A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Let's say you are an employer of a certain business in technologies. You have one job opening, and you have two candidates. Both are of the same sex, same socio-econimic status, and have identical qualifications. There is only one variable: one is white, and one is black.

You are not regulated by affirmative action, and you want to choose the best employee. You recall reading a study that conclusively found a correlation between race and IQ, and it was clearly demonstrated that white people, on average, get higher IQ scores than black people. This being the only meaningful variable, you believe that there is a slightly better chance that the white candidate will be smarter/perform better than the black candidate.

Your logic would be flawed. A random black person might be more likely to have a lower IQ, but what if we knew that the black person was applying to a skilled, white-collar job? Isn't it equally reasonable to believe that this study might suggest that such a correlation might mean that blacks are less likely to be in such a situation in the first place? Knowing that this particular black person is in this situation despite the increased unlikelihood, wouldn't this render whatever inference you drew from the data meaningless?

Moreover, surely you know that this situation never happens. We do not make judgements about people in a vacuum. When are we in situations when you deal with a "random black" or a "random white"? All these decisions must exist in some kind of context, and the presence of these persons in that context provides us with more partial information that we are undoubtedly better off using. Poker books are full of ways to interpret various factors at the table: what it's likely to mean if the fellow wears a bowtie, what it's likely to mean if the guy furrows his brow, what it's likely to mean if the guy bets in a certain situation, etc. But when we are actually at the poker table making these decisions, we are not judging categories; we are taking a critical look at the individual, and judging him.

Suggesting that it is somehow meaningful to take a test and say "well whites are more X and blacks are more Y" is preposterous. Race is but one small factor in drawing a conclusions about somebody, and we are always provided with more meaningful information. How old is this person? What sex is he/she? Education? Background? Family life? Political beliefs? Religious beliefs? What does this person dress like? What kind of personality does this person have?

The sum of these variables is far more important in elucidating a meaningful judgement. No one can make a judgement about someone in a vacuum based solely on race. If I tell you "person X checks...what hand do you think he is holding," you would certainly know that you have completely insufficient information to render a meaningful decision. Putting so much emphasis on one variable leaves you equally crippled in your decision making.

We run into other problems when we place so much emphasis on our grouping mechanisms. A lot of people on this forum believe that affirmative action is justified. When the groups are given identity, the logic is enticing: blacks, statistically, aren't making as much as whites. Blacks are more likely to come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, and the correlation between early SES and later success in life is well understood. Affirmative action results, therefore, in just redistribution: rich whites are giving to poor blacks.

But this is not the case. In any hiring situation where affirmative action is involved, two people who are going for the same job have their outcome influenced by the AA variable. Now, if it were the case that these people were random whites and blacks functioning in a vacuum, yes, it would be more likely that the white person got a better shot at life and should give the black person his/her turn. But you'd be ignoring the context: the two people in this situation are applying for the same job. The justification for the affirmative action in the first place, which assumed that white people are more likely to have better social positions than blacks, is inherently voided. You're not taking a job away from the higher, statistically average white person that you'd like to be taking it away from, and giving it to a disadvantaged black; you're taking a job away from some white schmo who, despite a slightly higher unlikelihood, is in the same [censored] position. It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions, but suddenly that doesn't sound very just, now does it? The only difference is that you have created a victim: the consumer, who now must be serviced by someone who was chosen for the job for any reason other than his qualifications.

And meanwhile, the guy writing the checks to the employee is still going to be very rich, very priviledged, and (probably) very white anyway.

Race is but one variable of our being. It is no better or worse than the style of our fingerprints, the size of our feet, or the color of our eyes. We could certainly correlate any one of these with socioeconomic variables, attempt some sort of affirmative action accordingly, affect entirely different lives than we would affect had we chosen to group people in another fashion. Race is not the core of our being. It is not the entirety of our being. There is more to a black person than being black, yet to suggest that someone's jobs should be decided by this variable is to give irrational and unnecessary emphasis on this variable. It also specifically means that we must give people different moral rights; that some should be forcibly allowed priviledges that others are not allowed. It is to fly against everything that the civil rights leaders fought for. You cannot have both equality of opportunity and equality of result. It is impossible.

Argue with my logic, not my personal position in life.



Sincerely,

A priviledged upper middle class white male

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was clever worldplay! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

PS You misspelled privileged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an African American have a lower IQ score because of genetics?

or is a social/political/economic condition perpetuated by the US since the 1700's that basically considers Blacks 2nd class status in everything from how they should be educated to where/how they can or cannot vote?

Actually, a black man who has risen to the point where he is as equally qualified as a white man is someone who is probably actually smarter and harder working then his white counterpart, because you can be sure he had to work a lot harder to get where he is and had to overcome a lot more things like bigotry and blind ignorance.

IQ is less important then drive and resolve anyways - I'd give the job to the African-American.

RB

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was clever worldplay! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, force of habit. Surely you know how quick I am to compare things to "fascism" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
PS You misspelled privileged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say, blacks are better spellers [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an African American have a lower IQ score because of genetics?

or is a social/political/economic condition perpetuated by the US since the 1700's that basically considers Blacks 2nd class status in everything from how they should be educated to where/how they can or cannot vote?

Actually, a black man who has risen to the point where he is as equally qualified as a white man is someone who is probably actually smarter and harder working then his white counterpart, because you can be sure he had to work a lot harder to get where he is and had to overcome a lot more things like bigotry and blind ignorance.

IQ is less important then drive and resolve anyways - I'd give the job to the African-American.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

you ENTIRELY missed what his post was about.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

I think your post describes the basics of conditional probability correctly, even if it's a bit long-winded. This conclusion, though,

[ QUOTE ]
It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions

[/ QUOTE ]

is incorrect IMO precisely because of the relatively small number of situations in which your hypothetical arises.

There are much fewer blacks in that socio-economic position, so the majority of companies having to satisfy AA rules are sitting there with mostly white employees and mostly white applicants with the occasional black applicant being significantly less qualified than the whites. In order to avoid being accused of discrimination they would have to discriminate against the whites by hiring the occasional underqualified black.

So basically the dilemma you desribe about choosing between equally qualified candidates is actually a rare (and lucky) situation for an employer to be in. I say lucky because he can hire the black to satisfy AA without compromising profitability. Most employers do have to compromise on profitability to satisfy AA rules.

If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference is that you have created a victim: the consumer, who now must be serviced by someone who was chosen for the job for any reason other than his qualifications.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a silly statement coming from a poker player. If the decision you have to make is truly a toss-up, then by definition it doesn't matter what you do, so there can't be any victims.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow..just wow.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think your post describes the basics of conditional probability correctly, even if it's a bit long-winded. This conclusion, though,

[ QUOTE ]
It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions

[/ QUOTE ]

is incorrect IMO precisely because of the relatively small number of situations in which your hypothetical arises.

There are much fewer blacks in that socio-economic position, so the majority of companies having to satisfy AA rules are sitting there with mostly white employees and mostly white applicants with the occasional black applicant being significantly less qualified than the whites. In order to avoid being accused of discrimination they would have to discriminate against the whites by hiring the occasional underqualified black.

So basically the dilemma you desribe about choosing between equally qualified candidates is actually a rare (and lucky) situation for an employer to be in. I say lucky because he can hire the black to satisfy AA without compromising profitability. Most employers do have to compromise on profitability to satisfy AA rules.

If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Darryl, are you from Vermont or something and never seen a black person? I'm definitely no 'our strength lies in our diversity ' kind of guy, but your Bridging Cultures 101 comment seems way out there. Care to elaborate what the heck you mean? And if not it is notions such as these that make affirmative action necessary.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Amazing. It took all those paragrahs to state a basic Rush Limbaugh principle.

DON'T click the picture on this link if you are a scary type person. http://www.muslimsout.org/videos/Videos.htm

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that perhaps our strength doesn't lie in our diversity? Off to re-education camp with you.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you are against affirmitive action, and instead are in favor of discrimination against blacks when they are more qualified than similar white applicants.

Call me crazy, but color shouldn't be a factor in the decision, and it should be based solely on who is most qualified-- whether white, black, purple, pink, or burnt orange.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Hi Kick,

I've been around the world and I've seen plenty of people of all colors. I'm not the type to make a blanket statement like "whites are better than blacks" in an overall sense and quite frankly I don't even believe this, despite having been called a white supremacist bigot on numerous occasions.

However, I see nothing wrong with people of any color wanting to hang out with people of the same color. And if there's a company with a homogenous group of employees who think this way and need to work together on various projects, then it could very well be the case that keeping this homogeneity is a plus for the overall business vs. introducing diversity.

So my point is that there may be factors in a hiring decision that go beyond an individual's qualifications. The expected chemistry with other employees is also a factor in some situations. If those other employees feel more secure working with people of a similar ancestry to themselves, then that will impact the bottom line whether anyone wants to talk about it or not. A prudent businessman will take this, along with the other factors, into consideration IMO.

Note that my views are symmetrical on this matter. If a Silicon Valley company was developing some new computer product and felt it would be advantageous to hire only Chinese people, I wouldn't be outraged, nor would I think anyone else should be. After all, we are free to start up a competing company and try to put them out of business by simply being superior. And if we can't be superior, then hats off to them for producing a world class product. I'll be right there in line when they put it up for sale.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that perhaps our strength doesn't lie in our diversity? Off to re-education camp with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I'm not advocating that everyone be like me. Maybe I'd be wrong and my homogenous company wouldn't be successful after all, but if this is the land of opportunity and freedom, I should at least be given a shot and not be quashed by discriminatory AA laws, don't you think?

Edit: If you were being sarcastic or making a joke, my apologies for missing it ... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only difference is that you have created a victim: the consumer, who now must be serviced by someone who was chosen for the job for any reason other than his qualifications.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a silly statement coming from a poker player. If the decision you have to make is truly a toss-up, then by definition it doesn't matter what you do, so there can't be any victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision isn't a toss-up.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, you are against affirmitive action, and instead are in favor of discrimination against blacks when they are more qualified than similar white applicants.

Call me crazy, but color shouldn't be a factor in the decision, and it should be based solely on who is most qualified-- whether white, black, purple, pink, or burnt orange.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all my employees thought this way, then I would agree. It really depends on the situation I suppose. In any case, I don't think the government should intervene since the market will eventually reward those businesses that make the best hiring decisions anyway.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

What you are saying is that, because he is more conducive to production, the person of similar race is actually more productive, given the social repurcussions.

There is actually some truth to this. A black worker may do more harm than good if he's working in a firm full of FlFishOn's friends.

This isn't something that can be remedied by a government order or social program, though. This is society's responsibility to wake up, and stop thinking that the black guy who just moved in is going to break into your house, steal your TV, pawn it and buy crack [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
The decision isn't a toss-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your scenario was about choosing between two identically qualified candidates, right? AA laws basically force the company to hire the black one, and you are saying this is unfortunate because race is being forced upon the employer as a factor when it shouldn't be. Is this a good paraphrasing?

If so, then how does the consumer lose out if the other choice would have involved someone with the same qualifications who would have done the same work to produce the same products/services at the same price????

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your scenario was about choosing between two identically qualified candidates, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

My scenario also assumed affirmative action didn't exist, and had nothing to do with AA. It had to do with pointing out the fallacy of using racial statistics in a vacuum.

I then went on to point out that you'll almost never have two employees that are equally qualified. AA isn't about giving black people the edge in a toss-up, it's about forcing businesses to hire based on race rather than qualifications, which can do nothing but hire less qualified people. That's what hurts the consumer.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that perhaps our strength doesn't lie in our diversity? Off to re-education camp with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I'm not advocating that everyone be like me. Maybe I'd be wrong and my homogenous company wouldn't be successful after all, but if this is the land of opportunity and freedom, I should at least be given a shot and not be quashed by discriminatory AA laws, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with Daryl here, and I think some of you are taking what he says the wrong way. He is not implying that whites are superior to blacks, simply that an employer should be able to do whatever he thinks will help his profit line, even if it is at whim.

Let's suppose I (white male) apply for a job at the local Chinese restaurant. The workers there all prefer speaking Cantanese amongst themselves, and they benefit from the commaraderie of working with people they psychologically feel more comfortable around. I do not think there would be anything wrong with the restaurant owner hiring a Chinese person instead of me, even if I was more qualified. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

OK fair enough, I guess I misunderstood. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Kick,

I've been around the world and I've seen plenty of people of all colors. I'm not the type to make a blanket statement like "whites are better than blacks" in an overall sense and quite frankly I don't even believe this, despite having been called a white supremacist bigot on numerous occasions.

However, I see nothing wrong with people of any color wanting to hang out with people of the same color. And if there's a company with a homogenous group of employees who think this way and need to work together on various projects, then it could very well be the case that keeping this homogeneity is a plus for the overall business vs. introducing diversity.

So my point is that there may be factors in a hiring decision that go beyond an individual's qualifications. The expected chemistry with other employees is also a factor in some situations. If those other employees feel more secure working with people of a similar ancestry to themselves, then that will impact the bottom line whether anyone wants to talk about it or not. A prudent businessman will take this, along with the other factors, into consideration IMO.

Note that my views are symmetrical on this matter. If a Silicon Valley company was developing some new computer product and felt it would be advantageous to hire only Chinese people, I wouldn't be outraged, nor would I think anyone else should be. After all, we are free to start up a competing company and try to put them out of business by simply being superior. And if we can't be superior, then hats off to them for producing a world class product. I'll be right there in line when they put it up for sale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well one can legitimately hold this view, although I don't feel it is one that is applicable in most work environments. However this view can easily be abused by an employer who wants to actively discriminate, he can say 'well I was just looking out for my work environment and doing what I felt would maximize productivity, that's why I never hire any non-Caucasians'. Who could argue? Too easy to abuse.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe 5 white people might be easier working with a white guy then a black guy because of people like you running around saying it'll be uncomfortable? More comfortable working with people that share the same ancestory? Why is that not something that comes to my head when Im talking to someone? "hm, he doesn't have Irish and German grandmother, only italian and puertica rican, now it'll just be to awkward."

It's 2006, black and white people have been intermingling for a while now, sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable.

For the record I am 100% against AA in all it's forms.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well one can legitimately hold this view, although I don't feel it is one that is applicable in most work environments. However this view can easily be abused by an employer who wants to actively discriminate, he can say 'well I was just looking out for my work environment and doing what I felt would maximize productivity, that's why I never hire any non-Caucasians'. Who could argue? Too easy to abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

your assuming that there will be no repricusions (sp?) from the free market for discrimination.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well one can legitimately hold this view, although I don't feel it is one that is applicable in most work environments. However this view can easily be abused by an employer who wants to actively discriminate, he can say 'well I was just looking out for my work environment and doing what I felt would maximize productivity, that's why I never hire any non-Caucasians'. Who could argue? Too easy to abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

your assuming that there will be no repricusions (sp?) from the free market for discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repercussions from the free market may or may not occur or be of consequence to the employer, this is a separate issue from the morality of allowing people to be racially discriminatory in their hiring practices.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that maybe 5 white people might be easier working with a white guy then a black guy because of people like you running around saying it'll be uncomfortable? More comfortable working with people that share the same ancestory? Why is that not something that comes to my head when Im talking to someone? "hm, he doesn't have Irish and German grandmother, only italian and puertica rican, now it'll just be to awkward."


[/ QUOTE ]

My observations are that the shorter and less significant the interaction, the less it matters what someone's ancestry is.

Of course I could do a business transaction or even have a business partnership with anyone of any background, and the differences wouldn't matter. But if you identify closely with your job and view your colleagues as an extended family of sorts, then it could make a difference.

Some people insist on having family businesses and excluding everyone who is non-family. I suppose you don't see a problem in that, right? Others accept all comers. This is the modern norm so that can't be bad either. What's wrong philosophically with drawing the line somewhere in between? What if race is not specifically mentioned but I only hire people I like and they happen to be mostly white? Would I be doing something wrong? If so, then why can't I choose people I like to work with for whatever reason I want?

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is society's responsibility to wake up, and stop thinking that the black guy who just moved in is going to break into your house, steal your TV, pawn it and buy crack [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah let's wake up and disregard all statistics..

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who could argue? Too easy to abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets consider someone who does abuse it and never hires blacks because of pure racism. Does he gain from this?

If so, why? I mean if he's foregoing opportunities to hire good workers and leaving them for his competitors, then how can that be good for him in the long run?

If it's not good for him, then why not just let him shoot himself in the foot and have him find out the hard way?

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]

If all my employees thought this way, then I would agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who exactly runs the company? You, or your employees?

Maybe it's just me, but if it were my company, my employees are going to follow my marching orders, not vice versa.

And if a group of employees are going to tell me they can't work with someone who is more qualified because of their skin color.....then it's their asses that are going to be finding new jobs while I bring in the folks most qualified.

But then again, the inmates don't run my asylum.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your scenario was about choosing between two identically qualified candidates, right? AA laws basically force the company to hire the black one, and you are saying this is unfortunate because race is being forced upon the employer as a factor when it shouldn't be.


[/ QUOTE ]

AA laws don't force you to hire the black guy when all things are equal. That is a common misconception, and it may be different in some states due to local laws, but as far as I know, AA simply attempts to prevent you from discrimination due to race, creed, gender, etc.

If you hire the most qualified candidate, or close to equal candidate, you aren't going to get in any trouble under AA, no matter the colors involved.

However....if you pass over a black guy with a doctorate in medicine and 10 years residency for a white ambulance driver for the hospital administrator position....then you're probably going to be explaining it to a judge.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who exactly runs the company? You, or your employees?

Maybe it's just me, but if it were my company, my employees are going to follow my marching orders, not vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a case of who's running the show. Rather, it's a question of what works best. If my company works best with white supremacist bigots on the payroll, why shouldn't I be able to hire them if they don't let their bigotry disenfranchise customers or create other problems? Do I OWE jobs to the general public? I thought a job was an arrangement discussed between two independent parties based on mutual interests and not a God-given birthright.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who could argue? Too easy to abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets consider someone who does abuse it and never hires blacks because of pure racism. Does he gain from this?

If so, why? I mean if he's foregoing opportunities to hire good workers and leaving them for his competitors, then how can that be good for him in the long run?

If it's not good for him, then why not just let him shoot himself in the foot and have him find out the hard way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not of the free market cures all ills crowd Darryl. Even so, if the labor pool is sufficient that I can discriminate on the basis of race, I will not feel any effects, however the victim of my racism may, moreso if racism is endemic to the area and/or jobs are in short supply.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your scenario was about choosing between two identically qualified candidates, right? AA laws basically force the company to hire the black one, and you are saying this is unfortunate because race is being forced upon the employer as a factor when it shouldn't be.


[/ QUOTE ]

AA laws don't force you to hire the black guy when all things are equal. That is a common misconception, and it may be different in some states due to local laws, but as far as I know, AA simply attempts to prevent you from discrimination due to race, creed, gender, etc.

If you hire the most qualified candidate, or close to equal candidate, you aren't going to get in any trouble under AA, no matter the colors involved.

However....if you pass over a black guy with a doctorate in medicine and 10 years residency for a white ambulance driver for the hospital administrator position....then you're probably going to be explaining it to a judge.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would AA say about an employer hiring for 10 positions, has 30 equal candidates 10 of whom are black, but hires all non-blacks (say theres an Asian and an Indian and Middle Eastern hired in there)?

Is that prima facie evidence of discrimination? Im asking because in 35 years of business I have seen only one hiring decision made based on race/ethnicity and that was to hire an equally qualified black woman in a small company that encouraged diversity to begin with.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would AA say about an employer hiring for 10 positions, has 30 equal candidates 10 of whom are black, but hires all non-blacks (say theres an Asian and an Indian and Middle Eastern hired in there)?

Is that prima facie evidence of discrimination? Im asking because in 35 years of business I have seen only one hiring decision made based on race/ethnicity and that was to hire an equally qualified black woman in a small company that encouraged diversity to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

An employer that doesn't understand that one should hire on the basis of merit rather than racial preference is not going to stay in business very long.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
If my company works best with white supremacist bigots on the payroll, why shouldn't I be able to hire them if they don't let their bigotry disenfranchise customers or create other problems?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can establish that white supremacist bigotry is a key "qualification" required to function in your company, then of course, you could use that in the selection process.


[ QUOTE ]

Do I OWE jobs to the general public?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't owe jobs to anyone. The only thing expected of you is to not discriminate against on the basis of color, and instead to select on the basis of merit.

Remember, nobody is forcing you to hire blacks. If you sincerely have a negative view of them in the workplace, all you have to do is go with the lilly white applicants and claim that they are more qualified. If someone wanted to file a dsicrimination charge, the burden of proof would be on them, and as qualification merit would be vague, it wouldn't be an easy case for them unless it was overwhelmingly obvious case of discrimination.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]

What would AA say about an employer hiring for 10 positions, has 30 equal candidates 10 of whom are black, but hires all non-blacks (say theres an Asian and an Indian and Middle Eastern hired in there)?

Is that prima facie evidence of discrimination?

[/ QUOTE ]

AA wouldn't "say" anything. It would depend on whether or not any of those applicants filed a complaint of discrimination, and since Title VII and the EEOC prohibits the discrimination against all races, and doesn't institute any minimum quotas, they would have to show that you discriminated against them solely on the basis of color and not merit.

As you've said they were all equally qualified, and assuming they couldn't show otherwise, you'd be fine.

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my company works best with white supremacist bigots on the payroll, why shouldn't I be able to hire them if they don't let their bigotry disenfranchise customers or create other problems?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can establish that white supremacist bigotry is a key "qualification" required to function in your company, then of course, you could use that in the selection process

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't specify that white supremacy is a qualification. It might happen that the most qualified people who apply for these partciular jobs happen to all be white supremacists.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do I OWE jobs to the general public?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't owe jobs to anyone. The only thing expected of you is to not discriminate against on the basis of color, and instead to select on the basis of merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this expected of me when I decide who to be friends with? Or who to buy stuff from? Who is doing the expecting, and what business is it of thiers?

Are there to be punishments for those who don't have black friends? Or those who don't shop at a black-owned grocery store?

If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, nobody is forcing you to hire blacks. If you sincerely have a negative view of them in the workplace, all you have to do is go with the lilly white applicants and claim that they are more qualified. If someone wanted to file a dsicrimination charge, the burden of proof would be on them, and as qualification merit would be vague, it wouldn't be an easy case for them unless it was overwhelmingly obvious case of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit the system you advocate is bogus and useless?

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

Discrimination is a thing of the past......
60 yrs ago, we'd call 100 white guys with clubs, chasing 1 black the KKK. Today we call it the PGA Tour. Go to any tour event, and you'll find 20K white people cheering on 1 black guy to beat 100 white guys..........:)

Re: A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel you owe jobs in this example to under-qualified white supremacists instead of more qualified blacks due to their skin color alone, I guess that is your own personal choice.

[ QUOTE ]
So you admit the system you advocate is bogus and useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate hiring the best person for the job, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc. If you find that bogus or useless, then I don't know what else to say.