This was the simple status message of a local yocal here and thought we should explore this as a community.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Affirmative action, yes or no?
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
May the best Man/Woman/Alien/whatever get the job.
I am a minority here in Miami because I am White and the majority is Spainsh. I am sure I get passed by on jobs however I am sure I am hired because of my qualifications. I rather be hired because of my qualifications then my skin.
I am a minority here in Miami because I am White and the majority is Spainsh. I am sure I get passed by on jobs however I am sure I am hired because of my qualifications. I rather be hired because of my qualifications then my skin.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
AA brings everyone down. The person that gets a job through AA usually cant keep it because they were not qualified in the first place and the people over looked because of AA lose a job they should have gotten.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 5,322
- Reaction score
- 281
I think it may have been useful in the past to get a critical mass of minorities into professional & administrative roles, but the window has ended.
Afirmative action is just another form of bigotry and brings with it all the associated consequences.
Last edited:
Good comments from eveyone above :tup:.
As with anything, you can't delineate a concept with a single stroke of the brush. I am sure that there have been those who got their break through an 'Affirmative Action' but I am equally sure that there have been those who have had 'their' break handed to someone else because of it.
That makes it a 'cure' not worth the price in my book.
As with anything, you can't delineate a concept with a single stroke of the brush. I am sure that there have been those who got their break through an 'Affirmative Action' but I am equally sure that there have been those who have had 'their' break handed to someone else because of it.
That makes it a 'cure' not worth the price in my book.
I voted No.
If they are qualified for the job in the first place then they have the expereince or the education.
I go back to the Search Committee I was invovled with years ago at a University. They were searching for a new Registrar.
We went through hundreds of applications and in the end everyone saw all the applications and got to rate them. These ratings were then tabulated and the pool was made smaller.
The process was repeated with more cirteria added in for the rating.
In then end the committee recommended that the top 7 be interviewed as all were so close with the exception the one ranked number one. We had no information on sex or race or religion or what have you. All that information had been redacted.
Then the Affirmative Action department got involved and told us we did not have enough minorities and to take these two (* 13 & 25 *) and place them into the interview pool. I insisted upon the data for the top 25 and in the end got it only by threatening to go public with all the data I had to that point. Big Universities do not like publicity like that the damage control is too costly.
1) was white male. (* his name on the application was Jamie we did nto know if he was male or female until then *).
2) was a hispanic female
3) was a black female
4) was a black male
5) was a white female
6) was a black female
7) was a black female
13) was a black female
25) was a black female
13 & 25 knew someone and they were using the point system to get them into the interview pool. I know it was abuse of power but the real point is look at the top 7 we wanted to interview in the first place.
one white male and one while female the rest were minority in race and only one of them was male.
Without having the data there were qualified people in the pool.
The white male had obtained a different job for more money and took himself out. The number two took herself out during the second interview as she told them she was pregnant (* she had just found out *) and did nto want to start in the fall when she would be delivering. The number 3 interviewed well and she got the job. It was close between her and number 2 in the ratings and also in the interview.
A very qualified person got the job, and until the end race was not an issue.
But, in some cases, where minorities are given points this does bring them into the playing field. So if they were even before now they are ahead in the rankings. Ok in the time of rampant racism I could see this. But not today. To hire them or promote them because to meet a quota (* not the real intent of the system in the first place *) that is not right and in itself also racist.
Affirmative action sucks.
You want equality? Then be better at the job than the other guy.
You want equality? Then be better at the job than the other guy.
I think affirmative action gets a really bad rap. Folks will cite isolated cases and accept them as the yardstick by which everything under AA is measured.
AA really acknowledges that folks have been and are treated differently based on their race, gender, and even sexual orientation. It also serves as a flexible tool in understanding that standards may be initially un-attainable for folks who eat 1 meal per day or have to walk 5 miles to school (as examples).
Somehow, and I posted this somewhere else, folks get the idea that EITHER you hire qualified people OR you subscribe to AA. I'm not sure it's that simplistic. It does mean that, in an office situation that doesn't at all reflect the true diversity of a community, when hiring someone new and all things seem equal, that a visible minority may get the nod over yet another heterosexual white male (the 40th one in the office). That is not a horrible thing.
AA really acknowledges that folks have been and are treated differently based on their race, gender, and even sexual orientation. It also serves as a flexible tool in understanding that standards may be initially un-attainable for folks who eat 1 meal per day or have to walk 5 miles to school (as examples).
Somehow, and I posted this somewhere else, folks get the idea that EITHER you hire qualified people OR you subscribe to AA. I'm not sure it's that simplistic. It does mean that, in an office situation that doesn't at all reflect the true diversity of a community, when hiring someone new and all things seem equal, that a visible minority may get the nod over yet another heterosexual white male (the 40th one in the office). That is not a horrible thing.
I don't like it...but it isn't time to do away with it yet.
CoryKS
Senior Master
I don't like it, but neither do I care for the viewpoint that the most qualified person should automatically win the job. Just as I am not obligated to buy the top-shelf products when I shop, employers should have the option of choosing "good enough" if the asking price is reasonable.
Why would anyone want less than the best person they can afford to hire for a job? I understand that sometimes you don't need a top shelf product, but I can't see why an employer wouldn't want to hire the best qualified employee that they can afford.
May the best whatever get it because of knowledge annd experience instead of the color of there skin.
CoryKS
Senior Master
That's the key phrase right there. Let's say you need a secretary and two applicants walk in. One has five years experience, can type 75 words a minute, has an excellent grasp of Microsoft Office, and wants $45K. The other is fresh out of school, types 65 words a minute, knows Word and a little Excel, wants $40K. Maybe 65 wpm is good enough for your company's needs. Maybe you don't need fancy spreadsheets. Sometimes you don't need all the bells and whistles, so why pay the higher price? *
* I have no idea what the going rate for a secretary is.
The idea of AA is to create a middle class within what ever community where there was not one before. It is, on the surface, unfair; however, the discrepancy in qualification is really a non-issue in the end. With some understanding in What AA is trying to accomplish the underqualified personel will eventually become qualified with some remedial training. Eventually we wont need AA given that the proper race ratio was inserted.
Sean
Sean
Why should a race ratio matter? Have you been to a DMV in Southern Ca., or the guys that give out parking tickets? Obviously someone forgot to tell them there's a ratio. I thought we are all one race, human race. That's what I've put on every job app I've ever filled out.
It matters because the children within these communities look to the adults for guidance. If the White people are the only ones with jobs, the minority children will seek out alternative lifestyles, that don't involve striving for a middleclass existance.
Sean
Last edited:
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
...not to mention the negative impact it has on the numerous people their jobs affect.
You want a "racially diverse" doctor that barely passed their bar exams doing open heart surgery on you or would you rather have the person that aced those exams (regardless of race or gender)?
It's just plain stupid and wholely contradicts the tenets of common sense!
...yeah...and that too.
Forget the excuses...census bureau blah, blah, blah... no application for anything should have a section for race or gender on it. If necessary, interviews should be conducted by text only so that there is no clue as to the gender or ethnicity of the applicant.
Showing favortism for any reason other than qualifications is simply wrong.
And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the black community, as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
Sean
That is easy to say if your race has been in the majority all along. Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
Sean
