
SEC. 623. [Section 4]
(a) It shall be unlawful for an employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or
otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's age;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,
because of such individual's age; or
(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with
this chapter.
Eliminate this one? Nope. Wrong again.
Let's save some time.
Eliminate
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Titles I and V ? Nope.
Eliminate
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Sections 501 and 505 ? Nope.
Eliminate
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 ? Nope.
Now, for the rest of your alphabet. If by MBE, WBE, and DBE you mean Minority Business Enterprise, Women's Business Enterprise, and Minority Business Enterprise, then yes, I'd be in favor of their elimination. Why?
Because they directly contradict the EEOC laws. An employer can't discriminate against a minority, a woman, or the disabled, but they CAN discriminate FOR any of them. That doesn't pass the common sense test.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Yet these programs attempt to correct a system that today is warped and stacked against certain groups as a result of the past artificial manipulation of the workforce and artificial barriers to entrepreneurship.
Second.
1) It perpetuates injustice and exclusion because it makes believe that past injustices did not occur, they had no economic, social impact on those perpetuated against and their posterity.
As far as the EEO laws are concerned, they all recognize injustices, and address them directly. There is no "making believe" that injustices do not occur. Go ahead if you don't believe me, click on the links above and read the text of the laws. Congress recognizes that discrimination based on race is not good, Congress recognizes that discrimination based on gender is harmful, Congress recognizes etc., etc., etc. The claim you make here is simply false.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
2) ...it assumes that there was no social or economic benefit for those who perpetuated these injustices and their posterity. It then goes further, to put complete control of current hiring practices entirely into the hands of the very people, and their posterity, who have benefited from the past injustices.
This was clearly all born out in the first 25 or so years after the passage of the civil right amendment.
I believe (but not sure) it was Lyndon Johnson who said. "You can't keep stacking the deck of cards against someone for 300 years, and then say one day. Okay, Let's all be equal and play fair"
Onfinal
"puts complete control of hiring practices entirely into the hands of" -- nobody. It does NOT put control in ANYBODY's hands. The laws define unlawful hiring practices. Do you think it would be more fair if the law said hiring decisions must now be made only by blacks, hispanics, women, the elderly, and the disabled? 35 year old white males are prohibited from hiring? Have you really thought this out?
I can hardly believe that President Lyndon Johnson would have said such a thing. In the first place, when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the country was not yet 200 years old, much less 300. In the second place, the Act did in no way stack the deck in favor of or against minorities. It attempted to enforce the EQUAL treatment of ALL. Go back and read it. Such a quote would be totally out of character for him, but it sounds like something Jesse Jackson would say.
.