NationStates Jolt Archive

Another question...


If I (or anyone else) owns their own PRIVATE business, then if they ONLY WANT TO HIRE WHITES, why can't they? IF they only want to serve whites, THEN WHY NOT? It's their shop! Will the government GET THE **** OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

More to the point, if someone wants to join MY company, I should have an obligation to not discriminate on basis of race? I discriminate based on skill... why not other things?

And if someone wants to hire blacks and minorities, why can't they?

Your complaint appears to be against the whole idea of regulated commerce and a civil society. Not affirmative action programs.

One more step towards truly ending all forms of discrimination and hate. Not to mention maybe fixing some of the problems.

yeah, i often find that the best way to solve problems is to ban working solutions and then ignore them. works every time.

And if someone wants to hire blacks and minorities, why can't they?

Your complaint appears to be against the whole idea of regulated commerce and a civil society. Not affirmative action programs.

Yes, it is... but that includes Affirmative Action programs.

And if someone wants to hire blacks and minorities, why can't they?

Wait... one second here. Are you disagreeing, or agreeing? Because people can hire (or should be able to) anyone they like.

In theory, there's no problem.

But in practice, when lots of employers engage in these sorts of practices and a group is economically subordinated, the result is a large number of people who are unfairly disadvantaged based on purely arbitrary factors.

And for those of us who believe in equality and justice, that is a problem.



When "our business" causes serious harm to others? No. Why should it?

Again, you are trying to put your also, even more arbitrary ideals of 'equality and justice' on everyone? Why are you right? And sorry... there are no 'lots' of employers that engage in 'those sorts of practices'. The vast majority considers that unethical... which is why our society regards it as so.

The fact remains that THERE ARE NOT exactly 30 units of blacks who are skilled and 30 whites. We hire on SKILL, not race. Just because somebody hires 0 blacks, 3 chinese people, and 593 whites does not mean, necessarlym that they are discriminating!

Again, you are trying to put your also, even more arbitrary ideals of 'equality and justice' on everyone?

Part of what it means to live in society is to accept society's rules when it comes to matters of public concern, like the economic well-being of the population.

Why are you right?

Because no one deserves to be disadvantaged based on race, and there is no benefit to efficiency from such disadvantage either.

And sorry... there are no 'lots' of employers that engage in 'those sorts of practices'.

Well, first, that's within a society that has passed anti-discrimination laws. The relevant comparison would be to the period before such things existed, when, in fact, large numbers of employers did engage in extensive racial discrimination.

Second, extensive labor market discrimination certainly does still exist. It just doesn't function as overtly or even consciously as it once did... or to the same degree.

Just because somebody hires 0 blacks, 3 chinese people, and 593 whites does not mean, necessarlym that they are discriminating!

Not all racial disparities are caused by racism. But some are. And when you have a persistent pattern in one direction....

Here is one example of what goes on in Australia yes I know this law is in 5 US states but anyway

Many job advertisments state "Only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders may apply"

Racist? Of course it is but then this is due to affrimative action laws and requirements, of course this is allowed but if an ad said "People of European desent may apply". There would be hell to pay. Now there may not be any set quota but this is still racist but allowed under affirmative action laws, even tough it discriminates people who are just as or more qualified and suitable for a job because of the colour of their skin.

Due to affirmative action employers are also more likely to hire women because if they don't then they are slapped in the face with discrimination suits and accused of bias and sexist hiring practices even if the male was more expreinced or qualified or both or whatever which gave him the job not becuase he can do a piss standing up. That my frinds is affrimative action at work, giving people jobs due to their gender or race.

As articulate and well-supported as many of the arguments against the OP's opinion are, let me suggest that you're wasting your breath, and a considerable portion of valuable brain power.

Racists cannot be negotiated with, nor can they be persuaded that their beliefs are wrong. They invest their personal worth in the ideology that they are better, smarter, faster than those around them.

Much like Steve Austin, the Six-Million-Dollar Man. Who was also white, but was not racist. Or was he?

See what I did there?

Part of what it means to live in society is to accept society's rules when it comes to matters of public concern, like the economic well-being of the population.


Um, yes, I know. That's what I keep repeating... Society's rules, passed by democracy, are law. I am denouncing people for attempting to think that THEIR arbitrary ideals are the correct view.




Because no one deserves to be disadvantaged based on race, and there is no benefit to efficiency from such disadvantage either.


No one deserves? No benefits to efficiency? Well, it doesn't hurt blacks if a few business owners don't like them. Why is it not the business owner's choice? (who, often, is black, chinese, or a woman)

Well, first, that's within a society that has passed anti-discrimination laws. The relevant comparison would be to the period before such things existed, when, in fact, large numbers of employers did engage in extensive racial discrimination.


Yes... I, erm, know. And the reason why those laws are in place is because that's what the ethics of society are.

And the reason why they didn't exist back then is because that that is what the ethics of society were.

Not a fair comparison... two UTTERLY different situations.



Not all racial disparities are caused by racism. But some are. And when you have a persistent pattern in one direction....

....then what? All you really can conclude is that it's LIKELY that the cases are POSSIBLY from similar reasons... such as racism... and such as blacks maybe being worse at some things... and women... and whites, perhaps...and chance...and that while it's likely, it ain't true.

Um, yes, I know. That's what I keep repeating... Society's rules, passed by democracy, are law. I am denouncing people for attempting to think that THEIR arbitrary ideals are the correct view.



No one deserves? No benefits to efficiency? Well, it doesn't hurt blacks if a few business owners don't like them. Why is it not the business owner's choice? (who, often, is black, chinese, or a woman)


Yes... I, erm, know. And the reason why those laws are in place is because that's what the ethics of society are.

And the reason why they didn't exist back then is because that that is what the ethics of society were.

Not a fair comparison... two UTTERLY different situations.


....then what? All you really can conclude is that it's LIKELY that the cases are POSSIBLY from similar reasons... such as racism... and such as blacks maybe being worse at some things... and women... and whites, perhaps...and chance...and that while it's likely, it ain't true.

You realize that affirmative action never requires you to hire an unqualified candidate over a qualified candidate. The proportions that are used for comparison are based on qualified candidates. IF what you say is true, then there is no problem. IF AA is cretaing a problem for your business, it's because there are qualified candidates and you're not hiring them.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html



About damn time. Affirmative ACtion is no more than reverse discrimination and its high time we move into the 21st century. Down with preferential treatment. If people want equality then why the hell should they receive preferential treatment? They shouldn't. Hopefully this will pass and if it is challenged, held up up the Supreme Court.

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women.

I just know Corny will be especially pleased to know that once these outdated and draconian Affirmative Action laws are repealed, businesses will no longer be encouraged and expected into helping and hiring disabled veterans.
Won't you, Corny?

Another question...


If I (or anyone else) owns their own PRIVATE business, then if they ONLY WANT TO HIRE WHITES, why can't they? IF they only want to serve whites, THEN WHY NOT? It's their shop! Will the government GET THE **** OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

More to the point, if someone wants to join MY company, I should have an obligation to not discriminate on basis of race? I discriminate based on skill... why not other things?Because commercial property is different than private property, and as such, is subject to a different set of rules than private property.

I am denouncing people for attempting to think that THEIR arbitrary ideals are the correct view.

You have not established that they are arbitrary. Indeed, you have not effectively responded to those of us who have given reasons for them.

Furthermore, if you really believe in absolute social power, on what basis do you object to anti-discrimination laws?

Well, it doesn't hurt blacks if a few business owners don't like them.

That's right. That's why we don't pass anti-discrimination laws for red-haired people.

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of "a few business owners."

Not a fair comparison... two UTTERLY different situations.

Nonsense. The day before anti-discrimination laws were passed, the ethics of society were hardly distinct from the day after.

All you really can conclude is that it's LIKELY that the cases are POSSIBLY from similar reasons...

True, we can never establish absolutely certain truth regarding this or virtually any other matter. So?

Anti-discrimination laws, for what it's worth, cannot be used against employers who simply have disproportionate representation, for exactly the reasons you mention. I'm not sure what your point is.

Dem1 has given you more than adequate answer to your queries, but I'll weigh in anyway.

What gave you the impression that affirmative action goals become enforceable quotas? Not from anything I provided since it expressly explained that goals are not enforceable but are used to gage success. And the sources I provided expressly stated that quotas were illegal and unacceptable.


The fact that to fail to meet those goals could be used to accuse a company of racism and thus grounds for a lawsuit. IMHO that's a form of enforcement.


If hiring is truly non-biased then jobs should be proportionately divided in concurrence with the population of qualified applicants. If one's hiring is disproportionate -- and/or fails to meet goals -- then there is cause to further scrutinize the hiring process to eliminate bias.


But that brings us back to your base complaint which seems to be that minorities getting hired in proportion to their presence in the job pool is somehow not desirable. Care to explain why that is?

Not unless it becomes a pattern over the long term. It's perfectly possible that in a given pool of applicants, the best, say, 5 applicants are all one race, or represent a proportion different from the pool of applications at large. If it happens only from time to time, it doesn't indicate racism, but an individual who feels disenfranchised because of one of those occurences is unlikely to interpret that as anything but racism.

It's not that hiring then in proportion is undesireable. It's forcing thoe proportinos where they may not always be apropriate that's unfair.


The premise of your critique somehow assumes that qualified minority applicants won't be hired unless the employer is forced to hire them. Either you are admitting that the normal employment process is biased or you are making a racist assumption. Either way, affirmative action is a fair and reasonable response.

You are playing some cute games here. On the one hand musing that affirmative action has not reduced racism (and has even increased it), while claiming at the same time that affirmative action has been so successful that it need not be continued. All of thse insuations you make without any evidence whatsoever, but then object when Free Soviets responds to mere hypotheticals without evidence.

No, I'm trying to point out those inconsistencies. What games? I t hink you're misunderstanding my intent here.


Meh. If you stare long enough at the ink blot, you can make it look like anything you want. That doesn't mean it is a picture of a quota.

Pray tell, what "proactive hiring" is, if it isn't aggressive recruiting and fair employment procedures. There is nothing inherent in the word proactive that means quotas.


But we're not staring at an ink blot. People phrase these things very carefully and I'm not willing to believe that somehow this is a simple oversight. 'proactive recruiting' seems to be the intent you guys are ascribing to it, and I have nothing against such a practice. If you think that somehow there aren't enough applicants to your company to fairly represent the proportion of available labor pool among races, then by all means go out there and advertise and 'proactively recruit.'

But once again, that's not what was said. 'Proactive hiring and promotion' implies that a special effort is being made, not only to encourage minorities from applying, but specifically using race as a determining factor in promotions and hirings. That being the case, it's very easy to see where something very like a quota can be used as a yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of such a policy.


Affirmative action has made demonstrable progress in lessening racism and rectifying the effects of racism. This is discussed at length in the Affirmative Action Review (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html) that I linked earlier. Affirmative action has helped decrease minority poverty, helped decrease the wage gap, encouraged minority role models, etc, etc, etc. If the best you can say in response is "well, some skinheads don't like it" then you should simply concede.

If that's what you think I'm saying then please re-read.

I have never asserted that there's never been cause for such policies. In fact, I specifically said so earlier. What I AM saying is that there's a problem when people are unwilling to acknowledge such progress as you've just mentioned, and call racism on anyone who feels like it's time to re-evaluate those policies.

We have come a long way. Maybe there are areas where Affirmative Action is apropriate, and maybe there's areas where it no longer is. The problem is tere are too many out there who want to shout people down for asking that question.


One day affirmative action will have been successful enough that it is no longer necessary and can be phased out. That day hasn't come. We have a long way to go. And denying that is simply ignorance -- deliberate or otherwise.

Do we know that for sure? How do you know? Discussion on the matter is met with hostility.


And, BTW, several of the opponents of affirmative action that have appeared in this thread have been objectively exposed as racists and/or ignorant. So are some opponents of affirmative action racist and/or ignorant? You bet. ;)

Of course. Some are. That seemed to me to go without saying. I don't take my moral cues from them so I generally ignore racist tripe.

Questioning whether or not Affirmative Action is still needed is NOT racist. Adcknowledging that it could possibly do more harm than good is NOT racist. Acknowledging that a lot of progress has been made and that hiring managers aren't all a bunch of 'white racist keep the black man down' types is NOT racist.

I've been a manager myself, and in a position to hire and fire. When I did, I paid no attention to race because I needed people who were going to do the jobs the way I wanted them done: efficiently, quickly, and professionally. I didn't think about race proportions. I shouldn't have to. As it turned out (and I didn't realize it at the time until it was later pointed out to me in conversation) every single person I'd promoted on that particular project was black. So what? Does that mean I screwed over some white guy or latino because I didn't take into account the proportion of those races in the project? From where I stand the answer is no. People are people.

So maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I'm projecting my lack of racism on others and am blinded by that. I can admit that, but at the same time I do insist that a system like Affirmative Action needs to be re-examined to be sure it's still meeting the goals intended, and that it hasn't become a case of reverse discrimination along the way.

Is that unreasonable?

The fact that to fail to meet those goals could be used to accuse a company of racism and thus grounds for a lawsuit. IMHO that's a form of enforcement.


Can you give me an example of one single succesul lawsuit that has been one solely on the grounds of disproportionate racial makeup and nothing else?

Can you give me an example of one single succesul lawsuit that has been one solely on the grounds of disproportionate racial makeup and nothing else?

Consider this: Would it have to be successful to be effective? Sure, a company that is in the right could successfully defend itself, but having the court costs recovered later may not be good enough as attorney fees and costs are paid upfront.

Even so. if I DID show you one, would it change your opinion?

Consider this: Would it have to be successful to be effective? Sure, a company that is in the right could successfully defend itself, but having the court costs recovered later may not be good enough as attorney fees and costs are paid upfront.

Which is relevant how? I could sue you for the fact that this post caused me great emotional distress, and you'd still have to go through the motions and defend yourself.

Your argument seems to be that even though there are no quotas, there are quotas, because failing to meet those quotas is grounds for a lawsuit, even if that lawsuit won't win.

So the existance of quotas is demonstrable based on the fact that someone could sue a company for failing to meet those quotas, even though that person would lose...

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in this?

Even so. if I DID show you one, would it change your opinion?

Yes, it would. I believe in affirmative action. I do not believe in quotas. I also don't believe, despite internet prognostication, that quotas really exist in any realistic sense, nor are quotas actually utilized. Therefore showing me a situation in which someone won a court case for the sole reason that a company did not meet these quotas would certainly help change that opinion.

Now answer the question, can you find one, or not?

Which is relevant how? I could sue you for the fact that this post caused me great emotional distress, and you'd still have to go through the motions and defend yourself.

Your argument seems to be that even though there are no quotas, there are quotas, because failing to meet those quotas is grounds for a lawsuit, even if that lawsuit won't win.

So the existance of quotas is demonstrable based on the fact that someone could sue a company for failing to meet those quotas, even though that person would lose...

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in this?


Of course you see flaws. You're talking past the point.

What would be the quantitative measure of whether or not a company is adhering to Affirmative Action? If you were tasked by some agency to oversee and verify a functional Affirmative Action system in place, what would you include in your report as demonstrable proof of its successful implementation?



Yes, it would. I believe in affirmative action. I do not believe in quotas. I also don't believe, despite internet prognostication, that quotas really exist in any realistic sense, nor are quotas actually utilized. Therefore showing me a situation in which someone won a court case for the sole reason that a company did not meet these quotas would certainly help change that opinion.

Now answer the question, can you find one, or not?

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to accept that you'd suddenly agree with me if I were to show you a single example of a successful lawsuit based purely on racial proportions in a company. You could easily say my example was a solitary anomaly in a sea of 'expected' results. You could say it was fabricated. You could say it was hand-picked to prove my point and doesn't accurately reflect the reality.

(Can you tell I've had this discussion before? ;) )

Of course, if I don't provide one you'll use that as 'proof' that my argument is fabricated and justify it by suggesting I'm unable to provide such an example.

Either way it's pointless, so I choose to go the route that doesn't waste my time.

Of course you see flaws. You're talking past the point.

What would be the quantitative measure of whether or not a company is adhering to Affirmative Action? If you were tasked by some agency to oversee and verify a functional Affirmative Action system in place, what would you include in your report as demonstrable proof of its successful implementation?




I'm sorry but I find it difficult to accept that you'd suddenly agree with me if I were to show you a single example of a successful lawsuit based purely on racial proportions in a company. You could easily say my example was a solitary anomaly in a sea of 'expected' results. You could say it was fabricated. You could say it was hand-picked to prove my point and doesn't accurately reflect the reality.

(Can you tell I've had this discussion before? ;) )

Of course, if I don't provide one you'll use that as 'proof' that my argument is fabricated and justify it by suggesting I'm unable to provide such an example.

Either way it's pointless, so I choose to go the route that doesn't waste my time.

Gosh, I always love the excuses one uses for not supporting an argument. "I won't support it because you won't accept my support anyway."

Here's how it goes. Crazy internet hypothesis. No support. Discarded like yesterday's trash. You want anyone to treat you like what you have to say is credible then support it.

Of course you see flaws. You're talking past the point.

What would be the quantitative measure of whether or not a company is adhering to Affirmative Action? If you were tasked by some agency to oversee and verify a functional Affirmative Action system in place, what would you include in your report as demonstrable proof of its successful implementation?

demonstrable proof, for what purpose? By what standard? Private entities are not obligated by law to adhere to affirmative action programs, they are only obligated to be non discriminatory.

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to accept that you'd suddenly agree with me if I were to show you a single example of a successful lawsuit based purely on racial proportions in a company. You could easily say my example was a solitary anomaly in a sea of 'expected' results. You could say it was fabricated. You could say it was hand-picked to prove my point and doesn't accurately reflect the reality.

(Can you tell I've had this discussion before? ;) )

Of course, if I don't provide one you'll use that as 'proof' that my argument is fabricated and justify it by suggesting I'm unable to provide such an example.

Either way it's pointless, so I choose to go the route that doesn't waste my time.

So you make a claim and then steadfastly refuse to provide even a single shred of evidence to back it up?

Frankly, I think you should be less concerned with wasting your time, and more concerned with wasting everyone elses who operated under the apparently false presumption that you were here to actually have a discussion, and not spout off nonsense then plug your ears and yell "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!" when you're actually challenged to support your positions.

I hope action is taken against AA, the country has had about enough of it. It's a good step forward toward true equality for all people.

Gosh, I always love the excuses one uses for not supporting an argument. "I won't support it because you won't accept my support anyway."

Here's how it goes. Crazy internet hypothesis. No support. Discarded like yesterday's trash. You want anyone to treat you like what you have to say is credible then support it.

Predictable as a clock.

To reiterate: This entire forum is just a bunch of opinionated people who either have nothing better to do then post on here, or have a compulsion to crow their ideas.

The fact is, I am not physically located in a place where I can access the requested materials, and I'm not going to bend over backward when I get home to find them.

The fact is, demanding sources in a debate forum like this one is a cheesy copout. Other than Cat Tribe I'm not seeing much in the way of supporting links on your side of the debate either but you don't see me running around liek a source nazi demanding every single assertion to be backed up in triplicate by a bunch of links that may or may not even be worth clicking on.

What am I being asked to provide? A link to a court case where somebody got their ass handed to them by a judge who wanted to be an advocate and punished a coompany? How will that impact the point I was originally trying to make, which was that the only way to determine, truly, whether a company is compliant with AA is by something that either Is or is very like a quota? Will it prove it? Will it disprove it? No it won't do either.

But now you guys think you've scored because I don't have the link handy and won't hassle over it. Sounds like you're not terribly interested in the discussion to me.

demonstrable proof, for what purpose? By what standard? Private entities are not obligated by law to adhere to affirmative action programs, they are only obligated to be non discriminatory.



So you make a claim and then steadfastly refuse to provide even a single shred of evidence to back it up?

Frankly, I think you should be less concerned with wasting your time, and more concerned with wasting everyone elses who operated under the apparently false presumption that you were here to actually have a discussion, and not spout off nonsense then plug your ears and yell "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!" when you're actually challenged to support your positions.

See below. (or above... whatever the board settings you're using will direct you to my reply to Jocabia)

Predictable as a clock.

To reiterate: This entire forum is just a bunch of opinionated people who either have nothing better to do then post on here, or have a compulsion to crow their ideas.

The fact is, I am not physically located in a place where I can access the requested materials, and I'm not going to bend over backward when I get home to find them.

The fact is, demanding sources in a debate forum like this one is a cheesy copout.

I claim you're a pedophile. Demanding evidence is a cheesy copout. My statement stands. (See, how devestatingly silly that would make, well, anything. To any onlookers, I have no knowledge as to whether or not NB is a pedophile. It was an example.)

Now, personally, I'm not particularly shocked you'd be anti-source. Because reality generally doesn't like your opinions.

That said, if you'd like me to copy and paste TCT sources, I'd be happy to. How will that change anything? Our side of the debate is sourced, as you've said. We're not each required to source the same claim. If it's the same claim, that the combination of posters making that claim have sourced it is enough. You've made a claim. Now you're crying about being asked to support it. It's called debate. Feel free to engage. And frankly, I don't care who supports your claim. Until it is supported, your spurious claim will be treated as having the weight of the evidence you've provided, which, my friend, is none. I'm sorry reality so often doesn't agree with you. Take it up with reality.

I have never asserted that there's never been cause for such policies. In fact, I specifically said so earlier. What I AM saying is that there's a problem when people are unwilling to acknowledge such progress as you've just mentioned, and call racism on anyone who feels like it's time to re-evaluate those policies.

We have come a long way. Maybe there are areas where Affirmative Action is apropriate, and maybe there's areas where it no longer is. The problem is tere are too many out there who want to shout people down for asking that question.

Do we know that for sure? How do you know? Discussion on the matter is met with hostility.

Of course. Some are. That seemed to me to go without saying. I don't take my moral cues from them so I generally ignore racist tripe.

Questioning whether or not Affirmative Action is still needed is NOT racist. Adcknowledging that it could possibly do more harm than good is NOT racist. Acknowledging that a lot of progress has been made and that hiring managers aren't all a bunch of 'white racist keep the black man down' types is NOT racist.

I've been a manager myself, and in a position to hire and fire. When I did, I paid no attention to race because I needed people who were going to do the jobs the way I wanted them done: efficiently, quickly, and professionally. I didn't think about race proportions. I shouldn't have to. As it turned out (and I didn't realize it at the time until it was later pointed out to me in conversation) every single person I'd promoted on that particular project was black. So what? Does that mean I screwed over some white guy or latino because I didn't take into account the proportion of those races in the project? From where I stand the answer is no. People are people.

So maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I'm projecting my lack of racism on others and am blinded by that. I can admit that, but at the same time I do insist that a system like Affirmative Action needs to be re-examined to be sure it's still meeting the goals intended, and that it hasn't become a case of reverse discrimination along the way.

Is that unreasonable?

OK, I'll deal with some of your miscellaneous other points seperately when I get time, but I want to deal front-and-center with the argument that you are pussy-footing around but for some reason refuse to make up-front.

You suggest that perhaps affirmative action was once a good idea but it is no longer needed or desirable.

OK. Fine. What has changed? When did it change?

Don't just pose a hypothetical, but admit that affirmative action was once a good idea, was fair, was necessary, and was worthwhile. Then show us how that is no longer true. THAT would be being reasonable.

And I'll say point-blank that your pollyannish suggestion that racism doesn't exist anymore or that affirmative action is no longer needed is naive and ignorant. That you would base this primarily on your own assessment that your hiring practices aren't racist is laughable.

Check out The State of Black America (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12633540&postcount=1). African-Americans (and other minorities) are still greatly disadvantaged in our society and white males are disproportionately privileged.

And racism is still very active in the marketplace. Check out these studies:
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)

I particularly draw your attention to Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf) which is easy to read and profound in its implications.

Among the findings are that "blacks are only slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants." (p.3)

And, a "white applicant with a felony conviction appears to do just as well, if not better, than his black counterpart with no criminal background. These results suggest that employers view minority applications as essentially equivalent to whites just out of prison." (p. 6)

So, yes, I am going to meet your coy attempt to attack affirmative action while pretending you are only "asking questions" about it's continued necessity and effectiveness with hostility. Either make the argument expressly or don't make it at all.

The fact that to fail to meet those goals could be used to accuse a company of racism and thus grounds for a lawsuit. IMHO that's a form of enforcement.

"The fact"? "The fact?"

As you've made perfectly clear in your exchange with Neo Art and Jocabia, this isn't a fact. It isn't even an arguable supposition. It is purely theoretical.

We're telling you that reality does not match this "fact" and I've already provided EVIDENCE that demonstrates this. Goals are not quotas. Nor are goals turned into quotas because they could theortically be used in a lawsuit. Anything could theoretically be used to accuse a company of racism, but that doesn't mean it is sufficient to support a lawsuit. You are just blowing smoke.


Not unless it becomes a pattern over the long term. It's perfectly possible that in a given pool of applicants, the best, say, 5 applicants are all one race, or represent a proportion different from the pool of applications at large. If it happens only from time to time, it doesn't indicate racism, but an individual who feels disenfranchised because of one of those occurences is unlikely to interpret that as anything but racism.

With all due respect, no fucking duh. Where did anyone say that every hiring decision should rigidly adhere to racial proportions?

To the contrary, the whole point of flexible affirmative action goals is to provide a yardstick to measure OVER THE LONG TERM whether a company is living up to its desire to be an equal opportunity employer.

It's not that hiring then in proportion is undesireable. It's forcing thoe proportinos where they may not always be apropriate that's unfair.

And that is the difference between flexible goals and rigid quotas. See, problem solved.



No, I'm trying to point out those inconsistencies. What games? I t hink you're misunderstanding my intent here.

The only inconsistencies are in your hypothetical arguments, as I pointed out. There is nothing inconsistent about saying affirmative action has been effective, but is still necessary. That is merely recognizing we have come a long way, but have a long way to go. If you've covered 50 miles of a 100 mile trip, it is not inconsistent to say that you have made progress but have to keep going.

But feel free to explain to us the real "intent" of your arguments.

But we're not staring at an ink blot. People phrase these things very carefully and I'm not willing to believe that somehow this is a simple oversight. 'proactive recruiting' seems to be the intent you guys are ascribing to it, and I have nothing against such a practice. If you think that somehow there aren't enough applicants to your company to fairly represent the proportion of available labor pool among races, then by all means go out there and advertise and 'proactively recruit.'

But once again, that's not what was said. 'Proactive hiring and promotion' implies that a special effort is being made, not only to encourage minorities from applying, but specifically using race as a determining factor in promotions and hirings. That being the case, it's very easy to see where something very like a quota can be used as a yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of such a policy.

Gee, the words "proactive hiring" might mean that race or gender may be considered as a factor when considering who to hire out of equally qualified applicants. And it might mean that an employer would want to keep some track of how it is doing in hiring fair proportions over time of minorities or women. And that might mean the employer would want a way of measuring progess, a "yardstick," if you will. And a yardstick might possibly be misused (contary to express provisions and intent) as "something very like a quota." And that might mean that a white male doesn't get hired over equally qualified minority or female applicants once and a while. Oh, my, let's call the whole thing off! :rolleyes:

I came across these two quotes when looking at some of my books related to affirmative action:

Why does racial discrimination excite us when so many other kinds of discrimination do not? It is because of the way we interpret history, associating racial discrimination with practices that now appear self-evidently evil: forcing blacks from their homeland, enslaving blacks, lynching blacks for actions that among whites would not be criminal, intimidating blacks who sought to exercise their rights -- in sum, systematically disadvantaging a people in almost every way that mattered because of the color of their skin. [A] claim made by a white person as a member of the dominant majority draws its moral force largely from our collective horror at centuries of oppressing black people. It would be ironic indeed if evils visited on blacks had lent enough force to the moral claims of whites to prevent what appears to many at this point to be the most effective means of eliminating the legacy of those evils.

--Richard Lempert, The Force of Irony: On the Morality of Affirmative Action and United Steelworkers v. Weber, 95 Ethics 86, 89 (1984)

When the group that controls the decision making process classifies so as to advantage a minority and disadvantage itself, the reasons for being unusually suspicious, and, consequently, employing a stringent brand of review are lacking.* A White majority is unlikely to disadvantage itself for reasons of racial prejudice; nor is it likely to be tempted either to underestimate the needs and deserts of Whites relative to those of others, or to overestimate the cost of devising an alternative classification that would extend to certain Whites the advantages generally extended to Blacks...
[Whether] or not it is more blessed to give than to recieve, it is surely less suspicious.

--John Hart Ely, The Constitutionality of Reverse Racial Discrimination, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 723, 735-36 (1974)

*This article (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm) explains more about standards of review and the degree of scrutiny the courts apply in judging alleged violations of equal protection. The basic idea is that the courts apply a more stringent review of more suspect classifications and a less stringent review of less suspect classifications.

I know I am being naive and overly optimistic, but I'd love to see some comments on these quotes.

Those that assume affirmative action is discrimination need to explain why that discrimination is necessarily wrong -- even though it is unlike other discrimination.

My $0.02...

Various arguments made that 'affirmative action' is not a form of discrimination in and of itself. I think those arguments are clearly false. Let's look at the word 'discrimination' in its normal dictionary.com sense:


treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

Affirmative action, according to the University of South Dakota, is
(http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm)

Let's work it through.

Alan wants to employ a worker for a job. Bob (white male) and Celia (female and black (or asian, or Muslim, or perhaps a disabled veteran)) both apply.

Both are equally qualified for the job in terms of experience and qualifications. But Celia, being of an affirmative action status gets the job.

So we can see that affirmative action has restulted in Celia being treated favourably on the grounds of her race, status or gender, and Bob being treated unfavourably on the grounds of his race, status, or gender.

Given that the definition of discrimination includes the favourable / unfavourable treatment of an individual on the grounds of race, status or gender, then it follows...

affirmative action is a form of discrimination.


Next question: is the form of discrimination justified?

Personally, I think 'no'.

So let's see, in this hypothetical Bob and Celia are equally qualified. It is thereby impossible to decide between them based wholly on merit. By your definition then, any decision you make is discrimination. If Alan's hiring practices are such that women or blacks are underrepresented and Celia offers an opportunity to bring things into fairer proportion as well as increase diversity, then why is this "discrimination" necessarily unjustified?

I recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were educated in non-English-speaking countries. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. An ESL applicant is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?

I recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were educated in non-English-speaking countries. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. An ESL applicant is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?

recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were black. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. A black person is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?

I recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were educated in non-English-speaking countries. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. An ESL applicant is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?
Couldn't you have determined that after you interviewed people? Someone who doesn't speak English as a first language is less likely to use language precisely, but if he applied for the job at least he believes he is capable. If it turned out he couldn't speak precisely enough during the interview, you would be well within your right to not hire him. Technically, I guess you are within your right by just culling the field, but you get what I mean.

I hope action is taken against AA, the country has had about enough of it. It's a good step forward toward true equality for all people.

True equality?

African-American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS. African-American's are three times as likely to be poor as whites.

Is that true equality? :rolleyes:

I recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were educated in non-English-speaking countries. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. An ESL applicant is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?

It is all too easy to use the term discrimination indiscriminately and offer facile analyses.

You do not appear to be discriminating on the base of a suspect class, assuming that you actually looked at where someone was educated as opposed to making assumptions based on national origin.

Your culling criteria does seem at least somewhat unfair in that it is not necessarily true that someone with an education from a non-English speaking country is going to be less able to use English with precision. So, yes, you appear to be using an unfair and inaccurate criteria for evaluating resumes. But I'm sure you will defend it on the ground that your crude litmus test helps weed out applicants that may not be desirable. It doesn't appear to be the most precise tool, however, and it is highly likely to exclude those that are otherwise good candidates.

What any of this has to do with affirmative action or even anti-discrimination laws is lost on me.

recently hired an assistant. When going through the applicants, I discarded any I saw that were black. I use language very precisely doing my job, and I need an assistant who can do the same. A black person is less likely to be able to do that, so I culled the field such that I improved the quality of the pool overall.

Did I discriminate unfairly?
Since I don't see the connection between being black and using language precisely, I would say yes. But if you can explain why blacks, in general, use language with less precision, I'd be willing to change my mind on that one.

Couldn't you have determined that after you interviewed people?
Sure, but then I would have interviewed 18 people instead of 5, and that would have delaying hiring. Also, those extra 13 people are less likely to satisfy my language-use criterion. Chances are the successful applicant will come from the original 5 regardless, so I'm trading a slim chance at a superior applicant for a guaranteed streamlining of the hiring process.

I could just as easily have filtered the applicants randomly, but by filtering based on some indirectly relevant criterion I'm likely to improve the general quality of the remaining 5.

You do not appear to be discriminating on the base of a suspect class, assuming that you actually looked at where someone was educated as opposed to making assumptions based on national origin.
I actually would have preferred to use national origin - that's more likely to give me their native language - but that wasn't available to me.
Your culling criteria does seem at least somewhat unfair in that it is not necessarily true that someone with an education from a non-English speaking country is going to be less able to use English with precision. So, yes, you appear to be using an unfair and inaccurate criteria for evaluating resumes. But I'm sure you will defend it on the ground that your crude litmus test helps weed out applicants that may not be desirable.
It's more effective that random selection, and random selection isn't (I would guess) unfair by your measure.
It doesn't appear to be the most precise tool, however, and it is highly likely to exclude those that are otherwise good candidates.
It could possibly exclude good candidates, but that language qualification was probably the most important. In an assistant, I want somenoe who understands my instructions.
What any of this has to do with affirmative action or even anti-discrimination laws is lost on me.
I'm wondering whether my hiring practices are the sort of thing affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws are trying to stop.