I support certain kinds of affirmative action. Making sure that minorities or people who wouldn't be informed about a job opening are (in other words, outreach). Encouraging applicants from different backgrounds to apply. If someone has something relevant in their background that might make them effective at the job, that should be acknowledged. For example, you might want to hire a Latino doctor specifically if many patients will be Latino, since they will speak Spanish, the patients might be more comfortable dealing with someone of their own race and background, and they might have knowledge of the community that could make them more effective.
What I do not support is hiring un- or under-qualified persons, or just hiring them on the basis of skin or race. That is just reverse racism. However, employers have many things beyond experience to consider when hiring someone: How reliable will they be? Will they stay at this job for a while so I get a return on the training? Will I be able to use them to reach out to a community? with the last one, someone's background can really matter.
Proposed: A law mandating that all interviews prior to the actual hiring of an employee be conducted through an online program where the applicant's identity is encrypted, eliminating any chance of the decision of hiring or not being based upon sex, race, age, height, appearance, or other superficial traits.
Employers would still be able fire the employees when they first show up for work for whatever reason, but I think the bigger problem with prejudice is subconscious stereotypes. Getting a foot in the door before they find out that you're female, hispanic, four feet tall, whatever, would solve a lot of the problems with this, I think.
What about older Americans that don’t know a lot about computers? Why would this be better than just ending affirmative action? and last of all how would this insure that the best person gets the job and keeps it if they can still be fired for any reason once they come to work. Government is not always the answer I think at least in the case the government needs to quit playing with the scales.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
What about older Americans that don’t know a lot about computers? Why would this be better than just ending affirmative action? and last of all how would this insure that the best person gets the job and keeps it if they can still be fired for any reason once they come to work. Government is not always the answer I think at least in the case the government needs to quit playing with the scales.
If you don't know a lot about computers, it's high time you learned. Go to the public library in your town and ask for help. Make no mistake; unless and until something even more efficient comes along, our civilization is now one defined and made possible by the use of computers and the internet.
This would be better than simply ending affirmative action because it protects the same people that affirmative action means to, but actually enforces it fairly. It would mean that applicants were actually hired as they were most qualified.
They can still be fired, yes, but firing someone is more difficult than not hiring them in the first place, and requires an explanation.
As to government non-intervention, while often government interference is harmful, it is also often beneficial. See: Education, highways, space exploration, the destruction of monopolies, etc..
Why is that sad? What other options are there of dealing with a business? Of course you are welcome to try to convince a bigot that he is acting irrationally. It is a noble pursuit. I do not feel like it is worth the effort though, I have better things to concentrate on. If someone is dumb enough to intentionally and irrationally narrow his labor and customer supply, then we should let him suffer the consequences.
Quote from TheInfamousBearAssassin »
Does the government not have the right or responsibility to protect a sizable segment of the population from malicious and tangibly harmful conspiracy?
This is very vague language and I am not too sure what it means. What I do know is that government often causes the opposite effect of what it intends. Hey, how are your 'wars' on poverty and drugs going? So, besides the myriad of moral concerns, I just do not find government (sanctioned coercion) to be a worthy tool.
I do not doubt that somewhere along the line some people who happened to be called government agents have aided persecuted minorities. No doubt about it whatsoever!
However, taking a step back from the situation for a moment, I have serious questions as to whether minority groups have been helped more than hurt by the State. Whether we are talking about the waterhoses and attack dogs in the civil rights movement or slavery, which was made possible by the State because the costs of confinement and capture were offloaded onto the general population by taxation.
Quote from Tiba »
We would say "no", but when the unspoken conspiracy reaches such epidemic proportions that it threatens the very existence of the group so conspired against, the situation becomes different.
Sure. There's not much room for moral decision making here because that requires choice. I mean if I was in the gulags, I'd probably try to steal extra bread. Yeah, stealing is wrong. But in that situation, so what?
Is it your position, though, that we are in the midst of such an epidemic as we speak?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Uhm... you're asking ljoss about the responsibilities of government. What do you think his answer is going to be?
Funny observation. To be fair, it's probably kind of hard to not use that language by reflex, we are conditioned to. I'm sure somewhere around 99.9% of the population does believe in government.
However, taking a step back from the situation for a moment, I have serious questions as to whether minority groups have been helped more than hurt by the State. Whether we are talking about the waterhoses and attack dogs in the civil rights movement or slavery, which was made possible by the State because the costs of confinement and capture were offloaded onto the general population by taxation.
Was it the state that segregated restaurants and buses, that organized lynch mobs to kill those blacks audacious enough to exercise their rights as human beings? No; it only stood aside and let these things happen. And you would have it step aside still more?
People hate, ljoss, and they don't need anything like a state to tell them to do it. And when there's a conspiracy of hatred as endemic as racism was in the American South, mere anarchic market forces won't correct the problem; rather, the superior economic might of the group in power will be used to enforce the hate. It will just feed on itself until it reaches the level of all-out massacre, as was seen in Rwanda. It took the authority of the federal government to smash the entrenched bigotry of Dixie and keep the peace.
I have a hard time understanding how you can blame slavery on the state, when slaves were owned by very wealthy private landowners, much of the runaway hunting was performed by private agents, and even the Africa-America trade flourished for several decades after it was officially banned. Slavery is one of the oldest of human institutions; it has cropped up in state-centric forms like the helots of Sparta or the eunuchs of imperial China, but it has also thrived in places with no taxation and a bare minimum of government, like pagan Scandinavia. In an anarchy, there's no one to free slaves but the slaves themselves, whose will is systematically broken and who are of course denied any sort of weapon. This is just another area where you would reward the strongest and most brutal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Was it the state that segregated restaurants and buses, that organized lynch mobs to kill those blacks audacious enough to exercise their rights as human beings? No; it only stood aside and let these things happen. And you would have it step aside still more?
Let me respond by pointing out that the Civil Rights Movement only succeeded because whites attitudes were changing. Not because of the gov't, but because of moral arguments through individuals.
Deeply rooted bias only works to a certain point, after which there needs to be moral justification in order for the majority to continue losing economic ground due to their hatred.
People hate, ljoss, and they don't need anything like a state to tell them to do it. And when there's a conspiracy of hatred as endemic as racism was in the American South, mere anarchic market forces won't correct the problem; rather, the superior economic might of the group in power will be used to enforce the hate. It will just feed on itself until it reaches the level of all-out massacre, as was seen in Rwanda. It took the authority of the federal government to smash the entrenched bigotry of Dixie and keep the peace.
What happened during the bus boycotts, Spirit? How about the sit-ins? The massive protests and demonstrations? How many whites took part?
I have a hard time understanding how you can blame slavery on the state, when slaves were owned by very wealthy private landowners, much of the runaway hunting was performed by private agents, and even the Africa-America trade flourished for several decades after it was officially banned. Slavery is one of the oldest of human institutions; it has cropped up in state-centric forms like the helots of Sparta or the eunuchs of imperial China, but it has also thrived in places with no taxation and a bare minimum of government, like pagan Scandinavia. In an anarchy, there's no one to free slaves but the slaves themselves, whose will is systematically broken and who are of course denied any sort of weapon. This is just another area where you would reward the strongest and most brutal.
You can blame it on the state because the state was responsible for preventing the violation of the enslaved's rights.
IBA
Ah, but there's the rub. We would say "no", but when the unspoken conspiracy reaches such epidemic proportions that it threatens the very existence of the group so conspired against, the situation becomes different. My solution would attempt to solve this problem without "forcing" a group to hire anyone they didn't want to. It would simply preclude knowledge of traits that hiring on the basis of would already be illegal.
There can be no such thing by definition. Your survival does not, can not, depend on any other person.
One way to take away from problems in hiring/college acceptance/ whatever procedures without going as far as completely faceless online interviews would be to eliminate the "race" and "gender" boxes on applications, or to make them optional. I always feel a little strange checking a box that I think is irrelevant to my abilities. If, like Bradley's teacher, I were a minority hired by a company whose hiring was influenced by affirmative action, I would be afraid people would assume I was hired because of my skin color and not my abilities. If affirmative action (or at the very least irrelevant check-boxes) were eliminated, I believe minorities with good jobs would get more respect, because people would know they got the job because they deserved it. If it were a simple matter of employer prejudice, then preventing employers from knowing people's race or gender would solve the problem. However, the very existence of affirmative action as it is implies that the people behind it feel minorities cannot get jobs based on their own merit even if employers don't know the person is a minority.
Okay, and my survival can't depend on another person? What if I'm dying of heat stroke in the middle of the street because it's freakishly warm out (it's been known to happen. What was that, France? anyway.) and someone refuses to let me into their air-conditioned store because they don't like the way I look? I think my survival would certainly depend on that person.
Let me respond by pointing out that the Civil Rights Movement only succeeded because whites attitudes were changing. Not because of the gov't, but because of moral arguments through individuals.
Obviously, a democratic government could not and should not act against the wishes of its constituents. What the government did was provide the muscle to force people who were violating other people's rights as laid down in the Constitution to stop it.
You can blame it on the state because the state was responsible for preventing the violation of the enslaved's rights.
Ljossberir was arguing from an anarchist perspective. I agree with you: the state did nothing when it should have done something. And I do blame the state. But ljoss would have the state do nothing all the time - any time he blames the state for something, it must needs be for something it actively did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What happened during the bus boycotts, Spirit? How about the sit-ins? The massive protests and demonstrations? How many whites took part?
The intent of these demonstrations was to get it to the attention of people outside the South. Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock High School so Faubus wouldn't send in the Ohio National Guard. There were whites who took part were a significant force but it was so deeply rooted in the culture that it required the focused might of the federal government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
Obviously, a democratic government could not and should not act against the wishes of its constituents. What the government did was provide the muscle to force people who were violating other people's rights as laid down in the Constitution to stop it.
I'm saying that the Civil Rights Movement could have accomplished its aims without getting the government involved past the necessary steps needed to defend protesters and the like from unjustified force.
I agree with you: the state did nothing when it should have done something. And I do blame the state. But ljoss would have the state do nothing all the time - any time he blames the state for something, it must needs be for something it actively did.
Alright, although I don't see how that viewpoint makes any sense, whatsoever.
The intent of these demonstrations was to get it to the attention of people outside the South. Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock High School so Faubus wouldn't send in the Ohio National Guard. There were whites who took part were a significant force but it was so deeply rooted in the culture that it required the focused might of the federal government.
I agree with you up to the point where the federal government can just swoop in and destroy these deeply rooted biases.
It took the economic might of the blacks, first and foremost, combined with the several other factors, of which I believe that government was one of the least.
It's not a harmful conspiracy when you travel from city to city, unable to attain any relevant position despite being fully qualified simply because of the color of your skin? What deifnition of "harm" do you subscribe to?
I usually really like your ideas here assassin, but do you honestly think that situation is even remotely plausible anywhere in the northen 3/4 of the US?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly known as steve-o
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff
I usually really like your ideas here assassin, but do you honestly think that situation is even remotely plausible anywhere in the northen 3/4 of the US?
There were violent and murderous race riots in Boston, Rochester, Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago and other northern cities during the past century. It is grossly simplistic to think that Jim Crow and racial supremacy were contained within the South. Although originally the stronghold of white supremacy, the past century saw it expand to every part of the nation.
Nor are whites persecuting blacks the only examples of racial inequality in this nation. It is quite easy to fail a job interview for being the wrong color or image, whatever that might be.
An obvious trap and a facetious question. The answer is that racism and the perception of is incredibly complex. Historical factors behind it have included general government policy, either through action or inaction, and the actions (or inaction) of specific figures within the government, from which they drew their authority.
You're missing the point. Of course the concept and perception of racism are affected my many factors. You're glossing over my hypothesis that government action was a minor factor, primarily the effect of changing attitudes, not the cause of them.
The two compound one another. Certainly if figures in the government had said, "No, I'm going to actually enforcer the law of the land, despite my personal prejudices", and done so insistently, then it would've weakened white supremacy in this country. Instead, sheriffs and mayors and governors proudly participated in lynchings and praised Jim Crow as a "Time-honored way of life".
You're missing the point. Of course the concept and perception of racism are affected my many factors. You're glossing over my hypothesis that government action was a minor factor, primarily the effect of changing attitudes, not the cause of them.
And I think you're missing the point that in many cases the actions of the "government" are a result of the collective will of the populace from where they derive their authority in the first place. As culture and attitude shifts in the consciousness of the people, at least in reasonably democratic States, so shifts the policy of "government."
In any case, generally speaking, I find the most vociferous critics of affirmative action policies to be bunch of white dudes; and it's not easy to take those arguments seriously, for a host of reasons: they may be logically sound, but they still stink of something unseemly.
Are you going to say that the traits are going to be relevant because of the perceptions of customers that they don't want a female electrician, a black dentist, a very tall secretary?
Actually, that would be a very valid reason to discriminate against someone. The sole purpose of an employee - the only reason the employee is there - is to make the business successful. If the employee is a hinderance to the business's success, he should not be an employee there, whether the reason for his being a hinderance is fair or not. The business does not have a moral obligation to put political sensibilities above its own existance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
So a business's actions have the sole purpose of maximizing profit of the goods and services sold, and therefore all means to this end are justified, be it discrimination against minorities in hiring, proper working conditions for those in its employ, measures against environmental pollution, or anything else. Is that what you're saying?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Actually, that would be a very valid reason to discriminate against someone. The sole purpose of an employee - the only reason the employee is there - is to make the business successful. If the employee is a hinderance to the business's success, he should not be an employee there, whether the reason for his being a hinderance is fair or not. The business does not have a moral obligation to put political sensibilities above its own existance.
From the perspective of the business? You're right. They shouldn't have to bear the burden for fixing society's ills. But no snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche. What you're doing now is justifying a series of decisions that has in the past, and could easily again end in what is essentially a massive conspiracy to destroy an entire segment of the population economically. How else might we solve this problem? Aside from the alternative I gave, I mean.
So a business's actions have the sole purpose of maximizing profit of the goods and services sold, and therefore all means to this end are justified, be it discrimination against minorities in hiring, proper working conditions for those in its employ, measures against environmental pollution, or anything else. Is that what you're saying?
Since this is about affirmative action and discrimination and not about environmental laws or working conditions, I will not address that.
In terms of discrimination against minorities, or against anyone for that matter, it comes down to the unscientific question of whether the business is better off with that employee or without him. If a bone fide business reason can be shown for discrimination, such as a reasonable assumption that your customer base would take their business elsewhere, then absolutely it is justified. Businesses are not required, nor should they be required, to take actions that are verifiably detrimental to the business.
Perhaps an example would help.
In my home state of Washington, a political petitioner has the legal right to solicit for signatures at any business, under strict cirumstances. The location has to be open to the public, the business has to be fairly large, it has to be a place considered a destination (e. g. major grocery store, Wal-Mart), and the business permits any form of solicitation. (Incidentally, this is why Target stores don't allow Salvation Army in front of their store anymore.) In fact, it is illegal to interfere with a petitioner soliciting.
However, if a customer goes to the store manager and says, "Get rid of that petitioner or I'm not shopping here," then the store does have the legal right to remove the petitioner because that petitioner's action - being there - is detrimental to the business.
Quote from TheInfamousBearAssasin »
From the perspective of the business? You're right. They shouldn't have to bear the burden for fixing society's ills. But no snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche. What you're doing now is justifying a series of decisions that has in the past, and could easily again end in what is essentially a massive conspiracy to destroy an entire segment of the population economically. How else might we solve this problem?
This comes down to the fundamental conflict between freedom and equality. Both are good. Both are right. But how much freedom must be given up for equality? Here's another example.
In the state of New York, a couple years ago, a roller skating rink was shut down because they advertised that they played Contemporary Christian music on Sundays. The Attorney General decided that only playing that music on Sundays was discrimination against non-Christians. They opened up only after agreeing to not advertise it and to include secular music on Sundays. All that in the name of equality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
I like the idea of an encrypted name, predominantly faceless hiring method. It's hard to do this with employers, especially where charisma drives sales, but for college applications at least.
I agree, this system seems nice. But there are a lot of little nit-picky things that are done. The problem with not knowing the name is that you can't look up the person's past, which could be very important.
As an example, say you're looking for a new Ronald McDonald. You probally want someone very specific as to continue the illusion of what Ronal McDonald is like. Even less specific, but still important would be if you were looking for any position that involved childern. You're probally not going to want someone who's a convicted Pedo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Invites for mee?! 69 posts at 7:23PM, June 1st, 2007, Eastern US. YaYa!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q: Will America's missile shield over Europe affect prices of foreign cards? A: It will. WotC will use its Magic Online programming team to hack into the missile shield control center. This will cause the control center to crash frequently . One of those crashes will lead to the bombing of every distributor in Europe. I'm afraid the effect on card prices will be catastrophic.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What I do not support is hiring un- or under-qualified persons, or just hiring them on the basis of skin or race. That is just reverse racism. However, employers have many things beyond experience to consider when hiring someone: How reliable will they be? Will they stay at this job for a while so I get a return on the training? Will I be able to use them to reach out to a community? with the last one, someone's background can really matter.
What about older Americans that don’t know a lot about computers? Why would this be better than just ending affirmative action? and last of all how would this insure that the best person gets the job and keeps it if they can still be fired for any reason once they come to work. Government is not always the answer I think at least in the case the government needs to quit playing with the scales.
If you don't know a lot about computers, it's high time you learned. Go to the public library in your town and ask for help. Make no mistake; unless and until something even more efficient comes along, our civilization is now one defined and made possible by the use of computers and the internet.
This would be better than simply ending affirmative action because it protects the same people that affirmative action means to, but actually enforces it fairly. It would mean that applicants were actually hired as they were most qualified.
They can still be fired, yes, but firing someone is more difficult than not hiring them in the first place, and requires an explanation.
As to government non-intervention, while often government interference is harmful, it is also often beneficial. See: Education, highways, space exploration, the destruction of monopolies, etc..
Why is that sad? What other options are there of dealing with a business? Of course you are welcome to try to convince a bigot that he is acting irrationally. It is a noble pursuit. I do not feel like it is worth the effort though, I have better things to concentrate on. If someone is dumb enough to intentionally and irrationally narrow his labor and customer supply, then we should let him suffer the consequences.
This is very vague language and I am not too sure what it means. What I do know is that government often causes the opposite effect of what it intends. Hey, how are your 'wars' on poverty and drugs going? So, besides the myriad of moral concerns, I just do not find government (sanctioned coercion) to be a worthy tool.
I do not doubt that somewhere along the line some people who happened to be called government agents have aided persecuted minorities. No doubt about it whatsoever!
However, taking a step back from the situation for a moment, I have serious questions as to whether minority groups have been helped more than hurt by the State. Whether we are talking about the waterhoses and attack dogs in the civil rights movement or slavery, which was made possible by the State because the costs of confinement and capture were offloaded onto the general population by taxation.
Sure. There's not much room for moral decision making here because that requires choice. I mean if I was in the gulags, I'd probably try to steal extra bread. Yeah, stealing is wrong. But in that situation, so what?
Is it your position, though, that we are in the midst of such an epidemic as we speak?
Funny observation. To be fair, it's probably kind of hard to not use that language by reflex, we are conditioned to. I'm sure somewhere around 99.9% of the population does believe in government.
Was it the state that segregated restaurants and buses, that organized lynch mobs to kill those blacks audacious enough to exercise their rights as human beings? No; it only stood aside and let these things happen. And you would have it step aside still more?
People hate, ljoss, and they don't need anything like a state to tell them to do it. And when there's a conspiracy of hatred as endemic as racism was in the American South, mere anarchic market forces won't correct the problem; rather, the superior economic might of the group in power will be used to enforce the hate. It will just feed on itself until it reaches the level of all-out massacre, as was seen in Rwanda. It took the authority of the federal government to smash the entrenched bigotry of Dixie and keep the peace.
I have a hard time understanding how you can blame slavery on the state, when slaves were owned by very wealthy private landowners, much of the runaway hunting was performed by private agents, and even the Africa-America trade flourished for several decades after it was officially banned. Slavery is one of the oldest of human institutions; it has cropped up in state-centric forms like the helots of Sparta or the eunuchs of imperial China, but it has also thrived in places with no taxation and a bare minimum of government, like pagan Scandinavia. In an anarchy, there's no one to free slaves but the slaves themselves, whose will is systematically broken and who are of course denied any sort of weapon. This is just another area where you would reward the strongest and most brutal.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let me respond by pointing out that the Civil Rights Movement only succeeded because whites attitudes were changing. Not because of the gov't, but because of moral arguments through individuals.
Deeply rooted bias only works to a certain point, after which there needs to be moral justification in order for the majority to continue losing economic ground due to their hatred.
What happened during the bus boycotts, Spirit? How about the sit-ins? The massive protests and demonstrations? How many whites took part?
You can blame it on the state because the state was responsible for preventing the violation of the enslaved's rights.
IBA
There can be no such thing by definition. Your survival does not, can not, depend on any other person.
This is empirically wrong about a googol times over.
Okay, and my survival can't depend on another person? What if I'm dying of heat stroke in the middle of the street because it's freakishly warm out (it's been known to happen. What was that, France? anyway.) and someone refuses to let me into their air-conditioned store because they don't like the way I look? I think my survival would certainly depend on that person.
Obviously, a democratic government could not and should not act against the wishes of its constituents. What the government did was provide the muscle to force people who were violating other people's rights as laid down in the Constitution to stop it.
A small number of private citizens and a lot of federal officers protecting the protesters' First Amendment rights.
Ljossberir was arguing from an anarchist perspective. I agree with you: the state did nothing when it should have done something. And I do blame the state. But ljoss would have the state do nothing all the time - any time he blames the state for something, it must needs be for something it actively did.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The intent of these demonstrations was to get it to the attention of people outside the South. Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock High School so Faubus wouldn't send in the Ohio National Guard. There were whites who took part were a significant force but it was so deeply rooted in the culture that it required the focused might of the federal government.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
I'm saying that the Civil Rights Movement could have accomplished its aims without getting the government involved past the necessary steps needed to defend protesters and the like from unjustified force.
Alright, although I don't see how that viewpoint makes any sense, whatsoever.
I agree with you up to the point where the federal government can just swoop in and destroy these deeply rooted biases.
It took the economic might of the blacks, first and foremost, combined with the several other factors, of which I believe that government was one of the least.
I usually really like your ideas here assassin, but do you honestly think that situation is even remotely plausible anywhere in the northen 3/4 of the US?
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff
There were violent and murderous race riots in Boston, Rochester, Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago and other northern cities during the past century. It is grossly simplistic to think that Jim Crow and racial supremacy were contained within the South. Although originally the stronghold of white supremacy, the past century saw it expand to every part of the nation.
Nor are whites persecuting blacks the only examples of racial inequality in this nation. It is quite easy to fail a job interview for being the wrong color or image, whatever that might be.
Are today's race-related attitudes the result of government mandates?
And I think you're missing the point that in many cases the actions of the "government" are a result of the collective will of the populace from where they derive their authority in the first place. As culture and attitude shifts in the consciousness of the people, at least in reasonably democratic States, so shifts the policy of "government."
In any case, generally speaking, I find the most vociferous critics of affirmative action policies to be bunch of white dudes; and it's not easy to take those arguments seriously, for a host of reasons: they may be logically sound, but they still stink of something unseemly.
Actually, that would be a very valid reason to discriminate against someone. The sole purpose of an employee - the only reason the employee is there - is to make the business successful. If the employee is a hinderance to the business's success, he should not be an employee there, whether the reason for his being a hinderance is fair or not. The business does not have a moral obligation to put political sensibilities above its own existance.
From the perspective of the business? You're right. They shouldn't have to bear the burden for fixing society's ills. But no snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche. What you're doing now is justifying a series of decisions that has in the past, and could easily again end in what is essentially a massive conspiracy to destroy an entire segment of the population economically. How else might we solve this problem? Aside from the alternative I gave, I mean.
Since this is about affirmative action and discrimination and not about environmental laws or working conditions, I will not address that.
In terms of discrimination against minorities, or against anyone for that matter, it comes down to the unscientific question of whether the business is better off with that employee or without him. If a bone fide business reason can be shown for discrimination, such as a reasonable assumption that your customer base would take their business elsewhere, then absolutely it is justified. Businesses are not required, nor should they be required, to take actions that are verifiably detrimental to the business.
Perhaps an example would help.
In my home state of Washington, a political petitioner has the legal right to solicit for signatures at any business, under strict cirumstances. The location has to be open to the public, the business has to be fairly large, it has to be a place considered a destination (e. g. major grocery store, Wal-Mart), and the business permits any form of solicitation. (Incidentally, this is why Target stores don't allow Salvation Army in front of their store anymore.) In fact, it is illegal to interfere with a petitioner soliciting.
However, if a customer goes to the store manager and says, "Get rid of that petitioner or I'm not shopping here," then the store does have the legal right to remove the petitioner because that petitioner's action - being there - is detrimental to the business.
This comes down to the fundamental conflict between freedom and equality. Both are good. Both are right. But how much freedom must be given up for equality? Here's another example.
In the state of New York, a couple years ago, a roller skating rink was shut down because they advertised that they played Contemporary Christian music on Sundays. The Attorney General decided that only playing that music on Sundays was discrimination against non-Christians. They opened up only after agreeing to not advertise it and to include secular music on Sundays. All that in the name of equality.
I agree, this system seems nice. But there are a lot of little nit-picky things that are done. The problem with not knowing the name is that you can't look up the person's past, which could be very important.
As an example, say you're looking for a new Ronald McDonald. You probally want someone very specific as to continue the illusion of what Ronal McDonald is like. Even less specific, but still important would be if you were looking for any position that involved childern. You're probally not going to want someone who's a convicted Pedo.
69 posts at 7:23PM, June 1st, 2007, Eastern US. YaYa!!