Is Affirmative Action driving a wedge between genders?

[love_conquers_lust]

Is it spawning resentment based on unearned privileges being given to them by law. What about between races?

Updates

+1 y

Respondents should disclose their demographics as well, especially leftists. They’re all “I identify this” and “I identify that”. Back it up.

Updates

+1 y

For the record, I myself think it does

[Anonymous]

They already removed affirmative action from colleges why don't you Republicans shut up about it already.

I expect a reply that's accusing me of being a Biden supporter or a leftist with 0 knowledge of my background.

[love_conquers_lust]

They remove race based Affirmative Action in colleges. Gender based still exists in colleges. Race and gender based Affirmative Action still exists in the employment sector. Read Title 34 and 41 of the CFR.

[Drewtate]

Gender based? When more women go to college than men. Crazy.

[Drewtate]

Exactly what a lot of left wing ideology is designed to do

[Soteris]

No. It is just making people that dont get it very, very upset which I think should be televised and distributed for its entertainment value alone.

[love_conquers_lust]

Clarify. Which demographics and what demographic are you?

[Soteris]

No, i dont think i will.

[love_conquers_lust]

Then, we don’t have to listen to you.

[Soteris]

Dont act like you would listen to me in the first place, I am not that stupid to believe that you had an honest intention to engage while asking this question.

[love_conquers_lust]

But you are that stupid to give a biased response which you imply to have a problem with. What do you think the intention was? Cut through the bull shit because I don’t agree with it. I’ve said multiple times in previous posts. This site is littered with bias. So don’t act like this is some objective scientific forum. If you want to debate objectively, I’m more than happy to go down that road.

[Soteris]

So you are attacking me for giving a "biased" response to a very biased question. Well, first of all you were asking for personal opinions so they are literally by definition a personal bias. Secondly, the whole premise of your question does not really make any sense. Affirmative action does not impact other people so only those who want to enforce their wills on others will be "affected" by this and those people who tries to infringe on other peoples freedoms can toss themselves into the sun for all I care.

If you want to have an objective debate then you first need to answer a very simple question. Should the opinions and views of people who can't accept the personal freedoms of others be even considered in the first place?

[love_conquers_lust]

Nope, I’m saying you engaged. So backing out is a copout.

You’re asking how does one tolerate intolerance. Kind if the very nature of bias.

So, cut through the arguments with facts and empirical input to test trueness of premises to determine if an argument is both valid and sound.

Affirmative Action here in the US DOES impact others. It DOES enforce their will on others via targeted recruiting and recruitment goals. It’s positive discrimination, as they coined it. It’s been acknowledged as a proscribed law. The US CFR spells it out for anyone to review.

www.ecfr.gov/.../chapter-60

It explicitly gives order of precedence over the CRA when it verbatim says it does not violate the CRA. So, that pretty much gives them a blank slate to right whatever they want in direct violation of the CRA. It’s letter of the law verse intent of the law, spirit of the law verse execution of the law, de jure verse de facto. This is why our judicial has so much power when our legislative branch passes obscure laws with ambiguity lacking clarifying language.

So, the people who should be tossing themselves in the sun, are the people who endorse this law, by your own logic given TRUE premises.

[Soteris]

Having read through some of the link you posted, I fail to see your point. First of all, its a regulation, not a law.

I mean seriously, to quote directly from the regulation:
"Placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas, which must be met, nor are they to be considered as either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups. Quotas are expressly forbidden. "
"Placement goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they intended to achieve proportional representation or equal results."

This is also a regulation on government contractors, aka who the government chooses to employ in a private capacity. It does not impact the rest of the country. So, are you for or against an organization having the freedom of choosing who they employ even if their criteria may or may not be completely arbitrary?

[love_conquers_lust]

Congress/president passes legislation or writes executive orders which are laws. These laws are then codified by regulatory agencies. Meaning, they expound upon the law to apply it in codes and regulations so it is enforceable. The judicial branch interprets laws, which can be dicey if the law is vague without clarifying language.

Affirmative Action is a proscribed law. It violates the CRA because it discriminates. That’s why they establish precedence by verbatim saying it does not “literally” violate the CRA. This closes the loophole and pretty much gives them free reign to write whatever they want. It does allow quotas or set asides, yet it allows targeted recruiting set by their workforce placement goals. They have to come up with goals and their plan to be potentially audited by the OFCCP. Which I think is very unsettling that the government is not clear in what qualifies as “compliance”, leaving it VERY open to party affiliation and bias as to who the sitting auditors are. Government agencies are predominantly Democrat.

These plans are bundled with government contracts in the billions of dollars. These are not small amounts of change where the government can dictate what a companies workforce should look like.

I’m against it and I think it ironically creates resentment. I can really only speak for myself because I have had experiences where I was outright told I would be discriminated against for job opportunities.

[love_conquers_lust]

I want women to be free to choose whatever career they wish. But not at my expense and oppression.

[Soteris]

The house writes laws, the congress passes them and the president signs them. This however originates from a presidential executive order. That means that the president alone wrote and signed it and it does not hold legal power. It is not a law.

What you linked is also not affirmative action really. It is a bunch of regulations which contains a reference towards affirmative action.

Quite frankly it is becoming clearer and clearer that you do not actually have any idea about what the regulations actually say. Presumably you just heard someone talk about it and decided to either believe their lies if they mislead you or otherwise misunderstood what they said.

[love_conquers_lust]

www.phe.gov/.../ExecOrders.aspx

No, you're being a semantic arguing dickhead who is trying to align their opinion with de jure language while ignoring the de facto results which align with my opinion. How do you like the ad hominem attacks, prick. This is what the judicial branch has to deal with when people try to play with language bouncing between the literal and the figurative because laws don't favor them. People means anyone. Anyone includes you. Anyone includes me. I feel I have to spell shit out for you because you're going to be a pedantic little shit.

You want to play that way?
"The house writes laws, the congress passes them and the president signs them."
matsui.house.gov/.../how-bill-becomes-law

www.archives.gov/.../background.pdf

A bill can be written by anyone. The president can be overwritten. Quite frankly (comma) becoming clearer and clearer that you do not actually have any idea how a law is passed. "Presumably (comma) you just heard someone talk about it and decided to either believe their lies if the mislead you (comma) or otherwise misunderstood what they said." That qualifies you as one such someone; so why should I listen to you by your own mistakes and logic? Let's see if you are brave enough to concede your mistakes.

Fine, we'll call Affirmative Action an order, not a law. A law passes through Congress. And order through the executive branch. BOTH of which are codified for agencies so they can enforce it. It's not Congress going around auditing companies, it's civilians employed by agencies, they weren't elected.

[love_conquers_lust]

"This is also a regulation on government contractors, aka who the government chooses to employ in a private capacity. It does not impact the rest of the country. So, are you for or against an organization having the freedom of choosing who they employ even if their criteria may or may not be completely arbitrary?"

This paragraph is just, assholish. It employs contractors in the private sector, but it doesn't impact the rest of the country? Okaaaay, by " doesn't impact" you're saying building highways, roads, bridges, buildings, cities, infrastructure, military, industry, pretty much any damn thing you can think of doesn't impact us? You're trying to marginalize the issue. The way you try to compartmentalize your statements scream that you support discrimination on the basis of race and gender. If you want that, then fine. Then you shouldn't support the CRA. If you don't, then you shouldn't support Affirmative Action.

plato.stanford.edu/.../#DeseConfDeseMisa

Oh look, it's another someone talking about it and I decided to either believe their lies if they mislead me or otherwise misunderstood what they said. So, I guess someone can only tell lies, and I misunderstood that it was a lie, or it was. Or the implication, or not. Oh it's so confusing. It's not like I can just sit down and listen to someone's opinion, no matter how shitty it is, like yours. Again, are you such someone? What DISqualifies you from being such said someone? How does one make that determination?

Asshole.

[love_conquers_lust]

"For each organizational unit, the organizational display must indicate the following:

(i) The name of the unit;

(ii) The job title, gender, race, and ethnicity of the unit supervisor (if the unit has a supervisor);

(iii) The total number of male and female incumbents; and

(iv) the total number of male and female incumbents in each of the following groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives."

"Purpose.

(1) An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor's progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination."

[love_conquers_lust]

"60-2.15 Comparing incumbency to availability.

(a) The contractor must compare the percentage of minorities and women in each job group determined pursuant to § 60–2.13 with the availability for those job groups determined pursuant to § 60–2.14.

(b) When the percentage of minorities or women employed in a particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability percentage in that particular job group, the contractor must establish a placement goal in accordance with § 60–2.16."

There is nothing in there about Caucasians. Letter, of the "regulation" (not law, not order) verse intent.

My claim is that this "mere" regulation discriminates against white males via positive discrimination.

I'm pulling most of these from Title 41. There are other Affirmative Action programs in the other titles with different variations and what tools are available to them. It is a mountain of information that in itself is a deterrent from getting a holistic understanding of just what the hell it is going on. From what I can tell, they are assuming that by making sure all minorities and women aren't discriminated against, the underlying assumption is that the remainder, white males, are also not discriminated against by default, as if it's complementary. This is not true, in my opinion. I think there are a lot of civilians in the public sector who are not following the CRA.

[love_conquers_lust]

The recent Supreme Court ruling only AFFIRMS what I suspected. It screwed over Asians AND Caucasions. Their basic argument was syllogistic, Diversity good, Affirmative Action get diversity, therefore Affirmative Action good. The justices challenged their premises and the best minds in the country couldn't get past the first question: What is diversity? What does it look like? How do you concretely define it? By what metrics can it be determined? IF, that can be answered, what are the goals? How does one get there? Harvard lawyers could not adequately answer this, because they likely knew any answer violates the CRA. So, the justices threw it out.

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action, and feminism in general, has driven a wedge between the sexes and continues to deepen the gender divide.

[Pohjolan]

Identity politics will by design create opposed identity politics as well.