Reports of the death of racism have been greatly exaggerated

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In the U of Michigan, apparently, the objective of the University was to use the affirmative action to boaster the number of minorities to make themselves look good on paper, but in truth, the admission process allowed a number in who simply could not cope and in the end dropped out. I do not know if there are statistics, but this was based off a report in the college paper.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Changing one's name doesn't help much either if the interviewer is a racist, and imagine the result when they feel being "fooled" after seeing the face.

An applicant with qualifications and self-respect will choose whom they are going to work with too, because it's not a one-way market.

If the interviewer is racist anyway, it won't matter what their name is, and whether they 'fooled' him or not. They just won't get the job because they aren't white. Besides which, there are people of non-white extraction who are given western style names at birth. I knew a guy in school called Christoper Walker, who looked like he could have just stepped off the boat from India. Should they change their names to be more foreign sounding so that they don't 'trick' racist interviewers?

Nobody should have to change their names at all.

[Master of Ossus]

Minority representation has risen over the past few decades. We can all see it statistically. There is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring people in minority groups are represented. The original study only focuses on one particular subset and does not address the benefits of AA as a whole. That's my issue. And all AA does is give racists another excuse, at best. Trust me, it's not like people become racist because of AA. They already were.

1. Minority groups would be represented regardless of whether AA exists or not--they would just be less represented if there weren't a policy of intentionally representing them over and above what would be justifiable given their qualifications.

2. True, the original study focuses on law firms (and the related issue of law schools), but much of the traditional justification for affirmative action has derived from statistics showing that minorities are underrepresented in professional occupations like the bar, medicine, and politics, and affirmative action proponents frequently cite continued lack of minority representation in these areas as justifying affirmative action. In fact, it's clear that much of this is an artefact of the very affirmative action policies that proponents seek to justify. Further, it's not as if the factors that led to affirmative action's harmful effects on minorities are unique to law: they pervade virtually all professional fields.

3. No, I'm not going to "trust" you in your conclusion that people don't become racist because of AA. Present evidence for your claim, particularly given that I've demonstrated a mechanism by which someone who follows a reasonable and non-racist impulse to come up with some explanation by which they weren't given a coveted position (for which they presumably meet the "minimum qualifications" you insist on parading about) conclude that race had something to do with their unfavorable outcome. If affirmative action did not exist, there would be no such conclusions. Moreover, you depict racism as some sort of on-off switch where either someone is a "racist fuck" or they are not. Particularly in contexts in which race is literally thrust forth as a factor that must be considered, that is not realistic.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but any thoughtful appraisal of the situation will indicate that far more people perceive themselves to have been slighted by affirmative action than were actually harmed by it. Meanwhile, many people who are purportedly meant to benefit from affirmative action programs are harmed by it, as well.

[Darth Wong]

1. Minority groups would be represented regardless of whether AA exists or not--they would just be less represented if there weren't a policy of intentionally representing them over and above what would be justifiable given their qualifications.

You're assuming that it must force hiring of unqualified personnel. Where is this stated? Even in your law firm study, not one word was said about hiring people who did not have proper qualifications.

2. True, the original study focuses on law firms (and the related issue of law schools), but much of the traditional justification for affirmative action has derived from statistics showing that minorities are underrepresented in professional occupations like the bar, medicine, and politics, and affirmative action proponents frequently cite continued lack of minority representation in these areas as justifying affirmative action. Since it's clear that this is an artefact of the very affirmative action policies that proponents seek to justify. Further, it's not as if the factors that led to affirmative action's harmful effects on minorities are unique to law: they pervade virtually all professional fields.

And there is solid evidence that minorities are discriminated against in the absence of any such measures. Why is that a superior outcome?

3. No, I'm not going to "trust" you in your conclusion that people don't become racist because of AA. Present evidence for your claim, particularly given that I've demonstrated a mechanism by which someone who follows a reasonable and non-racist impulse to come up with some explanation by which they weren't given a coveted position (for which they presumably meet the "minimum qualifications" you insist on parading about) conclude that race had something to do with their unfavorable outcome. If affirmative action did not exist, there would be no such conclusions. Moreover, you depict racism as some sort of on-off switch where either someone is a "racist fuck" or they are not. Particularly in contexts in which race is literally thrust forth as a factor that must be considered, that is not realistic.

This is pure bullshit. Racism is almost certainly the result of social upbringing rather than rational analysis, and you should know better than to demand that someone prove A does not cause B, when the onus is on you to prove that A causes B in the first place.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but any thoughtful appraisal of the situation will indicate that far more people perceive themselves to have been slighted by affirmative action than were actually harmed by it.

So what made them so racist 40 years ago, before AA?

Meanwhile, many people who are purportedly meant to benefit from affirmative action programs are harmed by it, as well.

You have not presented any evidence for that. Even in the law-firm examples you cited, at least those black students are getting hired, even if they are less likely to climb the ladder. That's better than it was in the old days. Clear evidence has been presented here that if you're a minority, you have a lesser chance of even getting the goddamned job interview.

[ArmorPierce]

The problem with Master of Ossus' assumption that affirmitive action programs are harming minorities by creating resentment is assuming that these people who are resentful would otherwise not be racist whilst their entire resentment indicates that this is not true.

I feel that I may be discriminated against my foreign sounding name and have been looking up to see if I can put a different first name on my resume and explain that's my American name or something. What I read seems to indicate no. What do you guys think?

[Ryan Thunder]

Why should I have to? Are you suggesting white people are more racist than any other group?

In any population where there's a white majority, I would seriously expect this to be a rare occurence. Nevertheless, rare or not, I would expect any rational person arguing for equality to be completely behind protecting everyone from discrimination, not just 'non-whites'.

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

Does it matter? If "whites" are never underrepresented in a company, then there won't be a problem, will there?

[Fr33ze]

Changing one's name doesn't help much either if the interviewer is a racist, and imagine the result when they feel being "fooled" after seeing the face.

An applicant with qualifications and self-respect will choose whom they are going to work with too, because it's not a one-way market.

If the interviewer is racist anyway, it won't matter what their name is, and whether they 'fooled' him or not. They just won't get the job because they aren't white. Besides which, there are people of non-white extraction who are given western style names at birth. I knew a guy in school called Christoper Walker, who looked like he could have just stepped off the boat from India. Should they change their names to be more foreign sounding so that they don't 'trick' racist interviewers?

Nobody should have to change their names at all.

Did you want to say something different from mine?

[General Zod]

Why should I have to? Are you suggesting white people are more racist than any other group?

In any population where there's a white majority, I would seriously expect this to be a rare occurence. Nevertheless, rare or not, I would expect any rational person arguing for equality to be completely behind protecting everyone from discrimination, not just 'non-whites'.

Are you suggesting that the deck isn't already stacked in a white person's favor?

Does it matter? If "whites" are never underrepresented in a company, then there won't be a problem, will there?

You realize this is the point I've been making, yes? Since white people will never be underrepresented, there's no need for such a clause.

[Ryan Thunder]

You realize this is the point I've been making, yes?

Yes, but unless I'm mistaken, you were trying to use it to say that the rule is unecessary.

But the rule is fair, and if its never violated then it'll never need to be enforced. But it'll be there for when it is needed, however rarely. My point was that it's not going to stack the odds in anybody's favor any worse than they're stacked already.

[General Zod]

Yes, but unless I'm mistaken, you were trying to use it to say that the rule is unecessary.

But the rule is fair, and if its never violated then it'll never need to be enforced. But it'll be there for when it is needed, however rarely. My point was that it's not going to stack the odds in anybody's favor any worse than they're stacked already.

It is unnecessary. So far nobody has provided any kind of reason that this kind of law should be expanded to include white people beyond some hilariously bizarre definition of "fairness", as though it provides some kind of unfair advantage to minorities.

[Singular Intellect]

So far nobody has provided any kind of reason that this kind of law should be expanded to include white people beyond some hilariously bizarre definition of "fairness", as though it provides some kind of unfair advantage to minorities.

Why the fuck are you saying any law should be "expanded" to include protecting whites from discrimination? Protecting people from discrimination should blanket all groups of people, not just 'minorities'. Just because one group of people is more numerous than another doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same protections and rights as anyone else.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but it's like saying that any moral rule about protecting the weak from the strong should also include language explicitly protecting the strong from the weak. Majorities generally do not need protection. To include the language at all is, I suspect, a sneaky method of trying to undermine AA in general, because it opens up the door for white people to claim they're being discriminated against if they perceive that blacks gain any special advantage from the program.

Hell, they already whine about that, as loudly as they can. And they rant about "unqualified minorities" being hired so vociferously that you would think they actually had real evidence showing that this is a widespread problem.

[Singular Intellect]

Yes, but it's like saying that any moral rule about protecting the weak from the strong should also include language explicitly protecting the strong from the weak.
Majorities generally do not need protection. To include the language at all is, I suspect, a sneaky method of trying to undermine AA in general, because it opens up the door for white people to claim they're being discriminated against if they perceive that blacks gain any special advantage from the program.

I have a question; are you arguing AA as a means to maintain a balanced ratio of represented groups in any particular company/organization to reflect the general population?

For example, say a population has a ratio of 8 to 3 with regards to two groups of people, one a majority the other a minority (obviously).

One company has ratio of 16 to 1 favoring the majority group of people.

Another company has a ratio of 8 to 1 favoring the minority group of people.

Do you support AA for both cases, or only favor the minority group as needing this 'correction'?

Hell, they already whine about that, as loudly as they can. And they rant about "unqualified minorities" being hired so vociferously that you would think they actually had real evidence showing that this is a widespread problem.

That's another problem with being part of a majority group of a population; all things being equal, you get stuck with the larger number of racists and dumbfucks by virtue of statistical likelihood.

[Darth Wong]

I have a question; are you arguing AA as a means to maintain a balanced ratio of represented groups in any particular company/organization to reflect the general population?

Not exactly. I'm arguing AA as a means to lever "historically disadvantaged" groups up to a position closer to parity. Given the gigantic head start of whites as a group, I don't see any reason to fear that whites will find themselves oppressed any time soon, despite the idiotic bleating of white conservatives.

"Historically disadvantaged" groups have a particular status in law; the phrase is often used as a test to determine whether something constitutes unreasonable discrimination, as opposed to mere happenstance. After all, any company with an anomalous racial mix might argue that it is merely a coincidence, and not a case of racial discrimination. While this is technically possible with any company, it is far more likely if the majority race is on the losing end than if the minority race is on the losing end.

Hell, they already whine about that, as loudly as they can. And they rant about "unqualified minorities" being hired so vociferously that you would think they actually had real evidence showing that this is a widespread problem.

That's another problem with being part of a majority group of a population; all things being equal, you get stuck with the larger number of racists and dumbfucks by virtue of statistical likelihood.

You also have a special demographic: reactionaries who see the declining power of the majority to oppress and humiliate the minority, and pine for the "good old days".

[General Zod]

Why the fuck are you saying any law should be "expanded" to include protecting whites from discrimination? Protecting people from discrimination should blanket all groups of people, not just 'minorities'. Just because one group of people is more numerous than another doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same protections and rights as anyone else.

Maybe you can explain to me exactly which protection the majority ethnic group/white people/whatever lack (ignoring the fact they already enjoy numerous such protections), that would be covered by expanding affirmative action to them as well. Then you might have something resembling a point.

[apocolypse]

1. Minority groups would be represented regardless of whether AA exists or not--they would just be less represented if there weren't a policy of intentionally representing them over and above what would be justifiable given their qualifications.

I'm sorry but they cannot be that unqualified or they would not be getting hired, it's as simple as that. Further, employment seeks a wide range of different talents and abilities, it isn't some narrowly set universal standards. Affirmative action guidelines are in place not to hire the unqualified, but rather to help level the playing field for those whose qualifications are unfairly maligned due to institutionalized discrimination. You keep talking about "qualifications", but in the end, you're enlarging your qualified base, not shrinking it.

2. True, the original study focuses on law firms (and the related issue of law schools), but much of the traditional justification for affirmative action has derived from statistics showing that minorities are underrepresented in professional occupations like the bar, medicine, and politics, and affirmative action proponents frequently cite continued lack of minority representation in these areas as justifying affirmative action. In fact, it's clear that much of this is an artefact of the very affirmative action policies that proponents seek to justify. Further, it's not as if the factors that led to affirmative action's harmful effects on minorities are unique to law: they pervade virtually all professional fields.

Except again, you haven't proven that affirmative action is actually that harmful to minorities in general. You've presented a piece of suggestive evidence that it may have some negative impact in the law field. However, again we can see statistics pointing to increasing representation by minorities in the workforce over the past few decades. I'd say that this is proof of minority benefit in general, not minority detriment. I can't see how in light of continuing studies showing that having an Anglo sounding name alone guarantees better outcomes, that you honestly think minorities would be better off without some form of protection.

3. No, I'm not going to "trust" you in your conclusion that people don't become racist because of AA. Present evidence for your claim, particularly given that I've demonstrated a mechanism by which someone who follows a reasonable and non-racist impulse to come up with some explanation by which they weren't given a coveted position (for which they presumably meet the "minimum qualifications" you insist on parading about) conclude that race had something to do with their unfavorable outcome. If affirmative action did not exist, there would be no such conclusions.

First off, as stated I can't prove a negative. However, I will point out that sociology teaches as one of the justifications for prejudice and discrimination is the "frustration-aggression/scapegoat theory". The lack of achievement (in this case getting a job) frustrates people and that frustration turns into anger/aggression, which is then displaced on minorities. But note how the theory teaches that it's a justification for prejudicial attitudes, not a cause for prejudice and discrimination. Yet according to you they're apparently only prejudicial/racist because of AA. It sounds a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse.

Moreover, you depict racism as some sort of on-off switch where either someone is a "racist fuck" or they are not. Particularly in contexts in which race is literally thrust forth as a factor that must be considered, that is not realistic.

Without going into side debate, I would say it is pretty much an either/or situation. I can't see how someone is only "sorta racist". Further, you state that race "must be considered", yet I see absolutely no reason why this must be the case. You've presented a bit of a false statement with that since as I stated earlier, it would never be a focus of mine. If I were not hired, I'm not going to leap to "it's because of AA, and minorities took my job!". I'm going to think, "huh, that sucks. Guess I wasn't the right one." But as I said earlier, I'm not racist and I don't need to blame others to make myself feel better.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but any thoughtful appraisal of the situation will indicate that far more people perceive themselves to have been slighted by affirmative action than were actually harmed by it. Meanwhile, many people who are purportedly meant to benefit from affirmative action programs are harmed by it, as well.

Whether or not people perceive they were harmed by AA has no bearing on AA itself. Why should I give a thoughtful appraisal of prejudicial assholes' kneejerk reactions? And further, why should minorities have to pay so that white people can have one less excuse for racist shit? Secondly, you continue to insist minorities are harmed by it without adequately demonstrating that this is the case. Do you really think minorities would be better off in a system in which there was no active effort to help them after decades and centuries of widespread oppression?