Hippiekinkster
Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
Well, Kirata, does this work for you?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A9649C8B63
It is always a mistake to attribute malice to what may simply be circumstances. It is possible that the practice arises from an unfortunate reality. Processing applications and conducting interviews takes time and costs money. To select applicants from a demographic that experience has shown more likely to satisfy the company's need for qualified employees with the minimal allocation of search resources is simple business sense. It reflects the company's fiduciary responsibility to its investors, not "racism". Um, you did read it, right? SO you got that the same results obtained in both Chicago and Boston, right? And that the resumes were randomized so that no single employer recieved two identical resumes, and that the first names were randomly assigned? You got all that, right?
"Their most alarming finding is that the likelihood of being called for an interview rises sharply with an applicant's credentials -- like experience and honors -- for those with white-sounding names, but much less for those with black-sounding names. A grave concern is that this phenomenon may be damping the incentives for blacks to acquire job skills, producing a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates prejudice and misallocates resources. "
Processing applications takes the same amount of time regardless of the names of the applicant. That the employer is selecting a certain 'demographic" - you know, that's a weasel word; let's call it what it is, RACE (and I dislike that word, too, but for a different reason) - because that employer believes a name can be directly correlated with the applicant's race, is illegal.
Circumstances, my ass.
quote:
But okay, let's go with the worst. Every group that has made a life in these United States was perceived as different at first; and not just perceived to be, they were; different cultures, different values, different languages. They were neither known nor trusted; they were discriminated against; and as soon as one of their number committed a crime, they were seen as a problem. But they all had the motivation, perseverance, and sweat it takes to stand together and become a proud part of this country. Trying to compare a group of people who came to the US chained in holds of slave ships and kept in bondage for over two hundred years, and then legally discriminated against for another hundred years, and now discriminated against illegally for the last 40 years, with people with pink skins who came to the US voluntarily and blended in with the existing ruling class, is dishonest and disingenuous.
quote:
Furthermore, blaming whites as a class is particularly offensive. It was a bunch of those white folks who outlawed slavery in this country, and poured buckets of their blood into the earth to make it stick. No thanks are necessary, but you could stand to lighten up a bit there. Most of whom were drafted to fight the South, who poured buckets of THEIR blood into the ground trying to keep blacks in chains. Sorry, dude, that dog don't hunt. If the truth offends you, too bloody bad.
< Message edited by Hippiekinkster -- 3/22/2008 9:06:34 PM >
|
RE: Interesting Quotes from Obama's Pastor - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread