Unitended racism

But there's another aspect here. While it's true that a person with a "white" name may get called back more often, there are other reasons that the percentages don't work out exactly. Minorities are often in under priveledged locations, with little to no good educational aspects, and thus, even if there were the brightest kids in the world, are not going to be able to get the qualifications.As Asgara said, if we balance the playing field at the level of education, you'd see an uptick in the percentages of minorities in higher paying fields and positions. Racism is still a problem, but Affirmative Action requires race to be a factor.If we want to level the playing field in a job application, it should be mandatory that names and ethnicity be left off the application, at least at the hiring manager level. If all larger companies went to an electronic application system whereby the name of a person gets replaced with a serial number, we would get a more even distribution of call backs based on applying population without Affirmative Action. From there, racism eneters, but with proper education, racism can be reduced to a great extent.{ABE} All that being said, I think AA is a useful tool currently, but it should be part of a greater endeavor that would eventually phase it out. Trying to create a "color-blind" society by focusing on color, whether in a good or bad way, undermines the goal.Edited by Perdition, : Added last bit

There is probably something wrong, but the numbers don't prove that on their own. Maybe the 30% of minority employees have only a High School education, should they then be promoted to get the management numbers above 5%? I know you're not advocating that, but if minorities have a harder time making it to college, as they do, then it is not hard to believe that more qualified white applicants applied for the management job than qualified minority applicants. What we would need to look at is not the population as a whole, but the population of "qualified applicants" however you determine that. If, of the qualified applicants for managerial jobs over the life of the company, only 5% were minorities, then the numbers would be perfect. This is a much better argument, however, what population are you looking at? Do you mean the population of the country, the population of the area the company operates in, or the population of qualified applicants? I know racism exists, and that it needs to be countered, but I think better educational opportunities, an anonymous application process, and a mode of redress in pay rate discrepancies that is far superior to our current "don't talk about pay" mentality is a better solution and liable to lead to more inclusive mentalities than Affirmative Action, which for all of it's actual good, still is perceived (and we can see this even in this thread) as reverse-discrimination.

I agree with everything you said. I'm trying to figure out a way to let us, as a country, move away from the necessity of AA. I understand that something needs to be done, and in lieu of a better solution, AA is what we have. It's just frustrating to me that our country, as far as I can tell, seems to think that AA has "solved the problem" and there doesn't seem to be any real move to come to a better and more accepted solution. I agree that the term is essentially meaningless, but in this context, discrimination to combat discrimination, it seems to be an appropriate use.

So, your solution is to ignore it, and eventually it will go away? That doesn't help the black man who got passed over for a promotion again, and can't get enough raises to keep up with the cost of living.AA isn't perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and giving racism tacit approval by not calling anyone on it. If we turn our back and hope it goes away, we're not going to do anything to effect change, and so no change will be made. If you have a better solution than just letting it die on its own over a long period of time, during which we allow disadvantaged people to remain disadvantaged just because we don't want to rock the boat too much, then we can debate the merits of that new solution. I have proposed one, what do you think of that one?

If they feel and act helpless, then they won't get the job either. AA requires them to work on their own and get the qualifications as a white male would, but gives them a little help when it comes to something that is out of their hands, and perhaps, in the hand of a racist. And its detractors are white lower-class people who don't do any hard work to get the qualifications and then feel angry when they see a black man working in a manager's position they wanted but didn't work to attain.See how great name calling can be? It's cathartic even.And now you and Hyroglyphix have gotten me to argue for a program I have disagreements with...strange how that works.

I agree, I have major issues with AA, and would love to have the program go away, but just removing it without a better system in place wouldn't help, and in fact, would hurt. It's not a cut and dry case of two wrongs making a right, it's an opposite action to counter a negative one. For example, you start at zero, and some idiot comes along and subtracts 2, you're now at negative 2, and everyone knows how terrible that is, so you're trying to get back to zero, but all you have is a positive 1. It doesn't do the job, and adding isn't what you want to do either, but under the circumstances, it's all you can do to try and get back to the magical zero. What gave a black man a chance at the white house is that 1) we have a two party system and about half of the country can't stand voting for a republican. We have absolutely no idea on who voted for him because he was black, who didn't take skin color into account at all, and who may have voted against him because of his skin color. I know of at least one person in my immediate group of acquaintances who voted against him because of his skin color, and two more who voted against him partially because of it. So, the fact that some people can stand to vote for a black guy over a republican merely shows that republicans come in under black-guy in the scary-shit-o-meter for some people. Some minorities find it demeaning, but I dare say you can't speak for all of them. You've admitted that you haven't come face to face with persistent, subtle racism at your job such that you can't get ahead no matter how hard you work, but can't quite point your finger at anything as being obviously "wrong." But see, that's a straw man argument. If he got the job solely because of his race, that's wrong. And this isn't the case of a democracy, often it's one person, or a small group of people making the choice as to who gets a job. If, of the qualified applicants, meaning they've all worked hard and done what needs to be done to have the knowledge and ability to adequately carry out the job, half of the applicants are black, but only 5% of the black people get chosen, then the white people are getting the job solely because of something they couldn't control, namely the color of their skin, right? So, how do we counter that? What's your big solution? Is AA the best way to do it? Probably not, so come up with a better solution, and no, love isn't an answer because it takes too long and has no guaranteed chance of success. When an injustice is occurring, we must act to correct it, not sit and hope that maybe in 50 or 100 years it will become moot. But if both are adversely affected to the same degree, at least its fair. Would you rather see one group adversely affected, and one not?

It doesn't take care of the problem at all, it just drives it underground. Now, very few people will admit to being racist, and will pay lip service to equality, all the while mumbling under their breath about the damn Mexicans taking our jobs or the uppity black man at the plant who got a promotion. I agree, education is the key, and is the keystone of the solution I rpovided a while up in the thread. The problem is, it takes time and something needs to be done for the short term. You're right, that's not fair. Who's advocating that? The minority in question has earned it just as much as the white guy. In a circumstance where there are no qualified minorities applying for a job, I don't advocate trying to find a minority person to fill a quota either, and the case where that happens is few and far between, and is either an misunderstanding, or a false application of AA. That's not what the rule calls for at all. You're right. Find me one person who has siad the opposite of this? If two people earn it, and one is a minority, and one isn't, then it should fall to one over the other about half the time, and the other one the other half. That's not what we find. More often than not, it falls to the non-minority. That's the instance this law was made for. It's more akin to Lithuania and Sweden competing in races, and every race, it comes down to a tie, both runners cross the line at exactly the same time, but the judges decide to give the medal to Sweden 7 times and Lithuania 1. Wouldn't it be more fair to give out 4 and 4?Or do you think it will make the Lithuanians feel like they don't have to work to get ahead and are receiving handouts? Yes, there has been progress, and much of it has been at the point of a National Guardsman's gun, or through legislation forcing it on an unreceptive public. If nothing had been done by legislation to promote equality, we'd still be operating under Blue Laws and Jim Crow.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

The fact that the Supreme Court agrees only serves to show that the U of M was in violation of AA law. If AA were not law, what U of M did would not have been illegal, and thus, the very thing you think is reprehensible was stopped by the very law you also find reprehensible. That makes no sense to me. If A is wrong, and law B, which bans A, is wrong, then what are we to do? The U of M took an action in violation of the law. Whatever their misguided thoughts on it, however they tried to defend it, they did something illegal. The law they violated is part of what is called AA. If it weren't for AA, what they did would have been legal. The directive of AA law is to give everyone an equal opportunity to prove their ability. What they did did not fulfill that, and in effect, contradicted that. Thus, by a lawful application of AA, it was found to be illegal. Yay! One win for the good guys! What are you upset about? I tell you to do something, you misinterpret what I told you to do, and then inact a policy that will get you to the goal you erroneously believe I told you to get to without double checking with me to see if that's what I really want, and end up finding that you reached the wrong goal through illegal means. Is that my fault, or yours?What you're arguing about is the "percieved goal" of AA, which is not what the goal of AA is at all. The fact that the debate has gotten twisted by people opposed to it does not mean the rule is wrong, it means the opposition has effectively shifted the conversation onto a strawman and made everyone believe it had cut it to the bone. There is no bone there because what you're arguing against is the opposite of what you think you are.

That is shitty, and perhaps people in a position to hire/fire someone should take a short course on the intentions and application of AA laws, but the fact that people don't take the time to learn about the law means the law should be done away with. Unknowingly breaking the law is not a defense, you still broke the law.In Wisconsin, it is legal to make a right turn on a red light or to make a U-turn unless either action is expressly prohibited by a sign. If I drive in another state which has a different law, and not knowing that the law is different, I make a right turn on a red light and get pulled over, I'm still liable to pay a fine. Why? Because I broke the law and didn't make the effort to know what the law was. Ignorance is not a defense. If someone doesn't know how to apply AA, ro what AA says, then that's their fault, not the law's. Curiously, you began to hate a law that would protect you against this sort of discrimination instead of the people who were openly practicing discrimination. Strange.

Yeah, like traffic laws. It's a great thing we don't have some sort of driver's education class we need to go through to learn those laws, or they would be shitty indeed.In fact, we have so many laws with so many nuances and variations that it often requires people who will be specializing in one area, or operating under one set of laws to have more than a passing familiarity with them. That's just how it works. No, I don't. I'm sure some exist, but a company may have to ask for them directly to come host a seminar or something. I'm not sure. I could look for you if you're really interested, or perhaps someone else posting here knows of such a course. It really is. And there's a lot about how business "works" that I find too bad. In Wisconsin, it's technically illegal, but everyone does it (including the cops) so unless you have a pissed off or very strict cop on your tail, you'll prolly get away with it here. I doubt the law is written poorly, it's probably just written in legalese, which is a language that requires deep study to discern...not to mention the right staff with runes and the moon has to be approaching the vernal equinox on the last thursday of a 31 day month...but that doesn't mean it's written poorly.As for implementation, that's left to the individual companies/agencies doing the hiring, and as such, the quality of said implementation is dependent on the diligence of the hiring agency. They were openly practicing discrimination because of their misunderstanding of the AA law. Again, it's not the law's fault, it's still theirs. They could have easily found out if what they were doing was wrong if they had looked at the actual law, rather than relying on what they thought it might have said...maybe.Another traffic law. It's illegal to pass on the right on a one lane road. So, for instance, you can't pass a tractor by driving on the shoulder of the road. This is unsafe and a good law. Now, if someone only hears the "No passing on the right" part of the law and assumes they can't pull into the right most lane of a highway to get past a slow moving vehicle and end up being late to a job interview, thus missing out on the chance to get a great job, should the person be angry at the law, or the fact that they misunderstood it?

Which is why promoting someone because of their race is expressly forbidden. In fact, this is the entire point behind AA. People were promoting people because they were white males. This was seen as racist, so they made a law that says it is illegal to promote someone because of their race or sex. The fact that people misunderstand that to mean "promote a black person over a white person" is not the fault of the rule. It may be a fault of the educating about the rule, but getting rid of this rule would make the things you don't like legal, whereas this law makes the things you don't like illegal.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

I have no knowledge of UK's version of AA. I was speaking only about AA as enforced and used in the US.But the clause you state still doesn't say a person can be promoted because they are black or "disadvantaged" it merely says that a person's race or gender can be a factor weighed along with everything else, including aptitude and ability.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Judicial Review means the courts look at the law and try to determine, if not the letter then the intent of the law. The intent was to curb discrimination, and thus they rightly saw that discriminating against whites was contrary to the intent, so while the law may have originally seemed to encourage discrimination against white males, the court realized this was not what the framers of the law wanted and thus refined it to outlaw quotas. This is how the legislative and judical processes interact and make laws better. No one can forsee every consequence of a law or how every person may misinterpret a law. They try, but it almost always comes down to a court case that sets precedent and begins to build up a mountain of real-life examples to display how the law should work.In America, AA, as has been refined by cases such as Bakke, outlaws discrimination, whatever group of people may be in question.The fact that this law goes to intent, which is internal, means it will be difficult to enforce, and so one way to determine if people are being discriminated against is to look at the racial and sexual makeup of a particular group of people and trying to determine if that make-up is representative of the larger population that could have been selected. If it is strongly out of whack, it's an indication that discrimination was taking place. This works just as well if its a lot of white people being promoted over blacks, or a lot of black people being promoted over whites. In essence, if a hiring manager is behaving correctly and looking at qualifications only, the racial make-up should represent the racial make-up of the pool of qualified applicants.If you can think of a better way to stop discrimination, present it and we can debate the merits and problems with it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

Which makes AA hard to employ in a single situation, and difficult to get a guilty verdict. What is required is evidence of a history of selecting person of type A over any other type. Most cases that come to court regarding AA are about misaplications, not about a single person pissed because someone got hired over him/her. No, it comes down to looking at the history. If, for any given company, 40% of the qualified applicants are black, but only 5% get hired, then that's an indication that the hiring manager is preferentially picking the non-black applicants. Is that alone enough to convict, probably not, but I'm not a legal scholar either. Yes, just as with any law, there are loopholes or way for people to game the system. Do you think it would make more sense to stop making sexual harrasment illegal because some people assume that men are always the agressors? This was the crux of my question back towards the beginning of the thread. I'm not sure how they decide what "the population" is. If you live in a community that just happens to be predominantly white, then you're going to hire almost exclusively white people. What the law should be, IMO, and for all I know, this is what it says, they should look at the actual applications and ask the hiring manager why these people were deemed unfit. If the hiring director doesn't have a good reason, or actually comes right out and says, "Because black people are lazy," then you have a pretty good indication. I agree with this, and this is my main problem with AA. If our goal is a color-blind society, we should be moving away from making people focus on it. However, I realize the reality of the situation we're in. People aren't color-blind yet, and something needs to be done. I think education is the key, bringing good education to inner cities and poorer communities is the biggest step we could take to correct the racial divide. As you should be, and if this were the case, the employer would be liable under AA laws. THIS IS ILLEGAL. AA doesn't GIVE the job to underrepresented people, it merely says that your work force should match the racial make-up of the qualified applicants to a broad degree. And blatant racism is starting to decline to a great degree, but implicit or even unconscious racism are still prevalent, it's just hard to pin point where it occurs. AA is an attempt (though definitely flawed) to weed out this type of racism precisely because society can't work on things it can't readily see. A sign saying "Blacks not welcome" is easy to spot. A diner that makes black people sit for a long time before serving them, and then only doing exactly what's necessary to get them their food, take their money and get them out is tough to necessarily point to as blatant...it could be the waiter/waitress is just having a bad day, or maybe they're just a bad waiter/waitress in general. What you need is a history of it happening, and for a single instance, you obviously don't have one. Very true. But if someone assumes all blacks or hispanics are thugs, despite how they comport themselves in an interview or on an application, that's racist and needs to be fixed. If someone comes in flashing gang signs and waving a knife in the air, that's a valid reason not to hire them, regardless of their race or qualifications. I don't know of a single instance where someone got a company in trouble for not hiring a "thug".

This ain't how it works here in 'Murica. We have successive levels of degrees (associate's, Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate), but if you get at least a passing grade in your classes required for the degree, you get the degree. So, in other words, I could get a 4.0 in all my classes and get a Bachelor's degree in a specific field. Another person could barely pass his classes, perhaps taking a class two, three, or more times just to get to that barely passing grade, and at the end of it all, he gets the exact same degree as me. Ok, so, remembering my above description of the degree system. I have a job description that says:REQUIRED:
Bachelor's degree in Business Administration
2+ years of relevant experience
Apptitude in MS Excel, Word, and Access
Apptitude in PageMaker a plus
Ability to multitask and handle various jobs at once
Good written and oral communication skillsPREFERRED:
Master's degree in Business
A+ certification
Profficiency in PeopleSoftSo, we have two people, both of whom have the Bachelor's degree, both of whom have experience, but of course, one's experience is different form the other (which is better?). Both claim to have ability within programs that are pretty basic, so it's quite probable they're telling the truth, but how are we to know? Both of whom claim to have good written and oral communication skills. Their resume and cover letter don't show any deficiencies in this regard, but do we know if they had any help writting these?One of them has experience with PeopleSoft and A+ certification. One has a Master's degree, but no cert and no experience with PeopleSoft.So, using only objective criteria, which one do you pick?
Let's say, you can't decide based on the available information, so ou call them in for an interview. At this point, no matter how hard you try, biases and assumptions are going to come into play. People go by "First Impressions" alot. The more attractive person gets hired, more often than not, and it's entirely subjective who is considered attractive. If someone has a latent fear of black people, and this rarely comes into play, but right in front of them is the choice between the "comfortable" white person and the black person who makes them feel, for no obvious reason, uncomfortable, how is he to know if it's a hunch based on a slight, but overlooked discrepancy in the resume or a racial bias?If situations like this come up and over and over, you hire the white person, does this not show that it's the fact that the other applicant is black is the criteria that is "disqualifying" them? Shouldn't we try to even the playing field for the black people who, for all intents and purposes, don't have a shot at this job, despite being just as quialified?Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.