"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Preference based on merit (ie. serving one's country) I don't have a problem with. In fact, I recently applied for a position at work and was told up front that if a veteran applied for the same job, they would have to give the position to them automatically. I had no problem with that. I feel that they earned it. It's preference shown due to pedigree or the number of X or Y chromosomes a person has that I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem if individual businesses place hiring emphasis on veterans but I don't like the government giving preference to anybody except for the best qualified candidate for the job. Those that serve the country have my respect and gratitude but serving in the military shouldn't put you in line in front of me for a job (assuming we're equally qualified in all other aspects).

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't have a problem if individual businesses place hiring emphasis on veterans but I don't like the government giving preference to anybody except for the best qualified candidate for the job. Those that serve the country will have my respect and gratitude but doing so shouldn't put you in line in front of me for a job (assuming we're equally qualified in all other aspects).

Well put, you do know, that you're in the minority in this thinking right? Most people that complain about Affirmative Action are speaking about it in all sectors, both private and public.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So like I said affirmative action is not so big a deal, as long as you're ok with the group receiving the benefit? How else is one supposed to read your post? And I thank you for being candid, and providing a real world example, in your response.

Well, as in my example, if members of that group have earned the preferential treatment, then that is correct, I don't have a problem with it. I don't think that anyone should receive preferential treatment just for being who they are. In my example, if I had been told "If a woman or a member of a minority applies for the position, we have to give it to them automatically", then I would have had a problem with it. If the woman or member of the minority has better qualifications than me, then I would expect them to be hired ahead of me. That's how I feel hiring decisions should be made.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't have a problem if individual businesses place hiring emphasis on veterans but I don't like the government giving preference to anybody except for the best qualified candidate for the job. Those that serve the country have my respect and gratitude but serving in the military shouldn't put you in line in front of me for a job (assuming we're equally qualified in all other aspects).

Ironically, I'm a gubmint employee... (don't hate me!) I work for the DoD, hence the preference for veterans. I can see your point in the private sector though.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, as in my example, if members of that group have earned the preferential treatment, then that is correct, I don't have a problem with it. I don't think that anyone should receive preferential treatment just for being who they are. In my example, if I had been told "If a woman or a member of a minority applies for the position, we have to give it to them automatically", then I would have had a problem with it. If the woman or member of the minority has better qualifications than me, then I would expect them to be hired ahead of me. That's how I feel hiring decisions should be made.

Earning preferential treatment despite being possibly less qualified than another, simply because of serving in the military? Dude that's affirmative action. There no way you can frame that as being better than any other version of it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ironically, I'm a gubmint employee... (don't hate me!) I work for the DoD, hence the preference for veterans. I can see your point in the private sector though.

Oh I can see how military experience could be a resume enhancer for certain DoD jobs but do you really think that should put them in front of the line for, say, a mailman or electrician? I'm not talking about job related experience they may have gained while in the military but just because of the fact they were in the military.

I agree with Knutpe that doing so is another form of tilting the playing field and the .gov picking winners, etc.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Earning preferential treatment despite being possibly less qualified than another, simply because of serving in the military? Dude that's affirmative action. There no way you can frame that as being better than any other version of it.

Oh I can see how military experience could be a resume enhancer for certain DoD jobs but do you really think that should put them in front of the line for, say, a mailman or electrician? I'm not talking about job related experience they may have gained while in the military but just because of the fact they were in the military.

I agree with Knutpe that doing so is another form of tilting the playing field and the .gov picking winners, etc.

I see both your points and I agree that they both have merit. I hadn't really considered it framed in this manner before. Now in my case, presumably the veteran would have had at least some qualifications for the job, and his or her veteran status would have just sealed the deal so to speak. But you're right (both of you) if "being a veteran" was the only qualification then I would agree that that is not an equitable situation.

 

[Twangbanger]

So...after numerous changes-of-subject since the previous discussion of whether or not Americans have more freedom today than in 1814: can I assume from all the subsequent bellyaching about torture, denying rights to non-citizen humans, etc., etc., etc. and other government abuses...the assembled minds have finally come to the conclusion that, just maybe - having Casino Boats and Sunday Beer from microbreweries really don't make up for all this stuff, after all?

 

[SSGSAD]

I don't have a problem if individual businesses place hiring emphasis on veterans but I don't like the government giving preference to anybody except for the best qualified candidate for the job. Those that serve the country have my respect and gratitude but serving in the military shouldn't put you in line in front of me for a job (assuming we're equally qualified in all other aspects).

You ever hear of AA, and EEO ?????

 

[chipbennett]

Earning preferential treatment despite being possibly less qualified than another, simply because of serving in the military? Dude that's affirmative action. There no way you can frame that as being better than any other version of it.

I would call that *discrimination*, not *affirmative action*. The latter is a policy that can only be effected by the State.

As for discrimination: it is natural and unavoidable (it happens during resume review, the interview process, etc.). The question is: does that discrimination violate someone's civil rights? I would argue that private businesses both have the right to discriminate according to factors they choose, and also take the risk of failing if those factors are not aligned with their business. (Think of the business that excludes half of the market, by refusing to hire women: that company won't last long, if free market forces work properly, because the companies that benefit from an increased labor supply are going to gain a competitive advantage.)

Government should regulate only so far as to ensure no actual civil rights violations - and that regulation should be extremely limited. The "Rooney Rule", forced quotas, and affirmative action are wrong, regardless of the demographic or group benefiting from the government intervention.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So...after numerous changes-of-subject since the previous discussion of whether or not Americans have more freedom today than in 1814: can I assume from all the subsequent bellyaching about torture, denying rights to non-citizen humans, etc., etc., etc. and other government abuses...the assembled minds have finally come to the conclusion that, just maybe - having Casino Boats and Sunday Beer from microbreweries really don't make up for all this stuff, after all?

How many white men without property could vote in 1814? How many women weren't chattel, and could vote in 1814? How many blacks weren't slaves in 1814? How many states allowed cohabitation or adultery in 1814? How many women could own property (in Indiana), in 1814.

Yeah, what a utopia for freedom.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would call that *discrimination*, not *affirmative action*. The latter is a policy that can only be effected by the State.

As for discrimination: it is natural and unavoidable (it happens during resume review, the interview process, etc.). The question is: does that discrimination violate someone's civil rights? I would argue that private businesses both have the right to discriminate according to factors they choose, and also take the risk of failing if those factors are not aligned with their business. (Think of the business that excludes half of the market, by refusing to hire women: that company won't last long, if free market forces work properly, because the companies that benefit from an increased labor supply are going to gain a competitive advantage.)

Government should regulate only so far as to ensure no actual civil rights violations - and that regulation should be extremely limited. The "Rooney Rule", forced quotas, and affirmative action are wrong, regardless of the demographic or group benefiting from the government intervention.

So if a veteran applies for a mailman job, and gets it over a better qualifies guy who used to work for UPS, simply because he's a vet, that affirmative action right?

 

[chipbennett]

So if a veteran applies for a mailman job, and gets it over a better qualifies guy who used to work for UPS, simply because he's a vet, that affirmative action right?

USPS is one of those public-private enterprises, right? But to the extent that it is public, I would maintain that any demographically defined discriminatory hiring practices are wrong.

For me, the distinction is public vs. private. If a private company wants to hire veterans preferentially, that's their business. They may value certain skills or character traits of veterans (which would presumably benefit their company), or they may merely want to take a marginal business loss to hire a veteran over someone potentially better-qualified.

But with a public entity, hiring practices should be merit-based only. State-instituted preferential treatment of any kind violates equal protection.

 

[Kutnupe14]

USPS is one of those public-private enterprises, right? But to the extent that it is public, I would maintain that any demographically defined discriminatory hiring practices are wrong.

For me, the distinction is public vs. private. If a private company wants to hire veterans preferentially, that's their business. They may value certain skills or character traits of veterans (which would presumably benefit their company), or they may merely want to take a marginal business loss to hire a veteran over someone potentially better-qualified.

But with a public entity, hiring practices should be merit-based only. State-instituted preferential treatment of any kind violates equal protection.

The USPS has no private component to it, unless you consider it's Executive Branch administrators "private". Any appointee to it's service due solely to military service, and overlooking a better qualified applicant is indeed affirmative action; not discrimination.
Just so we're clear, if Notre Dame admits an Asian student over a superior academically White student, that's not an issue. But if IU does it, that's a problem?

 

[chipbennett]

The USPS has no private component to it, unless you consider it's Executive Branch administrators "private". Any appointee to it's service due solely to military service, and overlooking a better qualified applicant is indeed affirmative action; not discrimination.

So, I think we agree WRT USPS? Discriminatory hiring practices are affirmative action, and therefore wrong?

Just so we're clear, if Notre Dame admits an Asian student over a superior academically White student, that's not an issue. But if IU does it, that's a problem?

Interesting question. Regarding IU: absolutely.

But what if Notre Dame (an allegedly Catholic university) admitted a Catholic student over an academically superior non-Catholic student? (I understand that Notre Dame is Catholic in Name Only; let's pretend that it actually still tries to be a Catholic university.)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You ever hear of AA, and EEO ?????

Yeah...that was pretty much what that whole discussion was about.

 

[mrortega]

So if a veteran applies for a mailman job, and gets it over a better qualifies guy who used to work for UPS, simply because he's a vet, that affirmative action right?

Doesn't the USPS just award points for military service and that could make the difference between the vet and another applicant?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, I think we agree WRT USPS? Discriminatory hiring practices are affirmative action, and therefore wrong?



Interesting question. Regarding IU: absolutely.

But what if Notre Dame (an allegedly Catholic university) admitted a Catholic student over an academically superior non-Catholic student? (I understand that Notre Dame is Catholic in Name Only; let's pretend that it actually still tries to be a Catholic university.)

Notre Dame could reasonable assume that the Catholic student holds it's values, so it would make sense that if a school would choose the student that best embodies it's beliefs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Doesn't the USPS just award points for military service and that could make the difference between the vet and another applicant?

Yeah they do, almost the same way some businesses/colleges award points for race, sex, legacy, or national origin. Do you think concerning AA, an Asian kid from L.A. has a better chance than a the a female Asian kid from Tibet that's a Shinto?

 

[chipbennett]

Notre Dame could reasonable assume that the Catholic student holds it's values, so it would make sense that if a school would choose the student that best embodies it's beliefs.

I am open to persuasion, but I think I'm of the opinion that a private school can exercise discriminatory admission practices based on whatever factors it chooses. I think the same principle applies, long-term: discriminate based on factors that are counter-productive, and the quality of your graduates (and therefore, the prestige of your university - at least, for schools that still value their graduating students over their professors' research) suffers.