A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

You really have no clue what you are talking about. Three years ago, I took a "general intelligence" test when interviewing for a job. It had absolutely nothing to do with specific job skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fish is right, for the most part.

General intelligence tests cannot be used as the controlling factor in deciding applicants, but only as part of a broader subjective appraisal process. The case riverman refers to is Griggs v Duke.

Most companies steer completely clear of them, for fear they be subjected to discrimination suits and not being able to distinguish between them being used as a part of an overall subjective process versus being the controlling factor.

And for what it's worth, Tom is right to an extent as well in that many companies still employ such general knowledge tests as a *part* of the hiring process, most notably M$.

[Riverman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT to add: I'm not terribly familiar with employment AA, my response was based more on the college admissions-style AA where applicants are shown more favor due to minority status. I'm not sure if any employment AA works like that or not...

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, actually. I'm just arguing from principle [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, AA in employment is nothing like what it sounds like you guys are describing in the college admissions aspect.

Put simply, there are no quotas, there is no favoritism to any minority race or gender, and discrimination is discrimination. The law explicitly outlines that you can't discriminate against anyone, white or black.

In fact, hiring an underqualified black person to fill self-imposed quotas instead of more qualified whites is just as much cause for discrimination suits as the opposite.

I'm not familiar with the AA aspect you guys describe in college, and it sounds like it relies alot on reverse discrimination, which is not right.

In fact, it almost sounds like AA is two totally different animals between employment and university.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but my understanding is that most corporations impose de facto quotas on themselves in order to avoid possible litigation.

[TomCollins]

It was an IT related entry level job at a large retail clothing company. They supposedly gave the test to most employees at corporate. The first round of interviews consisted of a bunch of us in a room taking this 50 question test and given about 15 minutes. The next day, those of us with high enough scores could interview for positions. The test had very little to do with general knowledge, but had to do with being able to solve problems quickly (which correlates to an important job skill).

That being said, the Griggs case is another example of why the Civil Rights Act is a joke.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but my understanding is that most corporations impose de facto quotas on themselves in order to avoid possible litigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

A company can impose their own quotas I suppose, but if they employ discrimination to achieve they, then they aren't avoiding lawsuits, they are asking for them.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Permited written exams must be narrowly tailored to test specific job skills. General intelligence can not be tested and used as a hiring criteria.

The reasoning is obvious. If a group tended to perform poorly and were less likely to be hired then that would be de facto discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no clue what you are talking about. Three years ago, I took a "general intelligence" test when interviewing for a job. It had absolutely nothing to do with specific job skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I drove over the speed limit today and didn't get a ticket either.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
After noting that Title VII of the Act intended to achieve equality of employment opportunities, the Court held that Duke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company. The Court concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

The test I was given could easily withstand the criteria of measuring ability for the job. The test I was given was very similar to the one given to NFL players before the draft. Perhaps it is because it is only an evaluation tool, not a requirement. But this test is pretty widespread and was not something that this company invented. I highly doubt, at least in my situation, that employer would have any trouble keeping the test in court.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It's an attempt to get employers and people in general to stop believing the stereotype that white people are smarter because they're white. There is no way to logically equate the color of someone's skin to intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a free country and you're within your rights to believe this but it's statistically false. There exists an unexplained gap between white and black intelligence. Pick a catagory, I know you can find data to prove my point. Take a random white man and a random black man. I'd wager that the white man stands a 50 to 100 fold greater likelyhood of having won a Nobel science prize. I'd further wager that the white man is 25-50% more likely to have graduated high school. Racism is a tiny portion of today's difference and only a modest factor 50 years ago.

I could go on but I never sway the Kool Aide drinkers.

[Riverman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) It's an attempt to get employers and people in general to stop believing the stereotype that white people are smarter because they're white. There is no way to logically equate the color of someone's skin to intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a free country and you're within your rights to believe this but it's statistically false. There exists an unexplained gap between white and black intelligence. Pick a catagory, I know you can find data to prove my point. Take a random white man and a random black man. I'd wager that the white man stands a 50 to 100 fold greater likelyhood of having won a Nobel science prize. I'd further wager that the white man is 25-50% more likely to have graduated high school. Racism is a tiny portion of today's difference and only a modest factor 50 years ago.

I could go on but I never sway the Kool Aide drinkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you are correct that there is a quantitative gap between whites and blacks in achievement, the last few sentences of your post are factually incorrect and grossly offensive, respectively.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, the Griggs case is another example of why the Civil Rights Act is a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may think the Civil Rights Act is a joke, due to some extreme examples in lawsuits, and the natural bureacracy of government enforcement, but let me relate to you a little different perspective:

Shortly after getting married, and a few years before I came into existence, my parents weren't able to go into the majority of restuarants where I grew up. When they went on their honeymoon, they slept in the car because the four hotels at their destination didn't accept coloreds. All throughout their early lives, they couldn't use the same restrooms, and they couldn't drink from the same fountains as whites. They even had to sit in the back pews at church, for christs sake. In their parish, coloreds weren't allowed to recieve communion.

They had to sit in the back of the bus, if they were lucky enough to be allowed on. In most areas, they had to wait in the colored bus stop, seperate from the white one.

They couldn't go to the three local movies theaters within minutes of our home, instead having to drive three hours to visit one that allowed blacks inside.

They were often denied the right to vote, as well as being denied access to city public services and buildings, police protection, and basic services that white taxpayers were afforded, due simply because they were colored.

Mind you, they paid the same taxes as their white counterparts, but they didn't reap any of the same benefits, because of their color.

My father was once turned away from jury duty because when he showed up they realized they made a mistake and since he was colored he wasn't welcome on that day to participate in government.

He made his early living selling seafood from his small boat on the docks, and he had to pay the harbor master a 'colored tax', just as all the black seaman, which cut about 50% into his profits, and it was a tax the white folks didn't have to pay, and it allowed them to sell the same products for less, crippling his ability to make it in the business...simply because of his color.

"white only" and "no colored" were a literal sign of the times, present on practically every street corner, every business, and in every job advertisement.

And then one day, they passed a law, the Civil Rights Act, and all that changed.

Don't get me wrong, there was still some hefty racism behind closed doors, and whispers under the white hoods....but that's just it....it wasn't the norm, and it wasn't openly flaunted any longer. No longer allowed to flourish, it slowly but steadily began to wilt away with each passing generation.

No more was it openly blatant, no more was it thrown into your face every step you took. No more was it forced down your throat by the very same public officials whose salaries you help pay.

It opened alot of people's eyes, and help change alot of people's perceptions and subsequent treatment.

We may have gotten there eventually, but it would have taken much, much longer, and the Civil Rights Act certainly help speed it along.

So while it may be a joke to you, I view it as equality of opportunity for me.

And that's all I ask for.

And as a sidenote, my parents now own three of those very same restuarants he was once not allowed to patronize, and like he is fond of saying "Once all things become equal, they sure do turn out different."

[TomCollins]

Do you really think that I do not know history? That I am so ignorant to not know about the struggles people had in the Civil Rights Movement?

Racism was a horrible thing in this country. I don't deny it. I just deny the government any right to be in the business of thought policing. Changing the hearts and minds of people is very difficult. I prefer it to be done through reason and argument rather than coersion and force. You prefer the later. The ends justify the means.

Supporting this law because it had good effects is like supporting the Halocaust because a lot of really smart Jewish scientists fled Germany and came to the US to make it a better place.

You still haven't answered pvn's question. Do you feel discriminated against because he only asked his brother-in-law to fix up his house? Certainly there is no equality of opportunity in this case.