Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[ponderingturtle]

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

No I mean the cases where you can show that people are discriminated against statistically but can not claim it in any specific case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Hey segregation is up, so clearly ignoring it isn't working. Imagine if all those people who called the cops because they didn't realize their neighbor was black got called racist, you would breed a lot of resentment.

 

[Belz...]

No I mean the cases where you can show that people are discriminated against statistically but can not claim it in any specific case.

I assume you're refering to the white felon vs black men statistic?

That's a good question. I don't have a good answer. But I know that the principle stands: discriminating on the basis of race is wrong.

Question about the aforementioned statistics: how was that calculated?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assume you're refering to the white felon vs black men statistic?

That's a good question. I don't have a good answer. But I know that the principle stands: discriminating on the basis of race is wrong.

Question about the aforementioned statistics: how was that calculated?

By sending people to seek basic menial jobs and the call back rate where the white men admitted to a felony on their record and the black men had clean records.

It is like with traffic stops, you can show that blacks are much more likely to be pulled over, but how do you show any individual stop is a result of racial bias?

Your solution is to pretend the field is level and ignore complaints showing that it isn't.

The thing is that people in that situation don't want to accept that they are unconsciously influenced by racial stereotypes and biases. The vast majority of people don't think that they are racist no matter how racist they are. They honestly do have black friends because sure most blacks are lazy violent thugs but Larry is great.

 

[Belz...]

By sending people to seek basic menial jobs and the call back rate where the white men admitted to a felony on their record and the black men had clean records.

Ok so we're definitely talking about equal qualifications, then.

Your solution is to pretend the field is level and ignore complaints showing that it isn't.

Why do you say things like that when you know that it isn't true? Why do you persist in strawmanning other people's opinions? Do you think that's going to make it easier to discuss topics with them?

I didn't say "pretend that the field is level". I said that AA was discrimination based on gender or race and that I was of the opinion that those things were wrong. If you think that discrimination based on those things is NOT wrong, then it opens an interesting can of worms.

As I said, I don't know what solution I'd propose to both not discriminate based on gender or race, and also get rid of the other sort of discrimination, other than enforcing laws and trying to further social change.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why do you say things like that when you know that it isn't true? Why do you persist in strawmanning other people's opinions? Do you think that's going to make it easier to discuss topics with them?

I didn't say "pretend that the field is level". I said that AA was discrimination based on gender or race and that I was of the opinion that those things were wrong. If you think that discrimination based on those things is NOT wrong, then it opens an interesting can of worms.

As I said, I don't know what solution I'd propose to both not discriminate based on gender or race, and also get rid of the other sort of discrimination, other than enforcing laws and trying to further social change.

That means we just have to pretend that we are not seeing increasing segregation in schools for one.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/05/17/gao-study-segregation-worsening-us-schools/84508438/

The idea of trying to fix this through social change clearly isn't working. Or rather it is working great at keeping blacks in their place.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

I'm fairly ambivalent about AA - for the most part I see it as a bit of a necessary evil but I can see both sides of the argument.

I think the above is a unfair characterisation. I think its more about 'we want only whites' vs 'we seem to have a disproportionate number of white people on the workforce so maybe we should hire a minority if there is a good one'

One other 'special right' of the same ilk that I have seen is 'purchasing diversity policies' where x% of a company's widget buys should be from companies owned by minorities/women which i find a bit odd.

It shouldn't be underestimated that the lack of family connections, friends, or other people in your own social circle or just of a shared culture is a barrier to many people in getting employment. When so many jobs are filled through recommendation, nepotism or insider information then the scales are already weighing against people who don't have those connections.

The playing field isn't level to begin with so unless you skew something the other way then it's going to be difficult to achieve equality of opportunity. That's not to say the solutions are perfect but it's probably on balance better than not doing those things.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

For me it's all about the principle and the objective. If the principle is "discriminating people based on irrelevant characteristics is bad" and the resulting objective is ending said discrimination, then AA is not needed. The only reason why it's there is that people have confused equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

Fair argument. The bone I would pick is that it assumes that there is no discrimination to be adjusted for. So I suggest an experiment: Send out your next job application using "LeShaun" as your first name. You can retain all other aspects of your current profile, including all achievements. Get several hundred others to do the same, and an equal number sending obviously white-named resumes. Make it all male in both groups to focus only on racial bias.

Or at least that is how several studies I've perused on EurekaAlert and other places over the years seem to be set up. No surprise, with all else being equal, a black man has less chance of being hired than a white man with a criminal record in the USA. (Here's one quick hit. Been a while since I read the last, but certainly not only one.)

As to the far more pervasive and sweeping effect of discrimination in housing and many other walks of life on the black middle class, I suggest you take a look at the very well-written article on The Atlantic, The Case for Reparations.

My guess is that you, and many an honest reader, will discover that talking about racism in terms of surface observations and inapplicable equivalencies is like saying the Sun orbiting the Earth is a final, forever-true observation based on sound reason, glaringly obvious fact, and common sense.

 

[Belz...]

That means we just have to pretend that we are not seeing increasing segregation in schools for one.

Again with this wording. "Pretend". How do you connect what I said with this?

The idea of trying to fix this through social change clearly isn't working.

Seems to be working in a lot of places. Maybe it's an American problem, specifically.

 

[Belz...]

I'm fairly ambivalent about AA - for the most part I see it as a bit of a necessary evil but I can see both sides of the argument.

I think the above is a unfair characterisation. I think its more about 'we want only whites' vs 'we seem to have a disproportionate number of white people on the workforce so maybe we should hire a minority if there is a good one'

One other 'special right' of the same ilk that I have seen is 'purchasing diversity policies' where x% of a company's widget buys should be from companies owned by minorities/women which i find a bit odd.

Another argument I heard about AA is that it treats minorities and women as people unable to make it in life without help. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but again if laws+social change don't do the trick, what would be a solution that _doesn't_ involve reverse discrimination?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As I said, I don't know what solution I'd propose to both not discriminate based on gender or race, and also get rid of the other sort of discrimination, other than enforcing laws and trying to further social change.

Shouldn't it be a case of which is the lesser of two evils?

Discriminating positively in favour of minorities to try to balance things a bit, or doing nothing and letting the inherent discrimination in the system drive outcomes?

To use an analogy that I really should be able to think of a better one than, introducing toxic chemicals to the body is bad for your health and no doctor should ever do it, but chemotherapy is preferable to letting cancer run its course.

 

[Belz...]

Fair argument. The bone I would pick is that it assumes that there is no discrimination to be adjusted for. So I suggest an experiment: Send out your next job application using "LeShaun" as your first name. You can retain all other aspects of your current profile, including all achievements. Get several hundred others to do the same, and an equal number sending obviously white-named resumes. Make it all male in both groups to focus only on racial bias.

Well, in Canada this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, but my experience is limited to only a couple of employers, one of which is government-level. However I see plenty of diversity in the larger cities and in private employ.

Again, the US seems to have a larger problem with this than, say, Europe or other western first-world countries, which is odd considering the US' immigration history.

 

[BStrong]

"Special Rights" imo is pretty much code for "Wahhad ya mean I can't call a ****** a ******?" Or something similar - However, we do have the "Sanctuary City" law here in S.F. that started out as a well intended law (which I support fully) to protect undocumented aliens when they reported being the victims of a crime to protecting undocumented criminals, even when convicted, and in that I believe the case can be made that a special situation has been established, based not on race, on circumstance.

 

[Belz...]

Shouldn't it be a case of which is the lesser of two evils?

He's the problem with sacrificing the very principle we're trying to uphold: once you go down that road, you are saying that discrimination is OK in some cases and not in others. It opens up the question: which is OK, and which isn't? Now, proponents of AA would certainly say that discrimination against the majority is OK, and discrimination against the minority is not. However, some less savoury people on the other side might argue that discrimination against a smaller number is better than one against the larger one. It makes the judgment rather subjective.

Maybe it is the lesser of two evils, but I don't like the implications.

 

[marplots]

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

It's OK in the context where capriciousness rules the day. The setup is that candidates are otherwise equal and some selection criteria has to be chosen.

In the context of affirmative action the situation is different. In that case there's an outside commentary, a moral/ethical principle set in law which intrudes. The difference is that in the first context things are largely random and considered fair thereby. But in the second, the policy is designed to combat a general bias - a bias we deem distasteful and have made unlawful.

I should have been clearer on this point.

I'd be curious to know if the "LeShaun" experiment works out differently when the business is black-owned. Anyone know?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well, in Canada this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, but my experience is limited to only a couple of employers, one of which is government-level. However I see plenty of diversity in the larger cities and in private employ.

Again, the US seems to have a larger problem with this than, say, Europe or other western first-world countries, which is odd considering the US' immigration history.

Hard to generalize. You can find blacks at least among normal shop and café personnel in France and the UK. In Spain, and I suspect Italy, they are lucky not to have all the CDs or whatever stolen off the blankets they spread on sidewalks to sell what they can. The rest are virtual slaves in agriculture, and hard to find, but there if you want to look.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Another argument I heard about AA is that it treats minorities and women as people unable to make it in life without help. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but again if laws+social change don't do the trick, what would be a solution that _doesn't_ involve reverse discrimination?

It depends. In theory surely if a company is not gender and minority balanced to some reasonable extent then it MUST be discriminating? On the balance of evidence at least.

I don't think there is ANY way to avoid accusations of reverse discrimination as soon as you start looking at the outcomes as an indicator of whether or not people are being discriminated against. You're always going to get people who claim that so-and-so only got the job because they are black or whatever.

Perhaps the onus should be on employers not show that their recruitment policies are NOT biased but again that is going to end up with someone looking at what % is the right outcome and making a judgement.

Oh and it will work the other way as well. Even in a company that genuinely doesn't discriminate there will be people who think they lost a job because they are female or Hispanic or whatever.

When I look at the company I work for there are a hell of a lot of middle class white boys employed there. More than I would say would be natural. Now it might just be down to education or culture or preferences or whatever but I don't believe for a second that there isn't some black kid from a council estate who could do just as good a job given the chance. The question is how do they get that chance and maybe forcing the hand of some people is the only way that happens.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... I'd be curious to know if the "LeShaun" experiment works out differently when the business is black-owned. Anyone know?

I would not be surprised. There is known preference for lighter skin tones in times and places. This is what best illustrates the final, devastating impact of long-term abuse: the assimilation by the victim of his/her abuser's postulates. This is a general rule, not just for racism, btw. At any rate, truly a vomit-worthy outcome.

 

[Belz...]

It depends. In theory surely if a company is not gender and minority balanced to some reasonable extent then it MUST be discriminating?

It strikes me as simplistic to think that discrimination is the only driver of disparity when we're so obviously a sexually dimorphic species. They've been saying for a while that men and women are from different planets, and it's not for no reason.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

He's the problem with sacrificing the very principle we're trying to uphold: once you go down that road, you are saying that discrimination is OK in some cases and not in others. It opens up the question: which is OK, and which isn't? Now, proponents of AA would certainly say that discrimination against the majority is OK, and discrimination against the minority is not. However, some less savoury people on the other side might argue that discrimination against a smaller number is better than one against the larger one. It makes the judgment rather subjective.

Maybe it is the lesser of two evils, but I don't like the implications.

Me either. But I don't like the implications of not doing it either. The problem is real and has been identified. The choice is to do something which isn't perfect or do nothing and accept that minorities will just have to be disadvantaged in the meantime.

At least in the case of AA there are rules about it, it's in the open and a conscious decision and we can make a choice to stop it or change the rules if we no longer need it.