Affirmative Action may be on the way out

Jam Stunna · Jan 11, 2009

Finally!

http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/01/10/news/a1_--_supremes.txt

The key question to be answered in the case is this: Can a municipality disregard results of a civil service exam, crafted to be race-neutral, on grounds that the exam yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of the other? Legal observers have said the answer would be a landmark decision that could have far-reaching workplace ramifications, since the case argues a set of complicated issues that have not been answered yet by any settled body of existing legal precedent.

The controversy dates back to 2003 when the city administered two promotional exams for fire lieutenant and fire captain. When the results came back, however, those at the top of the lists were virtually all white, prompting a series of contentious public hearings in early 2004 to determine whether the lists should be certified.

The city asserted the exams made a disparate impact on minority firefighters, and if the city were to proceed with promotions it would open itself to potential employment discrimination lawsuits from minorities. The Civil Service Commission did not certify the exam.

The lawsuit, filed in 2004, asserted that it was race-based politics, and not altruistic motives, that scuttled the exams, and that in doing so, the city instead violated the civil rights of the white firefighters who would have otherwise been promoted.

tl;dr- basically, a bunch of firefighters took a promotion test, and everyone who scored well was white or Hispanic. The city threw out the test results because of it's "disparate impact" on minority firefighters, and as a result the firefighters who scored well were never promoted.

In case some of you don't know, I'm a black guy. I also hate Affirmative Action. I find it to be an insulting and racist policy. It presumes that I, as a black man, cannot make it on my own through hard work and determination because I'm either too stupid to achieve, or every white person in America is an intractable racist who will never let me get ahead regardless of how qualified I am. They threw out test results because people with darker skin didn't do as well as people with lighter skin. No matter what the intentions are, THAT'S STILL RACISM.

Man, I hope the Supreme Court sides with the firefighters, I really do. As Justice Roberts said a few years ago, "The only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race."

aeghrur · Jan 11, 2009

Oh seriously? That's pretty awesome, lol.
It's about time Affirmative Action is gone as I believe it's preventing people truly facing racism. If you do not face the enemy, how can you destroy it? All they're doing is trying to hide it... with more racism. =/

Overload · Jan 11, 2009

Isn't affirmative action around because of the socioeconomic effect slavery had on African Americans? When the slaves were freed many of them couldn't really hold down a job because of the racism, so they didn't have much money, and this ended up carrying on which is why affirmative action was brought about. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Despite this I still agree with you that affirmative action doesn't really need to exist, at least not anymore.

cmpr94x · Jan 13, 2009

These days, I do not think that affirmative action is at all necessary. Back then, I can see why it was instated but...in my opinion, its kind of pointless now.

cF=) · Jan 13, 2009

Was it specified somewhere in the article if they had to write their racial group on the exam? A friend of mine to whom I talked about this issue said he read some psychology papers about that. Remarkably, it seems that asking someone about his race during an exam will have an impact, somehow, about the grades while asking the question later shows perfectly similar results between the same groups. It's still an unexplained phenomenon to what I know...

Maybe that had something to do?

LordoftheMorning · Jan 13, 2009

In case some of you don't know, I'm a black guy. I also hate Affirmative Action. I find it to be an insulting and racist policy. It presumes that I, as a black man, cannot make it on my own through hard work and determination because I'm either too stupid to achieve, or every white person in America is an intractable racist who will never let me get ahead regardless of how qualified I am. They threw out test results because people with darker skin didn't do as well as people with lighter skin. No matter what the intentions are, THAT'S STILL RACISM.

YES!

You know what's even worse? No one will listen to this argument when I make it because "I'm white and therefore don't understand."

These days, I do not think that affirmative action is at all necessary. Back then, I can see why it was instated but...in my opinion, its kind of pointless now.

I agree. Racism, IMO, should have been done for decades ago, but politicians and the media keep bringing it back.

Hive · Jan 14, 2009

I think affirmative action is warranted to some degree...
especially for different races and sexualities that might have trouble finding jobs... so I'm kinda sad to see this go

The point though is not to just make each company have to hire a certain percentage of race/sexuality though on that degree only....
However, even when people who have the same educational backgrounds and career backgrounds and apply for a job, people who are non-white and non-straight get hired LESS even with the same credentials, especially in the south. And THIS is what I think needs to be corrected. Take the transsexual community for example, transsexuals as a whole actually have a higher iq than the normal population, however when it comes to being hired they are hired 60% less than people with the same credentials. This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. The point is not to introduce any sort of "favoritism" or "penalties for prior transgressions by one group of people," that would be wrong.. the point I think though is to fix the already existing prejudice against these people that can be observed noticeably in everyday business statistics.

RDK · Jan 14, 2009

Race should have absolutely nothing to do with job positions or school entrances.

If I own a firm or a business, I'm going to hire people who aren't a specific race--that's ********. I hire the people who are most the competent and who I know will do a good job. If my whole staff turns out to be all blacks or all hispanics, so what? Why should that change anything? All that matters is whether or not they're right for the job.

All affirmative action does is make it harder for truly competent people to get good jobs and get into good schools. Affirmative action makes sure that you have to fill a quota on what percent of your staff (or school) is of a certain race, so that it creates a "more diverse work environment". How screwed up is that?

Hive · Jan 14, 2009

RDK said:
All affirmative action does is make it harder for truly competent people to get good jobs and get into good schools. Affirmative action makes sure that you have to fill a quota on what percent of your staff (or school) is of a certain race, so that it creates a "more diverse work environment". How screwed up is that?

It doesn't though... it also makes it so that people who are EQUALLY competent have the same ability to get a job regardless of race/sexuality etc...
You're right, I think, that a persons sexuality, gender or race shouldn't have anything to do with a hiring process... which is why I think we need to have affirmative action- to limit the already existing prejudices in the hiring process.
And I think that's the difference in how we see this at least

When we look at hiring statistics for races/sexes/sexualities etc... you can actually see the differences in wages, and positions for a number of people who have equal degrees but different physical backgrounds. Women for example are hired less than men in the workplace... does this mean that we are dumber (agree with this and die... )? <.< Women actually do better on competency tests in most fields. However, this still doesn't prevent employers from hiring us less.... and legally since all they need to say is that they hired someone with "more potential, etc..." they can avoid any legal difficulties, most likely they have even convinced themselves they are being "fair" (sexualties get discriminated way too much btw by people convinced of how "fair" they are being). The point I think why affirmative action is needed then is so that "competency" is actually the main criteria for hirning... and to do this it needs to balance out prejudices that can be seen statistically in the hiring process already.

manhunter098 · Jan 14, 2009

Except in places where there is essentially already equal, in which cases it creates inequality...

Hive · Jan 14, 2009

yes but there aren't many places where there aren't these inequalities... in these places though, yea, it should be toned down... however even in supposedly diverse communities noticeable hiring differences occur....
affirmative action CAN be toned down I think... I don't think it should be removed however....
in most places though it doensn't create inequalites though, it helps correct already existing prejudices....
most of the time its actually not even strong enough to account for even half of the hiring prejudices though...

Overload · Jan 14, 2009

The question is are more or less people getting screwed with it in place as opposed to it not being in place?

Hive · Jan 14, 2009

People aren't getting screwed by it though... I don't think affirmative action even halfway accounts for the prejudices against some people....

even races with similar education experience only receive about 75% of the same wages...
take this statistic for example:

A black high-school dropout earns 67.5% of the income of a white high-school dropout.
A Hispanic high-school dropout earns 78.6% of the income of a white-high school dropout.
A black high school graduate earns 73.3% of the income of a white high school graduate.
A Hispanic high school graduate earns 78.4% of the income of a white high school graduate.
A black individual with some college earns 76.3% of the income of a white individual with some college.
A Hispanic individual with some college earns 77.0% of the income of a white individual with some college.
A black college graduate earns 72.5% of the earnings of a white college graduate.
A Hispanic college graduate earns 76.6% of the earnings of a white college graduate.

references: ^ Schiller, Bradley. The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008.
^ Osberg, Lars. Economic Inequality in the United States. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1984.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/crcusdc06.txt
affirmative action- US bureau of justice (this is a text of the affirmative action law)

RDK · Jan 14, 2009

Hive said:
People aren't getting screwed by it though...

Did you even read the article Jam posted in the OP?

manhunter098 · Jan 14, 2009

Hive said:
yes but there aren't many places where there aren't these inequalities... in these places though, yea, it should be toned down... however even in supposedly diverse communities noticeable hiring differences occur....
affirmative action CAN be toned down I think... I don't think it should be removed however....
in most places though it doensn't create inequalites though, it helps correct already existing prejudices....
most of the time its actually not even strong enough to account for even half of the hiring prejudices though...

Um? These places are actually every single business with an owner who doesnt discriminate...and even if you think thats a minority it is a SUBSTANTIAL number of employers.

Firus · Jan 14, 2009

Hive said:
It doesn't though... it also makes it so that people who are EQUALLY competent have the same ability to get a job regardless of race/sexuality etc...

Affirmative Action doesn't say "If someone is equally qualified, or more qualified, for a job, you have to consider them." It says you have to meet a certain quota. So if you have to hire a minority to meet your quota and the only minority applying is less qualified than everyone else, you're being completely messed up as a business.

You're right, I think, that a persons sexuality, gender or race shouldn't have anything to do with a hiring process... which is why I think we need to have affirmative action- to limit the already existing prejudices in the hiring process.

Except affirmative action does JUST THAT. By forcing companies to hire a certain quota of minorities, some people are hired because they have a certain race or gender.

And I think that's the difference in how we see this at least
When we look at hiring statistics for races/sexes/sexualities etc... you can actually see the differences in wages, and positions for a number of people who have equal degrees but different physical backgrounds. Women for example are hired less than men in the workplace... does this mean that we are dumber (agree with this and die... )? <.< Women actually do better on competency tests in most fields. However, this still doesn't prevent employers from hiring us less.... and legally since all they need to say is that they hired someone with "more potential, etc..." they can avoid any legal difficulties, most likely they have even convinced themselves they are being "fair" (sexualties get discriminated way too much btw by people convinced of how "fair" they are being). The point I think why affirmative action is needed then is so that "competency" is actually the main criteria for hirning... and to do this it needs to balance out prejudices that can be seen statistically in the hiring process already.

You seem to be making the assumption that if a qualified race/gender doesn't get hired, the direct cause of it is that they have a certain gender or race. Isn't it at all possible that there are other reasons? You seem to be so convinced that they're "avoiding" legal difficulties, and merely "convincing themselves they are being fair". It sounds more like you're paranoid than the companies are evil and racist/sexist, no offense. I don't have proof either way, but I don't imagine you do either. Women getting hired less is not solid proof of this -- the only conclusion you can draw from the data is that less woman are getting hired, unless you interview the company and ask them if they're sexist, and they truthfully reply.

BFDD · Jan 14, 2009

A black high-school dropout earns 67.5% of the income of a white high-school dropout.
A Hispanic high-school dropout earns 78.6% of the income of a white-high school dropout.
A black high school graduate earns 73.3% of the income of a white high school graduate.
A Hispanic high school graduate earns 78.4% of the income of a white high school graduate.
A black individual with some college earns 76.3% of the income of a white individual with some college.
A Hispanic individual with some college earns 77.0% of the income of a white individual with some college.
A black college graduate earns 72.5% of the earnings of a white college graduate.
A Hispanic college graduate earns 76.6% of the earnings of a white college graduate.

If people can pay minorities less money for the same job, then wouldn't they want to hire them? It makes good business sense to hire the cheapest labor. If there are two equally qualified people the best idea for the employer is to hire the minority(assuming your claim is correct) because they can pay them less for the same work. You also claim that minorities get hired less. If this is true there are some terrible businessmen in this country.

There are other factors involved. Just because they make less doesn't mean you can assume they are getting unfairly paid less because of their race.

Overload · Jan 14, 2009

I don't think minorities make less at the same jobs, I think they just usually end up with lower paying jobs.

Crimson King · Jan 15, 2009

Overload said:
I don't think minorities make less at the same jobs, I think they just usually end up with lower paying jobs.

This is correct.

The problem with affirmative action is it rewards laziness and incompetence, much the same way minimum wage does. If a black man with no skills applies for a job and gets it because of AA, what does that teach him? That if he wasted his money on a college education he would be no better or worse? The system in place rewards people for taking the easy way out.

Example: if I have a qualified white man and a qualified black man applying for a job, and they are equal in every way, I'd go for the black man because, at least don't here, black people try that much harder do a better job to break from the stereotypes that they are lazy, while white people think they deserve credit for nothing. This is a prejudice, and borderline racist view, even though it's in FAVOR of a minority.

The point is with Affirmative Action you are awarding people for not being better, but for being born a certain way, and that's just wrong.

Hive · Jan 15, 2009

They get worse jobs because of discrimination in the workplace, you can't always assume that they have lower wages on a whole because they are that percentage less qualified. People try to push this "just world scenario" too much I think.... we want to believe that competency is the main thing that is hired in a workplace but that isn't always the case at all. A study a few years ago showed, for example, that intelligence wasn't even proportional to how much a person makes, but that who you know and what you look like were better indications. In psychology I know I learned how attractive a person definitively effects how often a person gets hired and even how people perceive that person (how smart they are, how nice they are, etc..). Apperance unfortunately does matter...
There are plenty of people from each race that have the criteria and qualifications, people aren't forced to just pick someone who is unqualified... it doesn't reward laziness at all, these people still need to know what they are doing to get the job, it just also prevents from employers trying to overemploy people of one race, or sex.
Again like I said before, for example, in the transsexual community people are hired 60% less because of who they are. I hope no one tries to make the claim that they are 60% less qualified than other people, this is a direct effect of discrimination, and these kinds of cases are why companies need to have these sorts of hiring laws.
Because, employers WILL discriminate without them either knowingly or not.
Take asian americans for example, on a whole they are actually usually more qualified for tech positions then white people but STILL often times hired less....

BFDD · Jan 15, 2009

Apperance unfortunately does matter...

There is actually a study that shows mothers with ugly babies are less attentive to them than mothers with beautiful babies. I think that is really disturbing.

They get worse jobs because of discrimination in the workplace, you can't always assume that they have lower wages on a whole because they are that percentage less qualified. People try to push this "just world scenario" too much I think.... we want to believe that competency is the main thing that is hired in a workplace but that isn't always the case at all.

Sometimes yes people will discriminate based on race. Keep in mind those numbers you posted are taken with affirmative action in place. There is more than direct racism causing those numbers.

What happens with affirmative action is that it reverses racism. Companies can't always hire the more qualified person because they need to make race quotas. It also increases racism because now if a minority gets hired or promoted some people will just assume that it was because of race. Just read the OP. He explains why as a minority he hates affirmative action.

Hive · Jan 15, 2009

ok I changed my mind

(you wins! :D)

I still don't think that affirmative action can account even close to the amount of discrimination in the workplace..... however I also believe it is a little unsound in principle, even though it helps to end this....
it should be gotten rid of I guess, but the government does to seriously do more about discrimination still.

hopefuly before they get rid of affirmatie action then after it though... or else companies will use this to further the gap in wages in the in between time...
It makes me sad to say, but I just don't think that some people have equal opportunities bc of their race or sexuality in this country to get jobs...

and in most cases it isn't bc they were significanlty discriminated against, so its not like you can charge them for individual discrimination..., however they discriminate in small ways that I think build up over time...
I just hope getting rid of this won't damage these chances even more... I guess that's why I was so opposed to seeing it go at first...

pockyD · Jan 16, 2009

BFDD said:
There is actually a study that shows mothers with ugly babies are less attentive to them than mothers with beautiful babies. I think that is really disturbing.

haha, that sounds amazing... just having the guy running the study sift through a pile of the baby pictures and separate them into piles of "ugly" and "beautiful"

Yeah, affirmative action is dumb, and I can't believe that it's stuck around this long.... and what's up with the stupid Rooney rule in the NFL? How unproductive is that?

GoldShadow · Jan 16, 2009

Overload said:
Isn't affirmative action around because of the socioeconomic effect slavery had on African Americans? When the slaves were freed many of them couldn't really hold down a job because of the racism, so they didn't have much money, and this ended up carrying on which is why affirmative action was brought about. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That is exactly why AA was instituted in the first place.

It's also why I believe AA should remain, but not for race. I think AA should be used based on socioeconomic status, not race. The rich-poor gap is only growing larger, and while race and socioeconomic status do correlate, race is not the cause. That's why race-based AA is so flawed. Socioeconomic status-based AA makes much more sense.

Knyaguy · Jan 16, 2009

GoldShadow said:
That is exactly why AA was instituted in the first place.

It's also why I believe AA should remain, but not for race. I think AA should be used based on socioeconomic status, not race. The rich-poor gap is only growing larger, and while race and socioeconomic status do correlate, race is not the cause. That's why race-based AA is so flawed. Socioeconomic status-based AA makes much more sense.

I agree, but wouldn't some people try to be poor just so they can get an edge over competition?

LordoftheMorning · Jan 16, 2009

Once someone realizes that they can live while not working, the chances are they won't work. That's why communism fails. Giving money or jobs to people based on something other than merit (such as race) approaches communism and will receive the same negative effects on a smaller scale.

It also creates bitterness in those that don't get special treatment because of the color of their skin.

Aesir · Jan 16, 2009

Knyaguy said:
I agree, but wouldn't some people try to be poor just so they can get an edge over competition?

Then that person deserves a medal, if they're that desperate to gain the edge to throw themselves into poverty then they're a genius.

What I mean by poverty: Throwing yourself into a ghetto and making poor economic choices. That's the only reason you'll get an edge with what GS is talking about.

LordoftheMorning said:
Once someone realizes that they can live while not working, the chances are they won't work. That's why communism fails. Giving money or jobs to people based on something other than merit (such as race) approaches communism and will receive the same negative effects on a smaller scale.

Do you find something unfavorable and just stick communism next to it to somehow instill the red fear into us?

There's also no evidence to support that at all. Minorities and woman don't become lazy when you include affirmative action. Unless you have a study that proves other wise it's just blind speculation.

It also creates bitterness in those that don't get special treatment because of the color of their skin.

That bitterness existed LONG before affirmative action came around.

Jam Stunna · Jan 16, 2009

Aesir said:
1. Then that person deserves a medal, if they're that desperate to gain the edge to throw themselves into poverty then they're a genius.

What I mean by poverty: Throwing yourself into a ghetto and making poor economic choices. That's the only reason you'll get an edge with what GS is talking about.

2. Do you find something unfavorable and just stick communism next to it to somehow instill the red fear into us?

There's also no evidence to support that at all. Minorities and woman don't become lazy when you include affirmative action. Unless you have a study that proves other wise it's just blind speculation.

3. That bitterness existed LONG before affirmative action came around.

1. I don't doubt at all that people will begin to hide financial resources to qualify for help. Hell, they do it now.

2. You don't need a study to predict that when you lower the bar of achievement for people, they will go only as high as the bar is set.

3. How can bitterness about people getting race-based preference exist before the race-based preference did? Or better yet: black people were justifiably angry that they weren't able to get jobs due to their skin color, right? Now that AA has put the shoe on the other foot, why is it wrong for white people to be upset?

Aesir · Jan 16, 2009

Jam Stunna said:
1. I don't doubt at all that people will begin to hide financial resources to qualify for help. Hell, they do it now.

Maybe it's because I'm not a lazy person but to me this sounds just silly.

2. You don't need a study to predict that when you lower the bar of achievement for people, they will go only as high as the bar is set.

Okay I know you're not saying under qualified minorities get jobs/promotions over qualified majorities because there's studies that would disagree with that statement.

You do need studies to make the point creditable though. Without evidence the point is just baseless.

3. How can bitterness about people getting race-based preference exist before the race-based preference did? Or better yet: black people were justifiably angry that they weren't able to get jobs due to their skin color, right? Now that AA has put the shoe on the other foot, why is it wrong for white people to be upset?

Not what I meant. You're looking at my post at face value and not looking at the bigger picture. The negative view of minorities existed LONG before AA came into existence. To say AA is a reason for racism today is dishonest.

Affirmative Action today needs to be reworked it doesn't even do it's job let alone do it right. Affirmative Action should be more of a safety net to ensure company's and schools don't wrongfully discriminate.

RDK · Jan 16, 2009

Like I said, job applications and postitions should have nothing to do with the color of someone's skin and everything to do with whether or not that person deserves the job.

The only problem is that you can't objectively decide whether or not a company's or employer's motives are pure. When someone invents a way, then maybe we can fix Affirmative Action, but as of now it's doing more harm than good.

Mith_ · Jan 17, 2009

Well I do believe that it is time for AA to go. I don't know why it still exists today. If a person deserves a job then they should get it. Giving a minority a job even though they don't deserve it over a person that does deserve it is just as racist than not hiring them imo.

Evil Eye · Jan 19, 2009

From my early adolescence into adulthood I lived in a household that earned no paychecks and lived entirely off of sponging from various sources (my father, the government, etc) I have not had a comfortable or stable lifestyle. I'm moving out soon, and when I graduate from university after getting over a recent hiccup and hiatus, I am going to have a mountain of debt waiting for me.

I'm also white.

But of course, what do people see in a white guy? Medium-upper middle class, probably spoiled, blabbity blah blah.

I've got a serious disadvantage already through affirmative action, because I live in such a multi-ethnic city and nation. And yet, affirmative action is still seen as a concept of taking the oppressive jerk white man down a few notches and lifting the weak and inferior races get a leg up, y'know, because they're totally useless without the help. Canada wasn't into that whole slavery thing, but you try telling somebody that in a job interview.

But I find it especially disgusting that AA applies to emergency services jobs provided by the municipality, such as firefighters, or police officers -- the latter being a job I have vyed for since my early youth. Of course, the drive and determination isn't something that you can see and analyze within a fraction of a second.

People say that AA doesn't harm qualified applicants that are not of a non-white ethnicity or male, but it does. It really does, and this article is proof of that. And when qualified applicants aren't accepted or promoted because they're "not black enough" or "not enough women in the group"... well then. Isn't that, y'know, racism? Sexism? Stupid? Unnecessarily endangering the lives of the citizens???

But hey. You try telling them that.

Socioeconomic affirmative action is a great idea. Think of the shaft white males in cities where those of that race can be just as poor as any other race... Boston? Detroit? You're born walking on eggshells and crossing your fingers a whole lot if you make the crime of being born white in North America, but if you're born an impoverished white you've basically been cast deep into the ninth circle of Hell.

And I do believe laziness is to blame here. For socioeconomic affirmative action, "providing a balanced workplace" isn't as easy as saying you do so in your brochure and keeping your racial checklist handy. Employers have to actually look at the merits of the applicant and their lifestyle. That's a whole lot to ask, even though it's clearly the superior way to do things.

At any rate, it's good to see a [possible] step in the right direction.

Hive · Jan 20, 2009

you are wrong evil eye, white males aren't hurt in the hiring proces like other races, they are hired more than anyone else. Even with AA white males are hired more than anyone else by a long shot, and by hiring rates as well (not just due to population).
You may not like AA, that is within your right and depends on your opinion of it, but you really have no basis for complaining about not getting a job or being discriminated in the workplace from it.

Mr.Lombardi34 · Jan 20, 2009

Affirmative action is a ridiculous concept. It is the idea that somehow, the best way to counter racism is to reverse it, so that instead of one race having disadvantages, it's the other. This in itself is racism, which, by definition, is treating a person differently because of their skin color. AA needs to go, now.

Evil Eye · Jan 20, 2009

Don't be a dunce, Hive. The ratio of whites to visible minorities is inherently lopsided, even if you lump all visible minorities into a big ol' melting pot.

If there are two applicants that are about even in terms of qualifications, and one is white and the other is black, which one do you think is going to be hired? The existence of AA makes the black hire a guarantee, unless the person is a rampant racist, which is supposedly defeated by affirmative action (it isn't).

The mere fact that such a situation exists makes AA wrong, racist, condescending, and of course, harmful to caucasians that are jobhunting.

At least without AA, they'd go by the person that they like more. Then people won't be losing out on jobs because of their race and instead because they were a douchebag, or at least slightly less likeable than the other.

And don't try to tell me that visible minorities are harmed in jobhunting, either. If you come from a ghetto, you're going to be looked down on for that reason above any other, and that's why I support socioeconomic affirmative action. If you come from a solid background and have the right stuff, you'll get hired, even if you're a minority. In fact, it should be regardless of whether you're a minority. This is a situation that will exist in the absence of AA, unless you're going to try to prove to me that every darn employer out there is a savage but closeted racist.

Jam Stunna · Jan 20, 2009

It is funny how everyone assumes that every white person ever is sitting on tons of money.

SuperBowser · Jan 21, 2009

Certain jobs are extremely hard to get if you are an ethnic minority.

Evil Eye said:
If you come from a solid background and have the right stuff, you'll get hired, even if you're a minority. In fact, it should be regardless of whether you're a minority.

That's how it should be, but it's not. The first example from the top of my head would be an Asian woman attempting to become a barrister. It is more difficult, and anyone who claims otherwise should research more on the issue.

Even for my exams in university, there are laws around the country to protect people from racism. A study was done several years ago on how lecturers marked exam papers. They found that, even with identical answers, people who possessed a male white name were given more marks on average than someone with a female or foreign name - this is probably something that happens on a subconscious level rather than outright bigotry. When given the choice, lots of people simply prefer a white male. To prevent this, students only put their candidate number on papers and never their name now.

But still, I don't think affirmative action necessarily fixes the problem and a socioeconomic scheme would be fairer. Most of the people affirmative action aims to help are already in a lower socioeconimic group; but I don't see how this would stop people complaining about it being discrimination too...

Hive · Jan 21, 2009

Jam Stunna said:
It is funny how everyone assumes that every white person ever is sitting on tons of money.

I don't think anyone's assuming that...

White males still get favor in the hiring process though.
you guys keep missing that when you make theoretical situations though...

if a white male and black male with identical credentials are both being considered many of you still are under the impression that AA will make the black person hired more. However this is not the case. Preexisting bias in the hiring makes the white person more likely to be hired even with the AA.

pockyD · Jan 21, 2009

if the bias exists, then so be it. If a manager is more comfortable working with a white person than a black person, it should perfectly within their rights to choose the candidate they are more comfortable with

Jam Stunna · Jan 21, 2009

^If that level of comfort is purely based on the color of someone's skin, then I disagree. But if a black guy gives a terrible interview, then he shouldn't get the job.

Affirmative Action may be on the way out

Writer of Fortune

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

You know what? I am good.

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

I am become death

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Marsilea quadrifolia

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Writer of Fortune

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Selling the Lie

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Selling the Lie

Writer of Fortune

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Writer of Fortune

Information

Network