Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[Belz...]

And if you find that white felons get more traction than black men with clean records that is just life and not anything anyone can do anything about.

Nope, that would indicate discrimination, wouldn't it? We have laws against that, don't we? They should enforce these laws, shouldn't they?

How would affirmative action help with that situation?

 

[Border Reiver]

Twice. Once I didn't get a job. I had applied with inside info. Later the same insider told me that "it was time to hire a black".

Another was, as a low level manager, I wanted to fire a black for insubordination. Smoking in a no smoking area. Caught him at it many times. My bosses told me "him or me". I said "do I have the authority to fire employees?" They said "Do I REALLY want to fire him?", They never asked the rest of the crew whether he actually smoked, or whether I had given him plenty of chances to get his stuff together. Facts did not matter, only avoiding the appearance of racism. That was my last day there.

As a manager I learned one very valuable lesson when it comes to getting rid of problem employees - documentation. Written notes to the personnel file detailing when and where the person broke from the accepted pattern of behaviour. Properly documented, you can get rid of anyone.

 

[The Don]

Twice. Once I didn't get a job. I had applied with inside info. Later the same insider told me that "it was time to hire a black".

Then maybe you were discriminated against. Then again, your "insider" may not have had the pull that (s)he expected (or the inside information wasn't as good as they had told you) and to spare their shame told you a story that you would have found believable.

Another was, as a low level manager, I wanted to fire a black for insubordination. Smoking in a no smoking area. Caught him at it many times. My bosses told me "him or me". I said "do I have the authority to fire employees?" They said "Do I REALLY want to fire him?", They never asked the rest of the crew whether he actually smoked, or whether I had given him plenty of chances to get his stuff together. Facts did not matter, only avoiding the appearance of racism. That was my last day there.

If other members of staff had been fired for smoking in a non-smoking area (and it wasn't a widely flouted rule) then the black employee was indeed subject to preferential treatment. In this case it sounds like you had a case for "constructive dismissal" against the company. Maybe you should have had your union take it up with them.

 

[The Don]

As a manager I learned one very valuable lesson when it comes to getting rid of problem employees - documentation. Written notes to the personnel file detailing when and where the person broke from the accepted pattern of behaviour. Properly documented, you can get rid of anyone.

^ Absolutely a million times this

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, that would indicate discrimination, wouldn't it? We have laws against that, don't we? They should enforce these laws, shouldn't they?

How would affirmative action help with that situation?

But how do you enforce them when it is all just gut feelings? I mean sure he had some problems with the law but he seems like a nice guy while there is just something about the other one.

It helps by giving people a chance who would otherwise have less of one because of ingrained unconscious stereotypes .

 

[Belz...]

But how do you enforce them when it is all just gut feelings?

You mean people who think they've been discriminated against but can't prove it?

I mean sure he had some problems with the law but he seems like a nice guy while there is just something about the other one.

Again, there are laws against that.

It helps by giving people a chance who would otherwise have less of one because of ingrained unconscious stereotypes .

How about the people it screws over? Imagine for a second that the situation is reversed.

 

[pharphis]

You get the interview based on qualifications too. But guess who gets to set the qualifications? The company hiring. "We need a black guy" is a qualification, perhaps capricious, but it's just like any other qualification.
My experience has been in environments where the chore was to winnow down the resumes submitted. Everyone has the basic qualifications. Employers are left looking at "incidentals" to pick someone. They start looking at goofy stuff like shiny shoes or whether you can tell a good joke... anything to form a basis for selecting candidate A over B.

If the situation were reversed and the company is desperate to hire anyone who will do, then your hypothetical no longer works, since there isn't any competition to beat with my skin-color card.

smh

Would you accept this reasoning if someone wanted to hire more whites than other groups?

 

[Belz...]

smh

Would you accept this reasoning if someone wanted to hire more whites than other groups?

The whole point of AA is to prevent "we want whites" and Marplots thinks "we want blacks" is OK.

 

[sadhatter]

It boils down to this.

Do we give extra credit for ones race, helping minorities in the short term while creating subtle resentment from the majority.

Or

Do we let society move organically toward acceptance and deal with the short term negatives with the payoff of a quicker societal level of acceptance.

There isn't an easy answer, but options have serious flaws, but we live in an imperfect world.

 

[Belz...]

Do we let society move organically toward acceptance and deal with the short term negatives with the payoff of a quicker societal level of acceptance.

I suppose AA could have a point: A) If its quotas are based on the proportion of applicants rather than that of the general population, it might make some sense and B), regarding what you said above, it could be argued that "acceptance" will be difficult if you don't have something like AA making diversity in the worldplace, for example, commonplace.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


I think that's wrongheaded. It assumes that men and women are interested in every job in equal proportions, something that I find entirely unsupported and, if wrong, is forcing the selection of less competent people just to reach an ideological quota.

Your assumption assumes that culture is not a strong driver of what careers people pursue.

 

[pharphis]

Your assumption assumes that culture is not a strong driver of what careers people pursue.

No, it's merely an assumption that there is more than culture (ie biology) that plays a role. Any distribution (50/50, 20/80, etc.) is arbitrary as far as I can tell because these can't be fully decoupled.

 

[Darat]

Whites are already a minority in California, and not even the biggest one. And no, there has not been any easing of AA. So, in fact, AA is anti-minority at this point.

I wonder at which point we can start a NAAWP without being considered racists?

Remember, Rosa Parks did not want AA, she only wanted equality. But nowadays, I am expected to get out of the line, not just wait my turn.

Surely it is that you are expected to not to be able to get ahead by using accidents of birth rather than your own efforts?

For instance in the USA (and the UK) the strongest predictor of your future wealth is your parents wealth, so the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.

 

[Belz...]

Your assumption assumes that culture is not a strong driver of what careers people pursue.

My assumption assumes no such assumption. I'm simply stating a fact: men and women don't make the same career choices. I suspect there's both nature and nurture involved, but why is that seen as a bad thing? And do you have any reason to suspect that it's more nurture than nature? I mean, if we look at how men and women generally behave across our history and various cultures?

A while ago I asked you why you expected the proportion of women to men in a specific population to match the general population's but never got an answer.

 

[Darat]

No, it's merely an assumption that there is more than culture (ie biology) that plays a role. Any distribution (50/50, 20/80, etc.) is arbitrary as far as I can tell because these can't be fully decoupled.

Good point I did overlook that.

Is there any evidence that certain careers are biologically determined?

 

[Belz...]

Good point I did overlook that.

Is there any evidence that certain careers are biologically determined?

I think "biologically determined" is a misnomer. I think men and women, having different physiologies and chemistries and brain structures, have different biological "incentives" in addition to their differing perspectives, some of which comes from their local culture for sure.

I think there's a reason why you rarely find women in fields that carry high risk of physical harm, or require physical strength, and there's a reason why women are drawn more to careers in fields that allow them to interact with people and solve issues by human interaction.

Personally I find that this is exactly the kind of "diversity" we should be celebrating.

 

[Tony]

Let me ask a question that hasn't been asked. Why should I care about the dearth of women carpenters enough to think that it requires some kind of intervention from the state? What about the dearth of black men working in nail salons? Does that grave problem need attention from Congress as well?

 

[Darat]

My assumption assumes no such assumption. I'm simply stating a fact: men and women don't make the same career choices. I suspect there's both nature and nurture involved, but why is that seen as a bad thing? And do you have any reason to suspect that it's more nurture than nature? I mean, if we look at how men and women generally behave across our history and various cultures?
A while ago I asked you why you expected the proportion of women to men in a specific population to match the general population's but never got an answer.

Problem with that is culture is self-perpetuating self-reinforcing (or it does not last) and I suspect almost chaotic in that very small changes to starting conditions could result in huge effects later on. I know we can find cultures where women are the manual labourers, where women are the food gathers - roles that in "our" cultures are "meant" to be male.

 

[Belz...]

Problem with that is culture is self-perpetuating self-reinforcing (or it does not last) and I suspect almost chaotic in that very small changes to starting conditions could result in huge effects later on. I know we can find cultures where women are the manual labourers, where women are the food gathers - roles that in "our" cultures are "meant" to be male.

I'm sure we can find outliers but if we look at the general rule, you have civilisations very much detached from each other that all followed the same general guidelines: men hunt, rule and wage war; women take care of the home and family, among other things. My guess is the near-universality of this simply stems from the fact that it was arranged that way "in the wild" and got carried over, justifiably or not, when we transitioned to civilisation.

I'd still like to discuss why you think there should be a distribution equal to the general population's for any given field.

 

[pharphis]

So culture can lead to a great difference. I accept this.

I think we're all reasonable enough to accept that if we could remove culture entirely, we could label some "biological distribution" for lack of a better word. Say biologically speaking, women on aggregate would make up only 20% of carpenters. Let's imagine for a moment that we could calculate or approximate this.

Now, if it was only 10% (in a population), we conclude that culture is pushing women away (or men toward) carpentry.

My question is this: Why is this a problem in need of fixing? Let alone it being difficult to address as well as calculate to begin with (if possible)... why is it a problem?

Sure, it leads to some disparity in some way (women I guess making less money on aggregate - something I don't think is a problem on it's own since we're talking about aggregates) but I just don't see it as something worth focusing on. As long as we aren't actively discouraging (discriminating or providing sex-restricted classes/courses/programs) I don't really see it as a problem.

Maybe I'm too individualistic or something