Well, I think doing it by economic status makes more sense. If blacks are disproportionately impacted compared to whites, then a policy aimed at helping the economically struggling will disproportionately help blacks. I think disproportionately helping POC is the goal, so if it can be done without using race, I think it is better. I also think helping the poor in general isn’t nearly as politically polarizing, and might actually get done.
Well, if we do it by race, we would be implementing a racist policy IMO. I think helping poor people can disproportionately help POC without being a racist policy.
It is a tricky nut to crack. I think things like affirmative action have missed the mark (IMO, it is a racist policy). I don’t think we should use a racist policy to correct for past racism.
Focusing on the poor is great. But, what that really means is focusing on poor kids… It is a program for the future. That would do next to nothing to improve the situation for “minority groups” already in the workforce as the policies we are talking about are applicable to middle-class and up type jobs. Those people don’t deserve to continue to be disadvantaged just because they arent the MOST disadvantaged.
I agree that by far and away socioeconomic background (childhood) is a much larger disadvantage than sex/ethnicity/etc. The cycle of poverty is vicious and cultural affects all creeds and breeds. The issue is that there is still a disadvantage associated with sex/ethnicity/etc even if socioeconomic factors are equal.
Its not an either, or situation. Righting workplace diversity/discrimination issues costs fractions of pennies on the dollar that fixing poverty costs. I simply do not understand why this is controversial. I get why certain policies might be, but the goal should not be.
Yep. I fully support the rooney rule, and the other diversity programs the NFL has. If you can make a compelling case of other discrimination that results in diversity issues that needs to be righted within the league i would likely also support fixes for that.
Filling a position is a situation where someone does get the job and someone doesn’t. If you don’t get the job, and find out it is possibly because of your skin tone, it could be pretty upsetting for many.
On the flip side, how would you feel if you found out the deciding factor in your employment was your POC status?
I want a fair system. I don’t see how using skin tone in employment leads to that goal. I am for making education more equitable (giving people the tools they need to succeed). I am for trying to make it so that POC are equally represented (as a portion of the population) as the actual best candidates for a position.
I am not sure we are going to agree on affirmative action being good policy. I haven’t seen a good argument for it yet (and have seen other options that seem to accomplish the same goal, but based on better principles). I’ll keep an open mind to it, but as of right now I can’t justify it logically.
Im not a huge fan of the current iterations of affirmative action either. And to be clear, when i am saying “minority groups” here im including women and LGBTQ. I think we would both agree that discrimination in the workplace (both implicit and explicit) has very much been a thing over the past 40-50 years, and has also steadily improved over that time. The “minority groups” that faced that discrimination are still in the workforce and many at lower levels (paying or title) than they deserve because their resume, as they built it, wasnt as strong as their non-“minority” peers due to that discrimination.
The thing is, the best candidate isnt always hired. This isnt pro sports where winning is fucking everything. Most people in the workforce just want to collect their paycheck and be as comfortable as possible doing so. So, they continue hiring the familiar face, with the familiar background. The only way to force people out of this familiar comfort zone is to incentivize, or mandate. And, as a byproduct, companies become more productive with higher morale when they are more diverse.
I dont know what the RIGHT solution is, but i know we should try and find one. and that means trying, failing, fixing, and trying again.
Sure, but if one has an appropriate undergraduate degree from Yale and a PhD from Harvard along with a great deal of compelling experience, while another has an undergrad from Harvard and a PhD from Yale with similarly compelling experience, a choice between what appear to be outstanding candidates must be made. At that point, either choice is fair and right. No wrong answer.
Now let’s say that one is a POC who worked nights to put him or herself through college while the other was a white trust fund baby…does it matter? I would offer that to me, as a citizen whose need for a merit-based selection for [important cabinet post] is met, it doesn’t.
However, “me” as a person who desperately wants less division in our country and politics would approve the POC worked-nights choice. Others - many others - would choose a white male (in particular) pretty much every time. But the person hiring gets to make the decision. Either way, merit has been assured.
A legacy of the flight of the earls, if the below article is anything to go by. The heir of the kingdom of Ulster is probably some minor European noble.
It matters the most. No one (that is taken seriously) is arguing for diversity at the expense of merit. We are arguing for a level of diversity when merit is basically equal. And frankly, any decent company already understands the well documented benefits of that.
With whom are you comparing yourself. Every 50 year old person in the US has had the same educational and assimilation chance to insures success. People from all over the world come here, learn English, strive to get educations and/or a skill that others will pay for. There are brick layers that make more in a week than an engineer amkes in a month. There are millions of non white/male ‘minorities’ making great money and in leadership roles.
If you are comparing yourself to the poor hoodrat that thinks sports or rap is their only avenue, then I guess you are golden spoon. But in the last 50 years, there is opportunity for most that showed initative.
Im not saying it was impossible to succeed if you weren’t a straight white male. I’m saying that being a straight white male was advantageous.
Lots of folks have had great power hitting seasons that didnt play for the Rockies. Doesn’t mean that it wasn’t easier to hit for power at Coors.
Speaking of Colorado, it took until 1996 for Colorado’s 2nd ammendment, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, to be deemed unconstitutional and wiped from the books. So, no, the playing field hasnt been level for the past 50 years, even to those that showed initiative.
And continued for much longer. Ironically, in his Italian campaign, the famous Corsican repeatedly defeated two Irish-born Austrian generals - von Westmeath and von Ballinlough, the former later extracting his revenge on the Corsian’s brother.
Sorry but I’m ignoring the sports examples, because those and other pop culture wins are biological lotteries just like being born into the wealthy, connected family.
But while l acknowledge isolated straight up discrimination, middle class America (you, me, the Americans on this thread) all have plenty of opportunity for success. Are minorities CEOs? Mostly not, but there are only a few thousand C spots with hundreds of millions of workers.