Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

rufio wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
By what measure is it "stupid?"

By the measure that the college is obviously trying to diversify itself, but by relying on warped perceptions of diversity, they are failing.

That's not an answer to my question. You're obviously attempting to formulate some sort of standard for "diversity," yet I cannot discern whether it is your standard, the university's standard, someone else's standard, or some objective standard.

rufio wrote:

This is pretty simple, Joe:
This college (that I go to) does not diversify in as many ways as I think it should.

Then it's your standard we're talking about here, right?

rufio wrote:

Thus, in some respects, everyone who goes here is the same.
This college does however diversify in other ways. Thus, in some different respects, a few of us are different.
In conclusion: Wouldn't it be great if it diversified in more ways, and thus made the campus a nicer place to live?

By whose standard?

rufio wrote:

Because race is not diversity. It's part of it, but it's a small part of it. A black person from NYC is probably more similar to a white person from NYC than to a black person from Texas. A school that chooses the two people from NYC as opposed to a white person from Texas is actually making itself less diverse.

And so you'd favor taking the Texan over one of the NYC blacks, even if the Texan scored lower on standardized tests and had a lower GPA?

rufio wrote:

rufio wrote:
And if you're not going to diversify, by using AA you just imply that being a minority makes you a "better" student somehow.

joefromchicago wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. If a college is not interested in diversity, then why would it adopt AA?

My point exactly.

And your point is as murky and impenetrable as ever.

0 Replies

Joe,

I never said that is what Griggs stood for - what I said was that shortcutting the Griggs decision (Which said that the tests Griggs was employing, although fair, amounted to racial segregation - because blacks at the time around the Duke Power company could not pass them because of the high illiteracy rates in North Carolina).

This often has lead companies to shortcut thier merit system and just shoot for the EEOC guidlines (which are to set a 'goal' of a certain amount of minorities within a certain radius of the company in question).

Now on the case of race not counting for personal merit - I see that you don't agree - perhaps you can elaborate of that.

In my opinion companies hire for a need. If part of thier need that would boost a company is to have a more diversified work place - then indeed gender and race or ethnicity can count for merit. If I needed a person who was a qualified engineer - but was a little more adventuresome in a department to shake things up - I might take something that would otherwise be considered a non-merit issue (like a more adventuresome attitude) as merit.

I am not sure how you can reject race as merit and support the administration standards at most colleges. For instance the U of M case where a certain amount of seats are set aside for racial minorities. Unless this is seen as meritorious for U of M or our society as a whole - it seems to be a racial quota. Also, many other cases where racial minorities are given more points because of thier race - unless it is meritorious - it is an unfair advantage given to race because all else equal - it should not be considered.

I think my point is that race should NEVER be considered as a factor - equal or not. If a person is hiring an equally skilled client on race alone (because all else equal means that only race differs) that is racial discrimination in favor of the minority candidate and not in favor of the non minority.

Myself personally think that EEOC standards are pretty darned good and it has changed the landscape of America's workforce for the better. There are times things go awry - but for the most part it works.

My only complaint is that it is never ending (if whites become underadvantaged it would extend to them). Which is why I think it shoudl be reparative not compensetory. Reparative mesures have an end - compensatory measures (unless defined - which they are currently not) do not.

TF

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

This often has lead companies to shortcut thier merit system and just shoot for the EEOC guidlines (which are to set a 'goal' of a certain amount of minorities within a certain radius of the company in question).

If companies are instituting quotas, then they are violating the law. You don't expect me to defend this type of illegal behavior, do you?

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now on the case of race not counting for personal merit - I see that you don't agree - perhaps you can elaborate of that.

Let us say that a company has a need for someone to screw in lightbulbs. The job is not particularly onerous and it requires few intellectual skills, but it does require someone who is both very tall (over 6' 5") and who knows how to turn things either clockwise or counterclockwise, according to the time-honored principle of "righty tightie, lefty loosie."

Two candidates apply for the job, one black and one white. Given that the qualifications for the job are minimal, it is not surprising that the two candidates are equally well-qualified (both are sufficiently tall, and both can manage the basics of screwing in lightbulbs). There is, in other words, no reason, based upon qualifications, to choose one candidate over another. The employer, therefore, needs to resort to a tie-breaker to determine which of the candidates will get the job.

As I understand it, TTF, you would consider "diversity" to be a matter of individual merit -- in which case the employer would be entitled to use the minority candidate's race as the tie-breaker because the minority candidate has "merited" the job. To me, however, that's a rather odd use of the term "merit," since the goal of diversity is not the candidate's but the employer's. Put another way, whereas a job candidate possesses skills or qualifications that are not dependent upon his situation, when considered in vacuo he is not diverse in any sense: it is only when the candidate is placed in a job context that we can say that he adds to or detracts from an employer's diversity. Thus, to say that race is a type of "merit" is to say that merit is not always an intrinsic attribute of a person -- and that is something about which I am rather dubious.

thethinkfactory wrote:

I am not sure how you can reject race as merit and support the administration standards at most colleges. For instance the U of M case where a certain amount of seats are set aside for racial minorities.

If you are referring to either Gratz v. Bollinger or Grutter v. Bollinger, you are mistaken: neither of these cases involved any kind of specific "set aside" for minority students.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Unless this is seen as meritorious for U of M or our society as a whole - it seems to be a racial quota. Also, many other cases where racial minorities are given more points because of thier race - unless it is meritorious - it is an unfair advantage given to race because all else equal - it should not be considered.

Yes, we know: you don't think race should be considered, all else being equal. The problem, though, is that you've never explained why you think that way.

thethinkfactory wrote:

I think my point is that race should NEVER be considered as a factor - equal or not. If a person is hiring an equally skilled client on race alone (because all else equal means that only race differs) that is racial discrimination in favor of the minority candidate and not in favor of the non minority.

Why? In my previous example, if the minority candidate was selected for the job, why would that be discrimination against the non-minority candidate? Are you suggesting that the non-minority candidate was somehow entitled to that job?

0 Replies

Joe,

I hope your tone is not taking any of this personally. It is really tough to read tone in this medium - but I love the conversation - I don't want to do it when one side gets angry. Again, if I read you wrong - I am sorry.

I don't and never expected you to defend the behavior of companies that short cut EEOC standards. I agree with you that it is silly to even attempt. I am simply stating that this is quite often why people are angry at AA standards.

Race is always an intrinsic property of a person - but like filing - does not have to valued within any particular job description. Typically in business EEOC standards mandate that a job description be posted and adhered to when hiring. But it is not uncommon to have the hiring commitee say 'It would be a plus if an applicant had attribute 'x' as well - it woudl be a bounus and something we should look for'. Such as in my position They posted Philosophy but were looking for aperson who has religion experience. When I applied - I had an added value.

Similarly, when a person believes that culteral, racial, and gender based attributes could help thier company - they would look for that attribute in an applicant. That does not mean that they would take a unqualified minority and 'merit' him above the rest because of his race - but they woudl look for the extra bonus - and thus be looking at race as a meritorious attribute.

Merit, is only merit, within a context. So a persons merit depends on the position being hired for. I have the merit of being 6'5" inches tall. Great merit for a basketball team - crappy merit for a jockey. I could not say, ever, that my height was meritorious for being hired as a jockey. If you remove the context, you loose some of your focus on merit. Thus, there is no 'in the vacuum' hiring.

This cloak of ignorance does not extend fully to the hiring process. It extends to the position definition 'The things that an applicant needs in a minimum way is X, Y, and Z.' However, beyond that - the persons particular experience, and particular background is only meritorious as it applies to that position.'.

You are right about the U of M cases. I was thinking Bakke about set aside seats and U of M as far as points awarded to race (and a bunch of other attributes - sports playing and the like).

However, despite my faux paus I personally think that U of M was valid in thier assignment of additional merit to minority applicants.

Now let me say this - Perhaps I have not been clear - or clearly understood. Race, in my opinion can be considered as counting for merit (Thus the affirmative recruitment portion) - however, if we are going to claim that affirmative fairness is our only position - then it should never be used.

I do think though, as I said before, that AA's weakness is that it does not set any criterion as to limit the length of time AA will extend to minorities. So Affirmative Rectuitment (designed as a reparative measure - but implemented in a compensatory way) is unfair. It would be fair if a limit was set to its length. Get minorities jobs and positions to repair the systematic discrimination, segregation, and slavery that this country has levelled against them - and then terminate the program.

So, I am not arguing that race should not be considered. It should - we just should have a sunset on this consideration.

Now then, my conception of your stance is that you think race should never be considered and that AA does not consider it. It does, and without seeing it as a form of merit - it is simply a unmeritorious discrimination.

I hope I have clarified my position (not that it is not overly static - I try to stay open minded) and I think that you and I are closer on our positions than we think.

I, like you, am tired of the majority claiming foul when they have "lost a job to AA". I believe I lost a position to a minority once - and from all the evidence - it was due to the hiring practices of the college involved. I remember thinking that if I lost that job to a qualified minority - that it was good. Reparations need to be paid by those that have taken advantage of the wrongs - and I believe - being white - that I have been the reciever of discrimination in my favor. This was just my chance to pay it back - in some small way.

I also had a position within a few months - and I wondered if the minority would have that opportunity.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Joe,

I hope your tone is not taking any of this personally. It is really tough to read tone in this medium - but I love the conversation - I don't want to do it when one side gets angry. Again, if I read you wrong - I am sorry.

I assure you I don't take any of this personally. I won't defend illegal quotas -- not because I'm offended that anyone would suggest that I might, but because that's not my position.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Race is always an intrinsic property of a person - but like filing - does not have to valued within any particular job description. Typically in business EEOC standards mandate that a job description be posted and adhered to when hiring. But it is not uncommon to have the hiring commitee say 'It would be a plus if an applicant had attribute 'x' as well - it woudl be a bounus and something we should look for'. Such as in my position They posted Philosophy but were looking for aperson who has religion experience. When I applied - I had an added value.

Similarly, when a person believes that culteral, racial, and gender based attributes could help thier company - they would look for that attribute in an applicant. That does not mean that they would take a unqualified minority and 'merit' him above the rest because of his race - but they woudl look for the extra bonus - and thus be looking at race as a meritorious attribute.

Merit, is only merit, within a context. So a persons merit depends on the position being hired for. I have the merit of being 6'5" inches tall. Great merit for a basketball team - crappy merit for a jockey. I could not say, ever, that my height was meritorious for being hired as a jockey. If you remove the context, you loose some of your focus on merit. Thus, there is no 'in the vacuum' hiring.

This cloak of ignorance does not extend fully to the hiring process. It extends to the position definition 'The things that an applicant needs in a minimum way is X, Y, and Z.' However, beyond that - the persons particular experience, and particular background is only meritorious as it applies to that position.'.

I'm going to cut this discussion short by simply noting that we have vastly different views of what constitutes "merit." Since that is tangential to this subject, I'm content to leave it at that.

thethinkfactory wrote:

However, despite my faux paus I personally think that U of M was valid in thier assignment of additional merit to minority applicants.

In which case? The undergraduate case or the law school case?

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now let me say this - Perhaps I have not been clear - or clearly understood. Race, in my opinion can be considered as counting for merit (Thus the affirmative recruitment portion) - however, if we are going to claim that affirmative fairness is our only position - then it should never be used.

Our only position on what?

thethinkfactory wrote:

I do think though, as I said before, that AA's weakness is that it does not set any criterion as to limit the length of time AA will extend to minorities. So Affirmative Rectuitment (designed as a reparative measure - but implemented in a compensatory way) is unfair. It would be fair if a limit was set to its length. Get minorities jobs and positions to repair the systematic discrimination, segregation, and slavery that this country has levelled against them - and then terminate the program.

So, I am not arguing that race should not be considered. It should - we just should have a sunset on this consideration.

Affirmative action should be used until it is no longer needed. If you put a definite termination date on it (as Justice O'Connor suggested in the UofM cases), however, we run the risk of committing the same mistake as Justice Bradley did in the Civil Rights cases (see my comment here).

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now then, my conception of your stance is that you think race should never be considered and that AA does not consider it. It does, and without seeing it as a form of merit - it is simply a unmeritorious discrimination.

You have thoroughly misapprehended my position. I contended that race has nothing to do with individual merit -- that is all. My position, however, is that employers, colleges, and others in a position to make choices among applicants are entitled to take into consideration factors that are "non-meritorious." And race is one of those factors.

thethinkfactory wrote:

I hope I have clarified my position (not that it is not overly static - I try to stay open minded) and I think that you and I are closer on our positions than we think.

I think that's true.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Reparations need to be paid by those that have taken advantage of the wrongs - and I believe - being white - that I have been the reciever of discrimination in my favor. This was just my chance to pay it back - in some small way.

There is no such thing as "paying reparations" in AA. Those members of the majority who are not chosen are not "losing" anything, since they were not entitled to anything in the first place. It's as if I saw a dollar in the street and someone grabbed it before I could get to it: I'm not a dollar poorer because someone else got it first, since I never had the dollar to begin with. Likewise, if a minority applicant gets a position for which I applied, I was not "deprived" of that position, since I was never entitled to it.

0 Replies

Joe, I follow your logic; the white was not entitled to the position; it was not created FOR HIM. But what if he discovered that he would have been awarded the position if the minority applicant were not present? Would he not have grounds for at least feeling that he had lost some kind of property? I realize that this "feeling" has no bearing on matters of legal justice, but could it not typify the kinds of situation leading to our present social (interethnic) unrest?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

There is no such thing as "paying reparations" in AA. Those members of the majority who are not chosen are not "losing" anything, since they were not entitled to anything in the first place. It's as if I saw a dollar in the street and someone grabbed it before I could get to it: I'm not a dollar poorer because someone else got it first, since I never had the dollar to begin with. Likewise, if a minority applicant gets a position for which I applied, I was not "deprived" of that position, since I was never entitled to it.

I agree that our cases of merit are different - and I think that precludes much of our discussion. So I will address this point.

I think that AA has been considered as a form of reparations. It was not considered a form of reparations until the late 60's. The reality of changing AA (from Affirmative Fairness) to affrimative recruitment and affirmative preference was mostly because of the race riots and the thought process (in various presidential documents as well as commitee findings) was that the more blacks that had jobs the less they would riot. It was also a major finding that affirmative fairness was not doing enough to 'repair' the previous wrongdoings of America. One (CRA 64) document that said (again) that it was unfair to discriminate against blacks simply did nothing to cure the systematic and governmental segregation and slavery.

So, Affirmative rectuitment and affirmative preference came to be so that more reparative measures could be instatiated. In my research Joe - this was the case - it was not instituted in a reparative way (it WAS the 60's afterall and the country was not ready - nor is it ready today for that much).

It is my opinion that whites HAVE gotten something. They are not entitled to the job - but most - due to the history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination - do get something that blacks do not. I, being white, have rarely (once that I know of) been discriminated in such a way as to cause me financial hardships. Blacks - have inhereted (this was the whole argument in my thesis) discrimination and segregation, from the past. This monitary hardship has been directly passed to all non-whites. This is done is such a way that whites would argue that they have not recieved anything (because it is just what was normal for them) and blacks even may not see this (because it was normal for them) - but if you look at the data of times being harrased, moved to the kitchen and riding the back of the bus (that still goes on) you can see a pattern (not to mention the amount of monitary pay differential between whites and non-whites).

Now then,

If it is your position that people in the position to hire should take in non-meritorious attributes into mind when hiring - you have made those attributes meritorious. If they ONLY thing that hinges this job is race - and hiring professionals SHOULD look at those things as to hiring criterion - for whatever reason (EEOC or otherwise) you are making it merit.

I think your position collapses into my position - that is all.

I would LOVE to make a thread about merit by the way.

TTF

p.s. I believe I was talking about the undergrad U of M case (please be patient - it has been 3 years since I have even thought about this. Since my thesis - I have been teaching ancient Phil almost exclusively. I think you are MUCH better read on the specifics. I recal the case where 15 points were given to race in admission standards.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, I follow your logic; the white was not entitled to the position; it was not created FOR HIM. But what if he discovered that he would have been awarded the position if the minority applicant were not present? Would he not have grounds for at least feeling that he had lost some kind of property? I realize that this "feeling" has no bearing on matters of legal justice, but could it not typify the kinds of situation leading to our present social (interethnic) unrest?

Yes.

Take my example of the dollar in the street. If someone grabs it before I can get to it, then I might think that I somehow "deserved" that dollar, and that the other person took it from me. That belief would be erroneous but understandable. After all, had it not been for that person grabbing the dollar first, I would have grabbed it, so my resentment is focused solely on that person. But the dollar was never mine and I had no right to it. I may feel like I'm a dollar poorer, but I'm as well off as I was before I even saw the money.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

I think that AA has been considered as a form of reparations.

Considered by whom?

Certainly, there are some people (or perhaps many people) who view AA as a kind of reparations. And if they see it as a kind of societal reparations, then they may have a valid point. On the other hand, if they see it as reparations paid by individuals (e.g. where the disappointed majority applicant "pays" with the job that goes to a minority applicant), then they are very much mistaken.

thethinkfactory wrote:

It is my opinion that whites HAVE gotten something. They are not entitled to the job - but most - due to the history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination - do get something that blacks do not. I, being white, have rarely (once that I know of) been discriminated in such a way as to cause me financial hardships. Blacks - have inhereted (this was the whole argument in my thesis) discrimination and segregation, from the past. This monitary hardship has been directly passed to all non-whites. This is done is such a way that whites would argue that they have not recieved anything (because it is just what was normal for them) and blacks even may not see this (because it was normal for them) - but if you look at the data of times being harrased, moved to the kitchen and riding the back of the bus (that still goes on) you can see a pattern (not to mention the amount of monitary pay differential between whites and non-whites).

I don't disagree.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now then,

If it is your position that people in the position to hire should take in non-meritorious attributes into mind when hiring - you have made those attributes meritorious. If they ONLY thing that hinges this job is race - and hiring professionals SHOULD look at those things as to hiring criterion - for whatever reason (EEOC or otherwise) you are making it merit.

I think your position collapses into my position - that is all.

Let's consider this hypothetical. There are two equally qualified job applicants -- i.e. they are equally "meritorious" by whatever standard of merit you may wish to embrace. The employer, unable to decide between the two, finally flips a coin: heads for applicant no. 1, tails for applicant no. 2.

Now, according to you, every factor that goes into the employer's decision relates to an applicant's "merit, because every attribute that plays a role in that decision, ultimately, makes that attribute meritorious. Given that this employer's decision rests solely on the outcome of a coin flip, it would follow that winning coin flips is, in some way, "meritorious" for a job applicant. So, in my example, you'd agree that winning the decisive coin flip is a part of the prevailing applicant's "merit," correct?

thethinkfactory wrote:

p.s. I believe I was talking about the undergrad U of M case (please be patient - it has been 3 years since I have even thought about this. Since my thesis - I have been teaching ancient Phil almost exclusively. I think you are MUCH better read on the specifics. I recal the case where 15 points were given to race in admission standards.

That is the undergraduate case: Gratz v. Bollinger.

0 Replies

AA was considered to be a form of reparations by the lawmakers (some) who decided to up the ante from affirmative fairness to affirmative recruitment and affirmative preference. I agree completely if whites (majority) are considering thier 'lose' as a form of reparative measures then they are wrong.

Now then, I am not sure if your coin example (because it is a purely random event) can extend to my read on 'merit' but I think if this gentlemen said to himself "If I am faced with two equally qualified candidates I will hire the one who has more canoeing experience.' - then canoeing woudl be considered merit for the hiring professional.

I think extends better and allows a better rebuttal on your part to let me know what you think is wrong with my read on this.

Also, Thanks for the help and the link on the Gratz case.

I got this quote from the link that I wholeheartedly agree with:

"In Bakke, Justice Powell explained his view that it would be permissible for a university to employ an admissions program in which "race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's file." 438 U. S., at 317. He emphasized, however, the importance of considering each particular applicant as an individual, assessing all of the qualities that individual possesses, and in turn, evaluating that individual's ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher education."

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Now then, I am not sure if your coin example (because it is a purely random event) can extend to my read on 'merit' but I think if this gentlemen said to himself "If I am faced with two equally qualified candidates I will hire the one who has more canoeing experience.' - then canoeing woudl be considered merit for the hiring professional.

The coin flip is certainly not random. The result is random, but the decision to flip the coin is intentional and deliberate.

thethinkfactory wrote:

I think extends better and allows a better rebuttal on your part to let me know what you think is wrong with my read on this.

To use your example: suppose Employer A decides that, in cases where there are two equally qualified job candidates, the candidate with more canoeing experience will be hired. Employer B, on the other hand, has decided that, in cases where there are two equally qualified job candidates, he will hire the candidate who wins a coin flip. You maintain that, in the first example, canoeing would be considered a "meritorious" attribute by Employer A. So why isn't "winning by means of a coin flip" an equally meritorious attribute for Employer B?

0 Replies

I see your point now Joe - and cannot call any of these things merit. Race, coing flipping, or canoeing.

This is, however, only true if the person is doing this on the sole purpose of breaking ties. If, in fact, he is saying, we need to diversify our work place and if, in the case of a tie, I will hire the minority - that is to be considered merit.

I think, however, that we are both nearly completely speaking esoterically. The reality is that employers often call things like canoeing merit - because they do it - and hiring a person that is like them means they have more in common and the work place will be better because of it.

This is often why I think race is seen as a disadvantage for the average hiring person. Other culturs make them ill at ease because they just don't understand them - and prefer a person who is like them. (Take a look at your average high school lunch room and you will see that mentality at work).

Thus, instead of the unlikely 'breaking a tie' scenario I think we should promote culture and race as a form of diversifying merit and hire based solely on merit. I think it is sound and a good strategy.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

This is, however, only true if the person is doing this on the sole purpose of breaking ties. If, in fact, he is saying, we need to diversify our work place and if, in the case of a tie, I will hire the minority - that is to be considered merit.

Employer X says that he will hire the first person who walks through his door. Does that make the ability to walk through doors a matter of individual merit?

thethinkfactory wrote:

I think, however, that we are both nearly completely speaking esoterically. The reality is that employers often call things like canoeing merit - because they do it - and hiring a person that is like them means they have more in common and the work place will be better because of it.

No doubt.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Thus, instead of the unlikely 'breaking a tie' scenario I think we should promote culture and race as a form of diversifying merit and hire based solely on merit. I think it is sound and a good strategy.

If race is equated with merit, then why not just say that you want to hire based on race? Why disguise it with the label "merit?"

0 Replies

Because race, like the ability to staple, is just one attribute that falls under the title 'merit'.

However, if that is all you were looking for - a black woman - say at a modelling agency - that is exactly what is advertised for. However, that is the slimmest (no pun intended) form of merit I can think of.

If a person is hired because he is the next person through the door - besides being absurd - I am not sure what else you could call that besides merit. He has defined who he will hire and oddly enough, the next person through the door - will fulfil the requirments. What else could it be called?

Again, I think we are speaking so escotericly that we might even be absurd.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

If a person is hired because he is the next person through the door - besides being absurd - I am not sure what else you could call that besides merit. He has defined who he will hire and oddly enough, the next person through the door - will fulfil the requirments. What else could it be called?

Kismet?

thethinkfactory wrote:

Again, I think we are speaking so escotericly that we might even be absurd.

I concur.

0 Replies

Sure - you could call it fate - or coincidence - depending on your religious ideals.

I would have to call it silly regardless - and the question remains - shoudl race, gender, or culture count as merit. I think our diversity in America has always been our strength - and we should seek to preserve that diversity - I see it as a meritorious thing to hire for and to select students for - especially given our past. I am not sure how AA works in its current instantiation without it being meritorious.

TTF

P.S. Joe, I really appreciate your discussion - I think your points are very valid - and I hear you loud and clear. You have really challenged my thoughts on merit - and I am still working on them. I guess my philosphy on this matter is a work in progess.

0 Replies

The moral question with AA is this: diversity vs. equality. Am i right?

0 Replies

I think that is to simple - far too simple. That would assume that diversifying the workplace was not in equalities best interest - which I disagree with.

I think the moral issue is equality - and is AA the best approach to equality.

TTF

0 Replies

You would think the best approach to equality would be not giving advantages to certain, specified groups.

0 Replies

Answer this Carbon:

If I punched twelve people in the face in a crowded bar - and the police wanted to figure out who got punched - would they not ask for the people that got punched?

I think that what you are proposing is now that I have punched people in the face - what is needed to repair that damage is for the police to make sure no one gets punched in the face again. This compensates for my propensity to punch people in the face but does not repair the damage I have done.

What would repair this damage is that I get punished or have to pay you damages. AA, although not initially states in the CRA 64, uses a discriminatory pattern (looking for minorities) and gives them advantages (affirmative recruitement and Affirmative Preference) so that pervious societal ills can be redressed.

The police, similarly, should discriminate against all non punched people in the bar to determine who has been damaged.

Similarly, minorities should be given advantaged until the playing field has been leveled. Simply making hiring practices fair now that the setting is unfair does not redress the issue - it simply compensates for the future.

TTF

0 Replies

Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know