2000 hour wonders hired at Delta

[waveflyer]

Continued--
Sept. 24, 1965 Executive Order 11246 enforces affirmative action for the first time

Issued by President Johnson, the executive order requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender.

The Philadelphia Order

Initiated by President Richard Nixon, the "Philadelphia Order" was the most forceful plan thus far to guarantee fair hiring practices in construction jobs. Philadelphia was selected as the test case because, as assistant secretary of labor Arthur Fletcher explained, "The craft unions and the construction industry are among the most egregious offenders against equal opportunity laws . . . openly hostile toward letting blacks into their closed circle." The order included definite "goals and timetables." As President Nixon asserted, "We would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment."
June 28, 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority—affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse discrimination. The case involved the Univ. of California, Davis, Medical School, which had two separate admissions pools, one for standard applicants, and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. The school reserved 16 of its 100 places for this latter group.

Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not. The Supreme Court, however, was split 5–4 in its decision on the Bakke case and addressed only a minimal number of the many complex issues that had sprung up about affirmative action.
July 2, 1980 Fullilove v. Klutznick

While Bakke struck down strict quotas, in Fullilove the Supreme Court ruled that some modest quotas were perfectly constitutional. The Court upheld a federal law requiring that 15% of funds for public works be set aside for qualified minority contractors. The "narrowed focus and limited extent" of the affirmative action program did not violate the equal rights of non-minority contractors, according to the Court—there was no "allocation of federal funds according to inflexible percentages solely based on race or ethnicity."
May 19, 1986 Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education

This case challenged a school board's policy of protecting minority employees by laying off non-minority teachers first, even though the non-minority employees had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the school board, maintaining that the injury suffered by non-minorities affected could not justify the benefits to minorities: "We have previously expressed concern over the burden that a preferential-layoffs scheme imposes on innocent parties. In cases involving valid hiring goals, the burden to be borne by innocent individuals is diffused to a considerable extent among society generally. Though hiring goals may burden some innocent individuals, they simply do not impose the same kind of injury that layoffs impose. Denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job."

 

[waveflyer]

(Cont)

United States v. Paradise

In July 1970, a federal court found that the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety systematically discriminated against blacks in hiring: "in the thirty-seven-year history of the patrol there has never been a black trooper." The court ordered that the state reform its hiring practices to end "pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." A full 12 years and several lawsuits later, the department still had not promoted any blacks above entry level nor had they implemented a racially fair hiring system. In response, the court ordered specific racial quotas to correct the situation. For every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks. This use of numerical quotas was challenged. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the use of strict quotas in this case as one of the only means of combating the department's overt and defiant racism.
Jan. 23, 1989 City of Richmond v. Croson

This case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels—a Richmond program setting aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms was challenged. For the first time, affirmative action was judged as a "highly suspect tool." The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota." It maintained that affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be "widespread throughout a particular industry." The Court maintained that "the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out' illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. The test also ensures that the means chosen `fit' this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype."
June 12, 1995 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

What Croson was to state- and local-run affirmative action programs, Adarand was to federal programs. The Court again called for "strict scrutiny" in determining whether discrimination existed before implementing a federal affirmative action program. "Strict scrutiny" meant that affirmative action programs fulfilled a "compelling governmental interest," and were "narrowly tailored" to fit the particular situation. Although two of the judges (Scalia and Thomas) felt that there should be a complete ban on affirmative action, the majority of judges asserted that "the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country" justified the use of race-based remedial measures in certain circumstances.
July 19, 1995 White House guidelines on affirmative action

President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States." In a White House memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."
March 18, 1996 Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School

Cheryl Hopwood and three other white law-school applicants at the University of Texas challenged the school's affirmative action program, asserting that they were rejected because of unfair preferences toward less qualified minority applicants. As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid—while Bakke rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria."

Note: The June 23, 2003, Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger invalidates Hopwood.
Nov. 3, 1997 Proposition 209 enacted in California

A state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect.
Dec. 3, 1998 Initiative 200 enacted in Washington State

Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it passed "I 200," which is similar to California's Proposition 209.
Feb. 22, 2000 Florida bans race as factor in college admissions.

Florida legislature approves education component of Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.
Dec. 13, 2000 University of Michigan’s undergrad affirmative action policy

In Gratz v. Bollinger, a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan was constitutional. The gist of the university's argument was as follows: just as preference is granted to children of alumni, scholarship athletes, and others groups for reasons deemed beneficial to the university, so too does the affirmative action program serve "a compelling interest" by providing educational benefits derived from a diverse student body.
March 27, 2001 Univ. of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a case similar to the University of Michigan undergraduate lawsuit, a different judge drew an opposite conclusion, invalidating the law school's policy and ruling that "intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity." But on May 14, 2002, the decision was reversed on appeal, ruling that the admissions policy was, in fact, constitutional.
June 23, 2003 Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions

In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5–4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rates students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, does not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.

See Grutter v. Bollinger.
June 28, 2006 Supreme Court Rules Against Considering Race to Integrate Schools

In Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, affirmative action suffers a setback when a bitterly divided court rules, 5–4, that programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., which tried to maintain diversity in schools by considering race when assigning students to schools, are unconstitutional.

November 4, 2008 Ballot Measure to Ban Affirmative Action Goes Before Voters

Ballot measures proposing to ban affirmative action — race and gender based preferences by public entities — goes before voters in two states, Nebraska and Colorado. The ban passes with more than 50% of the vote in Nebraska. Voters in Colorado, though, reject the proposed ban.

June 29, 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano, Firefighters Go to Court

In a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, 18 plaintiffs—17 white and 1 Hispanic—argued that results of the 2003 lieutenant and captain exams were thrown out when it was determined that few minority firefighters qualified for advancement. The city claimed they threw out the results because they feared liability under a disparate-impact statute for issuing tests that discriminated against minority firefighters. The plaintiffs claimed that they were victims of reverse discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled (5–4) in favor of the firefighters, saying New Haven's "action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII."

 

[Tweaker]

Man, did I evar start ignoring this guy just in time.

 

[Benjamin Dover]

Every liberal wishes that there wasn't a need for Aff Action programs- that there is no discrimination- yet the evidence tells different story.

Right. So your saying all the groups that benefit from a different standard (easier) will just say - "no thanks, we're good." Clarence Thomas has argued for years that affirmative should go away and we should all be judged on merit, qualification, peformance, etc. - and NOT have skin color or ethnic background a deciding factor. Then the field would really be level and eliminate claims of favoritism by groups of any color. And the NAACP and the Reverand AL, and the hundreds of Black whatever associations have vilified Justice Thomas for even suggesting change to Aff Action.

So the beat goes on. The U.S. Naval Academy recently instituted a minority quota percentage of the incoming freshman class that is intended to mirror the minority percentage of the entire Navy. The minority percentage of the U.S. Navy is much higher than the minority percentage of the United States population - around 39%. But, last year the USNA Superintendant decided to make the incoming freshman class have the same minority % of the fleet. So, guess what - rather than a "suggested" double standard for admission, there is now a clear and documented double standard in terms of SAT scores and other academic requirements for admission to the Naval Academy. Research several letters from a USNA professor to the Annapolis Capital newspaper and the associated discussion if you are interested.

So, a clear lower standard based on the color of your skin. Does this policy result in best, qualified applicated being selected. Seems like a pretty clear no to me, just like such policies are a pretty clear "no" to guys like Justice Thomas. But since these policies benefit certain groups, why would they ever want such Aff Action programs to go away?

 

[Benjamin Dover]

A simpler question. If 12.9% of the population is black and 2% of airline pilots are black- has the system failed the black community?

If 50.7% of the population is female and less than 10% of the pilot population are female -has the system failed?

Pilot is one of the most sought after jobs on the planet- why the disproportion?


**http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Funny stuff about statistics - when they support your argument, they are indisputable, but if the skew is the other direction then they don't count.

Take the NBA for example. Like you said - US population is 12.9% black, but the NBA is 71.8% black. The NBA is great professional sports career and there are hundres of outstanding collegiate white basketball players - why the disproportion?

Maybe it's because the NBA hires the best, qualified professional for their organization? What a concept - hiring based on merit and qualification.

Check out this article:

http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/should-the-nba-assist-white-players-with-affirmative-action.php

I happen to agree with the author - there should be no double standard and an affirmative action program to place more white players in the NBA. Teams should hire the best players for their team.

But, I wonder what this author thinks of Affirmative Action programs in which African-Americans are given preferential treatment over white Americans. I'm sure he no longer supports the "let's just hire the best no matter where they came from" theory with these programs.

So what do you say waveflyer - since airline pilot hiring has failed the black community using your statistical analysis, clearly the NBA is now failing the white community right?

 

[UALRATT]

it's pathetic what the world has come to! I wish I was born 100 years ago!

...and I was BLACK... to finish up your sentence!

 

[waveflyer]

Bend over
-
have white people ever been discriminated against in the NBA. If they can compete has there ever been an external obstacle to their success?

The answer to that is no.

And the NBA is much whiter than it was in the 90's-

By the way the single biggest factor to so many black people in pro sports is the "nothing to lose" factor- white kids tend to see a future in other professional fields and often chase that as the easier more available and comfortable option. The same is happening with black kids as education and careers become more available.

I think it's ignorant and easy for you guys to pretend that racism and sexism isn't and wasn't as rampant as it is and was. That a society can literally kill, maim, enslave, forbid education and then things will all be better as soon as we stop. It's ridiculous. If even half of you have ever spent any time in black communities I'd give you a little more credit-

As it is- my vote still stands for giving preferential opportunities and help in achieving the same standards.

 

[waveflyer]

Man, did I evar start ignoring this guy just in time.

I'm sure it's much easier to "debate" with those who agree with you.

Coward.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I see what you're saying. It seems to me like a safer bet to go with people who have the most accident free experience under their belts. But why do you think they interview and hire guys and girls who have less than 2000 hours, no PIC, and in the case of the guy I know, only one rec letter from a very junior FO? He had no family connections, was not a minority, and was just a generally decent guy.

I don't think Delta HR cares how much dues we've paid, they sent away a military guy who had 20+ years of serving our country. As it should be, he was probably a jerk.

It would be interesting to sit in on their pre hiring meetings and hear how they construct their ideal candidate, and how they differentiate between thousands of applications.

Yes, I'd be very interested to know what their HR was thinking, but not for the same reasons you are...

 

[dillfer]

Jesus waveflyer do you live here? Where do you find the time to post that much sh@t and find articles to support your theories. I wish that I had the time to argue with you, but it would just take up too much of my day. With you posting 4 posts for every one of mine, there's no way I could win.

Yes I am conservative. Government has no business in my business. That goes along with telling me who to hire. None of there business. You can't honestly believe that lowering the standards for FireMEN so that more women can pass is a good thing. Same for police officers. Some professions need a little discrimination. Men and women will never be equal as long as men are stronger than women. There I said it. And it's true, even if your political correctness will not allow you to believe it. There are exceptions to that rule, but generally it's true.

All that Affirmative action does is keep race at the front of everybody's mind. Hire the best person for the job. "Don't judge by the color of someones skin but by the content of there character." As a wiseman once said. Hire the best person for the job, don't hire the guy that's going to allow you to check a box. Don't lower the standards to get a different race, or a different sex into that seat.

And you don't honestly believe that the majority of Americans are racist. We just voted a black president into the white house. There will always be racists, not much you can do about that. But I would argue that there are less racists in America now than there ever has been, and that Affirmative Action programs are hindering more than they're helping.