I’m not opposed to ending all affimative action programs, but I need to know what exactly it is that I’m not opposed to ending. AA is often made out to be the flip side of Jim Crow, but the extent of its reach in impacting the white community is often fairly vague, such as in this editorial:
I know that some universities give a few extra points to minority applicants in considering admissions, but surely there are millions of jobs at stake as well or this wouldn’t be such a red-hot issue.
First, there is a difference between affirmative action and quotas. The original intent of affirmative action was that companies should make a positive effort (to re-phrase) to recruit, retain, and promote people from protected classes. For example, pick up a newspaper that caters to Black people, Asians, or Hispanics and you will see tons of employment ads in the back. This can be used to show that a company is seeking more minorities, even if they don’t end up with a representative mix of employees.
Over the years the practical effect of affirmative action is companies setting “goals” for hiring under represented people such as female engineers, black white collar workers, etc. This ends up being essentially the same as quotas in practice. When I did college recruiting we would put a mark in the corner of a resume if someone was an “underrepresented minority”. HR would make a special effort to recruit these people and make sure they had mentors when they started work.
Ultimately this pits working class whites against blacks. Rich kids will get the summer internships, recommendations from people already working in the industry, and other advantages that poor white kids don’t get. Black kids at least get a little more attention, but they still lack the old-boy network.
That’s interesting to know, Dan, but I want to know about AA in hiring, etc.
I think the largest Affirmative Action program currently is all the hiring preferences given to Veterans, especially for government jobs.
What I want to know is when whites become a minority in the U.S. (which isn’t that far off and in the city where I live we already are), will we get preferential minority status?
If I understand correctly, one of the goals of Affirmative Action is to level the playing field. Right now there is all kinds of unofficial hiring by preference (I hire a friend, someone with the same background, etc) and as long as the people making the hiring decisions are white men then there will be a preference to hire more white guys. So affirmative action/quotas/diversity programs (whatever you want to call them) are in place to make sure that other types of candidates are considered.
I’m currently working for a small company and pretty much everyone in management (including me) was hired because we were friends with the owners. But even when I worked for a Fortune 5 company, open positions in my department were routinely filled with friends of existing workers – who were generally the sames race/gender.
And in universities, there are all kinds of preferences for alumni kids but no one raises a stink about that.
So in general, trying to help people who would normally not be considered (or who have had a bad start due to economic/environmental factors) is a good thing. Unfortunately, what is good for society is not always good for a particular individual. And that’s why people get upset.
DanBlather cited the basic problem with the argument. AA was intended to be a means of compensating for past discrimination. Simple ‘level the playing field’ approaches sounded hollow at the time because the score was already 100-0. So the decision was made to tilt the playing field in the other way until the score was tied. The original idea to make this a voluntary system. A business which had discriminated in the past would be allowed to invert the discrimination criteria in order to balance things out. But that wasn’t good enough for some people, who wanted the reverse-discrimination to be a requirement, and instantly it became a quota system.
As for the extent, well it’s quite clear that in terms of the so-called ‘racial/ethnic’ populations, AA has had minimal effect, perhaps nothing. The so-called ‘white’ people still dominate positions of power. For women, AA has been extremely effective in the private sector, but in terms of public office women have only made a small dent.
The quote in the LA Times reflects the general view of a large part of the so-called ‘white’ people who see any action that does not unfairly benefit them as some kind of loss. To illustrate this, consider the following scenario I witnessed:
A young man, who considered himself ‘white’, recently released from a drug-rehab program, which was his penalty for selling crack cocaine, had gone to the local New York Metro-North railroad office to apply for a job. His father, brother, uncle, and grandmother were employed there. He had been informed that there were no jobs available. Upon returning home, unsuccessful at gaining employment, he stated ‘They’re only hiring niggers today’.
So as long as people can percieve a failed attempt at correcting past wrongs as a direct assault against their ability to obtain a non-existent job, in a company which has disproportionally benefitted their family, without any consideration of their personal failings as a factor, as a non-existent advantage for someone they don’t like for non-existent reasons, it really doesn’t matter to what extent AA exists or works.
I have been a general manager for two very large corporations. My performance evaluation, bonus, and stock options all significantly depended on meeting my AA goals (quotas?).
We hired a CNC 100 ton press brake operator, and after two years of fighting it we were found guilty of racial and gender discrimination because we didn’t hire a black women who had experience running a press.
The thing we found unfair about this was the women ran a hand press that put rubber bulbs on eye droppers.
Sometimes good ideas get out of control and breed disharmony.
For state and federally funded construction projects, we are required to have engineering design consultants and construction contractors devote a percentage of their contracts toward the hiring of Minority-owned Business Enterprises (MBEs) and Woman-owned Business Enterprises (WBEs) as their subcontractors.
The required percentages vary from year to year, but typically range from 2-6% for MBEs, and from 2-3% for WBEs. Some agencies do not distinguish between the two and instead require a minimum subcontractor participation from so-called Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs).
White guy here of Irish descent who has worked in racially “diverse” environments, meaning I was the only white guy because of affirmative action programs. I won’t claim that I was ever a victim of discriminatory practices, but my ethnicity was a frequent subject of office comedy that, if reversed, would have been grounds for termination and lawsuit.
At the largest firm for which I worked (150k employees) during orientation week, we were “fed the Kool-Aid” regarding how great a place it was to work if you were gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, female, African-American, Indian (both kinds), physically disabled, single mother, etc. I see no problem with making appropriate accommodations and enforcing appropriate respect in the workplace, but it seemed that being part of a “protected group” was a pre-requisite for promotion and job-retention.
Equality is equality, not preferential treatment.
I’m still waiting for my preferential treatment for being the descendant of a persecuted class. :dubious:
This is an interesting discussion, but I think it’s headed for Great Debates.
As to the OP:
That’s what I meant. When I was working at a large corporation and going to hire college graduates we paid special attention to minority students and women.
I just re-read my post. I don’t see how you could look at it and think it didn’t apply to hiring. Here are some key words: recruit, retain, and promote …tons of employment ads…a company is seeking more minorities, even if they don’t end up with a representative mix of employees… “goals” for hiring …HR would make a special effort to recruit these peoplementors when they started work.
I just re-read my post. I don’t see how you could look at it and think it didn’t apply to hiring. Here are some key words: recruit, retain, and promote …tons of employment ads…a company is seeking more minorities, even if they don’t end up with a representative mix of employees… “goals” for hiring …HR would make a special effort to recruit these people…mentors when they started work.
Dan,
I’d like to know more about part of what you said. You mentioned making a special effort and paying special attention. In what ways (aside from those you’ve already talked about) did this special effort and attention materialize?
Say you were hiring for a position that required an undergraduate degree and White Guy Candidate and Minority Candidate both had similar degress and experiences but WGC had a higher GPA, would the company have hired Minority Candidate? In other words, once the minimum conditions were satisfied by a minority candidate, could it get the job over a more apt* candidate?
*In the sense of having higher grades/experiences etc.