Speaking of race/affirmative action... a serious question (which no one here seems to want to answer)

[glenn1]

Let's presume (for the sake of argument) that the normal reason given for establishing and maintaining vigorous anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action; namely that minorities would regularly face higher hurdles in their economic and social lives, is true.

By extension, that means (again as the argument goes), in a system where those safeguards are not present, that minorities have to work harder or be better qualified to achieve the same social level or achieve an economic goal, than would be the case for a comparable non-minority person.

Given the above premises, shouldn't the end result be that the minority person who overcomes these hurdles anyway, would therefore be so plainly and quantifiably better as to be able to able to compare them favorably to a non-minority in a comparable position/situation?

Example 1:

Minority person competes against a non-minority for a job position. A discriminatory environment would cause a clear preference to hire the non-minority, minority persons needing to be demonstrably better than the non-minority to get hired, and a lower selection rate for otherwise qualified minority applicants. Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show minority employees (i.e. successful applicants) to demonstrate clearly superior work productivity?

Example 2:

Minority person applying for a home mortgage. A discriminatory environment would cause additional scrutiny, tougher standards, and a higher reject rate for minority applicants. Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show a lower average default rate for minority borrowers (i.e. successful applicants) over the course of time?

 

[glenn1]

Wow... is this stumping everyone, or is the question simply so radioactive that no one wants to answer?

 

[sandorski]

Your premises are incorrect. For, if the minority is being discriminated against due to its' minority status, then it wouldn't matter how qualified that minority is, the fact that its' a minority makes hat person "unqualified". Which was why Affirmative Acion was conceived, to remove "minority" as a reason for disqualification.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Your premises are incorrect. For, if the minority is being discriminated against due to its' minority status, then it wouldn't matter how qualified that minority is, the fact that its' a minority makes hat person "unqualified". Which was why Affirmative Acion was conceived, to remove "minority" as a reason for disqualification.

so you're saying no minorities overcame discrimination before affirmative action? that's what glenn1 is talking about, those people that overcame inspite of it. hence their superiority. certainly, some progressives that were ahead of their generation and offered opportunities to minorities

pre-AA
1)yes. they should perform better or the same, depending on the level of discrimination. however, that depends on the employer as well and how good that person is at selecting talent. obviously the market has not been very objective, hence the need for networking.

2)yes. however it depends whether that criteria was applied correctly. obviously, if they erroneously select people, then no.

overall, i do think those that made it were more successful than your average joe blow. do you have any data?

what are you baiting for? just come out and say it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: sandorski
Your premises are incorrect. For, if the minority is being discriminated against due to its' minority status, then it wouldn't matter how qualified that minority is, the fact that its' a minority makes hat person "unqualified". Which was why Affirmative Acion was conceived, to remove "minority" as a reason for disqualification.

so you're saying no minorities overcame discrimination before affirmative action? that's what glenn1 is talking about, those people that overcame inspite of it. hence their superiority. certainly, some progressives that were ahead of their generation and offered opportunities to minorities

pre-AA
1)yes. they should perform better or the same, depending on the level of discrimination. however, that depends on the employer as well and how good that person is at selecting talent. obviously the market has not been very objective, hence the need for networking.

2)yes. however it depends whether that criteria was applied correctly. obviously, if they erroneously select people, then no.

overall, i do think those that made it were more successful than your average joe blow. do you have any data?

what are you baiting for? just come out and say it.

True enough, there are always some liberals around to set the example.

 

[glenn1]

overall, i do think those that made it were more successful than your average joe blow. do you have any data?

No data, that's why i asked...

what are you baiting for? just come out and say it.

Not really baiting anything. Just an honest question that i thought someone else could offer some perspective on.... i had my opinion, but just wanted to check it against others who might point out something i overlooked or cause me to change my mind completely...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me give you some concrete examples . . . my roommate in high school (yeah I went to one of those) . . . his mother was the first black female to graduate from the UNC School of Dentistry (late 1970s). I assume the first black doctors were in that period as well. So according to the pre-eminent medical campus in the state (Duke notwithstanding . . . doesn't have a dental or nursing program) there were NO qualified blacks in the entire state prior to the 1970s.

Federally-supported/insured loans to farmers have always been administered at the state level. I imagine Iowa collectives were quite fair with their black farmers . . . what do you think happened in AL, MS, GA, SC, NC, KY, TN, VA?

The government is once again talking about a tobacco-buyout. Quotas were originally apportioned by a non-democratic process quite a few decades ago . . . designed to prop up the price of the golden leaf. Hence they accumulated in farm families (almost exclusively white) and those capable of buying into the enterprise (Al Gore). So now the US government is considering paying people for something that was improperly given out in the first place.

As recently as last year people were still arguing over dancing together . . . at the prom.

Example 1: Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show minority employees (i.e. successful applicants) to demonstrate clearly superior work productivity?
Depends . . . for your sample to be valid you would need sufficient size, duration of activity, and reasonably comparable work environments . . . and of course how do you measure productivity? The Native American that works on a reservation or a black going to the inner city or rural clinic will make a lot less money and possibly see fewer patients . . . depending on facilities/local population.

Example 2: Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show a lower average default rate for minority borrowers (i.e. successful applicants) over the course of time?
Depends . . . you may have an easier time finding a sufficient sample but then again you must have comparable population demographics/environment. For instance, the family with two income earners working 1.5 jobs is at a significant disadvantage compared to a one or two income earners working 1 job each. The same minority family that manages to get a decent mortgage still faces the obstacle of paying more for a car (even without the bling bling rims), more for insurance, and a reduced access to other forms of credit. And then you must correct for intergenerational transfers. Minority applicants are less likely to have a parent, grandparent, great grandparent provide a significant transfer of wealth. Even a meager 250K divided amongst 5 offspring would make a significant difference in the typical American families finances.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Let's presume (for the sake of argument) that the normal reason given for establishing and maintaining vigorous anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action; namely that minorities would regularly face higher hurdles in their economic and social lives, is true.

By extension, that means (again as the argument goes), in a system where those safeguards are not present, that minorities have to work harder or be better qualified to achieve the same social level or achieve an economic goal, than would be the case for a comparable non-minority person.

Given the above premises, shouldn't the end result be that the minority person who overcomes these hurdles anyway, would therefore be so plainly and quantifiably better as to be able to able to compare them favorably to a non-minority in a comparable position/situation?

Example 1:

Minority person competes against a non-minority for a job position. A discriminatory environment would cause a clear preference to hire the non-minority, minority persons needing to be demonstrably better than the non-minority to get hired, and a lower selection rate for otherwise qualified minority applicants. Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show minority employees (i.e. successful applicants) to demonstrate clearly superior work productivity?

Example 2:

Minority person applying for a home mortgage. A discriminatory environment would cause additional scrutiny, tougher standards, and a higher reject rate for minority applicants. Shouldn't subsequent scientific sampling show a lower average default rate for minority borrowers (i.e. successful applicants) over the course of time?

do not forget example 3:

minority competes against white person(just say it..it is okay to be white after all despite what the libs say) white person loses job to lesser qualified person on the basis of race discrimination...white person gets very angry because...the white person is not automatically a semi wealthy middle class in keeping with the stereotypcial image of white people many minorites and libs seem to have(what would the white person then be called when the white person has a stereotypical image of other ethnic groups in todays' epitome of hypocracy known as "PC"?)

affirmitive action should be against the law, it is in contradiction with other laws and promotes discrimination based on race..no... it MANDATES it...if the program were income based instead of race based(biased) it would be much more fair and popular...and still do the same thing since minorities are viewed and often are more financially disadvanteged.also it would not against other laws of the EoE acts. but that idea is too simple. it is unromantic american capitalistic pragmitism and must therefore be bad somehow...

 

[DanceMan]

The true 'pure' definition of AA is that if you have equally qualified candidates, then the underrepresented candidate would get preference. Original AA was never meant to hire 'unqualified' workers.

However, I do understand that many companies don't want to bother on arguing a fine point, and just implement 'quotas'. But, then that's their bastardization of AA, not the true definition of AA.

Another thing is that it's not also about hiring in the current candidate pool, it's about hiring over a job function. The so called 'hire the best available' is pure b.s. -- it dosen't happen even if you removed AA hiring, you still have preference-based hiring such as nepotism and cronyism -- which tend to traditionally favor white males. What hiring over a job function means is that you take your current pool of workers and hire based on that. So, you can have the case where you hire a minority that may not be the most highly qualified (but still qualified!) in a candidate pool, but is more than qualified compared to the boss' son, who is currently working the same job function that the minority applied for. Many people screaming about hiring 'unqualified' minorities overlook this observation.

Also, people have the notion that AA=African American. The largest benefit of AA has been made to white people -- specifically white females. It is more statistically likely that preference was given to a white female than to an African American. Finally, in situations where there are underrepresentations of whites (or any group where there is a large 'other' group representation), I think AA can and possibly should be applied.

DanceMan

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DanceMan
The true 'pure' definition of AA is that if you have equally qualified candidates, then the underrepresented candidate would get preference. Original AA was never meant to hire 'unqualified' workers.

However, I do understand that many companies don't want to bother on arguing a fine point, and just implement 'quotas'. But, then that's their bastardization of AA, not the true definition of AA.

Another thing is that it's not also about hiring in the current candidate pool, it's about hiring over a job function. The so called 'hire the best available' is pure b.s. -- it dosen't happen even if you removed AA hiring, you still have preference-based hiring such as nepotism and cronyism -- which tend to traditionally favor white males. What hiring over a job function means is that you take your current pool of workers and hire based on that. So, you can have the case where you hire a minority that may not be the most highly qualified (but still qualified!) in a candidate pool, but is more than qualified compared to the boss' son, who is currently working the same job function that the minority applied for. Many people screaming about hiring 'unqualified' minorities overlook this observation.

Also, people have the notion that AA=African American. The largest benefit of AA has been made to white people -- specifically white females. It is more statistically likely that preference was given to a white female than to an African American. Finally, in situations where there are underrepresentations of whites (or any group where there is a large 'other' group representation), I think AA can and possibly should be applied.

DanceMan

Good points.