Excuse me, but someone has to be the rabid angry sneering lefty round here or we'll all drown in our own reasonableness. — unenlightened

I already understand the deep abiding hatred you have for the millions of Americans you've never met, so you can leave that part out if you want to. :grin:

You need to post about the current UK government if you want to see my deep abiding hatred. This is just a friendly word to the wise.

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

Have you really? Someone has asked that from you in your work?

Or have you read an article that basically urges people to do this?

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

You can't, since you're not allowed to inform about a person's sexual orientation. Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. Sex and skin colour are a bit hard to hide although I guess from a social experiment perspective it would be totally cool if a black man could pretend to be white and then show up normally on his first day. Preferably somewhere in Mississipi.

The argument made by the Students for Fair Admissions seems misguided.

I don’t see how no one can be harmed regardless of whether affirmative action is enacted; many different students are considered, but there is a limited number of spots; someone is going to get in, and some other number of people will not. While ideally this selection process would be meritocratic, I don’t see any real, honest-to-god meritocracies outside of the gym. And it isn’t even perfect there. The burden of proof is on them to show that the selection process would be meritocratic if Harvard hadn't instituted the Asian cap.

Thus, I think it is stupid to raise an argument about how it is unfair that someone got selected over you; it is unfair for everybody minus the winner unless it considers every single relevant factor, which would be impossible. For example: you might be a math genius with a lack of social skills. You would be at home with the math researchers, but you don’t get a spot because some sly socialite really makes an impression on their interviewer. Or maybe English isn’t your first language. Or maybe you are gay and the interviewer is a bigot. All factors that could lead to an unfair outcome.

Unless schools want to come out with a clear explanation for their selection processes, the best solution seems to me to be focusing on the development of a (more) sophisticated selection process that takes into account myriad factors, including the likelihood of success of the student benefiting from the affirmative action, whether or not they will be able to contribute to research, etc. I don’t know how much resources would need to be dumped into this, but I think it would be worth it.

Of course, if schools came out with information about their selection processes they could be gamed, but overall, I think if they were transparent enough they could achieve the efficacy necessary to solve this issue once and for all. So really transparency is the answer imho.

Have you really? Someone has asked that from you in your work?

Or have you read an article that basically urges people to do this? — ssu

You'd be amazed at what's actually occurring. I solicit business from major corporations and am told very directly that they need a certain percentage ownership by minority and then I get these 10 page forms where I'm asked for specific breakdown of employee by race and sexual orientation. It's illegal for me to ask, and impossible for them to verify for accuracy.

Sex and skin colour are a bit hard to hide although I guess from a social experiment perspective it would be totally cool if a black man could pretend to be white and then show up normally on his first day. Preferably somewhere in Mississipi. — Benkei

Actually gender is subjective, so maybe I can say we're all gay women and they'd have no way to disprove it. Race is actually complicated if we try to break it down to 1/16 or however they might define it (and I doubt they do). How are they going to tell someone they're not a particular race?

This whole thing is on a collision course.

There are all sorts of irrelevant criteria they can discriminate with, but only some raise Constitutional concerns, and race is one of b them. That is, discrimination on the basis of introversion doesn't violate the Constitution, but on race it does. That is why the argument before the Court is as it is.

So continues the trend of me totally missing the point of an OP. Got a little ahead of myself there.

Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. — Benkei

Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment.

Then too, a plaintiff will probably need to show a pattern of discrimination. Being the one gay, female, black, or Dutch male to get fired doesn't in itself mean much. Were Hanover's firm to fire all of its Dutch male employees, you might have a case.

Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment. — Bitter Crank

Strangely enough, plenty of owners and managers manage to contravene the rules for at will employment by giving discriminatory reasons. At least, if the the anti-work reddit is an indication.

I don't follow Reddit much.

What I have observed, and it seems to be something of a consensus, is that people might be fired for cause or for some discriminatory reason, but the actual reason will not be officially stated. It seems like a lot of agencies are also not giving references--not because they have no former employees who deserve a good reference, but because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative.

My experience was mostly in the non-profit sector. Perhaps practices in corporate establishments are harsher.

Most jobs are bad jobs, which is why workers have to be paid to get anything done. Most bosses are bad bosses because they pretty much have to treat workers as means to ends which they may or not believe in. There are of course a few good jobs and several good bosses.

because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative. — Bitter Crank

What? That's ridiculous.

You'd be amazed at what's actually occurring. I solicit business from major corporations and am told very directly that they need a certain percentage ownership by minority and then I get these 10 page forms where I'm asked for specific breakdown of employee by race and sexual orientation. It's illegal for me to ask, and impossible for them to verify for accuracy. — Hanover

You just make up some numbers and turn it back in?

No it doesn't. It requires that people are selfish first, familial second, and tribal third, and that people in government are good at manipulating opinion. — unenlightened

The government isn't a monolithic entity, but it's comprised of the same sort of ineptitude and gullible sorts that make up the general public, which then results in everyone trying to manipulate everyone in a political free for all. I accept that the lowest rungs just follow along oblivious to the game being played, but I don't view the government as this controlling entity with all its powers clearly focused on a particular objective. They're just as smart, just as stupid, just as moral, just as corrupt as we all are.

I can attest the same cultural norms amongst the UK working classes, and also among the Afro Caribbean population here. And that proves what? It proves that we are all hearing the same messages and seeing the same solutions to the same problems. 'Work hard, support power, make yourself useful to power, don't rock the boat, etc.' The Jewish community surely knows as well as any that education and hard work count for little when the government is against you. — unenlightened

I think the Jewish experience speaks to what oppression can do, but it also speaks to what resiliency can do. Another example would be the Celts, which I use because they settled large portions of the area where I live. The Southern US culture owes much of its culture to those oppressed folks, which only makes the point that you can't explain the entirety of a group's current condition upon their most recent government.

To put this another way: Trump's persuasion is probably much stronger on the great grandchildren of the Scots and Irish settlers as opposed to those of the English aristocracy.

What? That's ridiculous. — Benkei

Of course. But... Who said everything had to make sense?

how does that apply to Asians? — Hanover

I heard (in a documentary about immigration in Australia) that Asians, specifically, the Chinese, tend not to be interested in politics and government, because the Chinese hold politicians to be a "lower class of humans", they don't see going into politics as a respectable career choice; they see it as something necessary, but not respectable. This is one of the reasons the Chinese tend to be underrepresented in politics and government in multicultural settings (such as Australia).
I suppose similar could hold for other Asian ethnicities.

Asian culture, whatever it might historically have been long before America was a twinkle in anyone's eye, must play some role internally here as well, meaning their values must also be leading them toward STEM based occupations, without manipulation by the powers that be. — Hanover

Yes. There's research on this, e.g. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why.

I don't know that even if I can accept the need for affirmative action to right past wrongs, that I can accept it as a forever proposition — Hanover

Well, given that there's been Affirmative Action, in effect, for straight, white male, Protestants (in the main) established in every manifest institution in North America since 1619, I don't see an equitable alternative to addressing persistent (perhaps intractable) structural inequalities. If not "permanent"", then for at least 247 more years (1969-2269) in its current, limited scope as redress(?) for the three centuries of 1619-1969 AA for white males (that continues). Besides, as I've pointed out here (link to data therein), in practice, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of Affirmation Action programs since the early 1970s.

Well, given that there's been Affirmative Action, in effect, for straight, white male, Protestants (in the main) established in every manifest institution in North America since 1619, I don't see an equitable alternative to addressing persistent (perhaps intractable) structural inequalities. — 180 Proof

I continue to struggle to see the underlying “eye for an eye” philosophy in these sort of conclusions as moral or just. If Affirmative Action, in effect, has led to these unfair and inequitable results, then why would more of the same somehow fix the issue?

There is a lot of unfairness in this country, both past and present, but revenge doesn’t undo any of it. It just perpetuates it, and creates a new class of “victims.”

I agree. However, do you believe that the original AA for straight, white male, Protestants since 1619 will be completely given up (as a birthright entitlement) by straight white male Christians ever? willingly? If you do, please explain. However, if you don't, then explain why some AA on the margins for women & minorities since c1969 is not warranted in the interest of redressing some systemic educational, occupational & social inequities.

Well, given that there's been Affirmative Action, in effect, for straight, white male, Protestants (in the main) established in every manifest institution in North America since 1619, I don't see an equitable alternative to addressing persistent (perhaps intractable) structural inequalities. If not "permanent"", then for at least 247 more years (1969-2269) in its current, limited scope as redress(?) for the three centuries of 1619-1969 AA for white males (that continues). Besides, as I've pointed out here ↪180 Proof (link to data therein), in practice, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of Affirmation Action programs since the early 1970s. — 180 Proof

If AA is the equitable solution as you argue, but also an ineffective solution as you argue, then why have it?

Are you arguing that AA is in principle fair, but in practice unhelpful, so we should just keep it because it's of good intent?

Should I benefit from AA because I'm not Protestant?

My position on this really is pragmatic. If someone could arrive at a workable solution to racial inequity, I'd sign off on it. Meanwhile I'm filling out paperwork asking me how many gay people work at my firm so I can obtain business. What this means is that we've lost our way here terribly. I just don't think that the creators of AA policy really thought one day employers would be expected to ask employees where their dicks were the night before so that heterosexual dominance could be checked.

If AA is the equitable solution as you argue, but also an ineffective solution as you argue, then why have it? — Hanover

That's not what I'm arguing.

Are you arguing that AA is in principle fair, but in practice unhelpful, so we should just keep it because it's of good intent?

I'm not arguing this either.

[D]o you believe that the original AA for straight, white male, Protestants since 1619 will be completely given up (as a birthright entitlement) by straight white male Christians ever? willingly? If you do, please explain. However, if you don't, then explain why some AA on the margins for women & minorities since c1969 is not warranted in the interest of redressing some systemic educational, occupational & social inequities. — 180 Proof

:chin:

I've not taken a hard line against any AA at all, but it's more a pragmatic objection in what I see really happening. Yes, the LGBT community, for example, has not been shown the compassion and respect it deserves, but has it been economically or academically oppressed such that it needs set asides? I really don't think that's where remedial measures are needed for that group.

There are white groups that arrived in the colonies as indentured servants, oppressed by the English long before they arrived, and to this day scraping by on the margins of society scattered through Appalachia. That cycle of poverty needs some response other than pandering politicians like Trump et al.

The best positioned African American is the affluent one, who can have the many advantages of wealth and receive the benefits of AA. Private school kids with professional parents have their path well paved, but they were going to be fine anyway. Do we really see kids from the hood being saved by AA? Aren't those the ones we're worried about?

It just seems like there's a better way to sort out who's been unfairly disadvantaged than through DNA tests. I accept the playing field is not level, but leveling it is far more complex than just dumping people into broad categories and going from there.

accept the playing field is not level, but leveling it is far more complex than just dumping people into broad categories and going from there. — Hanover

What's your suggestion?

However, do you believe that the original AA for straight, white male, Protestants since 1619 will be completely given up (as a birthright entitlement) by straight white male Christians ever? willingly? — 180 Proof

Lol, yeah right.

However, if you don't, then explain why some AA on the margins for women & minorities since c1969 is not warranted in the interest of redressing some systemic educational, occupational & social inequities. — 180 Proof

For me the issue is that anytime one group is given an advantage, it necessarily disadvantages anyone not in that group. I don’t know what kind of specific advantages you have in mind, so maybe there’s some way around this issue, but I don’t think I, a white man, should be automatically disqualified for a job or a promotion or educational opportunities because of my skin tone, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. I shouldn’t be punished for something I didn’t do.

I also don’t understand having the expectation of equity, rather than equality. For example, the NFL is like 80% non-white, which is far from being equitable, but I couldn’t care less about the color of the athletes playing. When I watch football I just want to see the most talented players competing against each other. I think everyone should view all areas in such a way, other than areas like politics where representation actually matters.

I accept the playing field is not level, but leveling it is far more complex than just dumping people into broad categories and going from there. — Hanover

I don’t think it can ever truly be level, or fair. Not completely. As far as I know, no immoral practice has been completely eradicated. Slavery still exists. “Honor” killings still exist. Wars still exist. Xenophobia in all its forms still exist, and there’s no way to effectively prosecute such offenses because it’s almost impossible to prove someone didn’t hire someone because of their race, etc. So it will continue like it always has regardless of what we do.