McCain on Affirmative Action

[AbeBeta]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Did McCain 'flip' on affirmative action measure?
Posted: 05:36 PM ET

From CNN's Josh Levs

John McCain's comments on affirmative action led Obama to charge that he 'flipped' his position.

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Sen. John McCain said Sunday he supports an Arizona ballot initiative aimed at ending race- and gender-based preference programs — an announcement his rival cast as a reversal from his previous stance.

Sen. Barack Obama — speaking to an auditorium full of minority journalists at the Unity conference — accused McCain of having "flipped."

But McCain's own campaign refused to say whether it stands by the candidate's announcement that he supports the ballot initiative.

In an interview broadcast on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked McCain if he supports a referendum on the ballot in his home state "that would do away with affirmative action."

"Yes, I do," he responded. "I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I've always opposed quotas."

Stephanopoulos asked, "But the one here in Arizona you support?"

"I support it, yes," replied McCain.

McCain did not indicate that he had a standing opposition to such initiatives, or that he was changing his stance by supporting the initiative in Arizona.

Contacted by CNN, McCain's campaign sent a statement from spokesman Tucker Bounds.

"John McCain has always been opposed to government- mandated hiring quotas, because he believes that regardless of race, ethnicity or gender, the law should be equally applied. He has long stood for the protection of civil rights and equal opportunity for all Americans," the statement said.

But pressed about whether McCain indeed supports the Arizona initiative, the campaign would not answer. In 1998, McCain called a similar ballot measure "divisive."

Obama told attendees to the Unity conference that he was "disappointed… that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of… initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right."

Civil rights leader Al Sharpton, a prominent Obama supporter, issued a statement accusing McCain of having made "a stunning reversal on his respectable record on affirmative action."

[AbeBeta]

"Yes, I do," he responded. "I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I've always opposed quotas."


This quote either shows ignorance on McCain's part or he's trying to play on the ignorance of voters. Anyone who equates AA and quotas does not know the law.

Quotas are ILLEGAL under affirmative action. Completely illegal.

People have legitimate reasons for opposing affirmative action. Opposition to quotas is NOT a legitimate reason for opposition as quotas are illegal (as is forced hiring of unqualified applicants)

[zrinkill]

I hate affirmative action because I think it belittles those it is supposed to help.

[AbeBeta]

I hate affirmative action because I think it belittles those it is supposed to help.

In some cases, you are correct. In particular the stigma of having your co-workers even think that you were hired not because of your ability but because of AA is terrible and it is belittling. But that may very well be because your co-workers fail to understand what AA is and what it isn't.

The fact is that most affirmative action program currently in place in the U.S. require nothing more that monitoring of ethnicity/sex of applicants to make sure that organizations are not discriminating. The VAST majority of AA program do nothing more than require organizations who take federal funds to demonstrate that they do not discriminate. Very few organizations EVER get past that stage of AA.

[burmafrd]

Yeah, they know that people will always question: "was he/she really the best person for the job, or was it the color of their skin".

[ChldsPlay]

This quote either shows ignorance on McCain's part or he's trying to play on the ignorance of voters. Anyone who equates AA and quotas does not know the law.

Quotas are ILLEGAL under affirmative action. Completely illegal.

People have legitimate reasons for opposing affirmative action. Opposition to quotas is NOT a legitimate reason for opposition as quotas are illegal (as is forced hiring of unqualified applicants)

My parents own a contracting company, and I know for a fact they have had to deal with quotas, and it has hurt them.

[AbeBeta]

Yeah, they know that people will always question: "was he/she really the best person for the job, or was it the color of their skin".

That is true. But frankly, that comes from people not understanding what AA law does and what it doesn't do. So when people question whether someone got their job due to AA or not, it reflects more of an ignorance on their part than anything else.

Affirmative action is about first and foremost monitoring -- that is, making organizations show they are not discriminating. In the RARE cases were organizations are shown to discriminate they might be mandated to do things like show that proportionally, they are hiring as many qualified applicants from protected backgrounds than those who applied. That is, if you got 30% qualified women, you should have hired around that many.

I fully recognize that some organizations do this wrong and create ill will - I got a very moving PM from a member here who recounted how he didn't get a job because of AA. I completely respect that people will oppose the policy.

However, if you want to oppose AA, make sure it isn't because you believe ignorant claims about it like a) it means quotas or b) that it requires hiring people who are unqualified. All that is against the law. Any politician who suggests otherwise insults your intelligence.

[AbeBeta]

My parents own a contracting company, and I know for a fact they have had to deal with quotas, and it has hurt them.

You might want to refer them to the uniform guidelines for selection procedures at http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html - this isn't hard. It is federal law. Or more simply, have them consult an attorney. Illegal in every form are quotas.

[theogt]

I don't get the criticism for changing your position after 10 years.

It's possible that the remedy for racial problems over a decade ago may be considered out-dated. After all, shouldn't the problem be less pervasive than it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

[bbgun]

I hate affirmative action because I think it belittles those it is supposed to help.

Just ask Michelle "Princeton" Obama.

[sacase]

I thought that affirmative action only applied to the federal government and companies that worked with the federal government.

Furthermore, I thought that it said that if two candidates were equal, and you did not have enough miorities, then you hired the minority. I never thought it was forcing a company to take the less qualified person.

But then again I never worried about how afrimative action applied to me.

[AbeBeta]

I thought that affirmative action only applied to the federal government and companies that worked with the federal government.


That is correct. AA is a federal law. If you want federal money you have to play by federal rules. Many states use similar rules for state funded agencies. So the use of AA in state funded areas is what Arizona voters will be voting on. However, the truth is that the vast majority of agencies that receive state money also receive federal money, so they would still have to adhere to the federal law.


Furthermore, I thought that it said that if two candidates were equal, and you did not have enough miorities, then you hired the minority. I never thought it was forcing a company to take the less qualified person.


That would be the most extreme form of Affirmative Action -- and a form that is rarely employed. A company in this situation would likely have to have demonstrated a clear pattern of discrimination in the past or would have voluntarily taken on this criteria. It is and has always been illegal to force hiring of an unqualified applicant. The idea or more or less qualified is very problematic as few organizations have an objective way to measure qualification that can, with any accuracy distinguish between more and less qualified applicants.


But then again I never worried about how afrimative action applied to me.

Few folks should. AA affects hiring decisions made on a minuscule proportion of the U.S. population.

[AbeBeta]

Just ask Michelle "Princeton" Obama.

Michelle Obama graduate cum laude from Princeton, clearly showing that she was qualified not only to attend the university but to be recognized as one of the university's top students.

[AbeBeta]

I don't get the criticism for changing your position after 10 years.

It's possible that the remedy for racial problems over a decade ago may be considered out-dated. After all, shouldn't the problem be less pervasive than it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

He shouldn't be criticized for changing his stance. I respect politicians who can admit they made bad decisions (at least what they characterize as bad decisions) in the past -- regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

He should be criticized for portraying AA as a system of quotas. He knows that is a patently untrue statement.

I am surprised that Steph didn't dig further on that issue. Steph was Clinton's lead on AA and co-wrote a book outlining AA policies in the U.S. I recall from my reading of that book that the authors make the point that quotas are illegal under AA about a million times.

[iceberg]

This quote either shows ignorance on McCain's part or he's trying to play on the ignorance of voters. Anyone who equates AA and quotas does not know the law.

Quotas are ILLEGAL under affirmative action. Completely illegal.

People have legitimate reasons for opposing affirmative action. Opposition to quotas is NOT a legitimate reason for opposition as quotas are illegal (as is forced hiring of unqualified applicants)

except that if you don't hire a given number of minorities, suddenly you're racist. having a game on both sides of this issue doesn't make it right. you can't say you must support affirmative action yet denounce quotas cause they both imply the same thing.

hire based on race.

well i can't NOT hire based on race but i'm encouraged to HIRE based on it?

it all needs to go away and people need to stand on their own two feet.

[AbeBeta]

except that if you don't hire a given number of minorities, suddenly you're racist. having a game on both sides of this issue doesn't make it right. you can't say you must support affirmative action yet denounce quotas cause they both imply the same thing.

Quotas are completely and totally illegal. Affirmative action makes it illegal to force hiring of unqualified applicants.

You aren't a racist if you don't hire enough minorities -- you are a racist if you show a consistent pattern of not hiring qualified minorities who apply for positions. If 15% of your applicants are qualified and minority you clearly would be using a standard other than qualifications if you hired none of them.

And again, hiring practice are affected in very few organizations -- most simply have to monitor who is and who isn't hired and demonstrate that they are using fair hiring practices. Organizations that do have hiring practices impacted are often those who fail to demonstrate that left to their own devices they will make fair hiring decisions.

[iceberg]

Quotas are completely and totally illegal. Affirmative action makes it illegal to force hiring of unqualified applicants.

You aren't a racist if you don't hire enough minorities -- you are a racist if you show a consistent pattern of not hiring qualified minorities who apply for positions. If 15% of your applicants are qualified and minority you clearly would be using a standard other than qualifications if you hired none of them.

And again, hiring practice are affected in very few organizations -- most simply have to monitor who is and who isn't hired and demonstrate that they are using fair hiring practices. Organizations that do have hiring practices impacted are often those who fail to demonstrate that left to their own devices they will make fair hiring decisions.

but i have to interview them. i have to put a focus on them. and if i or any company doesn't hire enough to ward off doubt, they're racist till proven otherwise.

fair to some means they get a bonus for being a minority. if someone chooses not to recognize that ... bonus ... they're hateful and racist.

the part in bold illustrates this "unspoken quota" now doesn't it and points out racism will be used to judge people won't it? but, there are no quotas?

uh huh. please, sell me some montana ocean front property next. it would be easier. the entire concept may talk up one side but you know damn good and well they're not afraid to come after those who don't hire a "fair share" of minorities. and if they have to hire a "fair share" to avoid being labeled, is that not a quota?

like i said, it's a stupid game on both sides and like others have said, i think it belittles the minority and encourages them to think they are less qualified and need these handicaps in life.

[bbgun]

Michelle Obama graduate cum laude from Princeton, clearly showing that she was qualified not only to attend the university but to be recognized as one of the university's top students.

Irrelevant. Based on her high school transcripts, she would have been destined for the U. of Illinois had she been white. That she did "well" at Princeton is of no solace to the thousands of kids who would have done better or much better had they properly received her slot. All of this led to her senior thesis in which she whined about being "alienated" on a mostly-white campus. Of course, on a campus that practices rather rigorous affirmative action, it’s hard for white students to forget that you are on campus because you are black, not because (like the white students) you met all the qualifications.

[AbeBeta]

but i have to interview them. i have to put a focus on them. and if i or any company doesn't hire enough to ward off doubt, they're racist till proven otherwise.

fair to some means they get a bonus for being a minority. if someone chooses not to recognize that ... bonus ... they're hateful and racist.

the part in bold illustrates this "unspoken quota" now doesn't it and points out racism will be used to judge people won't it? but, there are no quotas?

uh huh. please, sell me some montana ocean front property next. it would be easier. the entire concept may talk up one side but you know damn good and well they're not afraid to come after those who don't hire a "fair share" of minorities. and if they have to hire a "fair share" to avoid being labeled, is that not a quota?

like i said, it's a stupid game on both sides and like others have said, i think it belittles the minority and encourages them to think they are less qualified and need these handicaps in life.

If you have 15% of your applicants that are minorities who are qualified for the job and you hire far fewer than 15% minority applicants you may be discriminating. That isn't a quota -- it represents what a company who is not discriminating based on ethnicity would do. That isn't a quota in any way shape or form. A quota system would call for hiring of certain percentage of minorities regardless of qualifications.

And who are "they" who are coming after companies who don't hire their "fair share?" The only companies anyone is coming after are those who fail to show that they are being fair in their hiring practices. Ya see, that's the key to AA -- you get the opportunity to show that you don't discriminate and for most organizations that's all they need to do.

You are however correct that in some cases people do get a "bonus" for being a minority however, it is important to recognize that organizations can set criteria for what is and what isn't a qualified employee. Even if someone gets a "bonus" it does not mean that they are not qualified for the position. However, you should recognize that when you say Affirmative Action you shouldn't immediately think of this aspect of it as this is among the rarest forms of AA in industry that is generally used only in cases wherein organizations could not demonstrate fair hiring practices. That said, this is clearly the most contentious part of the policy and one that not every supporter of AA favors. This aspect is far from perfect but what other solution would you suggest for the organization that for whatever reason only hires white folks?

[AbeBeta]

Irrelevant. Based on her high school transcripts, she would have been destined for the U. of Illinois had she been white. That she did "well" at Princeton is of no solace to the thousands of kids who would have done better or much better had they properly received her slot. All of this led to her senior thesis in which she whined about being "alienated" on a mostly-white campus. Of course, on a campus that practices rather rigorous affirmative action, it’s hard for white students to forget that you are on campus because you are black, not because (like the white students) you met all the qualifications.

As Jim Rome (who I hate) says, Michelle Obama can take your argument and yell "scoreboard." Did she belong at Princeton? Clearly. She posted a cum laude on you.

[DFWJC]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


But pressed about whether McCain indeed supports the Arizona initiative, the campaign would not answer. In 1998, McCain called a similar ballot measure "divisive."

Obama told attendees to the Unity conference that he was "disappointed… that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of… initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right."

Civil rights leader Al Sharpton, a prominent Obama supporter, issued a statement accusing McCain of having made "a stunning reversal on his respectable record on affirmative action."

Affirmative action (or mandated racial discrimination) was somewhat reasonable in 1978, less so in 88, even less so (and past it's time) in 98. Now in 2008 it really is reprehensible to have any sort of quota system.

[iceberg]

If you have 15% of your applicants that are minorities who are qualified for the job and you hire far fewer than 15% minority applicants you may be discriminating. That isn't a quota -- it represents what a company who is not discriminating based on ethnicity would do. That isn't a quota in any way shape or form. A quota system would call for hiring of certain percentage of minorities regardless of qualifications.

And who are "they" who are coming after companies who don't hire their "fair share?" The only companies anyone is coming after are those who fail to show that they are being fair in their hiring practices. Ya see, that's the key to AA -- you get the opportunity to show that you don't discriminate and for most organizations that's all they need to do.

You are however correct that in some cases people do get a "bonus" for being a minority however, it is important to recognize that organizations can set criteria for what is and what isn't a qualified employee. Even if someone gets a "bonus" it does not mean that they are not qualified for the position. However, you should recognize that when you say Affirmative Action you shouldn't immediately think of this aspect of it as this is among the rarest forms of AA in industry that is generally used only in cases wherein organizations could not demonstrate fair hiring practices. That said, this is clearly the most contentious part of the policy and one that not every supporter of AA favors. This aspect is far from perfect but what other solution would you suggest for the organization that for whatever reason only hires white folks?

or i may not be - however i'll have to prove it because the "obvious" (he has 20% minority so we're cool) wasn't there.

they - the vocal minority. jesse jackson and that crowd making loud accusations based off stupidity. in the above situation i'm guilty till now proven innocent. that's just as messed up.

i have no answer for those who only want to hire white people. or black people. or chinese. or all women at hooters. it happens and you can't force a mind change. if someone doesn't hire a qualified minority and hires an unqualified person of a race she/he's comfortable with, they'll pay for it in the end.

you can't make each and every situation fair and the effort to do so places an unfair burden on those who don't play those games but now must because of the one or two who don't.

and while we're asking for names, name me a company who only employs white people. you seem to think it's an issue that needs corrective (affirmative?) action, so who? who are we targeting now?

i never said it didn't have it's place. i'm sure at one time it did but i don't see it now anymore than i see unions having a valid place in the world. i think both are self serving and if a qualified minority and a qualified "white person" were both up for the job and the sole factor that came into place was to hire the minority to fend off AA accusations, is that not still racism?

you can't fix racism by only letting one side play.

[iceberg]

Affirmative action (or mandated racial discrimination) was somewhat reasonable in 1978, less so in 88, even less so (and past it's time) in 98. Now in 2008 it really is reprehensible to have any sort of quota system.

this is what you call ironic. : )

[bbgun]

As Jim Rome (who I hate) says, Michelle Obama can take your argument and yell "scoreboard." Did she belong at Princeton? Clearly. She posted a cum laude on you.

So what? In all likelihood, I could have done well at Brown or Dartmouth. Doesn't change the fact that I didn't deserve to be there. And for a cum laude grad, her thesis has an unusually high number of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. BTW, how rigorous was her coursework? Were all her assignments/tests blind-graded?

[AbeBeta]

Affirmative action (or mandated racial discrimination) was somewhat reasonable in 1978, less so in 88, even less so (and past it's time) in 98. Now in 2008 it really is reprehensible to have any sort of quota system.

Quotas are illegal. Did you not get that part?

[AbeBeta]

or i may not be - however i'll have to prove it because the "obvious" (he has 20% minority so we're cool) wasn't there.

they - the vocal minority. jesse jackson and that crowd making loud accusations based off stupidity. in the above situation i'm guilty till now proven innocent. that's just as messed up.

i have no answer for those who only want to hire white people. or black people. or chinese. or all women at hooters. it happens and you can't force a mind change. if someone doesn't hire a qualified minority and hires an unqualified person of a race she/he's comfortable with, they'll pay for it in the end.

you can't make each and every situation fair and the effort to do so places an unfair burden on those who don't play those games but now must because of the one or two who don't.

and while we're asking for names, name me a company who only employs white people. you seem to think it's an issue that needs corrective (affirmative?) action, so who? who are we targeting now?

i never said it didn't have it's place. i'm sure at one time it did but i don't see it now anymore than i see unions having a valid place in the world. i think both are self serving and if a qualified minority and a qualified "white person" were both up for the job and the sole factor that came into place was to hire the minority to fend off AA accusations, is that not still racism?

you can't fix racism by only letting one side play.

Keep in mind here that AA is for hiring involving FEDERAL moneys -- the government says if you want our money, you need to demonstrate that you aren't being racist in your hiring.

Also, required hiring of unqualified applicants is ILLEGAL. Says so in every document relevant to affirmative action

Any company that acts to "fend off AA accusations" is not applying the policy correctly. If they can demonstrate fair hiring practices then they have no problem. But you have pointed to a very key issue here -- many organizations don't know how to apply AA principles -- the gov't has failed miserably at getting proper education to those involved in hiring.

I would love to believe that AA was no longer necessary. However, we still see African Americans with twice the unemployment rate as Whites and women still earn less than men in comparable positions (keep in mind that AA is most beneficial to women as they are half the population)

[theogt]

He shouldn't be criticized for changing his stance. I respect politicians who can admit they made bad decisions (at least what they characterize as bad decisions) in the past -- regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

He should be criticized for portraying AA as a system of quotas. He knows that is a patently untrue statement.

I am surprised that Steph didn't dig further on that issue. Steph was Clinton's lead on AA and co-wrote a book outlining AA policies in the U.S. I recall from my reading of that book that the authors make the point that quotas are illegal under AA about a million times.No, that's not my point at all. My point is that his position may have been a good one then. And his position may be a good one now (I don't really feel like debating whether either is a good position). The fact that it's inconsistent may have no reflection of whether either is/was a good or bad decision.

[theogt]

As Jim Rome (who I hate) says, Michelle Obama can take your argument and yell "scoreboard." Did she belong at Princeton? Clearly. She posted a cum laude on you.I'd wager that many students that get rejected from Princeton would also do well at Princeton if they were admitted.

[AbeBeta]

or i may not be - however i'll have to prove it because the "obvious" (he has 20% minority so we're cool) wasn't there.

they - the vocal minority. jesse jackson and that crowd making loud accusations based off stupidity. in the above situation i'm guilty till now proven innocent. that's just as messed up.

i have no answer for those who only want to hire white people. or black people. or chinese. or all women at hooters. it happens and you can't force a mind change. if someone doesn't hire a qualified minority and hires an unqualified person of a race she/he's comfortable with, they'll pay for it in the end.

you can't make each and every situation fair and the effort to do so places an unfair burden on those who don't play those games but now must because of the one or two who don't.

and while we're asking for names, name me a company who only employs white people. you seem to think it's an issue that needs corrective (affirmative?) action, so who? who are we targeting now?

i never said it didn't have it's place. i'm sure at one time it did but i don't see it now anymore than i see unions having a valid place in the world. i think both are self serving and if a qualified minority and a qualified "white person" were both up for the job and the sole factor that came into place was to hire the minority to fend off AA accusations, is that not still racism?

you can't fix racism by only letting one side play.

Keep in mind here that AA is for hiring involving FEDERAL moneys -- the government says if you want our money, you need to demonstrate that you aren't being racist in your hiring.

Also, required hiring of unqualified applicants is ILLEGAL. Says so in every document relevant to affirmative action

Any company that acts to "fend off AA accusations" is not applying the policy correctly. If they can demonstrate fair hiring practices then they have no problem. But you have pointed to a very key issue here -- many organizations don't know how to apply AA principles -- the gov't has failed miserably at getting proper education to those involved in hiring.

I would love to believe that AA was no longer necessary. However, we still see African Americans with twice the unemployment rate as Whites and women still earn less than men in comparable positions (keep in mind that AA is most beneficial to women as they are half the population). In 2007 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received over 30,000 complaints of race-based discrimination . They got about 25k in sex-based complaints, about 10k in national origin. Typically they dismiss about 2/3rds of all complaints meaning that there were over 20,000 legitimate cases of discrimination for which EEOC intervened. They provide data that goes back to 1992. The number of meritorious complaints has pretty much remained at the same level for the past 15 years.

[AbeBeta]

I'd wager that many students that get rejected from Princeton would also do well at Princeton if they were admitted.

I'd wager that those who were didn't get in didn't suffer too much. Waaaaa, I have to go to my safety school Harvard.

[AbeBeta]

The fact that it's inconsistent may have no reflection of whether either is/was a good or bad decision.

I have no argument with that.

[AbeBeta]

So what? In all likelihood, I could have done well at Brown or Dartmouth. Doesn't change the fact that I didn't deserve to be there. And for a cum laude grad, her thesis has an unusually high number of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. BTW, how rigorous was her coursework? Were all her assignments/tests blind-graded?

How many theses have you reviewed there BB?

Somewhere like Princeton most of your work is graded by teaching assistants who probably have no idea who you are.

[bbgun]

How many theses have you reviewed there BB?

Somewhere like Princeton most of your work is graded by teaching assistants who probably have no idea who you are.

Um, Princeton is very selective, hence classes are small. Chances are, they know exactly who you are. When you play the race card, plead victimization and attack Princeton for having too few black professors and a too-small Afro-American studies program, then of course blacks who do that are going to be viewed as “black first and a student second.” How could Obama be married to someone like that and claim to be post-racial?

[ThaBigP]

This quote either shows ignorance on McCain's part or he's trying to play on the ignorance of voters. Anyone who equates AA and quotas does not know the law.

Quotas are ILLEGAL under affirmative action. Completely illegal.

People have legitimate reasons for opposing affirmative action. Opposition to quotas is NOT a legitimate reason for opposition as quotas are illegal (as is forced hiring of unqualified applicants)

That, unfortunately, is the typical stance of trying to have it both ways. Quotas are illegal? Fine. Then what happens when a civil rights action is brought against a company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices? All the prosecution has to show is that the demographic makeup of the company does not match the prevailing demographic makeup of the population at large in the area. The only way around that? Quotas. But don't call them that, 'cause we don't support them, and in fact, they're illegal. But if you don't engage in quota hiring, you'll get sued. But again, don't call it that, 'cause that's illegal.....

[iceberg]

Keep in mind here that AA is for hiring involving FEDERAL moneys -- the government says if you want our money, you need to demonstrate that you aren't being racist in your hiring.

Also, required hiring of unqualified applicants is ILLEGAL. Says so in every document relevant to affirmative action

Any company that acts to "fend off AA accusations" is not applying the policy correctly. If they can demonstrate fair hiring practices then they have no problem. But you have pointed to a very key issue here -- many organizations don't know how to apply AA principles -- the gov't has failed miserably at getting proper education to those involved in hiring.

I would love to believe that AA was no longer necessary. However, we still see African Americans with twice the unemployment rate as Whites and women still earn less than men in comparable positions (keep in mind that AA is most beneficial to women as they are half the population)

but their main qualification for being interviewed at times is being a minority, right? is that the qualification you want to walk into a job interview to be most noted for?

i'm sure there are people who don't hire because of someone's skin color. this is wrong. i'm also sure there are people who expect advantages, because of their skin color.

this to me is just as wrong.

if everyone is qualified race should seldom be the deciding factor. caveats to me include hiring a black actor for black roles, or the like where it's specific to the race.

you cite all the pain that goes along with being that minority down to minute details. great. now i wish you'd cite the people who abuse their race and take the advantages because of it and then pull a john wiley price and put people on eggshells to even say the word "black" around them.

i just get tired of going to the extreme in one direction but not the other in cases like this.

[AbeBeta]

Um, Princeton is very selective, hence classes are small. Chances are, they know exactly who you are. When you play the race card, plead victimization and attack Princeton for having too few black professors and a too-small Afro-American studies program, then of course blacks who do that are going to be viewed as “black first and a student second.” How could Obama be married to someone like that and claim to be post-racial?

and at a place like Princeton faculty are very prestigious -- far too much so to grade your papers

we had this discussion before about her thesis - even some of the more conservative members of this board agreed on reviewing it that it was frankly, a boring thesis that was not in any way polarizing.

[iceberg]

That, unfortunately, is the typical stance of trying to have it both ways. Quotas are illegal? Fine. Then what happens when a civil rights action is brought against a company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices? All the prosecution has to show is that the demographic makeup of the company does not match the prevailing demographic makeup of the population at large in the area. The only way around that? Quotas. But don't call them that, 'cause we don't support them, and in fact, they're illegal. But if you don't engage in quota hiring, you'll get sued. But again, don't call it that, 'cause that's illegal.....

this is my point. far too often we hear about the injustices to the minorities, black people in this instance and you'd be a fool to say there isn't a bad history, even recent, there. there is and we should *all* work to get past it.

not handicap it.
not suddenly make it all equal and give preference to 1 race (an act we're trying to get out of, right? you ever stop swimming by swimming?)
not to say we must give one race more to make it right

all these things seem to lead to what hillary was accused of - entitlement. are you entitled to *more* because of your race?

take out the races and what it is you're entitled to and isn't doing that racism? even if in reverse?

sure you're going to have your extremes in here. you always will. but you have the flip side of these extremes in abuse. where are the advocates now shutting down those taking advantage of the system and in the end, making those goals harder to achive - that being mainly racial equality.

if we're going to ever be racially equal then we're going to have to live it for awhile, fair or unfair, and let the chips fall where they may. i'm out for the human race to advance, not my personal view of it.

[iceberg]

and at a place like Princeton faculty are very prestigious -- far too much so to grade your papers

we had this discussion before about her thesis - even some of the more conservative members of this board agreed on reviewing it that it was frankly, a boring thesis that was not in any way polarizing.

why in the hell would i go to a school if my "grade" were not important enough for the teachers to give me? suddenly their job is beneath them?

sorry. i ain't buying that bucket of chicken.

[AbeBeta]

That, unfortunately, is the typical stance of trying to have it both ways. Quotas are illegal? Fine. Then what happens when a civil rights action is brought against a company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices? All the prosecution has to show is that the demographic makeup of the company does not match the prevailing demographic makeup of the population at large in the area. The only way around that? Quotas. But don't call them that, 'cause we don't support them, and in fact, they're illegal. But if you don't engage in quota hiring, you'll get sued. But again, don't call it that, 'cause that's illegal.....

Actually the "only way around that" is embracing actual non-discriminatory hiring practices. Any organization that got itself in that position would have to have been discriminating for a very long time and done nothing to rectify the situation -- but still they would not be required to meet any sort of goal through hiring of unqualified applicants. BTW -- the case you focus on - extraordinarily rare.

[AbeBeta]

why in the hell would i go to a school if my "grade" were not important enough for the teachers to give me? suddenly their job is beneath them?

sorry. i ain't buying that bucket of chicken.

Dude - trust me on this. That is the way it is at most major universities of that level.

[iceberg]

Dude - trust me on this. That is the way it is at most major universities of that level.

i'll have to trust you on this one cause at southwestern oklahoma state, we expected teachers to do their jobs. i had one VERY arrogant literature instructor who gave me a B in the class (i've never had below an A in any writing class in my life) because i kept making fun of him and his arrogance all through the year. one day i was walking through the hallway and i heard the janitor go in and then the teacher said something like "oh it's you. for a minute i thought it was one of those pesky students..."

i popped my head in the door and said "dr <name here>, if it wasn't for us pesky students who would you be god in front of"?

i'm sure between that and other things i said/wrote in my journal contributed to my grade, but that's fine. sometimes you run into people in life and have to pay the price to be yourself.

[AbeBeta]

this is my point. far too often we hear about the injustices to the minorities, black people in this instance and you'd be a fool to say there isn't a bad history, even recent, there. there is and we should *all* work to get past it.

not handicap it.
not suddenly make it all equal and give preference to 1 race (an act we're trying to get out of, right? you ever stop swimming by swimming?)
not to say we must give one race more to make it right

all these things seem to lead to what hillary was accused of - entitlement. are you entitled to *more* because of your race?

take out the races and what it is you're entitled to and isn't doing that racism? even if in reverse?

sure you're going to have your extremes in here. you always will. but you have the flip side of these extremes in abuse. where are the advocates now shutting down those taking advantage of the system and in the end, making those goals harder to achive - that being mainly racial equality.

if we're going to ever be racially equal then we're going to have to live it for awhile, fair or unfair, and let the chips fall where they may. i'm out for the human race to advance, not my personal view of it.

We agree on the principles and the ideal outcome -- just not on how we might attain those goals.

My view remains -- and this is the view that was influential to the the Supreme Court -- if we leave people to their own devices they will tend to favor people like themselves. Even if they don't feel a racist bone in their body. That is simply how we are programmed. You have to offset this in some manner. At present, AA is the best tool we got. Perfect? Hell no.

[iceberg]

Actually the "only way around that" is embracing actual non-discriminatory hiring practices. Any organization that got itself in that position would have to have been discriminating for a very long time and done nothing to rectify the situation -- but still they would not be required to meet any sort of goal through hiring of unqualified applicants. BTW -- the case you focus on - extraordinarily rare.

i think this "extreme" *is rare* abersonc. but it's cited like it's a daily occurance and huge social issue. maybe it is, i just don't see it in the world around me. maybe it's there for the minorities and i can't ever see or understand it.

that i can believe. but the flip side would then be *they* must understand how what they do looks to people who can't understand it either. to me this has to be a 2 way street of mutual respect. not forcing it in the name of some equality issue that's not understood.

[ThaBigP]

Actually the "only way around that" is embracing actual non-discriminatory hiring practices. Any organization that got itself in that position would have to have been discriminating for a very long time and done nothing to rectify the situation -- but still they would not be required to meet any sort of goal through hiring of unqualified applicants. BTW -- the case you focus on - extraordinarily rare.

Would that that were actually the case. While you have visions of "koom baya" (sp??) in your mind, the reality is starkly different. Again, when civil action is brought against a company, the strongest weapon used against them is simply comparing the demographic makeup of the employees with the demographic makeup of the polpulation in the area. It works time and time again. And that sampling takes only one characteristic into consideration - race. You mention vague "nothing"s that a company would have had to do to wind up in that position. Got news for you. All you have to do to wind up in that position is to hire among the applicants the best for each job. What are the odds that the demographic makeup of your work force will, by happy accident, match exactly the prevailing demographic makeup of the region? That is, unless, you keep an eye on the local demographics and make sure to fill positions with certain ethnicities to maintain harmony with it. Look it up in any dictionary, that's called a "quota".

[AbeBeta]

i'll have to trust you on this one cause at southwestern oklahoma state, we expected teachers to do their jobs. i had one VERY arrogant literature instructor who gave me a B in the class (i've never had below an A in any writing class in my life) because i kept making fun of him and his arrogance all through the year. one day i was walking through the hallway and i heard the janitor go in and then the teacher said something like "oh it's you. for a minute i thought it was one of those pesky students..."

i popped my head in the door and said "dr <name here>, if it wasn't for us pesky students who would you be god in front of"?

i'm sure between that and other things i said/wrote in my journal contributed to my grade, but that's fine. sometimes you run into people in life and have to pay the price to be yourself.


Ironically, the higher up the ladder you go in university quality the more you get profs not doing grading. Of course, most would argue that their job is to go out, write papers and books, and be prestigious. All in all, the issue is do you want a prof grading your exam or being a superstar. Going somewhere with superstars opens a ton of doors.

[iceberg]

We agree on the principles and the ideal outcome -- just not on how we might attain those goals.

My view remains -- and this is the view that was influential to the the Supreme Court -- if we leave people to their own devices they will tend to favor people like themselves. Even if they don't feel a racist bone in their body. That is simply how we are programmed. You have to offset this in some manner. At present, AA is the best tool we got. Perfect? Hell no.

i totally agree. i also think we want the same things but different roads keep things intersting. : )

people do group up. blacks. whites. chinese. (chinatown in all major cities, right? should we do away with that and force people out of their comfort zones?) i don't think you *can* handicap this. offset it. make it right. people will do what people do and the harder you force an action, the harder people will fight to stay in their groups.

people have to grow out of it and it will take time, not pressure, to get there. i'm not saying it doesn't suck to be in that minority position. i'm sure it does. life sucks for me too at times. i can't run to some judge or system and "make it right" every time life sucks. sometimes i gotta look out for myself, not a system, to get me through.

a system gives people something to lean upon and makes them less inclined to do for themselves.

how do we fix it? i don't have an answer, abs. i'd be lying if i said i did. my own answer would be let life be life and let it grow at it's own pace. stop seeing a color and see people but if you lead off with a color, what are people going to see?

resent?

good discussion - glad we're keeping it civil.

[bbgun]

and at a place like Princeton faculty are very prestigious -- far too much so to grade your papers

First, that's not always the case. Second, the teaching assistants would certainly know her because they're the ones running the discussion sections, holding office hours, and doing a fair share of the grading. If she got help getting into Princeton, it's not crazy to surmise that she got additional help while there.

[AbeBeta]

Would that that were actually the case. While you have visions of "koom baya" (sp??) in your mind, the reality is starkly different. Again, when civil action is brought against a company, the strongest weapon used against them is simply comparing the demographic makeup of the employees with the demographic makeup of the polpulation in the area. It works time and time again. And that sampling takes only one characteristic into consideration - race. You mention vague "nothing"s that a company would have had to do to wind up in that position. Got news for you. All you have to do to wind up in that position is to hire among the applicants the best for each job. What are the odds that the demographic makeup of your work force will, by happy accident, match exactly the prevailing demographic makeup of the region? That is, unless, you keep an eye on the local demographics and make sure to fill positions with certain ethnicities to maintain harmony with it. Look it up in any dictionary, that's called a "quota".

How exactly are you determining who is the "best" applicant - if you can demonstrate that you use a technique for evaluating applicants that fairly distinguishes between who is good for the job and who isn't then you have no problem. The issue here is that hiring the "best" person is usually highly subjective and provides no grounds for actually stating that you actually hired the best people. If you are using a fair standard for hiring it would be extremely unlikely that you only ended up hiring white folks.

[AbeBeta]

First, that's not always the case. Second, the teaching assistants would certainly know her because they're the ones running the discussion sections, holding office hours, and doing a fair share of the grading. If she got help getting into Princeton, it's not crazy to surmise that she got additional help while there.

Some TAs may have helped -- and some may have been racists. And some, like you, may have had misguided ideas about whether she belonged or not and given her worse grades than she deserved.

[AbeBeta]

i totally agree. i also think we want the same things but different roads keep things intersting. : )

people do group up. blacks. whites. chinese. (chinatown in all major cities, right? should we do away with that and force people out of their comfort zones?) i don't think you *can* handicap this. offset it. make it right. people will do what people do and the harder you force an action, the harder people will fight to stay in their groups.

people have to grow out of it and it will take time, not pressure, to get there. i'm not saying it doesn't suck to be in that minority position. i'm sure it does. life sucks for me too at times. i can't run to some judge or system and "make it right" every time life sucks. sometimes i gotta look out for myself, not a system, to get me through.

a system gives people something to lean upon and makes them less inclined to do for themselves.

how do we fix it? i don't have an answer, abs. i'd be lying if i said i did. my own answer would be let life be life and let it grow at it's own pace. stop seeing a color and see people but if you lead off with a color, what are people going to see?

resent?

good discussion - glad we're keeping it civil.

Never thought anyone would say this but Iceberg, you've got a ton more faith in humanity than I do!

[ThaBigP]

How exactly are you determining who is the "best" applicant - if you can demonstrate that you use a technique for evaluating applicants that fairly distinguishes between who is good for the job and who isn't then you have no problem. The issue here is that hiring the "best" person is usually highly subjective and provides no grounds for actually stating that you actually hired the best people. If you are using a fair standard for hiring it would be extremely unlikely that you only ended up hiring white folks.

You're falling into the same trap that juries fall into when presented with differing demographics between a workforce and the surrounding community - you're assuming racism was the deciding factor in hiring. For no other reason than the two charts don't match precisely. You are apparently stating that if you truely hire racially-transparrent, than your workforce will precisely match the surrounding area's demographics. This not only doesn't work in the real world, but doesn't even work on paper. When you're sitting there in court as a business owner, and the prosecution has just presented the differing demographic makeups, it is now on YOU to PROVE that you didn't make race-based hires. How exactly do you do that? You cannot prove a negative. No matter what process you present as your hiring process, you are still held to account for the differing demographic makeups. So, you go forward after a big payout, and hire somebody to track local demographics and hire accordingly so you stay out of court in the future. Guess what? You've just installed a quota-based hiring system, regardless of your refusal to call it such.

[AbeBeta]

You're falling into the same trap that juries fall into when presented with differing demographics between a workforce and the surrounding community - you're assuming racism was the deciding factor in hiring. For no other reason than the two charts don't match precisely. You are apparently stating that if you truely hire racially-transparrent, than your workforce will precisely match the surrounding area's demographics. This not only doesn't work in the real world, but doesn't even work on paper. When you're sitting there in court as a business owner, and the prosecution has just presented the differing demographic makeups, it is now on YOU to PROVE that you didn't make race-based hires. How exactly do you do that? You cannot prove a negative. No matter what process you present as your hiring process, you are still held to account for the differing demographic makeups. So, you go forward after a big payout, and hire somebody to track local demographics and hire accordingly so you stay out of court in the future. Guess what? You've just installed a quota-based hiring system, regardless of your refusal to call it such.

Let's be clear here -- the term quota refers to required hiring of applicants regardless of qualification to meet an absolute standard. That is its legal definition and that is pretty much exactly what everyone thinks when they hear "quota."

What you are talking about is ensuring that your workforce is representative of the qualified applicants or potential applicants -- anyone who is ignoring race among qualified applicants would be at or near that level of representation. Representativeness has nothing to do with a quota. If you are hiring fairly, you should be representative. That is a comparative standard. You can call that whatever the hell you want. But it doesn't fit the legal definition of a quota-based system.

And when you are sitting there in court as a business owner, it is because there is legitimate probable cause that you took the government's cash and did not engage in fair hiring practices. The EEOC throws out 2/3rds of all cases and most are settled without litigation. If you were in court, you would be there because you had pretty much ignored about 10 or 15 things that you should have done to address your problem. You would be in court only if you were too obstinate to admit you have a problem. Of course, you could avoid this if you stop taking the government's money. Then you could continue to your racist hiring practices.

[iceberg]

Never thought anyone would say this but Iceberg, you've got a ton more faith in humanity than I do!

i don't like the other options.

otherwise i get protective of my own "segment" and perpetuate the problem we all *say* we want to get out of. if you do then the steps you take should be for all, not for "your own".

i understand why many blacks feel things are not fair. but then so do many whites. chinese. gays. people who can't golf want a better handicap to beat those who can. people in prison. those starving in africa and getting leftovers from kids all over who are bypassing their mothers guilt at dinner...

you won't find any segment out there w/o a population in it saying life isn't fair. that's a given that maybe we should quit trying to fix. it's not. never will be. take from one to give another based on any real reason promotes hostility in many cases.

however, here's what i base my faith in humanity in around this topic.

are we better off than we were 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 50?

even at times, 10 or 20?

i think so. i think at times affirmative action, "bussing" and the like served a vital purpose. to break down the wall. but i don't believe it ever should have been forced as a way of life. like you and i agree - people group up.

a black man hiring a black man because they're black and he's wanting to help his race is just as wrong as a white man doing the same thing. however, which would be pulled into court to argue and defend? history is on the side but fading as we grow out of it and if it's wrong for one side it's wrong. i don't believe in the free pass because of historical injustices. if "the black man" did believe in that then practice it and give your land back to the indians. i don't see a mad rush to that either so isn't that a tad hypocritical? self-serving? same as everyone else does but somewhere along the lines one way racism got to be acceptable?

if we look at these times and the improvements made, we need to continue to alter how we "force" this issue. you can lead a horse to water...

in time i think we will evolve. but it will take time. a lot of it. what worked 20 years ago may or may not still be what we should do today. lack of better options is not a reason to keep it going to me.

if you're a john wiley price shouting racism over every little thing i ignore that idiot just as much as i ignore the extreme other view. it's stupid and counter productive.

so yea. i'll keep my faith in humanity and at times it may cost me but more often than not it saves me. i won't go out to get "even" at the cost, i'll consider it paying the price for the good times.

[DFWJC]

Quotas are illegal. Did you not get that part?

Call it what you want...you and I both know what it is. So don't play stupid...because I know you are not.

[AbeBeta]

Call it what you want...you and I both know what it is. So don't play stupid...because I know you are not.

I know what it is. You seem to not.

[yeahyeah]

Affirmative action needs to be done away with. It pisses in the face of true competition and fair practice. It assumes the worst in man by forcing him to recognize what he should recognize in the first place, the best man/woman wins. It assumes that people would rather harm their corporation/organization than hire/accept the best candidate due to any number of criteria (black/mexican/woman/jew blah blah blah, I think alien trangendered midgets just made the list).
Maybe in the segregated America of (you pick a timeframe) when opinions and misconception were norm but I think whitey is not keepin so many down these days.
It has served its purpose..like the steam engine the catapult and the Magna Carta..time to put it to bed.

[iceberg]

I know what it is. You seem to not.

abersonc - you must see that AA does imply and create quotas by default, do you not? there has to be a "set" number to show you're complying, right? otherwise they'll come after you for being racist.

you're "forced" to hire enough to keep that from happening.

this is why i hate AA because it does force behavior like this. you can say it's against the law to have quotas but then i ask why it is legal to say you must be diverse? if not by numbers, how do you prove they're diverse? you only look if NO black people are hired? ok, then apparantely if i hire enough you won't look.

quota.

how else can you quantify diversity if not by a quota to show? would you not point to numbers to show "the problem"? you can try to keep them seperate on paper and good luck. in the real world this is what happens.

so you tell me because i am interested. do you not see how forcing AA would imply forced quotas to show compliance?

if you don't go by #'s to show it's working, how can you go by #'s to show it's not? and if not working, why it is instantly racist till proven otherwise?

you're wanting both sides of the coin here and the best of both worlds. that isn't fair and in the end it promotes the very thing it's out to stop - racism.

so, please explain. i'm all ears.

[AbeBeta]

abersonc - you must see that AA does imply and create quotas by default, do you not? there has to be a "set" number to show you're complying, right? otherwise they'll come after you for being racist.

you're "forced" to hire enough to keep that from happening.

this is why i hate AA because it does force behavior like this. you can say it's against the law to have quotas but then i ask why it is legal to say you must be diverse? if not by numbers, how do you prove they're diverse? you only look if NO black people are hired? ok, then apparantely if i hire enough you won't look.

quota.

how else can you quantify diversity if not by a quota to show? would you not point to numbers to show "the problem"? you can try to keep them seperate on paper and good luck. in the real world this is what happens.

so you tell me because i am interested. do you not see how forcing AA would imply forced quotas to show compliance?

if you don't go by #'s to show it's working, how can you go by #'s to show it's not? and if not working, why it is instantly racist till proven otherwise?

you're wanting both sides of the coin here and the best of both worlds. that isn't fair and in the end it promotes the very thing it's out to stop - racism.

so, please explain. i'm all ears.

Again, a QUOTA as most people see defined it and as it is legally defined is a set # you have to attain by hiring any and all applicants, regardless of qualification. You know as well as I do -- and we've seen this throughout this thread, people equate quotas with forced hiring of unqualified applicants to meet goals.

The numbers you point to are valuable for comparison. That is, if your potential application pool includes 20% African Americans then why is it that you hired 5%? You don't have to reach that 20% value but you do have to show clearly that being under represented is a result of fair hiring practices. For example, if you can demonstrate that only a small proportion of those in the applicant pool where qualified for the position then you have met the criteria. That isn't a quota -- it is legitimate information about your applicant pool that is used for a rough comparison of your hiring to who applied (or who potentially applied). You can be very far off from those comparison values if you can show you do not engage in discrimination.

Your racists until proven otherwise statement does not reflect the reality of AA. The vast majority of organizations never have to do anything more than collect information on who applied and who was hired. That implies that there is an assumption that folks are doing things fairly and the procedures only ratchet up if there are clear data that the organization has been discriminating.

By "ratcheting up" some of the steps an organization might be compelled to take are addressing why they fail to attract minority applicants -- often this is remedied by simply modifying recruitment efforts to include more diversity -- e.g., not just going to job fairs at mostly White universities. Similarly, an organization might be compelled to establish objective hiring criteria. These are far and away the most common applications and processes involved in AA. All of these assume that there is an intention to be fair and none of them assume organizations are racist to start.

The problem with people's perceptions of AA is that they frankly have no idea how the policy is applied. I know most folks in this thread went right to some aspect of preferential hiring - the fact is that few organizations EVER have to apply that sort of approach - and if they do, it is because they were either very very bad in the past or choose to do so voluntarily.

[iceberg]

Again, a QUOTA as most people see defined it and as it is legally defined is a set # you have to attain by hiring any and all applicants, regardless of qualification. You know as well as I do -- and we've seen this throughout this thread, people equate quotas with forced hiring of unqualified applicants to meet goals.

and if they don't hire a set #, what happens? since "bad things" happen there must be a number out there that would trigger this. not saying it is worse than saying it cause now "that side" can be just a subjective as it wants. this company only hired 2 blacks, let's get after 'em! while another company maybe didn't hire any. there's not even a rule around this so it's all in the favor of what you say doesn't exist but you and i both know, it does.

The numbers you point to are valuable for comparison. That is, if your potential application pool includes 20% African Americans then why is it that you hired 5%? You don't have to reach that 20% value but you do have to show clearly that being under represented is a result of fair hiring practices. For example, if you can demonstrate that only a small proportion of those in the applicant pool where qualified for the position then you have met the criteria. That isn't a quota -- it is legitimate information about your applicant pool that is used for a rough comparison of your hiring to who applied (or who potentially applied). You can be very far off from those comparison values if you can show you do not engage in discrimination.

so while i don't have a "quota" cause it's illegal, i do have to track and make sure my numbers add to someone elses satisfaction and it's it's to change from situation to situation. i'll never know if i really hit it, will i? again, i'm guilty till proven i'm innocent under this quota model that doesn't exist that AA utilizes, but it doesn't.

Your racists until proven otherwise statement does not reflect the reality of AA. The vast majority of organizations never have to do anything more than collect information on who applied and who was hired. That implies that there is an assumption that folks are doing things fairly and the procedures only ratchet up if there are clear data that the organization has been discriminating.

so answer my question in another thread - a white man and a black man both have a job to fill. the white man hires the most qualified and it's a white guy. all cool *if you can prove it* (again, guilty till i prove it, right? you just said that) yet if a black man hires a black man cause he wants to give that black man a chance -

why is that not racist? it's almost as if some black people feel racism is their own private social disorder just for them.

if you can't hire based on a color - NO COLOR CAN. to do so perpetuates the problem and always makes one side feel entitled and another slighted.

By "ratcheting up" some of the steps an organization might be compelled to take are addressing why they fail to attract minority applicants -- often this is remedied by simply modifying recruitment efforts to include more diversity -- e.g., not just going to job fairs at mostly White universities. Similarly, an organization might be compelled to establish objective hiring criteria. These are far and away the most common applications and processes involved in AA. All of these assume that there is an intention to be fair and none of them assume organizations are racist to start.

but if they don't hire enough black people (of which they're not required to do, right?) then they're racist till proven otherwise. racism is assumed far too often and it dilutes the real racist issues out there.

aka john wiley price.

The problem with people's perceptions of AA is that they frankly have no idea how the policy is applied. I know most folks in this thread went right to some aspect of preferential hiring - the fact is that few organizations EVER have to apply that sort of approach - and if they do, it is because they were either very very bad in the past or choose to do so voluntarily.

so then maybe it's a bad program and maybe - just maybe - it's abused as well to benefit one side.

so do away with it and let's force ourselves to focus on the whole, not those who feel most abused at the time.

[DFWJC]

I know what it is. You seem to not.

Are you in 5th grade? Come on, now.

[ThaBigP]

Let's be clear here -- the term quota refers to required hiring of applicants regardless of qualification to meet an absolute standard. That is its legal definition and that is pretty much exactly what everyone thinks when they hear "quota."

What you are talking about is ensuring that your workforce is representative of the qualified applicants or potential applicants -- anyone who is ignoring race among qualified applicants would be at or near that level of representation. Representativeness has nothing to do with a quota. If you are hiring fairly, you should be representative. That is a comparative standard. You can call that whatever the hell you want. But it doesn't fit the legal definition of a quota-based system.

And when you are sitting there in court as a business owner, it is because there is legitimate probable cause that you took the government's cash and did not engage in fair hiring practices. The EEOC throws out 2/3rds of all cases and most are settled without litigation. If you were in court, you would be there because you had pretty much ignored about 10 or 15 things that you should have done to address your problem. You would be in court only if you were too obstinate to admit you have a problem. Of course, you could avoid this if you stop taking the government's money. Then you could continue to your racist hiring practices.

Thank you for proving my point. You said that "quota" hiring is hiring based on race regardless of some "absolute standard", such as qualifications. What you refer to as "being representative" is precisely what I'm talking about - you'd better "look" just like the population around you or else. What would you call it, then, when business after business has had to keep an eye on local demographics to determine what "color" face needs to fill a position? That, unfortunately, is making a race-based hire. Out of fear of being hauled into court. And it has happened, time and time again. Simply spouting that "quotas are illegal" is pretty limp-wristed when you consider that, in fact, many companies have had to hire precisely along racial lines in order to avoid the appearance of racism in the event their workforce doesn't happen to have the exact same race makeup as the population around that company. Again, it's attempting to have it both ways. We (collective, as a society) will sue any company into the stoneage if they do not hire along racial lines, but let's also give our shoulders a workout by patting ourselves on the back since, after all, we also say quotas are "illegal". The sky is blue, but blue skies are illegal.

[AbeBeta]

and if they don't hire a set #, what happens? since "bad things" happen there must be a number out there that would trigger this. not saying it is worse than saying it cause now "that side" can be just a subjective as it wants. this company only hired 2 blacks, let's get after 'em! while another company maybe didn't hire any. there's not even a rule around this so it's all in the favor of what you say doesn't exist but you and i both know, it does.

As I noted, they need to justify their hiring. Comparison against population numbers is a first step in diagnosing whether there is a problem or not. The EEOC has some very clear guidelines for how they evaluate these cases which is why they throw so many out.



so while i don't have a "quota" cause it's illegal, i do have to track and make sure my numbers add to someone elses satisfaction and it's it's to change from situation to situation. i'll never know if i really hit it, will i? again, i'm guilty till proven i'm innocent under this quota model that doesn't exist that AA utilizes, but it doesn't.

You do have to track, yes. But most organizations never get past that stage and few have ANY idea what those numbers suggest or what the demographics are in their area. Why? Because if they are engaging in fair hiring practices, they end up hiring a reasonable mix of people




so answer my question in another thread - a white man and a black man both have a job to fill. the white man hires the most qualified and it's a white guy. all cool *if you can prove it* (again, guilty till i prove it, right? you just said that) yet if a black man hires a black man cause he wants to give that black man a chance -

why is that not racist? it's almost as if some black people feel racism is their own private social disorder just for them.

if you can't hire based on a color - NO COLOR CAN. to do so perpetuates the problem and always makes one side feel entitled and another slighted.

In both cases that is discrimination. Many of the cases the EEOC deals with are complaints by Whites.

The issue of qualifications here is one that is important -- if you have a fair hiring practice in place you will have no problem showing that one applicant is more qualified than another. If you do not have a fair practice in place you are going to have a hard time justifying your hire. Again, very very very very few organizations ever get to a stage where they have to justify their procedures.




but if they don't hire enough black people (of which they're not required to do, right?) then they're racist till proven otherwise. racism is assumed far too often and it dilutes the real racist issues out there.

aka john wiley price.

so then maybe it's a bad program and maybe - just maybe - it's abused as well to benefit one side.

so do away with it and let's force ourselves to focus on the whole, not those who feel most abused at the time.

No, if they are shown to not hire enough black folks then they are provided with resources for ameliorating the problem in a positive manner -- such as improved recruitment strategies.

Since your focus seems to be on hiring and giving one person a job over another -- something that is pretty rare among AA policies applied in the US, I'll provide you with a couple of direct experiences I've had with AA

1. I was interviewing for a position and was told that I had to meet with the Affirmative Action Compliance officer. I met with him and his primary questions revolved around the processes involved in getting me information for my interview - e.g., did I get my information packet in time to review it, did I receive timely responses to my questions, how long was your telephone interview, did they ask anything that made you uncomfortable. Never did the issue of ethnicity come up.

2. As part of a hiring committee, I also met with an AA compliance officer. This was at a very liberal institution with a strong commitment to social justice issues. We have a terrible problem recruiting enough women and minorities. The AA officer spoke to us at length about things we could not ask applicants, how to review files before making our short list for interviews - ideally, with the applicant's name not included in the file (which in our field is impossible), making sure that if contacted by the applicant and asked to provide that information to all the applicants on our shortlist, standardizing the questions we asked in telephone and in person interviews to make sure each person had the opportunity to respond to the same questions. The only ethnicity/sex issue that came up had to do with a reminder that we did have funding to advertise our position in minority job resource outlets (which for our field usually proves useless) and an encouragement to have as diverse a hiring committee as possible (e.g., not all white dudes).

As both an applicant and as an "employer" the focus was on treating people fairly not on giving anyone an advantage in the decision process.

[AbeBeta]

Thank you for proving my point. You said that "quota" hiring is hiring based on race regardless of some "absolute standard", such as qualifications. What you refer to as "being representative" is precisely what I'm talking about - you'd better "look" just like the population around you or else. What would you call it, then, when business after business has had to keep an eye on local demographics to determine what "color" face needs to fill a position? That, unfortunately, is making a race-based hire. Out of fear of being hauled into court. And it has happened, time and time again. Simply spouting that "quotas are illegal" is pretty limp-wristed when you consider that, in fact, many companies have had to hire precisely along racial lines in order to avoid the appearance of racism in the event their workforce doesn't happen to have the exact same race makeup as the population around that company. Again, it's attempting to have it both ways. We (collective, as a society) will sue any company into the stoneage if they do not hire along racial lines, but let's also give our shoulders a workout by patting ourselves on the back since, after all, we also say quotas are "illegal". The sky is blue, but blue skies are illegal.

A quota system requiring hiring of unqualified applicants is illegal. Plain and simple. The fear of being hauled into court is an ignorance based fear. If you hire based on that then you clearly do not understand the rules.

You do have to show that either a) you are hiring roughly at the demographic level in your community or b) that there is a reason why certain people are hired and others not. Frankly, the standard could be much much more stringent seeing that we are talking about positions wherein the organizations receive FEDERAL funds. Where does that cash come from? Out of taxpayer's pockets. If your organization takes tax payer money in and then doles it out only to members of one ethnic group you are discriminating. There have been revolutions fought over issues like this.

[ThaBigP]

And this point probably needs a little clarification: AA vs laws against discrimination in hiring. What's the difference?

Anti-discrimination laws target specific instances of racial (or other) discrimination in hiring/firing/etc. In other words, if Joe is black and applies for a job and is rejected because somebody who has authority to hire doesn't like the color of his skin, he has cause to bring action against said company (assuming of course he can prove the allegation, but for the sake of this argument let's say it's a clear case of discrimination with witnesses, e-mail trails, etc).

AA, on the other hand, is an attempt to squelch the cumulative affect of racial prejudice in hiring/firing/etc. Specific instances of racial discrimination are largely irrelelvent in AA cases, although a specific claim may be the spark that ignites an AA lawsuit. The attempt by AA is to look at a company's workforce and attempt to deduce whether or not racial discrimination was used to form the racial (or other) makeup of the company's workforce. Let's say you have a company that happens to have 80% whites in an area that is about 50% black. The assumption is that something is amiss racially. Otherwise, how could the disparity come to be? But therein lies the rub - it's an assumption based soley on the racial makeup of the company compared to the racial makeup of the surrounding population. And in many cases, the disparity isn't as wide as the example I gave.

The problem with AA is, where is the line which triggers legal action? Or what line is crossed that indicates racial hiring practices? There is no line. It's "get hauled into court, plead your case, and hope for the best". In response, many companies have specifically researched the local demographic and direct miniority hires in order to help the company's workforce to match. That, any way you slice it (and in fact, precisely how you defined it), is a QUOTA. You can claim that quotas are "illegal" until you're blue in the face (and ineed so can the law). However, that does not make it so. The loophole is that government is not "requiring" a quota, just setting up a system by which you, as a business owner, MUST install a quota hiring system in order to avoid being sued or worse.

[ThaBigP]

A quota system requiring hiring of unqualified applicants is illegal. Plain and simple. The fear of being hauled into court is an ignorance based fear. If you hire based on that then you clearly do not understand the rules.

You do have to show that either a) you are hiring roughly at the demographic level in your community or b) that there is a reason why certain people are hired and others not. Frankly, the standard could be much much more stringent seeing that we are talking about positions wherein the organizations receive FEDERAL funds. Where does that cash come from? Out of taxpayer's pockets. If your organization takes tax payer money in and then doles it out only to members of one ethnic group you are discriminating. There have been revolutions fought over issues like this.

Then I expect all the money awarded in AA lawsuits over the years, many of which were based soley on demographic disparty, to be returned to the buisiness from which those funds were awarded. Wait, you mean that isn't happening? Then you can claim that quotas are "illegal" all day long. The fact of the matter is, if you do not hire along racial lines, you can get popped big time. By the same government that claims quotas are "illegal".

[ThaBigP]

As I noted, they need to justify their hiring. Comparison against population numbers is a first step in diagnosing whether there is a problem or not. The EEOC has some very clear guidelines for how they evaluate these cases which is why they throw so many out.




You do have to track, yes. But most organizations never get past that stage and few have ANY idea what those numbers suggest or what the demographics are in their area. Why? Because if they are engaging in fair hiring practices, they end up hiring a reasonable mix of people




In both cases that is discrimination. Many of the cases the EEOC deals with are complaints by Whites.

The issue of qualifications here is one that is important -- if you have a fair hiring practice in place you will have no problem showing that one applicant is more qualified than another. If you do not have a fair practice in place you are going to have a hard time justifying your hire. Again, very very very very few organizations ever get to a stage where they have to justify their procedures.





No, if they are shown to not hire enough black folks then they are provided with resources for ameliorating the problem in a positive manner -- such as improved recruitment strategies.

Since your focus seems to be on hiring and giving one person a job over another -- something that is pretty rare among AA policies applied in the US, I'll provide you with a couple of direct experiences I've had with AA

1. I was interviewing for a position and was told that I had to meet with the Affirmative Action Compliance officer. I met with him and his primary questions revolved around the processes involved in getting me information for my interview - e.g., did I get my information packet in time to review it, did I receive timely responses to my questions, how long was your telephone interview, did they ask anything that made you uncomfortable. Never did the issue of ethnicity come up.

2. As part of a hiring committee, I also met with an AA compliance officer. This was at a very liberal institution with a strong commitment to social justice issues. We have a terrible problem recruiting enough women and minorities. The AA officer spoke to us at length about things we could not ask applicants, how to review files before making our short list for interviews - ideally, with the applicant's name not included in the file (which in our field is impossible), making sure that if contacted by the applicant and asked to provide that information to all the applicants on our shortlist, standardizing the questions we asked in telephone and in person interviews to make sure each person had the opportunity to respond to the same questions. The only ethnicity/sex issue that came up had to do with a reminder that we did have funding to advertise our position in minority job resource outlets (which for our field usually proves useless) and an encouragement to have as diverse a hiring committee as possible (e.g., not all white dudes).

As both an applicant and as an "employer" the focus was on treating people fairly not on giving anyone an advantage in the decision process.

Excuse me? You just wrote that "We have a terrible problem recruiting enough women and minorities." That means, my dear friend, you're looking for colors and genitals when hiring. You were in fact, apparently, looking under rocks to find enough women and other minorities. Rather than hiring the best applicant in front of you (whoever "you" happened to be at that time). Why, then, would you feel the need to "recruit enough women and minorities"? Did you have, I dunno, a quota to fill? Oh, wait, those are illegal, aren't they?

[AbeBeta]

Excuse me? You just wrote that "We have a terrible problem recruiting enough women and minorities." That means, my dear friend, you're looking for colors and genitals when hiring. You were in fact, apparently, looking under rocks to find enough women and other minorities. Rather than hiring the best applicant in front of you (whoever "you" happened to be at that time). Why, then, would you feel the need to "recruit enough women and minorities"? Did you have, I dunno, a quota to fill? Oh, wait, those are illegal, aren't they?

We do not recruit anywhere near enough women or minorities. The problem is obvious and plain to the eye, especially when you see 80% men hired and only one or two minorities in a workforce of 250 or so.

We at no time EVER have been told you need to have this many people in this group, this many in this group. We do have a general goal of making our workforce more representative of the people served by it (a majority of women). We have NEVER been pushed to hire someone from one group over another. Only to make sure that we end up with an application pool that is reasonably reflective of the qualified potential applicants. Once we get our pool, we select based on qualifications, rank ordering applicants regardless of anything but their qualifications.

You can call that a quota if you want but you know that is not what people think of when they say "quota."

[ThaBigP]

We do not recruit anywhere near enough women or minorities. The problem is obvious and plain to the eye, especially when you see 80% men hired and only one or two minorities in a workforce of 250 or so.

We at no time EVER have been told you need to have this many people in this group, this many in this group. We do have a general goal of making our workforce more representative of the people served by it (a majority of women). We have NEVER been pushed to hire someone from one group over another. Only to make sure that we end up with an application pool that is reasonably reflective of the qualified potential applicants. Once we get our pool, we select based on qualifications, rank ordering applicants regardless of anything but their qualifications.

You can call that a quota if you want but you know that is not what people think of when they say "quota."

The problem is, that will change if somebody hauls you into court. By the way, who decides what "enough" minorities/women looks like? You (again, whoever "you" happened to be at that time) made a voluntary decision to hire along those lines. The problem is, in spite of your heroic recruiting efforts you still had trouble matching local demographics. Many, many companies in the same position have been sued for millions of dollars for doing precisely what you guys did - hire the best you can and if it doesn't quite match local demograhics, there's not much you can do about it. And, again using your own definition, that is a quota. It's merely self-imposed either out of altruism or fear of lawsuits. There is a concept in law known as "de juro" versus "de facto". De Juro means, "by the letter of the law" - and in this case the letter of the law is "quotas are illegal". De facto means, "as a matter of fact" and as a legal principle means that something, while not in the letter of the law, is in fact the case due to any number of reasons. Quotas are de facto a reality, even though they may not be in the letter of the law. While the law says that quotas are illegal, the same government will haul you into court for not hiring the right number of colors or genitals to match local demographics. That means you MUST hire along racial/sexual lines. That is a QUOTA. Some guy in a suit doesn't have to stand over your shoulder and demand it. That guy in a suit will be a prosecuting attorney in an AA suit filed against you after-the-fact.

[AbeBeta]

The problem with AA is, where is the line which triggers legal action? Or what line is crossed that indicates racial hiring practices? There is no line. It's "get hauled into court, plead your case, and hope for the best". In response, many companies have specifically researched the local demographic and direct miniority hires in order to help the company's workforce to match. That, any way you slice it (and in fact, precisely how you defined it), is a QUOTA. You can claim that quotas are "illegal" until you're blue in the face (and ineed so can the law). However, that does not make it so. The loophole is that government is not "requiring" a quota, just setting up a system by which you, as a business owner, MUST install a quota hiring system in order to avoid being sued or worse.

Again, you can call that a quota if you want. But comparison to some statistical criteria is but one aspect. Comparative treatment evidence (how say white vs. AA applicants were treated), background information (e.g., employer requires a certain degree that greatly limits the applicant pool), personnel policies, relevant competencies required for positions... the list goes on and on with the numeric information being only one part of the picture.

The law is clear that hiring unqualified applicants is illegal. Plain and simple. If you choose to hire unqualified people it is because your organization is ignorant and fails to follow the EEOC's best practices for hiring then your organization is ignorant.

[AbeBeta]

The problem is, that will change if somebody hauls you into court. By the way, who decides what "enough" minorities/women looks like? You (again, whoever "you" happened to be at that time) made a voluntary decision to hire along those lines. The problem is, in spite of your heroic recruiting efforts you still had trouble matching local demographics. Many, many companies in the same position have been sued for millions of dollars for doing precisely what you guys did - hire the best you can and if it doesn't quite match local demograhics, there's not much you can do about it. And, again using your own definition, that is a quota. It's merely self-imposed either out of altruism or fear of lawsuits. There is a concept in law known as "de juro" versus "de facto". De Juro means, "by the letter of the law" - and in this case the letter of the law is "quotas are illegal". De facto means, "as a matter of fact" and as a legal principle means that something, while not in the letter of the law, is in fact the case due to any number of reasons. Quotas are de facto a reality, even though they may not be in the letter of the law. While the law says that quotas are illegal, the same government will haul you into court for not hiring the right number of colors or genitals to match local demographics. That means you MUST hire along racial/sexual lines. That is a QUOTA. Some guy in a suit doesn't have to stand over your shoulder and demand it. That guy in a suit will be a prosecuting attorney in an AA suit filed against you after-the-fact.

I've just detailed how demographics are but one aspect of this in my other post.

Again, if you hire fairly you will never get past the monitoring stage.

[iceberg]

You do have to track, yes. But most organizations never get past that stage and few have ANY idea what those numbers suggest or what the demographics are in their area. Why? Because if they are engaging in fair hiring practices, they end up hiring a reasonable mix of people

lets break it down and go for broke, shall we?

but you want to define fair on a case by case basis. very "liberal" of you per se. you want to be able to do the things you preach against simply beause it helps right some injustice and that makes it right in the end.

i do think we have some areas of common ground here, and i appreciate that a lot. i do. but i think we have a fundamental disagreement on whether AA helps promote those fair hiring practices. it would seem you just said most hire properly anyway w/o even knowing the numbers.

if that's what you said then AA is useless BECAUSE it's not AA driving the proper behavior.

maybe it's just evolution and as people have said, AA and it's place in time is fading. recognizing that isn't holding anyone back, abersonc. it's not even wanting or trying to. it's just trying to see beyond 1 pieces role in the overall puzzle.

[iceberg]

I've just detailed how demographics are but one aspect of this in my other post.

Again, if you hire fairly you will never get past the monitoring stage.

and AA is therefor not needed because you don't have to monitor it to know if you're complying.

you're using both sides of the coin and want to apply penalty only when it suits one side, not an unbiased side.

[iceberg]

We do not recruit anywhere near enough women or minorities. The problem is obvious and plain to the eye, especially when you see 80% men hired and only one or two minorities in a workforce of 250 or so.

We at no time EVER have been told you need to have this many people in this group, this many in this group. We do have a general goal of making our workforce more representative of the people served by it (a majority of women). We have NEVER been pushed to hire someone from one group over another. Only to make sure that we end up with an application pool that is reasonably reflective of the qualified potential applicants. Once we get our pool, we select based on qualifications, rank ordering applicants regardless of anything but their qualifications.

You can call that a quota if you want but you know that is not what people think of when they say "quota."

but you do admit if ZERO are in the group you go after 'em right? make sure it's all fair?

and if to avoid that you must hire at least 1 minority - is that not a quota?

you're trying to change the defination to suit your view and the word quota i don't think has a side here. if this is the wrong word to use please suggest another that bases behavior off end result numbers where a certain number will keep bad things from happening to you, on a case by case basis.

is it better if we just spell it out like that vs. say quota?

[AbeBeta]

but i think we have a fundamental disagreement on whether AA helps promote those fair hiring practices. it would seem you just said most hire properly anyway w/o even knowing the numbers.

AA laws make a major focus on fair hiring practices. Selection of employees from certain backgrounds is one very small part of the process as I've detailed.

And what I said is that if you follow best practices approaches to hiring -- as detailed by the EEOC that you will likely never end up in a situation where you have a pattern of discriminatory hiring practices. The numbers are there for self-evaluation - if you want it -- and for external evaluation if there is a complaint. More often than not those numbers protect the employer.

[AbeBeta]

and AA is therefor not needed because you don't have to monitor it to know if you're complying.

you're using both sides of the coin and want to apply penalty only when it suits one side, not an unbiased side.

You do have to monitor to measure if what you are doing is working -- and to allow for external review of whether what you are doing is working.

[iceberg]

AA laws make a major focus on fair hiring practices. Selection of employees from certain backgrounds is one very small part of the process as I've detailed.

And what I said is that if you follow best practices approaches to hiring -- as detailed by the EEOC that you will likely never end up in a situation where you have a pattern of discriminatory hiring practices. The numbers are there for self-evaluation - if you want it -- and for external evaluation if there is a complaint. More often than not those numbers protect the employer.

then the businesses would KNOW their percentages.

and if they needed to hire X% minorities to stop the investigations, it's a quota.

the AA drives for that in the end EVEN IF that's not it's intent or goal. this is the behavior bad ideas spawn. you may want the end result to be for the best of reasons but if you only do it to avoid investigation, then you know what # to hit to stop it from coming.

and you do it to stop it from coming.

and you met your quota.

or you hire fairly by nature and the AA doesn't have a meaning.

you're taking the best case scenario on both sides and calling that the whole picture. there's about 80% of this in the middle you're ignoring.

do you or do you not feel that the AA would force someone to hire a black person to keep from being called racist or have racist hiring practices?

[AbeBeta]

but you do admit if ZERO are in the group you go after 'em right? make sure it's all fair?

and if to avoid that you must hire at least 1 minority - is that not a quota?

you're trying to change the defination to suit your view and the word quota i don't think has a side here. if this is the wrong word to use please suggest another that bases behavior off end result numbers where a certain number will keep bad things from happening to you, on a case by case basis.

is it better if we just spell it out like that vs. say quota?

If zero are in the group like women then we've failed miserably in every way in the selection process and clearly discriminated. We do have zero or near zero in several ethnic groups and until we get some qualified applicants from those groups whose qualifications place them at the top of our applicant pool, we will continue to have zero in those groups. We can try to recruit applicants to apply for those positions through advertisements in various non-traditional sources, but once they are in the pool it is a qualification-based game.

As I've noted numeric data is ONE part of an evaluation of whether an organization is discriminating. It a symptom that something may be wrong in the hiring process. However, other factors, as I've detail in another post, are just as important. Any organization that makes a numeric target does so out of ignorance.

We both know that the term QUOTA is used to imply indiscriminate hiring of minority applicants regardless of qualifications in order to hit a certain number.

[iceberg]

yes no questions always this difficult? : )

[AbeBeta]

then the businesses would KNOW their percentages.

and if they needed to hire X% minorities to stop the investigations, it's a quota.

the AA drives for that in the end EVEN IF that's not it's intent or goal. this is the behavior bad ideas spawn. you may want the end result to be for the best of reasons but if you only do it to avoid investigation, then you know what # to hit to stop it from coming.

and you do it to stop it from coming.

and you met your quota.

or you hire fairly by nature and the AA doesn't have a meaning.

you're taking the best case scenario on both sides and calling that the whole picture. there's about 80% of this in the middle you're ignoring.

do you or do you not feel that the AA would force someone to hire a black person to keep from being called racist or have racist hiring practices?

Again, business needs to abide by best practice for hiring standards. If they do so the numbers will never come into play. Simply targeting a number doesn't stop you from being investigated, in fact, if you hire unqualified applicants you are going to get legitimate filings with the EEOC by more qualified applicants who didn't get jobs.

You are correct about fair hiring -- if you do hire fairly, AA is not necessary. But the fact is the only organizations who need to do anything more than monitor or recruit are those who have a history of NOT hiring fairly.

[AbeBeta]

do you or do you not feel that the AA would force someone to hire a black person to keep from being called racist or have racist hiring practices?

Yes it would. Provided that the person had legitimately discriminated in hiring in the past. As I noted, you can hit a "number" and still not be hiring in a manner consistent with AA. And if you do that, you have legal action directed against you.

[AbeBeta]

Nice discussion but I have to get to the airport. Catch up with you later

[iceberg]

Yes it would. Provided that the person had legitimately discriminated in hiring in the past. As I noted, you can hit a "number" and still not be hiring in a manner consistent with AA. And if you do that, you have legal action directed against you.

so - yes. AA promotes the hiring of a black person.

what is the defination of racism again?

if to be racist is to hold or give benefit to one over another due soley to the color of their skin, when can it ever be tolerable?

i understand it for now. but i see a need to grow out of it as well. how far off that is i have no idea. but history has shown vast improvements. when do we look back over things again vs. hold onto what we were handed?

[ScipioCowboy]

Perhaps this exchange is best summarized like so:

Abersonc: Quotas are technically illegal and, in a theoretical sense, have no place in business hiring practices or AA policies.

Iceberg: From a practical standpoint, businesses cannot fulfill AA policies unless they implement a de facto, albeit unofficial, quota system when hiring job applicants.

Is this an accurate synopsis?

[iceberg]

Perhaps this exchange is best summarized like so:

Abersonc: Quotas are technically illegal and, in a theoretical sense, have no place in business hiring practices or AA policies.

Iceberg: From a practical standpoint, businesses cannot fulfill AA policies unless they implement a de facto, albeit unofficial, quota system when hiring job applicants.

Is this an accurate synopsis?

i'd say that's a good unbiased synopsis.

[AbeBeta]

Perhaps this exchange is best summarized like so:

Abersonc: Quotas are technically illegal and, in a theoretical sense, have no place in business hiring practices or AA policies.

Iceberg: From a practical standpoint, businesses cannot fulfill AA policies unless they implement a de facto, albeit unofficial, quota system when hiring job applicants.

Is this an accurate synopsis?

I would say that in PRACTICE that is a good synopsis - except for the part about businesses not being able to fulfill policies unless they implement a de facto system.

That said, some employers likely do have a de facto system. But that de facto system is borne of employer ignorance and failure to adhere to best practice hiring standards. As I noted before, the gov't should take some blame there for doing a poor job in educating employers as to how to apply fair hiring standards. Employers can fulfill policies without employing such a system provided that they have clear and objective hiring standards that treat every consistently. A de facto quota system is not created by the policy, but by failures of employers.

As noted before, if you believe an employer is in fact engaging in such a de facto process and you unfairly did not receive a position, you have every right under the law to file a complaint. Such complaints have a ton of traction. Some even make it to the Supreme Court (e.g., Grutter v Bollinger).

All right, gotta get some real work done today.

[iceberg]

well, at least i just said yes/no - not tried to defend my point again.

people complain too much because someone didn't do something "their way". i tend to want to fit in normally vs. having to force acceptance.

as for:
except for the part about businesses not being able to fulfill policies unless they implement a de facto system.

i'll ask again abersonc - how else would you know if you didn't have a number to hit when to go look at someone's practices?

you want to avoid the bad this policy does and say "but you shouldn't do that!" when it's this policy that creates that behavior. a simply "illegal" won't cut it. it happens and you've not provided another way to tell how to avoid this. you say don't pay attention to the numbers and just be fair.

this isn't a perfect world, is it? you're out to enforce it on those NOT fair. so how do you know if someone isn't being fair unless they don't hire enough people to avoid suspecion? you don't.

so you put in a quota just to get past the rule and ensure you avoid a stupid legal mess that favors 1 race only and by nature is the defination of pure racism.

so if this policy fosters behavior you deem wrong, then maybe this policy is the wrong way to do what you want. until you see and acknowledge the bad that comes from this we're kinda stuck. not denying it can do good - i'm just saying bad comes with it.

you seem to bypass the bad and not offer another way to show you cna avoid this w/o a quota in place. other than just "being fair" and if everyone did that, this has no purpose.

so if it has a purpose it must drive behavior. not all of that will be good, abersonc. all i'm saying.

[AbeBeta]

you seem to bypass the bad and not offer another way to show you cna avoid this w/o a quota in place. other than just "being fair" and if everyone did that, this has no purpose.

You are correct about being fair -- if everyone did this there would be no need for a policy like AA. The EEOC details practices for doing exactly this - you can't just say "oh, we are fair" because many people who think that likely aren't. If employers address EEOC best practices for hiring, that they will be making fair hiring decisions -- and if you are doing that what you will very likely see is that you get a racial profile in your workforce that looks very much like the racial profile of those who applied. Further, if you do engage in these practices, you will likely never move past the benign monitoring phase of AA.

Here's sampling of suggested practices, these are pretty explicit on how to make you are being fair and unbiased in hires.

Develop a hiring policy that is embraced by top executives, train managers and employees on its contents, enforce it, and those making hiring decisions accountable for following that policy.

Make sure decisions are transparent and documented. The reasons for employment decisions should be well explained to affected persons. Maintain records of decisions.

Conducting self-analyses to determine whether current employment practices disadvantage people of color (or women) or treat them differently.

Analyze competencies relevant to jobs. Create objective, job-related qualification standards related to those competencies. Make sure they are consistently applied when choosing among candidates.

Identify and remove barriers such as word-of-mouth recruiting in a workforce that does not reflect the diversity of the qualified labor market, or employment tests – if they cannot demonstrably be tied to job performance and business necessity.

Plain and simple. There are options for organizations other than adherence to de facto quotas. Any organization that demonstrates good faith use of these approaches will rarely have an issue.

[iceberg]

ab - please understand i have the world of respect for you - but i see you taking the best of the situation and saying the rest just needs to go away.

if we could do that we'd just take the best of hiring period and the rest would just...go away.

i don't want someone to be hired for a skin color. i don't care what that color is. i don't want someone to be called into question for why they do what they do. suddenly you can judge where the judged once sat?

i wanna get past all that. to do that you have to put down the obvious.

i can't argue whether or not AA fosters protective behavior. it does. whether quota or just being cool and stevie wonder of the HR world.

putting standards in place that don't make sense foster bad behavior. if the goal is to make hiring practices fair then they must be fair for all, not the last most repressed. that just keeps the circle alive. when you do you break it? when do you grow up enough to see that you're being what you're fighting regardless of what reason puts you to bed at night.

i don't want to be investigaged, i hire X number of blacks.

legal or not people will do it. should or shouldn't, people will do it. why? cause it's a stupid thing to tell people that doesn't help break down the barriers you're trying to get past.

you stay on the high ground as if the world should come up to you abseronc. maybe it should. then again i wish it would come up to me too, i'm the one who had faith it would in the end. : )

i'm looking beyond the problem, you're looking at it. not sure where to go from here.

[AbeBeta]

i don't want to be investigaged, i hire X number of blacks.


And my perspective is that if you don't want to be investigated, you employ the procedures I outlined - investigations look at far far more than just numbers - they look at how you got there with a particular focus on the processes used in hiring. You can be "investigated" regardless of your numbers and you can be in violation if you do not use appropriate and fairly outlined procedures in hiring, regardless of the numerical outcome of your procedures.

But you are right. Nowhere to go from here.