Here in the U.S. we are so focused on not being racist or sexist that we actually run a loop and end up right where we started. Let me show you what I mean. When we shoehorn someone into a post without any thought to who the right person for the job are we realm solving anything? For example. By changing work standards to allow women to work at a job we are doing them a disservice. We are in essence telling them ha it's ok I knew you couldn't do the job anyway thereby REINFORCING, not reducing the stereotype. It's the same if we elect someone because they're black, yellow, red, white, or even polka dot. It's the same stereotypes get reinforced and a pervasive politically correct form of racism gets ensconced and sanctioned, all the while hiding the truth behind lies. Now that I am done with my rant bring on the trolls. Bring it on! -troll bait
So who's gonna make the first dual account accusation? "Discouragement" doesn't see to be working all that well, @John , @gul !
I have no indication that he's a dual, so why would I make such an accusation? Chup, you have any thought's on wulfAlpha's... interesting post?
I'm a dual!!!!! there. As for the reverse discrimination argument, it's been done so many times as to be trite. As a perpetual newbe I can engage: for those that weren't alive more than 20 years ago affirmative action may seem unnecessary, but life for blacks in this country was an orwellian nightmare and remains so in pockets of the country. I don't think there is anyway to overcompensate for this. I look forward to the day when it's just a story your great grandfather tells.
I see what you are saying but I fear you might be brushing off my point. I did not mean to insinuate that redressing wrongs is a bad thing I was merely pointing out that by shoehorning people in the whole population suffers regardless of race or creed. I feel that affirmative action can help and can be a good thing IF we realize that just because I am xyz race doesn't mean I should get the job over someone more qualified. If I am really being discriminated against then fix it. It's ok to not get a job. Keep looking and stop thinking in terms of entitlement. A class of people has felt entitled before and they used to be called aristocrats.
The people getting the assist aren't suffering. Those around them may learn to be less bigoted. Results tend to support that it worked: after 40 years of affirmative action we're questioning the need now.
I agree, affirmative action can definitely cause problems. We see this in the local school district, where court ordered hiring policies give preference to minority candidates. If you purposefully restrict the size of the applicant pool, the number of qualified applicants goes down. Not a reflection of race but numbers. That said, some under qualified teachers are hired. Boston has a fairly rigorous evaluation tool, and surprise surprise, more black teachers are flagged for under performing than whites. This is exactly what we should expect. So affirmative action is having the perverse impact of making black teachers more likely (by probabilities) to be disciplined or non-tendered.
Yep, exactly. As Wulf mentioned, though, AA being questioned is a big indicator of how far we've come. I know in CA, the biggest critics of this are minority students themselves, especially Asians who bust ass trying to get into Cal Berkeley or UC Davis. But other have mentioned not wanting to be seen as just getting there off of skin color.
And not mentioned in my post, but what do people think happens when a higher percentage of black teachers fail? It makes parents doubt all black teachers, which is very damaging, since most of them are of equal skill to their white counterparts.
Affirmative action should only come into play when it comes down to two candidates, of equal qualification. The jobs should always come down to the most qualified applicants then the next consideration can be affirmative action. The bigger problem than affirmative action is quotas...that is where you really get folks hired for jobs they are not qualified to do.
I can't, it's still racist. There are bound to be other factors that would make one candidate more desirable than the other, like availability, or location, or something else. But if they're absolutely identical in every conceivable way, flip a coin. At least then it can be honestly said they have an equal chance at the job.
And quotas are in large part the result of corporate groupthink, as in "Aw, shit, we gotta hire more women and minorities. Quick, hire the first cute black chick who comes through the door for front-desk reception and we'll have two of 'em covered." Saw that happen in publishing in the Eighties. Not pretty.
It NEVER comes down to two exactly equally qualified individuals for a job. Even if it did, that case would be so rare that any overtures to affirmative action there would add up to very little. If you want equality, you have to compete on the same terms as everyone else. If someone puts their thumb on the scale for you, you're being given an advantage you didn't earn.
And the theory behind affirmative action is that the terms are inherently stacked in favor of members of certain groups. I think this is true, but affirmative action doesn't fix the problem. It needs to be treated at the route causes.
Nothing wrong with culture, experience, or upbringing giving you an advantage; that's how the human race progresses. If the parents of child A encouraged her to read and the parents of child B did not, has child A been unfairly advantaged?
The theory behind affirmative action is that there must be some unfair bias in play if all demographics aren't equally represented. But there are several big problems with this belief, not the least of which are: (1) The assumption that any two demographic groups have the same aptitudes or ambitions (2) That every demographic group pursues the same goals in the same proportions (3) Guilt is presumed without actual evidence of bias "Root." Exactly what "treatment" would you suggest?
Agree with the first half. But for the exact same reason, there is no such thing as competing on the same terms as everyone else, because you never are on the same terms as anyone else.
Depends on how you interpret "on the same terms." I meant that you must present the case for yourself and should be considered on your merits. I certainly don't claim that everyone has the same merits.
For starters, I'd like to see some wider understanding that there is no level playing field. Then we can look at why, and I'm not talking about things like innate intelligence. But there are issues that arise from poverty that make breaking the cycle difficult. We could do more to ensure equal access to education, nutrition, safety, healthy environments, etc.
I would hire a minority who wanted to work just to prove a point to the other ones. I don't need affirmative action for that.
If by "level playing field," you mean everyone plays by the same rules, I'd say that it does exist. If by "level playing field," you mean everyone has an equal chance at equal success, I'd say that it never will. Why not? Certainly there are differences in intelligence between individuals. Even if you're skeptical of the idea of IQ, you must know from experience that there are more and less intelligent people in the world. And if people can be different in intelligence, isn't it possible that groups can be as well? Isn't it possible that ambitions and interests could differ between groups? That attitudes about work, saving, investment, etc. could differ? Are we talking about poverty or equal opportunity? The unspoken assumption there is that "equal access" to these things will produce equal outcomes, and I don't think that's (necessarily) true.
I have. Linguistically and thematically, I'd peg it as yet another Dukat dual; he seems to have simply ditched the Cardassian theme on this one.
And trite is bad... in fiction. Outside of fiction, however, "trite" only indicates that something has been observed widely enough and long enough that the likelihood of its accuracy is higher than not. "Ehwmugawwwwd, that'th thuch a cliche!" Well, it only becomes a cliche by being fucking true so often that the majority of people have observed it, and subsequently commented on it.
Don't get me started on quotas. 22 years in the military - I've lived and experienced the insanity and can testify on how destructive (at worst) and ineffective (at best) quotas can be.
I'm going to take that as a compliment. I don't think there are many things I could do to disprove your theory, or you could just go to my website...
