Affirmative Action the poll!

[Martinus]

I'm in favour of rational discrimination. Imagine that one is a university admissions officer and have one final place to dish out and two candidates. Candidate A is white, has two parents who are pillars of the establishment, went to Eton and has A*AB. Candidate B is black, has only one parent who is a junkie, went to Tottenham comprehensive and has ABB.

I would interview both and likely give the spot to the candidate from Tottenham in the absence of serious character flaws.

In this (rather hypothetical) case the ABB is far more impressive than the A*AB.

OTOH, no way would I like to give the place to someone just to meet a quota 

Wouldn't it depend on the job you want this person to fill in?

The thing is, there are never two candidates who are absolutely equal in everything except for their race or social background. For example in my line of work obviously you want hardworking people who know law - but that's the criterion that everyone is supposed to meet and there are more people who meet it than there are spots available. So then it becomes an issue of secondary, non-measurable traits. Like the knowledge of savoir faire. Does the person know how to dress properly? Which fork to pick at a dinner with a client at an expensive restaurant? What length their trousers' leg should have and what tie to pick with a shirt? What about the person's speech, demeanor and body language? Etc. Etc.

All these traits are acquired through acculturation much better than education. I'd take the Etonite, in the absence of serious character flaws.

[Martinus]

Just because we need more females from shitty places making themselves a career.

We do now?

[Martinus]

voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no

I moved into this thread with an intention to vote yes. Then I read posts by Sheilbh, RH and Norgy and changed my mind to no.

[Martinus]

I think in the UK if two candidates are more or less equal in all other respects you can positively discriminate on grounds of things like race, age, sex, disability and the like.  I'm broadly supportive of that.

I am, as well, because there are tangible benefits from having a more diverse workforce, student body, etc.  There is no place for quotas, though, because they automatically cheapen the efforts of whomever benefits from them and are unfair to the person who loses the slot because of them.

Again, this poll isn't about affirmative action at all.  It is about quotas.

I agree with you about diverse work environments, but I think affirmative action is an extremely shitty way of achieving this goal.

Your mileage may vary, but I think hiring decisions should be based on seeking out excellence - no matter what form, shape or color it comes in. Once these people are in, an effort should be made to make everyone - whether black, gay, female or Jewish - feel welcome and any form of hate speech, discrimination or mobbing at work should not be tolerated. (This is to me a purely economic decision - an employee who doesn't have to put up with bullying or harassment or other racist or homophobic or sexist shit simply has more "brain power" to devote to work).

But just hiring someone because they are black, gay or female (by choosing from two "equal candidates" - which as I said before is a myth - people are almost never equal in everything) will in fact statistically cause you to choose mediocrity, not excellence.

In short, my recipe:
1. Hire the best candidate (ignoring their race, creed, sexuality or gender)
2. Make sure they feel welcome

[grumbler]

I agree with you about diverse work environments, but I think affirmative action is an extremely shitty way of achieving this goal.

Your mileage may vary, but I think hiring decisions should be based on seeking out excellence - no matter what form, shape or color it comes in. Once these people are in, an effort should be made to make everyone - whether black, gay, female or Jewish - feel welcome and any form of hate speech, discrimination or mobbing at work should not be tolerated. (This is to me a purely economic decision - an employee who doesn't have to put up with bullying or harassment or other racist or homophobic or sexist shit simply has more "brain power" to devote to work).

But just hiring someone because they are black, gay or female (by choosing from two "equal candidates" - which as I said before is a myth - people are almost never equal in everything) will in fact statistically cause you to choose mediocrity, not excellence.

In short, my recipe:
1. Hire the best candidate (ignoring their race, creed, sexuality or gender)
2. Make sure they feel welcome

People are never equal in everything, but it isn't possible to measure their quality with enough precision to determine exactly who is better.  Your recipe requires a precision that is impossible in practice.  It is entirely possible that two candidates could be equal within the large margin of error, in which case one can justifiably be chosen because he or she increases the diversity of the workforce.  If one candidate stands out even given the margin of error that a good hiring person knows he or she faces, then that candidate should obviously be chosen, regardless of the impact on diversity.

It is the idea that evaluation candidate qualifications are precise that is the myth.

[LaCroix]

I think hiring decisions should be based on seeking out excellence

that may be what is desirable, but it's hardly how it works in practice. thus, affirmative action

[Sheilbh]

All these traits are acquired through acculturation much better than education. I'd take the Etonite, in the absence of serious character flaws.

No two candidates are ever equal but two candidates can be roughly as good, in the vast majority of cases it works out that the old Etonian with family connections will do fine.  I'd want to give the other kid a chance.  The rest is either stuff you'd pick up at the interview or would be picked up pretty quickly. 

[starbright]

Wouldn't it depend on the job you want this person to fill in?

The thing is, there are never two candidates who are absolutely equal in everything except for their race or social background. For example in my line of work obviously you want hardworking people who know law - but that's the criterion that everyone is supposed to meet and there are more people who meet it than there are spots available. So then it becomes an issue of secondary, non-measurable traits. Like the knowledge of savoir faire. Does the person know how to dress properly? Which fork to pick at a dinner with a client at an expensive restaurant? What length their trousers' leg should have and what tie to pick with a shirt? What about the person's speech, demeanor and body language? Etc. Etc.

All these traits are acquired through acculturation much better than education. I'd take the Etonite, in the absence of serious character flaws.

But in a larger perspective none of those things are really important.

If two candidates score equally well on the subject matter and one has ghetto manners while the other upper-middle class manners, the second maybe more profitable for the company, but for society they have equal value.

This is exactly the type of imbalance social engineering can fix. Who can really argue that it is fair for someone to have an advantage because his parents can send him to an interview in a new suit?

[mongers]

Wouldn't it depend on the job you want this person to fill in?

The thing is, there are never two candidates who are absolutely equal in everything except for their race or social background. For example in my line of work obviously you want hardworking people who know law - but that's the criterion that everyone is supposed to meet and there are more people who meet it than there are spots available. So then it becomes an issue of secondary, non-measurable traits. Like the knowledge of savoir faire. Does the person know how to dress properly? Which fork to pick at a dinner with a client at an expensive restaurant? What length their trousers' leg should have and what tie to pick with a shirt? What about the person's speech, demeanor and body language? Etc. Etc.

All these traits are acquired through acculturation much better than education. I'd take the Etonite, in the absence of serious character flaws.

But in a larger perspective none of those things are really important.

If two candidates score equally well on the subject matter and one has ghetto manners while the other upper-middle class manners, the second maybe more profitable for the company, but for society they have equal value.

This is exactly the type of imbalance social engineering can fix. Who can really argue that it is fair for someone to have an advantage because his parents can send him to an interview in a new suit?

I think in the UK it's only the tie that matters.

[Fate]

I dislike AA for a number of reasons.

It punishes the current generation for the alleged transgressions of the previous generation.

It's benefits have tended to concentrate on a small pool of relatively advantaged children of upper middle class blacks.

I don't get anything out of it.

Sure, we can get rid of affirmative action if the current generation doesn't get to benefit from the transgressions of the previous generations.

[Admiral Yi]

Sure, we can get rid of affirmative action if the current generation doesn't get to benefit from the transgressions of the previous generations.

Please elaborate.

[starbright]

Sure, we can get rid of affirmative action if the current generation doesn't get to benefit from the transgressions of the previous generations.

Please elaborate.

How long has AA even been around. Some posted since the 60s. Weren't they still fighting over stuff like busing and fair housing back then and AA started much later?

[dps]

Sure, we can get rid of affirmative action if the current generation doesn't get to benefit from the transgressions of the previous generations.

Please elaborate.

How long has AA even been around. Some posted since the 60s. Weren't they still fighting over stuff like busing and fair housing back then and AA started much later?

Huh?

[CountDeMoney]

voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no

I voted yes, of course.

For everyone that voted NO ZOMG AFF ACSHUN IS SO EVOL, ask yourself if you'd rather be black.  That includes you, garbon.

[derspiess]

I am, as well, because there are tangible benefits from having a more diverse workforce, student body, etc. 

Like what?