About Diversity...

I need to go read this statement in context. If she wrote that the Constitution does not forbid non-governmental bodies from using race as a factor, then I am inclined to agree, but if she is writing that the government may do so, then I think she is manipulating the text to achieve a preconceived goal, rather than simply reporting how the text instructs us on this issue.

well, and note that my post was a re-translation back from the dutch, too, i didnt look up the exact text myself.

The U.S. Supreme Court's latest rulings are deeply mysterious to me. In one U.M. case it is not lawful to discriminate. This ruling is then contrasted with U.M.'s Law School case in which the court says it is OK to discriminate...just a little, but one must not be to obvious about it. This is deeply unsettling and leaves the door wide open for future litigation.

It is not unusual to view courts handing down hair splitting rulings via legal jargonesque spaghetti terminology but lately there have been complaints that the U.S.S.C has been delving into social experimentation via legal fiat. This pair of rulings seems to qualify.

The U.S. constitution is fairly clear, as are our anti -discrimination laws (Which have not been struck down by the court), decisions such as those being made by U.M., which take into account race, are at least illegal if not unconstitutional. The court has not ruled in a clear and satisfactory way, so we have probably not seen the last of this.

As I suggested before: remove the race question from the admission application. Diversity? Fine. But don't try to convince me that a black dentist's son's personal experiences are more valuble then that of a White dentist's son, or Ukraine-American, or 5th generation Mexican-American. If different life experiences are desired find ways to bring this to the admission process. Race does not guarantee a specific life experience.

JM

I was still going to come back here some time to reply to fishin's last long replies to my last posts (etc) ... never came round to it ... les' just start somewhere:

For one, I have a bone to pick about his, "No one here has said that discrimination doesn't exist. I doubt anyone would say that it is gone", as a rejoinder to my case for the continuing necessity for affirmative action. I mean, remember that this thread started with some pretty clear-spoken statements about this. For example:







Though not one of these posts posited - you are right - that discrimination "has gone", altogether, the message in all them is the same - 'it's no longer an issue'. If it still has an impact, its only in remote "backwaters", or - well, lets put it this way - the question georgeob1 asked:



... was overwhelmingly answered with a "no". The consensus: that the barriers people of color specifically face are no longer significantly different of kind or scope than for any other of us. "What has been said" encapsulated, thus, significantly more sweeping a statement on race relations than "that institutiotional racism is now prohibited by law", etc.

This is what I've been making the countercase against, in my conversation with you - and I think we hammered out many of the pros and cons.

In fact, looking at your last posts, I was kinda pleasantly surprised to see that we seem to actually agree on most main points.

We agree that "HR and management personnel are swayed by their own biases in hiring, firing, work assignments, etc". I would never make the claim you reference to me that they use these "biases as their first level criteria" - just that they play a significant enough role to warrant counteracting. Whether through training, self-questioning and awareness-raising, or through criteria and policies that would counterbalance the resulting disadvantage faced by the objects of those biases - or, preferably, both.

Neither of us are for quotas. Neither of us are for adding percentage points to people's grades (and the like) to compensate for the disadvantage they've faced. (Free extra schooling to help 'em make the proper grades seems a more productive way to compensate, to me, once the validity of compensation has been agreed on). I can only imagine supporting quotas as a kind of "horse medicine" (is that English?), in cases where entire industries, professions or corporations can be shown to have blatantly excluded people of colour, thus far. Last resort.

What I was defending, on the other hand, in this thread, is the affirmative action I described my organisation as having, for example. "In case of equal competence, preference goes to the minority candidate". If the white candidate can not be proven to be better for the job, the person of color with equal qualifications should get it. Until the balance has been restored. (Whereupon you can argue still whether "the balance" would have to be looked at on a company, industry or country level - and about how to deal with the use of arguments of style - "more communicative", "fits better in the team", etc - when it turns out they disproportionally benefit the white candidates).

Is that more or less the "the original concept of AA", that you have no issue with either? You say you agree with the SC ruling on the Grutter case, and that seems to pretty much encapsulate the case I was making: "candidates of colour with equal qualifications took precedence".

Thatd be cool - if we end up agreeing on the bottom lines of the issue. However, you're mistaken, I think, to suggest my case therefore didnt need to be made in this thread in the first place, kinda, because of "noone here having said discrimination has gone" - since I dont think you're talking for the others here (alas), as the rejection of the verdict has shown. See the quotes I used at the beginning of this post - none of them suggest an acceptance of the continuing need for that kind of affirmative action ...

LOL!

I almost forgot - I wasnt actually going to do any of this right now! All I originally came in here for, was to post this link: did y'all check this thread out yet? Interesting discussion!

PRIVILEGE

I don't know if the term "horse trading" fits in the context but as I wrote earlier, it can be legally used as a remedy where discrimination has been proven so I think the concept is probably pretty close to the same.



Rather, I would argue, why should the preference go to the minority candidate? Such a set policy would be institutionalized race/gender discrimination in itself. What if the 3 remaining equeally qualified candidates are a White woman, a Black man and an Asian woman? Does the Asian women get the nod because she is a minority is 2 senses? Why not just institute a policy that says when there is more than one equeally qualified candidate the hiring manager flips a coin?

You say "balance" but what balance? Balance based on race or gender? What is that measured against? Some guess as to who lives in the local neighborhood? National population? Any measure you can come up with to say that "balance" exists can be shown by someone else to be out of balance with another demographic. Who gets to say that balance has been acheived and who gets to set the determing factors? Right now blacks make up right at baout 15% of teh total US population. Am I in "balance if 15% of my employees are black? What if the city I live in has a population that is 40% black and only have 15% of my employees are balck? What if the town I'm in is 99% white? It seems to me that the idea of "balance" is something that just leaves you chasing something unobtainable forever. No matter what you settle on someone will say you are wrong with it.



The original concept of AA that I refer to is corporations, schools, etc.. going out and making any opportunities they have know to all on an equeal basis (instead of only advertising in "white" newspapers or hiring family members of exiting staff, etc..). When AA was implemented by the US the original documents make no reference to any "nod", "preference", "quota" or "precedence".

As an example, if I own a business and I need to hire 5 new employees, under the original concept of AA instead of advertising the positions in the local paper (any/all being strictly a fair and honest description of the job to be done and requirements set to fill the position..) most often read by whites and ignoring papers read by blacks, latinos, asians, etc.. and advertised in magazines read by women instead of those targeted toward men; in other words made the ad avaiable to EVERYONE in the area instead of targeting a small section, then whom ever responds to the ad is entirely random to me as the business. (i.e. whoever shows up shows up..) If 10 people apply then 10 people apply. If they all happen to be white then that's the way it is. If they all happen to be black so be it. But in the end the result is entirely random. The applications are reviewed and qualifications validated. If that means that 8 people are left ok, 8 people are left. At that point you interview all 8 and if all 8 are equeally qualified then those chosen should be done so randomly. As the employer it is incumbant upon me to find a way to eliminate ANY bias, for or against, any of the candidates. If that means writing all of their names on a piece of paper and having someone pull out names one at a time and the 1st 5 names get the jobs and that's that.

If that is done then the candidates for the jobs are random and the ones chosen from amongst the qualified is entirely random. With that you get true diversity.

Granting precedence to people based on some demographic data on the local population isn't diversity. It's just another form of forced comformity. Granting precdence on "minority" status defeats the entire concept of AA. AA is supposed to be race and gender blind. How can a process that uses race or gender as a determining factor be blind to it at the same time?

As far as me agreeing with the Grutter decision - I don't agree that racial consideration has to continue indefinately. AA (based on quotas and percentages) was ordered to be implemented by the schools as a legal remdy to proven discrimination. The Grutter decision acknowledges that we, society, have come a long way but that some discrimination still exists. The decision allows for a consideration of race in a minor fashion but limits that use greatly as well as acknowledging that the Constitution and Federal Law prohibit discrimination based on race or gender by indicating that this too will soon (within the next few decades) be phased out. I see that as a well considered and responsible decision.



I doubt they ever will. My own guess as to why is that a whole lot of people "get" that racism is a negative on society. We're supposed to live in a race/gender neutral world. That's fine, I doubt many people posting here have much to quibble about with that idea. The complaints come about because the current method of dealing with the issue (i.e. the current AA program) is a huge adminstrative and political nightmare that forces the use of the very determining factors we're supposed to be ignoring to operate. How can people operate in a "race blind" society when they have to concern themselves with making sure everything they involve themselves in has "diversity" based on race? How can you be race blind and then recognize race as a factor and give someone precedence based on their race? The only answer is "You can't." - The two are mutually exclusive and that, I think, is the issue people have with continuing AA as you describe it.

When you eliminate "minority precedence" and move to an entirely random method of choosing between the qualified candidates then the complaints about AA will disappear and you'll have true diversity at the same time.