Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Political Correctness Kills

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Political Correctness Kills
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18526/article_detail.asp
quote:
The LAPD was once known as "the world's greatest police department," due largely to its stringent character screening. Back in the era of Sergeant Joe Friday, LAPD candidates were checked out as thoroughly as homicide suspects. Even a casual relationship with any known criminal excluded a candidate from being considered as a police officer.

All that is now history. In a bid to appease racial activists and meet federal decrees, strict screening and testing measures were dismantled. New black and Hispanic officer candidates were hustled into the ranks at any cost. What former deputy chief Steve Downing called "a quagmire of quota systems" was set up, and "standards were lowered and merit took a back seat to the new political imperatives."

It was back in 1981 that the LAPD first entered into a federal consent decree that instituted quotas for female and minority hiring. To meet these demands, the standards for physical capability, intellectual capacity, and personal character were lowered. The result was that many incapable or mediocre recruits--even significant numbers with criminal links or gang associations--were accepted into the department.

L.A. is not the only city that damaged its police force in a headlong rush for "diversity." During the 1990s, Washington, D.C. had to fire or indict 250 cops after a similar lowering of standards, and New Orleans indicted more than 100 crooked or inept cops who had been hired--it was later found--due to "political pressures." Miami had a similar scandal after scores of cops hastily recruited in response to race riots and an immigration surge got involved in robbing cocaine dealers and reselling their drugs. "We didn't get the quality of officers we should have," acknowledged department spokesman Dave Magnusson.

A scholarly study published in April 2000 in the professional journal Economic Inquiry found that aggressive "affirmative action" hiring raised crime rates in many parts of the U.S. In careful statistical analysis of 1987-1993 U.S. Department of Justice data from hundreds of cities, economist John Lott (then of the Yale School of Law, now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) found that quotas requiring more black and minority police officers clearly increase crime rates. When affirmative action rules take over, he reports, the standards on physical strength tests, mental aptitude tests, and other forms of screening are lowered. The result is a reduced quality of officers--both minority and non-minority recruits end up being less impressive.

This is insane.

Do we have any pro-affirmative action people here?
What is your responce to something like this?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
halfhaggis
Member
Member # 809

 - posted      Profile for halfhaggis   Email halfhaggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Affirmative action incorrectly applied.

The principle behind affirmative action is in the case where there are two candidates of equal capabilities, experience, etc (obviously a subjective issue) then the "previously disadvantaged" candidate gets the job.

Quotas are stupid, and standards should never be dropped in order to meet them.

Posts: 101 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane Roe
Member
Member # 1542

 - posted      Profile for Shane Roe   Email Shane Roe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Affirmative Action perpetuates the distinction between races. Far from Martin Luther King's dream of being judged by the "content of our character" and not by skin color.

Shane

Posts: 565 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lifewish
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Lifewish   Email Lifewish   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Affirmative action sucks.

Of course, I say this as a caucasian male... [Razz]

Posts: 272 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The principle behind affirmative action is in the case where there are two candidates of equal capabilities, experience, etc (obviously a subjective issue) then the "previously disadvantaged" candidate gets the job.
Unfortunately, affirmative action never works out that way in practice. The only real difference between a quota system and a non quota system where you supposedly judge each candidate "individually", with race as only one of many factors (as the Supreme Court deemed acceptable) is that in the former, they spell out in their written policy how they are going to racially discriminate, whereas in the latter, they do the exact same thing, but they don't spell it out as explicitly.

Consider, for example, Grutter v. Bollinger, a notable AA case in which the Supreme Court sided with the school's apparently individualized method of taking race into account as one of many factors when determining admission. In his dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist makes the most peculiar observation:

quote:
the correlation between the percentage of the Law School’s pool of applicants who are members of the three minority groups and the percentage of the admitted applicants who are members of these same groups is far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying “some attention to [the] numbers.” As the tables below show, from 1995 through 2000 the percentage of admitted applicants who were members of these minority groups closely tracked the percentage of individuals in the school’s applicant pool who were from the same groups.

For example, in 1995, when 9.7% of the applicant pool was African-American, 9.4% of the admitted class was African-American. By 2000, only 7.5% of the applicant pool was African-American, and 7.3% of the admitted class was African-American. This correlation is striking.

For a non quota system, the school sure did manage to achieve a quota-like result.

But this kind of thing shouldn't distract us from the real problem with AA, which has nothing to do with the distinction between quota and non quota based systems. (an illusory distinction put up by AA proponents as a red herring to distract us from the racism implicit in ALL AA programs, a priori)

Justice Thomas put it best:

quote:
It is uncontested that each year, the Law School admits a handful of blacks who would be admitted in the absence of racial discrimination. See Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 6. Who can differentiate between those who belong and those who do not? The majority of blacks are admitted to the Law School because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the "beneficiaries" of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry, or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement. The question itself is the stigma--because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed "otherwise unqualified," or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination. Is this what the Court means by "visibly open"? Ante, at 20.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ender wiggin
Member
Member # 9

 - posted      Profile for ender wiggin   Email ender wiggin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have serious problems with affirmitave action. I've seen in practise what happens when women are percieved to have to meet lower standards than men.. its not pretty.

However, you are not applying affirmiatve action when you are hiring for specific skills. For instance in Toronto we have entire communities that speak little or no english. Hence there is a need to hire cops who are fluent in Mandarin, Cantonese, Farsi and many other languages. Policing in these communties is impossible without people who speak those languages. Also, there is a need for women police when dealing with female criminals: and with female victims of crime (especially rape).

If you want to have the law respected in the Latino community (for example) you have to hire police from that community. If you have only white male cops, they will be seen as, and will be, outsiders. If you want to police diverse communities, you have to have a diverse police force. This is not affirmitave action, this is a job requirement.

If only white males can meet the standards for entry, maybe it is because the standards were designed for white males. Prospective police recruits from poor neigbourhoods will probably have contact with criminals simply because of where they live. But if you want to police those neighborhoods, you need people familiar with that way of life, people who are not seen as outsiders. Otherwise the cops will be seen as a racist exterior force and the locals will use other means to settle thier problems (ie. mafia) And how do you have effective undercover cops if they are all white-males?

Can you not see the need for a diverse police force? The police force needs people of different backgrounds. Especially with language skills, these are special skills and do make a spanish-speaking Latino applicant more qualified that a white male applicant who only speaks English.

Posts: 971 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you not see the need for a diverse police force? The police force needs people of different backgrounds. Especially with language skills, these are special skills and do make a spanish-speaking Latino applicant more qualified that a white male applicant who only speaks English.
This goes without saying. If someone has a skill that you need, then it may be worth it to hire him for that skill alone. It is not affirmative action to hire a Cantonese speaking cop because you need someone who can communicate with local Chinese people. However, it is affirmative action to hire a Cantonese speaking cop because you want to appear "diverse" for political reasons.

quote:
Otherwise the cops will be seen as a racist exterior force and the locals will use other means to settle thier problems (ie. mafia)
Unfortunately, some people will see racism in everything. Police forces cannot bow to the will of imbeciles.

quote:
If only white males can meet the standards for entry, maybe it is because the standards were designed for white males.
Maybe. But until someone gives me a plausible explanation as to HOW the standards discriminate against non white males in a way that is not relevant to being a good police officer, I'm not just going to jump to the conclusion that it must be racism. This is the typical argument you hear from the demagogues: blacks do worse on the LSAT, therefore the LSAT must be racist. Women aren't qualifying to be firefighters, therefore the tests must be sexist. As I said, it's one thing to look out for the best interests of the community, it's another thing to cave to the demands of demagogues and imbeciles.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ender wiggin
Member
Member # 9

 - posted      Profile for ender wiggin   Email ender wiggin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, here is an example.

Say the requirements involved doing 10 chinups. That is really not that much for a male, but for a female doing 10 chinups is extremely difficult. While physical strength is definatly a requirment for being a police officer, it has yet to be demonstrated that usefull job strength correlated to chinups. Couldn't the ability to do 70 sit ups also demonstarte the required strenth- women are better than men at sit ups. Maybe a woman with phenomal running endurance is disqualifed from selection because she can't do the chin-ups whereas a man who can't run nearly as well could get through.

Here is a practical example. I could lift and press 100 pounds of bridge equipment all day. One of the smaller guys on the bridge site was too weak to do this: yet he got higher marks on physical fitness because he could do an impressive 18 chinups. Who is in better shape? Who is a more usefull soldier? The chin-up test (for example) doesn't adequately measure this.

I have no problem with physical tests that correlate with acutal job requirments: ie. grip strength for firefighters. Arbitrary fitness tests however, often contain an unstated bias towards males. Physical traits that men are better at (upper body strength, speed, power) are often rated higher than equally important traits that women excel at (endurance, abdominal strength, pain tolerance).

Posts: 971 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ender wiggin
Member
Member # 9

 - posted      Profile for ender wiggin   Email ender wiggin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is another example:

In the Canadian army you cannot be enrolled unless you have 5 years of living in Canada. (They won't tell you this, it only comes up when you try to get a security clearance) So people who lived even in friendly countries like Britian and the U.S. can't get in our military. This is an example of an arbitrary requirment.

Posts: 971 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So far as I can see, it is one power group taking over from another. Believe me, there were no 'good ol' days' of the LAPD. I hope every member of the LA Vice Squad is burning in hell at this very moment.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1