Denied on basis of being a Non-Minority

It was too late to edit my post above, but in all seriousness, it might actually help the OP and others to read the attached CG policy to understand their definition of diversity and the steps they are taking to achieve it.
 
#armystrong said:
I'm pretty sure we have different definitions of discrimination then. Because to me, choosing one exactly equal candidate over another simply because he is "1/4 Cherokee" is the epitome of discrimination. Simply because of being white, he is not selected. Does that sound fair? And to your statement regarding comparison between officer and enlisted corps...I'm pretty sure principle matters more than if the officer corps resembles the enlisted forces. Race, ethnicity, sex, should all be eliminated and thus if a scenario did arise, one would not "simply choose the 1/4 Cherokee, because the person he is going up against is white." That is the most ethical solution by far and their's no arguing against that.
Click to expand...

That's not called discrimination, that's called affirmative action or diversity hiring. It's allowed, if not encouraged, under the law. In any case, if you have 1 position and 2 equally qualified candidates, one must find a way to choose between them. If I pick the brown eyed candidate over the blue eyed candidate, is that discrimination? What if I was hiring an actor, where the blue eyed population is over represented, is it discrimination then?

Although technically you're argument is correct, you're not taking into account the world we live in, or the CG lives in.
 
kinnem said:
That's not called discrimination, that's called affirmative action or diversity hiring. It's allowed, if not encouraged, under the law. In any case, if you have 1 position and 2 equally qualified candidates, one must find a way to choose between them. If I pick the brown eyed candidate over the blue eyed candidate, is that discrimination? What if I was hiring an actor, where the blue eyed population is over represented, is it discrimination then?

Although technically you're argument is correct, you're not taking into account the world we live in, or the CG lives in.
Click to expand...

When dealing with human beings, determining best "qualified" becomes more subjective depends on what position we are trying to fill.

If we are picking someone for the 100 m dash, relatively simple, whoever has the fastest time.

Gets more complicated as the position gets more complex - best receivers don't necessarily have fastest 40 yard dash time.

Gets more complicated with SAT/ACT and GPA. What if I got high scores because my parents were rich and got me a personal tutor and enticed me with rewards to study harder, otherwise my grades would have sucked. And I won't have a personal tutor at the SA.
 
kinnem said:
That's not called discrimination, that's called affirmative action or diversity hiring. It's allowed, if not encouraged, under the law. In any case, if you have 1 position and 2 equally qualified candidates, one must find a way to choose between them. If I pick the brown eyed candidate over the blue eyed candidate, is that discrimination? What if I was hiring an actor, where the blue eyed population is over represented, is it discrimination then?

Although technically you're argument is correct, you're not taking into account the world we live in, or the CG lives in.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying in general "affirmative action" is discrimination under a different title. When was the initial point of affirmative action? It was first mentioned under Kennedy as a means of getting African Americans into schools that they might (and probably) would not have gotten into, because of racial inequality during the 60s. So in order to get African Americans into schools they deserved to get into, affirmative action was established as a means of equality(which was needed due to the time period.) But now, I believe most people would say it has gotten completely out of control. People at my high school and across the country would joke, like I'm going to play my 1/32 Sioux (for example) to get into Harvard. Now, I'm just saying that is not an ethical practice in any form. Its just not right and a precedent needs to be set where they don't even have the ethnicity boxes you check off on applications. That which would level out the equality and end this blatent form of discrimination.
 
#armystrong said:
I'm just saying in general "affirmative action" is discrimination under a different title. When was the initial point of affirmative action? It was first mentioned under Kennedy as a means of getting African Americans into schools that they might (and probably) would not have gotten into, because of racial inequality during the 60s. So in order to get African Americans into schools they deserved to get into, affirmative action was established as a means of equality(which was needed due to the time period.) But now, I believe most people would say it has gotten completely out of control. People at my high school and across the country would joke, like I'm going to play my 1/32 Sioux (for example) to get into Harvard. Now, I'm just saying that is not an ethical practice in any form. Its just not right and a precedent needs to be set where they don't even have the ethnicity boxes you check off on applications. That which would level out the equality and end this blatent form of discrimination.
Click to expand...

In my heart I totally agree with you; but the world doesn't work that way right now... and we need to deal with reality. When we all reach Nirvana maybe we won't need the check box.
 
#armystrong said:
. . Its just not right and a precedent needs to be set where they don't even have the ethnicity boxes you check off on applications. That which would level out the equality and end this blatent form of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Than how do you suppose to address regular or old forms of discrimination. There a study done where with the same resume, normal names got better response than ethnic names.

Until we evolve as a society where we don't discriminate and we have a government that stays out of it, there will be some sort of discrimination against certain groups. To you it might be a discrimination against you, but to someone else it could be stopping discrimination against that person.
 
MemberLG said:
Than how do you suppose to address regular or old forms of discrimination. There a study done where with the same resume, normal names got better response than ethnic names.

Until we evolve as a society where we don't discriminate and we have a government that stays out of it, there will be some sort of discrimination against certain groups. To you it might be a discrimination against you, but to someone else it could be stopping discrimination against that person.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I don't think even my future grandchildren are going to live long enough to see this utopia.

I think, today, affirmative action and diversity hiring do more harm than good to the groups they purport to help. The practice tarnishes and makes suspect the qualifications of all minority groups.

And really, when are two candidates exactly equal?
 
MemberLG said:
Than how do you suppose to address regular or old forms of discrimination. There a study done where with the same resume, normal names got better response than ethnic names.
Click to expand...


Oh someone has been reading Freakonomics. I believe the option is, don't name your kid ethnic names. The other interesting conclusion was it was the NAME that made the person, it was that the name was indicative of the education level and involvement level of the parents. Those "ethnic" names came out of the black power movement, NOT from someone's background (also commented on in the study).

Shantwan's parents (and usually it was a broken house, per the study) had a lower average education level than an "Alexandria".

The study also mentioned that it wasn't race, and was more indicative of socio-economic.

I'm not sure I'd get too bent out of shape with an employer tempted to hire someone he/she believes comes from a more stable, supportive, home.
 
Packer said:
Unfortunately, I don't think even my future grandchildren are going to live long enough to see this utopia.

I think, today, affirmative action and diversity hiring do more harm than good to the groups they purport to help. The practice tarnishes and makes suspect the qualifications of all minority groups.

And really, when are two candidates exactly equal?
Click to expand...

I think the society will make a lot of progress, but the execution of affirmative action and diversity hiring will slow the progress down. I think the concepts behind affirmative action and diversity hiring are okay, but the execution sucks. Who qualifies more for a affirmative action/diversity (1) a poor white kid growing up in backwoods of West Virginia where no on is his family attended college or (2) a minority race kid with parents with professional degrees living in a suburb?
 
MemberLG said:
I think the society will make a lot of progress, but the execution of affirmative action and diversity hiring will slow the progress down. I think the concepts behind affirmative action and diversity hiring are okay, but the execution sucks. Who qualifies more for a affirmative action/diversity (1) a poor white kid growing up in backwoods of West Virginia where no on is his family attended college or (2) a minority race kid with parents with professional degrees living in a suburb?
Click to expand...

I am always amazed that diversity/affirmative action is only a problem if it is about race. I never hear any complaints about how gender also effect diversity recruitment.

Back to the OP, the admission officers may have to save slots for a certain number of females.
 
Food for thought...

I am just glad that I do not have to make these decisions. TOUGH stuff!
 
MemberLG said:
Than how do you suppose to address regular or old forms of discrimination. There a study done where with the same resume, normal names got better response than ethnic names.

Until we evolve as a society where we don't discriminate and we have a government that stays out of it, there will be some sort of discrimination against certain groups. To you it might be a discrimination against you, but to someone else it could be stopping discrimination against that person.
Click to expand...

That's why here at West point, we have x numbers for subjective test, like essays. Its pretty hard to discriminate on a number, so just assign a random number to every applicant and then decide if they should be accepted or not. It's a pretty basic concept that would solve a nationwide problem.
 
#armystrong said:
That's why here at West point, we have x numbers for subjective test, like essays. Its pretty hard to discriminate on a number, so just assign a random number to every applicant and then decide if they should be accepted or not. It's a pretty basic concept that would solve a nationwide problem.
Click to expand...
That's what they say.:rolleyes:
 
MemberLG said:
I think the society will make a lot of progress, but the execution of affirmative action and diversity hiring will slow the progress down. I think the concepts behind affirmative action and diversity hiring are okay, but the execution sucks. Who qualifies more for a affirmative action/diversity (1) a poor white kid growing up in backwoods of West Virginia where no on is his family attended college or (2) a minority race kid with parents with professional degrees living in a suburb?
Click to expand...
Which one is more qualified? I doubt they are equally qualified for the particular slot that is being filled. However, if you want to keep your job you better pick number 2.
 
All of the other colleges in the US have this same problem.... and then some.

It has been said that a kid from my neck of the woods ( Northeast) has a much worse chance of getting into an Ivy than a kid from the middle states because the Ivy league Schools want geographic diversity.... Is it fair? No, I could swing a stick at my DS's school and hit a dozen kids who have perfect board scores, GPA , EC's, etc. But, because they come from the Northeast they are discriminated against.

Life is not fair ... get used to it .. because the sooner you accept that fact, the happier you will be.

Look at our current president and our former president. Obama got into an Ivy league school because of his ethnic background... George Bush got into an Ivy league school because of his family connections.
 
Jcc123 said:
Am I the only one who doesn't quite buy into this? Everyone competes within their own pool, whether it be for nominations, appointments, etc. So while I sympathize with Mr. .50 cal for not being admitted, the fact is he wasn't competitive within his pool of applicants. Is it sometimes harder for white males to be accepted into some programs? Of course - they are also typically the largest pool of applicants.

Instead of bemoaning lost opportunities and blaming the system, try thinking of what you can do to improve your position and be more competitive. As Maplerock said, "Life's not fair". Those who succeed manage to do so anyway.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with calling-out a system that is flawed. And in regard to racial/gender preference for selection the system is flawed. Yes, recognize it and try to find ways around it by improving what only you can control, but no need to really "accept" it. If we all just accepted everything nothing would get fixed. I tell my son to remember his experiences when/if he ever gets into a position of influence to try and change what he can becuase it's not right.
 
mjm said:
Life is not fair ... get used to it .. because the sooner you accept that fact, the happier you will be.
Click to expand...

I've found this is far easier to say when it's not your issue. But Joe Blow goes 100 mph over the speed limit and gets away with it, while you pay $300 for going 20 mph over, and all of a sudden you aren't happy.

Life isn't fair, correct. But this process can be.... so why isn't it? Fate has little play here. This is a system set up by humans, influenced by politics and inventually ignored because "life isn't fair."

To assume West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy or Merchant Marine Academy doesn't have the SAME thing going on is blissful ignorance. It's even more ingrained in those schools thanks to the nomination process.
 
aseanag said:
I am always amazed that diversity/affirmative action is only a problem if it is about race. I never hear any complaints about how gender also effect diversity recruitment.

Back to the OP, the admission officers may have to save slots for a certain number of females.
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully we aren't just talking race. Saving slots for females is no more right. But again, it would be interesting to see if it's EASIER to get into a service academy as a female. I would guess it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top