NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so I am finishing up college (Thank God), and the one thing I most hate about my college was the fact that in order to graduate you had to have so many Cultural Credit hours. What is Cultural Credits you ask? Well Cultural Credits is where you have to go do something Cultural anywhere from an half hour to an hour. Yes, my college force you to do this, or else you don't get that sheepskin. Why, I honestly have no clue. Yes I realize it's to make me a "rounder" person, but comon. From my personal experiences, when you force people to do things, they don't really appreciate it. They only go through the motions because they have to do it in order to get what they want or need. However if you let them do it, as extra credit or whatever, then they have a greater sense of appreciation, and they will actually put effort into it.

The worse Cultural Credit hour I've ever been to was my second semester at this college. Here it is from another website that I post on.

Ahh MLK Day. A day where we remember one of the best Civil Rights leaders. NOT AT MY COLLEGE. Today we were forced to attend a "Racism workshop". Which would imply we would have a rational discussion about racism. WRONG! For an HOUR I had to sit here and listen to this bald headed jackass rant on about how its the White man fault that the blacks are suffering. Its the White Man fault for this and that. Hell its the White Man fault for getting Jesus nailed to the cross. About 10 minutes into this "I hate the whites, even though I am white myself" jackass festival, I flipped through his little pamphlet, and my bullshit detector goes off like a stall warning horn in my Piper Warrior aircraft. I raised my hand and ask him if he was aware racism goes both ways. He just stood there and looked like a deer that just encounter a set of head lights on a car. But after that awkward minute of realizing that I just exposed his liberal propaganda agenda. He went back on task to blaming everything on the whites. But if that wasn't enough. At the end he says its my parents fault that they worked hard to get to middle class. Because of that, all the black people suffer. Why did I stay? Because 1. I wasn't going to let anyone else be brought into this crap, and 2. I wanted to see that deer meeting the headlights look again. So AGAIN I interrupted him and told him that my parents came from poor family, and they worked their ASSES off to get up to upper middle class so that me and my brother can have a good life. Now if your going to stand there and tell me that it was wrong for my parents to WORK their way to the top, then I really don't see how anyone else can buy this. I then just walked off. I'm probably going to get into alot of trouble by the college for this, but I don't give a rats ass. I stood up for whats right and I am proud of it.

Ok, so I am finishing up college (Thank God), and the one thing I most hate about my college was the fact that in order to graduate you had to have so many Cultural Credit hours. What is Cultural Credits you ask? Well Cultural Credits is where you have to go do something Cultural anywhere from an half hour to an hour. Yes, my college force you to do this, or else you don't get that sheepskin. Why, I honestly have no clue. Yes I realize it's to make me a "rounder" person, but comon. From my personal experiences, when you force people to do things, they don't really appreciate it. They only go through the motions because they have to do it in order to get what they want or need. However if you let them do it, as extra credit or whatever, then they have a greater sense of appreciation, and they will actually put effort into it.

The worse Cultural Credit hour I've ever been to was my second semester at this college. Here it is from another website that I post on.

You are really starting to sound like you are some what...erm...bigoted? Not being mean or anything, but thats how its coming off.

You are really starting to sound like you are some what...erm...bigoted? Not being mean or anything, but thats how its coming off.

Eh whatever.

Eh whatever.

Maybe you should go about such things without the whole "they are cry babies" attitude. Go to see it from their POV. You have yours, now see how it compares to theirs, and try to learn from their story, even if you disagree with it.

To be fair, that does seem to me like a very stupid system. 'Something cultural'? Wtf? Who decides what cultural activities are? I could claim that lying in bed and reading a book counts as a cultural activity. Forcing people to do certain things to become more racially aware does the opposite of its aim, anyway, since it does nothing other than increase resentment towards other races.

Maybe you should go about such things without the whole "they are cry babies" attitude. Go to see it from their POV. You have yours, now see how it compares to theirs, and try to learn from their story, even if you disagree with it.

You can't blame everything on the "whiteys" Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that you're in the ghettos, not because "whitey" keeps you down, but because you dropped out of school, work at a minimum wage job, and spend all of your money on drugs, cheap liquor, and spinners rim for your 1980 Buick.

To be fair, that does seem to me like a very stupid system. 'Something cultural'? Wtf? Who decides what cultural activities are? I could claim that lying in bed and reading a book counts as a cultural activity. Forcing people to do certain things to become more racially aware does the opposite of its aim, anyway, since it does nothing other than increase resentment towards other races.

Well, the reason its require is most likely because people like him wouldn't go voluntarily, and thus never would learn anything about another culture. At least he has to go and listen, which might provide him with a better out look on the world, with more tolerance and understanding of a group that is different from his own.

You can't blame everything on the "whiteys" Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that you're in the ghettos, not because "whitey" keeps you down, but because you dropped out of school, work at a minimum wage job, and spend all of your money on drugs, cheap liquor, and spinners rim for your 1980 Buick.

Well there should be at least some blame on white america, because, as I know admit, there is still a prejudice against blacks. And it IS harder for africans to get good jobs, and sometimes they do have to quit HS to get a min wage job to support their family. Is it their fault that their dad left and they have to take care of 8 children?

Well, the reason its require is most likely because people like him wouldn't go voluntarily, and thus never would learn anything about another culture. At least he has to go and listen, which might provide him with a better out look on the world, with more tolerance and understanding of a group that is different from his own.

I do have tolerance for anyone that doesn't blame his or her problem on other people when he himself can change the problem. Long gone are the days where you can blame stuff on the white man. Now it's time for people to take responsibility for their own crappy life.

I do have tolerance for anyone that doesn't blame his or her problem on other people when he himself can change the problem. Long gone are the days where you can blame stuff on the white man. Now it's time for people to take responsibility for their own crappy life.

And again, when people can't get a job because the white man won't hire them, who do you blame? Themselves for being black?

Well there should be at least some blame on white america, because, as I know admit, there is still a prejudice against blacks.

There's prejudice and racism all around, you can exclude anyone.

And it IS harder for africans to get good jobs,

What jobs are they applying for, and are they qualified for that job? Maybe someone better came along?


and sometimes they do have to quit HS to get a min wage job to support their family. Is it their fault that their dad left and they have to take care of 8 children?

But that is short sighted. You can either A. quit school and be stuck in the ghettos forever, or B. go to school, finish school, either get a loan for college or go into the military, then come back and support your family.

And again, when people can't get a job because the white man won't hire them, who do you blame? Themselves for being black?

Do you have any proof that they wern't hired because they were black? Maybe someone who was better qualified came along and decided to hire him instead? If you own a company and was hiring. Would you hire base on qualification, or based on race?

Do you have any proof that they wern't hired because they were black?

We have these things called "studies."

We have these things called "studies."

That's nice. If it was me, and I was hiring for a company, I would want the best people I can get, regardless of skin color. If that means I have more whites on my staff, then so be it.

That's nice. If it was me, and I was hiring for a company, I would want the best people I can get, regardless of skin color. If that means I have more whites on my staff, then so be it.
Your argument is flawed, since it assumes racist people are rational...

If it was me, and I was hiring for a company, I would want the best people I can get, regardless of skin color. If that means I have more whites on my staff, then so be it.

But it is not you, and the degree of conscious control you have over unconscious biases is questionable at best.

There's prejudice and racism all around, you can exclude anyone.

But there is a major problem with excluding blacks



What jobs are they applying for, and are they qualified for that job? Maybe someone better came along? look for that AA thread, and check out the study about how the black men were turned down, even with a great record and better qualities, because they applied with black name



But that is short sighted. You can either A. quit school and be stuck in the ghettos forever, or B. go to school, finish school, either get a loan for college or go into the military, then come back and support your family.

Well, if your baby is hungry and crying, and hasn't had milk in a day, wouldn't you think about the then and now to ensure the baby survives?

look for that AA thread, and check out the study about how the black men were turned down, even with a great record and better qualities, because they applied with black name

Or The Nazz's one showing that whites with criminal records got more responses from employers than blacks without them.

Your argument is flawed, since it assumes racist people are rational...

But do you really think the class described in the OP is ever going to help get rid of racism?

Your argument is flawed, since it assumes racist people are rational...

Which is more racist. You hire a guy because he's the best man for the job, or you hire him because he's black and you're going for a "diverse" workplace.

But do you really think the class described in the OP is ever going to help get rid of racism?

No. It was clearly an ineffective waste of time, and Wilgrove's reaction illustrates why.

But the fact that certain tactics are ineffective does not mean that the attempt should not be made.

But do you really think the class described in the OP is ever going to help get rid of racism?
Not a chance, which is, funnily enough, what I essentially said in my first post. :p

But it is not you, and the degree of conscious control you have over unconscious biases is questionable at best.

Eh if a the guy who is best qualified for the position, then I will hire him regardless if he was black, white, Latino, Asian etc.

I do have tolerance for anyone that doesn't blame his or her problem on other people when he himself can change the problem. Long gone are the days where you can blame stuff on the white man. Now it's time for people to take responsibility for their own crappy life.

Would you say its easier to work your way to the middle from the bottom...

or just maintain your position at the middle?

So if past actions have placed you at the bottom just because those past actions may not be in full swing anymore doesn't mean you are suddenly in the middle. It just means you are still stuck at the bottom with the posibility to work your way up.

You still don't have the same opportunities that those in the middle have so its still very difficult.

I am not saying its easier for a white guy to work his way from the bottom to the middle than a black guy (though it may still be that way) but if you are at the bottom because your family was forced there by past actions and no one has made their way up against adversity yet then you are certainly not as at fault as someone who worked their way down to the bottom...

Which is more racist. You hire a guy because he's the best man for the job, or you hire him because he's black and you're going for a "diverse" workplace.

Neither is racist.

Eh if a the guy who is best qualified for the position, then I will hire him regardless if he was black, white, Latino, Asian etc.

That's what you just said. Thanks for ignoring my post.

But there is a major problem with excluding blacks.

From what I can see, the blacks are in the situation now because of the choices they made, not because the "white man" is keeping them down.


look for that AA thread, and check out the study about how the black men were turned down, even with a great record and better qualities, because they applied with black name.

Ok I will, but I am already skeptical of the study, it states black names, not the skin color itself.

Well, if your baby is hungry and crying, and hasn't had milk in a day, wouldn't you think about the then and now to ensure the baby survives?

I would rather work hard now for a better tomorrow, than to act in the now and still be in a crappy tomorrow. I'm a long term kind of guy.

Eh if a the guy who is best qualified for the position, then I will hire him regardless if he was black, white, Latino, Asian etc.

What if there are 2 guys equally qualified.. then who do you take by default??

The white guy cause he is likely to whinge less about his cultural heritage??

Neither is racist.

How so? I find that it is racist to hire people base on skin color, because you are more likely to ignore the qualification of the applicant if you hire him because he is (insert ethical minority here). How can we go for a color-blind society when companies are forced to hire by skin color thanks to AA?

Neither is racist.

Hiring to fill racial quotas is racist.

Would you say its easier to work your way to the middle from the bottom...

or just maintain your position at the middle?

Maintain my position in the middle.


So if past actions have placed you at the bottom just because those past actions may not be in full swing anymore doesn't mean you are suddenly in the middle. It just means you are still stuck at the bottom with the posibility to work your way up.

That possibility wasn't there before though, it's now there, and people now have that option. Whether or not they take that option is up to them.


You still don't have the same opportunities that those in the middle have so its still very difficult.

However it is doable.


I am not saying its easier for a white guy to work his way from the bottom to the middle than a black guy (though it may still be that way) but if you are at the bottom because your family was forced there by past actions and no one has made their way up against adversity yet then you are certainly not as at fault as someone who worked their way down to the bottom...

The current generation has the opportunity to climb to the middle, or to the top. Whether or not they take it is up to them. If they do not take it, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

What if there are 2 guys equally qualified.. then who do you take by default??

The white guy cause he is likely to whinge less about his cultural heritage??

Eh I would go on a first come first serve basis.

From what I can see, the blacks are in the situation now because of the choices they made, not because the "white man" is keeping them down.

Even if there was nothing keeping them down anymore(which I am not entirely sure is true) climbing up from the bottom is not easy.. ask your parents.... If your parents were made poor tomorrow but then left to make their way back up would they feel that was fair because there was nothing keeping them down? Or would they feel upset about having been forced to be poor despite their best efforts?

Eh I would go on a first come first serve basis.
Um, what? You need to see both of them first so you can see if they're equally qualified...

How so? I find that it is racist to hire people base on skin color,

No one is hired based on skin color. That is illegal.

Sometimes, in choosing between qualified applicants, considerations of racial diversity and of reversing racial inequality play a part.

How can we go for a color-blind society when companies are forced to hire by skin color thanks to AA?

We can't. How can we go for a color-blind society in a society with immense racial inequality? We can't do that either.

What if there are 2 guys equally qualified.. then who do you take by default??

The white guy cause he is likely to whinge less about his cultural heritage??

As I said in the AA thread go for the coin toss as both are equally quallified and should have an equal chance at the job/place/offer/etc.

Hiring to fill racial quotas is racist.

Depends on the basis for the quota.

If it's instituted because there's a strong pattern of racial discrimination at a given workplace, there's nothing racist about it.

Eh I would go on a first come first serve basis.

So whichever guy you sheduled to interview first would get the job??

That seems like a pretty odd way to go about things... can't imagine thats a common occurance..

Even if there was nothing keeping them down anymore(which I am not entirely sure is true) climbing up from the bottom is not easy.. ask your parents.... If your parents were made poor tomorrow but then left to make their way back up would they feel that was fair because there was nothing keeping them down? Or would they feel upset about having been forced to be poor despite their best efforts?

HA, my parents were poor. Both my parents came from a poor house hold. Both of them has five siblings living on a poor family's income. My dad only recently gotten his Bacholars. However, did they stay poor, Hell no. Both of my parents work their asses off, they work long hours, in hot and cold weather, and doing the work that no one else wanted to do, and because they work hard, they were determined to have a better life, and that they were presistant, they were able to provide a middle class family for me and my brother.

Depends on the basis for the quota.

If it's instituted because there's a strong pattern of racial discrimination at a given workplace, there's nothing racist about it.

rac·ism Pronunciation (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Whether you like it or not the definition of the word 'racist' menas that it fits perfectly to positive discrimination. You don't get to change the definition of words just because you don't like the connotations.

No one is hired based on skin color. That is illegal.

and yet, AA tells companies that they must fill racial quotas. So in effect aren't companies force to hire based on skin color?


Sometimes, in choosing between qualified applicants, considerations of racial diversity and of reversing racial inequality play a part.

Or we might as well flip a quarter. You would have a better chance of a "diverse" workplace that way, and it would be totally unbiased.

We can't. How can we go for a color-blind society in a society with immense racial inequality? We can't do that either.

Or we can realize that race means shit, and that all that really matters is whats on the inside.

Depends on the basis for the quota.

If it's instituted because there's a strong pattern of racial discrimination at a given workplace, there's nothing racist about it.

It's still racist to hire on racial quotas, no matter how you try to slice and dice it.

Whether you like it or not the definition of the word 'racist' menas that it fits perfectly to positive discrimination. You don't get to change the definition of words just because you don't like the connotations.

It isn't "based on race" at all. If the places of whites and blacks were reversed, affirmative action to benefit whites would be justified.

So whichever guy you sheduled to interview first would get the job??

That seems like a pretty odd way to go about things... can't imagine thats a common occurance..

Either that or a coin toss.

How so? I find that it is racist to hire people base on skin color, because you are more likely to ignore the qualification of the applicant if you hire him because he is (insert ethical minority here). How can we go for a color-blind society when companies are forced to hire by skin color thanks to AA?

I recommend you go to the AA thread and the white only scholarship thread as the same debates in them is now occuring here with generaly the same people.

White only scholarship thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508391)

AA thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508543)



On topic, this culture credit would make sense if it was volunteering or community service but to me it makes less sense if you are just going to go to other lectures.

HA, my parents were poor. Both my parents came from a poor house hold. Both of them has five siblings living on a poor family's income. My dad only recently gotten his Bacholars. However, did they stay poor, Hell no. Both of my parents work their asses off, they work long hours, in hot and cold weather, and doing the work that no one else wanted to do, and because they work hard, they were determined to have a better life, and that they were presistant, they were able to provide a middle class family for me and my brother.

Great... now imagine the message it would send to you kids if they lived that exact same life .. but stayed poor....

People don't grow up in a bubble... their environment effects the way they act.

If you grew up in an environment where discrimination was keeping you down do you think that would have an effect on the way your kids were brought up.... what if your whole neighbourhood/community was in that situation.

Its not enough to just say.. well we may have taken everything you have and left impoverished and demoralised, but we aren't gonna do it anymore. YOu need to make ammends and that requires positive action.. not just inaction.

Sure you may not be descriminating against folk but that doesn't help them break the cycle that was previously established....

I recommend you go to the AA thread and the white only scholarship thread as the same debates in them is now occuring here with generaly the same people.

White only scholarship thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508391)

AA thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508543)



On topic, this culture credit would make sense if it was volunteering or community service but to me it makes less sense if you are just going to go to other lectures.

Eh that's basically what it is, lectures, films, plays etc.

and yet, AA tells companies that they must fill racial quotas.

Really? Prove it.

So in effect aren't companies force to hire based on skin color?

No.

You would have a better chance of a "diverse" workplace that way

No, you wouldn't. Not if your applicants are disproportionately one race or another.

Or we can realize that race means shit, and that all that really matters is whats on the inside.

We can "realize" that as much as we want. It won't change reality, which is that while race may "mean shit" in and of itself, we have a society where race is a real issue.

It isn't "based on race" at all. If the places of whites and blacks were reversed, affirmative action to benefit whites would be justified.

So positive discrimination doesn't work on race? How do they do it then? Perhaps they ensure that 11% of the workforce is left handed?

So positive discrimination doesn't work on race? How do they do it then? Perhaps they ensure that 11% of the workforce is left handed?

You completely missed the point, didn't you?

Affirmative action does not discriminate in favor of Blacks because they are Blacks. It discriminates in favor of Blacks because the status of "Black" in this country closely correlates with something else - being the victim of a racist system that has perpetuated racial inequality for several centuries.

If the status of "White" meant the same thing, then affirmative action would exist in favor of Whites.

Great... now imagine the message it would send to you kids if they lived that exact same life .. but stayed poor....

If my kids went from middle class, to poor, then hell it's their own fault. Me and my wife would've raised them the best we could, and if that what happens, then whatever.


People don't grow up in a bubble... their environment effects the way they act.

Yes, but people often create their own environment.


If you grew up in an environment where discrimination was keeping you down do you think that would have an effect on the way your kids were brought up.... what if your whole neighbourhood/community was in that situation.

If I recall correctly, the parents and grandparents of today's youth (blacks) fought for equality, and they fault for the same opportunity, and they were given that. It's not time for today's youth to take advantage of the groundwork their grandparents and parents laid down.


Its not enough to just say.. well we may have taken everything you have and left impoverished and demoralised, but we aren't gonna do it anymore. YOu need to make ammends and that requires positive action.. not just inaction.

That positive action did happen, in the 50's 60's and 70's. It's now the '00s, and it's now time for today's people to take advantage of the actions that happened back then.

Sure you may not be descriminating against folk but that doesn't help them break the cycle that was previously established....

Neither does pandering to them and saying "Oh you poor black, you're poor because you're black, but don't worry, we're going to take care of you like mama used to, we're going to hand you everything because you're poor and you're black."

The message should be "Ok you're poor, but your grandparents and parents laid down foundations to give you the equal opportunity to advance, you can either sit on your asses complaing about how "whitey" is keeping you down, or you can get off your asses and do something about it. Whatever your choices are, realize that from this point on, its your own damn fault."

Eh if a the guy who is best qualified for the position, then I will hire him regardless if he was black, white, Latino, Asian etc.

This approach is most effective in a situation where all of the applicants have equal access to educational opportunities that allow them to become the "best qualified for the position." But there are two problems: 1) This situation does not exist as fully as it could, and 2) the disparity has an extremely high corelation to race.

Nobody is asking you to hire unqualified employees. We're just wondering why a very large portion of the undereducated and low-income earners also happen to be non-white minorities. While the "they're lazy" line might be true in individual cases, trying to hyper-generalize it to explain every single possible case is simply a convienient way to ignore the effects and consequences of less enlightened times past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg) (which really weren't that long ago).

Eh that's basically what it is, lectures, films, plays etc.

Plays don't sound too bad and foreign films maybe but I would still prefer my first idea on it.

Really? Prove it.

The fact that in order for companies to get anything from Gov. Co. they must have a certain amount of each race in it's roster.

No, you wouldn't. Not if your applicants are disproportionately one race or another.

Yea, but it would be completely random with the coin toss, so it would be a better system.


We can "realize" that as much as we want. It won't change reality, which is that while race may "mean shit" in and of itself, we have a society where race is a real issue.

It's only a real issues because people keep on wanting to make it a real issues to hide their own shortcomings.

You completely missed the point, didn't you?

Affirmative action does not discriminate in favor of Blacks because they are Blacks. It discriminates in favor of Blacks because the status of "Black" in this country closely correlates with something else - being the victim of a racist system that has perpetuated racial inequality for several centuries.

If the status of "White" meant the same thing, then affirmative action would exist in favor of Whites.

No, I got the point. It was just that the point made no sense. Racism is defined as discrimination based on race and positive discrimination discriminates according to race. Therefore positive discrimination is racism QED.

It doesn't matter which way it is going.

This approach is most effective in a situation where all of the applicants have equal access to educational opportunities that allow them to become the "best qualified for the position." But there are two problems: 1) This situation does not exist as fully as it could, and 2) the disparity has an extremely high corelation to race.

They do have equal opportunity, whether or not take take it, is the problem.


Nobody is asking you to hire unqualified employees. We're just wondering why a very large portion of the undereducated and low-income earners also happen to be non-white minorities. While the "they're lazy" line might be true in individual cases, trying to hyper-generalize it to explain every single possible case is simply a convienient way to ignore the effects and consequences of less enlightened times past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg) (which really weren't that long ago).

While it may be true for the older generation, the older generation isn't the one who's playing the race card, it's the younger generation, and it's the younger generation who has the opportunity that the older one did not have.

That positive action did happen, in the 50's 60's and 70's. It's now the '00s, and it's now time for today's people to take advantage of the actions that happened back then.

And as people like MLK pointed out at the time, all that progress wouldn't actually solve the problem unless greater social reform was implemented. It wasn't.

OK so say you are an applicant who is the first in their family to ever go to college. You are making your way up and out of poverty you are competing against people who have always gone to college who have plenty of money. There is exactly one applicant from your background and 9 from the other more affluent background.. you all apply for a job you are all equally qualified. All the other 9 applicants already know people in the company.... who is gonna get the job? Will it be one of the equally qualified folk who are already well aquainted with the people in the field ... or will it be the person struggling to enter the field for the first time...

How about a workplace that has traditionally been descriminatory.. without a quota who is gonna get employed.. the familiar face or the new guy?? It may not even be concious at all.. but without quotas its tough to ensure that when people do finally haul themselves up from the bottom they aren't just cut off at the first step...

Ok, so I am finishing up college (Thank God), and the one thing I most hate about my college was the fact that in order to graduate you had to have so many Cultural Credit hours. What is Cultural Credits you ask? Well Cultural Credits is where you have to go do something Cultural anywhere from an half hour to an hour. Yes, my college force you to do this, or else you don't get that sheepskin. Why, I honestly have no clue. Yes I realize it's to make me a "rounder" person, but comon. From my personal experiences, when you force people to do things, they don't really appreciate it. They only go through the motions because they have to do it in order to get what they want or need. However if you let them do it, as extra credit or whatever, then they have a greater sense of appreciation, and they will actually put effort into it.

The worse Cultural Credit hour I've ever been to was my second semester at this college. Here it is from another website that I post on.In my experience, forcing people to do things often makes them discover things they never knew about themselves or gets them to do great things that they also enjoy but would never have done on their own. This isn't valid in every case, but it's a small price for that individual to pay for the greater good of society :)

No, I got the point. It was just that the point made no sense. Racism is defined as discrimination based on race and positive discrimination discriminates according to race. Therefore positive discrimination is racism QED.

It doesn't matter which way it is going.

As someone else said in a previous thread, is this racism justified?

Soheran believes it is justified in this case though he keeps deneying it is racist. I can understand his reasoning though I personally don't agree with it.

As someone else said in a previous thread, is this racism justified?

Soheran believes it is justified in this case though he keeps deneying it is racist. I can understand his reasoning though I personally don't agree with it.

Oh it's 100% required as I'm sure people will argue in this thread far more eloquently than I can be bothered doing at 8.55 am.

It's still racism though.

The fact that in order for companies to get anything from Gov. Co. they must have a certain amount of each race in it's roster.

They have to have affirmative action plans, I believe. Not quotas.

Yea, but it would be completely random with the coin toss, so it would be a better system.

Not in a society characterized by racial inequality, no.

It's only a real issues because people keep on wanting to make it a real issues to hide their own shortcomings.

When a problem is as widespread as that of racial inequality is, it's pretty clear that it amounts to a whole lot more than individual shortcomings.

They do have equal opportunity, whether or not take take it, is the problem.


In theory, perhaps. However, chronic undereducation results in a population which is either underemployed, unemployed entirely, or of relatively low income. A situation which, in turn, is not conducive to funding increased levels of education. Note the vicious circle effect. I would venture a guess that the opportuny presented by the educational system here in relatively wealthy suburbia (where I live) isn't anywhere remotely "equal" to that in the urban/inner city (say, South Central Los Angeles).

That positive action did happen, in the 50's 60's and 70's. It's now the '00s, and it's now time for today's people to take advantage of the actions that happened back then.


What "Positive" action happened then?

Was it really positive or just removing the negatives?

So according to wikipedia Universal suffrage didn't occur till 1964 in US. About the same time as aboriginals got the vote here in Australia... Sounds to me like things might have been brought close to neutral in the 60s.. but hardly POSITIVE action....

It's still racism though.

Let me present to you a simple thought experiment.

Someone calls the fire department and informs them that there's a fire in a nearby house. She is asked what the address of the house is, and provides it. Using this address, the fire department finds the house and can put out the fire.

Is the fire department discriminating against other addresses, because it didn't check them all for the fire? Is this an "addressist" policy?

Let me present to you a simple thought experiment.

Someone calls the fire department and informs them that there's a fire in a nearby house. She is asked what the address of the house is, and provides it. Using this address, the fire department finds the house and can put out the fire.

Is the fire department discriminating against other addresses, because it didn't check them all for the fire? Is this an "addressist" policy?

That doesn't fit the issue. To fit the issue you would need to have two burning houses and only one fire truck.

That doesn't fit the issue. To fit the issue you would need to have two burning houses and only one fire truck.

Actually, to fit the issue, you'd need one burning city, one smoldering piece of paper, and a whole fleet of fire trucks. Determining what each metaphor (burning city, piece of paper) represents, and to which the fleet of trucks to zooming to in assistance, is an exercise left to the reader. ;)

Actually, to fit the issue, you'd need one burning city, one smoldering piece of paper, and a whole fleet of fire trucks. Determining what each metaphor (burning city, piece of paper) represents, and to which the fleet of trucks to zooming to in assistance, is an exercise left to the reader. ;)

I'm sorry, I'm not too hot with metaphors. You'll need to give me a hand understanding your point.

In theory, perhaps. However, chronic undereducation results in a population which is either underemployed, unemployed entirely, or of relatively low income. A situation which, in turn, is not conducive to funding increased levels of education. Note the vicious circle effect. I would venture a guess that the opportuny presented by the educational system here in relatively wealthy suburbia (where I live) isn't anywhere remotely "equal" to that in the urban/inner city (say, South Central Los Angeles).

In the UK school system it is interesting to point out that black girls (African backgrounds ) do better than white boys though not quite as well as white girls. However black boys on the other hand do much worst, I very doubt that discrimunation is the biggest reason for this. It should be noted that in the UK blacks are classed as either African backgrounds or Caribbean backgrounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6176070.stm

In america is it similar or does it differ considerably?

Ok, so I am finishing up college (Thank God), and the one thing I most hate about my college was the fact that in order to graduate you had to have so many Cultural Credit hours. What is Cultural Credits you ask? Well Cultural Credits is where you have to go do something Cultural anywhere from an half hour to an hour. Yes, my college force you to do this, or else you don't get that sheepskin. Why, I honestly have no clue. Yes I realize it's to make me a "rounder" person, but comon. From my personal experiences, when you force people to do things, they don't really appreciate it. They only go through the motions because they have to do it in order to get what they want or need. However if you let them do it, as extra credit or whatever, then they have a greater sense of appreciation, and they will actually put effort into it.

The worse Cultural Credit hour I've ever been to was my second semester at this college. Here it is from another website that I post on.

ive done the same my first quarter of college. only, for my "Cultural Credit," we had to go to cultural events/museums/plays, and it wasnt called "Cultural Credit" and it wasnt part of graduation...

we had to attend three. a play, a museum, and a Dia de los Muertos event on campus. and reflection on all three were part of the individual class grade.

I'm sorry, I'm not too hot with metaphors. You'll need to give me a hand understanding your point.

As I've aluded to already, there is a well established corelation, noted in the study of minority social issues and politics, between the various non-white minorities and undereducation, low incomes, and other relatively disadvantaged demographic factors. Such disadvantageous characteristics are disproportionately represented by said minority populations. Thus, my selection of a disproportionately sized metaphor to represent them: the burning city.

As it happens, when we focus specifically on political issues, especially electoral politics (including interest aggregation, articulation, voter registration, actual turnout, etc), we note that populations displaying relatively low levels of education and income also tend to display relatively low levels of electoral or other political participation. Thus populations with relatively low education and income levels (including minority populations, especially Latino/Hispanic populations) "enjoy" less effective political representation and the benefits there of; the fleet of fire trucks is not headed to the burning city, as it were.

What some people are trying to figure out is why the fire trucks aren't going to where the need is obviously greatest. (edit: which is the point Soheran was making, in that they should be going where the need is greatest).

I very doubt that discrimunation is the biggest reason for this.


Formal or explicit discrimination doesn't have to be the biggest reason. For probably a whole plethora of reasons (including the lingering effects of past legal/formal/explict discrimination and racism), here in the United States, minority populations display a disproportionately low level of education and income. The greater point is that these demographic characteristics are not conducive to the "by your own bootstraps" approach alone; education is expensive and difficult to achieve under such circumstances. Thus, it is not enough to simply assert that "one should hire the best person for the job" when segments of the population, divided along rather clear ethnic and racial lines, will be disadvantaged from the start.

"By your own bootstraps"-type pure competition can work just fine, assuming a level playing field. We aren't there yet.

Formal or explicit discrimination doesn't have to be the biggest reason. For probably a whole plethora of reasons (including the lingering effects of past legal/formal/explict discrimination and racism), here in the United States, minority populations display a disproportionately low level of education and income. The greater point is that these demographic characteristics are not conducive to the "by your own bootstraps" approach alone; education is expensive and difficult to achieve under such circumstances. Thus, it is not enough to simply assert that "one should hire the best person for the job" when segments of the population, divided along rather clear ethnic and racial lines, will be disadvantaged from the start.

"By your own bootstraps"-type pure competition can work just fine, assuming a level playing field. We aren't there yet.

Why is education expensive and difficult, I could understand adult education but I am sure you have state schools in america.

Though I would argue that if the disadvantage is due to poor eduaction levels and so the best person for the job is rarely a black person then it is the education system that needs to be looked at rather than forcing employers to be partially racist in their employment decisions. The employers should always be able to pick the best person for the job.

The reason why I raised the problem in the UK for black male children in education is that it is less likely to be discrimination (because black girls are doing much better) but other more importent reasons why they are not succeeding. It is still a major debate in the UK, people have put forward many reasons, its rap and no (or wrong) role models amongst others. We have much less baggage, within the UK, from the slavery period than the US does (as very few slaves were brought to the UK).

EDIT: I foregot to ask, so do girls do equally badly as boys from the minority groups in the US then?

Affirmative action does not discriminate in favor of Blacks because they are Blacks. It discriminates in favor of Blacks because the status of "Black" in this country closely correlates with something else - being the victim of a racist system that has perpetuated racial inequality for several centuries.


AA tells an employer they must employ a certain number of people BECAUSE they are Black. It does not tell them they must employ a certain number of people who are 'Black from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds as a result of the past'. The employer does not have to check if the employee came form a poor background or a rich background. The kid of a Black millionaire lawyer has obviously not had their life hampered by any historical suffering of his ancestors and has had every oppertunity available to them. They benefit from AA, while a white kid who came from a poor white family that has ten generations of poverty behind it does not.

The basis of AA is not lack of availability of opportunity or forcing an employer to pick someone because they came from a bad background, it is about telling an employer they should pick one person over another purely on race and not because of how race has affected THAT person but because of how race has affected OTHER people.

There's prejudice and racism all around, you can exclude anyone.
The problem here is that the majority of people in a position to exclude others from jobs, housing and similar essentials are white. It is unpleasant to be called a racist name, but it is far worse to be disadvantaged in seeking employment because of your race.

What jobs are they applying for, and are they qualified for that job? Maybe someone better came along?
All kinds of jobs. And no.
Studies conducted in which job applications were made up and names associated with various races were sent out, demonstrated that people with 'black sounding' names were indisputably at a huge disadvantage in gaining interviews.
Other studies have done similar things and found similar results in seeking rented housing.
It's an unfortunate but true fact, in the USA today black people face discrimination that has significant negative impacts on their ability to secure employment and even goods/services (such as housing).

Even well-educated black people face this kind of discrimination. You may not like it, you may be not in the least bit responsible for it, but it is still true.

Rather than try to steer conversation such as the one you describe away from the discrimination that does exist, you'd be better off learning about why it exists. It is by no means a trait that happens to be both inherent and unique to 'white folk', however the fact that 'white folk' outnumber 'not white folk' amongst those in a position to make their prejudice 'structural' (aka involved in issues of employment for instance) rather than merely hostile (for instance calling names or picking on someone in the school yard/at work, what have you), in the US means that non-white folk face more structural discrimation in the US than white folk.

It's not that white folk are more evil or more racist, it's simply that most people who both prejudice on ethnic grounds and in a position to make their biases structural happen to be white, and in such cases it's most usually not white folk that they are choosing to discriminate against.

Studies conducted in which job applications were made up and names associated with various races were sent out, demonstrated that people with 'black sounding' names were indisputably at a huge disadvantage in gaining interviews.


What do you mean 'Black' names? (Not an American...)

Are 'black sounding' names the same names as 'poor-white sounding names'?

What do you mean 'Black' names? (Not an American...)

Are 'black sounding' names the same names as 'poor-white sounding names'?
I mean names (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml) that are very distinctive and usually not employed by 'white folk' in naming their children (including poor 'white folk').

Well there should be at least some blame on white america, because, as I know admit, there is still a prejudice against blacks. And it IS harder for africans to get good jobs, and sometimes they do have to quit HS to get a min wage job to support their family. Is it their fault that their dad left and they have to take care of 8 children?

No, but the white man didn't do it either.

I mean names (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml) that are very distinctive and usually not employed by 'white folk' in naming their children (including poor 'white folk').

Thankyou.

Do well off Black people tend to name their kids 'black' names too?

I ask as given the results of the other study mentioned in your article it found people from poor backgrounds were just as likely to end up poor regardless of their race. With this in mind I am curious how a 'lower class' 'white' names would fare against 'middle/upper class' 'white' names.

Do people with 'poor white' names suffer in a similar way to people with 'black' names on job applicaitions?

Thankyou.
No problem.

Do well off Black people tend to name their kids 'black' names too?
I expect at least some do. Whether or not they do so at the same rate as those in worse socio-economic circumstances, I honestly do not know. It would depend (in individual cases) whether or not a person is particularly interested in incorporating their heritage in their childrens' lives and to what extent they believe culturally distinctive names do that.

I ask as given the results of the other study mentioned in your article it found people from poor backgrounds were just as likely to end up poor regardless of their race. With this in mind I am curious how a 'lower class' 'white' names would fare against 'middle/upper class' 'white' names.
I dont know that 'white folk' employ different names in a way that correlates to their socio-economic status. The study that worked with names, purposely set out to use names associated with ethnicity, so they would have intentionally controlled for factors such as naming patterns/associations related purely to socio-economic factors rather than those that merely correlated to particular ethnicities.

I found this fact particularly striking;
"...in recent years, more than 40 percent of black girls were given names that weren't given to even one of the more than 100,000 white girls born in the state the same year."
Wow, that strikes me as a staggering rate of divergence, especially coming from within one overarching 'social group' (Californians).

Do people with 'poor white' names suffer in a similar way to people with 'black' names on job applicaitions?
So far as I know there is not a significant correlation between socio-economic status and name beyond the indirect correlation that relates to socio-economic status of various ethnic groups (relative to others) and naming practise divergences along ethnic group lines.

The study that worked with names, purposely set out to use names associated with ethnicity, so they would have intentionally controlled for factors such as naming patterns/associations related purely to socio-economic factors rather than those that merely correlated to particular ethnicities.
Not really - if all they were looking for was a difference between ethnicity then I see no reason why they would also be looking at 'rich' and 'poor' names, as that would be a different study altogether. There is no mention of taking anything into account apart from looking at typically 'black' and typically 'white' names.


I dont know that 'white folk' employ different names in a way that correlates to their socio-economic status.
So far as I know there is not a significant correlation between socio-economic status and name beyond the indirect correlation that relates to socio-economic status of various ethnic groups (relative to others) and naming practise divergences along ethnic group lines.

There are 'rich' and 'poor' names within White groups - or at least there is in the UK, and from a book I read - Freakanomics - the trend seems to correlerate in the US too. I can't think of the example names right now - but will post them when I get home and have the reference.

There are 'rich' and 'poor' names within White groups - or at least there is in the UK, and from a book I read - Freakanomics - the trend seems to correlerate in the US too. I can't think of the example names right now - but will post them when I get home and have the reference.

American Southern names could also be said to have ties with this subject.

After all, you arent likely to find many "Bubba-Rays", or " Billy-Joe"s on Wall-Street.

Odds are good however, that you'll find at least one, in any Southern "mobile home community".

We should stop fighting and let the cops settle this dispute, okay?

Not really - if all they were looking for was a difference between ethnicity then I see no reason why they would also be looking at 'rich' and 'poor' names, as that would be a different study altogether.
They would wish to eliminate variables other than the ones they were intending to 'test', for instance the study would be pointless if the resumes were not comparible (they would be introducing an 'applicant quality variant' that would make it impossible to then determine which factor - name or applicant quality, was causing the variation in success at obtaining interviews). If there was such a correlation based on socio-economic status that employers would be able to tell the difference simply through seeing the name, then so too would the people conducting the study. The study relied on the names being easily (and even perhaps unavoidably) associated with a particular type of person. So either there is not such a strong 'rich vs poor' association with names as there is along ethnic lines, or the study conductors would have been as able to ascertain the correlation as employers and would have 'controlled' for this variable so as to ensure the robustness of the results.

There is no mention of taking anything into account apart from looking at typically 'black' and typically 'white' names.
The fact that the study is quite widely reported yet no one has raised the inclusion of this variable as a potential invalidating factor strongly indicates that such a variable either isnt an issue in the US (ie there isnt such a correlation at a rate that would diffentiate peoples' economic status to employers based on name only) or that the researchers did 'control' for the variable.

Remember that the employers are not a 'special group' that check births registers just to make sure they know what poor people are naming their kids, and if there were such an obvious correlation that employers would know of it without any special research, then the researchers would also be aware of it.
Further it is possible the researchers did check for such a correlation. The fact that such a widely disseminated study has not been criticised on the grounds of inadvertently including an invalidating variable indicates that it wasnt included, so either it wasnt an issue or the researchers 'controlled' for it. For it to be an issue (in regards to hiring practises) it would have to be sufficiently 'common knowledge' to effect the decisions of regular employers, yet no one has criticised the study for including such a biasing variable.


There are 'rich' and 'poor' names within White groups - or at least there is in the UK, and from a book I read - Freakanomics - the trend seems to correlerate in the US too. I can't think of the example names right now - but will post them when I get home and have the reference.
It's actually been some time since I last saw in-depth information about the study. But the researchers were quite careful to not bias the study. The applications were intended to not do anything other than indicate ethnicity. There was no need to include names particularly common among rich people and rare among poor or vice-versa. I dont recall how names were chosen, but given that if particular names were correlated with varying levels of economic status to the point where employers would assume economic class from the name alone (beyond any assumptions that might arise indirectly as a result of correlating the name to ethnicity) the researchers would know this, and given if such names were included it would risk invalidating their study, they would have known to avoid such names. Further it would have been obvious to others who would have criticised the study on these grounds, yet despite the study being widely disseminated I'm not aware that such a criticism has ever been raised.

Remember that the employers are not a 'special group' that check births registers just to make sure they know what poor people are naming their kids, and if there were such an obvious correlation that employers would know of it without any special research, then the researchers would also be aware of it.
Society does this by itself anyway - it is quite common for a name adopted by the well off to become popular amoung the better off, then people who are less well off start naming their kids that name, the well off people start stopping the naming when the less well off groups start taking it up and then the name that was stereotypically 'well off' becomes stereotypically 'poor'. If people on the street do this then I would be surprised if employers who meet dozens of people every day don't do it as least on a subconscious level.


It's actually been some time since I last saw in-depth information about the study. But the researchers were quite careful to not bias the study. The applications were intended to not do anything other than indicate ethnicity. There was no need to include names particularly common among rich people and rare among poor or vice-versa.
Thing is - due to 'black' people tending to be from poor backgrounds all the black names would indicate someone from a poor background.

I am not convinced that they went out of their way to only consider 'poor' white names, or a selection of white names to correlerate with the frequency of black names across the income/class groups - which would add many other variables to the question rather than just black vs white names.

Anyway - I'll look it up when I get home to give some examples of 'rich white' vs 'poor white'

In addition, and I'll try to find examples, I have seen studies looking at how names affect CV responses, which did not indicate different ethnic groups - i.e. all stereotypically white english names and found that similar applications with different names got different levels of response.



I am not saying there is not racism, but I am not completely convinced that the difference is purely down to race, but also down to other factors such as 'black' names

Society does this by itself anyway - it is quite common for a name adopted by the well off to become popular amoung the better off, then people who are less well off start naming their kids that name, the well off people start stopping the naming when the less well off groups start taking it up and then the name that was stereotypically 'well off' becomes stereotypically 'poor'. If people on the street do this then I would be surprised if employers who meet dozens of people every day don't do it as least on a subconscious level.
My parents were employers but they didnt correlate names with socio-economic circumstances anymore than I do. As I said, I do not recall the exact selection proceedure, but I do recall that it was robust so far as I could tell.

Thing is - due to 'black' people tending to be from poor backgrounds all the black names would indicate someone from a poor background.
Which would still bring the issue back to one of ethnic assumptions'. That employers chose to reject people they thought were black because they assume black people are poor doesnt effect the conclusions of the study. The study was intended to find out if having a 'black sounding name' caused employers to have assumptions that made them choose to reject those applicants. Quite what those assumptions would be, is an issue for another study.

I am not convinced that they went out of their way to only consider 'poor' white names, or a selection of white names to correlerate with the frequency of black names across the income/class groups - which would add many other variables to the question rather than just black vs white names.
The point is that 'black names' are not necessarily correlated to 'poor black people' but to 'black people'. I know that they did go out their way to exclude other variables. Remember these applications included addresses and I do recall that they were careful to make sure addresses were compariable in terms of suggesting economic status. Given that current residential address is far more indicative of your economic status than the name your parents gave you, it's reasonable to assume that addresses would have figured more in employers' assumptions about economic status than 'rich vs poor' names.

It's actually not that difficult to select economic status-neutral names. Birth registers can be utilised to determine how common a name is. If a name is sufficiently common that the limited group 'poor' and the limited group 'rich' cannot account for the number of people who have the name, then you could include the name. If the name were somewhat less common, you could exclude it out-of-hand.

Anyway - I'll look it up when I get home to give some examples of 'rich white' vs 'poor white'
Ok, whether or not such a variable effected the conclusions of the study, it'll still be interesting info.:D

In addition, and I'll try to find examples, I have seen studies looking at how names affect CV responses, which did not indicate different ethnic groups - i.e. all stereotypically white english names and found that similar applications with different names got different levels of response.
Mmm, white-English is an ethnic group.

I am not saying there is not racism, but I am not completely convinced that the difference is purely down to race, but also down to other factors such as 'black' names
Well given the study has not been shown invalid, I cannot reasonably dismiss the findings based on a personal predetermination or preference.
Given that a 'black name' denotes nothing other than that one is very probably black, and given the lack of any criticism of the name selection methods, and that so far as I recall such obvious variables were excluded, I find it difficult to reasonably conclude that having a name that clearly signals one is 'black' doesnt convey a significant disadvantage in getting a job interview in the US.

If my kids went from middle class, to poor, then hell it's their own fault. Me and my wife would've raised them the best we could, and if that what happens, then whatever. No. The point Helspotistan was making was that if your parents had worked as hard as they did, and still remained poor, what would that tell you about the value of hard work?

Mmm, white-English is an ethnic group.


As I said - the names were not from different ethnic groups. They only used one ethnic group - white-english.

Note - this was a study done in England.

Given that a 'black name' denotes nothing other than that one is very probably black.
Except it also indicates that the person is also more likely to be from a poor background.

As to the people being discriminated against because they are Black - and this justifying quotas:

I wonder how someone with a name Billy-Bob would fare against a Dave/Joe/Mike/John (not sure on stereotypical New York white male names) in applying for a job in New York.

I would be very surprised if Billy-Bob gets the same response as Mike, and yet there is no quota system to redress such a thing - even though he would be getting discriminated against.

I mean names (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml) that are very distinctive and usually not employed by 'white folk' in naming their children (including poor 'white folk').I had a boss in Austin that wouldn't hire anyone who called sounding "black." Even though he was black himself. He said if he could learn to speak English correctly, so should they.

As I said - the names were not from different ethnic groups. They only used one ethnic group - white-english.
Oh, I thought you meant the study was an attempt to determine the effect white English names had, (rather than the study only used white-English names).

Note - this was a study done in England.


Except it also indicates that the person is also more likely to be from a poor background.
I'm not sure quite how this effects the outcome. If seeing a 'black name' makes you reject a person because you think blacks are poor, then seeing a black person at an interview will likewise have the same effect. Ultimately this means that black people face a significant disadvantage. It doesnt matter what assumptions about black people are being made - the effect on job prospects is the same whether it's because employers think they are poor or because employers think they are criminals, or because employers think some other thing. The fact that 'black = X = no interview' means that black folk face significant disadvantage in the employment market.

As to the people being discriminated against because they are Black - and this justifying quotas:
I've made no comment about quotas. It's unfortunate if you have views about quotas that are undermined by the study, but that's not an issue worth taking up with me. I dont really know much about how quotas operate in the US so I dont have an opinon about them.

I wonder how someone with a name Billy-Bob would fare against a Dave/Joe/Mike/John (not sure on stereotypical New York white male names) in applying for a job in New York.
LOL, I wouldnt have thought Billy-Bob was a name. I thought it was a nick-name. Unless I'm mistaken a person who calls themselves Billy-bob is more usually actually named William, which probably wouldnt gather too much discrimination.
Further you are talking presumably about a name uncommon in New York but the names selected for the study were not uncommon in the region where the jobs were applied for. It's probably true that having a name that signals that you are 'not local' confers disadvantages. But that's another issue again.

I would be very surprised if Billy-Bob gets the same response as Mike, and yet there is no quota system to redress such a thing - even though he would be getting discriminated against.
The study was not about quotas and neither were any of my comments. I dont really have an opinion about quotas in the US because I dont believe I know enough about the issue to have an informed view and I dont feel any other kind of view (than informed) is worth holding.

Ok, so I am finishing up college (Thank God), and the one thing I most hate about my college was the fact that in order to graduate you had to have so many Cultural Credit hours. What is Cultural Credits you ask? Well Cultural Credits is where you have to go do something Cultural anywhere from an half hour to an hour. Yes, my college force you to do this, or else you don't get that sheepskin. Why, I honestly have no clue. Yes I realize it's to make me a "rounder" person, but comon. From my personal experiences, when you force people to do things, they don't really appreciate it. They only go through the motions because they have to do it in order to get what they want or need. However if you let them do it, as extra credit or whatever, then they have a greater sense of appreciation, and they will actually put effort into it.

The worse Cultural Credit hour I've ever been to was my second semester at this college. Here it is from another website that I post on.You know, you're really starting to come off as a white supremacist with all these similar threads.

I had a boss in Austin that wouldn't hire anyone who called sounding "black." Even though he was black himself. He said if he could learn to speak English correctly, so should they.
I vaguely recall a study done regarding phone-voice in regards to housing that had findings along these lines, but I dont recall the details to any extent.

On a more anecdotal note, an anthropologist studying a Hispanic community in Harlem reported that one resident who tried to start an electrical repair business would get phone calls but when the person calling heard his accent they tended to hang up.

I'm not sure quite how this effects the outcome. If seeing a 'black name' makes you reject a person because you think blacks are poor, then seeing a black person at an interview will likewise have the same effect. Ultimately this means that black people face a significant disadvantage. It doesnt matter what assumptions about black people are being made - the effect on job prospects is the same whether it's because employers think they are poor or because employers think they are criminals, or because employers think some other thing. The fact that 'black = X = no interview' means that black folk face significant disadvantage in the employment market.
The sequence Black=Poor=No interview is VERY different to Black=No Interview. They are not blocking the person because the person is black, but because of the assumed background the person comes from. And in such a case they might also choose to block a white person who they percieved to be from a poor background.

I am not saying that racism is not the reason behind some of the rejections, but I would be surprised if all the rejections were based on race rather than assumptions about the persons background - which happens in England with names from different social levels.


I've made no comment about quotas. It's unfortunate if you have views about quotas that are undermined by the study, but that's not an issue worth taking up with me. I dont really know much about how quotas operate in the US so I dont have an opinon about them.
Oops - I thought you were one of the ones advocating quotas. *slaps himself for skim reading too much*


LOL, I wouldnt have thought Billy-Bob was a name. I thought it was a nick-name. Unless I'm mistaken a person who calls themselves Billy-bob is more usually actually named William, which probably wouldnt gather too much discrimination.
I thought it was a full name - I know a few southern women with names like Carol-Anne and the like, which is their actual name. I would not be surprised if the guys names like Billy-Bob are really called that.

I mean names (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml) that are very distinctive and usually not employed by 'white folk' in naming their children (including poor 'white folk').

Vonnessa, Kayesha, Keisha, Tamika????

:p what silly names

look i get on average 3 CVs a day to review.

Anyone i call into the office for a interview has to meet the criteria set.

1. cover letter & CV presentation.
2. age/sex/origin
3. experience
4. education

if they have 3/4 of these they'll get an interview.
Then is comes presentation. how they look, how they act, etc....

Eh I would go on a first come first serve basis.
Wilgrove, I would love to know just how many people you have hired with your what-the-hey, divvel-take-the-hindmost, I-don't-have-this-problem-so-why-should-anyone-else attitude. I'm guessing the number is zero, since you're still in school and all.

Also, since you seem to think that your attitude is held by everyone, I wonder how much direct experience you have with the hiring practices of other people. Again, being a student and all, I'm guessing you don't have as much experience as some others do.

The point I'm heading for is that maybe you should be less quick to pass judgment about things you clearly know nothing about. I'm a white woman. I do not face racism in hiring practices, but I do face sexism. I've been dealing with it in various jobs for over 25 years. I know what it is like, first-hand, to be steered towards some jobs and away from others, solely on the basis of my gender, without reference to my qualifications. I know what it's like to be paid less than my male co-workers doing the same job. I know what it's like to be treated differently, with less respect, in the workplace (though I don't know what it's like to have that happen twice in the same office, if you get my meaning). And I know what it's like to have to fight for your rights, sometimes every day, as part of the job. I usually succeed, but that's maybe just because I'm smart and vicious. I have seen many others get beaten down through no fault of their own. And I have seen others revenge themselves for discrimination with successful lawsuits. And at the same time that I deal with the issues that affect me, I have witnessed discrimination based on race, age, sexual orientation, and social class happening all around me, to my co-workers and in other situations.

I know that this is not the result of an institutionalized system of discrimination or exclusion. It is the result of a long-standing social/cultural trend that emerges not in corporate or public policies but in the attitudes of small groups and individuals in various positions of relative power. Many of them are not even consciously aware that they are doing it, but that is beside the point. The point is that this attitude no longer fits with the needs of a modern society, and if it is not changed, it will, at best, hold our society back and, at worst, damage our society at its foundation.

Recognizing and redressing the problems left with us by past racism is not just a matter of being nice to black people. It is in the self-interest of our society and its future to address, fight, and eliminate that kind of thinking that created the systems that created those problems in the first place. The systems may be gone, but the thinking is not.

As you yourself demonstrate.

its true, i see descrimination against women quite often. But this is only in the case if they're mothers. Can't do the hours, etc... because of the kids.

So we don't hire them.

I'm reading a lot of crap about Affirmative Action around here. I don't know how such systems work in other countries, but Affirmative Action (capitalized) is a US system. Here is a link to the US Affirmative Action Regulations, in their entirety, courtesy of the US Dapartment of Labor. Kindly refer to this when making arguments, so that you all will know when you are reading things into the regulations that are not there.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003024295.htm

I'm reading a lot of crap about Affirmative Action around here. I don't know how such systems work in other countries, but Affirmative Action (capitalized) is a US system. Here is a link to the US Affirmative Action Regulations, in their entirety, courtesy of the US Dapartment of Labor. Kindly refer to this when making arguments, so that you all will know when you are reading things into the regulations that are not there.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003024295.htm

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12016645#post12016645

this thread my need the link (unless its already there)

The sequence Black=Poor=No interview is VERY different to Black=No Interview.
No it isnt. I've never known discrimination to not include assumptions about the descriminated. Whether it is 'blacks are lazy so I wont hire them' or 'blacks are poor so I wont hire them' the person still has no job. In effect two people who are of the same economic status face different prospects if one is black and the other is white. The reason is because assumptions are made about the black person that are not made about the white person. It doesnt matter what negative assumption is made on the arbitary basis of race, if the negative assumption occurs just because the person is black, then the issue is being black, not being poor.

They are not blocking the person because the person is black, but because of the assumed background the person comes from.
They are assuming the background because the person is black. It doesnt matter if they assume a background or assume laziness, or some other negative aspect, what matters is the negative assumption only occured because of the person's ethnicity. How is 'all black people are poor and shouldnt be employed' not blocking people that are black simply because they are black? Assuming negative things about people based on their ethnicity and knocking them back for jobs is the issue. What negative assumption is made is really not the issue, the fact that the assumption is made only because of the person's ethnicity is.

And in such a case they might also choose to block a white person who they percieved to be from a poor background.
The point is the only information the employers had was information that led to assumptions about the ethnicity of the applicant. It is not 'normal' to assume everyone is from a poor background. If black people are discriminated against because unlike white people they are automatically assumed to be poor, then how is this not a significant disadvantage arising from discrimation based on ethnicity. Whether it's 'blacks are lazy' or 'blacks are poor' or 'blacks are savages who all want to ravage our white women' it's still discrimination based entirely on ethnicity.
Unless I am mistaken you are actually suggesting that somehow it's not a race or ethnicity issue if black people are automatically assumed to be poor and rejected accordingly. What aspect of making negative assumptions about people based on nothing other than their ethnicity and discriminating against them accordingly isnt a race/ethnicity issue?

I am not saying that racism is not the reason behind some of the rejections, but I would be surprised if all the rejections were based on race rather than assumptions about the persons background - which happens in England with names from different social levels.
What you are suggesting is (so far as I can tell) that assuming things about people (such as their being poor) due to nothing but their ethnicty is not 'about race'....that's actually how such discrimination works. People assume things about someone of one ethnicity that they wouldnt assume about someone of another ethnicty and discriminate accordingly...that's what basing things on race means.

Oops - I thought you were one of the ones advocating quotas. *slaps himself for skim reading too much*
Shrugs, I missed the word 'all' in one of your posts the first read through (which is how I came to think that the studies you referred to distinguished white-English names rather than being comprised only of white-English names).;)

I thought it was a full name - I know a few southern women with names like Carol-Anne and the like, which is their actual name. I would not be surprised if the guys names like Billy-Bob are really called that.
I certainly cannot claim certainty, but both Billy and Bob are shortened versions of other names, for instance Billy is often short for William and Bob for Robert.

I appreciate that you are skeptical of a study whose methodology you have not been able to review (it's always good to be skeptical of things you cannot check out for yourself).
So if you are interested in looking into it, I've managed to find a free-to-download version of the actual study (http://www.povertyactionlab.com/papers/bertrand_mullainathan.pdf).

It didnt download properly the first time I tried, but I refreshed the page and it seemed to work (it's a pdf document by the way, so if your computer sometimes freezes when you download them, you might want to save any work you have before you try to access it).

In the UK school system it is interesting to point out that black girls (African backgrounds ) do better than white boys though not quite as well as white girls. However black boys on the other hand do much worst, I very doubt that discrimunation is the biggest reason for this. It should be noted that in the UK blacks are classed as either African backgrounds or Caribbean backgrounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6176070.stm

In america is it similar or does it differ considerably?
Maybe it's mostly different in terms of the severity of the problem. Although US education figures are not as alarming now as they were 30 years ago, they are not as good as they could be, since statistics show that the gaps between the races have stopped decreasing in the US since the 1990s. Also, according to recent news reports, the performance of US students has dipped alarmingly since 2002. Girls on average do better than boys in all ethnic groups up through high school (secondary school), but that advantage disappears in college. Unfortunately, according to news reports this week, no one has an advantage in US colleges anymore, as employers are reporting that new college grads are showing up for interviews completely lacking any work-related, marketable skills of any kind. Apparently, college grads can't even type well these days. I learned to type in elementary school, before I was 10, back in the day. The current reports do not speak well of the whole US system, in my opinion.

However, within our shitty system, race is still the most obvious divide in terms of student performance. At current numbers nearly half of all high school dropouts are black or hispanic living in poor, high-crime urban areas. It should be noted that poverty is a significant factor in this, since many of those dropouts actually leave school to take jobs to help support their families, but in the US poverty and race are still linked, especially in urban centers.

And this is the direct legacy of past institutionalized racism, no matter what people like Wilgrove say. The proof is in our history.

Here is some recent information from the US government:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/

From the article:

In 2000, young adults living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 percent of all family incomes were six times as likely as their peers from families in the top 20 percent of the income distribution to drop out of high school

...

The status dropout rate for Whites in 2000 remained lower than the rate for Blacks, but over the past three decades, the difference between the rates for Whites and Blacks has narrowed (figure 2). However, this narrowing of the gap occurred during the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1990, the gap has remained fairly constant. In addition, Hispanic young adults in the United States continued to have a relatively high status dropout rate when compared to Asian/Pacific Islanders, Whites, or Black

Unfortunately, the more recent reports haven't been posted yet on the government sites, and have been already been archived by most of the news sites, so I'm still looking.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12016645#post12016645

this thread my need the link (unless its already there)
Thanks for the proof of the need for regulation. That's not really related to the content of the AA regulations, though.

The fact is that Affirmative Action regulations DO NOT impose racial quotas on employers. They leave it up to the employers to figure out how to fulfill the requirements of the regulations, and if some employers try to do it by using quotas, that is not the fault of Affirmative Action.

its true, i see descrimination against women quite often. But this is only in the case if they're mothers. Can't do the hours, etc... because of the kids.

So we don't hire them.
Sorry, but that's false. Any woman can become a mother, and most discrimination against women in hiring practice is based on the assumption that they will get married and pregnant. It does not wait for that to actually happen. Otherwise, single women with no children would get paid the same as men. Only we typically don't.

Vonnessa, Kayesha, Keisha, Tamika????

:p what silly names
Tell me, do you think names like Mohammed (Arab, Muslim) and Hadassah (Jewish) are also silly? How about names like Pasquale (Italian) or Seamus (Irish) or Amritseva (Indian, Sikh)?

And if you allow your opinion of a person's name to affect your response to their CV and interview -- if you take them less seriously as a job candidate because of it -- then you are guilty of discrimination.

And if you are more likely to take that attitude towards names associated with black people than names associated with other races/ethnicities, then you are guilty of racial discrimination.

I'm reading a lot of crap about Affirmative Action around here. I don't know how such systems work in other countries, but Affirmative Action (capitalized) is a US system. Here is a link to the US Affirmative Action Regulations, in their entirety, courtesy of the US Dapartment of Labor. Kindly refer to this when making arguments, so that you all will know when you are reading things into the regulations that are not there.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003024295.htm

Your link is an adjustment to the rules so that there is an exemption for certain religious organisations. It mentions afirmitive action but does not spell out what it actually means by this, I assume this would be in the original regulation/rule that your link was amending.


Though going by what it does say I don't think what Soheran has been advocating would be allowed:
to take affirmative action
to ensure that employees and applicants are treated without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Tell me, do you think names like Mohammed (Arab, Muslim) and Hadassah (Jewish) are also silly? How about names like Pasquale (Italian) or Seamus (Irish) or Amritseva (Indian, Sikh)?

And if you allow your opinion of a person's name to affect your response to their CV and interview -- if you take them less seriously as a job candidate because of it -- then you are guilty of discrimination.

And if you are more likely to take that attitude towards names associated with black people than names associated with other races/ethnicities, then you are guilty of racial discrimination.

OR samit, Kunar, Jesus, Abdullah, Andrew, Liam, Yosh, Abi, Fey, etc..
I find these name fine, but then they are old names with alot of history behind them. And i grew up with people called these.

Yes I find alot of newly made-up names quite silly, maybe because they're bastardisations of existing one, don't know. My perogative. I also think the name tiffani (with an i) is a silly name. So what does that say?

Sorry, but that's false. Any woman can become a mother, and most discrimination against women in hiring practice is based on the assumption that they will get married and pregnant. It does not wait for that to actually happen. Otherwise, single women with no children would get paid the same as men. Only we typically don't.

I'm talking about where i work.
We've repeatedly tried it and it does not work. In all cases the women had to leave work early to pick up the kids, the women needed time off because the kid was sick, etc...
These are salespeople i'm refering too by the way. They're on a commission and have to work 8 to 10 hours a day.
The non-sales staff are 50/50 women/man and all have kids. For those jobs its not a problem. Also they are all able to do their hours.

Maybe it's mostly different in terms of the severity of the problem. Although US education figures are not as alarming now as they were 30 years ago, they are not as good as they could be, since statistics show that the gaps between the races have stopped decreasing in the US since the 1990s. Also, according to recent news reports, the performance of US students has dipped alarmingly since 2002. Girls on average do better than boys in all ethnic groups up through high school (secondary school), but that advantage disappears in college. Unfortunately, according to news reports this week, no one has an advantage in US colleges anymore, as employers are reporting that new college grads are showing up for interviews completely lacking any work-related, marketable skills of any kind. Apparently, college grads can't even type well these days. I learned to type in elementary school, before I was 10, back in the day. The current reports do not speak well of the whole US system, in my opinion.
.

Strange enough the Uk has had similar stories in the news recently how graduates do not have the suitable soft skills and some of the hard skills. When you say college I assume you mean University as college over here is pre-degree education level.

Your link is an adjustment to the rules so that there is an exemption for certain religious organisations. It mentions afirmitive action but does not spell out what it actually means by this, I assume this would be in the original regulation/rule that your link was amending.
Have fun proving your point with the following US government materials:

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/hiring-issues.htm

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/hiring-eeo.htm

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/laws.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/regs/index.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/29cfr1608_06.html

I did not find a single reference to quotas or anything related to quotas anywhere in any of this information. The only thing that could be connected to quotas is in the last link, part of which talks about adherence to court orders, if we presume that a court has ordered an adjustment to the racial percentages of a company which the EEOC has proven has deliberately violated US labor laws through discriminatory hiring practices. But the "court order" section does not mention quotas or racial percentages in any way, anywhere.

Though going by what it does say I don't think what Soheran has been advocating would be allowed:
It has been made clear by the US Department of Labor (DOL) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) many times that US anti-discrimination regulations DO NOT impose hiring quotas on employers. If you actually read the laws, you will see that they specifically protect the right of employers to hire based on qualifications, not race, as well as their right to fire employees, no matter what race they are.

The only time quotas are imposed is when direct remedial, often punitive, action is required against employers who have knowingly and persistently violated US law in their hiring practices. Such remedial action may be imposed by courts in deciding on cases brought by the EEOC against employers. A court may decide that an employer should be forced to adjust the racial make up of its workforce, usually in the course of normal worker replacement, but it is not required to impose such an order, and in fact, it has happened only very rarely in the past 30 or so years, and only in the most egregious cases. Usually, violators are punished with heavy fines until they comply.

You can't blame everything on the "whiteys" Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that you're in the ghettos, not because "whitey" keeps you down, but because you dropped out of school, work at a minimum wage job, and spend all of your money on drugs, cheap liquor, and spinners rim for your 1980 Buick.

So essentially, you are taking the opposing, and just as wrongheaded position that nothing is the fault of the 'white man'.

Both approaches are idiotic.

OR samit, Kunar, Jesus, Abdullah, Andrew, Liam, Yosh, Abi, Fey, etc..
I find these name fine, but then they are old names with alot of history behind them. And i grew up with people called these.

Yes I find alot of newly made-up names quite silly, maybe because they're bastardisations of existing one, don't know. My perogative. I also think the name tiffani (with an i) is a silly name. So what does that say?
To me, it says that you tend to make judgments on very superficial criteria. It implies that you might be likely to dismiss a qualified person untested, just because you disapprove of the taste or humor of their parents in picking names.

Now try addressing the issue of the effect this judgmental attitude might have a person making hiring decisions and ask yourself if that seem fair to the person applying for a job.

Then try addressing the issue of people who may not realize that they are racist, but who tend to take that kind of attitude to names and other superficial identifiers associated with one race more than any other.

It is my contention that such an attitude, applied to making practical judgments about others, is discriminatory, and if that attitude is applied more often to black people with odd names than to other colors of people with odd names, then the form of discrimination is likely to be racist.

I'm talking about where i work.
We've repeatedly tried it and it does not work. In all cases the women had to leave work early to pick up the kids, the women needed time off because the kid was sick, etc...
These are salespeople i'm refering too by the way. They're on a commission and have to work 8 to 10 hours a day.
The non-sales staff are 50/50 women/man and all have kids. For those jobs its not a problem. Also they are all able to do their hours.
Well, I try to look at the world beyond the limit of my own nose. I have worked in many different companies with many different corporate attitudes, and I also try to stay on top of what is happening in general in my country and, as much as I can, around the world. I am more on top of the issue in my own country, the US, and in the US, the kind of argument evident in your post is used to refuse employment in certain kinds of jobs to women regardless of whether they currently have kids or not, and it is discrimination based on sex, and it is illegal.

Strange enough the Uk has had similar stories in the news recently how graduates do not have the suitable soft skills and some of the hard skills. When you say college I assume you mean University as college over here is pre-degree education level.
Yes.

And regardless of whether it's strange or not, I would take it as alarming for the UK, just as it should be for the US.

Back in my day (not alll that long ago, I entered the work force in the 1980's), a degree was preferred but not required for most mid- to lower-level office jobs that paid a good enough wage to maintain a modestly comfortable lifestyle. And in my parents' time, a degree was not needed at all for anything below executive or specialist level jobs.

This was not because the jobs were less demanding. It was because students got more training at younger ages. By the time we graduated high school (secondary school), we had already studied and passed math up to calculus and trigonometry, extensive history and social science classes including civics and business-related topics, English language skills including public speaking and creative and informative writing, at least an introductory level of a foreign language, and had mastered basic skills such as typing, document presentation, research techniques, and the ability to complete projects and meet deadlines. Such skills were and are enough to qualify anyone for what can be called an "entry level" job, but from what I've seen recently, it seems students are not even being taught these things at nearly as advanced a level until the end of high school, and sometimes not until their first year of college/university, if then.

To me, it says that you tend to make judgments on very superficial criteria. It implies that you might be likely to dismiss a qualified person untested, just because you disapprove of the taste or humor of their parents in picking names.

no i said i think the names are silly, not that i discriminate against applicants due to their name.


Now try addressing the issue of the effect this judgmental attitude might have a person making hiring decisions and ask yourself if that seem fair to the person applying for a job.

of course not, but it happens, same if someone is called billy-bob, or whatever.


Then try addressing the issue of people who may not realize that they are racist, but who tend to take that kind of attitude to names and other superficial identifiers associated with one race more than any other.

It is my contention, that such an attitude, applied to making practical judgments about others, is discriminatory, and if that attitude is applied more often to black people with odd names than to other colors of people with odd names, then the form of discrimination is likely to be racist.

pretty much

I mean names (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml) that are very distinctive and usually not employed by 'white folk' in naming their children (including poor 'white folk').

What, those names that not even Jesus could love?

Well, I try to look at the world beyond the limit of my own nose. I have worked in many different companies with many different corporate attitudes, and I also try to stay on top of what is happening in general in my country and, as much as I can, around the world. I am more on top of the issue in my own country, the US, and in the US, the kind of argument evident in your post is used to refuse employment in certain kinds of jobs to women regardless of whether they currently have kids or not, and it is discrimination based on sex, and it is illegal.


It is discrimination, but then we could not have wheelchair bound salepeople either. For any other role in the company it would not be a problem.

We have women as salespeople, we have women in admin, one of the 2 directors is a woman. Unfortunately from experience a women with young children has not been able to meet the criteria set for sales

and yet, AA tells companies that they must fill racial quotas.

Wait...what?

You've said a lot of ignorant things in this thread, this is the most I've come across so far.

It is discrimination, but then we could not have wheelchair bound salepeople either. For any other role in the company it would not be a problem.

We have women as salespeople, we have women in admin, one of the 2 directors is a woman. Unfortunately from experience a women with young children has not been able to meet the criteria set for sales
Refusal to hire people in wheelchairs for a job because of their disability is also illegal under US law. Your company isn't in the US, I hope, because some day they are going to get hit with a mutha of a lawsuit, just as soon as a disgruntled employee or refused job candidate files a complaint with the EEOC.

Btw, if your company would like to avoid the problems that loom for discriminatory asshats, they might like to take advantage of child care service companies who provide on-site day care facilities for corporations. A relative of mine works for such a company. They are international, covering the US, Canada, and the UK.

http://www.brighthorizons.com/Site/Pages/index.aspx

Even if a company cannot afford a corporate contract with them, they also have many, many community-based day care centers. And they are not the only company in this racket. There really is very little excuse for the "mommy track" anymore.

Refusal to hire people in wheelchairs for a job because of their disability is also illegal under US law.

Not ENTIRELY true. It is illegal to refuse to hire someone as a result of their disability if their disability would not prevent them from doing the job.

For instance, a blind man can very weill be discriminated against when it comes for applying for a job driving a taxi.

I don't know what he does, but it is possible that someone in a wheelchair couldn't do the job by necessity.

Refusal to hire people in wheelchairs for a job because of their disability is also illegal under US law. Your company isn't in the US, I hope, because some day they are going to get hit with a mutha of a lawsuit, just as soon as a disgruntled employee or refused job candidate files a complaint with the EEOC.

no where not in the US.

I'de love to see them try, its a bitch to show an apartment on the fourth floor when there's no elevator. We don't discriminate because of the disability, we discriminate because they won't be able to do the job.

Not ENTIRELY true. It is illegal to refuse to hire someone as a result of their disability if their disability would not prevent them from doing the job.

For instance, a blind man can very weill be discriminated against when it comes for applying for a job driving a taxi.

I don't know what he does, but it is possible that someone in a wheelchair couldn't do the job by necessity.

realestate.

Have fun proving your point with the following US government materials:

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/hiring-issues.htm

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/hiring-eeo.htm

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/laws.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/regs/index.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/29cfr1608_06.html

I did not find a single reference to quotas or anything related to quotas anywhere in any of this information. The only thing that could be connected to quotas is in the last link, part of which talks about adherence to court orders, if we presume that a court has ordered an adjustment to the racial percentages of a company which the EEOC has proven has deliberately violated US labor laws through discriminatory hiring practices. But the "court order" section does not mention quotas or racial percentages in any way, anywhere.


It has been made clear by the US Department of Labor (DOL) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) many times that US anti-discrimination regulations DO NOT impose hiring quotas on employers. If you actually read the laws, you will see that they specifically protect the right of employers to hire based on qualifications, not race, as well as their right to fire employees, no matter what race they are.

The only time quotas are imposed is when direct remedial, often punitive, action is required against employers who have knowingly and persistently violated US law in their hiring practices. Such remedial action may be imposed by courts in deciding on cases brought by the EEOC against employers. A court may decide that an employer should be forced to adjust the racial make up of its workforce, usually in the course of normal worker replacement, but it is not required to impose such an order, and in fact, it has happened only very rarely in the past 30 or so years, and only in the most egregious cases. Usually, violators are punished with heavy fines until they comply.

Thankyou for providing links to my request, very nice reading. Though I think you have got the wrong idea about my position: I am not advocating quotas, I have never said the laws require quotas and most of my discussion has not been about quotas.

Most of the discussion I have been involved with has centerd around if there are two equally qulaified canidates (one white and the other from a minoirity) how do you decide. Soheran advocated that the person from the minority should be picked (not quotas) to diversify the workforce. I advocated the position that if people are equally qualified then I would use a coin toss to decide as it gives both canidates an equal chance of obatining the job/position/funding/etc.

I have said that I can understand the reasons for Soheran's position on the subjet but I do not agree with it.

realestate.

You know, its funny, but I've been shown apartments by people in wheelchairs. I can see this argument if a company is so small that it only has one or two salespeople on staff who have to be able to show all the properties the company has. But from what you've said, I get the impression that your company is bigger than that. I see no reason why properties could not be divvied up in such a way that a highly qualified wheelchair bound salesperson could not show properties that have elevators while walking salespeople show non-elevator properties. Unless, of course, you only handle walk-up apartment buildings.

But this is the point -- and I'm addressing Arthais's point here as well. The burden is on the employer to show that there is no way a given person could possibly do the job. Yes, a blind person physically cannot drive a cab for a living. A person with no arms cannot become a brain surgeon. But there are lots of situations in which a wheelchair bound person can show apartments, and it is up to the employer to show that these do not apply in their case. Likewise, you'll have to prove that a woman with children cannot possibly meet the required hours of the job.

You may be able to show in advance that your apartments cannot be shown by a person in a wheelchair, but how can you show in advance that a woman cannot meet the required hours, just on the basis of what other women have done? How can you justify hiring no women with children to work in sales? And if you do hire women in sales, will you fire them if they get pregnant, and how will you justify that if a complaint is made that you did not give the specific female employee a chance to prove herself?

look i get on average 3 CVs a day to review.

Anyone i call into the office for a interview has to meet the criteria set.

1. cover letter & CV presentation.
2. age/sex/origin
3. experience
4. education

if they have 3/4 of these they'll get an interview.
Then is comes presentation. how they look, how they act, etc....

Don't know where you're from, but in the US #3 is considered none of your business. It's not legal to ask these questions, except to assure someone is over 18.

At OSU we're required to take cultural credit, but it doesn't have to be outside of our normal coursework.

Cultural credits?
Are you experiencing culture...
or are you being brainwashed...?!?!?!

:eek:

Cultural credits?
Are you experiencing culture...
or are you being brainwashed...?!?!?!

:eek:

Fuck if I know.

Thankyou for providing links to my request, very nice reading. Though I think you have got the wrong idea about my position: I am not advocating quotas, I have never said the laws require quotas and most of my discussion has not been about quotas.
I realize that, but the post of mine that you were responding to WAS talking about quotas -- specifically that they do not exist, regardless of the claims of those who are against affirmative action. Since you believed that my original post did not prove that there are no quotas, I handed over all the rest of everything I could find to further support my assertion that there is no such thing as a mandated quota. I did this to cut off any of the opposition who would try to use your post to debunk my assertion without actually reading the regulations for themselves.

Most of the discussion I have been involved with has centerd around if there are two equally qulaified canidates (one white and the other from a minoirity) how do you decide. Soheran advocated that the person from the minority should be picked (not quotas) to diversify the workforce. I advocated the position that if people are equally qualified then I would use a coin toss to decide as it gives both canidates an equal chance of obatining the job/position/funding/etc.

I have said that I can understand the reasons for Soheran's position on the subjet but I do not agree with it.
My take on Soheran's argument is that he has been arguing in defense of remedial measures. In other words, if you have an all-white workplace, and you are choosing between two equally qualified new employees, one white and the other non-white, you should choose the non-white candidate for the sake of diversity IF that is the only point of difference between them and IF your workplace is not already racially balanced enough to reflect the make-up of the general worker pool.

You may disagree with that. I happen to agree with it, especially since a workplace that consists of only one race of people and does not fall under one of the legal exemptions is likely to be in violation of employment law. I don't see anything wrong in fixing an existing problem. Soheran argues in favor of fixing the problem for the sake of those who suffer by it -- an altruistic argument. I would back that up with a self-interested argument by pointing out that it is in the interest of the company to comply with the law.

You know, its funny, but I've been shown apartments by people in wheelchairs. I can see this argument if a company is so small that it only has one or two salespeople on staff who have to be able to show all the properties the company has. But from what you've said, I get the impression that your company is bigger than that. I see no reason why properties could not be divvied up in such a way that a highly qualified wheelchair bound salesperson could not show properties that have elevators while walking salespeople show non-elevator properties. Unless, of course, you only handle walk-up apartment buildings.

The problem is the location. I work in the south of Spain where the property market is interesting to say the least. Anyway the average client looks at properties over a 50 to 100 km radius. From new builds where you must walk across fields/mud roads to get too and properties on a steep road (45 degrees). Only 1 in 40 clients is looking for a property within walking distance. and about another 1 in 100 buys. And this is not counting buildings that are not handicap friendly (which is alot)


But this is the point -- and I'm addressing Arthais's point here as well. The burden is on the employer to show that there is no way a given person could possibly do the job. Yes, a blind person physically cannot drive a cab for a living. A person with no arms cannot become a brain surgeon. But there are lots of situations in which a wheelchair bound person can show apartments, and it is up to the employer to show that these do not apply in their case. Likewise, you'll have to prove that a woman with children cannot possibly meet the required hours of the job.

They say they can't. "oh i'd have to do this, this and this." Which we tried. The job involves working 5.5 days a week 9 to 10 hours a day.


You may be able to show in advance that your apartments cannot be shown by a person in a wheelchair, but how can you show in advance that a woman cannot meet the required hours, just on the basis of what other women have done? How can you justify hiring no women with children to work in sales? And if you do hire women in sales, will you fire them if they get pregnant, and how will you justify that if a complaint is made that you did not give the specific female employee a chance to prove herself?

if they can do the hours and meet the other criteria, they welcome to work for us. If they get pregnant, the same.

It is discrimination, but then we could not have wheelchair bound salepeople either. For any other role in the company it would not be a problem.

We have women as salespeople, we have women in admin, one of the 2 directors is a woman. Unfortunately from experience a women with young children has not been able to meet the criteria set for salesIn the US you must give reasonable accomodation to those with disabilities.

Don't know where you're from, but in the US #3 is considered none of your business. It's not legal to ask these questions, except to assure someone is over 18.
No, no, #2 is none of their business. Employers are allowed to examine work history, but not such personal information.

I once applied for a job at Waldenbooks, which at the time was a UK-based company (don't know if it still is). I applied at a store in the US. They asked me to fill out a form that required all sorts of personal information about my age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, combining these with my name and address, all of which was in violation of US law. Employers are allowed to ask such questions, but only in connection with voluntary cooperation with EEOC regulations, and even then, the employees/candidates are not required to give the information and the information must be collected in an anonymous way, because it is only for the purposes of helping the EEOC compile statistics. I pointed out the problem to the store manager who was interviewing me, and withdrew my application.

The problem is the location. I work in the south of Spain where the property market is interesting to say the least. Anyway the average client looks at properties over a 50 to 100 km radius. From new builds where you must walk across fields/mud roads to get too and properties on a steep road (45 degrees). Only 1 in 40 clients is looking for a property within walking distance. and about another 1 in 100 buys. And this is not counting buildings that are not handicap friendly (which is alot)



They say they can't. "oh i'd have to do this, this and this." Which we tried. The job involves working 5.5 days a week 9 to 10 hours a day.



if they can do the hours and meet the other criteria, they welcome to work for us. If they get pregnant, the same.
Conversations like these would go much more smoothly if people could manage to stick to the proper context.

1) Your individual company's situation is Southern Spain is NOT indicative of the workplace discrimination situation internationally, or even nationally within Spain. If you cannot place your personal experience into the context of the wider picture in Spain and the world, then you are adding little to an international conversation.

2) By insisting on framing this international debate within the limits of your own personal experience, you have ignored the point already brought up by Arthais and agreed with by me -- that it is not discrimination if the person actually is not qualified to do the job. You set yourself up for all this argument because you just flatly stated that women with children can't meet the hours and people in wheelchairs can't be salespeople, period. If you had said that women are only dismissed from thier jobs if they fail to perform them and that there are practical reasons why you cannot hire wheelchair bound salespeople, no one would have argued with you.

So, to conclude, your company does not discriminate.

So, then, your argument regarding workplace discrimination is what?

I realize that, but the post of mine that you were responding to WAS talking about quotas -- specifically that they do not exist, regardless of the claims of those who are against affirmative action. Since you believed that my original post did not prove that there are no quotas, I handed over all the rest of everything I could find to further support my assertion that there is no such thing as a mandated quota. I did this to cut off any of the opposition who would try to use your post to debunk my assertion without actually reading the regulations for themselves.
.
Ok, I was just interested in reading the AA laws which is why I responded when your link didn't give what I was expecting.

It was quite interesting though reading that if a company breaks the discrimination law in good faith (they have to prove it) because they were using AA to comply with the discrimination law they are protected from prosecution. They just have to then correct their practises. The reason was that the writers of the law didn't want people being persecuted by their law for trying to comply with it.

[/QUOTE]
My take on Soheran's argument is that he has been arguing in defense of remedial measures. In other words, if you have an all-white workplace, and you are choosing between two equally qualified new employees, one white and the other non-white, you should choose the non-white candidate for the sake of diversity IF that is the only point of difference between them and IF your workplace is not already racially balanced enough to reflect the make-up of the general worker pool.
[/QUOTE]

Which is why I understand his reasons, it is just that I don't think race should ever play a part in employment decisions (I can't think of any jobs which are race specific) even when all else is equal.

So, then, your argument regarding workplace discrimination is what?

actually i agree with what you've been saying regarding discrimination, etc...

I at no point said otherwise. Fair enough i should have been clearer than i was. but then until my last post no-one asked me to elaborate.

Originally i answer to a post of free-randomer who said:


I am not saying that racism is not the reason behind some of the rejections, but I would be surprised if all the rejections were based on race rather than assumptions about the persons background - which happens in England with names from different social levels.

And then i posted showing how we we select employees. which makes quite a few assumptions.

Which is why I understand his reasons, it is just that I don't think race should ever play a part in employment decisions (I can't think of any jobs which are race specific) even when all else is equal.
Because when a group appears (from their point of veiw) to be marginalised, they form distrust and even resentment. There's no reason why this wouldnt have some negative impact on the industry or individual employer concerned. Whether it's through their goods and services being spurned, or poor relations leading to less efficiency (and associated costs of lowered profit margins) when dealing with members of that group, it's not good for business.
So in effect, if all other things are equal, and one applicant is from a visibly marginalised group within that employer's workforce, that applicant has a 'public relations and good will generating' value that the other applicant does not. If everything else is absolutely equal except this ability to generate better relations with the community, then the balance tips in favour of this extra asset.

You can't blame everything on the "whiteys" Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that you're in the ghettos, not because "whitey" keeps you down, but because you dropped out of school, work at a minimum wage job, and spend all of your money on drugs, cheap liquor, and spinners rim for your 1980 Buick.

Stereotype much?

Stereotype much?

Well one does have to wonder what the spending habits are if they're unable to feed their kids, and yet, they have cable TV, flat screen, a playstation etc.

Well one does have to wonder what the spending habits are if they're unable to feed their kids, and yet, they have cable TV, flat screen, a playstation etc.

Last I looked, there were a hell of a lot more broke ass white people in the country than black people. I mean, if you want to get into raw numbers here--black people are what 12% of the population? Even if every black person were exactly as you described, there would still be a fuckload of white people worse off. But we never talk about them, do we Wilgrove? Why is that? Why do you insist on hiding the shameful nature of your race? Because it's obvious that white people just don't care about making themselves better, right? I mean, that's essentially your argument.

Last I looked, there were a hell of a lot more broke ass white people in the country than black people. I mean, if you want to get into raw numbers here--black people are what 12% of the population? Even if every black person were exactly as you described, there would still be a fuckload of white people worse off. But we never talk about them, do we Wilgrove? Why is that? Why do you insist on hiding the shameful nature of your race? Because it's obvious that white people just don't care about making themselves better, right? I mean, that's essentially your argument.

At least whites generally don't blame others for their situation. I can only count like one or two times I've seen that, and I'm sure the same thing goes for blacks, it's just that the blame others population is a bit higher.

At least whites generally don't blame others for their situation. I can only count like one or two times I've seen that, and I'm sure the same thing goes for blacks, it's just that the blame others population is a bit higher.
Oh bullshit. The whole white supremacist argument is based on the idea that niggers are stealing white people's jobs, and it extends beyond that small group. Hell, the basis of your affirmative action bitch-fests are based in that same complaint. White people on the bottom of the economic scale blame everyone else for their position as much as anyone else does--we just don't hear about it.

Oh bullshit. The whole white supremacist argument is based on the idea that niggers are stealing white people's jobs, and it extends beyond that small group. Hell, the basis of your affirmative action bitch-fests are based in that same complaint.

White Supremacist, KKKians, and Neo-Nazis are a small percentage of the white population, and you are right, they do bitch about that, as well as they're stealing the women, and alot of racial stereotypes. Personally I can't listen to any of them talk without laughing, mainly because 1. They just sound so stupid. 2. They have costumes (didn't we quit that during the 3rd grade?) and 3. Well, bitching about them won't change anything. As for my opposition for Affirmative Action, it's not because it helps get blacks job, that I have no problem with. The problem is that it requires companies to fill racial quotas in order to get something from Gov. Co., and that when choosing between two qualified people, go with the minority. How is that fair to the other guy? At least with a freakin coin toss the randomness will be fairer than AA ever was.


White people on the bottom of the economic scale blame everyone else for their position as much as anyone else does--we just don't hear about it.

Mainly because people just laugh at them.

White Supremacist, KKKians, and Neo-Nazis

Don't lump the three together.

KKKers, Neo-Nazis, and open, organized White Supremacists are indeed a small minority. People who value white privilege and seek to defend it from threats are, on the other hand, at the very least a very large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of whites.

Don't lump the three together.

KKKers, Neo-Nazis, and open, organized White Supremacists are indeed a small minority. People who value white privilege and seek to defend it from threats are, on the other hand, at the very least a very large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of whites.

I'm not "defending" white privileges. My family had to work to get from being poor to middle class, nothing was handed to them. They didn't have "Affirmative Action" they didn't have white scholarships, they didn't have any of that. All they had was hard work, for long hours, to do things to the best of their abilities and to be persistence. My parents ask the same of me and my brother, and really I think it's fair that we all ask other people to actually work hard.

The problem is that it requires companies to fill racial quotas

remind me, how many times in the past week have you personally been told that this is false?

People who value white privilege and seek to defend it from threats are, on the other hand, at the very least a very large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of whites.

Sad, but true. I, personally, don't want any group to have "privilege." I wish everyone had the same opportunities, etc. :(

I think it's fair that we all ask other people to actually work hard.

I don't. I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to work hard. But I don't see how your point is relevant.

remind me, how many times in the past week have you personally been told that this is false?

Eh humor me, remind me again how a system in which companies must have a certain amount of minorities in management position (this happened at my Dad's old workplace) in order to get anything from Gov. Co. Also remind me how it's not racist that if you're stuck with two equally qualified people, go with the minority. I mean if it's racist to hire whites even though there are qualified minorities, then the opposite must be true too. Why because at that point you are not hiring base on qualification, you are hiring on race.

I don't. I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to work hard. But I don't see how your point is relevant.

How is it not fair? My parents work hard, I work hard, my brother work hard. So why isn't it fair to ask other people of the things you ask of yourself?

Eh humor me, remind me again how a system in which companies must have a certain amount of minorities in management position (this happened at my Dad's old workplace) in order to get anything from Gov. Co.

Humor me - tell me why you ignore the explicit position of the Supreme Court on this question, far more significant than whatever ambiguous anecdotal evidence you have to offer.

Humor me - tell me why you ignore the explicit position of the Supreme Court on this question, far more significant than whatever ambiguous anecdotal evidence you have to offer.

Because I have not seen the Supreme Court rulings.

How is it not fair? My parents work hard, I work hard, my brother work hard. So why isn't it fair to ask other people of the things you ask of yourself?

I don't think anyone should work hard, unless you actually enjoy it (in which case I don't think it really qualifies as hard work.)

I don't think anyone should work hard, unless you actually enjoy it (in which case I don't think it really qualifies as hard work.)

So, if you don't enjoy it, you shouldn't do the best that you can do at your job, you should just half ass it and be lazy?

Because I have not seen the Supreme Court rulings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

It's nice to see that the courts has ruled Racial quotas illegal. However, it still doesn't explain why when confronted with two qualified applicant, that AA ask to go with the minority.

So, if you don't enjoy it, you shouldn't do the best that you can do at your job, you should just half ass it and be lazy?

It depends on the circumstances, really. If there's a really good reason not to be lazy, you shouldn't be. But certainly hard work for its own sake is a pretty egregious imposition, and a society that, in various ways, compels its members to engage in unnecessary hard work is an unjust society.

However, it still doesn't explain why when confronted with two qualified applicant, that AA ask to go with the minority.

I've explained why a dozen times in any one of the four threads we have on the subject. So have Muravyets, Arthais101, and others. If you aren't willing to listen I'm not going to explain it again.

And I should probably add Adarand Constructors v. Peña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarand_Constructors_v._Pe%C3%B1a) to my list of relevant Supreme Court decisions.

It depends on the circumstances, really. If there's a really good reason not to be lazy, you shouldn't be. But certainly hard work for its own sake is a pretty egregious imposition, and a society that, in various ways, compels its members to engage in unnecessary hard work is an unjust society.

LOL, ok then. Wow, that is just amazing. You're a socialist or communist aren't ya? See, my family was successful because we work hard, and continue to do so. If you want the same result, well you know what you have to do.

I've explained why a dozen times in any one of the four threads we have on the subject. So have Muravyets, Arthais101, and others. If you aren't willing to listen I'm not going to explain it again.

And I should probably add Adarand Constructors v. Peña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarand_Constructors_v._Pe%C3%B1a) to my list of relevant Supreme Court decisions.

There really should be some way to determine which one of the two qualified applicant is better without the race factor. Hmmm... maybe give them each a task and see which one completes the task the best?

LOL, ok then. Wow, that is just amazing. You're a socialist or communist aren't ya?

Yes, but I am actually more influenced by anarchist thought on this question.

See, say, Bob Black, The Abolition of Work (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html).

See, my family was successful because we work hard, and continue to do so. If you want the same result, well you know what you have to do.

"Is" does not imply "ought." And I doubt we share a definition of success.

There really should be some way to determine which one of the two qualified applicant is better without the race factor. Hmmm... maybe give them each a task and see which one completes the task the best?

Any difference you find will be either marginal or arbitrary, and thus hardly better than a distinction made on the basis of promoting racial diversity and countering the effects of past and present discrimination.

Yes, but I am actually more influenced by anarchist thought on this question.

See, say, Bob Black, The Abolition of Work (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html).


Yea but back in reality we have to work to support our family, to pay the bills, to put food on the table, to take care of ourselves and other.


"Is" does not imply "ought." And I doubt we share a definition of success.

My definition of success is able to put food on the table, to be able to pay off the bills, to be able to support your family, and to have money left over for the fun stuff.

Any difference you find will be either marginal or arbitrary, and thus hardly better than a distinction made on the basis of promoting racial diversity and countering the effects of past and present discrimination.

Thus why we might as well flip a coin.

Yea but back in reality we have to work to support our family, to pay the bills, to put food on the table, to take care of ourselves and other.

Why?

Thus why we might as well flip a coin.

There are more important social goals than randomness.

Why?

Because our economy is based on the exchange of work for money, and if you do your work right, or exceed the expectation, you may get a bonus.

There are more important social goals than randomness.

At least with randomness you'll get a better mix of people.

Because our economy is based on the exchange of work for money

Ah. So when you say "we have to work" you mean that in certain specific social conditions characterized by a certain social and economic system "we have to work." I agree. So?

Again, "is" does not imply "ought." I am not disputing the compulsion. I am disputing the morality of the compulsion.

At least with randomness you'll get a better mix of people.

Doubtful, unless your applicants are representative.

Ah. So when you say "we have to work" you mean that in certain specific social conditions characterized by a certain social and economic system "we have to work." I agree. So?

What's wrong with doing a little bit of work. At least when you put in a good's day work you feel good about doing it. I'll be honest with you, I would much rather just fly around all day in a Piper Warrior. I don't want to go to work, There are 500 other things that I would rather do. However, I have to work because I need to have my needs met. IN order to have my needs met, I need money, and in order to get money, I have to work.

What's wrong with doing a little bit of work.

Nothing. "A little bit of work" is probably necessary, and certainly can bring about some benefits. "Hard work" is probably necessary sometimes too, but only very rarely.

At least when you put in a good's day work you feel good about doing it.

An effect multiplied by that work being freely undertaken, instead of compelled.

No it isnt. I've never known discrimination to not include assumptions about the descriminated. Whether it is 'blacks are lazy so I wont hire them' or 'blacks are poor so I wont hire them' the person still has no job. In effect two people who are of the same economic status face different prospects if one is black and the other is white. The reason is because assumptions are made about the black person that are not made about the white person. It doesnt matter what negative assumption is made on the arbitary basis of race, if the negative assumption occurs just because the person is black, then the issue is being black, not being poor.
Poor Background = No Interview is different to Black = No Interview. The same person who might reject an interview based on a Black person percieved as being from a poor background might also reject a white person with a name indicating they are from a poor background.

As noted in the study - Black people from good neighborhoods got significantly better response rates than Black people from bad neighborhoods. Ditto White people. Although the study found that white and black people benefit about equally from living in a better neighborhood.


Unless I am mistaken you are actually suggesting that somehow it's not a race or ethnicity issue if black people are automatically assumed to be poor and rejected accordingly. What aspect of making negative assumptions about people based on nothing other than their ethnicity and discriminating against them accordingly isnt a race/ethnicity issue?
It is undeniable that black people represent a disproportionate number of lower income workers, and have a disproportionate number of unemployed. Now - from this if someone is Black then they are much more likely to be from a poor social background. Likewise a white person with certain names (I don't know where you live, and this vaires from place to place so can't really give an example) is more likely to be from a poor background. A person basing perceptions on background would reject a person for having a name that indicates them as being likely to be from a poorer background, and wether that indication is that they are Black or they are white with a poor sounding name - the REASON for the rejection is social background and not race.



I certainly cannot claim certainty, but both Billy and Bob are shortened versions of other names, for instance Billy is often short for William and Bob for Robert.
A lot of the time shortened names become real names - like Harry is a nickname for Henry, but now people are officially named Harry on their birth certicicates.


I appreciate that you are skeptical of a study whose methodology you have not been able to review (it's always good to be skeptical of things you cannot check out for yourself).
So if you are interested in looking into it, I've managed to find a free-to-download version of the actual study (http://www.povertyactionlab.com/papers/bertrand_mullainathan.pdf).

Thankyou for providing this.

I see they have the same concerns about not indicating social background and have gone to effors to eliminate the names being indicators of social background, but I am not altogether convinced that they did a good job of it.

Take the female names - the % of mothers having completed high school education (Mothers education is a known indicator of how well off a kids background is) for the White names ranges from 80.7% to 95.7% with an average of 91.7, which although a variance the mothers names all had a high chance of passing High School education, there would be no real reason to assume that any of the 'white' names came from particulary bad backgrounds. On the other hand the Black names the % range from 31.3% to 77.2% with an average of 61%. The female name from the 'worst' background for the white names was better than the 'best' background for the black names. Which is not really a fair comparison. I would be much happier with the controls if the White names chosen had an average of closer to 61% rather than 91.7%.
A similar trend is shown for the male names with averages of 66.7% vs 91.7%.

I'm looking for studies online for name effect showing differences in responses based on percieved social background - as I have only seen printed ones and can't remember the titles. What I do remember was findings that names indicating distinctly poorer backgrounds recieved fewer responses than names indicating distinctly well off backgrounds.

See, my family was successful because we work hard, and continue to do so. If you want the same result, well you know what you have to do.Again, I ask, if your family had worked hard and not been successful, what would that have taught you about the value of hard work?

I'm not "defending" white privileges. My family had to work to get from being poor to middle class, nothing was handed to them. They didn't have "Affirmative Action" they didn't have white scholarships, they didn't have any of that. All they had was hard work, for long hours, to do things to the best of their abilities and to be persistence. My parents ask the same of me and my brother, and really I think it's fair that we all ask other people to actually work hard.

And they had a society that was biased toward them every fucking step of the way, simply because of their skin color. Why can't you accept that being white is an undeniable advantage in this society? I know it butts uncomfortably up against your sense of yourself and your family as people who did it all themselves, but be honest here--no one does anything on their own. Your family, hard work aside, benefited from a system that unconsciously gave them credit for the color of their skin.

Because when a group appears (from their point of veiw) to be marginalised, they form distrust and even resentment. There's no reason why this wouldnt have some negative impact on the industry or individual employer concerned. Whether it's through their goods and services being spurned, or poor relations leading to less efficiency (and associated costs of lowered profit margins) when dealing with members of that group, it's not good for business.
So in effect, if all other things are equal, and one applicant is from a visibly marginalised group within that employer's workforce, that applicant has a 'public relations and good will generating' value that the other applicant does not. If everything else is absolutely equal except this ability to generate better relations with the community, then the balance tips in favour of this extra asset.

Now that is a valid argument though you must be careful to note that not all good PR may be morally sound. In the far past the opposite was probably true where the employer would have got bad PR for employing some from a minority.

In the current climate I can see your reasoning being good enough for employers to make that choice when all else is equal. I still don't like it because it is still using race as a deciding factor but it is making a valid argument where picking the minority canidate is best for the company.

It's nice to see that the courts has ruled Racial quotas illegal. However, it still doesn't explain why when confronted with two qualified applicant, that AA ask to go with the minority.

Zagat on page 9 made a nice point where if all else is equal then picking the minority candiate would generate some good PR and goodwill for the company. It is the best argument I have seen for it to have an effect on a companies employment decisions. Rather than diversity for diversity sake, it is a logical argument for a company to balance its work force if it will not hamper its performance or productivity.

At least with randomness you'll get a better mix of people.

only once we have already achieved a generally egalitarian society. until that point the pool of qualified people is skewed and therefore a random distribution will be likewise skewed. and leaving that skew in place now ensures that it will remain in place tomorrow and the next year too.

You can't blame everything on the "whiteys" Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that you're in the ghettos, not because "whitey" keeps you down, but because you dropped out of school, work at a minimum wage job, and spend all of your money on drugs, cheap liquor, and spinners rim for your 1980 Buick.

:D Redneck.

:D Redneck.

It completely whizzed past him that you could replace "whitey" with any epithet for a minority and it would apply equally to all the broke-ass white people in the country.

:D Redneck.

Damn straight. :p