Jobs granted to visible minorities. (Affirmative Action)

Cyc

Cyc

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 11, 2000
Messages
11,370
Location
Canada
Here in Canada, we have a status quo that tells us to hire minorities based on their ethnicity, which would take precedent to the professional credentials of a majority race.
Does this approach not assume that there is an intrinsic inequality among employees and discrimination among employers?
Does this not neglect capitalism and even democracy by placing one faction of persons above another? (Either side, pick one.)
Furthermore, wouldn't employees of minority backrounds feel cheated to find out their position is obligatory and not necessarily earned?
I'm skeptical of this approach. It's a double-edged sword. This quota assumes that either employers are racist, or if not, then minorities aren't skilled enough to find employment based on their own credentials.
This is just another way that segregation is encouraged in North America.
[ 28 June 2002: Message edited by: Kyk ]
 
>>Does this approach not assume that there is an intrinsic inequality among >>employees and discrimination among employers?>>
Yes, because such an inequality does indeed exist. Even if employers are not explicitly racist in their thoughts and actions, statistics show that there is a disparity in the proportion of qualified applicant and numbers hired between minorities and the priviliged.
>> Does this not neglect capitalism and even democracy by placing one faction of persons above another? (Either side, pick one.)>>
Fuck capitalism. Capitalism is un-democratic. Affirmative action can be democratic in the sense that it addresses an existing injustice and thus is in society's interest.
>> Furthermore, wouldn't employees of minority backrounds feel cheated to find out their position is obligatory and not necessarily earned?>>
not necessarily. you'd have to ask the hieree. Also, you should note that affirmative action does NOT require the hiring of unqualified applicatants. It does, however, require or present as a goal that the racial proportions of those hired match that of the pool of qualified applicants.
in the end, affirmative action is an inadaquate band-aid. It may be somewhat helpful for the move towards an end to institutional racism, but more needs to be done.
ebola
np: mentallo and the fixer.
 
Alright ebola!, let's assume that minorities deserve the added distinction of being hired based on where they have lived.
What about minorities from Swaziland, Hungary, Germany, Australia or even Quebec? Are we assuming that there is not disrimination there?
I don't think that the evolutionary tinge of one's epidermis which is a product of simple Darwinian environmental factors, should make someone more eligible for employment.
 
I think the issue is that some employers will be racist, wether they admit it to themselves or not. Better looking ppl, taller ppl, etc., will most of the time get the job over someone who doesn't meet what society holds to be the ideal persona.
Although, i don't support affirmative action for the same reasons that you listed. It just creates and propagates stratification, and in the long run, is more detrimental than beneficial.
 
Thanks Rich.
The whole thing just reminds me of that kid in school who stuttered and got A's on every report card because of it.
I think people should be given the chance to earn good merit with the tools they have.
 
>>I don't think that the evolutionary tinge of one's epidermis which is a product of simple Darwinian environmental factors, should make someone more eligible for employment.>>
Right, I agree. But when racial minorities are put at a disadvantage, this puts whites at an advantage, thus the above could be an argument for afirmative action as well. :)
just being a dick.
Okay...what else. . .as for adding affirmative action programs based on these European nationalities that you've listed, this is currently unwarranted because there is no statistical trend of inequality, nor is there a cultural trend of discrimination. There may be isolated instances of prejudice, but no widespread program is warranted.
Affirmative action based on where someone lives may have some statistical support, but this is only because one's residence correlates with one's income and wealth which is a large status-builder in modern society. On that note, I do support the idea of an affirmative action program based on wealth.
ebola
np: not breathing
 
...
...
...
What happens when the person doing the hiring is black or chinese? Do they have to give whites extra leverage for hiring?
...
...
...
 
^^
I don't know. How many convenience store owners hire white suburban kids to work the counter?
 
Let's say you need to hire someone for your company to preform Task A, B, and C. Only two people apply for the job.
The first person held a position where he preformed task A for a year, and had another job where he was required to do B and C.
The other person who applied has no clue how to preform the job. He's also black.
The "fair" thing to do would be to give the job to the 'disadvantaged' person, but then again, you're only really hurting yourself. You could spend a month or two training the other guy for the job, but why do that when the first person is competant?
There's dozens of things that can make you 'disadvantaged' in the job market, including things like fear of public speaking, poor math skills, etc. If you're smart, you find ways around them. In a society where anyone can go to a public library and learn anything in a book "For Dummies", or better yet, attend a few community college courses, the only real 'disadvantaged' people are the ones not willing to help themselves.
 
i havent thought too in depth about this (no such policies exist in australia unless im sorely mistaken) but i think im against this.
i'd rather see disadvantaged groups get extra help with education, training and welfare than to be favoured at job interviews, because:
1. it puts the responsibility in the hands of the government rather than the employer, and the government should be better equipped to sort out problems of widespread inequality.
2. it would eliminate the chance that affirmative action policies would help segregate in the manner mentioned above. err... that is, theres less chance an average joe would develop a hatred for minorities people because he was passed up for a job in favour of a less qualified minority worker.
 
I agree Snrub, yet when they make the attempt at education's level to give fellowships, or actively recruit minorities or to bus children to better performing school districts, etc, people inevitably find problems with that too.
Since affirmative action is proposed to treat the problems caused by years of unequality in eduation and similar things, it really would make more sense to treat the source of the problem rather than the later effects.
My main problem with affirmative action, and the minority students that I have been in programs with have expressed the same concerns, is that when a minority gets a job, people would instantly assume reasons that they got the job to be other than their true abilities (even if they were the best person for the job!). That would have to hurt, and would cause the person to have to prove themselves so much more afterwards. :(
 
^
| I didn't think of that.
...Almost as if the discrimination doubled back and reversed on itself.
 
>>source of the problem rather than the
later effects.>>
this source is the way in which the social arrangement of capitalism arms man with the tools necessary to set up an exploitive hierarchy. certain groups end up oppressed. I agree that we should start at the source.
...
also, studies show that racial minorities often hold negative stereotypes of their own group like those of the larger society. "reverse racism" in the sense brought up in the thread above is largely a non-issue.
ebola
np: das ich
 
This kind of wanders a little, but is still related in topic.
My dad worked under another man at his office for several years. My dad is white, the other man is black. My dad was well qualified for both his and the higher job. He had worked hard as long as he'd been with the company and had proven himself beyond competent. It was believed/hoped by many higher up that he would be in charge of his department in the near future.
The other man was also well qualified for his job. But he had proven to be lazy and unsuccessful at his position. He had numerous "letters on file" documenting his ineffectiveness and unwillingness to do what his job required.
The company tried many times, without success, to transfer/demote/terminate my dad's boss. Each time he called up his hot shit lawyer made a huge scene threatening a discrimination suit, claiming that he was being targeted because of his race.
The company, often a target of lawsuits for a great number of things, employs its own top notch lawyers. Despite the "letters on file" it was determined that they would probably lose a suit and be required to keep him at his position. Courts tend to side with the poor minority being shit on by big business. So to avoid any more conflict, they let him be.
This man eventually fucked up too big for the company to let it slide and he was terminated. Even he realized at this point that lawsuit threats would be futile. My dad took over the job and in less than a year, the department was elevated to where it should have been for a long time.
He played the race card because he knew it would work and that fact pisses me off to no end.
-----
As for affirmative action...
Say a certain % of employers are racist and would not offer jobs to minoritites without coercion of some sort--this, of course, is true. Affirmative action enables them to be placed in these jobs despite the feelings of the employer. Now just why exactly would you want that job? Basically, if someone didn't want to hire me, then I don't want their fucking job! Once you get the job, the employer isn't going to all the sudden realize the error of their racist ways and start treating you real well, are they?
Ugh. I just hate the whole concept of affirmative action. I realize we probably can never completely take race out of employment decisions, but why purposely make it such an significant part of the criteria for hiring? It just seems a little backward to me.
 
Down with affirmative "racist" action.
And down with giving loans to students JUST BECUASE they are dark skinned!!
l
V
 
The way affirmative action was explained to me was like this:
Person A, and Person B, both have the exact same qualifications for the job. Lets say, they have the same exact resume.
Person A is "white", Person B is a minority.
If they are equal, and the employers decision would/should be random (either one is equally qualified for the job..), then, I think the employer should pick person B...
I look "white", and I live in the US, so therefore I DO have a very unfair advantage in this country. Not only in jobs..but..well..look around..racism is everywhere here!
If I was in the position of trying to get a job, and I was up against Person B, all else being equal, but Person B is black..I would be proud to give up the position to person B, because it IS and will be easier for me to find another job. Same thing with schools that support this kind of affirmative action, i'm all for it :)
 
I have a real problem with making decisions about people based on their skin colour. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try to justify it. Either you hire and promote based solely on ability or based on race (and are thus a racist).
But then again I personally do quite nicely from affirmative action. I was born in Oceania, my mother was born in Tanzania, my father born in the middle east, my grandparents were born in India (two of them), Scotland and Italy. So I tend to qualify for the "Other" box on forms. I am 100% white but fuck that skin colour shit, I'm from a moxed ethnic background!!!
Harry
 
and it is very interesting to me, harry, that you - someone who admits, honestly, that he's benefited from affirmative action - is against it. very similar to people like clarence thomas (supreme court justice, allegedly), who was more than happy to use affirmative action to his advantage and now seeks to dismantle it.
hey, i'm white. i'll admit that there have been times when i've thought, "geeez. that person got a job that i may have been more qualified for, just because he/she is hispanic, black, etc. no fair!"
but do a little reading. educate yourself. see how minorities are STILL, even with the existence of affirmative action and everything else, at a disadvantage. at least in this country (US). i'm all for treating people "equally" but you know what? people are born into circumstances that just AIN'T equal. and it's a disproportionate amount of blacks and hispanics who are born into less than good circumstances. so why shouldn't we give people of those disadvantaged groups a little extra help?
:::puts on flame-retardant suit:::
[ 12 July 2002: Message edited by: Txteacher ]
 
and it's a disproportionate amount of blacks and hispanics who are born into less than good circumstances. so why shouldn't we give people of those disadvantaged groups a little extra help?
Because it's still a stereotype to base any decision about another person on his/her ethnicity alone.
If we truly are to eliminate the disparities between races, we'll need to stop looking at minorities as underpriveleged, unskilled and unable to achieve what others can. We need to look at people as simply and objectively as possible.
Suppose we did eliminate affirmative action. Of course, the consequential demographics would show that minorities are still impoverished and have a greater statistic of unemployment. People would then see this move as counterproductive. I disagree.
There are some valid reasons why minorities are often not skilled enough for jobs. These have nothing to do with race or stereotype, but simply the difficulties of integrating into a society extremely different from one you've been inundated with.
1.) In my opinion, any job in public service should not be granted to a minority who cannot speak fluent and articulate English. Too often, I call Rogers help desk, only to find myself trying to decipher the broken English of someone who would definitely be more qualified somewhere else.
2.) Minorities often immigrate with credentials that do not meet the standards of U.S. or Canada's institutional system and therefore find it difficult to find a job in their field. Programs are currently set up to accommodate these people and bring their credentials up to par. However, not everyone takes advantage of these programs and not everyone will have the resources to. It's an unfortunate reality, but our Country's standards should not decline in proportion to the standards of those who move here.
3.) Because of the poverty of some existing minorities, the offspring will undoubtedly be faced with like challenges as well. Poverty is not conductive for education and furthering oneself to prosperity. Therefore, the offspring of these minorities will consequentially not meet the criteria of many places of employment.
These three factors will be apparent in demographics that measure race:employment ratio. Despite this, affirmative action is not justified. Many of the difficulties that minorities face are simply the product of immigration and the challenges upon moving to a completely foreign Country.
It should be totally implicit by now that moving to another Country will not be an easily accommodated change. The differences from one Country to another, including language, customs, government etc, will put any foreign immigrant at a disadvantage. It is those who overcome these challenges who should and will reap the benefits of a lucrative lifestyle.
Those who don't overcome the mandatory challenges of integration will encounter the disadvantes of anyone, white, black or hispanic, who fails.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top