"I want to be treated the same as everyone else"

[Fryk]

I think the thing here is that Nodm is looking at it from the perspective of everyone in general. I am looking at from an individual basis. The truth is, ANYONE who loses their job because of systematic processes, be they from society or government, to me, that's a sad thing. And that includes white people as well.

[NodmiTheSellout]

. . .and that's a "thing"? When determining the justice of government policy, it's kind of necessary to look outside of your own individual experience. I'm white and poor and haven't got an enormous amount of help like some more privileged people do--for instance, getting put through school by a relative who has no expectation of being paid back--but I don't blame affirmative action. Because I'm still able to find a way. And affirmative action is meant to benefit those who simply don't have access to that 'way', through no fault of their own. Yes, it's bad that anyone loses/never gets a job for something that has nothing to do with their qualifications. But it's a lesser of two evils.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

But if the issue is people with wealth and not necessarily white people, why bring race into it at all? why not just work on helping people who don't have the means instead of color-coding everything because some white people are enormously rich.

If this is about people without means, then race has nothing to do with it. If it's about racism, it's inherently racist to try and *fix* the situation.

[lordlundar]

And affirmative action is meant to benefit those who simply don't have access to that 'way', through no fault of their own.

So say a tech position opens up in a company and part of the requirement is to have 2+ years in the field and certification. Guess the black person who's only experience with any computer is answering his cell phone gets to be jumped to the front of the line before a white person with 5+ years experience and teaches the certification courses, huh?

THAT is affirmative action. It's not about giving people access to a 'way' that the majority have access to, it's about meeting quotas to prevent a lawsuit for discrimination, even if it means taking someone who has no capability for the position.

I've done bank teller system installs with a handicapped black person, and would happily work with him over some other people at that site because he was GOOD at it (he finished installs faster than anyone there in fact). He didn't need AA to get him there or do the job, he did it himself. If he didn't need AA to give him an advantage, then no one does.

[NodmiTheSellout]

But if the issue is people with wealth and not necessarily white people, why bring race into it at all? why not just work on helping people who don't have the means instead of color-coding everything because some white people are enormously rich.

If this is about people without means, then race has nothing to do with it. If it's about racism, it's inherently racist to try and *fix* the situation.

Because it's not addressing solely wealth and that's why I didn't use the word "wealth". It's addressing bias in hiring and acceptance. A way is just as closed off to you if they fail to choose you because you're black as it is if you're poor.

So say a tech position opens up in a company and part of the requirement is to have 2+ years in the field and certification. Guess the black person who's only experience with any computer is answering his cell phone gets to be jumped to the front of the line before a white person with 5+ years experience and teaches the certification courses, huh?

THAT is affirmative action. It's not about giving people access to a 'way' that the majority have access to, it's about meeting quotas to prevent a lawsuit for discrimination, even if it means taking someone who has no capability for the position.

I've done bank teller system installs with a handicapped black person, and would happily work with him over some other people at that site because he was GOOD at it (he finished installs faster than anyone there in fact). He didn't need AA to get him there or do the job, he did it himself. If he didn't need AA to give him an advantage, then no one does.

No, THAT is an unintended product of affirmative action. Using that argument to devalue the whole system is like saying welfare shouldn't exist because some people using it make a perfectly livable wage under the table and are abusing the system. It's fucking ridiculous. It won't help the perfectly qualified black guy who nervously approaches an employer with a curiously white-washed workforce and gets told that they're not hiring. (See? I can pull anecdotes out of my ass too!)

As for the second bit--affirmative action is NOT about the experiences of a few. It is NOT about "well there's this one black guy who...", because his experience is not representative of the minority experience on the whole.

[Fryk]

. . .and that's a "thing"? When determining the justice of government policy, it's kind of necessary to look outside of your own individual experience. I'm white and poor and haven't got an enormous amount of help like some more privileged people do--for instance, getting put through school by a relative who has no expectation of being paid back--but I don't blame affirmative action. Because I'm still able to find a way. And affirmative action is meant to benefit those who simply don't have access to that 'way', through no fault of their own. Yes, it's bad that anyone loses/never gets a job for something that has nothing to do with their qualifications. But it's a lesser of two evils.

It doesn't matter if you're able to 'find a way'. EVERYONE can eventually find a way. The problem is that a way was ALREADY BLOCKED. And I am sorry, but if it's because of social programs trying to make people nice artificially, I am NOT going to just sit down and take it because golly gee whillikers, someone somewhere may have gotten a raw deal because of some OTHER douchebag miles away from anything I have ever experienced. That's not justice at all. That's trying to spread injustice around so that it lessens the impact of some by making us all feel it. Guess what? It's still injustice.

[daleduke17]

Look at these two individuals, which one is more qualified for a office cashier (think service desk/accounting) clerk at a grocery store. One is male, one female:

#1: Less than four years cashier experience, terminated from one cashier job, has worked for four different grocery companies in those four years, always was cashier.

#2: Almost seven years of cashier experience, held positions increasingly more responsibility including office cashier, pricing coordinator and backup head cashier. Never has been terminated from a cashier position.

Who should get the job?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Whichever one's the woman!

Did I get it wrong? I did?

Shocked I tell you! Shocked! Who in their right minds would hire the more trustworthy, hard working, and experienced applicant? Ludicrous! we must legislate to help the woman, even if she's that shitty first one!

Racism may not be truly gone in this world, but over here, at least, it's at a record low and dropping. I say this in spite of my experience of increasing racism against whites, but rationally it's probably lower than ever and day-to-day experience and what little data anyone's bothered to gather points in this direction. Why try to legislate away, that which is already leaving?

[NodmiTheSellout]

Alright, I'm done with this, it's just the same "affirmative action ALWAYS hires bad workers" crap over and over again. Believe what you want.

[daleduke17]

Alright, I'm done with this, it's just the same "affirmative action ALWAYS hires bad workers" crap over and over again. Believe what you want.

The two people I showed are my wife and myself. We both put in for the same job, she got an interview and an offer, while I did not. I'm person #2 in the choices. So, I'm still thinking there's a some of the "hire the female no matter what" going on.

[lordlundar]

No, THAT is an unintended product of affirmative action. Using that argument to devalue the whole system is like saying welfare shouldn't exist because some people using it make a perfectly livable wage under the table and are abusing the system. It's fucking ridiculous.

No, the counter argument is. It's not a case of a few bad apples ruining the entire system. The system itself is fundamentally fucked up because it not only allows the abuse, but encourages it.

It won't help the perfectly qualified black guy who nervously approaches an employer with a curiously white-washed workforce and gets told that they're not hiring.

You're right, but there are already standing laws in place that ensure that if the black guy loses employment based on his race, then he has a legal recourse. Guess what, that means AA is pointless.

As for the second bit--affirmative action is NOT about the experiences of a few. It is NOT about "well there's this one black guy who...", because his experience is not representative of the minority experience on the whole.

So the fact that the few are the ones that actually put the effort in to get the jobs instead of bitching and whining about the situation they're in, their point of view is irrelevant? Um, no. All that reads to me is "this statement is counterproductive to my argument, so I'm going to dismiss it's relevance.

As a final note, all Affirmative Action is a legal approach to changing a company's policy of "hiring the best qualified candidate for the job" to "hiring the best person that allows us to meet our hiring quota for the job"

[KnitShoni]

As a final note, all Affirmative Action is a legal approach to changing a company's policy of "hiring the best qualified candidate for the job" to "hiring the best person that allows us to meet our hiring quota for the job"

That may be what it's become, but I'm pretty sure it started out as changing a company's policy of "let's hire this white guy because he's a white guy over the qualified *insert race/gender here*" to "how about looking at qualifications rather than race/gender." If it had worked as intended, it would no longer be necessary.

[smileyeagle1021]

Alright, I'm done with this, it's just the same "affirmative action ALWAYS hires bad workers" crap over and over again. Believe what you want.

I don't think anyone said that it always hired bad workers, just that it could (and would) lead to situations where the less qualified applicant would get the job.
I know several minorities who will point blank say that they find AA offensive. They despise the fact that they will never know if they were hired because they were the most qualified or if the company needed their token black person (with most of them I'm pretty sure it's because they are the most qualified, but we'll never know).

[lordlundar]

That may be what it's become, but I'm pretty sure it started out as changing a company's policy of "let's hire this white guy because he's a white guy over the qualified *insert race/gender here*" to "how about looking at qualifications rather than race/gender." If it had worked as intended, it would no longer be necessary.

Actually, that's Equal Opportunity Employment. It's a common mistake, and one a lot of HR people (sometimes intentionally) make so it sounds better. (IE using Affirmative Action techniques and calling it Equal Opportunity hiring procedures)

I'll give an example with a more mathematical perspective on it. Say an employer is looking to hire someone for a position and requires a 100 point test to be completed, with a 75 or higher being eligible for the position, and the highest score getting the job. While the test is completely based off of the qualifications needed for the position, what isn't told to the applicants is that for every minority that a person represents, they get a 5 point bonus added to their score. So while a white male in average health needs a full 75 questions right to even be eligible, a woman of latino and african decent with a hearing problem and a cane only needs 50 points. (one bonus for being a woman, 2 bonuses for two races of non-Caucasian, and 2 bonuses for two disabilities)

Now the test is complete and the male got 80 points, while the female only got 65. Well, the lady doesn't even meet the minimum for hiring, let alone winning the position, right? While it's true, the AA bonuses haven't been applied yet, which pushes her score to 90, meaning she gets the job despite not even meeting the qualifications for it.

Equal opportunity is about hiring solely on qualifications.
Affirmative action is about giving preference to minorities because they are a minority.