Poll
Question:
Should we keep Affirmative Action
Option 1: Yes!
votes: 12
Option 2: No!
votes: 33
Option 3: I'm stupid and have no opinion
votes: 0
This is mostly a question for Americans, but other countries have similar laws. Should we keep affirmative action? I've come to the opinion that it should be phase out by the end of this decade. It may have done a lot of good in the 1960's to the 1980's, but I think it does more harm then good these days. I think it engenders resentment and cheapens accomplishments of the minority groups it is suppose to help. What say the rest of the board?
Btw, when I say "Affirmative action, I'm thinking more of the quota system rather then anti-discrimination laws.
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
Minorities are not inferior.
It's retarded so you Americans may want to keep it.
"Affirmative action" means so many different things, in so many different areas, you simply can not give a flat answer.
There are situations where it clearly seems warranted. For example, the Government of Nunavut has an explicit policy to hire Inuit people wherever possible. But this is because Inuit people are the large majority of the population, but even today hold only a minority of Nunavut government jobs. It also helps for language purposes - they want Inuktitut speaking people because they can provide services in Inuktitut to people.
On the other hand, you can certainly come up with examples where "affirmative action" seems to be helping someone who might be part of a visible minority, but has grown up in a very priviledged environment and hardly needs a hand up.
So, I answer - it depends.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 01:07:53 PMIt also helps for language purposes - they want Inuktitut speaking people because they can provide services in Inuktitut to people.
That sounds like a big enough advantage that you really wouldn't need a policy to promote it also.
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'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 :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
You know, in principle, I agree.
People should not get an advantage simply 'cause they're this or that.
However, we may think all is good and that there are no disadvantaged people because we decided all are equal. That's just not true.
So I'd offer someone who's female, from some shitty place and under-educated a better opportunity than your average white, over-cuddled male Norwegian.
Just because we need more females from shitty places making themselves a career.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
There are always quotas, whether explicitly stated or not. If someone determines there are not enough people from whatever "disadvantaged" group represented in a company, university, etc. then there must be some % or number at which they would be satisfied that there are enough.
voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no :D
Quote from: LaCroix on August 26, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no :D
:) My faith in Languish: restored.
The poll results don't seem to match up with the thread comments so far, though.
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.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
There are always quotas, whether explicitly stated or not. If someone determines there are not enough people from whatever "disadvantaged" group represented in a company, university, etc. then there must be some % or number at which they would be satisfied that there are enough.
This was my thought.
If Wiki is correct affirmative action is only legal in Sweden regarding male/female and only when hiring people.
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
If Wiki is correct affirmative action is only legal in Sweden regarding male/female and only when hiring people.
So you can fire all the men immediately afterwards?
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:51:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
If Wiki is correct affirmative action is only legal in Sweden regarding male/female and only when hiring people.
So you can fire all the men immediately afterwards?
I'm not sure what you're after.
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:53:47 PM
I'm not sure what you're after.
I was just thinking about how I would run "Swedish Bikini Models Inc."
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:53:47 PM
I'm not sure what you're after.
I was just thinking about how I would run "Swedish Bikini Models Inc."
You could hire a bunch of hot young women. Too simple for the American?
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
You could hire a bunch of hot young women. Too simple for the American?
Oh I thought affirmative action applied to male/female whenever you hired people.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 04:00:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
You could hire a bunch of hot young women. Too simple for the American?
Oh I thought affirmative action applied to male/female whenever you hired people.
No, it's legal. Not mandatory.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2011, 02:12:47 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
There are always quotas, whether explicitly stated or not. If someone determines there are not enough people from whatever "disadvantaged" group represented in a company, university, etc. then there must be some % or number at which they would be satisfied that there are enough.
There are always quotas in the mind of someone, but who cares? Affirmative Action isn't about keeping everyone happy.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
There are always quotas, whether explicitly stated or not. If someone determines there are not enough people from whatever "disadvantaged" group represented in a company, university, etc. then there must be some % or number at which they would be satisfied that there are enough.
There are always quotas in the mind of someone, but who cares? Affirmative Action isn't about keeping everyone happy.
The problem is, that's often the way affirmative action programs are administered--as de facto quota systems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
I don't get anything out of it.
They really ought to start having schools save a couple football scholarships for Asians.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 04:43:49 PM
The problem is, that's often the way affirmative action programs are administered--as de facto quota systems.
Yes, and the non-affirmative-action policies are often administered as de facto racist or sexist systems, but in both quota and racist/sexist cases such are generally illegal. There have been any number of cases establishing this. My old alma mater, Michigan, lost one such de facto quota case in the USSC just a coupla years ago, while simultaneously winning another which allowed discrimination in favor of diversity where the candidates were otherwise equally qualified.
I like it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 26, 2011, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
I don't get anything out of it.
They really ought to start having schools save a couple football scholarships for Asians.
They'll all be taken by Samoans, and Yi will still lose his chance to be that star QB.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 26, 2011, 04:56:33 PM
I like it.
What attracts you to quotas? The arbitrariness of them, or the injustice of them? :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 04:59:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 26, 2011, 04:56:33 PM
I like it.
What attracts you to quotas? The arbitrariness of them, or the injustice of them? :lol:
Are you attracted to legs or to a face? It's all part of the same beautiful anthropomorphized statist solution I love.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 26, 2011, 02:21:00 PM
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 :mad:
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.
Quote from: Norgy on August 26, 2011, 02:29:43 PM
Just because we need more females from shitty places making themselves a career.
We do now?
Quote from: LaCroix on August 26, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no :D
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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2011, 02:12:47 PM
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
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2011, 05:19:47 PMI 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
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2011, 05:11:12 PMAll 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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2011, 05:11:12 PM
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?
Quote from: starbright on August 26, 2011, 06:37:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2011, 05:11:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Fate on August 26, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2011, 06:58:18 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 26, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
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?
Quote from: starbright on August 26, 2011, 07:31:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2011, 06:58:18 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 26, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
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?
Quote from: LaCroix on August 26, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no :D
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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 04:18:59 PM
I am, as well, because there are tangible benefits from having a more diverse workforce, student body, etc.
Like what?
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2011, 09:09:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 04:18:59 PM
I am, as well, because there are tangible benefits from having a more diverse workforce, student body, etc.
Like what?
Like crackers like you learning not to have to ask a stupid ass question like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2011, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 26, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
voted yes. not surprised one bit that languish votes no :D
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.
Solid argument. I'd rather not be Asian. Or Canadian. Or Mormon. Should they get affirmative action, just the same?
I'd rather be Canadian.
hey, ideologue, does raz hate you too because he's in love with korea and your relationship with her went sour? :D
Quote from: CountDeMoneyI voted yes, of course.
of course, because you understand the plight of the negro :)
To answer some of the earlier responses to my posts: of course I'd hire someone who comes to a job interview wearing a suit and doesnt have ghetto manners over the opposite. How fucked up you have to be to argue otherwise??
The bottom line is that: job recruitment is not about fixing social wrongs or reducing inequalities or "giving chances". It's about getting the best person for the job.
My response was dictated by Raz's initial post, where he says that he is thinking about quotas in the main. I am not in favour of quotas.
But I believe that affirmative action can easily result in an increase in the pool of people we are drawing from and thus enhance the chances of getting the best person for the job. In the past, in the UK, the best person for any of the good jobs more or less had to be white, male and middle class.........heh, go back a bit further and he had to be CofE. By being more pluralist we have increased the pool of talent from which we can draw.
Of course it should not just be a matter of employers broadening their recruitment horizons. The state school system in England is far too relaxed about table manners and accents nowadays (and other such social skills), you are not going to get a good job if you speak like a Jamaican gangster and can't handle a knife and a fork. It is an incredibly false thing to say that all cultures and subcultures are equally valid, conforming to mainstream mores can be a bloody bore at times, but being excluded is far worse.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 26, 2011, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2011, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 26, 2011, 09:19:32 PM
I'd rather be Canadian.
Then by all means, go be one.
And abandon the country I love to anarchists?
Too late to worry about that one--the Soviet Union is no more.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 03:29:09 AM
The bottom line is that: job recruitment is not about ... "giving chances". It's about getting the best person for the job.
Sure it's about giving chances. The best person for the job isn't always the best person for the job.
Well, I work in a very "people" business, i.e. where human capital is most important. We are big on diversity but it is less about recruiting people from minorities to give them "a chance" and more about reaching out to brilliant people of any color, race, creed or sexuality and for example funding sponsored stipends for them. That way by the time these people reach recruitable age, they are already molded in a way we need them.
Recruiting lawyers with ghetto accents would be a disaster. We need to work to get them out of the ghetto when they can still be changed.
And background culture matters. As I have already said many times before, Poland is as culturally homogenous as they come but culture/class still matters. At an entry level hardworking people is what we need but later acculturation becomes important. I have two younger colleagues at work in my team and they are good lawyers and hardworking people, but they are somewhat "uncouth" for lack of a better word. And it's a problem. Clients complain, they are not presentable etc. I have also even younger colleagues from more privileged backgrounds - and clients prefer to work with them because they carry themselves with the right amount of confidence and demeanour that is expected of them. This may sound elitist but that's the truth - and the younger ones probably will end up being promoted faster because they tick all the boxes so to speak.
And before someone asks - yes we try very hard to develop the "uncouth" ones but there is an amazing level of internal resistance to changing one's cultural behaviour like this. And telling someone they make too much noise when eating or should get a haircut more often is surprisingly more difficult (not to mention, difficult to follow) than telling someone they should refresh their knowledge of the Civil Code.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
And before someone asks - yes we try very hard to develop the "uncouth" ones but there is an amazing level of internal resistance to changing one's cultural behaviour like this. And telling someone they make too much noise when eating or should get a haircut more often is surprisingly more difficult (not to mention, difficult to follow) than telling someone they should refresh their knowledge of the Civil Code.
Why don't you just tell them what to wear and how to act? You're gay aren't you? I've seen TV.
It's not easy to tell something like that without alienating them. Plus it never ends - you can't make up 18+ years of lack of manners with a few helpful tips.
I still think Derspiess and DPS are the same person. Maybe DPS is a shorter version and that's why he left out some of the letters.
I voted no as that's what I feel in spirit but I'd certainly never cast a real vote to cancel policies that help me.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
I voted no as that's what I feel in spirit but I'd certainly never cast a real vote to cancel policies that help me.
Don't ever change. :wub:
Yes, we most certainly need to keep Affirmative Action. If anything, it needs to be expanded.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
I think that difference is semantic in many cases. If I'm in charge of hiring, and one of the key criterea is diversity, then I know I need to put together a team with what passes as a diverse workforce. A more concrete example is women in management: if 15% are women, and an affirmative action initiative is launched to increase women in management, then I'd say you have an implicit quota to get women into management of at least 16%.
I don't have a problem with affirmative action in general, I just think it needs to be more targeted. If you look at federal small business programs, you have programs for women, hispanics, african americans, asians, and pacific islanders. It would be easier to say, "everyone but white guys (except for those that came via Latin America)." Plus, if the purpose is to overcome historical discrimination in the US that has disadvantaged groups, does this even make sense? Most Vietnamese came to the country around the Vietnam War, and I really doubt many of Aboriginal Australian heritage have ancestry from the 4 guys that were in the country prior to World War II.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2011, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
Since Affirmative Action isn't quotas, I wasn't sure how to answer the question, but said no since quotas are unjust.
I think that difference is semantic in many cases. If I'm in charge of hiring, and one of the key criterea is diversity, then I know I need to put together a team with what passes as a diverse workforce. A more concrete example is women in management: if 15% are women, and an affirmative action initiative is launched to increase women in management, then I'd say you have an implicit quota to get women into management of at least 16%.
I don't have a problem with affirmative action in general, I just think it needs to be more targeted. If you look at federal small business programs, you have programs for women, hispanics, african americans, asians, and pacific islanders. It would be easier to say, "everyone but white guys (except for those that came via Latin America)." Plus, if the purpose is to overcome historical discrimination in the US that has disadvantaged groups, does this even make sense? Most Vietnamese came to the country around the Vietnam War, and I really doubt many of Aboriginal Australian heritage have ancestry from the 4 guys that were in the country prior to World War II.
Are there still (or were there ever?) affirmative action programs for Asians in higher education and the such? I always hear the Chinese and Indian kids bitching about affirmative action as if they were white males.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 06:52:13 AM
Well, I work in a very "people" business, i.e. where human capital is most important. We are big on diversity but it is less about recruiting people from minorities to give them "a chance" and more about reaching out to brilliant people of any color, race, creed or sexuality and for example funding sponsored stipends for them. That way by the time these people reach recruitable age, they are already molded in a way we need them.
Recruiting lawyers with ghetto accents would be a disaster. We need to work to get them out of the ghetto when they can still be changed.
But doesn't that imply you yourself were the beneficiary of affirmative action ?
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2011, 03:49:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 06:52:13 AM
Well, I work in a very "people" business, i.e. where human capital is most important. We are big on diversity but it is less about recruiting people from minorities to give them "a chance" and more about reaching out to brilliant people of any color, race, creed or sexuality and for example funding sponsored stipends for them. That way by the time these people reach recruitable age, they are already molded in a way we need them.
Recruiting lawyers with ghetto accents would be a disaster. We need to work to get them out of the ghetto when they can still be changed.
But doesn't that imply you yourself were the beneficiary of affirmative action ?
And you guys want to keep it? :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2011, 03:49:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 06:52:13 AM
Well, I work in a very "people" business, i.e. where human capital is most important. We are big on diversity but it is less about recruiting people from minorities to give them "a chance" and more about reaching out to brilliant people of any color, race, creed or sexuality and for example funding sponsored stipends for them. That way by the time these people reach recruitable age, they are already molded in a way we need them.
Recruiting lawyers with ghetto accents would be a disaster. We need to work to get them out of the ghetto when they can still be changed.
But doesn't that imply you yourself were the beneficiary of affirmative action ?
And you guys want to keep it? :P
I think it was a jab at me for not being brilliant.
Considering it came from an aging hipster whose main achievement is to ride a bike between two hellholes, I am not too perturbed.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
but I'd certainly never cast a real vote to cancel policies that help me.
Wow. So I guess you can't fault whites who voted in favor of Apartheid & Jim Crowe laws.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2011, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
but I'd certainly never cast a real vote to cancel policies that help me.
Wow. So I guess you can't fault whites who voted in favor of Apartheid & Jim Crowe laws.
Do people normally vote for things that don't benefit them?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2011, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
but I'd certainly never cast a real vote to cancel policies that help me.
Wow. So I guess you can't fault whites who voted in favor of Apartheid & Jim Crowe laws.
Do people normally vote for things that don't benefit them?
The majority of Republican voters ?
Yes, but they don't know that.
People consciously vote for things that do not benefit them all the time, for example out of the sense of fairness. Also a lot of legislation is broadly neutral for many voters in the cost/benefit analysis.
A NF stating that people should not vote to abolish unfair laws because it does not benefit them is fucking ironic and sad at the same time.
Affirmitive action based purely on race- no way in hell.
Affirmitive action based on wealth- I 100% support this. And in practice in the US it will help a lot of minorities anyway.