10-31-2017, 09:15 PM
(10-31-2017, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nowhere did she mention they had a majority of straight white males or that they had hired any; she simply stated that white males are in the majority. Regardless how big you make it and underline it she didn't say we don't want to hire more white males (as if that is better), she said I prefer you not hire white males.
I'm not as gifted as you and the others. I can only go by the words she said; not what she meant. I would need an explanation from her to do that. It is amazing the hoops some folks will jump through to OK discrimination.
Your inference of her statement is logically flawed. If she was referring just to the majority of people, what difference would it make in her hiring them? Her decisions regarding hiring them does not affect their majority overall, but it does their ratio in the department. Thus her use of the phrase points to the majority in the department. The only logical inference by her statement that they are already in the majority is in relation to the department for which she is hiring.
(10-31-2017, 08:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's because you're interpreting that graph incorrectly.
That's the distribution of careers within each race and ethnicity. Not a distribution of races within career fields. That's why you have four totals of 100% for four individual races/ ethnicity instead of one total of 100% for all four races/ethnicities combined.
White employees could account for 96% of the employees while African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and Lations could account for 1% each. But, the individual breakdown of each 1% will show a distribution that equals 100% because you're only breaking down that 1%.
So you cant draw your conclusion based upon that graph.
So more Asians might choose professional career, but that graph doesn't mean Asians outnumber other races in professional careers.
I was going to say the same thing. The information presented does not support the argument he is trying to make.
