Putting aside the issue of the poor wording of the OP, I think there’s still a kernel of a question that the right-wing apologists are dodging – that is, is there any documented evidence that affirmative action policies have consistently compromised the safety, quality, and/or performance of an industry or institution.
I mean, yeah yeah, Raines lied and got busted, and he got away with it because his boss(es) gave him extra leeway because he was black – but one data point does not a trend make. What the OP is trying to ask is whether there’s any proof that Raines was not the only instance of AA policies resulting in weaker/poorer performance; and, as I expected, the conservative harpies have done nothing more than toss out personal opinions in the guise of “truth.”
So can we get back to the OP and see if there’s any hard stats? Or shall we conclude it’s just more unfounded bleating by folks with an axe to grind?
Yes, I agree. The only way to arrive at truth is through analysis of published reports. Please, posters, don’t let logic or personal analysis get in the way. And don’t be distracted by those that would point out that any such reports would necessarily be based on conjecture, too. Let’s focus on the only choice before us: whether there are any documented, scientific reports demonstrating that deaths have consistently resulted from the use of affirmative action in police departments, fire departments, and the airline industries, or whether affirmative action is a valid and useful tool to alleviate societal racism and those opposed to it are bleating idiots with a sinister agenda.
I am not supporting any position but I find this chice utterly slanted. The choice is whether (a) deaths have consistently resulted from the use of affirmative action (not only deaths but consistently, anything else is unimportant) OR (b) affirmative action is a valid and useful tool to alleviate societal racism and those opposed to it are bleating idiots with a sinister agenda.
Well, ok. So let’s hear from any “bleating idiots with a sinister agenda”. Who wants to be the first one?
Incidentally, I think the whole Jayson Blair thing has been blown completely out of proportion. It’s an isolated incident where a person was given special preferences more because someone liked him, and less because someone liked his race (although that undoubtedly played a part). I don’t see it as a condemnation of racial preferences in general because these were racial preferences volunatarily imposed by a private entity. I have no problem with that. The Old Gray Lady can set up whatever kind of hiring and retention policy they want. At the point that I think it’s having too large an affect on their reporting, I’ll stop buying their paper.
But I do think it’s a good cautionary tale insofar as it shows that the problems with awarding jobs and promotions based on anything other than job ability and performance. If you start promoting based on things other than how well people do their jobs – including race – your company is going to screw up more often, and you’re probably going to lose business because of it.
sailor, you are absolutely correct, of course. I should have put sarcasm alerts on the outside of that post. I apologize for the confusion, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Well, I did violate your implied request for documentation (my apologies) but my logic stands.
There are standards for fire fighters that address the ability to lift and carry people. It’s not rocket science. You need to duplicate a weighted object, the approximate size of a person, and carry it down a ladder. It doesn’t require a penis to complete the task.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, just wondering what is driving your quest. What are the evil talk show monkeys flinging this week?
The worst unintended consequence of trying to accomplish an intrinsically good thing (increasing diversity) is that - even though the overall benefits of perpetuating diversity by de facto methods (as in Raines/Sulzberger at the NY Times) far outweigh the overall costs - when diversity incurs an embarrassing cost (i.e. Jayson Blair), questions whose undertone imply black/female inferiority are raised by those with an axe to grind (see Limbaugh, Rush) to score cheap political points.
I like the idea of going the extra mile to increase diversity. At the same time, I hate the environment of suspicion it often produces.
I see absolutely no advantage in attempts to artificially encourage diversity. My opinion is that members of minority parties actually have an unusual advantage, that being that the ones who do get into high positions, KNOW that they got there on merit and not on the “country club” principle. With affirmative action type situations, on the other hand, one can only LOWER the standards of the discipline by admitting less qualified people simply based on demographics. The most qualified person should always win.
The one and only qualifying factor for ANY position is merit. Everything else is both stupid and evil.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. How is knowing that you go there on merit an advantage to you?
An advantage would be, like, belonging to the “country club”, right?
I know the OPer wants us to stop beating the Jayson Blair horse, but why is everyone focusing on Blair’s race as a reason why he was kept on board? What about his gender? Didn’t that make him a “part of the club”? Everyone loves a golden boy, regardless of race.
**No one has mentioned Dr. Patrick Chavis? See here for one account. Google his name for more. A relevant quote:
quote:
Chavis was infamous, having been admitted to UC Davis medical school in 1973 under a special program that enrolled five black applicants who had lower scores than Allan Bakke, a white male denied admission. **
In the Bakke case, there were several white students admitted with grades and test scores lower than Bakke’s.
Bringing up a single case of an incompetent physician and attributing that incompetence to AA is specious reasoning. Needless to say, we can find any number of incompetent white physicians and attribute their incompetence to what - overconfidence, arrogance, country club membership?
What’s great about the linked editorial is it’s emphasis on inflammatory details that play on people’s fears. Even better is the fact that it was Chavis’ death in a horrific crime that occasioned this and other similar editorials. Hateful stuff.
“Increasing Diversity” is a good thing in theory. In practice, however, it’s done by “frontloading” minorities/females into positions they oftentimes don’t belong, rather than wait for the glacially slow (in social terms) effects of better educational opportunities to increase the pool of qualified candidates to select from.
I wonder if the OP was trying to show that a lack of statistics in female failures in the police, firefighter, and airline pilots professions means that there isn’t a statistical difference between men and women in these fields.
I would like to know the answer, though. Mayber something interesting would show up that shows how women get around the strength differences in police/firefighter, and family problems caused by Mom being gone for long periods of time as an airline pilot. Where would a person go to look up something like that?
Do you have a link for this? I don’t necessarily disbelieve you; I’m just wondering why they would have been admitted and Bakke was not, if it was not for AA-related reasons.
Capt. Murdock: Perhaps the admissions office liked their personal statements and essays more, perhaps the work experience of the other guys was deemed better than Bakke’s, and/or perhaps the interview with Bakke’s went worse than the interview with the other guys.
All the above are part of the process of applying to medical school now, maybe they were not part of the process when Bakke was rejected by that school. But as you can see, the admissions is not solely based on grades and test scores, although those do carry weight.
Things like this really bug me. You’d think a job that functions as a meritocracy wouldn’t throw bias towards people of race or gender, but people always seem to whine to get their way. If the hiring process is completely fiar, then the claim is that the testing/education was racially/sexually biased. If the testing was completely objective then the complaint is where the person grew up (pretty weak, I mean, I can’t decide that I want to be born somewhere else). These kinds of people are never going to admit/acknolege that maybe they just didn’t have what it took- perhaps their failure CANT be chalked up to some theory about racism or sexism.
In occupations such as emergency and military, it is outrageous that they should lower their standards for ANY group. These are organizations that really emphasize finding people that are the best at what they do. I think that lowering their standards has the potential to be extremely dangerous.
Wrong. Although Justice Powell pointed out that minority applicants were admitted with grades and test scores much lower than Bakke’s, he did not discuss what I found to be the most striking data that appeared in his opinion: Bakke’s grades and scores were significantly higher than the average for the regular admittees. In other words, his academic qualifications were better than those of the majority of applicants admitted outside the racial quota. So why didn’t he earn one of the 84 regular places? from Goodwin Liu’s “The Myth and Math of Affirmative Action”
Goodwin Liu must be a hell of an attorney. He took something that’s totally clear and made it sound complex and indeterminate.
The obvious situation is that for every space given to an under-qualified affirmative action acceptee, one space is taken away from other applicants. It is true that it’s not always possible to identify which specific students were rejected to compensate for the AA acceptances, but we know that it’s one for one.