racial quotas

Great Debates
1

Okay, here’s where I’m coming from. Raised liberal, very liberal, always been pretty liberal. In terms of affirmative action, when I really started to think about it (sometime midway through high school) I was against it. Any kind of ‘racism’ was bad, whether you were favoring whites, blacks, asians, australasians, etc.

Did more reading and thinking, and after a while came across the fact that very little of Affirmative Action is about quotas. More about early intervention and outreach programs, stuff like that. But I was still deadset against the idea of quotas.

But lately, I’ve been thinking again, and it seems that the idea of racial quotas is often twisted and distorted.

You know, It’s always “I am a white man, and I tell you, I don’t want to lose a job to a less-qualified black man!” or ususally the more general “It is unfair to give a job to a lesser qualified applicant over a more qualified one simply because of race.”

Really, it seems as if the idea is “Look, given two people of equal abilities, let’s take the one who increases the diversity of the workplace.” Why this perceived emphasis on less-qualified minorities? Well, that’s rhetorical (p.s.- anybody else pronounce it /re TOR ic/ before they heard it spoken or were corrected?). I think I know why.

Anyway, that led me to another truism that I can’t believe I hadn’t heard before from somebody, anybody. If your company is so homogenous that you have to be forced to take in even underqualified workers so that your employment barely reflects population distributions, then your company is fucked up. If your company is almost exclusively white or male and has to start “racistly” selecting employees, then your company is fucked up.

So don’t go bitching about “unfairness” or racism, reverse or no. Until we no longer have to force people to not not take in an honest pool of the population, then we’re going to have to force them to do so.

And that’s what I have to say.
jb

2

It’s too bad, but a lot of people are steadfastly convinced that affirmative action equals racial quotas. Who told them that? I don’t know. Maybe Jesse Helms. He certainly says a lot of things about affirmative action.

One things I’d like to see, is someone advocating racial quotas. Never run into one yet. Where are all thse people pushing for gender/racial/sexual orientation quotas that I’m supposed to be so afraid of?

One thing I am afraid of, is the 40-hour work week, and the right to unionize. Hoo boy, if either of those ever got pushed through by those nasty progressives, we’d be in trouble, I tell you that. And if we ever allowed companies to use machines to build things, unemployment would be 90% and the economy would collapse. I’ve got to go now … I have a 14-hour day in the blacksmith’s shop to prepare for.

3

…I’d like to point out that AA requires only a fair reflection of the mix of qualified applicants in a location. In other words, ABC Widgets in San Antonio TX could have a large percentage of white males in their accounting department even if the workforce is predominately Hispanic, but the mix of widget assemblers should reflect the applicant pool fairly closely, as the qualifications for widget assembly can be filled by a higher percentage of applicants. (Of course, if most of the graduates of the San Antonio School of Business Administration are Hispanic, ABC Widgets needs to make an effort to diversify their middle management positions.)

4

So discrimination is ok if it’s done by the “Business Admininistration”? I don’t think so.

5

Nope. Perhaps 90% of the applicants to the school are Hispanic. This may not be surprising in certain areas of South Texas, but may indicate a need for outreach on the part of the school.

The point, fatherjohn, is that racial quotas are NOT part of Affirmative Action. Efforts to correct underrepresentation of minorities through preferential hiring of qualified applicants are part of AA, but are not based on quotas or on the general area demographics.

6

Just because a large percentage of the “applicants” are minority doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against them. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a school or a business.

7

huh? fatherjohn and xenophon, I don’t follow the argument at all. Xenophon, you are saying that the ratio of races should reflect the qualified people who applied for the job, right? That’s why there might be all white accountants?

Fatherjohn, what do you mean by discrimination against the 90% of applicants who are hispanic?
I really can’t follow this too well. And I’m not stoned neither. Geez, I’m gettin old.
jb

8

OK, now you’ve lost me fatherjohn. I’m not sure what you’re arguing. I agree that neither schools nor businesses should discriminate against minorities. Are you saying that outreach programs are discriminatory by their very nature, or that an attempt to attract non-minorities to a school or business is discriminatory? I strongly disagree with the first assertion, but I’m willing to consider the second. It would be helpful if I knew which assertion, if either, you were making.

9

Almost. I’m saying that the ratio should be close to the ratio of those who are qualified for the particular position in the hiring area for the company. If they are not getting the applicants, then some sort of outreach program is appropriate. If they are getting the applicants, but a particular class is underrepresented in their workforce, then hiring preferences should be used, in the following manner:

70% of our accountants are of class Z, 25% are class Y and 5% are class X. However, in the hiring area, and in our applicant pool, about 40% of the qualified accountants are of class Y, with about 55% class Z and 5% class X. We should therefore preferentially hire qualified applicants of class Y (all other qualifications being equal) for our open positions until we’re reasonably close to the same ratio as in the hiring area.

(I hope I said that right.)

10

(Sorry, I was posting in a hurry.)

In my previous post, where I used the word “class” I should have said “protected class.” Also, the percentages of particular classes in the applicant pool is (I think) immaterial to preferential hiring, assuming any qualified people of a particular class apply.

11

So what is the situation if say, I own a business that specializes in higher-order mathematics and I only want qualified Ph.D.s in the area of math that my business deals with.

If I hire only white males because, through no fault of my own–because universities haven’t awarded adavance degrees in specialized areas to minorities (say only white males have been given these degrees)–am I being discrimatory? Believe it or not but one huge state university just awarded it’s first doctorates in math to to african-american women this year.

Isn’t this a problem with universities and not with my hiring practices.

Must I hire minorities that don’t have the qualifications I require in order to shield myself from lawsuits? What is the justification in business (besides being sued) for having underqualified people on the payroll?

Just to be PC?

I know I’m using an unrealistic example, but isn’t there a few examples where AA seems like BS. Whether it is the fault of minorities or not?
I know minorities get fucked over all the time, but do the advocates of equal treatment ever admit that there are still areas where employment might not be appropriate due to circumstances beyond the control of the hiring body? If there are no female Ph.D.s in my area of business, and yes, maybe there should be, but should I have to hire the present unqualified ones now? And if I don’t hire unqualified individuals, should I be sued for discrimination?

I’m playing the Devil’s Advocate here, but to me the problem is in education opportunities available to minorities.

Most businesses focus on the bottom-line and a minority who improves that is worth more than a WASP who doesn’t.

12

MathRUs? (Strong competitor with piR[sup]2[/sup]?) OK.

Yes. Well, sort of. It may not be a problem with the universities, either, but with secondary public schools. Certainly there’s no problem in hiring only qualified Ph.D.s.

No (see above).

I don’t think companies who do this are motivated by political correctness so much as paranoia. There is nothing in AA which compels a company to hire unqualified people. However, companies get sued frequently for perceived EEOC violations. Although many of these suits are baseless and are dropped or thrown out, many are settled and some are quite costly. Companies sometimes lean over backwards to appear progressive, but this has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, and everything to do with the litigious society in which we live.

I agree absolutely. This should be a major focus of Affirmative Action.

You keep saying things like that and we’ll have nothing to argue about…

13

No, not by the standards of Affirmative Action, as xenophon has explained. (assuming I understand xenophon correctly.

Yes.

No.

None.

I don’t know if there are, but your example is not merely unrealistic but invalid.

Yes.

No, and Affirmative Action wouldn’t make you.

No, and Affirmative Action wouldn’t hold you liable.

Unfairness in education is a factor but to say that hiring practices are always equitable is ludicrous.

True.

647, I didn’t know much about this issue before I read this thread. The answers to all your questions were already present in early posts. Please try to read with more comprehension.

–John

14

Oops, simul-post with xenophon, there.

–John

15

:smiley:

16

No, that’s not a quota. It is AA, but it isn’t a quota.

So if a group of half a dozen white friends decide to start a law partnership, that’s “fucked up”? If they include a token black person and a few women just to satisfy PC fanatics like you, is that any less “fucked up”? Tell me, just what is so “fucked up” about people doing what they want, and not consulting you as to how to live their lives?

You don’t have to do so. You just want to.

Boris B

Umm, liberals? Opponents of prop 209 claimed that it outlawed affirmative action. Since 209 outlawed quotas, the liberals’ position strongly implied that quotas are part of AA.

If you’ve never found anyone that advocates quotas, you haven’t been looking very hard. They’re everywhere.

Apparently I don’t have permission to access this site, but
there is a site found during a google search with the description

If there’s a petition, I assume there is a sizable number with this position.

There’s also a UCB article:

Now of course, not all AA progrmas involve quotas, but the UC one did. Just in case someone thinks that, as the OP claims,

there is this quote from the above article:

Clearly, the AA measures banned did not include outreach. So if outreach wasn’t banned, what was banned? Quotas.

17

And now, for some real information, here are some links to a few sites for those who wish to truly understand Affirmative Action.

Here’s a link to a page from the University of Texas at Austin’s EEO office. Affirmative Action Myths

Here’s a link to the EEOC site.

Here’s an Affirmative Action fact sheet from the US Dept. of Labor, and here’s a link to the Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Here’s a brochure on Affirmative Action from the ACLU.

More information and links concerning AA can be found here: AAAA
Happy reading. And please, if anyone can find where quotas are called for as part of Affirmative Action not involving court actions against companies found guilty of gross discrimination, I’ll… well, I’ll apologize in MPSIMS to The Ryan.

18

The Ryan wrote,

I would take your word for it, except that if I did take your word for it, and still never found anyone advocating racial quotas, I would find it somewhat embarrassing.

19

Proposition 209 from the California Secretary of State reads,

No mention of quotas there.

Let’s say you’ve got 100 electrical engineering professors on staff. 99 of them are white, and 1 is Hispanic. You advertise for your 101st EE prof, and your top two candidates are considered equally qualified by the hiring board. One is white, the other black. Proposition 209 requires you to flip a coin. AA tells you to hire the black applicant. Quotas tell you to fire 15* of your white profs and hire the 15 best minority applicants no matter how qualified they are.

I don’t think affirmative action necessarily requires preferential treatment of minorities. Then again, some things I’m very much in favor of could probably be considered “preferential treatment”, and thus illegal under 209. I think colleges with disproportionately low numbers of black students should send more recruiters to high schools with largely black student bodies. Why? Because those are the student bodies that get ignored too often. I don’t know why, and I don’t really care. Students tend to do worse when they get the message that no one gives a rip about them. Would this be banned by 209? Probably, because if you send five interviewers to a largely black high school, and only two to a largely white high school of equal population, the white students might have to wait longer to get an interview or something. The horrors of AA.

  • statistics made up on the spot
20

from the UT FAQ:

If you have a specific goal for the racial make-up for your university, and you discriminate with the intent of reaching that goal, that’s a quota, regardless of what you call it. Changing something’s name does not change its nature.