Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Why should it be, joe? Race doesn't determine how well you work and how qualified you are and what kind of asset you will be. What should it be considered? So people can fill quotas? Sounds useless and harmful to me.... They should be based on your qualifications not on your race.

What if the black applicant was rejected and the white was accepted, that would certainly be unfair to the black. The key point in that situation is that race is included. If you typed all of that out but omitted the part where you tell is thier race, then we would not be able to give you an answer. So why include race? Race does not affect the mental capacity of an individual.
It is an entirely different story if part of the job includes something to di with a person's race, or if it would be more profitable for the company to have a person of a certain race, because isn't that what it all coems down to? The profit?

What if the black applicant was rejected and the white was accepted, that would certainly be unfair to the black.

The key point in that situation is that race is included. If you typed all of that out but omitted the part where you tell is thier race, then we would not be able to give you an answer. So why include race?

Race does not affect the mental capacity of an individual.

What if the qualifications are equal? Suppose there are two applicants for a single position. Both applicants are qualified for the job. One is white, the other is a member of a minority. The employer has a rule: all other things being equal, qualified minority job applicants shall be preferred over qualified non-minority job applicants. Consequently, the minority applicant is given the job. Is that unfair to the white applicant, and, if so, why?

In my hypothetical, the two job applicants are equally qualified. Presumably, then, their mental capacities are equally sufficient for the job. Which still leaves my initial question unanswered: "is that unfair to the white applicant, and, if so, why?"

Interesting hypothetical. I want you to realize how unlikely this is, the chances that two applicants are equal in EVERY category (equal-caliber colleges, equal grades, equal experience in equal-caliber companies, equal recommendations, equal personalities, equal history) except race. This is a statistical improbability, almost always is one at least minutely more qualified for the part. We're talkng 0.002% chance. But we'll assume this happens.

Then yes maybe we consider race and let the minority in. Once again extremely unlikly they are equal in ALL categories but the last resort is race. It is the last for a statistically improbable tie. Not enough to make it an issue. So this does not support AA or support ideas which give companies extra incentives to hire which inevitably leads to race being not the last resort. But I would like to hammer in how unprobable this is and rare indeed. It hardly proves your point, if you are indeed implying that race should play a part.

No I would say it isn't fair. But in the same token it is not unfair. That would not be considered fair to anyone, but it is not unfair either. In your situation, there is no justification to choose one applicant over the other.

Unfair is much like if you're deserving of a certain thing and you don't recieve it. So obviously, this cannot be an unfair situation. It is a lot like getting cut from the high school basketball team.

CarbonSystem wrote:

No I would say it isn't fair. But in the same token it is not unfair. That would not be considered fair to anyone, but it is not unfair either. In your situation, there is no justification to choose one applicant over the other.

Well, I'm not quite sure I understand this "not-fair-but-not-unfair" scenario. So, let me ask: would it be "fair" if, in my hypothetical, the employer decided to hire one of the applicants based solely on the result of a coin flip?

I suppose it would be fair, a coin flip is 50% for both applicants.

The part I have against AA is that the color of skin is in essence a factor that could lose them the spot. When we know that skin color has no correlation with business productivity and whatnot.

CarbonSystem wrote:

I suppose it would be fair, a coin flip is 50% for both applicants.

The part I have against AA is that the color of skin is in essence a factor that could lose them the spot. When we know that skin color has no correlation with business productivity and whatnot.

You wouldn't allow the employer to use race as a deciding factor because race has no correlation to business productivity, but you would allow it to flip a coin instead? What relation does flipping a coin have to do with business productivity?

Joe, I repeat. If I ever need a lawyer, you would come first to mind.

That is because race would actually be using someone's attribute as something AGAINST them, where a coin flip shows no bias.

Okay I'll try and explain it for you. In your hypothetical, it may or not be fair to choose someone based on thier race. The way it may be fair is if the race to be chosen is picked out of a hat or something like that. The way it would be unfair is for the employer to choose the race based on something that an applicants ancestors did.

Let's say applicant A had a great grandfather who was known to be a corrupt police officer and he cost many people thier freedom. Now let's say that applicant B is the great grandchild of one of these people who lost thier freedom due to this corrupt cop. Aplicant A should not be held accountable for his great grandfather's faults, he should be treated as if he has no relation to them.