Affirmative Action

Tartarin wrote:

James -- I get so incredibly tired of remarks on the color of someone's skin, something which is inevitable if the person isn't that pinko-grey color we seem to regard as the standard skin color of the American. My car's been in the shop and I haven't been to town to pick up my mail and therefore haven't sat down and read the Times -- all I know about the story I've read here. I missed "black" in the first reports and, truthfully, would like to miss skin color references altogether whenever possible. They're useful only to those who want to justify an attitude of one kind of another.

'...27-year-old was given too many second chances by editors eager for this ambitious black journalist to succeed..." Why isn't that just as racist as anything else? Why do we continue to need to be so self-congratulatory about our ersatz "diversity"? Are there no "ambitious white journalists" who charm their editors and manage to get away with screwing up? Etc. etc.

Interesting comments, but what's the % of NYtimes reporters who're minorities? The issue, in part at least, is the perception by some readers, that the Times overlooked errors by the black journalist, because he was black. Why? To give the guy, apparently, every chance to stay with the TImes as a journalist. Was this wrong on the part of the Times?

0 Replies

Initially, I heard of a lying, shockingly incompetant reporter....
Then, that he was black.
Still days later that he had been floated for quite a while based on his skin color.

I don't for a minute suggest this is a wide spread phenomena, but I do want to mention one thing we haven't touched on.

AA, and the 'discrimination environment' has caused alot of employers to float minority employees they would have otherwise fired. The fear of being slapped with a racial discrimination lawsuit is palpable--and I have seen it up close or four occasions.

One employee regularly smoked pot outside in our smoking area. She failed one urine test, and has a slew of tardies, and complaints that would have had the rest of us (non-minorities) fired. Yet, she kept playing that one, loud note "because I'm black", and my supervisor had to meet with her super and the organization's lawyer several times before taking action.

Another employee sat on her butt, and multiplied the work of others, as they were forced to do hers. She just openly would not do the work she was hired to do, saying she had done it-- she would do it later-- she didn't have time to do it. This went on for two years, as the agency compiled a case against her. A non-minority wouldn't have lasted a week like that. So, she was finally fired-- her threatened lawsuit never materialized, and she got a job with another local state employer---and has started her No Work, Draw Paycheck again.

I can be discriminated against with no recourse, and this is unfair. Of course, I am in luck if the discriminator is a man. I may be able to put a sex slant on it. I am out of luck that I'm not black in this situation, because I could always put a race slant on it.

I wonder if the Racial Discrimination lawsuits are more abused, than legitimately used, or not. I do believe they are necessary--

0 Replies

Sophia,

Your post of Wed May 14, 2003 8:40 am brought to the fore what is, in my opinion, a nasty fact that has continued to feed many people's disgust for AA. I never brought this up because I felt this implicit in all the stories about AA. Now that it has reared its ugly head, I have some thoughts.

These situations are only tangentially related to AA and just manifest the willingness of certain individuals to pervert the good intentions of those who would try to help them. These people are just societal parasites who are looking for an angle. Although these people are a minority in number whether or not they are composed of a disproportionate number of certain minorities is a question for another time.

Here we have a situation initially generated to help minorities enter the real labor force with a chance to improve themselves twisted by individual members of these groups for personal benefit. This has a number of effects none of which is beneficial...to anyone.

When such cases, as you mention, appear it demeans all minorities and paints them with a broad brush of disdain. Also, by severely discouraging the normal employee evaluation procedure and its accompanying reward/correction counterpart, productivity is decreased along with overall work place morale. So the one bad apple is allowed to slowly tortuously spoil the entire barrel.

This could easily be resolved by actually going to court on a repeated basis so that the individual so designated as a "Gold Bricker" must prove his case and not just reward such actions by literally "settling". To further add to the unattractiveness of legal action, the employer might threaten a counter suit allowing the employer to recover past compensation received by the employee during the contested period if he/she loses the discrimination suit. This would create a more balanced playing field by subjecting the individual to financial loss.

As I had mentioned before, the organizations that claim they are advocates of minority rights would do their members a service by reviewing the evidence in such cases. If the employer's case against the individual has serious merit the advocate should strongly recommend to that individual not to pursue this avenue of grievance and to straighten up and fly right because they are giving their particular minority a "black eye". The best way to address this, given the advocate really cares about the minority group overall, might be to have the employer turn this over to the minority advocate and have them call the individual on the carpet
This is, of course, rather utopian thinking because employer's feel it cheaper to "settle" and in some cases promote or shift to another department the offending individual.
Minority advocates also have a financial dog in this fight so their nobility may be long in coming also.

Can blame be assessed? Well sure, but fault placement is predicted by who is examining the situation. So we do find our goal of diversity in the act of blame assessment.

JM

0 Replies

JM & Sofia - There is another wrinkle in the AA flag that has troubled me for some time. I used to work with a young woman who happened to be black. She was quiet and pleasant to be around. (I like loud people too, she just happened to be on the mousy side.) Anyhow, she was almost always there ahead of me in the mornings and still at her desk as I left at night. Her work was excellent. She took her job seriously, educated herself about things she needed to know to do it, and was always busy either working or studying so she could work better.

I often thought the company needed to promote her, if they were smart.

And that thought was always followed with this one:

If they do give her the promotion(s) she deserves, some people will think she only got promoted because she is a black woman.

And that's a shame.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

JM & Sofia - There is another wrinkle in the AA flag that has troubled me for some time. I used to work with a young woman who happened to be black. She was quiet and pleasant to be around. (I like loud people too, she just happened to be on the mousy side.) Anyhow, she was almost always there ahead of me in the mornings and still at her desk as I left at night. Her work was excellent. She took her job seriously, educated herself about things she needed to know to do it, and was always busy either working or studying so she could work better.

I often thought the company needed to promote her, if they were smart.

And that thought was always followed with this one:

If they do give her the promotion(s) she deserves, some people will think she only got promoted because she is a black woman.

And that's a shame.

That's a "wrinkle" that shows some sound thinking to me, scrat.
Another one is that some people use any excuse at all to take a story and apply their views about AA to it, whether it has anything to do with AA or not. To this day, not one person from the Times (they can't all be liars, can they) has said anything about Blair being hired as a "diversity hire", or that his mistakes were overlooked for that reason.

0 Replies

Scrat raises an issue we've heard a lot lately from opponents of Affirmative Action, the ever-so compassionate "STIGMA" factor.

This emotional appeal goes, "IF Affirmative Action is in place, then nothing any woman or any minority accomplishes can be seen as having merit, because '(unspecified) PEOPLE' will always suspect that accomplishment was BECAUSE of Affirmative Action."

This 'reasoning' has the benefit of sounding logical and full of concern. What it is NOT -- is compelling. Why would I say this? Because, simply, it is neither true to any important degree, nor does it matter when it IS true.

Accomplishment -- a raise, a promotion, 'excellence', diligence, competence -- are all easily noted as either deserved or undeserved/unfairly gained, by the people that count. Co-workers KNOW, as Scrat clearly reveals. The woman in his story was GOOD, and he KNEW it. So, Scrat HIMSELF is exempted from this "reason" to end AA. If "some people" think a promotion came due to her color (or gender), they don't know what they're talking about, do they? They are bigots and/or jealous, and are not the sort of people whose 'opinion' we should care about.

The woman herself isn't consulted. Does she refuse promotion because of the possible "stigma" it might bring? Does anyone think that bringing home more money to her family would take a back seat to "what some people might (FALSELY) think"? Having concern in this matter should really not be a issue, especially from someone whose opinion is suspect because of their LACK of support for AA. As a great line in the song "Straighten Up and Fly Right" goes, "your story sounds compelling, but it sound just like a lie."

Finally, AA is not , and has NEVER been, the most visible "artificial" criterion by which PERHAPS an "undeserving" person might be "promoted". The LEGACY preferrence in colleges, for example, allows the scion of the wealthy to be considered over and above their merits. Does anyone think the possibility of a "STIGMA" bothers these legacy promotions one IOTA? Does anyone wring their hands that the son of George Herbert Walker Bush might be viewed as inferior, but who only has "accomplishment" as a result of the "STIGMA" of legacy preferrence, and having a rich powerful daddy? Don't be ridiculous. If GW Bush gave it a half a second's thought, his reaction would be to laugh.

Therefore, while this "reasoning" for the ending of AA SOUNDS ever so compassionate and caring, it's a lot of hooey.

There are certainly valid reasons to be discussed about AA, but this one is a red herring, and I myself suspect the promoters of this cannard are being disingenuous. That's MY opinion.

0 Replies

Funny - I didn't read scrat's testimonial as an argument for ending AA. I thought all he was saying is that no matter what some Black's do, some whites are going to link them to AA. Simpleminded of me, I guess.

0 Replies

snood - You commented that you were not aware of anyone at the Times who has stated that race played a part in keeping Blair at the Times and letting him do as he did. The Times' executive editor, Howell Raines, said the following:

Quote:

Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts [Blair] appeared to be a promising young minority reporter," Mr. Raines said. "I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities."

"Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?" he added, a moment later. "Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/business/media/15PAPE.html

Now, I certainly don't think this means there was an institutional conspiracy to look the other way if blacks broke the rules or did bad work at the Times, but what I think Raines acknowledged is something I think is a real, pervasive, and negative side-effect of race-conscious hiring, firing and promotion policies.

I don't think Blair is typical of anything except being a fallible man who--when he cut corners--seemed to find that doing so was okay. I am forced to wonder what his career path might have been like had he been called on it early and corrected. Everyone seems to look at this and say he was incompetent and they just didn't fire him because he was black.

I think he learned that bending the rules was okay, because that was the message he got when it never cost him personally to do so. If people saw (or suspected) what was going on, and avoided confronting him because of his race, they did him a disservice.

Don't get me wrong; Blair is responsible for his own actions, but I think he might have learned from those actions and changed them sooner had he been white.

What Raines said here may not be quite what you were writing of, but I thought I'd bring this to your attention.

0 Replies

snood,

Regarding your post of Mon May 19, 2003 5:47 am in which you state:

"Another one is that some people use any excuse at all to take a story and apply their views about AA to it, whether it has anything to do with AA or not. To this day, not one person from the Times (they can't all be liars, can they) has said anything about Blair being hired as a "diversity hire", or that his mistakes were overlooked for that reason."

I have seen and heard in both print and TV media just such statements. Here is a sample from Bob Herbert's NYT May 19, 2003 column:

"...But the folks who delight in attacking anything black, or anything designed to help blacks, have pounced on the Blair story as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with The Times's effort to diversify its newsroom, and beyond that, with the very idea of a commitment to diversity or affirmative action anywhere..."

(See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/19/opinion/19HERB.html )

As I have opined before, AA is not the problem, it merely serves as grist for the "See! See! I told you the X minority group is inferior!" camp. Therefore eliminating AA would do minorities so involved a service.

I must admit I was a little disappointed in Mr. Herbert's last two paragraphs (see above link for full text) demonstrating a militant "Us against Them Mentality". We also see the implied message that if one feels AA has any problems then one is considered anti-black which seems code for "Bigot". It is not unreasonable then to engender fear that can lead to a situation Sophia has mentioned in her post of Wed May 14, 2003 8:40 am. I feel this position is not much better then the "See! See!..." group I had mentioned before.

However, I still feel the race question should be removed and replaced by merit. Those who propose the use of AA to "Balance the Scales" for various interest groups soon find, to their dismay, that this is a double-edged sword. Those so inclined then insist that the same criteria (race), used to select such employees (or college students), should be considered irrelevant when those individuals are subsequently judged inferior as relates to the bottom line criteria of job or academic performance. They are, of course, right and would win the day in a perfect world but Remember:

"...for he who lives by the sword shall so perish."

Such Faustian contracts have their perils.

For more on this proposed solution see my posts to this thread (if not already viewed) on:

Mon May 12, 2003 11:39 am

And earlier still on:

Sat May 10, 2003 3:51 pm on which the earlier above post is based.

Respectfully,

JM

0 Replies

I've been waiting to see what Bob Herbert would say about this, and as far as I'm concerned he has the last word. Couldn't find a single thing to disagree with in his column today. Amen.

0 Replies

I honestly don't understand you people who say "get rid of AA". If we get rid of it, what's to keep people from hiring only those they feel most comfortable with, or those who look and act most like them?

The goodness of their hearts? A healthy respect for fair play?

And for those of us who don't believe that the white people in power (sorry to sound so melodramatic, but the CEOs and upper management of the corporations are basically lily white) can be trusted to hire fairly, what can be offered to replace AA initiatives?

The assurance from those who wish AA to be erased that the playing field is as fair as it's gonna get?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I honestly don't understand you people who say "get rid of AA". If we get rid of it, what's to keep people from hiring only those they feel most comfortable with, or those who look and act most like them?

The goodness of their hearts? A healthy respect for fair play?

Two items. First of all, the majority of people that want to do away with AA are interested in getting rid of quotas and preferences. If AA went back to what it originally was then there would be no calls for it to go away.

But, to your question, the answer is the rule of law would replace AA. AA isn't what prevents or prohibits discrimination. The existing laws prohibit discrimination in hiring. No one has suggested that those laws be repealed. Penalties, both civil and criminal would still apply.

0 Replies

Snood, In case you missed it today, here's Bob Herbert's column. Excerpt below -- in bold is the bottom line which no one wants to admit. But it's true -- here, where, and everywhere in the US of A.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/19/opinion/19HERB.html

But the folks who delight in attacking anything black, or anything designed to help blacks, have pounced on the Blair story as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with The Times's effort to diversify its newsroom, and beyond that, with the very idea of a commitment to diversity or affirmative action anywhere.

And while these agitators won't admit it, the nasty subtext to their attack is that there is something inherently wrong with blacks.

I think what many whites just can't see is that programs like Affirmative Action are indications of THEIR failures, not the failures of those the programs are designed to help.

0 Replies

God, Tartarin - you're such a beautiful badass!

0 Replies

I found this snippet in a recent interview (post fiasco) with Jayson Blair:

Quote:

"Anyone who tells you that my race didn't play a role in my career at The New York Times is lying to you," Mr. Blair said. "Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out. Racism had much more of an impact."

Mr. Blair had many opinions about racism at The New York Times. For one thing, he said, "there are senior managers at The New York Times who want African-American reporters to succeed, and there are hundreds of white junior managers who resent that and don't."
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/offtherec.asp

0 Replies

Snood -- You keep calling me a badass and, not knowing what it means, I looked it up in Google. Didn't find a definitive answer, but took a "What Kind of Badass Are You?" quiz and find that I'm a Poseur Badass. Figures. http://quizilla.com/users/Cellerikun/quizzes/What%20Type%20of%20Badass%20Are%20You%3F/

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Snood -- You keep calling me a badass and, not knowing what it means, I looked it up in Google. Didn't find a definitive answer, but took a "What Kind of Badass Are You?" quiz and find that I'm a Poseur Badass. Figures. http://quizilla.com/users/Cellerikun/quizzes/What%20Type%20of%20Badass%20Are%20You%3F/

I shouldn't have been so obtuse. I simply meant I was impressed with, and that I heartily agree with, your sentiments re: affirmative action.

0 Replies

I'll know that discrimation in this country has ceased when our jails no longer have a majority of minorities in them, and their conviction rates are equal to whites for the same crimes. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll know that discrimation in this country has ceased when our jails no longer have a majority of minorities in them, and their conviction rates are equal to whites for the same crimes. c.i.

I doubt we'll be seeing that day in the near future. Embarrassed

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll know that discrimation in this country has ceased when our jails no longer have a majority of minorities in them, and their conviction rates are equal to whites for the same crimes. c.i.

Wouldn't a better standard be "when the racial makeup of our prisons matches the racial makeup of criminals"?

If 99 whites and 1 black break the law in my town, I doubt you'd be happy to find 50 whites and 50 blacks serving sentences for those crimes.

0 Replies

Affirmative Action

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know