Type Username Here
Not a new member
then i'll ask you this simple question.
IF you and i were racing for $100,000 using the same car(i wasnt a good driver when i first started, but it doesnt matter i beat most people that dont look like me because i always get a 10 car headstart.)
Now you are only a so so driver yourself but you always lose against guys like me because you always start 10 cars back.
the race is only for a quarter mile.
would you agree, in order for you to have a FAIR chance vs me, you would need to have your car placed into a position right next to mine? which means your car needs to be moved 10 car lengths ahead of its current position.
IF you agree with moving your car 10 care lengths up to be fair. then you agree with Affirmative Action. at least in how it SHOULD BE used.
But it isn't used in this way for a lot of cases. Sometimes the car isn't move up, but the race is just cancelled.
This is a good and recent example:
The firefighters, nineteen of whom are white and two of whom are Hispanic, had all passed the test for promotions to management. City of New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who passed the exam had scored high enough to be considered for the positions. They stated that they feared a lawsuit over the test's adverse impact on a protected minority. The complainants claimed they were denied the promotions because of their racea form of racial discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm sorry, but that shyt is wrong. They took the same test as everyone. If you want to argue to have a larger quotas of blacks (or any other minorities) take the test, I find that absolutely fair. if you want to argue that standards should be lowered or tests thrown out because a certain group of people couldn't pass, I think that's utterly bullshyt.