The evil quota system

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

or to take back half of what Peter took from Paul and return it to him.

If you check properly, Peter did not take anything from Paul. Peter worked bloody hard to get where he is, only to find that he has been excluded to make room for Paul for something that some other people whom Peter never even knew took from Paul's ancestors a long time ago. By equating those people with Peter based on a similar skin colour is in itself a superb example of racial discrimination.

Apartheid is still alive and well in South Africa, exceot that is now wearing a different shade of coat.

[gibbs_fan]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

If you check properly, Peter did not take anything from Paul. Peter worked bloody hard to get where he is, only to find that he has been excluded to make room for Paul for something that some other people whom Peter never even knew took from Paul's ancestors a long time ago. By equating those people with Peter based on a similar skin colour is in itself a superb example of racial discrimination.

Apartheid is still alive and well in South Africa, exceot that is now wearing a different shade of coat.

Really. I live in SA and do not see how you can honestly say that apartheid is alive. Have you been to SA during aprtheid and have you been to SA after apartheid. The problem with many of you people is that you talk about things on which you have absolutely no experience in. You form your judgments based on biased reporting (especially in England and USA). If you experienced apartheid firsthand like I have then you would not be so quick to judge. Please tell me have you ever seen a non-white person represent SA in sport during the apartheid era. You will still notice that our national team is still made up of mostly white players, so how this can be compared to the past when not a single non-white player is beyond me.

I will tell you what the real problem is. You should come to SA and SEE for yourself. You should see the facilities that we have here. The "whites" have far better facilities with respect to wickets, coaching and money. In fact most of our disadvantage play on concrete wickets with maybe 3 sets of pads for the whole team. There is no money in cricket here in SA, so we struggle to get sponsors. Rugby on the other hand gets to "choose and refuse" sponsors. I wonder why? How are we ever supposed to get the balance right if the same previously advantaged people still have all the wealth and opportunities. The unions have been given enough time to come up with a plan to promote the game to the disadvantaged but of course they refused. That is the reason why they are now being forced to select non-white players.

So maybe you are right, apartheid is still alive but it is certainly the old one and not this new one that you talk about. Come see for yourself.

[gibbs_fan]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Beg to differ Rachel, but yes really.....



This is why anti-discrimination and the opportunity for all to acquire an education is important. It ensures that the cream does rise to the top.

Excellent post SEamer but if only things were that simple. Like I told Nostromo before, come to Africa and SEE what is happening. It is easy for you to talk because you do not face similar problems in Australia. It is easy for you to say that everyone has a choice and equal opportunity to get an education. But let me ask you this. If you are starving (like so many people in Africa are) do you really care about education. People's need for survival is far stronger than any other need. When people have no access to toilets, let alone clean water, does it matter if the opportunity for an education comes along. Unlike Aus, education is not free here and as a result, the public education is pathetic. How would you thrive in a class of 140( with only 30 seats). How would you thrive if you are learning Science and Mathematics in English when you can only speak Xhosa. Are you even capable of learning if you have not eaten for a week, maybe even 2 weeks. This is just a tip of the iceberg, I can go on for hours.

Dont get me wrong, we do have excellent schools here but unfortunately they are private and only the rich (usually the educated) have access to them resulting in the rich remaining rich and the skills remaining with the previously advantage.

Affirmative action is not discrimination and I find that many people misunderstand it. Let me explain. Our law states that if 2 "equally" qualified people apply for the same job, then the job should go to the previously disadvantaged person. Thus if the job requires an engineer, a white engineer will get the job if he comes up against a "non-white" laborer. Please explain to me how this can be discrimination and also explain to me how non-white people will ever be able to get jobs if we do not have the money and education to acquire the skills.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

Affirmative action is not discrimination and I find that many people misunderstand it. Let me explain. Our law states that if 2 "equally" qualified people apply for the same job, then the job should go to the previously disadvantaged person. Thus if the job requires an engineer, a white engineer will get the job if he comes up against a "non-white" laborer.

If a job required an engineer, and two first-time engineers went up for it, and one of them was white and had extremely good scores, and the other was black and had scores that weren't quite as good, would the black engineer get the job because he was disadvantaged previously? Because if this is the case, then it is discrimination and it is wrong.

[gibbs_fan]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

If a job required an engineer, and two first-time engineers went up for it, and one of them was white and had extremely good scores, and the other was black and had scores that weren't quite as good, would the black engineer get the job because he was disadvantaged previously? Because if this is the case, then it is discrimination and it is wrong.

I am not sure. I am guessing that here in SA, the black person would get the job but that is not really affirmative action. Affirmative action says all things equal, then the "non-white" should get the job. Of course because of things like BEE, this rule is not always followed and like I said before, it is often misunderstood.

I really dont know what all the fuss is about because the reality here in SA is that not a single white skilled person is unemployed because there is such a shortage of skilled labour in our country but of course, the world media look for any story to show how "stupid" and unable we are. The fact is that most of high paid jobs are still held by whites and that while the number of "non-whites" have increased in big companies, they are never employed in high paid jobs. The directors and senior management remain white males even though SKY may think otherwise.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

If a job required an engineer, and two first-time engineers went up for it, and one of them was white and had extremely good scores, and the other was black and had scores that weren't quite as good, would the black engineer get the job because he was disadvantaged previously? Because if this is the case, then it is discrimination and it is wrong.

As someone who routinely hires South African expats, and who only discriminates on taste and not out of any legal compulsion, let me assure you that in your hypothetical example, most employers in my shoes would always go for the non-white engineer. Knowing what we do about the South African education system of the past 50 years, for a Black person to have qualified as an engineer indicates an ability and aptitude far in excess of the norm - he wouldn't just be twice as clever as the white guy to get where he is, but also twice as tenacious, hard-working and perseverant, attributes that all employers value - degrees and grades only get you so far, it is your aptitude and attitude that count for a lot more in the "real world".

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

I really dont know what all the fuss is about

The fuss is that a lot of pampered, over-indulged white South Africans now, for the first time in their existence, have to deal with a playing field that is only marginally tilted in their favour (its still NOT a level playing field), and as they are not used to competition, they cannot handle it.

[Occasional Fan]

Haven't you lifted GF's comment out of context a bit, Maranello? I might be wrong, but I read it as saying that South Africa's white population does not make a fuss about the affirmative action issue, largely because it doesn't affect them practically (as GF suggests, "white" unemployment is still not as big a problem as "non-white" unemployment in South Africa today). I might have read GF wrongly, and it's a good few years since I was in South Africa, so that's very possible. I don't think, however, that anyone who lives there would suggest that the playing field is level yet - it's going to take (at least) a couple more decades of equal access to quality education before that can happen.

I'm also not sure that I see the evidence to suggest that South Africa's "white" population can't handle the limited competition which is now there. On the contrary, they recognise that there is now more competition than there was in fifteen years ago, generally accept both that and the inevitability that competition will only increase over the next fifteen years, and, most importantly of all, believe that it is right that that should be the case. A good job too: it's the only way forward for South Africa, and having South Africa moving forward is the only way to get the continent going that way.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Maranello

...for a Black person to have qualified as an engineer indicates an ability and aptitude far in excess of the norm - he wouldn't just be twice as clever as the white guy to get where he is, but also twice as tenacious, hard-working and perseverant, attributes that all employers value - degrees and grades only get you so far, it is your aptitude and attitude that count for a lot more in the "real world".

Okay, it's a perfectly valid reason to hire someone with slightly worse grades on the basis of attitude, perseverance, etc. But there's a difference between hiring someone for these qualities and hiring them simply because they're black (or non-white). I'm sure that it's not just a problem that exists in South Africa, but it is what's happening when the selection criteria mandates that 6 out of 14 players be non-white, when they're not meriting their places.

The fuss is that a lot of pampered, over-indulged white South Africans now, for the first time in their existence, have to deal with a playing field that is only marginally tilted in their favour (its still NOT a level playing field), and as they are not used to competition, they cannot handle it.

With all due respect, it sounds like you might have some biases of your own. A whole branch of my family (in fact, almost all on my father's side) is South African, and I don't recall any of them supporting Apartheid. In fact, I think white South Africans the world over get a bad rap. There seems to be this attitude that because they're white and South African, automatically they must be racists. I'm not accusing you of that attitude, Maranello, but it exists- not least among African dictators who use the injustices of colonialism to justify their own racism.

[Occasional Fan]

Aurelius - you're right: it's not automatic that "white" South Africans are racists. But some of them undoubtedly are. There are a few in my family as well, and I find their views on race abhorrent.

[greg]

Saying all white South Africans are racists is like saying all English football fans are hooligans.Totally ridiculous and because of a bad minority the rest are put in the same box with them through no fault of their own.

To be honest as an outsider this quota system looks like racism in reverse now as it is white players who are being stopped from playing for their country for political reasons which cannot be right.