SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (6754)7/9/2003 6:16:24 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 7720
 
I would particularly see as incorrect court mandated affirmative action. That would IMO clearly be legislating from the bench.

I think we're running into the same old problem of the definition of affirmative action. If you mean preferences, say "preferences." "Affirmative action" "imposed" by the courts was simply the courts saying that employers couldn't use the excuse that no blacks had applied to explain why they didn't hire any, but rather that they had to take affirmative action to find some potential candidates to consider. That's not the same thing as passing a preference law.

Just in case you've lost track of the bidding, I've always supported affirmative action but not preferences.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News