Avatar image for modernww2fare
Posted by modernww2fare (7117 posts) 3 years, 28 days ago

Poll: Is white privilege real? (529 votes)

Yes 56%
No 43%

Is white privilege real in certain countries?

Avatar image for w0nd
#251 Posted by w0nd (6803 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

Depends on the state, and its hard to deny it when it's been outed before....

it's "rich" white privilege though, if they are trailer trash it won't make a difference

Does this statement imply that rich black people don't have those privileges?

They do, I was going by the original title though

Avatar image for comicace3
#252 Edited by comicace3 (12434 posts) - - Show Bio

@pajeet said:
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

White privilege exists.

Pictures with words? Check

Pictures with little to no meaning/context? Check

Pictures that are false? Check

nothing to say about it? Check

Impressive trolling.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#254 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

lol, I wanna see how far you get before you get banned.

Avatar image for comicace3
#255 Edited by comicace3 (12434 posts) - - Show Bio

lol, I wanna see how far you get before you get banned.

IDK whether to be impressed by how stupid his reply was or just wait and watch till he is banned.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#258 Edited by dshipp17 (5522 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

“And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”

My proposal for Title VII to be amended by making discrimination based on looks is obviously something before even a preliminary rough draft; it’s not the final product with all of the specifics; addressing your points would be done before the final product. Apart of this new amendment to account for discrimination based on looks, in certain occupations, a company will be allowed to require applicants to have sex appeal. The occupations I’d envisioned would not be one of those circumstances.

It would be the company’s job to meet it’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the position being offered would require making eye contact, body language, etc and explain how the job applicant failed to demonstrate proper eye contact, body language, etc, during the job interview; but, the job applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that these claims were pretext, under the new and revised employment laws which would make it easier for the job applicant to demonstrate pretext (e.g. demonstrating that a comment/explanation offered by the employer was false or a lie would be sufficient to meet this burden under the new law; or, that the employer gave insufficient bases for the applicant to demonstrate pretext would now be sufficient for the job applicant to meet his burden of proof).

“Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.”

Sure, a legitimate government purpose could be stopping discrimination against ugly people; ugly people, like anyone else need to make a living with employment; depriving these people of the privileges of people who are only more qualified because they look better is a legitimate government interest to stop. But, in most employment, with the exceptions outline in the law, attraction is not important for doing the job as a competent employee; personality, however, is already an issue addressed in a legitimate termination and is not something specific only to ugly people (e.g. a bad temperament). Your studies would have to show that it’s something that’s only systemic to ugly people and could not being a trait also displayed by good looking or normal looking people. I disagree; ugly people do need protecting and here’s a list of ugly people who have presented their stories of being disenfranchised because of their looks; we can easily extrapolate that their experiences are the same throughout the entire history of the civilized world. They sure can be protected at the level of race and sex; point of fact, someone who is not ugly cannot speak for people who are ugly, in this matter, no more than a white who is a million or billionaire can speak for a disenfranchised African American who is over 40 living in a ghetto; what makes you think that you can speak for ugly people to summarily deprive them of new protections, especially not being ugly yourself? No one person can speak for a whole racial group or sex in such a manner.

“Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"”

Sure, and those cases have been listed in this new law as exceptions; the company is required to qualify a position as requiring sex appeal and get Justice Department approval in the spirit of this amended law. Hooters is just one company. But, similar companies like Burger King has not explicitly required this Hooters standard, although they can apply. But, in these circumstances, a person lacking this sex appeal can still work in the areas of the building outside of public view such as a cook or dishwasher; actually, the only ones in the Hooters example are the waiters; but, there are many other occupations at Hooters to fill. The main thrust and spirit of this law was intended for the professional fields requiring at least a 4 year college degree, but, we also try to account for the exceptions that don’t require a 4 year college degree. Under the new laws, the definition of what constitutes a frivolous filing has been revised, so, you’d need to be more specific. Additionally, as in the past, the administrative process necessarily dispenses of a frivolous cause of action; the fact that an applicant qualified for an interview or ranked/rated high is already grounds to dismiss a claim that a suit is frivolous. Additionally, additional staff and resources have been allocated in the budget to accommodate these new administrative and judicial suits. Maybe, but, the alleged ugly applicant is not laughing; proceed!

Your honor, they've failed to prove that my company didn't hire him simply because, while qualified and knowledgeable, the interviewer did not like him. Such a law as this is impossible to apply in practice because there are so many factors that my company, and every company, takes into account when hiring people---its a holistic approach, which includes like-ability. How would anyone suing under this law ever prove that the applicant was not hired because, say, the interviewer didn't like their shoes? Or their shirt? Or their personality?

Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person? I look for ambition and a desire to take larger responsibilities over time in any employee. I look for leadership as well. And a key to both of those, your honor, is the applicants ability to present themselves in a confident, articulate, and well put together way.

Out of persona, the court/any court would never budget additional resources and times to accomodate a new class of claims as a response to the idea that allowing it to go through would open the flood gates.... The reality is that looks-based discrimination, regardless of a person being qualified, could be cited by anyone. In fact, if you were a different race from me, I could cite a combination of racism and looks based discrimination, no matter how I look, because races have different ideas of what is considered attractive and unattractive. I could say you didn't hire me because I'm ugly, because you don't consider _______ people attractive.

I'll give you a fuller response to other things you said in this post after Finals.

EDIT: Btw- You're assuming I'm not ugly myself.

“Your honor, they've failed to prove that my company didn't hire him simply because, while qualified and knowledgeable, the interviewer did not like him. Such a law as this is impossible to apply in practice because there are so many factors that my company, and every company, takes into account when hiring people---its a holistic approach, which includes like-ability. How would anyone suing under this law ever prove that the applicant was not hired because, say, the interviewer didn't like their shoes? Or their shirt? Or their personality?”

The amendments to Title VII was intended to minimize subjective and arbitrary factors that you mention as much a feasible. You’re job announcement, although limited by the amendments, should have been the only bases for qualification; without those, or, if there are hidden qualification standards, no one could realistically be expected to meet those qualifications; applying hidden qualification standards have been outlawed by the new amendments. The job applicant is only required to show that he was qualified for the job, as listed by the qualification standards provided in the announcement. With the new amendments, likability is not a valid qualification standard. However, you’re more than invited to share aspects of the interview that disqualified the applicant in such a way that he can prove pretext. The new amendments limited you to 5 skills an applicant must posses for the job; however, you must demonstrate how they are so essential that lacking one of them could not be remedied through a short period of on the job training. An unacceptable personality could be addressed during a retention hearing, provided that personality trait both affected the applicant's ability to be unable to successfully complete an essential knowledge, skill, or ability, or, hindered the company’s ability to fulfill its mission.

“Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person? I look for ambition and a desire to take larger responsibilities over time in any employee. I look for leadership as well. And a key to both of those, your honor, is the applicants ability to present themselves in a confident, articulate, and well put together way.”

All of those can be ascertained through an over-the-phone interview; how does making eye contact and displaying confidence show a higher likelihood of moving up the ranks? What if the applicant is simply nervous on the first impression? The best way to get to know someone is to spend time with them for at least a month; their true colors will come out around that length of time; whether you decide to promote an employee is a matter for another case, but, factors associated with a promotion have also been amended with this new law.

“Out of persona, the court/any court would never budget additional resources and times to accomodate a new class of claims as a response to the idea that allowing it to go through would open the flood gates.... The reality is that looks-based discrimination, regardless of a person being qualified, could be cited by anyone. In fact, if you were a different race from me, I could cite a combination of racism and looks based discrimination, no matter how I look, because races have different ideas of what is considered attractive and unattractive. I could say you didn't hire me because I'm ugly, because you don't consider _______ people attractive.”

It’s Congress’s decision about how to allocate the budget, not the court’s. I’m talking about the new law providing additional resources to accommodate a new set of claims; this goes for either the EEOC or a new agency entirely that was created to entertain these new classes of cases.

Than, you’d have both a traditional race discrimination claim on you, as well as a looks based discrimination claim.

Avatar image for comicace3
#259 Posted by comicace3 (12434 posts) - - Show Bio

@pajeet said:
@comicace3 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

lol, I wanna see how far you get before you get banned.

IDK whether to be impressed by how stupid his reply was or just wait and watch till he is banned.

Big words. Now learn "fatherhood" and "employment" maybe even "law"

I think my initial comment may have triggered you to replying and for that I just wanna say, I'm not sorry.

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#261 Edited by Petey_is_Spidey (11668 posts) - - Show Bio

lol, I wanna see how far you get before you get banned.

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#262 Posted by Petey_is_Spidey (11668 posts) - - Show Bio

I wonder who's alt it belongs to, 'cause its definitely not some random, new account who only joined to comment on THIS particular thread.

Avatar image for mooty_pass
#264 Edited by Mooty_Pass (9897 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes White Privilege is definitely real.

Avatar image for jezer
#265 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

“And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”

My proposal for Title VII to be amended by making discrimination based on looks is obviously something before even a preliminary rough draft; it’s not the final product with all of the specifics; addressing your points would be done before the final product. Apart of this new amendment to account for discrimination based on looks, in certain occupations, a company will be allowed to require applicants to have sex appeal. The occupations I’d envisioned would not be one of those circumstances.

It would be the company’s job to meet it’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the position being offered would require making eye contact, body language, etc and explain how the job applicant failed to demonstrate proper eye contact, body language, etc, during the job interview; but, the job applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that these claims were pretext, under the new and revised employment laws which would make it easier for the job applicant to demonstrate pretext (e.g. demonstrating that a comment/explanation offered by the employer was false or a lie would be sufficient to meet this burden under the new law; or, that the employer gave insufficient bases for the applicant to demonstrate pretext would now be sufficient for the job applicant to meet his burden of proof).

“Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.”

Sure, a legitimate government purpose could be stopping discrimination against ugly people; ugly people, like anyone else need to make a living with employment; depriving these people of the privileges of people who are only more qualified because they look better is a legitimate government interest to stop. But, in most employment, with the exceptions outline in the law, attraction is not important for doing the job as a competent employee; personality, however, is already an issue addressed in a legitimate termination and is not something specific only to ugly people (e.g. a bad temperament). Your studies would have to show that it’s something that’s only systemic to ugly people and could not being a trait also displayed by good looking or normal looking people. I disagree; ugly people do need protecting and here’s a list of ugly people who have presented their stories of being disenfranchised because of their looks; we can easily extrapolate that their experiences are the same throughout the entire history of the civilized world. They sure can be protected at the level of race and sex; point of fact, someone who is not ugly cannot speak for people who are ugly, in this matter, no more than a white who is a million or billionaire can speak for a disenfranchised African American who is over 40 living in a ghetto; what makes you think that you can speak for ugly people to summarily deprive them of new protections, especially not being ugly yourself? No one person can speak for a whole racial group or sex in such a manner.

“Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"”

Sure, and those cases have been listed in this new law as exceptions; the company is required to qualify a position as requiring sex appeal and get Justice Department approval in the spirit of this amended law. Hooters is just one company. But, similar companies like Burger King has not explicitly required this Hooters standard, although they can apply. But, in these circumstances, a person lacking this sex appeal can still work in the areas of the building outside of public view such as a cook or dishwasher; actually, the only ones in the Hooters example are the waiters; but, there are many other occupations at Hooters to fill. The main thrust and spirit of this law was intended for the professional fields requiring at least a 4 year college degree, but, we also try to account for the exceptions that don’t require a 4 year college degree. Under the new laws, the definition of what constitutes a frivolous filing has been revised, so, you’d need to be more specific. Additionally, as in the past, the administrative process necessarily dispenses of a frivolous cause of action; the fact that an applicant qualified for an interview or ranked/rated high is already grounds to dismiss a claim that a suit is frivolous. Additionally, additional staff and resources have been allocated in the budget to accommodate these new administrative and judicial suits. Maybe, but, the alleged ugly applicant is not laughing; proceed!

Your honor, they've failed to prove that my company didn't hire him simply because, while qualified and knowledgeable, the interviewer did not like him. Such a law as this is impossible to apply in practice because there are so many factors that my company, and every company, takes into account when hiring people---its a holistic approach, which includes like-ability. How would anyone suing under this law ever prove that the applicant was not hired because, say, the interviewer didn't like their shoes? Or their shirt? Or their personality?

Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person? I look for ambition and a desire to take larger responsibilities over time in any employee. I look for leadership as well. And a key to both of those, your honor, is the applicants ability to present themselves in a confident, articulate, and well put together way.

Out of persona, the court/any court would never budget additional resources and times to accomodate a new class of claims as a response to the idea that allowing it to go through would open the flood gates.... The reality is that looks-based discrimination, regardless of a person being qualified, could be cited by anyone. In fact, if you were a different race from me, I could cite a combination of racism and looks based discrimination, no matter how I look, because races have different ideas of what is considered attractive and unattractive. I could say you didn't hire me because I'm ugly, because you don't consider _______ people attractive.

I'll give you a fuller response to other things you said in this post after Finals.

EDIT: Btw- You're assuming I'm not ugly myself.

1) The amendments to Title VII was intended to minimize subjective and arbitrary factors that you mention as much a feasible. You’re job announcement, although limited by the amendments, should have been the only bases for qualification; without those, or, if there are hidden qualification standards, no could realistically be expected to meet those qualifications; applying hidden qualifications have been outlawed by the new amendments. The job applicant is only required to show that he was qualified for the job, as listed by the qualification standards in the announcement. With the new amendments, likability is not a valid qualification standard. However, you’re more than invited to share aspects of the interview that disqualified the applicant in such a way that he can prove pretext. The new amendments limited you to 5 skills an applicant must posses for the job; however, you must demonstrate how they are so essential that lacking one of them could not be remedied through a short period of on the job training. An unacceptable personality could be addressed during a retention hearing, provided that personality trait both affected the applicant to be unable to successfully complete an essential knowledge, skill, or ability, or, hindered the company’s ability to fulfill its mission.

2) All of those can be ascertained through an over-the-phone interview; how does making eye contact and displaying confidence show a higher likelihood of moving up the ranks? What if the applicant is simply nervous on the first impression? The best way to get to know someone is to spend time with them fore at least a month; their true colors come out; whether you decide to promote an employee is a matter for another case, but, factors associated with a promotion have also been amended with this new law.

1) The most obvious reaction to your proposed amendment is that Employers would contract around it. As in, they would write an agreement saying that in choosing to sit down and interview with you, you are relinquishing your right to sue on the basis of "having met job requirements promulgated in the job announcement" and not meeting "subjective, hidden qualifications." So, anyone who would try to interview with a company would be forced to sign it first, lest they get passed up for someone who is willing to.

Additionally, your proposed amendment wouldn't make sense from the standpoint that it means that any qualified person who goes into the interview gets the job----and yet, in most companies, there are generally multiple qualified people who interview for a position. So, who gets it? Whoever doesn't get the job then sues the company, claiming they met all the proposed qualifications. Or, maybe they go by date---the first person they interview, who meets the qualifications, gets the job? In which case, companies will be very stingy about allowing people to come in and interview, and the "interview" would be essentially done in so far as they choose who comes in---based solely on resume. Thus, the interview process has moved/boiled down to paper qualifications----and companies will start making stretchier assumptions to decide who they want to pick out of the resume pile. Ultimately, this leads to----a job interview process devoid of personality. When people apply for jobs outside of their qualifications, that they think they could make up for in person during the interview, it would be impossible for them to get a job.

I understand that you're just making this up as you go along, but you need to realize that your idea even in its infantile state of conception and consideration, is not even slightly feasible. In fact, I think it would take part of the soul out of interviewing. I honestly don't think a thinktank could magically fix all the potential flaws in your basic idea, even if given a full year to ponder it.

2) Really? You can ascertain someone's confidence in person based on how they are over the phone? Confidence and eye contact demonstrate characteristics of a leader, someone who can speak on behalf of a company or their underlings in situations that require that or properly motivate others to get the job done. If an applicant is simply nervous during the interview, than he might not have the personality type or experience(because he doesn't have enough experience to be comfortable interviewing) needed in one that would eventually move up---it reflects and correlates other possible flaws in the applicant.

Oh really, this law would also outline factors necessary for a promotion? So people can start suing when the person who knows the boss gets the promotion over the person who doesn't have that connection, but works harder? I'm sorry....but you have to admit that just isn't feasible. Not only do companies---who would want to maintain the status quo---have a lot of political power to prevent this from ever coming to pass, courts are hesitant when interferring with a companies to run their business as efficiently as possible without taking into account breaking laws related to fraud/monopolies/etc. They definitely wouldn't do that when it comes to a class without any extensive history of discrimination, like ugly people. Freedom to contract(because that's how companies would get around it) versus micromanaging business practices in order to keep companies from discriminating against ugly people? Freedom to contract would win.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#266 Edited by dshipp17 (5522 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise. If you're talking about immigrants, many of the family coming here are extremely poor, and they earn jobs working as dishwashers and low wage workers and allowing their kids to go to school. You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities? Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades. That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.

“Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise.”

But, benefitting from positive stereotypes, the issues mention here was during a time long past. Asians sure can get jobs. Just like universities, corporations are even more so filled with only Asians and whites; that’s the point; pack all of the elite schools with Asians and whites, rely on the negative stereotypes and images created by whites, claim there are no qualified African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans ro fill the positions, keep these groups disenfranchised, and support the Republican party. As I said, we’re in a legalized or updated version of the Jim Crow Era were most people, including minorities, don’t realize this reality.

“You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities?”

They do it because of white privilege and to perpetuate stereotypes about these three groups; it’s actually as simple as that; whites have been breed to believe certain things; it’s passed down generation to generation; it’s like a natural aversion against African Americans, in specific; it’s been grand-fathered into the system.

“Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades.”

You just answered your previous questions right there; that’s a negative stereotype against these three minority groups and bull that you received from your parents to believe; you’re not considering a whole host of possible factors to explain that. Statics can be misused and abused; than, there’s my previously mentioned factor: grading African Americans more harshly and applying the soft bigotry of low expectations. There are still African Americans who work hard for good grades and either get good grades or are cheated out of good grades by biased professors and teachers (e.g. again, grading them more harshly).

“That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.”

No, because, it depends on who applied and the bogus statics you might be using or replying upon. There definitely is white privilege here. I already did; it’s my experience and the experiences of all students from these three minority groups, as long as they’re aware enough to realize what happened, as I’m aware of what happened. Besides, you haven’t proven your points either; they’re all assumptions on your part: because of statistics, any person who applied toi a university had lower grades than the people accepted. One very important factor you’re missing is that whites are likely the one’s making the enrollment decisions.

Those stereotypes have to be reinforced in some ways. Those with a degree and finish colleges will earn a degree, maybe you should tackle why other races have higher drop out rates. You can't expect people who don't even finish High School to go to college and see them in college. Especially, statistic wise, Asians have higher grades. I'm also using my own experience but there is a degree of biased due to how we view and judge our own life, so you're not the only one. I don't have to prove anything, my point is basically statistically, Asians stay in school more, they have higher grades, you see them more in college which then they get jobs and earn money, which are all true and can be proven, you said other races get targeted by teachers, giving them lower grades, but you can't and haven't proven that. Yes, Whites are the ones making enrollment decisions, so when they see Asians, they have them go to school instead of other White students and that's why in many of the higher level schools like UCLA, Asians actually outnumbered Whites. Who would have thought Whites are racist against Whites in favor of Asian students.

“Those stereotypes have to be reinforced in some ways. Those with a degree and finish colleges will earn a degree, maybe you should tackle why other races have higher drop out rates. ”

Well, back to one of my earlier points, those other races are probably being graded more harshly than the Asian and white students. Tackling that would take the form of amendments to Title VII to insure that all students are graded the same for similar mistakes on exams and homework assignments. But, right now, we’re more focused on college admissions.

“You can't expect people who don't even finish High School to go to college and see them in college.”

Well, someone who didn’t complete high school or earn a GED would be applying to college, especially a highly selective college, I would imagine.

“Especially, statistic wise, Asians have higher grades.”

And, again, being graded less harshly could be one factor that accounts for those high grades. Generally being represented as having high grades does not mean that African Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans applying for a seat in the same school didn’t also have high grades, which would likely be the case when applying to a highly selective school.

“I'm also using my own experience but there is a degree of biased due to how we view and judge our own life, so you're not the only one. I don't have to prove anything, my point is basically statistically,”

Having statistics doesn’t prove any of the points you made; would certain variables that were not accounted for in those statistics, certain variables that I’ve mentioned, as but a few, also account for generally receiving higher grades? Yes, it appears that I have a sympathetic bias towards these three ethnic groups and you have a bias towards some of the common stereotypes against these groups (e.g. as above that the African American not selected either had poor grades, didn’t graduate high school, is not a hard worker, etc, failing to account for the possible bias of the selecting officials and a presumption of honesty).

“Asians stay in school more, they have higher grades, you see them more in college which then they get jobs and earn money, which are all true and can be proven, you said other races get targeted by teachers, giving them lower grades, but you can't and haven't proven that. ”

That statement is circular logic; sure, you’re seeing more Asians and whites in the school because of the problems that I raised; I have demonstrated that certain other races are graded more harshly or Asians and whites are grade less harshly or the teachers are more likely to offer Asians and whites more supportive advise to maintain higher grades, etc (e.g. this takes many forms; could have been body language, calling on them, saying that’s a good question, pretending a bad question was good, etc, all of these things effect the confidence of that student and the other students, either in a positive or negative way).

“Yes, Whites are the ones making enrollment decisions, so when they see Asians, they have them go to school instead of other White students and that's why in many of the higher level schools like UCLA, Asians actually outnumbered Whites. Who would have thought Whites are racist against Whites in favor of Asian students.”

Yes, they probably just had to concede that the Asian student was better qualified; however, that’s because of the positive stereotypes in the decision maker’s psyche based simply on race; at the other end of the spectrum, they’d be less likely (or less wiling) to conceded that an African American was better qualified, because it doesn’t fit with their stereotypical narrative (e.g. now, in this case, the African American is taking a seat or job from a white); this bias against African Americans is most commonly shown in the employment context, when it comes to retaining or promoting (e.g. a brilliant African American who’s written dozens of scientific papers with an unblemished history at nearly the same rates and numbers as whites can’t be allowed to stand in their minds).

Avatar image for dshipp17
#267 Edited by dshipp17 (5522 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

“And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”

My proposal for Title VII to be amended by making discrimination based on looks is obviously something before even a preliminary rough draft; it’s not the final product with all of the specifics; addressing your points would be done before the final product. Apart of this new amendment to account for discrimination based on looks, in certain occupations, a company will be allowed to require applicants to have sex appeal. The occupations I’d envisioned would not be one of those circumstances.

It would be the company’s job to meet it’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the position being offered would require making eye contact, body language, etc and explain how the job applicant failed to demonstrate proper eye contact, body language, etc, during the job interview; but, the job applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that these claims were pretext, under the new and revised employment laws which would make it easier for the job applicant to demonstrate pretext (e.g. demonstrating that a comment/explanation offered by the employer was false or a lie would be sufficient to meet this burden under the new law; or, that the employer gave insufficient bases for the applicant to demonstrate pretext would now be sufficient for the job applicant to meet his burden of proof).

“Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.”

Sure, a legitimate government purpose could be stopping discrimination against ugly people; ugly people, like anyone else need to make a living with employment; depriving these people of the privileges of people who are only more qualified because they look better is a legitimate government interest to stop. But, in most employment, with the exceptions outline in the law, attraction is not important for doing the job as a competent employee; personality, however, is already an issue addressed in a legitimate termination and is not something specific only to ugly people (e.g. a bad temperament). Your studies would have to show that it’s something that’s only systemic to ugly people and could not being a trait also displayed by good looking or normal looking people. I disagree; ugly people do need protecting and here’s a list of ugly people who have presented their stories of being disenfranchised because of their looks; we can easily extrapolate that their experiences are the same throughout the entire history of the civilized world. They sure can be protected at the level of race and sex; point of fact, someone who is not ugly cannot speak for people who are ugly, in this matter, no more than a white who is a million or billionaire can speak for a disenfranchised African American who is over 40 living in a ghetto; what makes you think that you can speak for ugly people to summarily deprive them of new protections, especially not being ugly yourself? No one person can speak for a whole racial group or sex in such a manner.

“Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"”

Sure, and those cases have been listed in this new law as exceptions; the company is required to qualify a position as requiring sex appeal and get Justice Department approval in the spirit of this amended law. Hooters is just one company. But, similar companies like Burger King has not explicitly required this Hooters standard, although they can apply. But, in these circumstances, a person lacking this sex appeal can still work in the areas of the building outside of public view such as a cook or dishwasher; actually, the only ones in the Hooters example are the waiters; but, there are many other occupations at Hooters to fill. The main thrust and spirit of this law was intended for the professional fields requiring at least a 4 year college degree, but, we also try to account for the exceptions that don’t require a 4 year college degree. Under the new laws, the definition of what constitutes a frivolous filing has been revised, so, you’d need to be more specific. Additionally, as in the past, the administrative process necessarily dispenses of a frivolous cause of action; the fact that an applicant qualified for an interview or ranked/rated high is already grounds to dismiss a claim that a suit is frivolous. Additionally, additional staff and resources have been allocated in the budget to accommodate these new administrative and judicial suits. Maybe, but, the alleged ugly applicant is not laughing; proceed!

Your honor, they've failed to prove that my company didn't hire him simply because, while qualified and knowledgeable, the interviewer did not like him. Such a law as this is impossible to apply in practice because there are so many factors that my company, and every company, takes into account when hiring people---its a holistic approach, which includes like-ability. How would anyone suing under this law ever prove that the applicant was not hired because, say, the interviewer didn't like their shoes? Or their shirt? Or their personality?

Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person? I look for ambition and a desire to take larger responsibilities over time in any employee. I look for leadership as well. And a key to both of those, your honor, is the applicants ability to present themselves in a confident, articulate, and well put together way.

Out of persona, the court/any court would never budget additional resources and times to accomodate a new class of claims as a response to the idea that allowing it to go through would open the flood gates.... The reality is that looks-based discrimination, regardless of a person being qualified, could be cited by anyone. In fact, if you were a different race from me, I could cite a combination of racism and looks based discrimination, no matter how I look, because races have different ideas of what is considered attractive and unattractive. I could say you didn't hire me because I'm ugly, because you don't consider _______ people attractive.

I'll give you a fuller response to other things you said in this post after Finals.

EDIT: Btw- You're assuming I'm not ugly myself.

1) The amendments to Title VII was intended to minimize subjective and arbitrary factors that you mention as much a feasible. You’re job announcement, although limited by the amendments, should have been the only bases for qualification; without those, or, if there are hidden qualification standards, no could realistically be expected to meet those qualifications; applying hidden qualifications have been outlawed by the new amendments. The job applicant is only required to show that he was qualified for the job, as listed by the qualification standards in the announcement. With the new amendments, likability is not a valid qualification standard. However, you’re more than invited to share aspects of the interview that disqualified the applicant in such a way that he can prove pretext. The new amendments limited you to 5 skills an applicant must posses for the job; however, you must demonstrate how they are so essential that lacking one of them could not be remedied through a short period of on the job training. An unacceptable personality could be addressed during a retention hearing, provided that personality trait both affected the applicant to be unable to successfully complete an essential knowledge, skill, or ability, or, hindered the company’s ability to fulfill its mission.

2) All of those can be ascertained through an over-the-phone interview; how does making eye contact and displaying confidence show a higher likelihood of moving up the ranks? What if the applicant is simply nervous on the first impression? The best way to get to know someone is to spend time with them fore at least a month; their true colors come out; whether you decide to promote an employee is a matter for another case, but, factors associated with a promotion have also been amended with this new law.

1) The most obvious reaction to your proposed amendment is that Employers would contract around it. As in, they would write an agreement saying that in choosing to sit down and interview with you, you are relinquishing your right to sue on the basis of "having met job requirements promulgated in the job announcement" and not meeting "subjective, hidden qualifications." So, anyone who would try to interview with a company would be forced to sign it first, lest they get passed up for someone who is willing to.

Additionally, your proposed amendment wouldn't make sense from the standpoint that it means that any qualified person who goes into the interview gets the job----and yet, in most companies, there are generally multiple qualified people who interview for a position. So, who gets it? Whoever doesn't get the job then sues the company, claiming they met all the proposed qualifications. Or, maybe they go by date---the first person they interview, who meets the qualifications, gets the job? In which case, companies will be very stingy about allowing people to come in and interview, and the "interview" would be essentially done in so far as they choose who comes in---based solely on resume. Thus, the interview process has moved/boiled down to paper qualifications----and companies will start making stretchier assumptions to decide who they want to pick out of the resume pile. Ultimately, this leads to----a job interview process devoid of personality. When people apply for jobs outside of their qualifications, that they think they could make up for in person during the interview, it would be impossible for them to get a job.

I understand that you're just making this up as you go along, but you need to realize that your idea even in its infantile state of conception and consideration, is not even slightly feasible. In fact, I think it would take part of the soul out of interviewing. I honestly don't think a thinktank could magically fix all the potential flaws in your basic idea, even if given a full year to ponder it.

2) Really? You can ascertain someone's confidence in person based on how they are over the phone? Confidence and eye contact demonstrate characteristics of a leader, someone who can speak on behalf of a company or their underlings in situations that require that or properly motivate others to get the job done. If an applicant is simply nervous during the interview, than he might not have the personality type or experience(because he doesn't have enough experience to be comfortable interviewing) needed in one that would eventually move up---it reflects and correlates other possible flaws in the applicant.

Oh really, this law would also outline factors necessary for a promotion? So people can start suing when the person who knows the boss gets the promotion over the person who doesn't have that connection, but works harder? I'm sorry....but you have to admit that just isn't feasible. Not only do companies---who would want to maintain the status quo---have a lot of political power to prevent this from ever coming to pass, courts are hesitant when interferring with a companies to run their business as efficiently as possible without taking into account breaking laws related to fraud/monopolies/etc. They definitely wouldn't do that when it comes to a class without any extensive history of discrimination, like ugly people. Freedom to contract(because that's how companies would get around it) versus micromanaging business practices in order to keep companies from discriminating against ugly people? Freedom to contract would win.

“1) The most obvious reaction to your proposed amendment is that Employers would contract around it. As in, they would write an agreement saying that in choosing to sit down and interview with you, you are relinquishing your right to sue on the basis of "having met job requirements promulgated in the job announcement" and not meeting "subjective, hidden qualifications." So, anyone who would try to interview with a company would be forced to sign it first, lest they get passed up for someone who is willing to.”

Title VII and these new amendments apply to contract work as well. An employer cannot write a contract to deprive an employee of Title VII protects in the current environment; this would only be improved upon with the new amendments. This definitely would be a no-no for a job with the federal government.

“Additionally, your proposed amendment wouldn't make sense from the standpoint that it means that any qualified person who goes into the interview gets the job----and yet, in most companies, there are generally multiple qualified people who interview for a position. So, who gets it? Whoever doesn't get the job then sues the company, claiming they met all the proposed qualifications. Or, maybe they go by date---the first person they interview, who meets the qualifications, gets the job?In which case, companies will be very stingy about allowing people to come in and interview, and the "interview" would be essentially done in so far as they choose who comes in---based solely on resume. Thus, the interview process has moved/boiled down to paper qualifications----and companies will start making stretchier assumptions to decide who they want to pick out of the resume pile. Ultimately, this leads to----a job interview process devoid of personality. When people apply for jobs outside of their qualifications, that they think they could make up for in person during the interview, it would be impossible for them to get a job.”

Exactly; this would be the most Utopian goal; than, it becomes a matter of retention; but, the company is still allowed to make a case that the selected applicant was better qualified, it just becomes a lot fairer for the job applicant than under the current environment. This new environment would have the intended affect of giving greater scrutiny to the selection process. And, applicants still get to raise a claim under these new amendments, if the employer cannot provide a proper justification for not selecting an applicant for employment or an interview, as, under the amendments, the employer would now be required to provide reasons with sufficient clarity and specificity for why an applicant wasn't selected for the job. So, it would behoove the employer not to take such drastic extremes when just a little fairness and flexibility would better suffice. It kind of reminds of those situations where say an African American needs a loan to acquire a business to change his life; he meets all of the qualifications, except he can’t afford a down payment; the lender than resorts to the common phrase/trope “if I let you do this without a down payment I’d have to let everyone do this without a down payment; imagine if all 4000 of our annual applicants for a loan got the same treatment”; it’s all a sham for keeping a good guy down or keeping the wealthy on top; by the way, establishing small businesses and extending (business) loans and credit would be addressed during these amendments, also.

“I understand that you're just making this up as you go along, but you need to realize that your idea even in its infantile state of conception and consideration, is not even slightly feasible. In fact, I think it would take part of the soul out of interviewing. I honestly don't think a thinktank could magically fix all the potential flaws in your basic idea, even if given a full year to ponder it.”

The idea is extremely feasible; it may be difficult for some employers who wish for a loophole to revive discrimination, but, from the job applicant’s point of view, it’s quite fair; and it’s balanced as much as possible; it’s just shaking up the current status quo.

“ Really? You can ascertain someone's confidence in person based on how they are over the phone? Confidence and eye contact demonstrate characteristics of a leader, someone who can speak on behalf of a company or their underlings in situations that require that or properly motivate others to get the job done. If an applicant is simply nervous during the interview, than he might not have the personality type or experience(because he doesn't have enough experience to be comfortable interviewing) needed in one that would eventually move up---it reflects and correlates other possible flaws in the applicant.”

But, is your goal to hire all leaders or are you just trying to fill a role? In this context, we were talking about a lowly position, not a managerial position. The leaders would naturally move up the ranks after some time of on the job evaluation; you can’t fairly determine this from an in-person interview, merely because one person seemed confident at that time and another person didn’t. Confidence is something that can be gained over time, if necessary; perhaps something on the job could eventually shape the applicant’s confidence over time, or, the change in financial circumstances could lead to developments to affect this person’s confidence level. Frontal confidence isn’t even something or a primary bases for being a good leader; the primary consideration is good judgment.

“Oh really, this law would also outline factors necessary for a promotion? So people can start suing when the person who knows the boss gets the promotion over the person who doesn't have that connection, but works harder? I'm sorry....but you have to admit that just isn't feasible. Not only do companies---who would want to maintain the status quo---have a lot of political power to prevent this from ever coming to pass, courts are hesitant when interferring with a companies to run their business as efficiently as possible without taking into account breaking laws related to fraud/monopolies/etc. They definitely wouldn't do that when it comes to a class without any extensive history of discrimination, like ugly people. Freedom to contract(because that's how companies would get around it) versus micromanaging business practices in order to keep companies from discriminating against ugly people? Freedom to contract would win.”

Not necessarily factors, just the litigation within a case involving a promotion. Sure, sounds fare to me (e.g. working hard versus gaining a connection for a promotion; you know something like that could not stand, even in the current litigation context, right?). and, the court’s hesitation to get involved with a companies decision making is precisely something these amendments would be designed to fix (e.g. that view was created by the Republican judges and being lucky enough to have Republican presidents to appoint them; now, the dynamics shift more towards the Democrats; and, on top of that, that view may have been just a dozen judges speaking for hundreds of other judges who might see things a little differently); this would particularly be a view addressed at some of the decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit, which, basically, affects all federal employees; this view doesn’t stand very well at the EEOC, however.

Are you missing something? Ugly people have a very extensive history of very overt discrimination that is allowed with impunity and without recourse; that needs to be snuffed out as soon as yesterday, although it’s existed since civilization has existed; it’s definitely more overt than race and sex discrimination by far.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#268 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22856 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes

Avatar image for jagernutt
#269 Edited by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#270 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22856 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#271 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise. If you're talking about immigrants, many of the family coming here are extremely poor, and they earn jobs working as dishwashers and low wage workers and allowing their kids to go to school. You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities? Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades. That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.

“Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise.”

But, benefitting from positive stereotypes, the issues mention here was during a time long past. Asians sure can get jobs. Just like universities, corporations are even more so filled with only Asians and whites; that’s the point; pack all of the elite schools with Asians and whites, rely on the negative stereotypes and images created by whites, claim there are no qualified African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans ro fill the positions, keep these groups disenfranchised, and support the Republican party. As I said, we’re in a legalized or updated version of the Jim Crow Era were most people, including minorities, don’t realize this reality.

“You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities?”

They do it because of white privilege and to perpetuate stereotypes about these three groups; it’s actually as simple as that; whites have been breed to believe certain things; it’s passed down generation to generation; it’s like a natural aversion against African Americans, in specific; it’s been grand-fathered into the system.

“Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades.”

You just answered your previous questions right there; that’s a negative stereotype against these three minority groups and bull that you received from your parents to believe; you’re not considering a whole host of possible factors to explain that. Statics can be misused and abused; than, there’s my previously mentioned factor: grading African Americans more harshly and applying the soft bigotry of low expectations. There are still African Americans who work hard for good grades and either get good grades or are cheated out of good grades by biased professors and teachers (e.g. again, grading them more harshly).

“That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.”

No, because, it depends on who applied and the bogus statics you might be using or replying upon. There definitely is white privilege here. I already did; it’s my experience and the experiences of all students from these three minority groups, as long as they’re aware enough to realize what happened, as I’m aware of what happened. Besides, you haven’t proven your points either; they’re all assumptions on your part: because of statistics, any person who applied toi a university had lower grades than the people accepted. One very important factor you’re missing is that whites are likely the one’s making the enrollment decisions.

Those stereotypes have to be reinforced in some ways. Those with a degree and finish colleges will earn a degree, maybe you should tackle why other races have higher drop out rates. You can't expect people who don't even finish High School to go to college and see them in college. Especially, statistic wise, Asians have higher grades. I'm also using my own experience but there is a degree of biased due to how we view and judge our own life, so you're not the only one. I don't have to prove anything, my point is basically statistically, Asians stay in school more, they have higher grades, you see them more in college which then they get jobs and earn money, which are all true and can be proven, you said other races get targeted by teachers, giving them lower grades, but you can't and haven't proven that. Yes, Whites are the ones making enrollment decisions, so when they see Asians, they have them go to school instead of other White students and that's why in many of the higher level schools like UCLA, Asians actually outnumbered Whites. Who would have thought Whites are racist against Whites in favor of Asian students.

“Those stereotypes have to be reinforced in some ways. Those with a degree and finish colleges will earn a degree, maybe you should tackle why other races have higher drop out rates. ”

Well, back to one of my earlier points, those other races are probably being graded more harshly than the Asian and white students. Tackling that would take the form of amendments to Title VII to insure that all students are graded the same for similar mistakes on exams and homework assignments. But, right now, we’re more focused on college admissions.

“You can't expect people who don't even finish High School to go to college and see them in college.”

Well, someone who didn’t complete high school or earn a GED would be applying to college, especially a highly selective college, I would imagine.

“Especially, statistic wise, Asians have higher grades.”

And, again, being graded less harshly could be one factor that accounts for those high grades. Generally being represented as having high grades does not mean that African Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans applying for a seat in the same school didn’t also have high grades, which would likely be the case when applying to a highly selective school.

“I'm also using my own experience but there is a degree of biased due to how we view and judge our own life, so you're not the only one. I don't have to prove anything, my point is basically statistically,”

Having statistics doesn’t prove any of the points you made; would certain variables that were not accounted for in those statistics, certain variables that I’ve mentioned, as but a few, also account for generally receiving higher grades? Yes, it appears that I have a sympathetic bias towards these three ethnic groups and you have a bias towards some of the common stereotypes against these groups (e.g. as above that the African American not selected either had poor grades, didn’t graduate high school, is not a hard worker, etc, failing to account for the possible bias of the selecting officials and a presumption of honesty).

“Asians stay in school more, they have higher grades, you see them more in college which then they get jobs and earn money, which are all true and can be proven, you said other races get targeted by teachers, giving them lower grades, but you can't and haven't proven that. ”

That statement is circular logic; sure, you’re seeing more Asians and whites in the school because of the problems that I raised; I have demonstrated that certain other races are graded more harshly or Asians and whites are grade less harshly or the teachers are more likely to offer Asians and whites more supportive advise to maintain higher grades, etc (e.g. this takes many forms; could have been body language, calling on them, saying that’s a good question, pretending a bad question was good, etc, all of these things effect the confidence of that student and the other students, either in a positive or negative way).

“Yes, Whites are the ones making enrollment decisions, so when they see Asians, they have them go to school instead of other White students and that's why in many of the higher level schools like UCLA, Asians actually outnumbered Whites. Who would have thought Whites are racist against Whites in favor of Asian students.”

Yes, they probably just had to concede that the Asian student was better qualified; however, that’s because of the positive stereotypes in the decision maker’s psyche based simply on race; at the other end of the spectrum, they’d be less likely (or less wiling) to conceded that an African American was better qualified, because it doesn’t fit with their stereotypical narrative (e.g. now, in this case, the African American is taking a seat or job from a white); this bias against African Americans is most commonly shown in the employment context, when it comes to retaining or promoting (e.g. a brilliant African American who’s written dozens of scientific papers with an unblemished history at nearly the same rates and numbers as whites can’t be allowed to stand in their minds).

Again, "probably" is not proof, you can't prove it's true that they're being graded harsher. You're saying it as if it's an agenda for all teachers and professor or even most of them which would not be true. I don't use biased, I use statistic and proofs. You have no proofs so far except what you "think", there is a difference. What I use is objective data, what you use is subjective with no proof or statistic or even study. You need to show me something beyond what you "think". They have to concede it because why? Better grade? I thought they intentionally keep minorities down, so they keep both minorities and whites out in favor of Asians? You're basically saying Whites are trying to keep Whites and other minorities down in favor of Asians because of what exactly? You're saying it as if all the Whites have an agenda or have a hive mind. Most of the decision proceedings are based on grades and extra-curriculum. If they're the ones who control the process, they don't even need to have Asians as the majority at their school, they could still let more Whites in their school.

Avatar image for juiceboks
#272 Posted by juiceboks (24872 posts) - - Show Bio

You guys should move this to a PM..or just stop quoting.

Moderator
Avatar image for jojjimbo
#273 Posted by jojjimbo (2686 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

Avatar image for cameron83
#274 Posted by cameron83 (8548 posts) - - Show Bio

I just realized that there's a race thread for all of these race topics. lol

But anyway, it's kinda weird, I noticed that a substantial amount of people that disagree with the idea (not necessarily in this thread, but in general) are a bit misguided as to what it means. That doesn't mean that a person cannot be aware of the meaning and disagree for good reasons, but generally I don't come across that often. That's just my experience, though, take what you will from it.

I also wonder if people are looking at the "in other countries" part of the question or not, or even considering that things are different in other countries.

no

Dude, this is like your 4th time lol

We get it, man. You don't think it's real.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#275 Edited by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for hound_of_war
#276 Posted by Hound_of_War (3944 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Avatar image for jagernutt
#277 Posted by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for static_shock
#278 Posted by Static Shock (53032 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude, this is like your 4th time lol

We get it, man. You don't think it's real.

Don't even entertain him. Let him continue to be delusional.

Avatar image for cameron83
#279 Edited by cameron83 (8548 posts) - - Show Bio

@static_shock: Yeah, I don't know if saying it for the 5th,6th,7th, etc... time is going to do much, but whatever.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#280 Posted by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for vashtanerada88
#281 Edited by VashtaNerada88 (3498 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes it exists

Avatar image for jnr6lil
#282 Posted by Jnr6Lil (8736 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for jnr6lil
#283 Posted by Jnr6Lil (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Preach

Alot of the people in this thread don't understand white privilege. I've read some comments saying that there's black privilege and white privilege when the latter comes at the expense of the former.

Asking a majority white board about white privilege is like asking a fish about the sea.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#284 Posted by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for amendment50
#285 Posted by Amendment50 (15454 posts) - - Show Bio

People who deny that white people in general have any degree of advantage in society whatsoever are clearly insecure about something.

Avatar image for cameron83
#286 Posted by cameron83 (8548 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil: I was wondering where you were

Avatar image for rubear
#287 Edited by Rubear (4650 posts) - - Show Bio
@amendment50 said:

People who deny that white people in general have any degree of advantage in society whatsoever are clearly insecure about something.

Sure we have. You know why? Because we are learning, we are working, we are improving ourselfs and we are not wasting time on mumbling about privileges, discrimination and whatsoever. We have this advantages because we earned'em.
People who are talking about white privileges in general clearly have some inferiority complexs or guilt complexs.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#288 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@rubear said:
@amendment50 said:

People who deny that white people in general have any degree of advantage in society whatsoever are clearly insecure about something.

Sure we have. You know why? Because we are learning, we are working, we are improving ourselfs and we are not wasting time on mumbling about privileges, discrimination and whatsoever. We have this advantages because we earned'em.

People who are talking about white privileges in general clearly have some inferiority complexs or guilt complexs.

Earned it. lol

No Caption Provided

As I said, those who never faced discrimination wouldn't think privilege or discrimination exist.

Avatar image for xaosxaos
#289 Posted by Xaosxaos (92 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, it exist, but the table are slowly turning, by now.

Avatar image for rubear
#290 Posted by Rubear (4650 posts) - - Show Bio

@rubear said:
@amendment50 said:

People who deny that white people in general have any degree of advantage in society whatsoever are clearly insecure about something.

Sure we have. You know why? Because we are learning, we are working, we are improving ourselfs and we are not wasting time on mumbling about privileges, discrimination and whatsoever. We have this advantages because we earned'em.

People who are talking about white privileges in general clearly have some inferiority complexs or guilt complexs.

Earned it. lol

As I said, those who never faced discrimination wouldn't think privilege or discrimination exist.

Little justice warrior, let me tell you one secret. This is how capitalism works.
To have something you (or at least your family) have to earn something one way or another. And (regardless of what kind of society is in question) this goods have a tendention to accumulate with time. And i mean not only material goods, but position in society, start-up budget and initial possibilities. Because this white people your kind so love to talk about shaped whole human civilisation it is natural that we oftenly have better initial possibilities and... no need to mumble about "discrimination" and waste our time on it. But how we're acting with it is completly up to us just like with any other humans. Asian (mostly korean) people i know have no problems with any kinds of "discrimination". I guess indians too, so i don't know any. Caucasian people i know have no problems with discrimination, be that gruzians, who you may know as georgians, armenians or other people. I even know some blacks, also they are much more rare sight here then caucasians and asians. One is working in corporation with my mother and another is girl from my course in university. University in question is Moscow State University. And you know what? Never heard from'em anything about "dis-cri-mi-na-ti-on". So that's how it is working.
You want to have privileges for yourself or your descendents? Go on and earn them with labour or artfulness.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#291 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@rubear said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@rubear said:
@amendment50 said:

People who deny that white people in general have any degree of advantage in society whatsoever are clearly insecure about something.

Sure we have. You know why? Because we are learning, we are working, we are improving ourselfs and we are not wasting time on mumbling about privileges, discrimination and whatsoever. We have this advantages because we earned'em.

People who are talking about white privileges in general clearly have some inferiority complexs or guilt complexs.

Earned it. lol

As I said, those who never faced discrimination wouldn't think privilege or discrimination exist.

Little justice warrior, let me tell you one secret. This is how capitalism works.

To have something you (or at least your family) have to earn something one way or another. And (regardless of what kind of society is in question) this goods have a tendention to accumulate with time. And i mean not only material goods, but position in society, start-up budget and initial possibilities. Because this white people your kind so love to talk about shaped whole human civilisation it is natural that we oftenly have better initial possibilities and... no need to mumble about "discrimination" and waste our time on it. But how we're acting with it is completly up to us just like with any other humans. Asian (mostly korean) people i know have no problems with any kinds of "discrimination". I guess indians too, so i don't know any. Caucasian people i know have no problems with discrimination, be that gruzians, who you may know as georgians, armenians or other people. I even know some blacks, also they are much more rare sight here then caucasians and asians. One is working in corporation with my mother and another is girl from my course in university. University in question is Moscow State University. And you know what? Never heard from'em anything about "dis-cri-mi-na-ti-on". So that's how it is working.

You want to have privileges for yourself or your descendents? Go on and earn them with labour or artfulness.

lol, maybe you should learn about how history has already allowed an imbalanced created by the background you were born in. Black families born in the ghetto vs a white kid in a suburban area, the Black kid may have to struggle more to get to college than a White kid, when they have to work to support their family. Psychologically, White employees are more likely to be higher, maybe you should read up on more studies. You know why there is no mumbles? They don't face the discrimination like the other minorities, they use the labor force from other groups and profited from it. Where are "here"? Are you from America or Russia? I'm talking about America, and I don't know much about other countries to really comment on it, and other people from other countries can't really get a clear view of the American culture, so it's also presumptuous to talk about how other countries work as if you understand everything here. If you're just talking about stuffs in general, then I would just say, I disagree. There are great contributions from each culture, spices, food, printing, guns, etc from other cultures like from Asia that change the history of the world.

Avatar image for do_i_have_to_give_a_name_
#292 Edited by Do I have to give a name? (1045 posts) - - Show Bio

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUahJaILXbE

This is quite disturbing.

(I can't imbed, in on my phone.)

Avatar image for vashtanerada88
#293 Posted by VashtaNerada88 (3498 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior:

"As I said, those who never faced discrimination wouldn't think privilege or discrimination exist."

Your from America, the world's melting pot, you really think privilege/discrimination are separated by race? Your a country of mutts with people/cultures from all across the globe, it's how america was formed. If anything is to cause discrimination its wealth. You think a dirt poor white kid living in some rundown trailer park isn't ridiculed/accosted as harshly for his families income or position by those whose parents own homes? Or a kid that needs to wake up each mourning to do farm chores just to go to school immediately after smelling like sh!t just to be called a scumbag or filthy? That kind of discrimination exists beyond color because if you have money then that's all that matters, and those with money feel privileged to see themselves above those without; a rich man sees poor people, not poor white/black people. Wealth trumps Race every time from my experiences.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#294 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior:

"As I said, those who never faced discrimination wouldn't think privilege or discrimination exist."

Your from America, the world's melting pot, you really think privilege/discrimination are separated by race? Your a country of mutts with people/cultures from all across the globe, it's how america was formed. If anything is to cause discrimination its wealth. You think a dirt poor white kid living in some rundown trailer park isn't ridiculed/accosted as harshly for his families income or position by those whose parents own homes? Or a kid that needs to wake up each mourning to do farm chores just to go to school immediately after smelling like sh!t just to be called a scumbag or filthy? That kind of discrimination exists beyond color because if you have money then that's all that matters, and those with money feel privileged to see themselves above those without; a rich man sees poor people, not poor white/black people. Wealth trumps Race every time from my experiences.

Those who are in those situations are often minorities, and it has a historical context to it. Don't try to assume other countries' situations and how people are being treated if you're not from there. Just as how I said that a lot of White Americans don't think racism exist simply because they haven't experienced it, so they often downplay it.

Avatar image for amendment50
#296 Posted by Amendment50 (15454 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread is so friggin cringe worthy

Avatar image for jezer
#297 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

“1) The most obvious reaction to your proposed amendment is that Employers would contract around it. As in, they would write an agreement saying that in choosing to sit down and interview with you, you are relinquishing your right to sue on the basis of "having met job requirements promulgated in the job announcement" and not meeting "subjective, hidden qualifications." So, anyone who would try to interview with a company would be forced to sign it first, lest they get passed up for someone who is willing to.”

Title VII and these new amendments apply to contract work as well. An employer cannot write a contract to deprive an employee of Title VII protects in the current environment; this would only be improved upon with the new amendments. This definitely would be a no-no for a job with the federal government.

..................

“ Really? You can ascertain someone's confidence in person based on how they are over the phone? Confidence and eye contact demonstrate characteristics of a leader, someone who can speak on behalf of a company or their underlings in situations that require that or properly motivate others to get the job done. If an applicant is simply nervous during the interview, than he might not have the personality type or experience(because he doesn't have enough experience to be comfortable interviewing) needed in one that would eventually move up---it reflects and correlates other possible flaws in the applicant.”

2) But, is your goal to hire all leaders or are you just trying to fill a role? In this context, we were talking about a lowly position, not a managerial position. The leaders would naturally move up the ranks after some time of on the job evaluation; you can’t fairly determine this from an in-person interview, merely because one person seemed confident at that time and another person didn’t. Confidence is something that can be gained over time, if necessary; perhaps something on the job could eventually shape the applicant’s confidence over time, or, the change in financial circumstances could lead to developments to affect this person’s confidence level. Frontal confidence isn’t even something or a primary bases for being a good leader; the primary consideration is good judgment.

“Oh really, this law would also outline factors necessary for a promotion? So people can start suing when the person who knows the boss gets the promotion over the person who doesn't have that connection, but works harder? I'm sorry....but you have to admit that just isn't feasible. Not only do companies---who would want to maintain the status quo---have a lot of political power to prevent this from ever coming to pass, courts are hesitant when interferring with a companies to run their business as efficiently as possible without taking into account breaking laws related to fraud/monopolies/etc. They definitely wouldn't do that when it comes to a class without any extensive history of discrimination, like ugly people. Freedom to contract(because that's how companies would get around it) versus micromanaging business practices in order to keep companies from discriminating against ugly people? Freedom to contract would win.”

.............................

3) Are you missing something? Ugly people have a very extensive history of very overt discrimination that is allowed with impunity and without recourse; that needs to be snuffed out as soon as yesterday, although it’s existed since civilization has existed; it’s definitely more overt than race and sex discrimination by far.

1) Interesting. Please quote language from Title VII that micromanages businesses/companies in a way analogous to your proposed idea of what boils down to---"if you agree to interview someone, you must post what qualifications you are looking for, and if you don't hire them after meeting those qualifications, we infer discrimination based on looks. Thus, forcing a company to defend themself in litigation"

2) Let me repost what I originally said:

Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person?

I'm not going to bother arguing with you why---to be a good leader, you must be someone people are willing to follow(Being Ender Wiggin versus being Ender's shadow). From the perspective of me being the company, I can say whatever factors I want and believe are necessary to being a good leader---and thats a necessary qualification for any person I hire, so an in-person interview is required. Wait...let me guess your response......"These new amendments will define every possible hiring qualification that an employer can ever seek. And so, when they argue that this person didn't demonstrate leadership qualities, they must use the law's definition of what a leader is!" Unfortunately, this means that the employer will simply browse the promulgated definitions of qualifications until he finds one that matches only qualities that can be ascertained in person.

3) Oh really? Provide specific findings of past acts of discrimination against people on looks. O'Connor said that was required in Grutter; Powell said that was required in Bakke. What counts as discrimination in your eyes?

Are you relatively young? The idea that the vast majority of job interviews/decisiosn to hire should be done through phone/not in person sounds like the exaggerated nightmare of someone very old who remembers the days when people were social and interactions were done in person. The fact that you're proposing this is either an indicator of young age or privileged upbringing, since there are places in the world where information and communication is not as easily accessible through phone or technology. And, it seems like only someone who grew up in the internet age(someone anti-social)--where their major interactions were over message boards or facebook, instead of going out in person--would argue that the fairest way to hire would be a way that takes looks out of the equation(along with several other important attributes that can only propelry be ascertained in person).

And, for the record, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that "you shouldn't be able to get a job unless you're qualified! If you're a friendly personality or just a good interviewer, but I'm more qualified than you, I deserve the job. You don't deserve a chance!" Still trying to wrap my head around that mentality and how you rationalize that as "fair".

Avatar image for quithate
#298 Posted by QuitHate (44 posts) - - Show Bio

It absolutely is, I can't stress this enough.

Avatar image for jnr6lil
#299 Posted by Jnr6Lil (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude really said white privilege exists because white people earned it.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#300 Posted by jagernutt (16655 posts) - - Show Bio

no