Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[johnny karate]

I am against the government abetting moral hazard of any kind.

Sure you are. It must just be coincidence that you only complain about it when it benefits Black people.

 

[EHocking]

Also a coincidence that Lowndes county is a blue county in a red state.
Only coincidence.

 

[johnny karate]

This I think is correct. DEI characterizes the issue as "racism" when there is no evidence of that. People in Appalachia also have this problem due to the land. Do they also get to allege racism? If the government created a problem to assist low-income rural folks - of any race - to get appropriate septic tanks, that'd be different.

People of every race were eligible for the program that you’re selectively outraged about.

 

[Paul2]

I absolutely support programs to address the actual problem. I don't support programs that selectively address problems only when they can be framed as racism. I'll quite happily advocate for a revised program that removes reference to racism from it's justification and reasoning.

Would you say the effects of past racist government policies are (1) absent today, or (2) difficult to parse out in any particular circumstance, perhaps due to not being able to control for confounding factors, and the like?

 

[Aridas]

Just to deal with the issue more broadly -

All these arguments that boil down to "we shouldn't even be allowed to even mention racist causes for problems, much less prioritize addressing them because of those causes" are deeply disingenuous and on many fronts, at that.

"Action should be taken to help the poor and needy, but it shouldn't be allowed to look at racial factors at all!" For it to even be possible to call that well-meaning, one has to assume, at kindest, that the arguer is either ignorant and/or a fool. Our country has a long history of handling policy that isn't racist on the surface in decidedly racist ways. Invoking some magic reset button that completely ignores human nature, actual history, and even ongoing current events may be reasonable if we were actually dealing with a philosophical blank slate, but that's not the reality that we face. Officially removing race from consideration entirely is nigh certain to return us to a state of affairs where policy is quietly enacted in pointedly anti-disfavored group ways again, without recourse for those harmed. Those not actually quite ignorant and foolish who invoke the argument in question are likely to be actually favoring that end, no less.

After all, when not being nigh unreasonably kind to those arguing such and invoking the reality of the larger bulk of the population, selfishness rules the day. "I'm not among those who had been wronged and I don't want to bear any responsibility at all for wronging them, regardless of whether I had a direct hand in it or not. If I think I have had a hand in it, though, that's even more reason for me to fight against bearing any responsibility. On top of that, helping them gives me and mine less of an advantage over them so that alone would be cause to oppose action that helps them and would thus wrong me." Naturally, only the first little bit of that is socially acceptable to say, but all of us have our not so socially acceptable sides, even if we might prefer to mask such in various ways, when it comes to both internal and external inspection. When selfishness is the guide, of course, all kinds of twisted logic and lies can be treated as justified and flaws and fallacies overlooked.

To go a step further, the truly bad actors tend to like using appeals to selfishness to get a pass for and get away with their truly bad behavior.

 

[Hercules56]

That this continues to be your main gripe - grossly oversimplified as it is - while the dumbest, most unqualified white guys are destroying our country speaks volumes.

You assume I support the latter when I do not.

 

[johnny karate]

You assume I support the latter when I do not.

I don’t assume anything. I observe what gets complained about the most and draw logical conclusions from that.

 

[bruto]

You assume I support the latter when I do not.

One can presume you do not...mostly. But support is relative. A point may come when if you support what they do it does not matter if you dislike what they are.

 

[Hercules56]

I don’t assume anything. I observe what gets complained about the most and draw logical conclusions from that.

So you don't actually read my posts.

 

[johnny karate]

So you don't actually ready posts.

If you’ve got an argument to make about policies and government actions that disproportionately benefit certain groups of people, this is the thread to do it in.

Feel free to make a case about something other than how you think civil service exams are unfair to white people and prove me wrong.

 

[Hercules56]

If you’ve got an argument to make about policies and government actions that disproportionately benefit certain groups of people, this is the thread to do it in.

Feel free to make a case about something other than how you think civil service exams are unfair to white people and prove me wrong.

LOL!!!

What are you talking about????

 

[johnny karate]

LOL!!!

What are you talking about????

Your multiple posts in this thread complaining about nonwhite people being given an unfair advantage in civil service exams and zero posts complaining about government policies and actions that give an unfair advantage to white people.

 

[Hercules56]

Your multiple posts in this thread complaining about nonwhite people being given an unfair advantage in civil service exams and zero posts complaining about government policies and actions that give an unfair advantage to white people.

Such as?

 

[johnny karate]

Such as?

Post# 2,297

 

[Hercules56]

You're joking, right?

There are no examples of blacks scoring poorer on entrance exams or civil service exams than whites score, and these scores being adjusted to allow more blacks to pass the exams?

Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The minority pass rate (i.e. scoring above the 70th percentile) was 25% (eight persons) compared with the non-minority pass rate of 50% (48 persons). Under the 80 percent rule, the State determined that the Captains' exam had an adverse racial impact. The State reviewed these results in light of a rule of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which states that evidence that an employer selects minority candidates for employment positions at a rate that is less than 80% of the selection rate for nonminorities "will generally be regarded ... as evidence of adverse impact," see 29 CFR § 1607.4(D) (1984). It concluded that the test's minority selection rate of approximately 50% demonstrated an adverse impact on minority candidates.

Faced with this statistical disparity, the fact that the State had been sued by minorities with respect to two prior examinations for correctional officer positions, and the lack of any indication that minorities would not perform equally well in the position of Correction Captain, the State unilaterally decided to raise the scores of minority candidates by establishing a separate normalization curve for minority candidates and equating the mean of that curve with the mean for nonminorities



And...

Lawsuit challenges civil service exam as unfair to blacks

The Michigan Civil Service Commission is accused of using an exam that discriminates against black applicants who want to work for the state police or become conservation officers.

apnews.com

The Michigan Civil Service Commission is accused of using an exam that discriminates against black applicants who want to work for the state police or become conservation officers.

A lawsuit claims the civil service exam produces racially disparate results because blacks have a higher failure rate than white applicants.


And...

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/31/nyregion/minority-officers-score-low-on-test.html

A disproportionately small number of black and Hispanic police officers earned passing grades on a New York City police sergeants exam designed to overcome racial and sexual biases, according to figures made available yesterday.

The figures were released by a black police group and confirmed by the Koch administration.The results showed that only 1.6 percent of the black candidates and 4.4 percent of the Hispanic candidates passed, compared with 10.6 percent of the white police officers who were tested.

The group representing black police officers, the Guardians Association, called the results ''racially biased'' and asked Police Commisioner Benjamin Ward to reject them. The group's president, Officer Marvin Blue, said he did not know the reason for the results, nor was he saying the test itself was discriminatory - just the outcome.


And...

Lawsuit: Michigan law enforcement exam discriminates against blacks

A Wayne County judge has certified a class-action suit related to the civil service exam written by state trooper and conservation officer hopefuls.

www.freep.com

A Wayne County judge has certified a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 600 black applicants who wanted to work as state police or conservation officers but failed the required Michigan civil service exam.

The lawsuit alleges that two different civil service exams the state has used since 2014 - one of which remains in use today - violate the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and discriminate against black applicants, who have a higher failure rate than white applicants do.

"The Michigan Civil Service Commission engaged in a pattern and practice of race discrimination in its hiring process through testing that had a disparate adverse impact on African-Americans," the suit alleges. "This illegal policy ... was furthered by command officers'/officials' failure to monitor the adverse impacts of the employment policies in place."


And...

Adjusted Federal Employment Tests Stir Controversy

The growing debate over affirmative-action programs in America is facing a new--and potentially volatile--controversy: They call it race-norming.

www.latimes.com

The effect is to inflate the scores of blacks and Latinos in a way that gives them an advantage in obtaining available jobs. With identical raw scores of 300, a black would be ranked in the 83rd percentile, a Latino in the 67th and a white in the 45th, officials say.

KEY ISSUES: Critics complain that employers may well pass over qualified whites even though they have scored identically to--or even far higher than--Latino or black applicants.

Sad examples of racist discrimination.

Post 2,297.

No examples of pro-white discrimination.

 

[jt512]

Would you say the effects of past racist government policies are (1) absent today, or (2) difficult to parse out in any particular circumstance, perhaps due to not being able to control for confounding factors, and the like?

For anyone interested in the above question, there was a recent debate at Stanford University on the topic "Why Does African-American Disadvantage Persist?" The debaters are Brown University economist Glenn Loury and UC-Berkeley scholar of law, philosophy, and political science Joshua Cohen. I just found out about it and haven't yet had a chance to watch it myself, but I expect it will be illuminating.

Watch the debate here.

 

[arthwollipot]

Watch the debate here.

Just so everybody is aware up front - it's an hour and 45 minutes long. So set aside that time if you plan to watch it.

 

[johnny karate]

Sad examples of racist discrimination.

Post 2,297.

No examples of pro-white discrimination.

Yes, exactly. You take issue with nonwhite people being given what you perceive to be unfair advantages but say nothing about white people being given unfair advantages.

 

[bruto]

I think I posted this somewhere here a long time ago, but here I will again. This is a simplistic, but interesting, computer simulation/game, which does not involve any malice or criticism or ulterior content, except to illustrate how seemingly benign circumstances interact with what we might believe is desirable change. Give it a try. It's not entirely intuitive.

Parable of the Polygons

A playable post on how harmless choices can make a harmful world.

ncase.me

 

[Hercules56]

Yes, exactly. You take issue with nonwhite people being given what you perceive to be unfair advantages but say nothing about white people being given unfair advantages.

Do you have any examples of white people given an unfair advantage in civil service exams or other hiring policies?