Yes bullshit, given that it predates your birth *and* that timeline. Leaving aside whoppers like "the most unfair system of hiring ever devised."
"Employment equity" has nothing to do with Affirmative Action.
Wrong. "Employment Equity" is what it was called before Kennedy (not Johnson) used the phrase "take affirmative action" and it stuck in the USA. It's also what it's always been called outside the USA.
The former was the establishment of hiring practices that prevented people from being refused a job on any basis other than ability.
Which mysteriously resulted in heavily segregated businesses and professions, for reasons nobody could possibly determine.
Affirmative Action specifically sets quotas on the basis of race -- which, when it was first implemented, resulted in preferential hiring of white people by the then predominantly-black Post Office Department.
It's certainly a blunt force tool to correct the problem, but when there manifestly and undeniably *IS* a problem of hiring discrimination, as shown by a dearth of diversity in a workforce despite a diversity of available workers, a blunt tool that forces you to fix the outcome of your prejudicing hiring processes even if you can't find (or don't want to find) the source of the problem in the first place has proven, historically, to be an effective tool.
Do you also feel that the other desegregation efforts were misguided? If not: Why not? If so: whoo boy.
Ignorance resulting from the abusive school system is not your fault.
Gotta love "the" abusive school system, as if "racism and attempts to correct it in the USA" were something that schools actually dealt with, let alone dealt with poorly. And as if a failure to agree with you could ONLY be caused by indoctrination by sinister authorities out to harm THE CHILDRUUUUN, but you're still only saying it more out of sorrow than anger. All by using "the" instead of "an"
It's a very clever turn of phrase. Why don't you do that kind of thing in your books?
Don't presume to call someone a liar until you have at least some facts on your side
Like the fact that you were an infant when an old concept was given a new name by a President associated in no way with your family? Like you're claiming familial ownership of a concept (aggressive correction of the obviously problematic outcome, even if you can't correct the source of the problem) that long predates you? Like how you're claiming that, because you have childhood memories of your mother saying racist things, that somehow makes the policy of correcting racist and sexist outcomes a racist policy that infantilises non-white people and has made them "dependent" on the less-white-supremacist party?
Look, I realise "Dunning-Kruger posterchild, aggressively ignorant of history" is kind of a *thing* for some of the duller kids in your playgroup, and I know you work very hard to reinforce that over at james_nicoll's place, but please don't bring it in here. You're not very good at it and I'm way less tolerant of nonsense than he is.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-24 10:50 pm (UTC)"Employment equity" has nothing to do with Affirmative Action.
Wrong. "Employment Equity" is what it was called before Kennedy (not Johnson) used the phrase "take affirmative action" and it stuck in the USA. It's also what it's always been called outside the USA.
The former was the establishment of hiring practices that prevented people from being refused a job on any basis other than ability.
Which mysteriously resulted in heavily segregated businesses and professions, for reasons nobody could possibly determine.
Affirmative Action specifically sets quotas on the basis of race -- which, when it was first implemented, resulted in preferential hiring of white people by the then predominantly-black Post Office Department.
It's certainly a blunt force tool to correct the problem, but when there manifestly and undeniably *IS* a problem of hiring discrimination, as shown by a dearth of diversity in a workforce despite a diversity of available workers, a blunt tool that forces you to fix the outcome of your prejudicing hiring processes even if you can't find (or don't want to find) the source of the problem in the first place has proven, historically, to be an effective tool.
Do you also feel that the other desegregation efforts were misguided? If not: Why not? If so: whoo boy.
Ignorance resulting from the abusive school system is not your fault.
Gotta love "the" abusive school system, as if "racism and attempts to correct it in the USA" were something that schools actually dealt with, let alone dealt with poorly. And as if a failure to agree with you could ONLY be caused by indoctrination by sinister authorities out to harm THE CHILDRUUUUN, but you're still only saying it more out of sorrow than anger. All by using "the" instead of "an"
It's a very clever turn of phrase. Why don't you do that kind of thing in your books?
Don't presume to call someone a liar until you have at least some facts on your side
Like the fact that you were an infant when an old concept was given a new name by a President associated in no way with your family? Like you're claiming familial ownership of a concept (aggressive correction of the obviously problematic outcome, even if you can't correct the source of the problem) that long predates you? Like how you're claiming that, because you have childhood memories of your mother saying racist things, that somehow makes the policy of correcting racist and sexist outcomes a racist policy that infantilises non-white people and has made them "dependent" on the less-white-supremacist party?
Look, I realise "Dunning-Kruger posterchild, aggressively ignorant of history" is kind of a *thing* for some of the duller kids in your playgroup, and I know you work very hard to reinforce that over at