Positive discrimination!!

Syl wrote:Yes...the person best suited to the job, regardless of sex, age, race etc should get it.

I think we are a long way off that though.

Original Quill wrote:Hmmm...not if "the best person for the job" is always white and male. You get a little suspicious if no women or blacks ever are deemed qualified.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice who just died, is a case in point. We are reminded that when she graduated with honors from Columbia University Law School, the only job offers she could get in the entire City of New York were as a legal secretary. "The best person for the job" very often means only that s/he fits our white, male stereotype.

It her case, it was called breaking the glass ceiling. There are lots of 'glass ceilings'. Sometimes the world isn't flat, and new thinking is required.

Tommy Monk wrote:Totally agree that it is discrimination... Normally anti white male discrimination...

Original Quill wrote:Hmmm...not if "the best person for the job" is always white and male.  You get a little suspicious if no women or blacks ever are deemed qualified.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice who just died, is a case in point.  We are reminded that when she graduated with honors from Columbia University Law School, the only job offers she could get in the entire City of New York were as a legal secretary.  "The best person for the job" very often means only that s/he fits our white, male stereotype.

It her case, it was called breaking the glass ceiling.  There are lots of 'glass ceilings'.  Sometimes the world isn't flat, and new thinking is required.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Hmmm...not if "the best person for the job" is always white and male.  You get a little suspicious if no women or blacks ever are deemed qualified.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice who just died, is a case in point.  We are reminded that when she graduated with honors from Columbia University Law School, the only job offers she could get in the entire City of New York were as a legal secretary.  "The best person for the job" very often means only that s/he fits our white, male stereotype.

It her case, it was called breaking the glass ceiling.  There are lots of 'glass ceilings'.  Sometimes the world isn't flat, and new thinking is required.

If the best applicant for a job just happens to be white and male, then they should not be refused that job because they are white and male.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

If the best applicant for a job just happens to be white and male, then they should not be refused that job because they are white and male.

A-hah, but you are flipping the question, misconstruing the issue.  Suppose the white male is not the best?  Suppose the 'meritocracy' is infected by bias, unconscious or otherwise.

That's why I gave the example of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  In her case, contrary to merit, she was overlooked in favor of males because of the unfounded, unconscious belief that females cannot be good lawyers.  Look how false that turned out to be.

Meritocracy depends on superior indicia to determine merit.  Sometimes merit is confused with false presumptions as to value and quality.  The 'old boy' network is full of them.

inmyopinion wrote:No you assume she was over looked because of something, perhaps she was arrogant, nasty, perhaps she interviewed badly but if she got the job because she was female is that just as bad.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:No you assume she was over looked because of something, perhaps she was arrogant, nasty, perhaps she interviewed badly but if she got the job because she was female is that just as bad.

Those are personal idiosyncrasies.  It doesn't account for the lack of women getting jobs as attorneys, at any law firm in NYC.

• They used to say that women aren't suited for high-stress jobs ... you know, if one were president, she could blow the world up at that time of the month.  These myths and superstitions permeate society, and are always confused with true merit.

The point is, that meritocracy depends on what you consider meritorious.  It's a value-laden minefield.  It used to be accepted that Blacks are only good at sports and tap-dancing; women should only be barefoot and pregnant, and have dinner on the table every evening.  What you call merit, any rational person most often would call prejudices and biases.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Those are personal idiosyncrasies. It doesn't account for the lack of women getting jobs as attorneys, at any law firm in NYC.

• They used to say that women aren't suited for high-stress jobs ... you know, if one were president, she could blow the world up at that time of the month. These myths and superstitions permeate society, and are always confused with true merit.

The point is, that meritocracy depends on what you consider meritorious. It's a value-laden minefield. It used to be accepted that Blacks are only good at sports and tap-dancing; women should only be barefoot and pregnant, and have dinner on the table every evening. What you call merit, any rational person most often would call prejudices and biases.

More assumptions, do you base anything you say on facts, opinion, you just have your opinion, which you are entitled to but do not peddle those opinions as indisputable facts.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

More assumptions, do you base anything you say on facts, opinion, you just have your opinion, which you are entitled to but do not peddle those opinions as indisputable facts.

Not assumption.  You just need to learn to read:  Meero Deo, Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (2019); Angela P. Harris (ed), Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia (2012); Catharine A. MacKinnon, Women's Lives, Men's Laws (2005); Deborah Rhodes, Justice and Gender (1989); Sandra Fredman, Women and the Law (1969).

These works have plenty of facts in them.  It's enough to get your started.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not assumption.  You just need to learn to read:  Meero Deo, Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (2019); Angela P. Harris (ed), Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia (2012); Catharine A. MacKinnon, Women's Lives, Men's Laws (2005); Deborah Rhodes, Justice and Gender (1989); Sandra Fredman, Women and the Law (1969).

These works have plenty of facts in them.  It's enough to get your started.

So supporting bias with bias works makes it fact, wow I will have to remember that

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
So supporting bias with bias works makes it fact, wow I will have to remember that

Don't read?  Maybe you should stand on the corner and bark.  

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't read?  Maybe you should stand on the corner and bark.  

perhaps you should read a book on civility

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

perhaps you should read a book on civility

Aren't you off-topic?  This thread is not about me.  Your post asked for facts.  If I gave you anecdotes you would say you can't generalize from specifics.  OK, you would be right.  So, I gave you sources for facts, in the form of several relevant books, giving statistics as well as specifics.  

Now, suddenly, you are talking about my civility.  WTF does that have to do with anything?  You've got the facts you called for...go read, fcs!

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aren't you off-topic?  This thread is not about me.  Your post asked for facts.  If I gave you anecdotes you would say you can't generalize from specifics.  OK, you would be right.  So, I gave you sources for facts, in the form of several relevant books, giving statistics as well as specifics.  

Now, suddenly, you are talking about my civility.  WTF does that have to do with anything?  You've got the facts you called for...go read, fcs!

If you cannot read your own words you have the problem.
learn to debate.................

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
If you cannot read your own words you have the problem.
learn to debate.................

Doin' fine, here.  You've got mission-drift, from message to messenger.  Haha...learn to debate.  

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:No you assume she was over looked because of something, perhaps she was arrogant, nasty, perhaps she interviewed badly but if she got the job because she was female is that just as bad.

Those are personal idiosyncrasies.  It doesn't account for the lack of women getting jobs as attorneys, at any law firm in NYC.

• They used to say that women aren't suited for high-stress jobs ... you know, if one were president, she could blow the world up at that time of the month.  These myths and superstitions permeate society, and are always confused with true merit.

The point is, that meritocracy depends on what you consider meritorious.  It's a value-laden minefield.  It used to be accepted that Blacks are only good at sports and tap-dancing; women should only be barefoot and pregnant, and have dinner on the table every evening.  What you call merit, any rational person most often would call prejudices and biases.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Those are personal idiosyncrasies.  It doesn't account for the lack of women getting jobs as attorneys, at any law firm in NYC.

• They used to say that women aren't suited for high-stress jobs ... you know, if one were president, she could blow the world up at that time of the month.  These myths and superstitions permeate society, and are always confused with true merit.

The point is, that meritocracy depends on what you consider meritorious.  It's a value-laden minefield.  It used to be accepted that Blacks are only good at sports and tap-dancing; women should only be barefoot and pregnant, and have dinner on the table every evening.  What you call merit, any rational person most often would call prejudices and biases.

Pffft...you dont know the truth of that....you never met my ex.....She didnt have PMT...she had "mad cow disease"

Ben Reilly wrote:Positive discrimination, or affirmative action as it's called in the U.S., has always been a clumsy solution to a real problem -- that some employers do (and always will) think that an applicant can't be qualified unless they're a member of the "right" gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

There is unbiased evidence that such a thing continues to happen in America -- a group made a bunch of fake CVs and sent them out to employers. They found that fake applicants with stereotypical white-sounding names were contacted more often than applicants with stereotypical black-sounding names.

https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Even though the qualifications listed on the fake CVs were identical.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Positive discrimination, or affirmative action as it's called in the U.S., has always been a clumsy solution to a real problem -- that some employers do (and always will) think that an applicant can't be qualified unless they're a member of the "right" gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

There is unbiased evidence that such a thing continues to happen in America -- a group made a bunch of fake CVs and sent them out to employers. They found that fake applicants with stereotypical white-sounding names were contacted more often than applicants with stereotypical black-sounding names.

https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Even though the qualifications listed on the fake CVs were identical.

If whites were 90% of society and similar proportion of applicants, and Black's were around 10% of society and applicants, then why would it be an issue that the proportion of applicants actually contacted was of similar proportions...!?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

If whites were 90% of society and similar proportion of applicants, and Black's were around 10% of society and applicants, then why would it be an issue that the proportion of applicants actually contacted was of similar proportions...!?

It's not merely a numbers game, although you Brits fall into that trap.  Hey...blacks were once slaves.  You can read about it in the history books.  They were inferior as slaves, and in the south white folks have done everything to make sure they continue to be inferior.

You Brits think it's a numbers game because it's not a part of your history.  In America: Minority = a history of slavery and oppression, with numbers to assure it stays in place.  “Minority” is only a small part of the equation.

inmyopinion wrote:surely it is just legalised discrimination and is just as wrong, isn't the best person for the job always the way it should be.
If I get a job/position I want tot know I got it because of me not because the company was in the middle of a mad drive to employ more west Indian's.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Positive discrimination, or affirmative action as it's called in the U.S., has always been a clumsy solution to a real problem -- that some employers do (and always will) think that an applicant can't be qualified unless they're a member of the "right" gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

There is unbiased evidence that such a thing continues to happen in America -- a group made a bunch of fake CVs and sent them out to employers. They found that fake applicants with stereotypical white-sounding names were contacted more often than applicants with stereotypical black-sounding names.

https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Even though the qualifications listed on the fake CVs were identical.

If whites were 90% of society and similar proportion of applicants, and Black's were around 10% of society and applicants, then why would it be an issue that the proportion of applicants actually contacted was of similar proportions...!?

It's not merely a numbers game, although you Brits fall into that trap.  Hey...blacks were once slaves.  You can read about it in the history books.  They were inferior as slaves, and in the south white folks have done everything to make sure they continue to be inferior.

You Brits think it's a numbers game because it's not a part of your history.  In America: Minority = a history of slavery and oppression, with numbers to assure it stays in place.  “Minority” is only a small part of the equation.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Positive discrimination, or affirmative action as it's called in the U.S., has always been a clumsy solution to a real problem -- that some employers do (and always will) think that an applicant can't be qualified unless they're a member of the "right" gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

There is unbiased evidence that such a thing continues to happen in America -- a group made a bunch of fake CVs and sent them out to employers. They found that fake applicants with stereotypical white-sounding names were contacted more often than applicants with stereotypical black-sounding names.

https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Even though the qualifications listed on the fake CVs were identical.

If whites were 90% of society and similar proportion of applicants, and Black's were around 10% of society and applicants, then why would it be an issue that the proportion of applicants actually contacted was of similar proportions...!?

eddie wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:surely it is just legalised discrimination and is just as wrong, isn't the best person for the job always the way it should be.
If I get a job/position I want tot know I got it because of me not because the company was in the middle of a mad drive to employ more west Indian's.

You know that handicapped people have to be given a shot at certain jobs, right?

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not merely a numbers game, although you Brits fall into that trap.  Hey...blacks were once slaves.  You can read about it in the history books.  They were inferior as slaves, and in the south white folks have done everything to make sure they continue to be inferior.

You Brits think it's a numbers game because it's not a part of your history.  In America: Minority = a history of slavery and oppression, with numbers to assure it stays in place.  “Minority” is only a small part of the equation.

Slavery not part of British History, haven't you heard of William Wilberforce?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



If whites were 90% of society and similar proportion of applicants, and Black's were around 10% of society and applicants, then why would it be an issue that the proportion of applicants actually contacted was of similar proportions...!?

Your numbers are a bit off (America's not nearly that white) but if you check the link, you'll see that a black-sounding applicant had to send out an average of 15 CVs to get a call back, whereas white-sounding CVs got a call back for every 10 sent out.

Again, the qualifications (the entire rest of the CVs, actually) were identical.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Your numbers are a bit off (America's not nearly that white) but if you check the link, you'll see that a black-sounding applicant had to send out an average of 15 CVs to get a call back, whereas white-sounding CVs got a call back for every 10 sent out.

Again, the qualifications (the entire rest of the CVs, actually) were identical.

But black population in USA is around 13%...


So it is highly likely that a job has significantly more non black applicants than black applicants.

Syl wrote:But say just two applicants applied for one job, one with a foreign sounding name one called john Smith...both have the exact same qualifications for the job, I think the point being made is stats show that John Smith would get first crack.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Your numbers are a bit off (America's not nearly that white) but if you check the link, you'll see that a black-sounding applicant had to send out an average of 15 CVs to get a call back, whereas white-sounding CVs got a call back for every 10 sent out.

Again, the qualifications (the entire rest of the CVs, actually) were identical.

But black population in USA is around 13%...

So it is highly likely that a job has significantly more non black applicants than black applicants.

Didgee wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



But black population in USA is around 13%...


So it is highly likely that a job has significantly more non black applicants than black applicants.

The above is both true and false

Dependent on the place in the us

The demographic changes around the us on ethnicity and also job types

Syl wrote:But say just two applicants applied for one job, one with a foreign sounding name one called john Smith...both have the exact same qualifications for the job, I think the point being made is stats show that John Smith would get first crack.

Original Quill wrote:Discrimination on the basis of national origin is unlawful.  Even if the business does not meet the minimum 15 employees, they also may be subject to federal law if closely affiliated with other small businesses.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:But say just two applicants applied for one job, one with a foreign sounding name one called john Smith...both have the exact same qualifications for the job, I think the point being made is stats show that John Smith would get first crack.

It would depend on the job.

Plenty of small businesses are owned by non native Americans (people born elsewhere, not people who are not American Indians, which is no longer a politically correct term).

They will hire others, with similar backgrounds as their own.

In small business, people are forming teams that need to work well with each other. It's not unusual to a form a team that looks like you. It can also become problematic in terms of trying to achieve some sort of diversity.

I used to live near a convenience store where everyone was Nepalese that worked there. The owner was, and he liked to hire young people form his home country to work there. I'm cool with that, but an argument could be made that he's being discriminatory.  

inmyopinion wrote:

Syl wrote:But say just two applicants applied for one job, one with a foreign sounding name one called john Smith...both have the exact same qualifications for the job, I think the point being made is stats show that John Smith would get first crack.

I totally disagree, I think the foreign, black, lgbt, would get the job as the company would be scared of ending up in court or the media for daring to discriminate.

Syl wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

I totally disagree, I think the foreign, black, lgbt, would get the job as the company would be scared of ending up in court or the media for daring to discriminate.

Proving someone had chosen John Smith for any other reason than they were better suited to the job would be hard in a court of law though.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Discrimination on the basis of national origin is unlawful.  Even if the business does not meet the minimum 15 employees, they also may be subject to federal law if closely affiliated with other small businesses.

and of course the law is never bent or broken.

Syl wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

I totally disagree, I think the foreign, black, lgbt, would get the job as the company would be scared of ending up in court or the media for daring to discriminate.

Proving someone had chosen John Smith for any other reason than they were better suited to the job would be hard in a court of law though.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Proving someone had chosen John Smith for any other reason than they were better suited to the job would be hard in a court of law though.

Not really.  The US Supreme Court wrote an opinion, providing the template for proof in just such a case: Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not really.  The US Supreme Court wrote an opinion, providing the template for proof in just such a case: Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

I don't see how discrimination could be proved if 2 people went for a job both equally qualified, and the white man got the job over the black applicant.
In any case, sometimes it's just down to personal preference regardless of colour......we all take to some people over others, next time, in that same company, the black man might be more appealing than the white applicant.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

and of course the law is never bent or broken.

RW employers often try.  That's why the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) exists.

People rob banks, too.  They usually get caught.