With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

...

YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given
areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't
"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college
who
had a similar mentality to yours. She decried that blacks were
"underrepresented" in students transferring to math and science programs
in
the UC and CSU systems, and one of the instructors asked her how she
expected 12% of the students accepted to these schools to be black when
only
2-3% of the students in those programs were black to begin with? I
recall
that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black students -
and
half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort of
the
CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?

I don't see that as a "problem" if there aren't a bunch of PC assholes
insisting that the reason these groups are "underrepresented" is somehow due
to "racism"...

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

So can idiots - and BTW, hiring on the basis of merit is NOT racism...

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc.

If you're talking about individuals, yes. However, you're basing your false
assumption of "racism" on group (NOT individual) characteristics...

"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. Which means that if
hiring practice do indeed hire solely on merit, the distribution of
employees will match the distribution of candidates. And that affirmative
action will be unnecessary.

That makes no sense at all and is obviously false.

If it makes no sense, how can it be false? You're lashing out because you know it's true, but since you can't cope with the truth, you figure an ad hominem attack will get you off the hook.

If you randomly draw a sub-population S from a large population P selecting from characteristic Q, than an independent characteristic R will occur approximately in the same distributions in S and P. It's an elementary statistical hypothesis used in science experiments everyday.

If you do find the distribution of R in S and P is significantly different, it means either S is a biassed rather than random drawing from P, or that Q and R are correlated, not independent.

In terms of employment
random drawing = EEO, all job candidates are evaluated equally
S = people you hire
P = the pool of job candidates
Q = the "merits" you claim to be using
R = characteristics that Congress had declared are independent
to the merits American employers can hire on

So if in your case S and P are significantly different, logic leads to two alternatives. Either (1) you biassed your sampling of the job pool (this means you excluded some people before even considering their "merits", i.e. you're a bigot), or (2) the Congress is wrong and some classes of people mentioned really are inferior.

Since nobody has challenged Congress on this, excluded middle leads to the conclusion that you're a bigot.

So if the distributions do not match, then to a computable confidence the
hiring is not fair. This is all elementary logic, which undoubtedly why
you cannot follow it.

You have not presented a single argument thus far that your statement can be

Learn some science. It's a basic statistical hypothesis used to evaluate every experiment.

Do you really believe employers should be allowed to continue unfair
hiring practices in defiance of the law?

What you are stating is not the law and the companies are not in any
violation of the law. It would be very hard to find a company that follows
your rules, but they are continually certified as being in compliance with
the law.

I don't have rules. I have statistics and their application. Bigots lie, math doesn't.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
And those strengths and weaknesses are distributed randomly throughout the
population, occurring equally likely regardless of race, color, creed,
country of origin, or previous state of servitude. That means if a company
is being fair the distribution of promotions will show no bias towards
race, color, creed, etc.

We know for a fact that the strengths and weaknesses are not randomly
distributed and can not be expected to be randomly distributed unless it can
be proven that genetics is a lie and genetics can have no effects on people.

Oddly you got it wrong. Well, perhaps it's not all that odd. Mutations occur at random. Favorable mutations do a sort of drunk man stagger around the gene pool increasing their density over time. Homo sapiens tend to be exogamous and anti-incestuous, speeding the random churning of DNA to quickly propagate favorable mutations around the world.

The genetic basis of effect on all aspects of human characteristics is a
widely studied area with many papers being published in the Scientific

You need to do some more reading. Genetics confirms more than ever how connected humans are. And how people that look similar are often a greater taxonomic distance than people you would classify as different races. Genetics confirms so called races are transient concentrations of a few genes with smooth transitions between different peaks, and little correlation among the different characteristics that make up so-called races. Not surprising considering the human genome is made up of 46 independent packets (which are being split and re-spliced into interesting new combinations).

You may have noticed that a drug was approved for blacks only because it was
only effective for a particular genetic characteristics of blacks. Should

Again you need to do more reading. Elementary results from Mendel show that if a gene does not advantage or disadvantage an individual, it tends to retain the same density in a population over time. Since it's improbable that the same mutation occurs twice, a neutral mutation tends to propagate very slowly to other populations. Darwin showed that if a gene is advantageous or disadvantageous, its density and propagation change quickly.

The mutation that protected from Black Death increased its density in England; then when the plague subsided, it became neutral and retained similar density in various populations. Now that gene is advantageous again, and showing up in populations around the world. English and their descendants still have a higher advantage, but that is disappearing.

So would it be racist to produce that blacks only drug to reduce hear
attacks, or would it be racist to not produce the drug and let more blacks
die of heart attacks?

Transient correlations occur because a mutation occurs in one individual and her descendants. However favorable mutations spread on their chromosome independently of the other 45 chromosomes. Genes selected for quickly lose any correlation to unrelated and unlinked genes. Since among humans (apparently excluding your family) characteristics like intelligence and stamina and strength are selected for, and their advantage tends to be propagated around the world quickly.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

Congress doesn't agree with you. The only people who agree with you are
other bigots.

Another fine example of Lefty Liberal circular reasoning...

You're free to petition Congress to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, and all of its laws based on that Amendment. Until then, vox populi vox Dei.


Colleges face a different situation than employers. You keep diverting by
bringing up college issues to rationalize employment discrimination.

No, I bring it up as an example of political correctness run amuck....

Diversion. EEO/AA is the law of the land, not some buzzwords.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

So can idiots - and BTW, hiring on the basis of merit is NOT racism...

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc.

If you're talking about individuals, yes. However, you're basing your false
assumption of "racism" on group (NOT individual) characteristics...

My bad. I shouldn't be calling everyone who holds racist views as racist collectively, I should be calling the racist individually. Have you got their email addresses?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:
"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. Which means that if
hiring practice do indeed hire solely on merit, the distribution of
employees will match the distribution of candidates. And that affirmative
action will be unnecessary.

That makes no sense at all and is obviously false.


If it makes no sense, how can it be false? You're lashing out because you know it's true, but since you can't cope with the truth, you figure an ad hominem attack will get you off the hook.

If you randomly draw a sub-population S from a large population P selecting from characteristic Q, than an independent characteristic R will occur approximately in the same distributions in S and P. It's an elementary statistical hypothesis used in science experiments everyday.

If you do find the distribution of R in S and P is significantly different, it means either S is a biassed rather than random drawing from P, or that Q and R are correlated, not independent.

In terms of employment
random drawing = EEO, all job candidates are evaluated equally
S = people you hire
P = the pool of job candidates
Q = the "merits" you claim to be using
R = characteristics that Congress had declared are independent
to the merits American employers can hire on

So if in your case S and P are significantly different, logic leads to two alternatives. Either (1) you biassed your sampling of the job pool (this means you excluded some people before even considering their "merits", i.e. you're a bigot), or (2) the Congress is wrong and some classes of people mentioned really are inferior.

Since nobody has challenged Congress on this, excluded middle leads to the conclusion that you're a bigot.


So if the distributions do not match, then to a computable confidence the
hiring is not fair. This is all elementary logic, which undoubtedly why
you cannot follow it.

You have not presented a single argument thus far that your statement can be


Learn some science. It's a basic statistical hypothesis used to evaluate every experiment.


Do you really believe employers should be allowed to continue unfair
hiring practices in defiance of the law?

What you are stating is not the law and the companies are not in any
violation of the law. It would be very hard to find a company that follows
your rules, but they are continually certified as being in compliance with
the law.


I don't have rules. I have statistics and their application. Bigots lie, math doesn't.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.


You appear to have a real fantasy as to the content of the law. The law
requires that all candidates be evaluated on equivalent and reasonable
grounds. There is no requirement that the result of the evaluation be
equal for any subset of the candidates. Even the reasonably strong
requirement that citizens and residents be given preference can be
overturned for the hiring of a superior candidate from outside the US.

Jack May wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


The issue has nothing to do with the law. In this instance it was simply
the bias of an administrator who decided to ignore some very well
qualified female applicants and push for the consideration of inferior
applicants who had other minority status.


What you stated that is two Ph.D candidates in Math were not hired. Ph.D in
math seldom have the skills required for industry and have a difficult time
finding work in industry. To find work, most math major have to take
courses in engineering or some other field that can give them useful skills.

Qualification for employment will depend a lot on what areas of specialty
the Ph.Ds are in. Math specialties that are based on proving theorems is
of little value to industry.

The more modern culture in math is for example trying develop computer
algorithms that can prove if software or a chip is error free. That is
potentially more useful to industry, but the goal is probably so far off
that it probably not worth the investment in company funds to continue the
research.

My guess is that you became blinded by Ph.d qualifications and made a
serious mistake in wanting to hire the two women. I would probably also
consider your decision as a hiring blunder and take steps to correct that
mistake.

Companies are not extensions of University Ph.D programs. Companies have to
produce profitable products, not research papers.




You misunderstand the job. The position is a university tenure track
position in a Mathematics department. A Ph.D. in mathematics is a
specific job requirement.

The ability to do research in mathematics is a requirement for the position.

In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

I don't see that as a "problem" if there aren't a bunch of PC assholes
insisting that the reason these groups are "underrepresented" is somehow due
to "racism"...

If you had spent your early years (1-18) in Kentucky and Missouri, as I
did, you'd KNOW it was due to racism - that is, unless you were
incompetent to judge or unwilling to do it.

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:
that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black students - and
half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort of the
CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?

Those very questions are a manifestation of the "I know what's best for
you" hubris that is tightly woven into the American WASP cultural
psychology. This hubris is such an integral part of the culture that we
find it at every point of the political spectrum. The right exhibits this
hubris when it "exports freedom," but the left exhibits it too when it
obssesses about equality.

Is it a problem that blacks are not interested in the academic track of the
hard sciences? It's only a problem because American WASP culture values
technology and science and believes that others should too. Confronted with
the fact that they don't, the cultural reaction is to label the situation
"a problem" and look around for a solution.

But, indeed, why should the ethnic distribution of college students within
specific majors match the ethnic distribution of the general population?
Why must everyone like to study what American WASP culture likes to study?