This Pisses Me Off

Damn True · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by Mocha
By following this practice, are we not faced with the problem of segregation? If nobody took a chance, embraced someone who was different, or hired the "radical" guy, where would we be? Work is work. You're not going to have things in common, or get along with everyone.

Well, that is a sweet sentiment, however, the real world dosen't work that way.

It isn't segregation, it's good business. You don't place someone within a group who you know isn't going to work well within that group.

When I am evaluating applicants, my assesment of how they would blend with the rest of the department is a consideration. I don't know of anyone who does it differently.

It isn't about "getting along" you don't pay people to make friends. It's about the efficiency of a group. If something effects it negatively......

Brian HCM#1 · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
I would venture most people (minorities or otherwise) would rather get a job because it filled a quota, than be unemployed.

Thats not my point, if you needed a major operation where your life was in jeprody do you want the best most qualified Dr. around or the one that they needed to fill that minority spot? To me I can care less if he or she was blue with pink polka dots, qualified is qualified to me.

ohio · Feb 15, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
Thats not my point, if you needed a major operation where your life was in jeprody do you want the best most qualified Dr. around or the one that they needed to fill that minority spot? To me I can care less if he or she was blue with pink polka dots, qualified is qualified to me.

Quick, name a head surgeon who attained their position through Affirmative Action rather than qualifications...

Malpractice is too expensive for the above situation to ever occur.

Damn True · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
Quick, name a head surgeon who attained their position through Affirmative Action rather than qualifications...

Malpractice is too expensive for the above situation to ever occur.

Then why is it ok for fire fighters, cops, Rescue Swimmers, and Jet Fighter Pilots?

The result of their failure is awfully expensive as well.

Brian HCM#1 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Then why is it ok for fire fighters, cops, Rescue Swimmers, and Jet Fighter Pilots?

The result of their failure is awfully expensive as well.

Thanks True for seeing the point I'm trying to make here.

valve bouncer · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Then why is it ok for fire fighters, cops, Rescue Swimmers, and Jet Fighter Pilots?

The result of their failure is awfully expensive as well.
[/QUOTE
I would be interested to see any figures that show people who have gained their positions with the help of AA policies are any less capable at their jobs than people who gained the same position in another way. My guess would be that there is no real difference in job performance. If we indeed find that to be the case don't the arguements against AA policies lose some of their legitimacy?

Damn True · Feb 16, 2003

Well lets start with Lt. Kara Hultgren.

In the early '90s she entered US NAVY flight school in Pensacola FLA.

Flight students undergo rigorous training designed to eliminate those who cannot handle the demands of operating an aircaft. To that end each test wether written or in flight is scored on a go / no-go basis. For the entire duration of the training a pilot candidate is allowed 6 no-go tests. Lt. Hultgren recieved (I don't recall the exact number) 9-12 no-go flights.
Despite this, she was allowed to graduate flight school. The Naval flight training command was under extreme pressure from the media, Congress, and the Senate. Most prominantly Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) of the House Armed Services Committee.
So where was this sub-standard pilot assigned? Something safe like a transport squadron, a P-3 squadron, or hospital flights? Nope. She was sent to an F-14 squadron assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln.

She struggled during her carrier qualification training failing the carrier landing phase of her training, her performance was, according to one top naval aviator was "the worst I have ever seen," Yet she "graduated".
Just 6 months later she failed to respond to 7 long seconds worth of wave-off signals -- slammed her f-14 into the fantail of the carrier and plunged her jet 3,600 feet beneath the surface of the Pacific.

Kelly Mogk, USCG was the first female rescue swimmer in the Coast Guard and was the only woman, to that time, to graduate from the Navy Rescue Swimmer School in Pensacola. She earned an Air Medal for her first rescue in January, 1989.

But what isn't widely publicised is that she was not capable of completeing the minimum phsical requirements for graduation and was pushed through training so that "The first female Rescue Swimmer" could graduate. That factored heavilly on the rescue for which she was awarded the air medal.

In the fall of 1988 a Navy f-14 came to distress off the coast of Oregon. It's pilots were forced to eject into the Pacific. During that time of year the water temp is in the high 40 degree range. A Coast Guard helo from Airstation Astoria was dispatched to the scene. Kelly Mogk entered the water and completed the rescue of one of the F-14 crewmen (the pilot), however, complaining of fatigue and cold due to her failure to maintain her own survival equipment she was not able to continue the rescue. The weapns officer died.

Shall I go on?

Lowering standards for the sake of "equality" rarely if ever achieves "equality". More acurately it creates further division. Division not across gender or race lines, but division of ability.

All that being said, I have absolutely no problem with women in the military or minorities of any gender / race in any position. But what I do have a problem with is a double standard in qualification. When lives are at stake as they clearly often are there should be only one standard.

High.

Brian HCM#1 · Feb 16, 2003

GO True GO!!!!!!!!!

It's your birthday

ohio · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Well lets start with Lt. Kara Hultgren.

What you're quoting DT is a failure of Affirmative Action due to a misunderstanding of it's intent and function BY those that advocate it. Those types of situations above hurt EVERYONE involved by engendering a stereotype of minorities as incompetent.

AA , properly implemented, does not put UNQUALIFIED people into employment. It allows less promising (but qualified nonetheless) minority candidates to obtain a given position. It's sad that even those that advocate it misunderstand their own reasons for doing so, and end up hurting a cause that coud be successful, but you shouldn't use the anecdotes of abuse of the system to condemn the entire concept.

Damn True · Feb 16, 2003

You misunderstand.

The stories I related, and countess others like them dont show the AA system gone wrong, they show how wrong that system is.

The stories don't prove minorites incompetant, they prove the effect of sacrificrificing quality.

By lowering standards you achieve only one thing.

A lower standard.

valve bouncer · Feb 16, 2003

Sorry DT, but anecdotal stories are like Chinese food, initially satisfying but half an hour later you're hungry again. What I need to see to be convinced are real figures, from a proper study showing a pattern of failure based on AA hiring practices. I'm sure I could do a google search too and find a hundred stories of otherwise competent F-14 pilots parking their planes in the Pacific. But does it prove anything other than flying planes in the military is sometimes hazardous to your health?
Obviously Lt Hultgren was un-qualified, but how many AA hirees are backed by intense and overt media and political pressure. I'm sure most, when given the chance get in and do the job to the best of their ability. Now show me properly if this ability is demonstrably inferior to regular hirees.

Damn True · Feb 17, 2003

You want me to provide statistical eveidence? Stat's can be made to say anything.

I brought REALITY to the discussion.
The reality is, that when you lower requirements, you lower expectations, you lower performance, and you lower the standard.

More reality:

Military, fire, and PD physical requirements are between 10% and 30% LESS stringent for female applicants than for male applicants.

What if you are 15% heavier than the female firefighter that has come to rescue you is required to be able to carry?

The point is that if people want equality, things have to be EQUAL.

Looking at it from the POV of the trainer or educator, dropping entrance requirements only forces the rest of the group that is attempting to learn down to the lowest level.

All AA does is reduce the number of highly qualifed applicants my making room for less qualified applicants. Flight schools, Fire academies, Police academies, medical schools etc. are not organizations for boosting self esteem. They are organizations charged with developing the HIGHEST quality personell to handle situations where lives are at stake.

If there are 25 job openings for a fire academy the jobs should go to the top 25 applicants. How patently ridiculous is it to turn down # 20-25 so that we can make room for # 37, 48, 52, 54, and 70. Do you want the guy who scored #70 to be the guy who is coming to save you, or would you prefer #25?

Look at the reality, not the touchy-feely sweet stuff.

But, I digress, the point of this thread was the hubbub over the Detroit Lions hiring Steve Marriuchi. They wanted him for the job, despite that, they offered interview opportunities to others who chose to turn the offer down. IMO they followed the letter of the rule. Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys owner) however did no such thing but nobody is complaining about it. Wierd.

valve bouncer · Feb 17, 2003

Your reality is really just your opinion. Are you really saying women shouldn't be police officers (as one example) because they are physically less able than male officers? Physical strength is one thing but other factors are important too. Maybe women have an advantage over men in the mental side of the job, things like decision making and coflict resolution. You wanting equality is a fine thing, but that's the whole point, society is not equal and some people have more advantages than others whether that be physical, educational or financial. In any group the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts (gestalt), i.e- different people have different abilities but they all contribute to the same greater goal. To have a rigid set of criteria by definition makes flexibility impossible and the ability to adapt to changing circumstance is important to any organisation.

Brian HCM#1 · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Your reality is really just your opinion. Are you really saying women shouldn't be police officers (as one example) because they are physically less able than male officers? Physical strength is one thing but other factors are important too. Maybe women have an advantage over men in the mental side of the job, things like decision making and coflict resolution. You wanting equality is a fine thing, but that's the whole point, society is not equal and some people have more advantages than others whether that be physical, educational or financial. In any group the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts (gestalt), i.e- different people have different abilities but they all contribute to the same greater goal. To have a rigid set of criteria by definition makes flexibility impossible and the ability to adapt to changing circumstance is important to any organisation.

True's point is why people shouldn't be hired just cause of their sex or color. It's fine that there are women firefighters and police officers, thats not the issue. Its hiring someone who is not capible of fufilling their position 100%. Certian jobs require a certian criteria, why should they lower the standards to allow someone to get the job? If that person is capable then fine, but if not, then its not the job for them.

Damn True · Feb 17, 2003

Hello.....

We are talking about minimum requirements to perform a job.

Am I saying that anyone who cannot perform the minimum requirements for job performance should not get the job?
Absolutely. Regardless of gender or ethnicity. If somone is weak, either physically or mentally they should not get the job.

Last time I checked the jobs didn't change based on the gender or ethnicity of the person performing them. A cop is a cop, a firefighter is a firefighter, a pilot is a pilot. If we are going to put people in the same job they should be able to meet the same requirements.

Female cop: "Sorry, I can't wrestle that criminal to the ground because I was hired based upon my sensativity and mental abilities rather than physical strength and ability to handle stressful conflicts."

Pilot with below average reading comprehension: "Ladies and gentleman, this is your Capitan. I'm sorry but I will not be able to prevent this aircaft from crashing. I am really bad at understanding and remembering my emergency procedures. However, isn't it nice that I was given the opportunity to try."

This as nothing to do with gender or ethnicity. Merely one's ability, or inability to perform a job. If you can't do what other firefighters are required to do you should not be a firefighter.

In regard to physical strength tests:
They are designed to ensure that applicants can perform the requirements of the job. Tell me honestly that you think it's ok to have a double standard?

In regard to knowledge, or cognative ability tests:
They are designed to ensure that applicants have the required levels of education to perform the requirements of, or to learn the skills of the job. Tell me honestly that you think it's ok to have a double standard?

I'd prefer that the pilot on the next flight I am on is held to the highest standards of performance rather than allowed in on some form of waiver.

In every group there are people who have great ability and potential, middle ability and potential, and low ability and potential. If a job requires someone with high abilities, how stupid is it to give the job to anyone but those who meet that criteria?

valve bouncer · Feb 17, 2003

I'm reluctant to take this any further as I see no point. You seem to be squezzing the same orange over and over hoping to get some more juice out of it You seem to have this rigid mind-set that says only one set of criteria is important. I say other things are important and that the criteria need to be flexible. You say these are double standards I say it's flexibility. At the risk of repeating myself, of course women aren't as strong as men but they have other abilities that are useful to do the job effectively.

The goal is not the process it's the result and you still haven't convinced me that the result is any worse. You provide these non-sequitirs about pilots and police officers which prove nothing other than you are grasping at straws to make a dubious point.

Damn True · Feb 17, 2003

Grasping at straws? Pot, kettle?
You have offered nothing but conceptual touchy-feely babble. Apply your argument to the real world and you will see that it simply doesnt hold water.

Here, I'll do it for you.
The harsh reality is that not everyone is qualified for every job.
If you can't meet the criteria, you can't have the job.
If the job requires "X" level of physical strength or "X" level of understanding of math and the applicant cannot meet those requirements why would you give the applicant the job?

If you are running a software company and you need a programmer with experience in "XYZ" why on earth would you hire anyone but the best "XYZ" programmer you can find?

If your evaluation depended upon the performance of this subordinate I sincerely doubt you would apply your "flexibility" to the hiring.

As for what you call "non-sequitirs" [sic], AA is applied primarily to public service jobs. It has also been applied in positions that are primarily male dominated such as pilots and rescue swimmers additionally we see it used in undergraduate and post-graduate education. Funny, there is no outcry to increase the numbers of male nurses to "reflect society". I could have used inept DMV employees as my examples if you would have preferred, but IMO they couldn't drop the standards for that job any lower than they already have.

The examples I have mentioned in passing (Washington DC and New Orleans Police) or in detail (Kelly Mogk, and Kara Hultgren) are well documented examples of how and why AA is bad for all of us. What I haven't mentioned, yet should be patently obvious to all but the utterly daft, is the fact that allowing people a pass on requirements they can't meet diminishes the accomplishments of those who have worked their backsides off to meet those requirements as opposed to taking a handout.

Imagine what it must be like for the female pilots who came after Lt Hultgren. Imagine dealing with the assumption that the same breaks given to Hultgren were given to you? Imagine your associates thinking that you were not as capable as you should be and were therefore a risk to their safety because you got a mulligan on the requirements for entry or graduation.

Apply it any way you like. There are people of all genders and ethnicities (white males too) who manage to, despite social or economic obstacles, work their tails off and succeed. Giving away the opportunity to others who have not worked as hard diminishes their accomplishment, their sacrifice and diminishes us all.

Again, if you lower the standard the only thing you achieve is a lower standard.

ohio · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Hello.....

We are talking about minimum requirements to perform a job.

You didn't read my post did you? C'mon DT, it was two short paragraphs long...

Accepting applicants that do NOT meet minimum standards is a bastardization of AA. I stated that clearly. Properly implemented, AA requires organizations to pick the QUALIFIED candidate that is a minority, over the qualified candidate that is not. Like I said above, you are citing the instances where it has been misused/abused/distorted, but that doesn't condemn the whole system or concept. It just proves beaurocrats and politicians can be mindless... not much of an epiphany.

It's the danger of instituting AA as a system of quotas... like any mandatory but arbitrary number (minimum snetencing is another example) it hurts everyone involved, by distrusting the ability of intelligent humans to actually make judgements and decisions based on the "spirit' of a law.

(I'll just repeat this one more time, because you seem to be stuck on the point: QUOTAS lower standards, AA does not)

ohio · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Funny, there is no outcry to increase the numbers of male nurses to "reflect society".

There's no outcry because there's no barrier to a male becoming a nurse.

I'm not sure you understand the problem.

(p.s. sorry to keep carrying this on in the football thread, instead of the AA thread.)

valve bouncer · Feb 17, 2003

Well DT, I don't think we are going to find agreement here any time soon

(no sh1t). As a minority where I live I can see the subtle barriers put in front of some people whereas maybe that is difficult for you. I would agree with you on one point, I too would like to see AA dismantled, but only when there is no need for it anymore. As Ohio pointed out (and you so conveniently ignored) policies that are a bastardisation of AA don't help any-one. But properly implemented AA can and does help. You disagree and that's fine by me. Be a boring old place if everyone thought and acted the same.

ohio · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Ohio......i cant see why anyone would want to agree with you on this one.

That's your argument in every thread in this forum. You have a hard time seeing beyond your own beliefs... don't worry about it. It should come with age and experience.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I mean, if i were applying for a job as a mechanic, and it required a bachelors degree and 3 years experience, and i have a masters', plus 8 years experience......but i lose out on the job to a minority who barely meets the standard........tell me where the descrimination lies??????

First, if the higher degree or more experience is necessary for the position, than the standards should be higher. If it's not necessary, than either applicant suits the position just fine.

Second, if you still think AA is about discrimination in the workplace, you have not read my posts. I won't argue any more with you until you do.

Originally posted by BurlySurly

Mocha....quit being offended.

Last, why am I not suprised that you would make a statement like that? Oh right, you also think no one should be offended by racial slurs. Thanks, whitey, for defining what is and is not offensive.

valve bouncer · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Wow

Valve Bouncer...you simply refuse to make sense yet again.

Well, coming from a dilettante like you I'll wear it.

valve bouncer · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
dil·et·tante ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dl-tänt, dl-tänt, -tänt, -tnt, -tnt)
n. pl. dil·et·tantes, also dil·et·tan·ti (-tänt, -tn-)
A dabbler in an art or a field of knowledge. See Synonyms at amateur.
A lover of the fine arts; a connoisseur.

adj.
Superficial; amateurish.

Well, that wasnt very nice was it?

No , it wasn't

, I'll try to keep the level of debate above the navel from now on, however much I disagree with you. Sometimes it's hard to resist throwing in those little one liners

ohio · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You're just looking to get something started.

Yeah, probably.

You told Mocha "quit being offended." I see this as defining what should and should not offend... Maybe I'm misreading, but I can't see it any other way.

To the other point:
AA itself is technically discrimination (against white men) from your point of view. What I mean by "It's not ABOUT discrimination" is that the goal of the program is NOT to correct for current discrimination against minorities in the work-place. Some people justify quota systems this way, but that is not what AA was originally intended to do. AA is INTENDED to correct for the disproportionate socio-economic disadvantage of certain minority groups, resulting from historical persecution.
So it's not to battle against racist managers that would otherwise not give a minority a job, it's to get minorities into white collar jobs that have been historically difficult for them to reach and start a cycle of professional level employment in their communities. Some liberals lose sight of that, and the system gets all ferblundgered.

I'll try to stop being an arrogant jackass. But it's late at night, storming snow, and I might not be able to go ski fresh pow tomorrow with cute skier-girl because I'm scheduled for shop time that I don't think I can get out of. Tough life... :rolleyes:

DRB · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The Mooch..... I just dont get it. Why would the NFL even bring about this crap? Simply because they're afraid of getting sued, not because it makes sense. This is a major problem in our country today. I HATE LAWYERS. The fact of the matter is, even if Detroit did bring in minorities like CHicago's Greg Blache, they would only be doing it to aphease the spectators. Why put on a dog and pony show? Why raise false hopes? It just doesnt make any sense to me.

First and foremost, Ted Cottrell should be an NFL coach already. PERIOD. Ya'll can argue until you are blue in the face and there is just no way you are ever gonig to convince me differently. So please don't waste your valuable time by trying.

As for the minority coaches, any coaches for that matter, that turned down the opportunity to interview for the Detroit job. They made a mistake. There are 32 of these positions and in any given year there are 3 to 5 openings. Being interviewed for these jobs gets your name out there. Makes you known to the owners who even if they don't hire you can put in a good word for you in the future. Every candiate who interviews gets his name in the press.

As for Dennis Erickson, 4 .500ish seasons in the NFL isn't a ringing endorsement.

Brian HCM#1 · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by DRB

As for Dennis Erickson, 4 .500ish seasons in the NFL isn't a ringing endorsement.

He won't coach the Winers to another SB, not as long as the York's are running the team.

Damn True · Feb 18, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
First and foremost, Ted Cottrell should be an NFL coach already. PERIOD. Ya'll can argue until you are blue in the face and there is just no way you are ever gonig to convince me differently. So please don't waste your valuable time by trying.

As for Dennis Erickson, 4 .500ish seasons in the NFL isn't a ringing endorsement.

Based on what experience? Where?

He has never been the head coach of an NFL team, he has never been the head coach of a Division I College team. How is he qualified to coach at the absolute highest level in the game?

31-33 with QB's like Merier(sp?) and Kitna and one of the smallest payrolls in the NFL ain't bad. Two Nat'l championship trophys at Miami (Just like Jimmy Johnson) and completely turning around the Oregon State progam are pretty good qualifications. Far better than Mooch or even the great Bill Walsh had when they were hired as head coach of the 49ers.

Damn True · Feb 18, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
He won't coach the Winers to another SB, not as long as the York's are running the team.

The closer John and Denisse York are to the day-to-day operation of that team, the further they will be from the superbowl.

This Pisses Me Off

Monkey Pimp

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

Master Dildoist

Monkey Pimp

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

Master Dildoist

Monkey Pimp

Master Dildoist

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

Monkey Pimp

Master Dildoist

Monkey Pimp

The Fresno Kid

The Fresno Kid

Master Dildoist

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

The Fresno Kid

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Master Dildoist

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Master Dildoist

The Fresno Kid

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

unemployed bum

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp