It certainly proves that Jerry Brown isn’t discriminatory. It could also mean that Democrats have seen the polling data that shows Asians have become more Democratic in recent years. THey used to be a swing group, going about 60-40 for Democrats, now it’s more like 80-20. Could it be that removing discriminatory barriers to universities and job opportunities in the California state government also removed the primary barrier to Asians voting Democrat?
Or it could be that the fact that the Republicans have dialed up the crazy in general and the anti-immigrant rhetoric in particular in recent years is driving them away.
Yes, that seems more likely.
Most people have the good sense to stay out of hostile territory.
Failure to be race conscious can indeed be racist, especially when it requires a willful ignorance. Your position seems to be that if an organization proclaims to ignore race as a factor, that’s good enough–no need to check against who is actually hired/admitted, since they’re obviously just “better qualified” because they said so. History–in particular US history–has shown that proclamations like this tend to be fig leaves for racism: “Separate but equal”, “Integration causes property value to go down”, and “welfare queen” are analogous examples.
As for your second point, success in business projects depends on the make-up of the team, not it’s individual members. So I disagree that “someone’s racial characteristics” is what determines success, but rather the diversity of the group they are a part of. You seem to believe that “success” in work is a lot like success in school–everyone competes individually against each other for points, and the highest scorers are rewarded. Chronos is much closer to the truth: Most workplaces are collaborative, and success depends on much more than individual effort–it requires combinations of skills, expertise, and even backgrounds to improve chance at a shared success.
Nearly every worker thinks that they contribute far beyond their peers, and that they are part of the group doing the “actual work”. The problem comes when (justified or not) the worker starts believing that absolutely; THAT’s when they start getting pissed off, and that’s a general outrage over the fact that anyone is recognized ahead of them. It has very little to do with vague racial preference.
In most cases objectively poor workers are not the result of, say, individual IQ or an inherent vice. What I’ve found is that anyone who passes basic qualifications can be productive (more accurately, contribute to organization productivity) if they just find the right spot in the organization. Remember that the next time you think the guy in the next cube on on the night shift is an “idiot” ; he’s probably just as sharp as you, brings a different skill set to the organization, and yes, may be in a poor-fit situation.
How do you use race to make hiring and promotion decisions in light of state and federal laws banning such discrimination?
Why, by making whites, blacks and Asians work at separate (but equal) companies! Then we can be sure that any hiring and promotion practices have no racial component at all.
Well, I do need to know, since I was a manager for 7 years and didn’t worry about race.
As I stated above, I base my hiring decisions on how each potential employee would improve the outcome of a specific project (in the case of contractors) or the ability of the team to produce quality work, and I put a value on a diverse work team. I reject the model of evaluating potential employees in isolation, which assumes a “best candidate” can be decided strictly on the abilities of the candidates. That means if there are two hypothetical situations with essentially the same duties/scope but different teams, it’s quite possible the “best candidate” for one may not be the best for the other. Promotion (at least when applied fairly) is even more a matter of how the potential promotee works within the new role/team. Employees often view promotion simply as a reward for hard work, but that’s what merit pay and bonuses are for.
Federal and state law does indeed ban discrimination–positive or negative–based on race, and a few states (not mine) have banned AA in their constitutions. However the SCOTUS has generally ruled in favor of AA policies where they are furthering a compelling interest, so long as these policies do not constitute a quota or virtual quota. IANAL, but I am guided by the compelling interest of having my team succeed, and my evaluation of “best candidate” is based on that. And I make no apologies for considering team diversity to be a factor in that success.
In other words, you have a quota, it’s just not written down on paper.
Those other words being yours, not CJJ’s*.
Oh, of course. (wink).
What a shock. Scientific racists object to Afirmative Action.
You’d think if they believed their stated beliefs about the mental inferiority of certain minorities they’d support it as a necessary corrective.
Nevertheless they don’t, but can one expect better from people who prattle on and on about genetics but claim that “Hispanics” and “Asians” are “races”.
They seem to ignore that rather bein constantly suppressed by evil liberals they used to dominate academia until science proved them to be the 20th Century versions of climate change denialists.
Affirmative action is just fine, so long as no discrimination takes place.
Discrimination was just fine, which is why we needed affirmative action.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the mid-term elections?
The republicans should do really well in the mid terms, unless they overplay their hand on the “scandals”, which, of course, they will. So the republicans will probably gain just a few seats in the House.
Sorry, the subject got broadened from just the midterms to the long term. Picking favorites among races is bound to alienate more than just whites, as if that wasn’t damaging enough to Democrats. The Republicans can win in the future by sending the message that we’re all Americans, while attacking the balkanization of politics and social life that the Democrats encourage.
Back to the midterms, the Republicans have played the big scandal, the IRS scandal, straight, and have barely commented on the AP scandal, preferring to let the media attack the administration for them. So they do learn, actually.
You can’t just drop that and move on.
You’re criticizing democrats for appealing to everyone except older, white males. Unless you happen to think white males are more important than anyone else, that makes absolutely no sense.
Why do older white males like the republican party so much? Because they feel that it’s a party that best represents their interests. Why does everyone else like the democrats? Same reason.
That’s not exactly right. If it was just older white males, the Republicans would win 25% of the vote. Instead, they are competitive and often win. They win by not just appealing to older white males, but also married white females, veterans, Cubans(important for Florida), and people making $50,000 or more per year(taxpayers, in other words, a VERY important demographic whose support it is impossible to govern without even if you somehow win without them).
There are also many groups that have historically been gettable, such as young people, Asians, Hispanics, female voters, and voters making as little as $30,000 or above. The GOP has often come close enough with these demographics, or even won them in the case of female voters and lower middle class voters, to stay competitive.
But whatever the makeup of the GOP, they continue to cobble together majorities about half the time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and those majorities will more often than not turn into bigger majorities in off-year elections since the Democratic coalition can’t be bothered to turn out when there isn’t a charismatic Democrat at the head of the ticket.
That’s pretty lame. It’s not even a gaffe against Asians, or Latinos for that matter. Heck, Arab guys I know get chatted up in Spanish by Cubans all the time. Failure to tell people apart is not just a white trait, and it’s certainly not a racist trait.
Meanwhile, we have both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton saying naughty things about Indian-Americans:
“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking,”-Biden
And Clinton joked that Gandhi used to run a gas station.
Then there’s the Obama campaign, suggesting that Clinton was the Senator from Punjab.
Or the slur against Nikki Haley only last month by the head of the SC Democratic Party.
And moving on to Chinese, the attack on Mitch McConnell’s wife’s nationality from Progress Kentucky.
Another thing many liberals don’t realize is how offensive the outsourcing fearmongering is to Asians when said the wrong way.
Your assertion was proven false.
If you’d now like to move the goal posts on that assertion from “having to do with Asians” to “against Asians” please say so in clear language.
Seeing how often you’ve moved goalposts on other things just in this thread, I suspect you’ll be by sometime soon to affirm that you wish to do so.