Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in higher education by SIGNYM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in higher education

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 3, 2023 18:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 266
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 3, 2023 5:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You won't fix racism with more racism
By H.P. Smith

Let's be honest: the Diversity Hire does no one any good...least of all the Diversity Hire. Last week's SCOTUS decision to do away with race-based Affirmative Action policies in higher education finally took a step towards fixing a grievous wrong.

But if you listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren (infamously known as Fauxcahontas, Lie-Awatha, and Sitting B-------)

Here, I had to stop and laugh

Quote:
what happened is that the "extremist" Supreme Court "rolled back the march toward racial justice, and narrowed educational opportunity for all." For that comment, she was deservedly roasted on Twitter. I won't spoil the fun...go check it out!

In Warren's mind, ending the blatant discrimination against historically higher-achieving Asians and whites (sorry, just the facts) means marching away from racial justice. Evidently, "racial justice" means fighting racism with even more blatant racism, as long as that racism helps out whichever protected group is in favor today.

Warren benefited from these racist policies by being employed at Harvard Law for over twenty years because she claimed to be "American Indian," so why wouldn't she support affirmative action? Ironically, she had to cheat in order to get ahead as a boring old white chick, even back then. Further irony is that Warren presumably took the place that Harvard's quota system had set aside for an actual Native American!

MORE AT https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/you_wont_fix_racism_with_
more_racism.html

Yanno, our hiring and promotion process was extremely rigid and careful. First we screened applications to see if they met qualifications (ie four year degree in chemistry or with the equivalent coursework in chemistry - basic, analytical, organic, instrumental, physical).

Then the 200+ applicants were given a written test. The test was constructed and evaluated professionally - it was an interesting process, which I found fascinating but won't bore you with the details.

Depending on the number of positions open, we would then take the top 10-20 for interview with a three- person panel of technical supervisors and/or managers, asking a standard set of written questions. We were NOT allowed to hint or give any indication that their answers were wrong, insufficient, or brilliant. One of the most telling questions IMHO was "What was the most professionally challenging problem you have ever solved?"

I can tell you, it's an unnerving process facing three people who are like the hear, see, and speak no evil monkeys. Some interviews adopted a fixed "friendly" expression, some were a little bit scowlier, but the demeanor of the panel didn't change from interview to interview. Also, we were required to take extensive notes.

The ratings had to be within a few points of each other, and at the end when we wrote up a ranked list, we had to ask ourselves, and each other... "Does this list make sense?" And if there was a dispute, we had to refer to our notes, with quotes, on why we would place a person higher, or lower, yan someone else.

I once was in a panel that interviewed 50 engineers for promotion. It was a grueling process!

And- finally- we would pursue the top candidates' references.

****

I saw no evidence of racial discrimination. But I did see bias in the process.

First, the process itself selects for people who interview well. People who don't speak well, in an organized fashion, with textbook answers, were weeded out, no matter how brilliantly they might perform in real life.

There was a definite age bias. The thinking was: It takes so long to train someone, by the time they're trained they'll be ready to retire.

And finally, there was a bias towards young, pretty women. Being the only woman on the panel, I was outvoted on a few hires and promotions that I thought were vastly underserved, and a few that were vastly deserved but not selected.

Overall, tho, the process worked well. The group we assembled was great. Only one black person, a foreigner from Ethiopia, made it thru the process. Our workforce was pretty 50/50 between men and women who, for the most part, performed equally well when it came to wrenching an instrument or developing/ modifying methods or performing "routine" analyses. Men OTOH did tend to program better Asian immigrants or first generation were relatively over- represented.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 3, 2023 6:23 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Case in point: Marxist Racist Token Diversity Hire Joyless Reid admitted to the world that she was not qualified to attend Harvard (SHOCKERS to all) except for her Affirmative Action waiver in selection.

Could a better case be made for erasing this program?

And folk still wonder why Diversity Hire doctors are incapable of healing Americans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE