If I put I am a hispanic, war vet, that likes to go both ways, I doubt I get any additional business. I don't understand why we have to do them.

Actually the new contracts for Freddie seem like they went to minority and female owned brokers. Bpos probably don't matter, but anything government run will usually go to them.

Ummmmm better make sure my Broker applied. She is Minority and is a woman with her own business. Maybe I'll get a few out of it too.

You can't be that naive to think that your answers won't affect your business levels. It was very blatant, at least here, that Freddie and the HUD outsourcers were looking for female agents/brokers in their last round of interviews.

Fill them out how ever you want and they don't believe that you are bi-sexual or some non-caucasion, protected class. Make them prove otherwise and scream discrimination when they ask.

I think it was pteck that asked my sexual orientation

Ha ha, maybe I'll tell them my real name is Mork from Ork, Nanu, Nanu. That ought to get me some plum assignments.

Go for the ultimate sexual minority, asexual. Then threaten to sue them if that is not an option. That should generate some work flow your way, since 1% of the world's population suits that category.

Brad's Idea is good. For another option you could say they must take you to NICE dinner, a decent show with adult beverages, and spend the night to find out.

Just another way for them to prove to the government that they have minorities on the list. I get them once a year with no business; so I have stopped filling them out!!

post-divorce, asexual status. how true it is. LOL

Just make shure you do not put white, I once got an account after I switched it to a lesbian african american... If yer laughing im not joking... Went to a finnie meeting and thought they were going rto cut me off when me a straight white guy showed up but they did not mention anything or have I seen a slow down... Honestly think its more of a timing thing but I did learn at a young age never put white guy

My broker is a Hispanic man and he owns the company along with two white women. I was applying to one BPO company and the application asked if our company had been certified women or minority-owned by a third party.

So I asked him that. He said no, he didn't want to do that because he feels like it is a scam that costs too much money.

So going forward I just say no we don't have third-party proof. It's interesting how this has seemed to become much more of an issue over the last year or so.

I checked out the certification recently and in my state is about $500 to apply, non-refundable.

The cerified thing is no different than an AMC requiring res.net all about money and kick backs...

Asking about a minority status is reverse discrimination.Period.

Why bother having an education, a resume, or a sales track record when the deciding factor is going to be whether or not you are a white male? Lets not even talk about the rank one holds depending on whch minority group they belong.

Whenever I think about this minority first stuff, I start to get sick.

I can see it working in some ways, but, I think our government goes a bit overboard sometimes. Many of the minority groups (let's not talk about the sex of these groups) have grown tremendously since the days of inception (no, not conception!).

There are probably just as many struggling whites out there in ratio comparison. I don't mind giving a crumb to help someone along, but, when it becomes many, many crumbs, it becomes a crutch instead, and, it stifles EVERYONE.

I may be going against the grain here. But if I were a hard working person who belonged to a minority group and I had the same credentials and work ethic, and produced at least the same results as my counterparts, I'd want more than just a crumb...I'd want an opportunity.

Now I'm not saying that everybody doesn't deserve an opportunity or even that you shouldn't work for it, because I believe that everybody does.

But, the only way anybody makes sure you have a diverse representation of those with the talent to perform with their peers, is to take roll on your client base.

I'm just saying...

Then you should get the opportunity based upon your credentials and work ethic. You should not be given an advantage over another hard-working, equally qualified agent/broker based upon you having a minority status and the other agent/broker not. What you have said is basically the height of hypocrisy.

The 'crumb' is the opportunity to prove yourself, but it sometimes goes overboard in certain sectors getting the whole cake, that's all.

Okay, but what if, just "what if", the pool of random persons-- and we can say that BPO companies and AMCs pull agents/brokers from a random system, i.e., whoever signs up, whoever they find, and the results of this "open invitation" fails to achieve some required "diversity"? It just doesn't have an "acceptably" diverse ratio? What does that actually mean? An open invitation to agents/brokers to sign up, be available, be found, be working, be in a real estate database, be an NAR Realtor, be a non-NAR licensee, and this results in a non-diverse population of agents, or one that doesn't meet certain diverse standards, what does that mean?

It doesn't defacto mean that discrimination is operative, it simply represents who is working in what industry predominantly. Working in any industry or profession is a choice, especially in real estate. No one stops a minority from working in real estate. And no one in real estate is guaranteed success, or even viability. The failure rate in real estate is color, gender, whatever statistic, blind.

So, everyone does have an opportunity. An opportunity to succeed or an opportunity to fail.

Giving preference to a person based on the color of their skin is racism. Doesn't matter if the old boys club or a well intentioned government.

If a racist asset manager at a company is giving work to white males, ahead of more qualified minorities, that company can be and often is sued. The offenders should be prosecuted and punished rather then giving every potential victim out there an automatic leg up.

The fact is races and genders break down into different levels of education and workforce participation. Additionally, some industries are just heavily overrepresented by one gender over another. Not a lot of male nurses out there are there? The idea that every industry should be perfectly represented by every race and gender is a statistical impossibility.

The hidden hand of the Federal Government is requiring this as most banks are tied in with Fannie, Freddy, FHA and the bailouts.

I left the corporate world years ago and started my little brokerage and real estate investment business to avoid such discrimination.

As a salesman, I figured my efforts would directly determine my income and so far it has.

I actually know of 2 competitors who have minority figureheads with a 51% interest to take advantage of this policy and it has worked for them.

I will continue to avoid any party that would discriminate against me. I have been investing in real estate for 29 years and doing fine so they can discriminate but it still ticks me off.

Identity politics is bad for the Country.

They do it so they can discriminate against you while saying they will not discriminate.

I just received an update request this week from NationStar and they are requesting "Diversity Certification documentation" which I don't have- earlier in the post someone mentioned it cost $500 to get certified- Is it worth it if it returns a half dozen REO's?
It would mean selling some of the corporate stock to employees to get to a 51% female ownership. I also heard it take 3-6 months to get the certification.
Anyone have an opinion on this?

This is a complete sham. A program for minority and female owned brokers is only excluding white males. The last time I checked, real estate was dominated by female agents and brokers.

The November 2011 issue of Texas REALTOR magazine indicates that 68% of agents and 53% of brokers in Texas are women...

As far as I can see, my African American co-workers, friends and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and line of work cannot count on most of these conditions:

• I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
• When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
• Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of my financial reliability.
• I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
• I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
-Peggy McIntosh

Why are blacks classified as African Americans if they are born in the USA? Are whites classified as Anglo Americans?

The same goes for any other type of double-barrel racial description if you are born here. IMHO, a more acceptable classification, if you so choose to be classified or grouped, would be "I am an American of (name the decent).

When you are asked by your clients, "what type of neighborhood is this"? What is your response if we are classifying?

I am a BPO-American.

Who's with me?

Why is white associated with words like purity, goodness and light?
and black is associated with words like death, evil and shady?

Literary symbology has nothing to do with racial prejudices. That argument is just silly and doesn't help in any ongoing discussion in the subject at hand.

That being said, I find it interesting that, in a country that is supposed to be free, people/companies are not allowed to hire whoever they want. Sorry, but being prejudiced is not a crime. It's stupid, but not a crime. I also find it interesting that groups that have been historically discriminated against only want "equal" rights so long as they are giving special consideration with their applications with the federal government.

If a group of qualified individuals apply to provide brokerage services, then the selected parties should be representative of the group of brokerages that applied. If 20% of the applicants are female, then approximately 20% of the approved brokerages should be female. One group should not have priority over another. The reason that we have to do minority surveys is simply so a particular group, whoever they may be, can be given priority over others. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like equality, but just another form of discrimination. Minority surveys are a bunch of crap and should be treated as such.

Well, very early humans were relatively happy when the sun was out. It was warm and very little was hidden from them, and they were relaxed and they ate and played. When the sun "went away", it got very very cold and very very dark and they were very very scared and they heard the sounds of wild animals and the wind, and they couldn't see their hands in front of their face. And many times if one of them left the group, that little human didn't come back but just disappeared into the blackness and was never never seen again. And they were so afraid. And so cold. But in the morning the "good" sun came back and banished the dark and dangerous night.

So, light good, warm; dark evil, cold scary. And since we're told we're all "out of Africa", probably these early humans were very dark, maybe even black, themselves! So now what?

Don't you feel better now that the origins of light and dark as "good" vs. "evil" has been explained to you?

Diversity requirements are not anything new. God you people sound like some Rick Perry loving people sometimes. Welcome to 2012.

or Paultards:

Yes, heaven forbid that people want equality and not discrimination. Minority surveys may not be new, but they are government PC for discrimination. There's no other reason to have them.

Lovely how the last two posts have to attack the person (even though neither party even knows the other people on this board...) instead of sticking to the discussion at hand. The weaker positions/arguments are always the first to resort to personal attacks. Way to stick your best foot forward.

Wasn't a flame, it was a question.

Who cares if she is a conservative? I am a conservative, too. I fail to see how that affects the current discussion. Or why people are called "Paultards" just because they disagree with you. If you have a valid point as to why minority surveys are beneficial, please share it. Or, if you know why a minority status positively affects one's ability to perform their duties in their business, I'm all ears. However, it doesn't. The fact that somebody is black, white, yellow, purple, orange, green, male, woman, gay, straight, American Indian, Catholic, Buddhist, Evangelical, or whatever means exactly jacksh!t when they're trying to comp a home or advise a client on how to sell. What matters is what you know, your experiences, your methods of selling, how hard you will work, and your past results. Yes, you may be trying to correct some wrongs from the past, but these types of policies are exactly what was wrong in the past. They do nothing but discriminate--the only difference now is the target.

A system which grants anyone a permanent advantage for no reason other than skin color or gender is a racist, sexist, and/or biggoted system. It is thus, since it establishes to the world we are helping these people since they can't make it on their own.
Determined minorities in my family avoid these 'legs up' out of respect for themselves. Their attitude is, "I can get that myself, thank you very much."

Everyone knows why minority surveys/programs are in place in this country

Its simply because people in our country have a history of discrimatory practices against minorities and thus processes have been established in an attempt to reduce this discrimination.

Hire and treat people of all backgrounds equally without discrimination and maybe these processes will eventually be eliminated

Frame the conversation as if it is minorities that are the problem and you further the need for regulation

I say most of the minorities who are eligable to benefit have never been disseffected by discrimination. Yet they are still demeaned by these diminuative practices.

Some of the responses I've read to this question directly portray the need for diversity measurements. I think it's funny how this turned into a debate about "minorities"? No one seemed to mention that surveys also ask if your business is woman owned, veteran owned, etc. I beg to ask, fellow forum members, do you think women or veterans don't deserve to be recognized either?

Recognized? By recognized you mean given preferential treatment? Women just happened to be born female so should have special rights? Veterans I can kind of understand because they have actually done something to earn any benefits they may receive but to give preferential treatment based on something that a person is born with (sex, ethnicity, etc.) is wrong. I also do not want special treatment for being a white male. I want to earn what I have and I feel that the most qualified people should be hired for any job regardless of any "minority status" they may or may not have. If I have to use the fact that I am a white male to get a job then I have said that I do not deserve the job because I have to fall back on something other than my qualifications.

Of course I am talking in general and not with regards to BPO's as we do not have those like you guys but to have to even fill out a minority survey is, in my opinion, very much racist/sexist/etc.

Discrimination in any form is just plain wrong. Discrimination IN ANY FORM. To deny someone an opportunity based on religion, race, color, gender or any reason other then ability goes against all that this country was founded on. Should anyone be denied a chance due to being Catholic, Jewish, of color, etc? Certainly not, that would be deplorable. Then why should anyone be denied a shot at success just because they're caucasian or male. It's not reverse discrimination, it's just plain discrimination.
One other item we seem to overlook is this. If you need one persons permission to be that persons equal, then you will never be that persons equal.

Equal opportunity should be equal to all. Quite frankly I really don't have the time or inclination to judge anyone on anything other then their ability and the way they treat me. Stupidity, ignorance and small mindness really have no place in a great society.

No, they don't. I can understand the VA wanting to reward veterans because of their service, which is very admirable. Why should other clients, though, give them work because of it? The veterans I know would scoff at such a pathetic attitude. They want to earn their keep, and I respect them for that.

Why should a woman be given an advantage over a man in this business? After all, most real estate agents are women...maybe male should be the "minority".

It's so ironic that we are required to abide by the Civil Rights Act and not give preference to anybody, but the federal government is not. Sorry, but I call bullsh!t.

Couldnt word it any better if I tried. Agree 10000%

Not reviving this thread to keep it going, per se, but I got something interesting the other day. A W-9 from a default company with a minority certification at the bottom.

When the normal certification for tax information is signed/dated, you also certify minority information below it subject to fines/imprisonment or both and/or other remedies available at law.

I've never seen a W-9 like this. If anyone else has, please bring me up to speed.

IMO, your post just affirms further AGAINST your minority survey support. Being a "minority" ( I put minority in quotes because there truely are still minorities today, but not what the law defines them as, thats for sure ) should not give you any advantage for application over anyone else, that in of itself is discrimination.

If a white teen stabs a classmate, then they should be tried as a white teen, just like the 300lb blackman would also. Being a rocket scientist not required to figure that out.

If I own a chicken coop and find that statistics tell me that 75% of the time that one of my chickens is stolen that it ends up being the fox that did it, not the rabbits or ducks, wouldnt it make the most sense when my chickens go missing to focus on the fox first?

I must say Artiste that you are very determined to keep this controversial topic alive and well, everytime it remotely slows you make sure to take a poke at the beehive to get it buzzing again.

PS. I did find some of the onions report funny, some of their stuff is still pretty good.

I just noticed that if you log-in to your CC account and click on "edit qualifications", you can claim a small business certification if applicable. This includes women owned, veteran owned, disable veteran owned, etc businesses.

I wonder if you can actually claim any of these puts you ahead of the CME in your area? Somehow I doubt it.

I would doubt any of them do, probably just more on CC and others side so they can say they are fulfilling some quota.

It's POSSIBLE that minority status may not give anyone a leg up in the BPO biz. Probably true it just satisfies a quota criteria. Maybe someone else has better insight.

I still see BPOs blasted to anyone who'll grab them; but I guess those would be coming from mills that don't have preferred agent status programs? Could it add a point or so to a preferred agent's status? Someone would have to ask about that.

I'd imagine that the Internal Revenue Code bestows certain tax benefits upon our benefactor . . . . the Mill.

It is bad to mark N/A on it... I just did an online one today where it asked my gender and if any of those others applied. Female is no longer enough. I'm thinking of going african american lesbo too. Thanks for the idea!

Its not about numbers.

"Minority" is a term to describe people who are routinely discriminated against based on their gender, race and/or color. In some areas of the country, minorities make up the majority but it hasn't ended discrimination.

Discrimination, racism and sexism is alive and well -- and until that changes, those who are unfairly treated IN GENERAL will be given the leg up that they NEED to OVERCOME stupid people in power.

By discriminating against other innocent people.

Sadly even the Justice Department is ho-hum about "discrimination" or "hate" crimes or voter intimidation when the victims of such are considered to be members of the majority. I.e., laws regarding discrimination should only be enforced when the discrimination is against a protected class.

The Justice Dept. basically says, the reason such laws were enacted was to prevent discrimination against certain minority classes, and so enforcement of those laws are ONLY for minorities.

And so the discrimination against the "non discriminated" gets worse daily. Look no farther then "hate" crimes.

I am all for EQUAL rights, as long as EQUAL means just that, not instead you have all the rights I have and then get added bonuses additionally.

The strongest among us have faced hardships (as described) and rather than crying fowl and looking for assistance, they improvised, perservered and overcame them only to surpass and out perform those imposing the obstacles.

Doin'

Well said........and that just doesn't include working in sales.

Until our society is done with discrimination, the minority protections will remain. In the meantime, I think that it would be helpful if the White Privilege group would learn how to whine in 2 languages and double their chances at success.

Whine as in...

Would you like cheese with your wine?
Te gustaria queso con su vino?

Just being silly, don't take me seriously.

Ya hablo dos idiomas, idiota. Por desgracia, ser bilingue no es una condición de minoría, tampoco. La inteligencia de una persona no esta importante ... sólo su color de piel, sexo, o su orientación sexual. Lo siento, pero usted es muy intolerante.

What are some recent incidents of discrimination againgst minorities that have been reported?

There was an incident (in Philly I believe) where the New Black Panther Party intimidated caucasian voters at a polling place. Does that qulaify as minority discrimination?

Atty Gen and the just dept won't be prosecuting however. Does that qualify as filling the quota? Is that evaning the playing field?

According to the Justice Dept's fairly recent position, and most likely in response to the outcry over that incident, no, it doesn't qualify for any action on the part of the DOJ. The fact that a perceived majority (white people) were being intimidated by a minority (a black person or persons), isn't discriminatory according to the current mindset of DOJ, because, only a minority can be discriminated against.

DOJ's premise (although there may have been some pushback-- but DOJ only gave lip-service to it) is that discrimination and voter intimidtation laws were created to protect minorities, or broader terms, "protected classes"; therefore, those laws cannot be enforced on behalf of a group that is NOT a minority or a protected class. White voters have no standing as they are not a protected class.

What I'm interested to know are what recent incidences of discrimination against minorites have ocurred. One of our posters says that discrimination against minorities still exists today. I would like to know what evidence there is for that statement.

So doesn't a survey potentially back up the fact that a company is not discriminating against any one group or individual? Wouldn't this be a safeguard to show that everyone is given the same opportunity?

In my endeavor to continue to provide negative examples here is an article from a sitting US Senator, Democrat from Virgnina. I have posted this link before and I believe it supports our argument against minorty surveys.

We will see what others might put up to answer your question with positive examples. Sen. Jimm Webb--the Myth of white privilege I think this is one of my favorite lines.....Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

If everyone is being treated equally then why must one know the gender, race, origin, etc of the applicant? The reason being that those in certain classes will be given priority treatment. The only measuring stick in any industry should be performance. I happen to be an agent in an office that's woman owned, thus she gets priority treatment. Nice lady that has never sold an REO, has no idea what I do or how I do it. But I get priority treatment due to her Minority??? status. Last time I heard there were more females on the planet then males.
We all have a vested interest in reducing a lender's losses since that cost is eventually passed on to the consumer via higher prices or via our tax dollars.
Picture this. 2 folks. One a caucasian male that sold thousands of REOs and one a Native American of color, that's also a female, disabled veteran and gay, but never sold an REO. As a business owner which would be more valuable to your operation? I hire based on qualifications regardless of race, religion, origin or any other criteria that doesn't address productivity. It is equally disgusting to state "you're a minority, you're fired" as it is to say "you're NOT a minority, you're fired".
I would also add that I have 3 sisters, a wife, 2 daughters and 4 grandaugters and they all stand on their own 2 feet, are extremely successful due to their ability and not due to gender.

Jack, I hear you. And while I basically disagree with minority or "special class" preferences, I have this to offer on your examples:

The mindset or thinking regarding giving minorities preferences is that the Native American "of color", female/gay has never really had a chance to sell an REO BECAUSE there was prior discriminatory practices that precluded her from doing that.

Regarding the situation in your own office where a female who has never sold an REO, she, (as a representative of a class) never, except in the last 40 some years, had the opportunity to do so except very marginally. As a "hobby" perhaps. Prior to EEOC, women were told, flat out, that this or that job was a "man's job", and they could be and were excluded from taking that job. Period. So, for the several hundred years prior to that law, presumably with few exceptions, MALES sold real estate. If not several hundred, then under NAR since 1913 (I believe) most brokers were male and most were white.

In fact, a black real estate organization was founded in answer to probably NAR.

And with all due respect to the dynamic and successful females in your family, absent EEOC laws they would be having a very difficult time standing on their own two feet. MOST women of the day had to marry a paycheck. Your female family members and other females, in the last 40-some years have had the CHANCE to prove themselves. But prior to that time, they'd have no chance to prove their abilities except in traditonally female occupations with extremely few exceptions.

No, it doesn't. In order to prove that a company was not discriminatory, they'd have to release the minority statuses of all applicants as well as the approved vendors. You would need to compare the population samples, and that's assuming that every applicant is qualified. The population percentages of each minority group should be similar between approved vendors and qualified applicants. Of course, then you would have to prove that there was no discrimination in determining who was a qualified applicant, which you can't do. So, these surveys don't prove that discrimination did not take place, but only verifies who was hired.

You know, percentages of overall minority populations nationally, regionally, or locally, especially with the so-far largest minority population (true minority and not female) is aprx 13%. However, hiring is NOT based on minority percentages per population. In fact, traditionally, with respect to the African-American population, these hiring percentages were targetted for 50/50 or greater. EQUAL is the operative here, not "fair". If there are 50 white persons, there must be 50 minority persons.

So, the assumption would necessarily be that, HALF of those hired or working SHOULD be minorities. I think that's where females, gay, lesbian, transgendered, get thrown in the mix to bring the percentage of "minorities" to 50%.