I'm sorry people were oppressed or disadvantaged in the 60s and earlier, but people today take advantage of their strife for free bonuses. It's not right or equal, it's just reversing the sides.
This keeps going back to poverty being their primary disadvantage, more so than actual discrimination on the part of employers or other organizations. This raises an interesting thought, why not base the scholarships on their poverty instead of their race? There are plenty of poor white people, and well off minorities. That doesn't seem perfect, but better than saying, hey, you're not white, here's free money for college.
Lastly, it said seeking diversity in the workplace, not equal wages among the genders. So, I don't really think the strive for diversity is solving the problem of men making more than women. A lot of jobs with salaries tend to be partly negotiated. Maybe on average more men are assertive in this factor? I really don't know, and I don't think men should make more for the 'exact same job.' But Affirmative Action has not solved this.
Yes, poverty is their disadvantage, and reasons for that trace back to the times when they were discriminated against. So their poverty and history are directly correlated.
Diversity is a good thing- and I highly doubt that an employer would hire somebody less qualified than you because they are not white. That is discrimination, and if that really is the case, it's completely against the law.
I do believe there are some scholarships based on income, but not 100% sure. That is an interesting thought though.
IIN I'm Tired of 'Equal Opportunity' and Reverse Discrimination
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I think we both agree on the issue of welfare.
I'm sorry people were oppressed or disadvantaged in the 60s and earlier, but people today take advantage of their strife for free bonuses. It's not right or equal, it's just reversing the sides.
This keeps going back to poverty being their primary disadvantage, more so than actual discrimination on the part of employers or other organizations. This raises an interesting thought, why not base the scholarships on their poverty instead of their race? There are plenty of poor white people, and well off minorities. That doesn't seem perfect, but better than saying, hey, you're not white, here's free money for college.
Lastly, it said seeking diversity in the workplace, not equal wages among the genders. So, I don't really think the strive for diversity is solving the problem of men making more than women. A lot of jobs with salaries tend to be partly negotiated. Maybe on average more men are assertive in this factor? I really don't know, and I don't think men should make more for the 'exact same job.' But Affirmative Action has not solved this.
--
slutzombie
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, poverty is their disadvantage, and reasons for that trace back to the times when they were discriminated against. So their poverty and history are directly correlated.
Diversity is a good thing- and I highly doubt that an employer would hire somebody less qualified than you because they are not white. That is discrimination, and if that really is the case, it's completely against the law.
I do believe there are some scholarships based on income, but not 100% sure. That is an interesting thought though.