Affirmative action and diversification

[the captians wench]

I just saw a news report on a Connecticut court case. The case, basically, was about a firefighter (or some sort of service officer) who was turned down for a promotion, even though his test scores were the highest, because the state was worried about offending minority candidates.

This just highlighted something that was covered during a meeting I attended Wednesday at work. It stressed the importance of diversifying our management. They went as far as saying we should look for minorities to promote and that should be our focus.

This really made me uncomfortable.

I grew up in an inter-racial household. My step-father was also born in 1930, so he went through all the segregation and the start of affirmative action. When his nieces and nephews sung the praises of affirmative action he stopped them in their tracks. He would ask this question "is it any more right for you to get the job because you're black than it is for you to not get the job because you're black?" He was very big on being judged, and judging solely on a person's merits and character rather than by race, whether it's beneficial or not.

So am I just weird here feeling the same way? Do I just "not get it"? I don't understand how it's any more fair, or any less discrimination, for me to be overlooked for a position because I'm white than it is if I were a minority. And the fact that this was blatantly flaunted at this meeting really makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Yasashii_Kaze]

I agree. I believe being truly color blind means not favoring ANYONE for ANY reason based on their skin, no matter what. No race is more capable or genetically predisposed to higher intelligence than another, so why disrespect them by saying you'll throw out the standards because some politician thinks they're incapable of meeting them? That's racism.

 

[Netzach]

I don't see this as a "let's ONLY promote unqualified minorities" so much as a "let's identify and encourage leadership prospect in a pool whose resumes we usually slush pile immediately when we read a name like Dawnisha or Alvarez." That's PROVEN, BTW, that names that were remotely puzzling to the reader would get slush piled, particularly names that rated high on "sounds black" whatever that means. I've had white and black friends with the name "Aisha" and the assumption meters were a flutter.

I think more often than not it simply means things like that person MIGHT get in the door for the interview.

Still perfectly OK by me. I'm playing the game with a noticeable upper hand and I personally don't dig that. I've been in aff. action environments and I've never been sidelined, just found a more diverse team to play on when I get there. Most of whom were smarter than I was anyway, so the idea that they were being given special consideration never really crossed my mind. I know that can happen, but I have no personal experience with it at all.

 

[Betticus]

That is the case that Sotamayor? ruled on which made headlines.

It wasn't one person, they threw out ALL of the test scores for promotion because none of the black candidates passed. Just whites and a hispanic or two.

They threw out the tests and promoted no-one and were going to rewrite the test because their affirmative action policy dictated that they needed some black officers in the fire department.

Also, if I recall correctly there weren't that many black candidates anyway so the numbers were already stacked heavily white in the mostly white community up there. It's not that blacks can't compete, just that the ones that took that particular test didn't score as high but that can be due to many other factors such as background, education level and quality, etc...

Racism is just as wrong as affirmative action but what can you do? One is designed to help counter the effect of the other and to make opportunity available where it should be already. In theory it makes sense but in practice it can lead to a situation where a firefighter who was passed just due to color is put in charge of a department where his/her abilities and skills can save lives or take them.

Personally, if it were my house on fire and I needed a seasoned, professional, highly skilled firefighter I want the one who can pass the fucking test. Just like with doctors and other professional career fields where an I.Q. point can be the difference between life and death.

/rant

 

[BiBunny]

I think it's shitty that we aren't to the point that such things are unnecessary, personally.

 

[Netzach]

That is the case that Sotamayor? ruled on which made headlines.

It wasn't one person, they threw out ALL of the test scores for promotion because none of the black candidates passed. Just whites and a hispanic or two.

They threw out the tests and promoted no-one and were going to rewrite the test because their affirmative action policy dictated that they needed some black officers in the fire department.

Also, if I recall correctly there weren't that many black candidates anyway so the numbers were already stacked heavily white in the mostly white community up there. It's not that blacks can't compete, just that the ones that took that particular test didn't score as high but that can be due to many other factors such as background, education level and quality, etc...

Racism is just as wrong as affirmative action but what can you do? One is designed to help counter the effect of the other and to make opportunity available where it should be already. In theory it makes sense but in practice it can lead to a situation where a firefighter who was passed just due to color is put in charge of a department where his/her abilities and skills can save lives or take them.

Personally, if it were my house on fire and I needed a seasoned, professional, highly skilled firefighter I want the one who can pass the fucking test. Just like with doctors and other professional career fields where an I.Q. point can be the difference between life and death.

/rant

Sotomayor actually was acting in the interest of going with the lower court ruling and general legal precedent of the time.

Had the supreme court ruling that overturned her case been in existence at the time of her ruling it would have been much more clear cut and simpler to rule in favor of the firefighters, it would have had some stronger set precedent to base ruling off of.

She was doing that thing that supposedly people like, judicial conservatism. The climate of the city and the time was one in which affirmative action was more often upheld than challenged.

 

[Betticus]

I think it's shitty that we aren't to the point that such things are unnecessary, personally.

Look at it this way... I discriminate blatantly.

If there is a group of women who all want to give me a blowjob and some of em have razor blades for teeth, no amount of affirmative action is going to get them the job!

 

[Netzach]

I think it's shitty that we aren't to the point that such things are unnecessary, personally.

I'd like to get to that point.

I don't think we're going to get to that point running on our current psychology, and heightened interest in traditionally disadvantaged pools of applicants still has merit.

We still don't even have dollar for dollar parity with women and men, it's going to take some time.

However I do think we're at a point where the ruling in the case of the firefighter exam is spot on.

I still think saying "our policy is to keep our eyes open for and mentor qualified non traditional management applicants" that's reasonable response. It's not doing anything but compensating for bias.

 

[Keroin]

This one's tricky. I had this very conversation about a month ago with a young couple from South Africa. They were white but grew up in liberal families. After apartheid ended - which they were very happy about - the country went through a massive upheaval. Seasoned, white professionals were tossed out of jobs and under qualified black people were installed in their place. Now, years later, they've run into real problems because they don't have enough skilled workers and the infrastructure, (power, water, sewage, etc), is falling into disrepair, with not enough people to fix it.

But they said, at the time, it had to be done. There was such, justifiable, anger in the black population that unless the government took the actions they did there would have been even more bloodshed than there was. Plus, they also said that the affirmative action had to be pushed, if it wasn't, nothing would have ever changed. Now, of course, all the decisions are being reevaluated but there remains such a wide gap between education, money and opportunity between whites and black that it will be a long, long time before there's any real equality.

We don't live in a meritocracy, unfortunately. Other than being female, I had a lot of privileges growing up - white, good education, stable home and loving family, etc. I recognize that I got a lot of breaks others didn't. I'm all for a system to help even the odds a little.

Is the current system, (I refer to the US), fair? Is it the best? I really have no idea. It's better than nothing, probably, but it should likely be reevaluated on a regular basis.

 

[the captians wench]

I still think saying "our policy is to keep our eyes open for and mentor qualified non traditional management applicants" that's reasonable response. It's not doing anything but compensating for bias.

It was more than just keeping an eye out for qualified people who just so happen to be minority. The message I recieved was "we have to put some minorities through the management program because we are getting shit for having a management staff made up mostly of white females". They set up an action plan on how important it is and how they plan to put more minorities in this program. They also have a head hunter looking specifically for minority candidates.

That was what tipped it for me. This head hunter has been told to focas on minority candidates. When you switch gears from "keep an eye out for people we might not normally consider" to "look specifically for this kind of candidate", that's where I have issues.

And for the record, I was barely paying attention to the court case mentioned. It just caught my attention at the end because it reminded me of my meeting and brought up all of those "I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this" feelings.

 

[minx1]

I think until we are at a stage where minority groups are properly represented and have equal access and the same opportunities to reach certain positions as every one else, there is a definite case for positive discrimination.

We have it in my line of work, where there are reserved women seats on some bodies and committees to make sure women are represented in what otherwise is a very male dominated field. It's not as bad as it was by any stretch of the imaginationand who knows there may not be that need for much longer.

So yeah, i agree with the principal of discriminating positively.

I think there has to be a way of monitoring it though, to ensure that it is for equality and representative purposes; to ensure it's fair and also legitimate...as I know that there are plenty of employers out there who still select minority and/or immigrants as a cheap source of labour.

 

[WriterDom]

NBA teams should be limited to 12.8% Blacks.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Take the names and races out of it. When promotions, admissions to college, whatever, depend on test scores and past performance, send in the test scores and performance reports as anonymous numbered datafiles. Pick the person(s) to be promoted/admitted/whatthefuckever based on the best match of datafile to the position. If that means more blacks/whites/purples get into the desirable positions, so be it - they earned it.

But then, I'm more a Spock than a Kirk.

 

[Homburg]

It kind of reminds me of an article I read calling for more black head coaches in the NFL. It really bothered me. I went to school with the guy that is the head coach of the Steelers, and he's a great guy, and obviously a winning coach, but there is the question there that asks if he got that position in part because the NFL was looking for black head coaches. That aggravates the snot out of me. He's a competent, winning coach, and there should be no question. Fortunately, in an environment like the NFL, winning is what matters, so very few people will ask, but the existence of it bothers me.

Every time I apply for a job and hit the EEO questionnaire, I feel weird. Sure, I check the "Asian" box, but it doesn't sit quite right with me. Whenever I do it, I wonder how much influence it might have on the hiring process. Hell, I had an acquaintance that was a LT for a local police dept offer me a job because I'm Asian. It wasn't quite that crass, as he knew me as a person and liked me, but it was still, "Dude, you're Asian? Apply for a job, and you'll get it!" In his case, he had a certain percentage of the population that was Asian and needed to represent that percentage, but was just getting zero applications with that "Asian" box checked. So it wasn't discrimination, it was lack of applicants. But it bugged me like crazy because if I'd done that, I would gotten that job based on something other than the content of my character.

 

[the captians wench]

It kind of reminds me of an article I read calling for more black head coaches in the NFL. It really bothered me. I went to school with the guy that is the head coach of the Steelers, and he's a great guy, and obviously a winning coach, but there is the question there that asks if he got that position in part because the NFL was looking for black head coaches. That aggravates the snot out of me. He's a competent, winning coach, and there should be no question. Fortunately, in an environment like the NFL, winning is what matters, so very few people will ask, but the existence of it bothers me.

Every time I apply for a job and hit the EEO questionnaire, I feel weird. Sure, I check the "Asian" box, but it doesn't sit quite right with me. Whenever I do it, I wonder how much influence it might have on the hiring process. Hell, I had an acquaintance that was a LT for a local police dept offer me a job because I'm Asian. It wasn't quite that crass, as he knew me as a person and liked me, but it was still, "Dude, you're Asian? Apply for a job, and you'll get it!" In his case, he had a certain percentage of the population that was Asian and needed to represent that percentage, but was just getting zero applications with that "Asian" box checked. So it wasn't discrimination, it was lack of applicants. But it bugged me like crazy because if I'd done that, I would gotten that job based on something other than the content of my character.

That is exactly my point. Okay so a shift manager at any fast food joint is not a rocket scientist, but there is a tradmendous lack of applicants period, let alone ones of this race or that one. So what happens is when we get one, they try to skip them through the program very quickly just to fill some quota. A lot of times these people have no fucking clue how to manage, they have no people skills, and they have very little professionalism (though admitidly very few managers period in this industry even know what professionalism means). It kills me that some one who is extreamly qualified will get pushed to the back burner in order to push through some one who "comes from a more diverse background".

 

[minx1]

I think its just some way of beginning to address inequalities. socially and economically more needs to be done.
I will play devils advocate...without measures like affirmative action don't we just perpetuate these inequalities?

What other alternative measures do people suggest?

 

[PertPerth]

I've spoken a lot about this topic - I'm a 30 year old woman in the oil industry. Not only am I in the minority with my gennder, but also with my age. I beleive that, if a company is big enough, then diversity should be encouraged. Encouraged, but not enforced with "quotas" (ie X% of staff need to be black, and Y% of staff need to be female).
In small companies, however, it doesn't seem to work quite the same way. There is a critical mass at which diversity becomes productive, rather than someone not fitting in with the rest of the group.

 

[the captians wench]

I think its just some way of beginning to address inequalities. socially and economically more needs to be done.
I will play devils advocate...without measures like affirmative action don't we just perpetuate these inequalities?

What other alternative measures do people suggest?

How about focasing on educating these people and insuring that the same oportunities are avalible to every one?

How does putting a less qualified candidate in a position help anyone? If that person is not qualified for a possision then they are more likely to fail. They will have more stress. And they are likely to be impacted greatly in a negitive way. Setting a person up for failure does not help them. I don't care where they come from.

 

[minx1]

In small companies, however, it doesn't seem to work quite the same way. There is a critical mass at which diversity becomes productive, rather than someone not fitting in with the rest of the group.

And thats the point I guess; that we reach a level of diversification where ''fitting in'' because you are the one who is a different sex, colour or cultural background is no longer a factor.
Otherwise aren't we just maintaining the existing group and perpetuating the lack of representation?

 

[minx1]

How about focasing on educating these people and insuring that the same oportunities are avalible to every one?

How does putting a less qualified candidate in a position help anyone? If that person is not qualified for a possision then they are more likely to fail. They will have more stress. And they are likely to be impacted greatly in a negitive way. Setting a person up for failure does not help them. I don't care where they come from.

Absolutely, I completely agree that people from minority groups should have the same access to education and training. But thats not always the case whether its for financial reasons or other socio economic reasons.

As for less qualified candidates; the ones I know of have been slightly less qualified I guess, but not to the point where they cannot fulfil their role.
I also think that if a company goes down that route the onus should be on them to train and develop the person to ensure they are able to fulfil their duties and not set them up for failure. They are afterall, not there as a token gesture....or at least shouldn't be.

 

[Netzach]

It was more than just keeping an eye out for qualified people who just so happen to be minority. The message I recieved was "we have to put some minorities through the management program because we are getting shit for having a management staff made up mostly of white females". They set up an action plan on how important it is and how they plan to put more minorities in this program. They also have a head hunter looking specifically for minority candidates.

That was what tipped it for me. This head hunter has been told to focas on minority candidates. When you switch gears from "keep an eye out for people we might not normally consider" to "look specifically for this kind of candidate", that's where I have issues.

And for the record, I was barely paying attention to the court case mentioned. It just caught my attention at the end because it reminded me of my meeting and brought up all of those "I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this" feelings.

At my college we had a whole division whose job it was was to look for minority applicants.

I still got through, no one came to take away my grants, it was fine. There were even other poor white girls graduating with me.

 

[graceanne]

Take the names and races out of it. When promotions, admissions to college, whatever, depend on test scores and past performance, send in the test scores and performance reports as anonymous numbered datafiles. Pick the person(s) to be promoted/admitted/whatthefuckever based on the best match of datafile to the position. If that means more blacks/whites/purples get into the desirable positions, so be it - they earned it.

But then, I'm more a Spock than a Kirk.

Wow, that'd be almost TOO SMART!

 

[Sir_Winston54]

.... I had an acquaintance that was a LT for a local police dept offer me a job because I'm Asian. It wasn't quite that crass, as he knew me as a person and liked me, but it was still, "Dude, you're Asian? Apply for a job, and you'll get it!" In his case, he had a certain percentage of the population that was Asian and needed to represent that percentage, but was just getting zero applications with that "Asian" box checked. So it wasn't discrimination, it was lack of applicants. But it bugged me like crazy because if I'd done that, I would gotten that job based on something other than the content of my character.

Based on the facts you presented here, you would have gotten the job *not* because you were Asian, but because he knew you as a person and liked you, and because of that, suggested that you apply for the position, knowing that you were a shoo-in because you had that one other factor in your favor.

Had he not known you, known your character and qualifications, *just* that you were Asian... do you think he still would have suggested you apply?

 

[MisterSir]

The case, basically, was about a firefighter (or some sort of service officer) who was turned down for a promotion, even though his test scores were the highest, because the state was worried about offending minority candidates.

Ironic. They worry about offending minorities and in taking action against it, offend the majority.

 

[satindesire]

Take the names and races out of it. When promotions, admissions to college, whatever, depend on test scores and past performance, send in the test scores and performance reports as anonymous numbered datafiles. Pick the person(s) to be promoted/admitted/whatthefuckever based on the best match of datafile to the position. If that means more blacks/whites/purples get into the desirable positions, so be it - they earned it.

THIS ^^^^

This is what we have to do. No names, no race. Totally and completely colorblind, when it comes to employment. Then there is no question about fairness and racism.

This is YET ANOTHER reason I think college should be free. No one in the Western world deserves to be put in a position where they can't get a decent standard of living through a good career just because their parents were poor.

Hell, preschool, elementary, and high school are free. Why not college? These days you can't get a good job with just a diploma/GED anymore, you HAVE to have college. Obviously I'm not speaking of private schools or colleges like Yale or whatever.

Mister got offered a job as an ESL teacher in a really nice college here but couldn't get it JUST BECAUSE he didn't have a full college education. He'd be able to do it in skill, but not in technicality.