So two wrongs make a right? Is that what I am to understand from some of you? I agree with evilbeth. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. What’s the cut-off point, and who gets to say when we’ve reached it? If we institutionalize discrimination, who’s to say that it won’t get out of control and turned around later on down the road? It could be decided that it went too far, and to make up for it, we are now going to discriminate against the group that the institutionalized discrimination was originally intended to benefit. If the government says that it’s acceptable to discriminate against one group, why couldn’t it turn around and say that it’s acceptable to discriminate against another group? Hmmm… seems like we’ve seen that somewhere before.
When I applied to the Houston Police Department (HPD), they had two standards for applicants. One for white males, and one for everyone else. I don’t remember all of the differences, but the one that stood out like a sore thumb and consequently made me remember it was that a white male couldn’t have EVER used an illegal drug. Everyone else… as long as they hadn’t used within the last 2 (IIRC) years. That is wrong no matter how you slice it, and I don’t understand how anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face. A court order (I think from Judge William Wayne Justice (cool name for a judge huh?)) mandating that the HPD have its employees race and sex profile match that of the community is what brought these two different standards about. The problem was not that HPD was simply not hiring the non-white-male applicants. The problem was that non-white-male people were not applying to become HPD officers in the first place. The standards had to be lowered for the non-white-male applicants to ensure that a larger percentage of the ones that applied were accepted.
I understand that in some areas white males still have a social advantage over “minorities”, but I still maintain that two wrongs do NOT make a right. (I don’t think that Judge William Wayne Justice was very just (if he was, indeed, the judge involved).) I think that the solution is to fervently prosecute violators of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 / 1991.
BTW, in case someone thinks that there may be some “sour grapes” involved with me here, that is not the case. I withdrew my candidacy on my own after finding out about a congenital spinal deformity that could potentially be dangerous in police work. I’ve never used an illegal drug (not that I’m against it, it’s just that they never interested me before), so the differing standard that I mentioned had no bearing on me.
And by the way Needs2know, are you just posting a little factoid, or are you suggesting that the people who may disagree with you here are bigots? It’s fine with me (in fact, I applaud it) if an individual or an organization wants to give someone a “hand up”. The problem I have is when the government MANDATES discrimination. That is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG… I don’t know if I can say that enough. The only hand the government should have in dealing with discrimination is to punish it when it breaks a law.
Period. 
(That’s for you, Dumbguy)