US Supreme Courts Upholds Michigan’s Affirmative Action Ban

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . . people would not be concerned with her shoe size.

But, it becomes a qualification issue if she can not wear the fireman's boot due to her shoe size. The point is that that there should be reasonable accommodation to her having available a shoe size that fits her to the same extent that it would fit a man.

Quote:

When my nephew joined the Marines there were things required of him that a fifty year old would not be able to do. If as a male he had to be able to do so,so should any woman joining that would be expected to perform as he was.He is very close to retirement and has been promoted enough that he no longer has to perform in the same way as when he enlisted.

Sure, it sounds reasonable, or does it.

A person, on the battlefield, in active combat, may, regardless of rank, need to perform certain tasks regardless of whether they are a 40 year-old captain or a 20 year-old PFC.

That 40 YO male is not held to the same standard as the 20 YO.

Treat females the same and do not hold them to the same standard.

[bonnie]

Where certain physical requirements are seen as necessary and made of one gender to be accepted,it should be the same for both.The requirements should not be lowered based on gender or skin color.

Regardless of whether it is military or not.

Academic requirements should not be lowered based on gender/economic status/skin color.

[bonnie]

But, it becomes a qualification issue if she can not wear the fireman's boot due to her shoe size. The point is that that there should be reasonable accommodation to her having available a shoe size that fits her to the same extent that it would fit a man.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

When my nephew enlisted a surprising number of men could not meet the requirements. Should the bar have been lowered to accommodate them? I don't believe it should.

Bonnie, I was in the Army during the time that it began to integrate females into Army service.

Some of the physical standards were lowered due to the fact that they were determined not to be appropriate qualifications for general military service--IOW to enlist. Yes, they may have remained for certain military jobs, but not as a general enlistment requirement. It was also determined that while those standards discriminated against both males and females, they discriminated against females more than they did against males. As a result, standards were lowered.

To answer your question: Yes, those standards should be lowered for males in the case where those standards were not appropriate for general enlistment. But, for specific jobs, they should be maintained. Standards differ from job to job because the requirements for jobs differ.

We have discussed firemen and boot size and the requirements to carry a hose and control it. Certainly there must be appropriate qualification standards. A person, male or female, who cannot control a hose should not be hired to fight fires.

It should also be a qualification standard that a person who fights fires be able to properly wear protective gear. But, protective gear should be made available to males and females on the same basis. IOW, if the protective gear will fit 80% of the males in the U.S. population, protective gear should be available to fit 80% of the female U.S. population.

We should not have a standard that potentially allows 80% of the males in the U.S. to enlist, but only allows 30% of the females to enlist. Screen everyone on the basis if valid qualifications for the job for which they are enlisting.

NOTE: I am not saying that the standard is 80%, or 30%. I am simply making a point.

This gets into the area that I mentioned related to pregnant females and females in exercise clothing. If you require males to wear uniform exercise clothing you should also require females to wear uniform exercise clothing. But, the exercise clothing that females are required to wear should be designed to fit the female body and they should not be required to wear male exercise clothing which, as demonstrated by past experience, became distractive to males involved in exercise.

NOTE: Until female exercise clothing designed for the female body became available, commanders generally allowed females to modify the exercise clothing that they wore in a non-uniform manner--possibly in part because they did not want their males to become so distracted that they could not properly complete the exercises.

[bonnie]

To answer your question: Yes, those standards should be lowered for males in the case where those standards were not appropriate for general enlistment. But, for specific jobs, they should be maintained. Standards differ from job to job because the requirements for jobs differ.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Perhaps I was not clear. I am talking about capabilities and strength where is is required. Not their clothing size.

I understand.

Perhaps I was not clear: Qualification standards often involve more than capabilities and strength. They may involved the ability to wear certain clothing and/or protective gear.

I am aware of situations were females failed to meet qualifications due to their inability to be fit for protective gear and/or required clothing.

In those cases, where the males are more likely to have protective gear/clothing available for them than females, it is discrimination.

Protective gear/clothing should be available to females on the same ration of the U.S. population as for males. To fail this is discrimination.

In regard to strength: It has clearly been discovered that the military (not just the army) had enlistment standards that were not related to their general ability to serve in the military. Those standards were appropriate for some jobs and should be maintained for those. But, as a general enlistment standard they needed to be lowered for both males and for females.

NOTE: About two years ago I reviewed the enlistment standards for the military and discovered the following:

1) General enlistment standards are the same for all-- Army Navy, etc. Yes, specific jobs have higher standards.

2) As a general enlistment standard, the physical has been lowered and the clinical (Medical history) has been expanded in a manner that does not discriminate between males and females. Also educational has been expanded. With training, physical strength can be increased for both females and males. But, clinical history is important.

3) I have some issues with current standards. They prevent people from serving who have served well in the past. But, they do not discriminate between males and females.

[Gerr]

I have a proposal:

Keep Affirmative Action for minorities going for 75% of the time period that white folks had it. After that we can call it evens. Then we can move on. That's a good deal I think.

Sorry, 2 wrongs won't make it right.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Sorry, 2 wrongs won't make it right.

Two wrongs may not make a right.

But, how do you take corrective action to make something right?

1) If my credit card account in hacked in a manner that I am charged, wrongly, of a charge that was sent to someone else, the typical correction is for the bank to credit my account for the charged amount.

The bank will do that even though it may be impossible for the bank to recover the amount wrongly taken from me. In this case the owners (or stockholders) of the bank essentially pay for the error in reduced profits. In one sense of the word, this is wrong as they did not defraud me. In making the original charge to me they simply acted on what was presented as a valid charge. Are you telling us that this 2nd wrong does not make it right?

2) Let us say that for the past 20 years the city of Peaceful has discriminated against Hispanics in hiring police officers. During this period of time every "best qualified" Hispanic applicant has been turned down and a less qualified Caucasion has been hired.

A determination is made that if the city of Peaceful had not discriminated against Hispanics, it would have employed five (5) Hispanic officers. The five actually discriminated against cannot be hired now. One is now the elected governor of the State, one is city District Attorney, one is the city Mayor, one has died and the other is address unknown.

Are you telling us that the next five, qualified, Hispanic applicants should not be given preferential treatment in their applications? To do this is to continue a past discrimination in the police department.

How would you attempt to rectify this situation of discrimination?

Or, are you telling us that the discrimination should continue, as long as no Hispanic was discriminated against in the future?

Would you say the same if projections suggested that the current police department was at full strength and it was projected that no new officers would be needed for the next 10 years?

3) Gerry, here is the deal: There is often no easy way to rectify past discrimination. Would you continue it? What you suggest as the ideal answer?

[bonnie]

Or, are you telling us that the discrimination should continue, as long as no Hispanic was discriminated against in the future?

Would you say the same if projections suggested that the current police department was at full strength and it was projected that no new officers would be needed for the next 10 years?

3) Gerry, here is the deal: There is often no easy way to rectify past discrimination. Would you continue it? What you suggest as the ideal answer?

So far as I know there is no way to undo the past. You can only go forward and stop discrimination to any race or skin color.

[Naomi]

[Gerr]

End discrimination by using discrimination? The reasoning baffles me.

In the public arena, discrimination can be ended by making it a crime to do so. And level the playing field for those discriminated against by providing the training or education that kept them competing on even terms.

[joeb]

Quote:

Or, are you telling us that the discrimination should continue, as long as no Hispanic was discriminated against in the future?

I don't understand your thinking. In your example the 5 men cannot now be hired for a variety of reasons. So, how does that discrimination continue if, in future hirings, the best qualified person applying for a job as a city cop is hired regardless of their race? The discrimination has effectively ended at that point.

The way I understand your thinking is that if someone is discriminated against, and they move on from that to go do something else and are no longer interested in that position that act of discrimination becomes eternal. It never ends even though the practice that led to this one act of discrimination goes away. To that I can only shake my head in puzzlement as it's not logical in any sense that I can see.