Poll: Affirmative Action

[Agayek]

If mention of race or whatever is banned in the hiring process, they won't know what color, religion or whatever you happen to be.

Also, any employer with half a brain will hire the person with the best qualifications for the job, regardless of race. If they insist on hiring lesser qualified people because of said race, bully for them, they're doing nothing but hurting themselves.

No, "overqualified" =/= "better qualifications." That is why it's called "overqualifed" and not "more qualified." Merit *to do the job* "should be the only value involved in the decision" as opposed to merit unrelated to the ability to do the job.

Fair enough, I'm not gonna get into an argument on the semantics of it. If both applicants are equally qualified in every single way, it should be decided with a coin toss, not on who just happens to have been born with a minority skin color.

 

[Agayek]

However, that's not acting a way in which you "completely disregard and ignore any and all of the" differences you speak of. It's *making the actual hiring decision* in a way that *makes it impossible to regard or consider any and all of those differences* but the decision to employ that kind of hiring decision itself does not "completely disregard and ignore" the *issue* of color etc.

In fact, it sacrifices some sensitivity in the hiring process for the sake of AA: you can't interview someone face-to-face without finding out their color. Two people might have the same qualifications, but one person might be unable to get along with people and be a disruptive influence on company morale. One way to screen anti-social people is with a face-to-face interview. Can't have that and not allow the hiring decision to be blind to the race of the person being hired.

It doesn't matter whether it addresses the issue of color or not. So long as whatever issue is treated as something relevant, then the system is discriminatory.

For your second point, that's actually a good point, I didn't think of that. Going back to the drawing board for a way to get around that particular problem. However, that does not change the fact that the current AA is rather discriminatory by nature. Society as a whole is rather discriminatory as well, if for no other reason than AA is thought to be required.

 

[Agayek]

Fair enough, I'm not gonna get into an argument on the semantics of it.

Not getting into an argument about the semantics of an issue when that issue involves laws and regulations is like not getting into an argument about the mathematics of an issue when that issue involves physics and chemistry.

No, "overqualified" =/= "better qualifications." That is why it's called "overqualifed" and not "more qualified." Merit *to do the job* "should be the only value involved in the decision" as opposed to merit unrelated to the ability to do the job.

I really didn't want to get into an argument about the meanings of "overqualified" and "better qualifications", but since it's such a big deal:

The way I see it, in this context, is that "overqualified" = qualified with additional skills. Thus, "better qualified". Both people are equally able to do the job, but the overqualified individual has additional skills that may come in handy at some point in the future. Thus, the overqualified individual should be hired.

 

[Agayek]

se⋅man⋅tic
?adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.

Like I said before, I don't want to argue semantics, because they're beside the point.

Then use whatever term you want for individuals that have additional skills that *won't* come in handy at some point in the future, and replace my use of the word "overqualified" with whatever term you wish to use to capture that concept.

There's no such thing as skills that may not come in handy later. If there's 2 applicants for a single job opening, both equally qualified for the job, but one is fluent in Cantonese, for example, the second one should be hired.

I honestly think that a lot of the strong feelings that people have about AA is a result of conservatives pushing an impoverished vocabulary for discussing the topic on people. This to me is an example of that, of conflating the concept of "additional skills that may come in handy at some point in the future" and "additional skills that *won't* come in handy at some point in the future" so that we lose the distinction between the concepts of "additional and relevant" and "additional but irrelevant."

It costs absolutely nothing to choose the person with additional skills, regardless of how irrelevant they appear. If at some point in the future the employer has need of those skills, they will be available for free, or at least he will not have to hire someone else with those skills. If they're never needed, so be it. It costs nothing, but it has quite a bit of potential benefit.

Be careful of people who want you to stop thinking about the words you use and their connection to the concepts those words are meant to communicate. Anyone who does that is trying to win the argument not by convincing you of the truth of what they say, but by disarming your of your capacity to disagree with them.

How the hell did you get to this? I don't want to argue semantics because they're irrelevant. The precise meaning of overqualified and better qualified has no real relevance to the debate; we both know what we're trying to convey, or at least I know what I'm trying to say and am able to infer your meaning from context, hopefully I'm about as clear.

You've yet to explain how AA is non-discriminatory. Matter of fact, all through this debate you've been promoting a discriminatory system, while claiming otherwise. Please just explain clearly and hopefully succinctly why AA is not a discriminatory practice.

 

[Ignignoct]

In the Navy, there's a vast majority of white officers, and a scattering of black officers without any distinct cultural representations of the black community (often hilariously frat-boy bros), while the Enlisted are by and large good ol' boys and wanna-be gangsters or immigrants taking a shortcut to citizenship.

Why do you think that is?

You all know the answers in your hearts, and no, they're not politically correct, but we forgive you.

No matter what you say, you're still going to think twice about walking down the same sidewalk as a group of approaching people who look and dress gansta.

Who knows? Maybe we need an undercurrent of ill-educated mules to tow our cargo and till our land.

Smart ones rise above it, regardless of race. White folks just have the unfair advantage because we're culturally EXPECTED to make it through school and jobs without outside assistance.

We're ahead of the game, by being initially behind it. Counter-intuitive, ne?

 

[Agayek]

The question is whether the employer has decided to pay as much attention to those additional skills for that reason. Did they ask about fluency in Cantonese before AA? Or did they just start doing that in response to AA? Or did they ever consider the effects of asking about that before AA?

Speaking Cantonese isn't something employers, for the majority of jobs not in China or with frequent interaction with Chinese natives, ask for during the interview process. Odd skill sets that could possibly be useful are supplied by the applicant, that's what resumes are for. If it can help secure a position, it's the applicant's responsibility to inform the prospective employer.

1) One, I've never been promoting it, only challenging people to think more deeply about their opinions on the issue because so much of what those who are detractors of AA say is flawed or misinformed or otherwise more of a knee-jerk reaction than a considered, informed opinion:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.98142.1522139

Fair enough. I missed that post.

2) I've never claimed that AA isn't discriminatory. I've only claimed that it may be *legitimately* discriminatory.

Let me give you an example of legitimate discrimination. You and I refuse to take a test on a Saturday morning. You are excused but I am not. You are Jewish and I'm not. That's discrimination--treating you differently because you are Jewish and I am not.

Now, the question remains: is it *legitimate*?

Of course not. I'm being treated differently because of who I am, not because of my own choices.

Granted, there should probably be a secondary option on a Sunday or somesuch to allow for conflicting schedules or "unusual" things like observing the Sabbath, but I should still have to follow the exact same procedure and be held to the exact same standard as you. Treating anyone differently based on anything other than that individuals actions and choices is complete and utter bullshit and is in no way legitimate.

And I hope it gets my point across that semantics *do* matter--they matter in the sense that our ability to even deal with a concept comes from our ability to capture it with words. We wind up in a situation where we stop thinking about the issue at a more superficial level than we need to.

Semantics do matter, but writing a paragraph about the differences between "overqualified" and "more qualified", when essentially they mean the same thing, or are similar enough that it doesn't really matter, isn't conducive to effective argument, nor my laziness.

If there is sufficient area of uncertainty, then of course you'd have to get into the nitty-gritty of the precise meaning of your words, but when the differences are so minor, I didn't feel it necessary to expand further.

 

[Ignignoct]

In the Navy, there's a vast majority of white officers, and a scattering of black officers without any distinct cultural representations of the black community (often hilariously frat-boy bros), while the Enlisted are by and large good ol' boys and wanna-be gangsters or immigrants taking a shortcut to citizenship.

Why do you think that is?

You all know the answers in your hearts, and no, they're not politically correct, but we forgive you.

I don't know what answer is in your heart, but my answer is that it's complex and I don't think there's much about it that's politically incorrect about it.

Also, I wouldn't call military service a 'shortcut' to citizenship. Military service is an important sacrifice--if immigrants want to get into this country by sacrificing on it's behalf, that's not the kind of thing I'd call a 'shortcut'.

Filipinos. I fucking love em. God bless em, and coming from the Philippines, the US military is a great career comparatively to some of their origins. Also, we have plenty of Africans recently immigrated from Africa, who are also by-and-large cool as shit.

No matter what you say, you're still going to think twice about walking down the same sidewalk as a group of approaching people who look and dress gansta.

The only reason I'd be less wary of walking down a street approaching a group of while people who look and dress gangsta is because it's more likely they're from comfortable homes and bought that stuff at the mall with their trust fund money and couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

LAWL. Aight, son. Let's chalk it up to location. I'm now working out of a ship docked in a shipyard in a neighborhood with plenty of crime/theft and broken car windows.

Who knows? Maybe we need an undercurrent of ill-educated mules to tow our cargo and till our land.

I have no idea what this has to do with.

Probably for the best

Smart ones rise above it, regardless of race. White folks just have the unfair advantage because we're culturally EXPECTED to make it through school and jobs without outside assistance.

We're ahead of the game, by being initially behind it. Counter-intuitive, ne?

Justice is only for the smart?

Yes. Or the rich.

Edit: To put it back on track. AA is out-of-date, and now a point of reference to validate old-racists ideas of minority inferiority. Sexism too for the bitches. Irony intended.

 

[Agayek]

Actually, practicing the Jewish faith--or any faith--is a choice.

Oh right. I tend to meld Judaism and the Jewish(or is it Israeli?) people in my head. But yea, in that case, I'd say just don't bother with the Sabbath for the one day. God won't smite you for it. Though it'd still probably be a good idea for testing offices to offer Sunday tests too, for illnesses or schedule conflicts if nothing else.

The difference between overqualified and more qualified I think is pretty major.

That's where the semantics come in. The difference there doesn't really matter within the scope of the argument. We've already agreed both parties are equally qualified for a single task, one is simply able to also perform another task at some level of competency. It really doesn't matter whether you call the 2nd person overqualified or more qualified, because in the end, at that one singular task, both parties are equally qualified. The second person is just able to do more than that one task. Stop arguing semantics when they're irrelevant.

Justice is only for the smart?

How is discriminating against anyone, by definition treating them as inferior, justice?

 

[Vuzzmop]

"Reverse Racism" is still racism. Its prejudice, and its just as disgusting as when it happens to minorities.

And yes, I do say this as a middle class white male, looking down the barrel of the next few years of student loans without help from the government for being maori, pacific islander, or female. What's next? Scholarships for homosexuality?

 

[Samoftherocks]

Affirmative Action was necessary. It is still necessary in some cases. It will become unnecessary. Upon becoming unnecessary, it will end.

AA is nothing more than a band-aid under which the problem that society has with racism is allowed to heal.

 

[Samoftherocks]

And...there is no such thing as "Reverse Racism". It's all just "racism". If you're Chinese hating a black guy because he's black, that's racism. Same if the black guy was hating a white guy. Same as if the white guy was hating a hispanic guy.

Etc.

 

[Ignignoct]

In the Navy, there's a vast majority of white officers, and a scattering of black officers without any distinct cultural representations of the black community (often hilariously frat-boy bros), while the Enlisted are by and large good ol' boys and wanna-be gangsters or immigrants taking a shortcut to citizenship.

Why do you think that is?

You all know the answers in your hearts, and no, they're not politically correct, but we forgive you.

I don't know what answer is in your heart, but my answer is that it's complex and I don't think there's much about it that's politically incorrect about it.

Also, I wouldn't call military service a 'shortcut' to citizenship. Military service is an important sacrifice--if immigrants want to get into this country by sacrificing on it's behalf, that's not the kind of thing I'd call a 'shortcut'.

Filipinos. I fucking love em. God bless em, and coming from the Philippines, the US military is a great career comparatively to some of their origins. Also, we have plenty of Africans recently immigrated from Africa, who are also by-and-large cool as shit.

No matter what you say, you're still going to think twice about walking down the same sidewalk as a group of approaching people who look and dress gansta.

The only reason I'd be less wary of walking down a street approaching a group of while people who look and dress gangsta is because it's more likely they're from comfortable homes and bought that stuff at the mall with their trust fund money and couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

LAWL. Aight, son. Let's chalk it up to location. I'm now working out of a ship docked in a shipyard in a neighborhood with plenty of crime/theft and broken car windows.

Who knows? Maybe we need an undercurrent of ill-educated mules to tow our cargo and till our land.

I have no idea what this has to do with.

Probably for the best

Smart ones rise above it, regardless of race. White folks just have the unfair advantage because we're culturally EXPECTED to make it through school and jobs without outside assistance.

We're ahead of the game, by being initially behind it. Counter-intuitive, ne?

Justice is only for the smart?

Yes. Or the rich.

Edit: To put it back on track. AA is out-of-date, and now a point of reference to validate old-racists ideas of minority inferiority. Sexism too for the bitches. Irony intended.

Um, snark without substance is just a waste of everyone's time.

HAH!

Well-played, sir! To dodge my points and reply that lack of substance is a waste of time while at the same time posting without substance.

Bravo. Almost took you serious there.

 

[Eiseman]

Wow, Cheeze, I have to commend you for your resilience. And I think I've learned a lot about the roots of AA in turn. But I don't think you're gonna convince anyone to look past their own racial paranoia. Not while the label of "racist" is still the de facto "Black Mark" of our culture (no pun intended).

 

[Shycte]

[quote="Cheeze_Pavilion" post="18.98142.1569780"
No, because I don't see the connection between being a good student and paying your tuition, or getting into trouble. Not every student with low grades is a troublemaker or financially irresponsible. You're just making up stereotypes now.[/quote]

Maybe. But since "student 1" and "student 2" don't have nay real peronslity what else can we use. Beside, if he has low grades it means that he is a slacker. And what kind of college wants a slacker?

 

[Ignignoct]

Um, snark without substance is just a waste of everyone's time.

HAH!

Well-played, sir! To dodge my points and reply that lack of substance is a waste of time while at the same time posting without substance.

Bravo. Almost took you serious there.

Um, posting that the other person's post lacks the necessary substance and is just snark doesn't need substance--it's a complaint about the form of your post. It's like the difference between a rebuttal and a point of order.

You're not nearly as entertaining as I think you believe yourself to be.

And... eh... You've got... a fat...-- SHUT UP!

So smug nothings aside, I completely disagree that immigrants going military being a sacrifice. One's supplied a job, pay, food, shelter for themselves and immediate family + accelerated citizenship. It's a great shortcut indeed, aside from marrying a host national.

Or not.

Thread's dead.

Racism, too.