'Adjusting' for race, sex, class, handicap, sex-orientation - Fair or Not?

[Sparkly]

Do you agree with:

1. Affirmative Action in general
2. Equal Opportunity Employment
3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses
4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access
5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation
6. Distinctions for women in combat
7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters
8. Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
10. Publically-funded head-start programs

I know these are different from each other. You can agree with some, without agreeing with them all.

Please give "yes," "no," "other" etc. for each and explain your reasoning. :hi:

[datasuspect]

1. this should be interesting

[Sparkly]

3. Aw, c'mon....

You can answer!

[1932]

2. For the benefit of the entire community,

I think we should help people surmount impediments that prevent them from otherwise making their fullest contribution to society.

[Sparkly]

6. Okay.

Is there a difference between impediments like physical differences and socio-economic circumstances, vs. the impediments of social biases (related to controversies about hate crimes, affirmative action, etc.)? Or not?

[1932]

76. Are there differences? Yes. Obviously. But there's the same imperative to

overcome them.

If you have someone who has all the skills and determination to be the surgeon who's going to save your child's life, you certainly don't want social biases (or some act of violence motivated only by racism) to get in the way of that person reaching his or her full potential.

[sandnsea]

4. State sanctioned discrimination for 400 years

Let's try state sanctioned assistance for 400 years - and talk about how well it works then.

[Sparkly]

7. Does that mean you agree with all? nt

[sandnsea]

9. Means it's a divisive load of shit

that Democrats wade into time and time again. Who cares? This country can afford anything the power elites decide it can afford - so it sure as hell can afford what WE want to afford too. Helping people works and when you can do good, you should.

[Sparkly]

11. Wha??

Do you think Democrats should not address these things? I'm seriously not sure what you're saying.

(Frankly, I think we SHOULD weigh in -- and I agree with your last sentence completely.)

[sandnsea]

14. How does this help???

How does stirring up the animosities that the right wing perpetuates help anything? Maybe we should debate the merits of ending slavery or women voting. I just don't get the point. The only way people have an opportunity for an equal outcome is if the playing field is leveled at the front-end. That will require assistance for generations because the problems developed over generations. It's settled - like social security - so why pretend it isn't.

[Sparkly]

21. "Stirring up animosities?"

I really enjoy arguments and debate here, but the one thing that *I* believe can get in the way is attributing motives to people without justification.

I am NOT trying to "stir up animosities."

I am asking about these adjustments with an idea in my mind, but it's not about "stirring up animosities."

And btw, it's not "settled." Hate crimes, affirmative action, and other so-called "special rights" are STILL controversial.

[sandnsea]

30. Look at the thread

It's shit already and only going to get worse. So yeah, you didn't do anything except stir up animosities.

This stuff is only "controversial" to the kind of people who call them "special rights". Yeah they exist at DU - but I see no reason to give them a platform.

[Sparkly]

33. Um, okay....

I'm really not seeing any problems or animosity rising to the level your posts are showing...

You prefer we only discuss things we all agree on? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

37. I prefer we don't do right wing flame baiting n/t

[Sparkly]

41. LOL

I give up! :rofl:

[whistle]

5. Sure, why not, what do we have to fear from implementing any of

...these? So, yes to all of them. What's the problem with any of them?

[Sparkly]

8. I'm not saying there's any problem!

Just asking. :hi:

[williesgirl]

10. Agree w/handicap parking spaces - if we're lucky enough to be

able to walk farther, then we should in favor of those who can't. It burns me when I see folks with the temp hanging permits meant to help those transporting the handicapped assist them, who obviously don't have the handicapped person or anyone needing assistance with them in the car.

It's hard to answer all of them when you don't have a list in front of you. Too many for this feeble mind to remember!

[sandnsea]

16. Obviously?

Please explain how you know a person's illness by looking at them? You kind of sound like Frist diagnosing folks through a video.

[Ravenseye]

18. You've never seen it?

I was driving with my sister who had her leg crushed in an accident and could barely walk on crutches. A guy pulled into the handicapped spot right before us, and he hopped out, and literally jogged over to the store. Meanwhile we had to park 30 yards away. We passed him on his way back out of the store and he saw my sister on her crutches and you could practically smell the guilt coming off him. I don't generally judge people by how they look, but I do think that those temporary hangers get abused by assholes.

[sandnsea]

26. I've seen my sick mother

Harrassed by people who judged her and left nasty notes on her car - time and time again - because she refused to use a walker or wheelchair until the day she died - because she wanted to spend every minute of her life living it.

So no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who see cheating assholes around every corner. It would sure be a better world if people spent as much time being charitable as they do worrying about some "asshole" cheating them out of a dime or a parking space. I bet you were all in a snit over the Katrina victims having a bottle of champagne too.

[Ravenseye]

29. Wow what crawled up your ass?

I've never harrassed anyone who parked in a spot. Anyone who would leave a note on someone's car because of it, particuarly if they're an older woman, is an ass.

I don't see cheating assholes around every corner, but I don't deny they exist, and Katrina victims can drink as much champagne as they like for all I care.

I bet though that you've made my ignore list.

[sandnsea]

34. This entire thread

And a host of similar threads on DU lately. The constant yanging that somebody might get something they don't deserve - down to stupid parking spaces. My mother had a heart attack when she was 46, so she wasn't an older woman. She was very sick however, it's just nobody could see it from looking at her and that's what I responded to. You jumped in with your antecdote about parking space thieves - and no I've never seen it because I'VE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO than notice who is parking in what space. The pettiness of people - no wonder we've got such a high incidence of mental illness in this country.

[Sparkly]

39. I'm just going to suggest

that you bow out of this thread... I think thoughtful debate can be a great thing, but hostile responses to the very NOTION of the thread -- for whatever reason (?) -- might signal one might best leave it alone and allow others to discuss.... Okay?

[ThomCat]

12. Yes, to all.

1. Because prejudice exists, and pretending it doesn't exist is stupid.

2. Because we need some structured way of countering cronyism and the old boy's network. And we need to counter the normal tendency of those with authority to hire only people like themselves for possitions of authority.

3. Because a lot of people get arbitrarily ignored, underevaluated or discounted simply because they aren't white men. And some people are blatant bigots. Preferential contracts help counter that.

4. Because otherwise a lot of people like me are stuck at home. My ability to participate in the normal routines of public life is certainly worth the minor inconvenience of a non-disabled person walking an extra 10 feet.

5. Because a mugging is only intended to terrify one person, but a gay bashing (for example) is intended to intimidate a whole community. If you are going to threaten a whole community, then you deserve to pay for it.

6. Women put up with sexism, sexual harrassment, rape, all kinds of abuse. And yet they are out there fighting for the country that does this to them. They not only deserve dintinctions for serving in combat, they deserve purple hearts too.

7. Physical standards were artifically raised as a way of excluding women. If a woman can do the job, then the standards need to be set at a level that makes sure she's fit but don't exclude her because she's a woman.

8. Because prejudice exists, starting at the lowest levels of education. It's foolish to think that all kids who apply for highschool have had the same educational opportunities, or the same treatment while pursuing them. Also, the rich white boy who doesn't get a scholarship is likely to go to college anyway. The poor minority kid isn't. Some grants and scholarships should go where they are most needed.

9. Same as 8.

10. Because head-start has proven to be one of the most cost-effective ways we can help kids. It's not only heartless to oppose a program like head-start, it's economically irresponsible.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. I think we have dramatically different interetations of #6

I read distictions about women in combat as limitations or restrictions (no ground combat unit etc).

WRT to your response, one is not awarded distinctions for for serving in combat, but the (in the case of the infantry) Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB). Women can already receive Purple Hearts.

[Sparkly]

22. Thank you!

I appreciate your thoughtful answer!!

[Solo_in_MD]

13. Since you asked...

1) No, a well meant program grew into quotas and reverse discrimination
2) Yes, if it means colorblind and merit based
3) Yes to small business, no for other set asides
4) Yes
5) No, they are effectively thought crimes
6) No, everyone needs to pass the same standards to do the same job
7) No, everyone needs to pass the same standards to do the same job
8) Yes to socio-economic only
9) Yes, though I am not sure I like it
10) Yes

[Sparkly]

23. Thanks for taking them one by one.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers!

[kiahzero]

58. Hrm.

#1. If there's a quota, it's illegal. You should sue.
#5. Is distinguishing between manslaughter and murder "effectively thought crime?" Intent plays a large part in the law.
#6. So women who can pass the same standards should be allowed to do the same job.
#7. What about when the standard is clearly intended to disqualify women for no good reason?

[Solo_in_MD]

64. Wrm.

1) Most affirmative action programs devolve into de facto quotas, and are rarely means tested or sanity checked. Maybe someone can invent one that doesn't end up that way, but history is against them. Of example, Barrack Obama and a kid from broken home in east LA would have been treated the same way, clearly non-sensical.

5) I agree to a point, but hate enhancement are indeed punishing thoughts...I don't think that is a good precedent. In criminal matters, the issue is malice aforethought that makes the difference. Hate can help establish that, but it should not be used as an enhancement as well.

6) Pretty much, though I assume there are some oddball situations out there where gender preference would be appropriate.

7) Most all standards involved with public safety have been reviewed for job relevance, which is a good thing. However, with jobs like fire fighting, which require a great deal of physical strength, proportional representation is not a reasonable expectation. Another major change has required the ongoing demonstration of fitness, which helps to eliminate the overweight career cop stereotype, which has effectively helped women. Do you have examples of current standards that discriminate against women?

[kiahzero]

73. Well...

1) Class isn't everything. Even rich African Americans suffer from racial discrimination.

5) Hate crimes aren't punishing the thoughts... they're punishing the extra harm from the act that comes from the motive for the attack. I'm not a lawyer yet, but I do know that "malice aforethought" is not the only mens rea consideration in criminal law.

6) Do you have any examples of such an oddball situation? This isn't snark, I'm legitimately curious what you think would qualify.

7) What I was refering to was actually what you just referenced... arbitrary standards that aren't bona fide occupational qualifications (a very carefully chosen phrase... :D), which serve to only to disqualify people on the basis of sex. The example of stringent physical exams for new hires while allowing for overweight career cops comes from an actual Title VII case, and as I recall, it was found to be in violation. No examples come to mind, because employers would have to break the law to be such an example.

[Solo_in_MD]

83. Try these

5) Still not convinced on hate crime enhancements. If a perp assaults and seriously injures someone, I don't think it should matter why, I think they should go away for an extended period. Same thing if someone intentionally kills another person, they should go away for a very long time or maybe never get out. That they hated the victim for some reason to me is not relevant to the punishment, though is fair game for motive. Some of my concerns with hate crime enhancements is the vagueness of how they are written, inadequacy of coverage, and their capricious application to date. The RW has a field day with the latter, and in some cases appear to have a good point.

6) I was actually making allowances that some might be out there, though at the time I posted I could not think of any, and short of things like high fashion model for women's clothes and wet nurse, I still can't. However, I am willing to make the allowance that their could be jobs uniquely suited to one gender or the other, or ones where ADA style accommodation is not realistic (blind airline pilot). Something along the line of never say never...

7) I'm pretty much with you that most of that has been fixed over time, as it should have been. As I stated previously the recurring fitness check imposed by most if not all public safety agencies has nearly eliminated the older obese cop stereotype, and does work slightly in favor of women.

[kiahzero]

90. .

5) Still not convinced on hate crime enhancements. If a perp assaults and seriously injures someone, I don't think it should matter why, I think they should go away for an extended period. Same thing if someone intentionally kills another person, they should go away for a very long time or maybe never get out. That they hated the victim for some reason to me is not relevant to the punishment, though is fair game for motive. Some of my concerns with hate crime enhancements is the vagueness of how they are written, inadequacy of coverage, and their capricious application to date. The RW has a field day with the latter, and in some cases appear to have a good point.

You seem to be missing what I think is the purpose of hate crime enhancements - punishing a more immoral act moreso than a less immoral act (a concept which is already integrated into the law). The law *already* holds that what was on the mind of the criminal is relevant to the punishment... in some cases, the motive might be the only difference between getting executed and getting no punishment at all.

There's also, as I mentioned before, the fact that a hate crime attacks more than just the direct victim - it attacks every other person in the area belonging to the group that was attacked. Lynching didn't just have the effect of killing the one person, it also terrified the other blacks in the area out of living their lives as they saw fit (for fear of being the next victim). The same goes for gay bashing, or attacking Muslims or Sikhs because "they look like terrorists."

6) I was actually making allowances that some might be out there, though at the time I posted I could not think of any, and short of things like high fashion model for women's clothes and wet nurse, I still can't. However, I am willing to make the allowance that their could be jobs uniquely suited to one gender or the other, or ones where ADA style accommodation is not realistic (blind airline pilot). Something along the line of never say never...

The question was dealing with combat jobs. This dovetails nicely with #7 - if it's a BFOQ, and most women can't meet it, that's fine. But there's no BFOQ for you to have a penis to serve in a combat position.

I should point out, also, that if you believe the ADA requires airlines to allow blind people to fly planes, you're mistaken. The ADA only requires "reasonable" accomodation.

[Ravenseye]

15. Ok I'll bite

1) Yes, in general, I agree with Affirmative Action, but it's not a solution, just a stopgap measure.

2) Equal Opportunity Employment. Most definately I agree with. If someone is capable of doing the job it shouldn't matter who or what you are.

3) Preferential Contracts...I'm for them, at least a certain percentage, but there needs to be more oversight, as I've seen them frequently abused.

4) Mandatory Handicapped spaces/access. Mandatory spaces if the lot is a certain size, access though is tricky. Obviously access should be mandatory on all new construction, but it can still be difficult. I can't even imagine how to put in handicapped access to my building. You have to climb essentially two flights of stairs just to get to the door. I'm not sure where you could physically actually build a ramp. There has to be some sort of compromise on older buildings. I just don't know what.

5) Hate Crimes Distinctions/legislation i'm for.

6) Distinctions for women in combat...not sure what this refers to? Should women be allowed in combat? I have no problem with that, they are in other countries. I've read things that women make better fighter pilots than men also.

7) Lowered physical standards for cops and firefighters, i'm not for. I have no problem with a woman being a firefighter or a police officer, but if there is a standard they should meet it. Unless I see evidence showing that overall the base standard for men should be lowered as well. Fits in with number 2. I don't care who or what you are, as long as you're capable of doing the job, but that job can't be redefined in order to get other types of people into it.

8-9) Public and private grants and scholarshipts to X,Y or Z...Yes. Grants and scholarships tend to go to people who need them. There aren't many grants just for white males for a reason.

10) Head start programs. Definately. They help.

[ComerPerro]

19. On 7, it wouldn't necessicarily have to be "lowered", just different

because, equal as we are, men and women have different physical builds.

Requirements that women obviously aren't going to be likely to do as men, like, for example, bench press 2x your body weight, shouldn't be required equally of men and women.

[Ravenseye]

24. Well that's true

The thing is that, correct me if I'm wrong, firefighters in particular need upper body strength to not just carry those heavy ass hoses around, but to pull people out of trapped areas of buildings, etc. I think that if they had a standard and changed/raised it so it would be harder for women to match it, then that's crap, and it should go back to the old level. If however a woman can't match the strength...well then maybe she's not cut out for it.

Heck i'm a man, and i'm not cut out physically to be a firefighter. It's a tough gig and a 5 foot tall woman just doesn't have the same strength as a 6 foot tall man, given simliar routines. It's a job that calls for physical strength. Same as a police officer, but I think there might be less of a restrictions on cops. Firefighters though? They need to be big and strong. Man, woman, ewok. I dont' care.

[ComerPerro]

54. Ewok firefighters are the suck

Almost as bad as Jawa

[Solo_in_MD]

25. I'm for task related standards. For example if you are a firefighter

you are going to have to heft hoses quite some distance up a ladder. That is a reasonable physical requirement directly tied to the job. Genetics tells us that fewer women will be able to accomplish that. I do not see that as unfairly discriminatory.

[ComerPerro]

51. Yeah, that I don't see as discriminatory either. Few people do

its just a talking point RWers use to attack affirmative action

[Sparkly]

28. Thanks for your answers!

All very thought-out. :hi:

[Solo_in_MD]

31. WRT #6 (women fighter pilots)

The comment you made is associated with ability to take G force, and women have a theoretical advantage there. Another interesting item is that shorter people tend to predominate tactical aviation. Larger people do not fit in some cockpits or are too cramped. So from a body perspective, women do have an advantage in tactical aviation. However, there is much more to it. Good pilots generally have a some sort of technical background and a good grounding in math and physics. After the basics are mastered it moves on to thinking in 3D and predicting in 3D. Nothing inherently gender based there, but fewer women have the background or inclination for that kind of thing. Look at the gender distribution of college degrees as well.

Some of the finest military pilots I have flown with were women...and there were not near enough of them.

[Ravenseye]

35. Yeah that was it

G force. Knew it was something.

[ComerPerro]

17. One at a time

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No. This goes too far and could give these groups unfair competative advantages.

4. Yes

5. Distnictions how? I support the idea of hate crimes and treating them more severely.

6. Again, what do you mean by Distinctions?

7. Within reason. They should be scaled to accomodate physical capabilities. For example, women should not be required to do pull-ups or anything like that. An equivilant test could be designed for them.

8. This and 9 have the exact same wording, and Yes to both.

10. Of course

[Sparkly]

32. To your questions

Re #5 (Hate Crimes): the controversy has been about legal distinctions that may separate the same PHYSICAL act into two tiers of crime in a sense... Assaulting or murdering someone because they took over your drug turf, or assaulting or murdering your wife because she left you, are one thing, in this debate; assaulting or murdering someone because they are gay, or Jewish, or black, etc., is violence and a larger threat against a larger group of people and is thus arguably worth punishing more severely.

Re #6 (Distinctions for Women in Combat): women are restricted from serving in many forms of combat. Quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat.

[noamnety]

45. I would argue that assaulting your wife

is pretty damn related to her being a woman, and is not so different from assaulting someone for being gay or Jewish, etc. In other words, assaults against women are systemic, and occur as one class (men) against another class (women). Acting as though the epidemic of violence against women is just a bunch of individual unrelated cases does not address the real issue.

[Sparkly]

48. Yes, we think alike!!!

But as I understand it, that is NOT considered part of the "hate-crimes" argument right now.

(I agree that it should get there -- ABSOLUTELY!!! I thought of it even as I typed it.)

[mongo]

62. You can't add a hate crime specification for a SO.

That would not be a "hate crime" specification, it would be a "domestic violence" specification.

Two different animals. And I supposed if it was applied regardless of gender, that would be OK.

[Sparkly]

65. It's certainly debatable...

In MY view, it's so prevalent as a crime that's man-against-woman (and not the reverse), that I think it could well be classified as a hate crime. I think it IS gender specific.

I realize it's controversial, though.

[mongo]

70. Well seeing how the level of DV is about the same

for gay and lesbian couples, how would ya like to handle that? Is it only a "hate crime" for hetro couples?

----------------------------------
Between 25 percent and 33 percent of relationships between lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender partners include abuse, a rate equal to that of heterosexual relationships, according to a 1998 report released by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). The report documented 3,327 cases of domestic violence in 1997. This number represents a 41 percent increase of domestic violence incidents from 1996.

The NCAVP report also highlights the finding that statutes in seven states exclude same-sex victims of domestic violence from qualifying for a domestic violence protective order. In three additional states, these orders are arguably unavailable. Statutes in only four states make these orders explicitly available to same-sex victims.

Other findings of the report include:

• The number of reports by men (52 percent) and women (48 percent) were essentially equal.

• The programs reporting serve a population of only 47 million, or less than 20 percent of the nation's population.

LGBT domestic violence still appears to be vastly under-reported, and appropriate services in most locations are not available.

http://www.sanctuaryforfamilies.org/les_batt.htm

[Sparkly]

71. Interesting, and I would need to know more.

The stats cite "reports" of abuse in gay relationships, compared with "that of heterosexual relationships" -- with no data I can see for a stat or its standard re: "homosexual relationships."

"Reports" among gay men and women seem relatively equal.

I'm not seeing proof that these are underreported; not saying they aren't.

I could EASILY believe that services aren't available, and that some states, as you cited (if not MORE), discriminate in response. The whole country, as a whole, discriminates in seeing GLBT relationships as relationships.

[mongo]

89. I'm sure that LGBT domestic violence is at least as underreported

as DV in hetro couples. There just are not resources out there for queers, especially gay men, who would have to fear further discrimination/degredation when going to the police.

The stats cite "reports" of abuse in gay relationships, compared with "that of heterosexual relationships" -- with no data I can see for a stat or its standard re: "homosexual relationships."

Huh? I thought this stat covers that:

Between 25 percent and 33 percent of relationships between lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender partners include abuse, a rate equal to that of heterosexual relationships

[noamnety]

80. It would be handled like any other hate crime

White violence against blacks is a hate crime. Black violence against blacks is not a hate crime, even though the individual crime itself may be just as vicious, and regardless of whether white against black violence is higher or lower than black against black violence.

[mongo]

87. If a white woman beats her black husband

is that a hate crime?

And are you saying that if in the course of a home break-in, someone kills the black homeowner, even
though the white perp had no idea who lives in the house, that it's a hate crime?

If a man mugs a woman in an alley, is that a hate crime? Or just a way for him to get his next hit of crack?

Calling a particular type of DV (when the victim is a woman SO), a hate crime when the motivation has nothing to do with an intent/hatred of a CLASS of people is ridiculous. We can only assume that the two parties were friends/lovers once.

Now, I can see adding a hate crimes spec. to certain patterns of crime -- say a serial rapist, or a mugger who ONLY targets women.

[noamnety]

96. I'm saying it's like any other hate crime

You are asking a bunch of different scenarios about hate crimes in general, and I am not going to go through every permutation of what constitutes a hate crime. I'm saying this should be decided in the same way (same method) as those are resolved.

[ComerPerro]

53. gotcha. That's what I figured you meant on 5, Hate Crimes

and I am definately for that.

as for 6, women in combat, I don't know, I'm undecided.

[Sparkly]

66. That's fair, too!

:hi:

[BrotherBuzz]

27. Just as long as I'm treated fairer than anyone else...

I'm good to go with all the above. :hi:

[ThomCat]

36. Delete

Posted in the wrong place. :)

[ThomCat]

38. A comment on "Color Blind"

because someone brought it up.

Color Blind seems to mean, "we won't pay any attention to the cumulative affects of racism that people have already faced in their lives." That goes against the whole concept of having a program to oppose the effects of racism.

Color blind programs effectively say, "we'll take the results that we're given, even though we know they're stacked by racism, and use those results to make all decisions." The program itself might not be racist, but it rewards all racism that came before it. It doesn't stack the deck, but it allows people to get away with stacking the deck in advance.

I don't want any program to reward prior racism. I want programs to look at racism through intelligent eyes and not only counter racism now, but also mitigate the harmful effects racism has already had.

I say this as a white man. Color Blind programs do not counter racism. They reward racism in a less obvious way. And because of this, they don't help fight racism.

[Sparkly]

43. Thanks -- that goes to much of what I'm thinking about here...

It's a matter of "what is" vs. "what should be," imho.

What IS: racism, sexism.

What SHOULD be (and one day MAY be): color-blind, gender-neutral society.

[pinto]

47. Thanks for clarifying the point/purpose of your original post.

[Sparkly]

49. I really didn't think my motives would be suspect, but...

I'll post further, below.

[pinto]

50. It's a big board, as you know. Clarity always pays off. I've been

misread at times, when I thought I was *crystal* clear. LOL.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

75. IMO "color blind" = continued unearned privileges for white males

Outside professional athletics, what jobs get assigned strictly on objective "merit"? "Color-blind, gender-blind", etc is a diversion from most of what really goes on in the world. See journalism prof Robert Jensen's classic rant on this at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm .

The "color blind" ideal would be Ward Connerly's world of fantasy, in which it would be illegal for government even to keep track of race, sex, etc. Thus nothing ever could be done peacefully about the ten-to-one racial disparity in young men's incarceration rates, the two-two-one racial disparity in unemployment rates, and similar huge racial disparities in entrepreneurship, child poverty, assets, high school graduation, collegegoing, etc.

Little-noticed changes in Federal data collection already have put us on the road to Connerly's utopia. It is quite difficult, for example, to compare Census racial data from the 2000 Census to data from previous decades.

[Sparkly]

78. Hey...

I couldn't agree more.

In my view, this is a discussion of what IS vs. what SHOULD BE.

And as those are separate things, policy should acknowledge that those are separate things.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

79. My question for you is, "Fair" to whom?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

93. And why do people say "color-blind" rather than "disadvantage-blind",

and then lump together many other underrepresented groups with people of color? (I realize YOU did not use the term "color-blind" in your OP).

Why does "disadvantage-blind" sound so self-contradictory, while "color-blind" seems less of an oxymoron for social policy?

[ThomCat]

81. I think you an I agree exactly.

:)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

92. And I agree with all the posts of yours i've read here, esp #12 and #38

A huge industry has developed in this country, to serve the needs of employers, universities, and other institutions who have a common interpretation of their antidiscrimination tasks:

"We want to be able to SAY we practice nondiscrimination, but we don't want to CHANGE our admission, hiring, promotion, etc. to any significant extent."

For example, I see showy ramps for the disabled everywhere, but rarely do I see people in wheelchairs going up or down those ramps. Most institutions seem willing to invest a lot more in the infrastructure to seem to accomodate under-represented groups than in actually recruiting and actually hiring them.

One question for you: Do the disabled, women, immigrants, and other under-represented groups frequently make common cause with African-Americans and Native Americans? Why is the terminology for slyly continuing to advocate unearned privileges for the powerful still "color-blind" rather than "disadvantage-blind", "physical-ability-blind", "gender-blind", etc? Have women and the disabled benefited to the same extent as African-Americans from the fight for equality, and contributed just as much effort toward the common goal of full representation in every facet of society? Why are African-Americans still the "whipping boy"?

[BlooInBloo]

40. yyyyyynyyy

EDIT: And just to add fuel to the fire: while I agree wholeheartedly with the goals of Title IX, I disagree with the way it attempts to achieve those goals. But only on practical grounds - not on moral grounds.

[Sparkly]

44. Thanks, Bloo

I appreciate your thoughts about gender issues. So please tell me about your one "no" and your disagreements with the practical enactments of Title IX? (Not a rhetorical question!) :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

52. IMO, what's required for a public safety job is...

what's required for a public safety job. Anyone who is capable of performing those actions can have the job, and anyone who can't, can't. There's not room, imo, for substantially lessened requirements when peoples' lives are at stake. A girl who can do the job, should get the job. A boy who can't, shouldn't.

On Title IX: The most important goal to be attained is equal collegiate scholarship opportunites for girls and boys. A most excellent goal. I think the implementation fails in the de facto requirement that girls play largely the same sports as boys - even most of the "different" ones are actually just variations of boys' sports.

What's important about my use of the term "boys' sports" is NOT anything ownership, "no girls allowed", or anything of the sort. What it means is that those games were designed BY boys FOR boys - and for boys at a certain stage of physical development. It isn't surprising that people who aren't in the "target practictioner" demographic - girls, most notably, aren't especially adept at them (by comparison with the "target practitioner demographic"). While boys and girls are intellectually on a par, and morally as valuable as one another, they differ substantially physically. On average, there are lots of things of a physical nature that the one gender is better at than the other. To shoehorn one gender into physical activities that are - typically - designed for the other, is just silly - and tangentially has a negative effect on public perception of the laudable goal of equal-scholarship-access-to-college.

Girls' bodies differ substantially from boys'. It's a travesty that medicine took so damn long to treat those differences seriously. Boys play sports that showcase their athletic gifts - and those gifts are not generally the same as girls' athletic gifts. I think the idea of Title IX would be better implemented by having girls come up with sports that are designed by them, for them, showcasing their athletic strengths - and then fully funding scholarships, recruiting, and what-not for those.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least, as a potential broader benefit, if girls' sports in general became of cross-gender broad spectating interest, as a result of such a development.


It'll now be amusing to watch people go apeshit, putting words in my mouth, and deceitfully claim I said things I didn't say.

[Sparkly]

61. No wonder we agree on so much else!!

(Not to say we'll always agree on everything, BUT!)... THANK you for that explanation!!

I'm not into sports, so I never thought of any of it quite that way. What you said makes perfect sense to me, and seems in no way inherently discriminatory.

(Is some part of the issue the variance between money raised by boys'/girls' sports, both in HS and college, or not?)

Just a couple of stories (not as grand examples of anything, just anecdotes and totally OT):

I was in high school AFTER Title IX, and my one exception to "not into sports" was becoming a good softball player just from playing in the neighborhood every night in reasonable weather, until dark. I'm not sure what suddenly caused us to have gym right BESIDE the boys all the time, but that suddenly occurred. In softball, they got an actual field, and we got some stupid area of grass where any hit past 3rd base went down a hill and was an automatic homerun. Worse, we had the boys' worn-out gloves (unthreaded) and balls (covers falling off).

I'm not sure what was in my blood in those days (plenty of "MS Magazine" and not enough put-downs yet, perhaps) but I marched up to my female gym teacher and demanded my rights to play with the boys! She conferred with the male gym teacher, they looked at me, all the girls AND boys stared, and the male teacher apparently agreed.

So I went up to bat with the boys, who all moved infield, laughing and taunting and being fake-complimentary, for lack of a better term (talking about my looks, but in a way that was still demeaning and jeering).

I hit a triple. (It probably wouldn't have been a triple if they hadn't been stupid enough to move in!) But the looks on their faces, and the silence afterwards, was PRICELESS. I made my point, and that was enough.

Then, we had to swim, and had a male teacher. We had to wear these horrible green bathing suits with no elastic left, so they rode up our butts; and the teacher required us to do the "frog" (?) and breast-stroke lying on the tile outside the pool, over and over... Needless to say it was VERY uncomfortable. I learned that if I said, "I can't swim today" when he took attendance *implied* I had my period, and he'd let it go, so I could just watch. ("Period" was never stated! So thinking like a little lawyer, "I can't swim today" could have meant "I have a cramp in my toe," right?)

At the last class of the semester, he called me to him: "Miss D...! You either have a severe physical problem, or you've been avoiding requirements to swim! If you do not swim today, I will give you an 'F' in this class!" I asked, "Does that mean that if I DO swim today, you will NOT give me an 'F' in this class?... There's a difference." He looked unsure of what to say. "Uh, yeah."

So I swam. And on my report card, sure enough, the bastard gave me an "F" -- the ONLY "F" I ever got in my LIFE.

Next semester, I found out cheerleaders got out of gym for being "physically active." I argued with the administration that ballet students were just as athletic as cheerleaders if not more so, and got out of gym class for the rest of high school.

[philosophie_en_rose]

42. Yes, Yes, Maybe, Yes, Yes, Maybe, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

1. Yes: Affirmative Action in general
2. Yes: Equal Opportunity Employment.
3. Maybe: Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses
4. Yes: Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access
5. Yes: Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation
6. Maybe: Distinctions for women in combat
7. Yes: Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters
8. Yes: Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
9. Yes: Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
10. Yes: Publically-funded head-start programs

1. Affirmative Action is more than quotas or token programs. It simply means casting a wide net, challenging current practices, and considering diversity in the workplace/ school/ etc as a whole.
2. Of course.
3. Proposals from minority and women applicants should be included at every level of consideration, but have to also be effective.
4. Why not? It harms no one to have these spaces, and truly helps those that need them.
5. If your object is to hurt someone because they belong to a group, it should be considered. Intent and mental states are a huge part of criminal law.
6. Women are just as strong as men. I know many determined women that could easily do as well in combat as any man. However, I also don't think that anyone's life should be threatened for the sake of appearances.
7. There are too many fat officers for me to take the academy's physical requirements seriously. It doesn't take the Incredible Hulk to be in law enforcement.
8. See Auntie Pinko's excellent essay on this topic.
9. Id.
10. Head Start is an amazing program. It's shameful that it's not available to all young children.

[Sparkly]

46. Thanks for your thoughtful reply

:hi:

[Sparkly]

55. Thanks for your responses -- not sure why the post raised controversy....

These really are matters of debate. Those who answered fully and thoughtfully SHOWED that they are areas for debate.

Within each response, I think there was consistency. One seemed to emphasize pragmatic concerns in some areas, and another based one "no" on a practical concern; other "no's" had to do with fairness (excess advantage) and another asked fairly for clarification. Another was a clear "all yes."

In my mind, the differences among these have to do with inherent "disadvantages" if you will -- physical limitations, socio-economic limitations, etc. Others are about SOCIETAL biases -- and ways of making up not just for past injustices, but also for CURRENT prejudices and the unequal burdens they create.

(Personally, for whatever it's worth, my answer is "yes" to all.)

It was the "Debra LaFave" debate that got me thinking about this. The MAIN argument against my proposition that the effects of the case are not easily-reversed by gender was that it's "anti-feminist" to suggest that things aren't all equal. (As if the whole fight is simply to be "treated equally," period.)

And that, to me, seemed like the same argument that rightwingers use against affirmative action (as I said in that thread). It's "racist" to treat blacks and other minorities "differently," they claim! It's "sexist" to treat women "differently," goes the argument!

It's the argument against a definition for "hate crimes." ("All murder is hate," they say!) It's the argument against women-owned business advantages. ("Equality means being treated equally," they rant!) Other matters of "preferences" I listed could be considered from an entirely different perspective (inherent differences, apart from the difference of societal biases).

Why some people are SO uncomfortable with discussions of these issues, I have no idea.

[kiahzero]

56. Here goes

1. Yes. Affirmative Action makes up for the parts of our society which still discriminate based on bigotry. When the level playing field is a reality, then we can reevaluate.

2. Absolutely. EEO is all about not discriminating againt people because of factors irrelevant to their actual work. The only way you could oppose that is if you are somehow bigoted.

3. Yes, for the same reasons as #1. These contracts make up for ties between government and companies which benefitted from discrimination in the past (leveling the playing field).

4. Yes - handicapped people have as much a right to participate in civil society as non-handicapped people.

5. Yes - when you commit a "hate crime," you're not only hurting the person you're directly attacking, you're striking fear into their community. Thus, the punishment should be higher.

6. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean women not being able to serve in combat zones, it's a ridiculous outdated policy that prevents women from serving to their ability, as well as working against their careers in the military.

7. No, unless the standards are not a bona fide occupational qualification. If you need to carry a body down a building, you need to do it whether you have a Y chromosome or not. With that said, the standards should be set to the level necessary to do the job, not arbitrarily picking a level that disqualifies most women.

8. Yes, for the same reasons as #1, so long as they're for the disadvantaged, and not grants to "persecuted" majorities.

9. See #8.

10. Absolutely. How could you be against this?

[Sparkly]

67. Thanks

As a general rule, check wiki for a concise explanation. (Women in combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat)

Your answer to #8: Who would be "persecuted majorities?"

[sweetheart]

57. Is it a white man tax yet?

I'm for achieving equal pay through transparency by requiring all companies to publish
their pay details in terms of all the criteria you just mentioned, so that racists
pay policies can be punished given honest media reporting those truths....

I don't jive with quota thinking, its economically prohibitive, better to simply use
the checkpointing power of an informed public.

[ThomCat]

59. Except, that requires a level of transparency

that doesn't exist. And it's a level of transparency that cannot be required of corporations. Your idea would be ideal, but this is not an ideal situation. So some other solution that works has to be found.

So far, nobody has proposed a workable solution that is better than affirmative action.

[sweetheart]

94. Why is it not workable?

As part of filing their accounts, the state can require that "C" corporations disclose pay
aggregate statistics, average pay by male, female, by race, by immigration status, number of
different pay grades and what their composition is. Given the financial transparency, already
required, this is not statistically challenging for anyone with a spreadsheet, why is asking
that be disclosed not a simpler fix than a tax and a government department. What's wrong
with a proactive lighter touch government?

[mongo]

60. OK, I'll bite

1. Affirmative Action in general
Yeah, because overall it does more good than harm, although sometimes it keeps the best candidate from being hired.

2. Equal Opportunity Employment
Oh hell yeah. It is a basic right for all to be treated fairly.

3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses
Up to a certain point. There should be some caps and breaks in place to keep us from paying too much more for a particular service because the company is minority/women owned. (Is this the way it is now?)

4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access
Yes, for a new building, or substancial remodel of a property. I know that I would not be in the building I am in, if they building department had required me to make our employee bathroom HC accessible. It would have been way too cost prohibative. Same with the post office in the small town I live in. They would require a 100' ramp to make it HC accessible.

5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation
Advocating violence is already illegal under most states menacing laws. So, I am against laws calling speech a "hate crime". However, I am all for adding penalties to other crimes if the crime is racially/gender/orientation motivated.

6. Distinctions for women in combat
Yeah -- women in the army are being mistreated today.

7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters
Nope. Fair's-fair and a standard that is based on the ability to do a job should stick.

8. Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Hell yeah. I support free college for every American. It would be the best way for our best and brightest young people to rise to the top of society.

9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Yeah, see #8.

10. Publically-funded head-start programs
Hell yeah. For every American -- although we need to really target the socio-economicly disadvantaged -- to end the cycle of poverty in America.

Going to get the trash together and go home after a long day in a bit, so that is why I won't be answering any replies in a timely mannor.

[Sparkly]

68. Thanks, Mongo

And just for once your home...

Your answer to #5 -- Adding penalties is one distinction for "hate crimes" (although the Chimp chuckled in a debate with Gore about this, as he spoke of the death penalty for men who'd horrifically killed a gay man, dragging him behind a truck -- claiming it made no difference). So in part it's about further penalty, but in part it's also about hatred against groups as a whole, and government language about that holding a real message, with meaning, to the rest of the country.

Your take on #6 may relate to your answer to #7, or not... I've found, in this discussion, there's common misunderstanding of government restrictions on women in the military. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat.

Thanks for your thoughts! :hi:

[mongo]

86. You're right

I didn't get what you meant by #6, the women in Military question.

But #6 & #7 give me mixed feelings. I can see where a different standard for women job applicants may be necessary, but that still makes it horribly unfair.

[MelliMel]

63. Ok, I'll play.

1. Affirmative Action in general - YES

2. Equal Opportunity Employment - YES

3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses - To a point. If there is only set amount given each year, and certain groups get them, doesn't that undo the whole purpose of EQUALITY?

4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access - Yes because of equal access.

5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation - Yes, but let's not go so far as speech codes on campuses. Wait, too late.

6. Distinctions for women in combat - How so? Are women currently in combat arms positions? If so, don't the receive the standard decorations?

7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters - NO. Sorry, but if you want to be a firefighter, you should have to be able to haul 150lb dead weight bodies around. Make a standard that is reasonable, and stick to it regardless of sex.

8. Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other; - Yes and no. This sometimes creates more animosity than it seeks to cure.

9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other; - Yes.

10. Publically-funded head-start programs - Yes.

[Sparkly]

69. You hit on several things I've been thinking about.

What you said in #3, is something it SEEMS others on DU believe (in other conversations) but can't quite say in this context. I like your honesty! In my view, it's the crux of the whole issue.

About equality: To what extent do we act AS THOUGH social equality were a fact? And to what extent does it make sense to claim that treating people equally is the way to their social equality?

(Again, as I said above: this is partly coming from responses to another thread about gender differences in our society, and counter-claims that it's anti-feminist - and worse - to treat women as anything other than equal.)

Your answers are interesting because you seem to see a possible "no" for government contracts favoring women/minorities, yet also a possible "no" for practical considerations for #7.

(#8 -- I don't think it's about animosity or quelling it, really.)

Thanks for your thoughtful answers! :hi:

[The Straight Story]

72. My Answers

Do you agree with:

1. Affirmative Action in general
- Partially. I agree with the idea but the implementation has been a mess. I know of a case I have first hand knowledge of where a minority employee is suing the company for a second time for discriminating against them (thrown out the first time). One of the worst employees and they cannot get rid of the person (especially now they tell me due to the law suit). A few layoffs may be coming soon due to restructuring and this person will get a free pass and better people tossed.
- Another case I was involved with myself years ago, an employee allowed an inmate to escape. Their punishment for this was a promotion, whereas a fellow employee was fired over using too many sick days even though they had written dr excuses for each time.
- FEAR of lawsuits is driving companies to make bad decisions. So while I am IN FAVOR of affirmative action as a concept, I think it needs a lot of reform.


2. Equal Opportunity Employment
Yes - but again, implementation can be tricky. Reform is not bad.

3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses
For - but one might note that bigger companies can bankroll start ups for these and use people they know as the figure head. Does it happen? Probably, but I have no direct knowledge of such.

4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access
No - except for certain sized businesses. Our local gas station has 5 spots in front of the building, one is handicapped and I have yet to see a car there. When they are busy people have to sit and idle or park in crazy ways/spots. Anything over X feet away from the entrance may work (and on that example, the Handicap spots at Wal-Mart are further from their entrance than any spot at all on the entire property of the gas station.
Maybe the law is already written that way, I didn't bother to check :)

5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation
No- just plain tough laws. Kill someone with malice (ie, not accidental, etc) you go bye bye. For good.

6. Distinctions for women in combat
I don't know enough to have an opinion.

7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters
If lowered for one then should be all. So males who are not as capable as their peers would qualify as well.

8. Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Yes.

9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Yes, even when we don't like em. It's private so free to choose.

10. Publically-funded head-start programs
Yes.

[Jed Dilligan]

74. Handicap? Can we please say disability?

Handicaps are for horses.

BTW I'm for everything you mention except 6, which I don't understand.

[Sparkly]

77. Yes

But to some, "disability" implies "inability," and that is resented. "Differently-abled" has been suggested. Whatever the best, agreed-upon term is, I'm happy to use it -- and I've thought about it a lot!

My Dad was fine with "handicapped."

I've thought about it from my POV. I'm built like a basic ballerina -- virtually no upper-body strength for lifting (and when I do, people literally SCREAM about how I do it). So when it comes to bringing in cartons of soda and such, I'm relatively "handicapped," or "unable," or "disabled," or "incapable," or something...

It's not the equivalent, but I've thought a lot about what term best respects people with physical limitations. Is "disability" really best? (I thought "handicap" implied "I am ABLE, otherwise!")

Whichever is the best term of respect is the term I'll use! :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

82. LOLOLOL!!

[Nye Bevan]

85. Physically challenged? (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

84. Disagree with (5)- hate crimes legislation

If someone attacks a black man to rob him, or for kicks, he should be punished just as severely as someone who attacks a black man because he hates blacks.

Punish the crime. Not the thought.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. ..

1. Affirmative Action in general

Of course. Racism is very much alive. Anybody who doesn't realize it is living in some sort of dream world.

2. Equal Opportunity Employment

Of course.

3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses

Yup. Same as #1.

4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access

Yes, and I wouldn't want to be in the same room with somebody who disagrees.

5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation

Yup. Motive is important in criminal law. There are plenty of crimes where it's already taken into account.

6. Distinctions for women in combat

I guess it depends on the role. You don't need to be a man to push buttons and pull triggers. Furthermore, it looks like women in combat work just fine with other countries. Israel for example. I haven't heard a good reason why women shouldn't be in combat.

7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters

Sure. See above.

8. Publically-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;

Yup, same as 3.

9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;

Yup, same as 8.

10. Publically-funded head-start programs

Of course.

[CBGLuthier]

91. I agree with the nine I understand

No idea what number 6 means.

My reasons are varied, but making up for hundreds of years of oppression is a good part of them.

And I am not sure why you would have number 4. Is there anyone on DU who doesn't think that there should be reserved parking for those with different needs, rather it be room to get their chairs out or just being close so the walk does not kill them?

[William Bloode]

95. Let's see.

1. Affirmative Action in general
Yes, because racism is very real and needs some checks and balance.

2. Equal Opportunity Employment
Not really in theory, but it may be needed. I once temped for an hour at a place that openly and proudly asserted they would not hire any one but whites, thus the reason for the it may be needed comment.


3. Preferential Government Contracts for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses
No, because no one should get preferential treatment. Then again i may be arguing semantics of language.


4. Mandatory handicapped parking spaces/access
Yes, because it's not preferential treatment but a question of hardship. Example is i with my messed up back, and often using a walker say it's harder on folks like me (or worse off) to get from the front in, than for the healthy to walk from farther.

5. Hate Crimes distinctions/legislation
No, as i see any violent crime done intentionally as a hate crime, no matter of race, sex, or gender preference. Not to mention there are just about more reasons to hate people than these narrowly defined terms.


6. Distinctions for women in combat
If they earn it they deserve it.


7. Lowered physical standards for women as law enforcement officers or firefighters
Yes, and no. Some positions may require a certain amount of strength or endurance to be effectively performed. Yet in cases where it may not be a danger to anyone else, and they could perform the job effectively i have no problem with it. Also a note that i would have no problem serving on the front line with a well trained female. Todays military is more about technique, and training, and less about brute force.

8. Publicly-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Yes, because it pays off in the end. it helps end the cycle of poverty, and may make generations of middle class tax paying citizens.

9. Privately-funded grants and scholarships giving preference to race, sex, socio-economic disadvantage, other;
Yes, mostly because a person should be able to spend their money as they wish.


10. Public ally-funded head-start programs
Yes, great for underprivileged kids, helps get them a head start on school that they may not have otherwise have had. It also mitigates some of the advantage of families with more wealth, who an afford to provide this for their own children.


My only real problem with anything of this sort is my tendency not to see people in any narrow sort of way. When i see a man/woman i always strive to see a man/woman, not a black man, or a gay man/lesbian, etc.

[ck4829]

97. Here's what I think

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes, but only if the person is convicted on other charges as well.
6. Yes.
7. No.
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. Yes.