"Positive" Discrimination

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

"Positive" Discrimination

Postby General_Norris » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:41 pm UTC

So as to stop derailing an existing thread I'm creating this one to discuse Positive Discrimination and other similar "solutions". I don't like to write a thread against a position because the proof not being unto me means I can very easily create a strawman or fall prey to backpedalling. So don't take this as a counter-attack but more as an article of opinion until the thread gets rolling.

I'm going to use sexism as an example but the same can be applied to any other -ism you want or homophobia.

The main problem with Positive Discrimination is that it's just sexist. No longuer a person is a person, you have two different kind of people, the weak women that can't defend themselves in equality and the men. You are forced to be defined profesionally by your sex not by your skills.

It's patronizing and leads nowhere because you are not making women better, you are making them more "woman" but not more female but more genderized, you separate them from the men as something different.

Remember Luther King?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."


What is Positive Discrimination but race over character? If you want meritocracy make meritocracy work, don't make an absurd rule that goes against meritocracy to make it better.

And, more importantly. Positive Discrimination is useless because it doesn't solve any problems. The problem is not "There are very few female engineers", the problem is "Women are being driven away from engineering because of they are female". Equality is not equality of resulst but equality of opportunity. All the girls in my class got promoted while hardly 2 o3 of the boys did the same not because they were discriminated against but because they were worse at studying.

The result was unequal, but it was fair because the important part of equality was the part when they all got the same test and got the same marks without any regard to their sex. An "unequal" result doesn't means that the equality of opportunity is broken or that it is broken in that stage.

For example. There are very few female engineers. The reason is not that the field is sexist, that girls are prevented from working there or a combination of the above but the main reason is that there are very few girls studying that field. In my class the ratio is close to 10%. Was it because they had a hard time entering the school? No, it wasn't. In fact the girls have on averange, far better marks than boys.

So, why there are so few women in the field? The answer is sexism yes, but not in the field per se, the answer are gender roles.

I mean, you can't expect to have a lot of female engineers if you don't have any girls studying it and you can't expect them to study it if they don't want to.

If we fired everyone from their jobs and pressed the magical no-sexism button we would still have gender splits like the one we have today.

Does that mean that sexism doesn't exist? No, not at all. All I'm saying is that it is not as overt and as directly responsable of the gender splits and the most important sexism is but gender roles and not grumpy men who refuse to let women do a "man's job". There are lots of those grumpy men, but they are not the main problem.

And even if they were you are better off fighting that instead of circunventing it in a poor way. Positive Discrimination will have very sexist sideffects on feminism and will drive lots of people from the notion that men and woman are equal.

People are not going to follow you when with one hand you talk about how men are women are equal and sex is irrelevant while with the other you talk about how they are not equal and women must have priority because sex matters. You only give the Strawman a point.

And someone who got a job because of this isn't going to be respected because she didn't earn it. She was a subpar option when it comes to what really matters, the job. People will complain and say "Meh, she only got here because of PD, she sucks" even if she worked hard to get there. You tain forever the reputation of female workers and you will give them facts to prove how bad women are.

Those effects would create a whole wave of sexism because now the sexist people are not going to have to admit just a woman but an unskilled woman, perpetuating the cliche that women are useless and that a man would do the job better.

I'm getting into a long rant so I will leave it there. Feel free to comment.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

Have you looked into the already existing thread on positive discrimination?

bvih
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby bvih » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:41 pm UTC

Started reading the older thread, but I don't have time to finish it at the moment. Interesting stuff though, even if I've only read about 3/4ths of the first page, and skimmed a bit of the rest.

Anyhow, I'm more than willing to discuss the merits and faults of affirmative action, but first I need you to concede that society has inherent biases towards white males meaning that the system is not equal as it stands. If you don't acknowledge that there's a problem to fix, then there's no point to affirmative action, and any I argument I make would be pointless. Of course, if you can give me proof that people on a societal level are able to overlook their biases, or that these biases don't exist, then I'll happily concede that you're correct and that positive discrimination is harmful to society.

For now though, all I have are studies that the system is inherently biased. I've cited a few in the other thread, and there are more to be found in the 2008 discussion. There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against affirmative action, but I don't see any point in debating them unless we first come to a consensus as to whether or not race/sex/_____ discrimination is a problem in the first place.

ianf
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby ianf » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:05 pm UTC

bvih wrote:Anyhow, I'm more than willing to discuss the merits and faults of affirmative action, but first I need you to concede that society has inherent biases towards white males meaning that the system is not equal as it stands. If you don't acknowledge that there's a problem to fix, then there's no point to affirmative action, and any I argument I make would be pointless. Of course, if you can give me proof that people on a societal level are able to overlook their biases, or that these biases don't exist, then I'll happily concede that you're correct and that positive discrimination is harmful to society.


To be fair, you need to define what you mean by "society". Maybe "American society" or "European society" or something like that. My feeling is that any society has some sort of bias, but it's not always towards white males. In parts of India, for example, the bias would be around the caste system, in Jamaica the bias is against homosexual males, in parts of Africa the bias is tribal.

So I think that the point either needs to be that there is a bias towards white males in "society X" or that there is "some sort of bias" in all societies.

bvih
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby bvih » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:50 pm UTC

Sorry, I should've specified. By "society" I mean western societies where whites are a majority.

I finished reading the older thread, and one point I'd like to touch on is the notion of public perception. One of the criticisms of affirmative action is that it creates racial tension, which is true enough. A large portion of that tension however comes from the general perception that things are already equal. People are quick to argue that affirmative action creates an unfair system, without acknowledging that the system is unfair to begin with. Pretty much everybody in the older thread seems to accept that not everybody is afforded equal opportunities in the aforementioned societies, but from my experiences that isn't a widespread belief. I don't have anything to back up this claim though, so I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am.

If the problem is public ignorance however, I think that we need to revise the way we teach racism and race relations in school. I can't speak for Europe, but in the United States racism is treated primarily as an issue of the past. We learn about slavery and the civil rights movement, but they're taught as part of history, distant and removed from the present day. Racism is also highly stigmatized, to the extent where I think it's detrimental to discourse on the subject.
Quixotess wrote:Also, I'd like to take this spacetime to again talk about the use of the phrase "a racist," which I've seen used twice on this thread. It's a way to separate yourself from racism. "I'm not racist! The real racists are dressed in white robes and hoods. *I* don't have any prejudices." "*I* don't have a problem with this, but those darned racists will, so we'd better not do anything." No. You have prejudices just like the rest of us. It's a phrase that only serves to pass our guilt onto others, and I request that people stop using it.

Everybody has prejudices, and ignoring them or pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away. We're told not to be prejudiced, but we're not taught how. The end result is a decrease in blatant racism allowing the prevailing belief that racism is for the most part over, and that everybody has equal opportunities. The problem here of course, is that studies and statistics show the opposite. In my experience, affirmative action is often misunderstood as a result; it becomes a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The first step then, is to convince people that things are not equal, which begins with our education process. That's part of a long-term solution however, short-term I think it's enough to simply get more skilled and educated women/minorities into the workplace to start breaking societal conceptions and stereotypes. Hopefully one day affirmative action won't be needed for that. That day however, is not today.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby General_Norris » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:17 pm UTC

Tell me, what kind of Possitive Discrimination do you want? Women getting priority when it comes to getting a job?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:12 pm UTC

bvih wrote:There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against affirmative action, but I don't see any point in debating them unless we first come to a consensus as to whether or not race/sex/_____ discrimination is a problem in the first place.


I have no idea where in the US you live, but I can tell you that my experience in Texas was that racism and sexism are significant problems. For example, I was working for a small company that was looking to expand their office team by picking up an additional administrator. Walking by the presidents office while he was reviewing resumes with the VP I overheard the comment "there sure are a lot of black names...". Needless to say, they waited a few more weeks for more resumes to come in and hired a white woman.

Later, while working for a major engineering consulting firm that prided itself on fair practices and a diversified workforce one of the senior engineers told a draftsman who was on the phone with his wife "Tell her we're doin' man work. Shouldn't she be in the kitchen or takin' care of the kids?"

I spent three years in Houston and this sort of thing happens all the time. Race based comments are thrown around all the time, sometimes in "good fun", sometimes as a snide remark. It's not limited to any racial group, and I personally experienced reverse racism on a number of occasions.

Personally I think racism is a generational problem. You literally have to wait for older bigoted generations to die out, and as the do they pass less and less of their judgements along to the kids. More so, the economic impact of hundreds of years of discrimination and abuse against an entire people doesn't disappear over night. It's going to take hundreds of years to overcome the educational, emotional and financial devastation inflicted upon minorities in the US. James Byrd Jr. was murdered just 12 short years ago because of the color of his skin. Could anyone honestly tell his son that America has moved past racism for good, and that discrimination is "primarily an issue of the past"? Personally, when I see people being murdered and their bodies horribly mutilated in the news, I know there are tens of thousands of less public forms of discrimination happening every day. Affirmative action helps redress it, and I don't see the need for it going away in my lifetime.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

bvih
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby bvih » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:33 pm UTC

@General_Norris
Where it's applicable, yes.

Ari wrote:
3.14159265... wrote:What do you think of a policy of having a certain number of engineering students that are girls at university?

Why are you assuming homogeneity in people's desires. Thats practically telling them that they should be like the rest of the "white" people.

Make it possible for anyone to become anything (I believe this is highly true in Canada), then let people do what they want.


Let's talk about this in terms of jobs just because the language is easier for that- the points still apply roughly the same to quotas for courses and so on.

Since when have people been forced to apply for a job they aren't willing to take? Even if you implement a quota that favours them, it's still clearly their own choice whether they accept a given position. The idea of a quota is that you still hire people who want the job, and you still hire people who are qualified for the job. But because you need to be partially representative in your hiring practices, you can no longer afford to allow unconscious discrimination to interfere with your hiring policies. In fact, you have to take steps to "value diversity" beyond the usual corporate sloganeering.

The idea is essentially that you have to set any quotas that you institute at a sweet point- low enough that you're short enough of true representativeness so that racial disadvantage doesn't stop you from finding qualified candidates, yet high enough that the people you're selecting for begin to make up a significant part of the workplace and hopefully change misconceptions about race/gender/etc... from the inside.

I think it's also generally clear that this sort of demand-side positive discrimination needs to be reserved for situations where this type of subtle discrimination needs urgent remedy, rather than for minor cases.


As for women having higher grades, have you noticed something about the women in engineering? From what I've seen they work much harder than the men, almost as though they have something to prove. Engineering degrees are stressful enough without being a representative of your gender.

@Cleverbeans
I'd like to believe that most people understand that racism/sexism are contemporary problems, but...
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/08/michigan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Civil_Rights_Initiative
As of 2006, the majority of Michigan at the very least doesn't think so. Ironically, I was neutral on the issue back then, but four years later I've grown much fonder of the ideas behind affirmative action. While I still admit that it isn't an ideal solution, I've yet to hear of a better one.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Azrael » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Tell me, what kind of Possitive Discrimination do you want? Women getting priority when it comes to getting a job?

How about, instead of answering that question and sending this discussion down the same path that's been tread so often, we start with:

bvih wrote:... but first I need you to concede that society has inherent biases towards white males meaning that the system is not equal as it stands. If you don't acknowledge that there's a problem to fix, then there's no point to affirmative action, and any I argument I make would be pointless ... There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against affirmative action, but I don't see any point in debating them unless we first come to a consensus as to whether or not race/sex/_____ discrimination is a problem in the first place.

If you won't acknowledge a problem, there is no point in discussing solutions.

Thriftweed
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Thriftweed » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:29 am UTC

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the laws as written are neutral with regards to race, gender, etc. (though in a few cases they may favour women or non-white people), and that the current source of discrimination is from individuals in charge of hiring or promotion.

If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to prevent the individuals' bias from having any effect than to bias the law the other way? For example, laws could be passed making it illegal to mention gender or race on one's resume, and illegal for the hiring manager to make any attempt to discover them. An application would only include one's last name and first initial, or the name could be replaced by an applicant ID number. (HR would assign such a number and record the applicant's real name and other contact information, and it would be illegal for anyone making hiring decisions to have access to such information. This would have to be modified slightly for smaller businesses, but it would be doable.) Interviews could be conducted through a text-based medium, and the interviewer would never see the applicant.

With regards to pay raises and promotion, an overview board could be established (or any existing group that enforces affirmative action laws could be repurposed) to examine allegations of inequality. If any manager is alleged to be assigning promotions or pay raises in a discriminatory manner, they would have to submit documentation of all relevant raises or promotions to this board, and if there is indeed a noticeable discrepancy between genders or races then the manager would have to appear before the board, with supporting evidence, to explain why there is a difference. Any employee would be allowed to attend this hearing or submit testimony anonymously, but would not be required to do so. If, in the end, the manager was found to be discriminating then any affected employees' pay would be retroactively increased to match the other race/gender's, though I'm not sure how exactly they would handle promotions. If the same manager was found to be discriminating multiple times then they could be barred from making any such decisions in their current job and possibly in any future jobs.

While affirmative-action type laws may be simpler, laws similar to those proposed above seem like they'd be more effective, and they wouldn't potentially cause racism/sexism after equality had been established.

Alternatively, we could just make everyone wear burkas and use voice-changers whenever they leave the house.

PS: I just read through the other thread, and an idea similar to my first point was mentioned already. The arguments against it was that discrimination may still exist after the person is hired, which my second point would address, and that businesses would find it inconvenient, which I consider less of a problem than legally enforced racism or sexism.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:21 am UTC

Any employee would be allowed to attend this hearing or submit testimony anonymously, but would not be required to do so.


Unconstitutional, right to face your accusers. Additionally, anytime something that looks like discrimination happens, there is a chance the (insert race or gender) discriminated against will make up testimony to try and get a raise.

and if there is indeed a noticeable discrepancy between genders or races then the manager would have to appear before the board, with supporting evidence, to explain why there is a difference.


Lets say I give pay raises to 5 of my ten employees(who are 5 white and 5 hispanic) and the 5 raises go to 4 whites and 1 hispanic. First, its entirely possible that those are purely skill/performance based races. The problem if I don't have documentation on why the 4 were good workers suddenly your government agency can practicaly take over my employees payment. Now we have reverse discrimination, the 4 white employees who worked hard are being paid just as much as less useful employees.

While affirmative-action type laws may be simpler, laws similar to those proposed above seem like they'd be more effective, and they wouldn't potentially cause racism/sexism after equality had been established.


Definitely not going to cause racism/sexism...unless you are white or male and suddenly your employer is afraid to give you a raise because the regulatory board is foaming at the mouth.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Thriftweed
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Thriftweed » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Unconstitutional, right to face your accusers. Additionally, anytime something that looks like discrimination happens, there is a chance the (insert race or gender) discriminated against will make up testimony to try and get a raise.

Oh right, that thing. Nevermind that bit then.

mmmcannibalism wrote:Lets say I give pay raises to 5 of my ten employees(who are 5 white and 5 hispanic) and the 5 raises go to 4 whites and 1 hispanic. First, its entirely possible that those are purely skill/performance based races. The problem if I don't have documentation on why the 4 were good workers suddenly your government agency can practicaly take over my employees payment. Now we have reverse discrimination, the 4 white employees who worked hard are being paid just as much as less useful employees.

I was thinking mainly of office jobs where, so long as one keeps track of which jobs where given to which employees and the results, evidence would be fairly easy to produce. It would probably make more sense to just handle it through the normal court system, actually. Put the burden of proof on the accuser, but require the accused to provide any relevant evidence they may request. If there's a disagreement regarding the quality of the work, then an expert witness could be called in, to be payed for by whoever loses the case.

mmmcannibalism wrote:Definitely not going to cause racism/sexism...unless you are white or male and suddenly your employer is afraid to give you a raise because the regulatory board is foaming at the mouth.

To be fair, it wouldn't just be the white males not getting raises. If the board was "foaming at the mouth", then no-one could get a raise without risk, so it wouldn't really be racism or sexism.

I'm going to wait until I've had some sleep before posting anything else in an attempt to prevent any further failures in basic common sense on my part.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby General_Norris » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:19 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:If you won't acknowledge a problem, there is no point in discussing solutions.


Azrael, I already did that in my OP.

Myself wrote:Does that mean that sexism doesn't exist? No, not at all. All I'm saying is that it is not as overt and as directly responsable of the gender splits and the most important sexism is but gender roles and not grumpy men who refuse to let women do a "man's job". There are lots of those grumpy men, but they are not the main problem.


So yeah. I don't know what you want me to say.

Let's talk about this in terms of jobs just because the language is easier for that- the points still apply roughly the same to quotas for courses and so on.


No, they don't. There's no reason at all other than gender roles and personal preference when it comes to choosing between Medicine (Full of girls, need a 9 to get in) and Engineering (Few girls, need a 5 to get in).

Ari makes a lots of points that make no sense. If you need a 5 to get in, and you don't have it you are not qualified. If I'm looking for the best employee and you are the second best you are not qualified. It's that simple. If I make a constest and you don't win you don't deserve a prize. Unless you want to argue that your ability at doing a job is related to your sex which is highly sexist.

In fact, you have to take steps to "value diversity" beyond the usual corporate sloganeering.


So instead of choosing the best one, no matter if he's black or white, valoring a person on his skills rather than the color or his skin and other meaningless facts is bad while choosing people because they are from a certain race is not. It's the very definition of racism, a person being better or worse than another because of their race.

I'm an inferior choice for a job because there are less black men working there? Bullshit.

Were I given the choice of getting a job based not on my skills but on my race or sex and not getting it I would prefer the latter. It's like getting a criminal to jail but with lies instead of evidence. Oh yes, the result is "equal" but it's not fair.

And it's unlawful. Doesn't your constitution say that men and women are equal and can't be discriminated against based on gender, race, sex, religion, political orientation and so on? Isn't that a basic right? Isn't that the very same right that we should enforce instead of breaking it more?

I mean, the law is out there, in the very most important document of every country. Enforce it instead of circunventing it. A good country is built on good laws.

And a skilled worker is bult on skills, not sex.

Put the burden of proof on the accuser, but require the accused to provide any relevant evidence they may request. If there's a disagreement regarding the quality of the work, then an expert witness could be called in, to be payed for by whoever loses the case.


I agree with your system. In fact, it already exists AFAIK. Why do I agree? Because you solve the problem (Bigotry) instead of circunventing it via sexism.

bvih
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby bvih » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:24 pm UTC

I'll address your other points later, but first we need to reach some sort of consensus as to whether or not sexism is the cause of these gender splits. You say that it's the result of gender roles, I say it's the result of sexism. There's the example of more women making it into top orchestras after blind auditions were instituted, which should be evidence enough that there's more to it than gender roles at play. Aside from that, a quick google search will find plenty of studies:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5024.html
The results provide statistically significant evidence of sex discrimination against women in high-price restaurants. In high-price restaurants, job applications from women had an estimated probability of receiving a job offer that was lower by about .5, and an estimated probability of receiving an interview that was lower by about .4. These hiring patterns appear to have implications for sex differences in earnings, as informal survey evidence indicates that earnings are higher in high-price restaurants.

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
Given the tiny number of women faculty and the fact that they are essentially irreplaceable, one would have assumed that all tenured women would be treated exceptionally well-pampered, overpaid, indulged. Instead, they proved to be underpaid, to have unequal access to the resources of MIT, to be excluded from any substantive power within the University.


There are plenty of other studies showing that gender discrimination is still a very real problem (including one that interestingly enough shows that the discrimination is perpetuated by women against women), but you get the point.

Many of your arguments operate under the assumption that sexism is not responsible for gender splits, and unless you can prove that sexism isn't the problem, those arguments are unsound.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Azrael » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Myself wrote:Does that mean that sexism doesn't exist? No, not at all. All I'm saying is that it is not as overt and as directly responsable of the gender splits and the most important sexism is but gender roles and not grumpy men who refuse to let women do a "man's job". There are lots of those grumpy men, but they are not the main problem.
So yeah. I don't know what you want me to say.

Yeah, that's not acknowledging a problem. That's trying to sweep it under a rug -- one that you've named incorrectly at that. Existing gender roles are the direct result of [past/continuing/current] sexism, so you can't blame gender roles without also blaming sexism. If the sexism from then formed the normative roles of now, then those roles are the result of sexism.

If you mean innate gender preferences, (i.e. more women like being florists) you have to demonstrate both that a) the preference exists and b) historical prohibitions are no longer active. You'd start to do this by presenting data that shows a growth in female involvement (or male, entirely dependent on whether we're talking doctor or elementary school teacher) that has reached a plateau, contrasted against some baseline control of the growth of that minority in the workforce. Continued growth of the minority gender in the field in and of itself invalidates the hypothesis that is primarily driven by innate preference.

Regarding positive discrimination: You're continually insisting that someone more qualified is being skipped, and it's been pointed out that your black and white approach is flawed before. If three people with the same education and similar work experience all apply for a job, there are a lot of non-quantifiable factors that are considered (among them things like personality, eloquence, etc etc) to determine which to hire that don't make one candidate more or less qualified than the others. It is not unfair nor harmful to, after establishing the pool of qualified candidates, hire based on those secondary issues. Thus, if a company chooses to hire so that broad gender or racial percentages match either the population (or the applicant pool), they are treating anyone unfairly. Nor are they causing harm.

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby tetromino » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:52 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:If three people with the same education and similar work experience all apply for a job, there are a lot of non-quantifiable factors that are considered (among them things like personality, eloquence, etc etc) to determine which to hire that don't make one candidate more or less qualified than the others. It is not unfair nor harmful to, after establishing the pool of qualified candidates, hire based on those secondary issues. Thus, if a company chooses to hire so that broad gender or racial percentages match either the population (or the applicant pool), they are treating anyone unfairly. Nor are they causing harm.
A very curious argument. You actually believe that a hiring manager who, given two equally qualified applicants, automatically chooses to not hire the atheist, the homosexual, or the recent Nigerian immigrant (because doing so might raise the percentage of atheists, homosexuals, or recent Nigerian immigrants on the project team above their percentage in the general population) is not treating anyone unfairly and is not causing harm?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Azrael » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm UTC

Any sort of positive discrimination concept has to have some stopping point, right? Or else you'd only be able to accept under-represented applicants.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Aetius » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:19 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:If you won't acknowledge a problem, there is no point in discussing solutions.


An important question to ask is whether the advantage of privileged groups is a "headstart" or a "rate" boost (or if both, to what degree is it one or the other). That is to say, does a privileged individual get preferential treatment in certain contexts, or do they benefit from circumstances that make it more likely for them to be an advantageous position?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:46 pm UTC

I was thinking mainly of office jobs where, so long as one keeps track of which jobs where given to which employees and the results, evidence would be fairly easy to produce. It would probably make more sense to just handle it through the normal court system, actually. Put the burden of proof on the accuser, but require the accused to provide any relevant evidence they may request. If there's a disagreement regarding the quality of the work, then an expert witness could be called in, to be payed for by whoever loses the case.


I guess hypothetically that could work for an office job; but I doubt there are many jobs when all potential reason to give a raise/promote(such as working well in teams or helping coworkers) would be quantified data. "expert witness" to determine work quality sounds rather dubious

To be fair, it wouldn't just be the white males not getting raises. If the board was "foaming at the mouth", then no-one could get a raise without risk, so it wouldn't really be racism or sexism.

I'm going to wait until I've had some sleep before posting anything else in an attempt to prevent any further failures in basic common sense on my part.


Which is still indirect* discrimination because white men who deserve pay raises won't get them because the company is afraid to give a raise

*of course its not racist for the company to not give raises, but its still a racist pressure if companies are effectively discouraged to promote white males.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby General_Norris » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

Azrael wrote: you can't blame gender roles without ALSO YOU GUYS: blaming sexism


Which is my point. I'm not arguing otherwise. Sexism causes gender roles and those roles cause the gender split in the workplace. The gender split main cause is that, not evil guys being sexist.

An example. There are very few girls in Electrical Engineering in my University. However in the very same building the Chemical Engineering course is filled with girls. Why? Gender roles. Specially since all those girls can enter Electrical engineering if so they wish becasue their marks are higher (And thus have preference).

and it's been pointed out that your 330033 and white approach is flawed


Dude I don't care if you are moderator. Don't tell me that I'm wrong because I'm white or not. It's hypocrital and highly racist, ok? So stop it now.

Regarding positive discrimination: You're continually insisting that someone more qualified is being skipped,


No, really? That's the point. How the hell are you going to give a woman preference when she is already the best option? The problem is if you don't give her preference and she is the best option, not the inverse.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Azrael » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
and it's been pointed out that your 330033 and white approach is flawed
Dude I don't care if you are Terminator. Don't tell me that I'm wrong because I'm white or not. It's hypocrital and highly racist, ok? So stop it now.

... massive context fail. I'm going to chock this one up as a big loss for you no one, for invoking some variant of Godwin's Law wordfilter.

Edited for less than humorous results of wordfilters.

General_Norris wrote:
Regarding positive discrimination: You're continually insisting that someone more qualified is being skipped,

No, really? That's the point. How the heckity-eck are you going to give a woman preference when she is already the best option? The problem is if you don't give her preference and she is the best option, not the inverse.

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. By the way, read the rest of that paragraph.

User avatar
Demented Teddy
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Demented Teddy » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:53 pm UTC

Positive discrimination is a media buzz word.

There can never be positive discrimination because said "positive" discrimination is discriminating against one group while another gets advantages.

It is still normal discrimination
May Humanity's glory always shine bright.

Czhorat
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Re: "Positive" Discrimination

Postby Czhorat » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:39 pm UTC

Demented Teddy wrote:Positive discrimination is a media buzz word.

There can never be positive discrimination because said "positive" discrimination is discriminating against one group while another gets advantages.

It is still normal discrimination


True from a technical linguistic point of view, but one could argue that discrimination favoring those with the majority of political and economic power is different from discrimination favoring those with less power with the goal of creating balance. Phrases such as "affirmative action" and "positive discrimination" draw this distinction to avoid the kind of false equivalencies one draws by just throwing up ones hands and saying "it's all discrimination".


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests