General discussion


Vote to end discrimination coming

By jdclyde ·
Language of the ballot proposal:

"A proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit The Universisty of Michgan, and other State Universities, The State, and all other state entities from descrimination or granting preferential treatment based on Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin."

This was put on the ballot by the MCRI, Michigan Civil Rights Inititive. Required to get it on the ballot is 350,000 valid signitures. Over 500,000 signitures have been submitted and over 400,000 of them have been verified.

Controversy. The activits group BAMN, "By Any Means Necessary" is claiming fraud and misrepresentation, dispite having shown no proof of this.

Part of the claim is that people were confused by the "Civil rights" in the MCRI name to mean something that it isn't. MCRI is for Civil Rights for ALL citizens of Michigan.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has forwarded the unfounded complaint on to the "Michigan Civil Rights Commission" for review dispite the fact that this board has been an outspoken opposition to the MCRI. She had also admitted in an interview that she didn't think there was anything the MCRC could do about this, as far as removing this proposal from the ballot.

Is this good legislation? After what point is reverse discrimination not a good thing anymore for a civilization? Because of past discriminations, how long should future discrimination continue?

When did "Civil rights" not apply to everybody equally, and when should it start?

NOTE: This does not remove anti-discrimination from the books, it just will make it apply to everyone INdiscriminately so NO ONE could be discriminated against based on WHAT they are.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

88 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I am not advocating discrimination in any way.

by faradhi In reply to Not up on that, but

What I am saying is that the thing that happened to your mother must be corrected. That is what Affirmative Action was intended to do. It was never Intended to be used the way it is now.

There must be some leveling device. If you don't like the term Affirmative Action, call it something diffrent. Right now there is none, even with affirmative action.

Collapse -

Womens rights was not the purpose

by jdclyde In reply to I am not advocating discr ...

of affirmative action. It got lumped in to the mix, but it was to "level the playing field" for the black community and is primarily what it has been used for.

Alledged "affirmative action" was about putting people into positions, not to open the glass ceiling.

ANYTIME you give preference to one group, you are discriminating against everyone that is not a part of that group.

It is also not preferential treatment that is required to get pay equality, but enforcement of ANTI-discrimination laws. Completely different beast.

Collapse -

Until the proportions are equal

by faradhi In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

there must be a way for those who have been and STILL ARE being discriminated against to have a level playing field.

Your story about your mother is a classic example of discrimination that is still occuring on the basis of Sex or Race. When that stops then you can call for an end to Affirmative Action.

Again, the way Affirmative Action is applied is broken. The idea is still needed.

Collapse -

Not what it does or ever will do

by jdclyde In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

The alledged "affrimative action" does not help women get equal pay not equal treatment. That is what anti-discrimination laws are for!

Affrimative action is not an anti-discrimination act as it does NOTHING to stop discrimination against minorities of any kind. All it does is put quotas on hiring that you have your token minority regardless of their skills and qualifications. Doesn't do ANYTHING for equal pay or your wife wouldn't have the lower pay than her co-worker as affirmative action has been in place for a LONG time now.

Someone fed you a bill of goods.

Collapse -

I am not disagreeing that the way affirmative action..

by faradhi In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

Is applied is broken and messed up.

However If a company is in a city that has a population breakdown of 60% black, 30% White, and 10% other, then the employee pool should be somewhat representative of that demographic breakdown. In the county I am in, the breakdown is like that. Yet the employee breakdown is the reverse 70% white, 20% black and 10% Other.

I am not saying they have to be exact. But 50-50 would be a start.

Again, the current system is broke. But I still think there is a need of SOMETHING.

And you keep talking about those Anti-discrimination laws. How did they help your mom or my wife?

Collapse -

Like I said

by jdclyde In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

anti-discrimination laws still have "burden of proof", which is a hard thing to over come sometimes.

Affirmative action was meant to get minorities a foot in the door in schools and the work force. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for break down of the work force, are you telling me you work for a racist? Or are you telling me that the majority of qualified applicatants were not black? Which of those two is it? They either intentionally chose NOT to hire the local black workers OR the local black workers did not apply for a job there. I would feel uncomfortable working in a place that does the first option. As long as you do your job well, I am very color blind.

Note, there are NO black workers in my office, but I don't recall seeing any black people that even live in this small city. But even with that, many jobs are filled through "temp" organizations. Maybe it is the TEMP organization that is racist? Or again, you pick the top qualified from the people that APPLY for a job?

Do you really want to see an add in the paper saying "Black people wanted. Call 555-555-5555." What about that 10% "other" group? "wanted, 1 Korian, one hispanic, one martian and two females of any ethnic origin".

That is EXACTLY what "affirmative action" does, they just aren't HONEST enough to come out and say it because they KNOW how wrong that would be to do it in the first place! So the intentionally DISTORT and conceil what they are doing.

Collapse -

Ok you still dont seem to understand my position.

by faradhi In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

Until a company's demographics are consistent with the general population, GIVEN ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL between two applicants, then preference should be given to the applicant that is from a protected group.

If the applicant, who is in a protected group, is NOT qualified then they should NOT be given preference.

This same prinicipal should also apply when considering downsizing.

That is it. Nothing more.

If you disagree with that prinicipal, then I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will give you your right to be wrong. I hope you will give me my right to be wrong.

I still love you man! :)

Collapse -


by jdclyde In reply to Womens rights was not the ...

actually made sence!

I will chalk up the rest of them as a communications breakdown. either you weren't clearly stating what you intended, or I didn't understand what you clearly stated. (I think it was the first one!!!! :^O )

There is a big difference between using this as a TIE BREAKER than to simply say because the black population is 60% then the work population HAS to be 60%.

I think both of our last posts really cleared up where we were both coming from, and I don't have an issue with tie breakers like that, in cases like that.

We agree more than we disagree on this. Better? Peace! B-)

Collapse -

Pay scales

by JamesRL In reply to I disagree

In my organization, a large worldwide company, there are pretty strict rules on pay scales. Every job grade has a range, and new employees are expected to start at roughly the same point in the scale (we bell curve the salary distribution and create quartiles). There can be some negotiations and adjustments to get someone in the door, but the system actually favours bigger raises for those lower on the scale so over time it evens out.

I know our HR team would not allow us to make blatant overpayments or allow such kinds of discrepencies. There is a corporate compensation group that would flag it.


Collapse -

I have worked for companies like that as well.

by faradhi In reply to Pay scales

And that is a good way of doing it. That is in the true spirit of what an "Affirmative Action" program should be.

Back to Community Forum
88 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums