Brown v. Board of Ed

[dazzleman]

One of the reasons many of the larger corporations are having problems performing (i.e. meeting market needs) is that they are more interested in meeting afirmative action 'goals' (we used to call them quotas).

These 'goals' not only include hiring of a set percentage of specified 'minorities' but in the promotion of a minorities to positions of authority in accordance with standards set by the government.

To give you an example of how this works, corporations really like promoting black women to positions where they don't have the training or aptitude to perform as effectively as their counterparts of other races because the corporation can count them twice (the term is twofers) in meeting goals.

A perfect example of how affirmative action as currently practiced is harmful and distorts the whole business process.  Then, when the person who has been promoted fails in the position, the company must either (a) keep a non-performing person in the position, and effectively transfer her work to others (usually white males); or (b) terminate her and most likely face a lawsuit for racial and gender discrimination.  I have seen this exact scenario played out.

[J. J.]

My problem with affirmative action efforts is when arbitrary judgments are made about hiring and admission practices based upon superficial information that doesn't take all the facts into account.  For example, if somebody is examining the hiring practices of a fire department, and finds a low percentage of women, it is inappropriate to simply say that they must be discriminating because the portion of women as a percentage of the department doesn't match the overall population, without taking into account (a) the lower level of female, versus male, interest in being a firefighter; and (b) the fact that the physical requirements of the job exclude most females, like it or not.

So I have a big problem when people (a) don't take job requirements, and the ability of various segments of the population to meet those requirements, into account when assessing the presence of discrimination; and (b) suggest that the legitimate requirements of a job should be changed to allow for more hiring of a presently favored group.

When affirmative action takes this form, I firmly oppose it.  This would include watering down physical or educational requirements, allowing lower test scores for a favored group, or requiring lower performance standards on the job for certain types of people.  All this is being done in the name of affirmative action, and it is wrong.  Much of this is what has given affirmative action a bad name.

First of all, I generally agree.  I an not suggesting that "good ole boy" networks be abolished; I am suggesting that they should be opened up.  :-)

I happen to be physically disabled.  It does not bother me in the least that there are not more physically disabled people working on loading docks, so I am in agreement there as well.

Universities, for example, use a variety of factors, including race, in admission.  I'll give you an example, my former supervisor.  She in Black (and she happens to oppose the type of affirmative action that you describe).

She has a Master's degree, and before retiring, had a first level supervisory position within a state agency.  She also sells real estate on the side.  Her husband (who is also Black) is an administrator within a large university.  I would expect that hey have a six digit household income.  Is their child going to have a problem getting into this university or paying for it?  No, and probably not in too many other universities either, if his scores are good.

Another example.  A friend, also Black, divorced.  Has a year of college and couldn't afford more.  Has worked in lower level clerical positions, and has a household income of less than $20,000.  Is her son going to have same chances that the first example has?  No, and this is an argument for looking at race.  BTW:  She opposes affirmative action, too.