Affirmative Action

[Phi for All]

that may have been your most racist post yet.

Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well fallacies, as well as just being your same old argument.

[Coral Rhedd]

I would like to offer a little different perspective to this thread. To me affirmative action laws correct present time discrimination. There have been studies that have shown that a persistent discrimination in American culture is a discrimination based upon color, and that black people are more discriminated against than Hispanics for instance.

 

I believe this is true.

 

My additional perspective stems from the fact that I work with people with disabilities and have done job development to help them find work. Very often, with reasonable accomodations, disabled people can fill job requirements just as well as abled people. However, the reason I have moved away from doing job development is that my intervention usually required me to reveal that the prospective job applicant was disabled. Often this revelation alone, with no detailed description of the disability, resulted in discrimination before the prospective job applicant even filled out the paperwork.

 

More often I found that when I urged people to go in and apply on their own -- without revealing their disability -- they were more likely to get the job. Many of them managed to successfully do the job with no accomodations whatsoever.

 

Now I am no expert in the field of discrimination. However it seems to me, that, while one might hide an invisible disability, one cannot hide being black or being female. The only way we can make certain that no discrimination plays a role in employment is to remove from any human resource or supervisory position anyone who discriminates. Can anyone think of a way that this would be practical and doable?

[Phi for All]

Thank you, Coral, for focusing on a solution rather than the problem. Here's a thought: what if all job interviews were conducted anonymously, via internet or chatroom, so that race and gender could play no part in the decision?

[Skye]

The problem with that is that there are many jobs where you need to be able to assess someone face to face, such as for a position with leadership roles, customer service or public speaking.

[Coral Rhedd]

Thank you, Coral, for focusing on a solution rather than the problem. Here's a thought: what if all job interviews were conducted anonymously, via internet or chatroom, so that race and gender could play no part in the decision?

 

That would be a great solution to initial interviews. However, I can understand that a follow up interview would need to be conducted in person. There are nuances of personality and behavior that cannot be captured online.

 

I also think that the personal penalties that the people who hire suffer could be changed to hold them more accountable should they discriminate. Even if companies have clear antidiscrimination policies in place (and most of them do), they may not always know if discrimination is being practiced by the people doing the hiring. Of course, if they do find out this is the case then they move into a circle the wagons strategy to avoid a lawsuit.

 

For instance I found the following most astonishing circumstance. I picked up applications at a Dairy Queen in which the manager had handwritten that all potential employees must certify that they had had no illness in the past year and allow the management access to their medical records.

 

Needless to say, this is very much against the law.

 

I have had applicants be asked what church they attended and whether or not they had young children at home. These are also illegal questions. Anyone who thinks discrimination does not exist has his/her head in the sand.

 

I suggest that anyone who wants enlightenment take a look a some of the lawsuits against Wal-Mart. That alone should keep em busy.

[budullewraagh]

"Do you support quotas?"

not really, but i support class based affirmative action

[Phi for All]

Here is a great solution for a capatalist economy. Have temp agencies (who regularly screen for good employees anyway) do all of your permanent hiring from an approved set of non-discrimanatory criteria. The agencies could be audited for fair practices rather than individual companies, saving government costs. The agency's fee could be adjusted down since they are only doing the actual hiring and are not providing employees like their regular service does. Large companies can scale down their human resource departments to cover the extra cost of hiring this way. And the human resource people could go to work for the expanded temp agencies.

[Douglas]

"Do you support quotas?"

not really' date=' but i support class based affirmative action[/quote']Isn't class based affirmative action the same as quota's??

If I'm reading you right, all the classes through their money in the trough, then it's divied up with an equal quota to all classes.........No?

[ecoli]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a similiar situation in India, after the caste system was abolished. The lowest caste is getting special treatment (university priority especially) due to previous injustices. Anybody else hear this?

[budullewraagh]

"Isn't class based affirmative action the same as quota's??

If I'm reading you right, all the classes through their money in the trough, then it's divied up with an equal quota to all classes.........No?"

no. this should be considered case by case. a poor kid is going to have more difficulties getting into a certain college than a rich kid. the poor kid should have the advantage

[ecoli]

"Isn't class based affirmative action the same as quota's??

If I'm reading you right' date=' all the classes through their money in the trough, then it's divied up with an equal quota to all classes.........No?"

no. this should be considered case by case. a poor kid is going to have more difficulties getting into a certain college than a rich kid. the poor kid should have the advantage[/quote']

 

The poor kid does not need an advantage. As long he is as intelligent as the rich kid, the poor kid can rely on financial or merit-based scholarships to get him through school, as well as financial aid. There is no reason colleges should base acceptance on income.

[Coral Rhedd]

Of all the discriminations that I know of in American culture, I know of none more pervasive and casually accepted than that against the poor. We waste no time blaming people for being black, or female, or disabled (except in the case of some mental illnesses), but we like nothing better than to blame people for being poor.

 

I suggest we grant no special favors to the poor. To do so, would call into question the very underpinnings of American culture.

[ecoli]

I;m not blaming the poor for being poor. I;m simply stating that there's a lot of money out there for poor kids who wish to go to college.

[Coral Rhedd]

Sorry ecoli, as I was making a general observation. I am not saying that you specifically blame the poor for being poor. I can see that you would think I was saying so since my post followed yours. However, I believe that Budullewraagh will want to address his feelings that the poor should get some help with admissions. Given the American hostility to the poor I can only say that this might present some problems for them. I call this reasoning the Douglas approach.

[Flareon]

The poor kid does not need an advantage. As long he is as intelligent as the rich kid, the poor kid can rely on financial or merit-based scholarships to get him through school, as well as financial aid. There is no reason colleges should base acceptance on income.

 

I used to believe similar. Now after having been to various parts of the coutry, meeting people of many different backgrounds, having held fulltime jobs, applying for college, I've began to think differently. It's not as simple as being of equal intelligence.

[ydoaPs]

Here is a great solution for a capatalist economy. Have temp agencies (who regularly screen for good employees anyway) do all of your permanent hiring from an approved set of non-discrimanatory criteria. The agencies could be audited for fair practices rather than individual companies, saving government costs. The agency's fee could be adjusted down since they are only doing the actual hiring and are not providing employees like their regular service does. Large companies can scale down their human resource departments to cover the extra cost of hiring this way. And the human resource people could go to work for the expanded temp agencies.

 

but wait, that doesn't force discrimination to "level the playing field". this is a good idea. affirmative action is not.

[-Demosthenes-]

To me, the circumstances leading to a need for affirmative action is like catching someone cheating at a race. In this instance you can't disqualify the runner, so you penalize him. It would be unethical to just say, sorry, we won't cheat from here on in, just allow us this lead we've got and we'll call it even. I've tried to explain it several ways. Are you going to continue using the same argument?

Thah nothing to do with Affirmative action. No one is cheating, there is no reason to penalize anyone.

Now I am no expert in the field of discrimination. However it seems to me, that, while one might hide an invisible disability, one cannot hide being black or being female. The only way we can make certain that no discrimination plays a role in employment is to remove from any human resource or supervisory position anyone who discriminates. Can anyone think of a way that this would be practical and doable?

It doesn't matter, the Civil rights law was passed a long time ago, Affirmative action assumes that this law is a bunch of crap, I however won't give up on that law so easily.